THE PASSION
NARRATIVE (Matt 26:1-28:20)
We have on several
occasions spoken or the Gospels as passion narrative with an extended
introduction, implying that the real message of theme of the gospel
message is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.
In this final narrative of the Gospel, we encounter the real theme or
purpose and theology of the Gospel, the suffering, death, burial, and
resurrection of Jesus, or to put it in other words, the fulfillment of
God's plan of salvation for mankind. In this section we see the heilsgeschichte
of God brought to its climax and fulfillment.
Hagner's Introduction to this section is so cogent that we include parts
of it for easy reference:
"In the
story of the passion and resurrection of Jesus we come to the
climax of the Gospel and by far the longest consecutive narrative
in Matthew. Here the goal of Jesus'
mission is realized. The death of Jesus on the cross
is no surprise, not does it indicate the failure of Jesus'
mission. From the evangelist's point of view, it
is the fulfillment of scripture (26:54, 56), the fixed will
of God, and the deliberate choice of the obedient Son of
God. This, indeed, is the unique time
(kairos) of Jesus (26:18). Therefore,
the tone of the narrative is not one of tragedy or defeat but one
of accomplishment and victory even before we reach the triumph of
the resurrection in chap. 28....
The passion narrative is a literary masterpiece. It
contains gripping drama that cannot but move the reader, yet there
is nothing maudlin here. The crucifixion is snot
described but is referred to in the briefest way. Pervading
the narrative is a deep sense of irony. Though sinful men do
their best to thwart the mission of Jesus, they accomplish the
very purpose for which he came and thus fulfill God's will.
It is this that primarily accounts for the paradoxical tone of the
narrative. But the plot is full of lesser ironies. One
of the twelve betrays Jesus while the other disciples, who had
profusely insisted upon their loyalty to Jesus, abandon their
master in the moment of crisis. The hearings before the
members of the Sanhedrin and before Pilate are at best travesties
of justice that condemn on e who was truly innocent of
death. Yet it is the Roman prefect who knows Jesus'
innocence (27:23-24).... The final and
correct assessment of Jesus, which caps the crucifixion narrative,
comes not from the Jews but from a most unlikely source, a Roman centurion
and his soldiers, who conclude what the reader has been led to
conclude throughout, namely, that "this was truly the Son of
God" (27:54)." |
THE SANHEDRIN PLOTS TO KILL JESUS (Matt 26:1-5; 14-16)
The pericope begins
with the transitional fifth formula that brings the major apocalyptic
discourse, and Matthew's scheme of block of discourse material, to a
close.
Since Jesus' arrival in Jerusalem was timed to coincide with the
Feast of
the Passover, Matthew picks up on this to begin this final narrative
block.
The mention of the
Passover
is not intended to simply provide a time
reference for Jesus passion. It's mention sets the purpose of the passion narrative
in a specific theological framework. Jesus is the Pascal lamb
that
is prepared for the deliverance and redemption of man. Paul makes
specific use of this figure in 1 Cor 5:6-8 when addressing the lax morality
of the Corinthian church:
"Your boasting is not good. Do
you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Cleanse
out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are
unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb,
has been sacrificed. 8 Let us, therefore,
celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of
malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and
truth."
|
The
Passover Fast
The
Passover feast was celebrated beginning on the 15th day of Nisan,
which in the year of Jesus' crucifixion fell on a Saturday, or the
Sabbath day.
Being defined by the Jewish calendar, the 15th day of Nisan would
have begun that year at sunset on Friday evening. The
Passover meal would have been eaten on Friday evening.
The Exodus:
The roots of the Passover Feast go back to Exodus 12:1-28 and the
exodus of Israel from Egyptian slavery (Ex 12-14).
1 The
Lord said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, 2 "This
month shall be for you the beginning of months; it shall
be the first month of the year for you. 3 Tell
all the congregation of Israel that on
the tenth day of this month they shall take every man a
lamb according to their fathers’ houses, a lamb for a
household; 4 and if the household is too
small for a lamb, then a man and his neighbor next to his
house shall take according to the number of persons;
according to what each can eat you shall make your count
for the lamb. 5 Your lamb
shall be without blemish, a male a year old; you
shall take it from the sheep or from
the goats; 6 and you shall keep
it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the
whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill
their lambs in the evening. 7 Then they
shall take some of the blood, and put it on the two
doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat
them. 8 They shall eat
the flesh that night, roasted; with unleavened bread and
bitter herbs they shall eat it. 9 Do not
eat any of it raw or boiled with water, but roasted, its
head with its legs and its inner parts. 10 And
you shall let none of it remain until the morning,
anything that remains until the morning you shall burn. 11
In this manner you shall eat it: your loins girded,
your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand;
and you shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord’s passover.
