On the Lord's Supper

_kaufmannphillips
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: SW Washington

On the Lord's Supper

Post by _kaufmannphillips » Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:50 am

Hello! I’m posting this informal essay out of a recent discussion of the eucharist (aka “the Lord’s Supper”) on this forum. In my earlier posting, I remarked on the difficulty posed by the conventional understanding of eucharistic imagery, and I alluded to an alternate understanding that might more accurately represent Jesus’ own intention for the meaning of the ritual. Please allow me to present an overview of the construct in stages:

First, the difficulty posed by the traditional understanding must be appreciated. In the conventional understanding, the bread of the Lord’s Supper represents Jesus’ body, and the wine represents Jesus’ blood. Modern Christians don’t think twice about this familiar imagery, but it would have been quite difficult for Jesus’ Jewish audience at his last supper. The imagery is, after all, cannibalistic. It must be appreciated that in the wake of the Maccabean crisis (when the faithful were ferreted out for persecution by the litmus test of whether or not they would eat non-kosher food), one’s dietary scrupulosity became a hallmark of patriotism and of faithfulness to God. The biblical prohibition against eating blood was especially important, because both Gentiles and Jews were beholden to it, and because breaking that commandment resulted in being cut off from the community. In the Second temple period, the prohibition was taken seriously, and one major text of the period even correlated the eating of blood with the depravity that prompted the flood at the time of Noah. Beyond this, there was a scurrilous rumor about Jews around the time of Jesus, claiming that they participated in ritual cannibalism. So for theological and social reasons, the imagery of the traditional eucharist would have been problematic for Jesus’ Jewish disciples.

Moving on, then, when we examine the evidence in the New Testament for the institution of the eucharist, it is easy to discern a line of evolutionary development. The Matthean and Markan versions are a great deal simpler than those found in Luke and I Corinthians, and the variations in those Pauline sources are precisely those which underscore a body/blood interpretation. By contrast, the Matthean and Markan sources can be interpreted in a way that makes no reference to Jesus’ body or blood.

To take the blood issue first, the Matthean/Markan versions refer to “my blood of the covenant,” whereas the Pauline sources refer to “the covenant in my blood.” The latter statement explicitly makes the blood out to be Jesus’, but the former can be understood as simply the blood which Jesus is using to mark his covenant – i.e., “my covenantal blood.” What blood would this be? A quick reference to the Hebrew bible makes the situation clear. The language of wine as “the blood of the grape” is used very sparingly in the Hebrew bible, but it does allow for “blood” that could be consumed by the Jewish disciples without qualms. Even more remarkably, the most noteworthy instance of the “blood of the grape” language in the Hebrew bible, Genesis 49, supplies a passage which is ripe with messianic themes – and indeed it was interpreted in such a way by the early church. The passage speaks of binding Judah’s donkey to the vine, and washing his garment in the blood of grapes. When this passage is correlated with the donkey imagery in Zechariah 9 – as was indeed done in the early church – it may be understood as foretelling Judah’s binding his kingly vehicle to the vine, etc. The vine, then, is an image that is associated with lineage in the Hebrew bible, and so the touchstone-passage in Genesis 49 could be construed as Judah binding their kingship to a lineage, then washing in the blood of grapes. Now, this “six degrees of Kevin Bacon” approach may seem superficial at first, but in fact such interpretation was germane to both early Christian thought and to rabbinic interpretation. Different passages and images would be correlated and connected based on tangential points of commonality – say, a vine or a donkey - to yield a novel understanding not necessarily related to the passages' original contexts. Although we as modern interpreters might blanch at such a methodology, people in the early Christian era used it with rather less concern.

In the Last Supper, then, this construct would be of deep significance. Jesus would be asking his disciples to partake of the blood of grapes, forming a covenant with him – binding their messianic allegiance to him, paralleling and participating in Judah’s binding his kingship to a lineage (i.e., the Davidic lineage, abetted by the messianic “branch” imagery in the Hebrew bible). One may also extrapolate from this that the disciples were to be cleansed in their partaking in this covenant, just as Judah washing his garment in the blood of grapes. (Of course, the Matthean account actually refers to the blood being poured out for the remission of sins.) Such a messianic covenant would have been very appropriate in light of the coming crisis – it would have created a concrete bond between Jesus and his disciples, and its cleansing imagery would have been a fitting precursor to preparing them for ministry, in light of ritual precedents in both testaments (viz., the washing of the temple implements, and baptism).