12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt
that night, and I will smite all the first-born in the
land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of
Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord. 13 The
blood shall be a sign for you, upon the houses where you
are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and
no plague shall fall upon you to destroy you, when I smite
the land of Egypt.
14 "This day shall
be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a
feast to the Lord; throughout your generations you shall
observe it as an ordinance for ever. 15 Seven
days you shall eat unleavened bread; on the first
day you shall put away leaven out of your houses, for if
any one eats what is leavened, from the first day until
the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel.
16 On the first day you
shall hold a holy assembly, and on the seventh day a holy
assembly; no work shall be done on those days; but
what every one must eat, that only may be prepared by you.
17 And you shall observe
the feast of unleavened bread, for on this very day I
brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt: therefore you
shall observe this day, throughout your generations, as an
ordinance for ever. 18 In the first
month, on the fourteenth day of the
month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, and so
until the twenty-first day of the month at evening.
19 For seven days no leaven shall be found in
your houses; for if any one eats what is leavened, that
person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel,
whether he is a sojourner or a native of the land. 20
You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your
dwellings you shall eat unleavened bread." |
On this occasion
(Ex 12) God
instructed Moses and Aaron (thus Israel) to select a lamb
(unblemished, and either of a sheep or goat) on the 10th day of
the month of Nisan, to offer the lamb on the 14th day of Nisan and
to eat the roasted lamb on the evening of the 14th day of
Nisan. The lamb was to be roasted whole and eaten with
bitter herbs and unleavened bread. The feast was to be a
perpetual reminder (memorial) that God had delivered Israel from Egypt and
had spared the first born of every house that had sprinkled the
two door posts of the lintel of their houses with the blood of the
sacrificial lamb. The Passover was initially to be
celebrated in homes as a family celebration. During the
feast the participants were to have their loins girded, sandals on
their feet, and staff in hand, indicating that they should be
ready to leave home in a hurry.
The Passover was combined with another feast, the Feast of
Unleavened bread. The feast of Unleavened Bread was a seven
day feast that began at the same time as the Passover feast, in
that it began on the evening of the 14th day of Nisan, and lasted
for 7 days.
During this feast no leavened food was to be eaten.
The feast of unleavened bread began on 14 Nisan, and the bread was to be
eaten that same evening, 14th day of Nisan.
The roasted lamb and herbs were also to be eaten on
the evening of the 14th day of Nisan.
In time the two feasts were combined in practice into one feast,
and both became "holy days" or "holy
assemblies."
Later
Celebration of the Passover.
After the
initial celebration of the Passover in Egypt, the feast became an
annual one, but not celebrated anywhere, that is, in any town, but
in a place determined by the Lord as the place of his
presence. (See Deut 16:1-8.)
In time the feast became a pilgrim feast to be celebrated in
Jerusalem. This was the manner in which the Passover was
celebrated in Jesus' day.
After the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, the Passover
was celebrated in homes in local towns.
The Seder
(liturgy) of
the Passover Feast.
By this we mean the details of how the feast was conducted.
Conflicting reports have come down through the centuries as to
exactly what went on in the feast, that is, from the practical
order or conduct of the feast.
We conjecture from the Mishna and other Rabbinic records that in
later centuries successive cups of wine (either three or four) were part of the
celebration as was eating the the lamb and unleavened bread with
bitter herbs.
To these were added prayers, blessings, and
reading the Psalms, especially the Hallel Psalms 113-118.
The celebration was conducted by the head of the
family, the children being present.
The youngest boy in the family would
ask, "Why are we celebrating the Passover?"
This would give occasion for the paterfamilias [family
father] to recite the history of
God delivering Israel out of Egypt and nurturing them in the
Wilderness.
The theology of the Passover was a focus on the Deliverance
and Nurture Israel by God.