Turning, then, to the body imagery, we find a curious potential to requalify the difficulty found in this quarter. In the Matthean/Markan accounts, Jesus simply says “Take, eat – this is my body.” Recognizing that the gospel writers do not always restrict themselves to verbatim quotes, this brief formula may be reduced to a comment that could be interpreted in two different ways, depending upon whether the audience took it as a Hebrew remark or an Aramaic remark. The comment would have been identical, and while in Hebrew it would have meant “this is my rainshower,” in Aramaic it would have meant “this is my body.” Being familiar with the Aramaic thought, it bears exploring the Hebrew alternate. Given the Passover setting, the meaning of bread/rainshower imagery would have been obvious: the manna, which explicitly said to have rained down in the Hebrew bible. And interestingly, we find in Deuteronomy that the manna was given that Israel might know that man does not live upon bread alone, but by every word that come forth from the mouth of God. So this correlates the manna with life, and with knowledge and revelation; all of this significance would have been readily apparent to a Jewish audience, who celebrated the events of the exodus as their primary faith experience, much as Christians regularly celebrate the Passion of Christ.

In the Last Supper, then, the disciples accepting such a “rainshower” would have been a ritual metaphor for accepting the life and knowledge or revelation of God through Jesus. Such imagery could have been all the more poignant in retrospect, given that Jewish liturgy at the time of Passover switches from prayers involving “rainshowers” to prayers involving lesser hydration – an acknowledgment of the passing of the rainy season. For the disciples, then, the acceptance of Jesus’ rainshower could be a seal upon their time in the rain of his revelation, before the drought of his departure from their regular company.

So, by dint of the “blood of the grape” and a manna-shower, we may arrive at a recasting of the eucharist that poses no challenge to the sacred imagery already in place for Jesus’ Jewish audience, and one that would have carried significant meaning to that audience in its historical context. On the eve of being deprived of their master’s company, the disciples would have sealed their sojourn with him by covenanting with him as their messiah, being cleansed in that relationship, and receiving his revelation as life and knowledge.

Yet, all of this might seem very speculative and impractical – were it not for the fact that we have evidence of such a very interpretation in the earliest years of the Christian movement. In one of the earliest Christian documents remaining to us, the Didache, we find extensive prayers for the eucharist that make no mention of the body/blood imagery. Rather, we find prayers that thank God for the vine of David, made known through Jesus, and for the life and knowledge made known through Jesus – each associated with the cup and the bread respectively. So it is apparent that such an interpretation did exist in the early church.

What is also apparent in early church writings is that the body and blood of Jesus were interpreted in many different ways, which suggests that the meaning of the elements was not altogether simple or obvious for early Christian generations, and also demonstrates that early Christians were willing to engage the eucharistic imagery with creativity. In light of how egregiously obscene the corporeal imagery would have been to Jesus’ Jewish audience, it raises the question of whether the early church did not derail in its embrace of the body/blood imagery, perhaps under the influence of Hellenistic philosophy and mystery religion. But that is a second discussion.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_TK
Posts: 698
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: Northeast Ohio

Post by _TK » Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:15 pm

Hi emmett--

how do you square what you are saying the Jesus' "i am the bread of life" discourse in John 6? he was quite plainly intending to shock his audiences, telling them that they had to eat his flesh. in fact, From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

of course i believe that Jesus was obviously not being literal, but nonetheless he knew that the crowd thought he was talking about something nasty-- Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

the reason i raise this point is because jesus likened his flesh to bread elsewhere, so it would seem consistent that he would do so at the last supper.

TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)

_kaufmannphillips
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: SW Washington

reply to TK

Post by _kaufmannphillips » Thu Sep 28, 2006 2:24 pm

Hello, TK,

Thank you for your response!

I am glad that you raised this issue. It is my understanding that the gospel of John is not so much a historical text, but rather a theological one. Accordingly, I do not regard anything that Jesus says in this gospel to necessarily reflect the mind of the historical Jesus. But that does not mean this passage is not relevant to the discussion. Quite the opposite is true.

Although the gospel of John has no account of the eucharist itself - which is remarkable - it is obvious that the gospel endorses body/blood imagery in the eucharist. In fact, it intensifies its offensiveness by moving from body/blood language to flesh and blood. But what is most startling is that close examination of the passage you have introduced reveals that it is composed in opposition to the interpretation that I have outlined above.

To begin with, the discussion in said passage springboards out of the Jews' veiled desire for Jesus to provide manna. This directly follows a previous bread-miracle in the feeding of the multitude. But Jesus rejects this desire, and points out that those who ate the manna in the wilderness are dead, whereas he himself is the bread of life. This counters the emblemology of the manna as discussed in the interpretation above, where the manna is an emblem of life and knowledge. This passage in John, then, not-so-subtly mocks the manna-shower interpretation. Beyond this, the passage engages the gathering of the faithful, which is a major theme of the eucharistic prayers in the Didache, and it overtly addresses the issue of Jewish disciples being unwilling to accept the symbolic dietary imagery of the eucharist. These facets suggest that John is well aware of the manna-shower interpretation, and that there has been some controversy between it and the body/blood imagery, leading to division.