The Passover was a memorial (reminder,
remembrance)
of God's deliverance.
Note:
the Christian Eucharist,
The Lord's
Supper is a remembrance:
1 Cor
14:23-26 "For
I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you,
that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took
bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he
broke it, and said, "This is my
body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
25 In the same way also the cup, after supper,
saying, "This cup is the new
covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it,
in remembrance of me." 26 For as
often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you
proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes." |
Jeremias, The
Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 1977, pp. 84-88 suggests the
following for the Passover Seder of the 1st cent AD. (We have scant reference to
the Passover Seder prior to the Tannaitic period of the Mishna [AD
70-219].) Jeremias' conclusions are accepted by most
scholars as a fairly reliable analysis of the Passover and the
Lord's Supper in the first century AD.
Jeremias proposes that there were four stages or parts to the
Passover:
| 1. |
Preliminary
Course:
A blessing (qiddush) to sanctify the feast day.
Cup 1 of wine
A preliminary dish of herbs (green herbs, bitter herbs,
and the haroset [fruit puree with spices and
vinegar].
The meal was served, but not yet eaten.
Cup 2 of wine was poured. |
| 2. |
The Passover
Liturgy:
Recited by the paterfamilias in Aramaic in response
to the question asked by the youngest boy in the family,
"Why is this night different?"... This was
followed by the singing in Hebrew of the Hallel, part I
(Psalm 113, 114), and the drinking of Cup 2. |
| 3. |
The Meal
Proper:
A blessing was pronounced over the unleavened bread [massot];
the Passover roasted lamb was eaten with the massot
and bitter herbs.
Cup 3, the "cup after the meal" was blessed [1
Cor 10:16 "the cup of blessing"] |
| 4. |
Conclusion:
Part II of the Hallel was sung [Psalm 115-118].
Note that in Matt 26:30 "When they had sung a hymn
they went out..."
Some scholars suggest that Cup 4 was drunk at this time,
but this is disputed by others. |
The Jewish
Calendar.
The Jewish calendar was based on a lunisolar or lunar system,
fixed by the first appearance of the new moon. Through the
centuries differing methods were used to determine the length of
the months. The days of a month ranged between 29 and 30
days, depending on the cycle of the moon.
Depending on how the months were calculated, there might be
anywhere between 354 and 364 days in the year.
Between the 3rd cent BC and the 1st cent AD it appears that the
364 day calendar was adopted and used, but we have no certain information
on this.
An answer to this question of which calendar year was adopted at
which particular time and place might throw some light on the
seeming difference between the day the Passover was celebrated
between by Jesus in Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John.
Scholars believe that the names of the Jewish Calendar were
influenced by both Canaanite and Babylonian names.
The months of the Jewish Calendar (compared to the modern calendar
and seasons), and indicating Jewish feasts are as follows:
Nissan
Iyyar
Sivan
Tammuz
Ab
Elul
Tishri
Marcheshvan
Chislev
Tebeth
Shebat
Adar |
Passover
Unleavened Bread
Atonement, Booths |
March-April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March |
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter |
|
Back to Matt 26:1-5 and
the plot to kill Jesus!
It was two days before the Passover (26:2) when Jesus again foretold of
his passion and crucifixion. Since in this year the Passover fell on
the Sabbath (Saturday), the Passover meal would have been eaten on Friday
evening (the beginning of 15 Nisan and the Sabbath). Therefore,
Jesus spoke these words to the disciples on Wednesday.
The chief priests and elders (most likely the ruling members of the
Sanhedrin) gathered in the palace of Caiaphas, the ruling high priest to
decide how to arrest Jesus and have him killed. They were concerned
that this be done with stealth for fear of the crowds present in Jerusalem,
and fearing an uprising and uproar which would be of concern to the Roman
authorities! Being such a time of heightened Jewish religious fervor
the Romans would be on guard for disturbances.
(We mention as a note that although Caiaphas was high priest at that time,
his father in law, Annas, who was a strong influence on Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin,
would also have been present. Annas had been the previous high priest.
Caiaphas had been appointed to his position by the Roman procurator,
Valerius Gratus, who preceded Pontius Pilate as procurator. This
Roman appointment would have been an abomination to Jews, but there was
little they could do about it. Hence Annas was still influential!)
JESUS ANOINTED BY MARY AT BETHANY (Matt 26:6-13)
This event occurs in
the home of one, Simon the leper. This is the only occasion in the
NT in which Simon the leper occurs.
Luke records a similar experience in Lk 7:36, but in this case the event
happened in one, Simon the Pharisee's homes, and the woman is identified
as a sinner. The events and discussion recorded by Luke differ from
that in Matthew, Mark, and John.
Obviously, in Matthew's narrative, Simon had been cured of
his leprosy. We are not informed whether Jesus was the one who had
cure him, but the fact that he was cured is implied by their meeting in
his home, an event that would not have been permissible under Jewish
Mosaic law had he not been cured. Simon lived in Bethany, a small
town two miles form Jerusalem on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives.
An unnamed woman (who it is is
unimportant to the narrative. What she did is the important point)
anointed Jesus with ointment that obviously was very expensive.
Observing this, the disciples, indignant, miss the point of her action,
that is her love for Jesus, and raise questions as to why the gift had not
been spent on the poor.
Mark (Mk 14:4) merely says that some present were indignant, and John adds
in John 12:4 that it was Judas who objected.
Perhaps they recognized Jesus predilection for the poor! Jesus
reminds the disciples that hey always have the poor, but they will not
always have him present with them as he now is.
The theological
point of this narrative is that Jesus
interpreted her action in the light of his coming death and burial, not
simply as an act of devotion.
It is certain that the woman did not make this connection and had acted
only out of love, but in the context of his imminent passion, Jesus
breathed new meaning into her love.
The remarkable prediction of Jesus that her act would become a memorial to
her has been transmitted down through history in Matthew's Gospel!
THE BARGAIN OF JUDAS (Matt 26:14-16)
In what is perhaps one
of the most tragic events in history, Judas made plans to deny his
Lord! Matthew identifies him by his full name, Judas (a form of the
Hebrew Judah) and Iscariot (after the town in Judea called Kerioth).
Except for Judas, the remaining disciples are from Galilee. for the
sum of 30 pieces of silver Judas agrees to betray Jesus!
The sum of the betrayal agreement was 30 pieces of silver, a sum
considered by scholars to be the equivalent of the price of a slave!
The insubstantial sum leads some to suggest that Judas' motivation for the
betrayal was not greed, but possibly disappointment in Jesus'
Messiahship. Some have suggested that Judas might have been
motivated by the same frustrations seen in the zealots who would have been
looking for a militant political messiah who would lead them in victory over their
Roman overlords.
Luke 22:3 identifies Satan as the motivation behind Judas' betrayal.
John 13:2 agrees with this conclusion:
Lk 22:3
"Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of
the number of the twelve; 4 he went away and conferred
with the chief priests and officers how he might betray him to
them. 5 And they were glad, and engaged to give him
money. 6 So he agreed, and sought an opportunity to
betray him to them in the absence of the multitude."
Jn 13:2 "And during
supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas
Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him..." |
THE LAST PASSOVER SUPPER AND THE LORD'S SUPPER INSTITUTED (Matt
26:17-29)
Some have suggested
that there are some inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts of the
preparation and eating of the Passover. Working across four Gospels
each with its own theological purpose, and each with a different audience
in mind, it is not surprising that some "apparent" differences
might arise. However, these differences are not as clear as some
would make us believe, and there are reasonable explanations for the
differences. Hagner, Matthew 13-28, p. 764 discusses one of
these and suggests a possible explanation. The one presented in this
pericope relates to when the Feast of Unleavened Bread and Passover were
prepared and eaten.
From what we learn in Ex 12:18, the Feast of Unleavened Bread began on 14
Nisan, the Lamb was prepared, roasted, and the Lamb was also to be eaten on
14
Nisan. We are not certain what precise timing was on Matthew's mind,
but he does record that it was on the first day of Unleavened Bread (Matt
26:17) when
Jesus instructed the disciples to prepare for the Passover to be eaten.
Although we are not informed of all the details, Jesus sends his disciples
to find a man, a "certain one," in whose home Jesus intended to
eat the Passover. Apparently, Jesus had made some such arrangement
with the man, nut we are not informed regarding this. Mark 14:10 and
Luke ad to the narrative by adding Jesus telling the disciples to follow a
man carrying a water jar to the house where he intends to eat the
Passover. The additional narrative is not important to the event.