Also interesting is that the Last Supper narrative in John, although it makes no explicit mention of the eucharist, nevertheless invokes vine imagery, which is the missing component from the eucharistic paradigm described above. As opposed to that paradigm, however, Jesus is not a branch of the Davidic vine, but rather the disciples are branches of Jesus' vine. This movement elevates the role of Jesus and accentuates a Christocentric perspective, just as the bread-interpretation does in chapter 6, where the bread is no longer life and knowledge through Jesus, but rather Jesus himself. This motif is characteristic of John as a whole, where Jesus is distinctly elevated over his portrayal in the Synoptic gospels, and where he becomes personally identified with the object of his activities: Jesus is no longer merely a branch of the vine, he is the vine; Jesus is no longer merely the bread of life, he is the life; Jesus is no longer merely proclaiming the word of God, he is the word of God; Jesus is no longer merely the son of God, he is God himself. And beyond this, there are notable themes in the Last Supper chapters of John that correlate to features in the eucharistic prayers of the Didache.

So it would appear that John was aware of the other eucharistic tradition, and while rejecting some of it outright, nevertheless John embraced other portions of it. This fits the proposition that the other tradition was the earlier one, and that John (as usual) has presented a variation upon it that suits his theological agenda. Certainly the alternate tradition exists before the composition of John, inasmuch as John pointedly jabs at it; on the other hand, the prayers in the Didache make no apparent jab at the body/blood imagery, but appear utterly oblivious to such a notion.

Thanks again for bringing this up! I covet your thoughts and criticisms.

Shalom,
Emmet
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_STEVE7150
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm

Post by _STEVE7150 » Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:45 pm

So it would appear that John was aware of the other eucharistic tradition, and while rejecting some of it outright, nevertheless John embraced other portions of it. This fits the proposition that the other tradition was the earlier one, and that John (as usual) has presented a variation upon it that suits his theological agenda. Certainly the alternate tradition exists before the composition of John, inasmuch as John pointedly jabs at it; on the other hand, the prayers in the Didache make no apparent jab at the body/blood imagery, but appear utterly oblivious to such a notion.

And what was John's theological agenda Emmet and for what purpose?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_STEVE7150
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm

Post by _STEVE7150 » Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:52 pm

What is also apparent in early church writings is that the body and blood of Jesus were interpreted in many different ways, which suggests that the meaning of the elements was not altogether simple or obvious for early Christian generations, and also demonstrates that early Christians were willing to engage the eucharistic imagery with creativity. In light of how egregiously obscene the corporeal imagery would have been to Jesus’ Jewish audience, it raises the question of whether the early church did not derail in its embrace of the body/blood imagery, perhaps under the influence of Hellenistic philosophy and mystery religion. But that is a second discussion.

Or perhaps someone realized that Jesus first made these statements in John 6 a year before his cruxifiction so it had to be spiritual besides the fact later in John 6 Jesus said "the flesh profits nothing" and his words are "spirit and life."
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_kaufmannphillips
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: SW Washington

reply to steve7150

Post by _kaufmannphillips » Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:28 pm

Hi, Steve,

Thank you for your responses!
And what was John's theological agenda Emmet and for what purpose?
John has more than one theological agenda. To begin with, John has an agenda to portray Jesus in terms that were more significant to a Hellenized audience (including, quite likely, himself). As such, he evokes Stoic imagery (in his logos Christology), dismisses the flesh in favor of the spirit, and distances Jesus from "the Jews." Tied into this, John has a clear agenda to give Jesus an exalted, central, and even cosmic position in his portrayal. Furthermore, John has an agenda to craft a literary and poetic masterpiece - which quite arguably he does; the question, however, is to what extent his artistry departs from historicity.

As for John's purpose - this kind of speculation is often likely to offend people, and we might find it difficult to verify the inner motives of a man two millenia dead. But on the charitable end of the speculative spectrum, John's purpose may have been to express Jesus as he had come to acquire meaning in John's own pious Hellenized mind. Toward the middle of the spectrum, John may have been motivated to express Jesus in striking poetic terms for the sake of contextual evangelism. And toward the negative end of the spectrum, John may have become so enamored of his creativity that he may have sacrificed historical integrity for the sake of his artifice; this is a chronic temptation for theologians and artists alike, and the author of John was both of these.

Or perhaps someone realized that Jesus first made these statements in John 6 a year before his cruxifiction so it had to be spiritual besides the fact later in John 6 Jesus said "the flesh profits nothing" and his words are "spirit and life."
This argument would be more tenable if John were not manifestly an unreliable document. Its portrayal of Jesus is quite obviously dislocated from that of the synoptics.