What is interesting is that Jesus does not eat the Passover in Bethany,
but in Jerusalem, where the Passover should have been eaten as prescribed
by the Torah. It was only after AD 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem
and the Temple that Jews ate the Passover in a variety of towns and
villages.
The disciples prepared the Passover and Fast of Unleavened Bread on the Day of Preparation, the 14th
Nisan!
Interestingly, the term Last Supper is not found in Scripture, but is one
adopted by the Christian faith to describe this last meal, or last
Passover meal, Jesus celebrated with his disciples.
Furthermore, the order of the cups and bread discussed in the Passover
meal by the three Synoptics differs somewhat, although the difference is
not disjunctive. Matthew follows the order of the meal in mark, but
Luke differs in speaking of a cup being drunk before the bread followed by
another cup. The interesting inclusion of this cup has resulted in
six different textual variants in Luke's account of Lk 22:19 and 20.
However, since this was a Passover meal and 3 or 4 cups were drunk at the
Passover, no real problem is apparent other than some interesting textual questions.
John does not discus the Passover meal in his Gospel, leading some to
questi0n whether the meal eaten by Jesus with his disciples in John 13-17
was in fact the Passover meal. his discussion of this occasion be saying,
"Now before the feast of the Passover...."
"When it was evening" (Matt 26:20) Jesus sat down at the table
with the disciples to eat the Passover. This would have been the
evening of 14 Nisan. Jesus predicts the betrayal by Judas, but does
not mention him by name! The disciples were "sorrowful,"
although it seems they did not know the full extent of the betrayal.
After questions as to who it may be, Jesus identified Judas, the "one
who has dipped his hand in the dish with me!" When Judas
presses the point by asking "Is it I, master?" Jesus identifies
Judas as the culprit.
The stern warning of Jesus regarding the one who would betray him must
have sobered both Judas ("how did Jesus know this!"), and the
disciples who still did not know the extent of the betrayal. Luke
indicates the continuing uncertainty of the disciples over the matter of
the betrayal, Lk 22:23, "they began to question one another,
which of them it was that would do this."
Jesus, however, indicates that the betrayal and consequences were
according to Scripture, "the Son of man goes as it is written of
him..." (Matt 26:24).
The Lord's Supper
Instituted (Matt 26:26-29; Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:19-24.
At this point in the
study we merely discuss the institution of the Lord's Supper, as it is
found in Matthew's Gospel. We will comment on the remarks
made by Jesus in regard to this institution. In an Excursus on
the Eucharist we will later discuss more fully this rite as it is
practiced in most main line Christian faiths. The term Lord's
Supper is not found in the Synoptic Gospels, but is found in 1 Cor 11:20. In
early post NT Christianity the term Lord's Supper soon gave way to the
term Eucharist which prevailed for many centuries until the modern
Protestant era. The term Lord's Supper, along with the term
Communion, has become in the modern Protestant era
one of the favored descriptions in many Christian circles for this
memorial feast. (For an excellent article on the Eucharist, see
Everett Ferguson, "Eucharist," The Encyclopedia of
Early Christianity. 1997)
We encourage
the student to click on the link at the conclusion of this discussion, to
go to an Excursus on the Lord's Supper, or Eucharist as it is known in
some Christian circles.
Hagner introduces the eating of the Passover and the institution of the
Lord's Supper by remarking that the institution of the Lord's Supper was
the central component of the narrative of the eating of the
Passover. Jesus intended this institution to be a way in which the disciples
(an later church) to commemorate his death. As the Passover was
intended to be a perpetual commemoration of God's deliverance of Israel
from Egypt, so the Lord's Supper was intended to be a perpetual
commemoration of his death. The eating of the Supper was intended to
be a proclamation of his death, but also an interpretation of that death.
The bread and wine were intended to symbolize his body and
blood given for the deliverance of man from bondage to sin!
Just as the annual Passover rite memorialized and personally contemporized
the Passover in Egypt and deliverance from Egypt, the Lord's Supper
likewise not only memorializes the death of Jesus, but personally
contemporizes it as well.
The institution of the Lord's Supper is as important to the life of the
church as is faith, grace, and baptism. For this reason, mainstream
Christian churches have in some form or fashion identified the Lord's
Supper along with Baptism as the two most important aspects of church
life. In technical theological terminology we call the Lord's Supper
and Baptism the two Sacraments of church life. By sacrament we mean
those religious practices that associate or identify Christians with the
church, or the body of Christ.
Sacrament:
Derives from the Latin sacramentum, which originally meant
a soldiers oath of allegiance. Sacraments involve or mean a
promise or commitment. Thomas of Aquinas and Augustine
considered the Sacraments to be signs of a holy alliance, a holy reality,
or special grace associated with sanctification.
The words of this popular Communion hymn indicate the
"sacramental" nature of the Lord's Supper:
Here Before Thee Savior:
Grant this bread now
broken
May a Symbol be
Of they precious body
Bruised on Calvary
Grant this cup of blessing
To our hearts may prove
One more tie that binds us
Closer in thy love. |
|
|
However we define them, or by
whatever name we call them, Baptism and the Lord's Supper are considered by
most mainline Christian communities to be the means of entrance or
initiation into Christ and his body, the church, and the means of continued
identification with the church and Christ.
"Now as they were eating" the Passover "Jesus took
bread,
and blessed and
broke it."
We are not certain at which stage of the Passover this occurred, but some
have suggested that it was associated with that aspect of the Passover
meal in which bread was blessed as a celebration somewhat similar to the
meal (this is determined from the Hebrew word afikomen and Greek
word of the LXX, epikwmon
- epikomon = "reveling"). In the Passover Seder
(ceremony related to the Passover) this was associated with the promise of
a future redeeming messiah. Some have suggested that the breaking of
the bread was a reminder of Jesus' feeding the 5,000 and 4,000 in which
the loaves were broken and blessed by Jesus. This would remind the
participants of the Lord's Supper that through the eating of the bread
which symbolizes his body Jesus is able to provide for our spiritual
needs. There is a strong and lasting tradition among the Jews of god
providing spiritual food that will sustain his people. This
tradition goes back to the manna provided by God for his people in
the wilderness, and later i the Christian faith is seen in the imagery of
the tree of life and food provided by God in the "eternal city of
heaven" (Rev 22:1, 2).
Jesus gave the bread to the disciples and said "Take, eat; this is
my body." Interpreting what Jesus meant by "this is
my body" has led to centuries of division in church doctrine relating
to the Lord's Supper. The Roman Catholic tradition interprets this
as "this becomes
my body." This Catholic doctrine is called transubstantiation
in which by blessing the bread it literally becomes the body of
Christ. Protestants have objected this, and a variety of views have
surfaced (consubstantiation, impanation, and symbolization).
These doctrines will be discussed more fully in the Excursus on the Lord's
Supper.
Hagner is correct in observing that Jesus was not speaking only in terms
of the future, but picking up the bread he said in the present tense,
"This
is
my body..." Under these circumstances the Greek
word estin
- estin can mean only that the bread "symbolizes" Jesus'
body," which is the manner in which many Protestant churches
understand the expression.
| The Greek estin
- estin is a verbal form, present indicative, third person
singular of eimi
- eimi, which can carry a wide variety of possibilities
which must be determined by context. Basically eimi
means "to be" or "to exist." It is often
translated "I am." As an explanation of
something it can mean "is a representation of" or
"is the equivalent of." It can be
translated "this means." See Arndt and Gingrich, A
Greek-English Lexicon. It is in the sense of "this
is a representation of" that we understand the
word in Matt 26:26, and it is in this sense that Hagner
appropriately translates or interprets it as "this bread symbolizes
my body." |
The term "body"
in Hebrew as in Greek can mean the whole person or the being
of the whole person. By saying "this symbolizes my
body" Jesus was implying that the bread symbolizes his whole
person, his whole life and all that he stood for in his life,
or all that his life meant. By
eating the bread we are reminded of all that Jesus stood for, lived for,
and died for.
This remembrance brings
us back to the meaning of Christian and church life.
Eating the bread is a sacrament
in that it is a pledge to live the life of Jesus.
Jesus then took the cup,
symbolic of what was in the "cup", namely, the wine,
and gave thanks for it.
Gave thanks is derived from the Greek
eucaristew
- eucharisteo - "to give thanks".