Besides which, spiritualization does not remove the problem of the imagery being employed. The imagery of drinking blood was profoundly evil in light of Jewish precedent. I am not overexaggerating to state that it would have been like asking the disciples to pantomime homosexual union and then gloss it over by calling it a spiritual metaphor. The unholy is not a suitable vehicle for celebrating the holy - period. Spirit gave the initial commandment to Noah, forbidding the eating of blood, did it not? Spirit gave the commandment to Moses, forbidding the eating of blood, did it not? Do not Christians believe that Spirit gave the verdict of Acts 15, forbidding the eating of blood for even Gentile believers? So how then should the same Spirit be responsible for contradicting its own inspired ritual behavior, consistently held holy for many centuries amongst the people of God, both Jewish and Gentile?

And besides which (once again), the statement that the flesh profiteth nothing is manifestly an untruth. It is a Hellenistic lie, foolishly embraced by the church.

Now, John may situate the discussion of chapter 6 one year before the crucifixion, but the evidence indicates that John wrote chapter 6 to counter another eucharistic interpretation, as outlined above. I suppose a pious believer would have no problem with Jesus arguing against a misinterpretation of a ritual that he would not yet introduce for a year, but for the less pious, it seems more likely that the speech has more to do with later situational issues, backcast into the life and ministry of Jesus.


Thank you for taking the time to engage my ideas.

Shalom,
Emmet
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_STEVE7150
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm

Post by _STEVE7150 » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:47 pm

Besides which, spiritualization does not remove the problem of the imagery being employed. The imagery of drinking blood was profoundly evil in light of Jewish precedent. I am not overexaggerating to state that it would have been like asking the disciples to pantomime homosexual union and then gloss it over by calling it a spiritual metaphor. The unholy is not a suitable vehicle for celebrating the holy - period. Spirit gave the initial commandment to Noah,


Well Emmet, since you perceive John's gospel to be an unreliable document it's a little difficult to discuss certain aspects because we have such different perspectives but what the heck.
I don't look at it from the viewpoint of spiritualizing something physical , i see it as purely a spiritual abiding in Christ being confirmed by something physical which is not cannabalism by any stretch of the imagination. I think i understand your point how it could be viewed as offensive but i honestly don't think it was meant as imagery for anything physical but rather a metaphorical way of talking about abiding in Christ.

It may or may not be related to something hellanistic but it sure does sound similar to Isaiah 55 "Come all of you who are thirsty,come to the waters, and you who have no money, come buy and eat. Come buy wine and milk, without money and without cost. Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy?"
This uses physical imagery but is describing a spiritual covenant through David and ultimately through Christ.
As for John's agenda to portray Christ as a cosmic divine figure i've heard the identical criticisms made about Paul. Sounds like either they conspired together or they just believed they were telling the truth that Christ is the Son of God who came down from heaven.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_TK
Posts: 698
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: Northeast Ohio

Post by _TK » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:43 pm

it seems obvious to me, since Jesus knew he was about to die, that when he talked about taking the bread and wine in remembrance, this is exactly what he meant. in other words, "hey guys, i am about to die for you. i am going to be tortured and my blood will be spilled. so when you are together at times like this, remember what i did for you."

isnt that the simplest explanation?

TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)

_STEVE7150
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm

Post by _STEVE7150 » Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:27 am

it seems obvious to me, since Jesus knew he was about to die, that when he talked about taking the bread and wine in remembrance, this is exactly what he meant. in other words, "hey guys, i am about to die for you. i am going to be tortured and my blood will be spilled. so when you are together at times like this, remember what i did for you."

isnt that the simplest explanation?


Yes TK but in John 6 when Jesus talked about drinking his blood and eating his flesh i think it was about a year before his death and when he made those statements most of the people following him fell away so probably Emmet is correct in that they were offended, the obvious question is why did Jesus use these descriptions. Clearly he was not trying to round up as many believers as he could in fact quite the opposite.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_TK
Posts: 698
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: Northeast Ohio

Post by _TK » Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:44 am

True, but arent we making the hearers of Jesus's teaching in John 6 kind of stupid-- i.e. do we really think that they took Jesus literally?-- i.e. that he was inviting them to take a bite out of him and tap his jugular vein? preposterous! they knew he was using an object lesson-- i think they purposefully chose to find the teaching distasteful so they wouldnt have to follow his hard teachings. i hear pundits on the news talks shows do this all the time. they purposefully miscontrue the other side's points so they wont have to agree with the truth of the matter.

TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)

Post Reply

Return to “Essays and Writings”