It is because of this act of "giving thanks for the cup" that
some Christian communities call the Lord's Supper The Eucharist.
Christian church traditions have been divided over whether the "fruit
of the vine" here means grape juice or wine.
Because of their
puritan and temperance heritage, many churches insist that this can only
mean grape juice.
Churches from the Greek Orthodox and Eastern
Orthodox traditions, and others not of the puritan temperance heritage,
insist that it simply means wine!
The Greek,
tou
genhmatos ths ampelou -
tou genematos tes ampelou - "the fruit of the vine" is a
Hebraism or euphemism for "wine".
The "cups" of the Passover were cups of wine, not
grape juice.
Wine drinking in
the time of Christ was not socially or religiously
looked down upon. Drunkenness was!
We have several
instances in the New Testament in which wine drinking was socially and
religiously acceptable.
To attempt to translate or understand wine
as grape juice in these instances is simply neither
linguistically acceptable
nor linguistically correct!
Inhibitions against, refutation of,
or rejection of wine drinking is a modern socio-religious problem, not a
biblical one.
Jesus turned water into wine, not fruit of the vine or
grape juice (Jn 2:3).
Paul wrote to Timothy and encouraged him for medicinal purposes to drink a
little wine for his stomach's sake (1 Tim 5:23).
Paul's prohibition was not against wine, but against "much wine"
(1 Tim 3:8) and drunkenness.
The Greek word oinos
- oinos used in simply means wine!
| Note the observation on this in
Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, oinos...wine,
normally the fermented juice of the grape...; the word for 'must,'
or unfermented grape juice is, trux...
(trux = trux IAF). |
The point we are making
here is that the cup Jesus blessed at the Passover feast, according to
Jewish tradition, contained wine.
These comments on what took place in
the Passover and Lord's Supper in the 1st cent AD in regard to
wine drinking are not in any sense and argument for or against
wine drinking today. We merely make them to set the
discussion in the context of what happened in the 1st cent
AD. The sociological and religious context of the 1st cent
AD is vastly different from that of the 21st century. There
are sociological and other matters of importance which must be
considered when addressing drinking of alcoholic beverages today.
Under "wine" in The Encyclopedia of Early
Christianity we read, The Greek (oinos) and Latin (vinum)
words for wine, although they could be used for the juice of the
grape however preserved or for the fermented juice of other
fruits, primarily meant fermented grape juice. The ordinary
table beverage of the Mediterranean world was a mixture of wine
and water. The proportions varied according tot he period
and purpose....The Jews adopted the Greek and Roman practice of
mixing water and wine (2 Macc 15:39), and rabbinic literature
speaks of two or three parts of water to one of wine (b. Pesach.
108b; b. Shabb. 77a). the mixed cup was part of the Passover
meal (m. Pesach. 10.2, 4, 7) and was expected by the Dead sea
Scrolls (1QSa 2.18) to be part of the eschatological meal...and
the most frequent reference to wine in Christianity (early post NT
Christianity, IAF) is at the eucharist...
Note the following excerpts from Baker's Dictionary of the
Bible, Wine, p.553.
"Among the words used for "wine" is the Hebrew yayin
for the Greek oinos and the Latin vinum. Yayin
apparently is a loan word from a non-Semitic root. It is the
usual word in the OT for the fermented juice of the grape (Gen
9:21, etc.), and appears in our traditional Hebrew test 141
times. It is uniformly rendered "wine."... Yayin
was used as a family beverage as well as at special dinners and
was included in some of the offerings (Ex 29:40). The wine
of the drink offerings is consistently designated as yayin
(Num 15:5, 10, etc.)...."
For an excellent study of wine drinking in the 1srt cent AD
see Everett Ferguson, "Wine as a Table-Drink in the Ancient
World", Restoration Quarterly, vol. 13, Number 3,
1970, 141 ff. Ferguson observes "Before the New
Testament era, wine had become a normal part of the Passover
ritual... Therefore, we may safely conclude that the "fruit
of the vine" used at the institution of the Lord's Supper
(Matt 26:27ff. and parallels) was the normal table-drink of the
Jews and other peoples of the Mediterranean world, namely, diluted
or mixed wine..." p. 148. |
One might ask why it is
that in certain Christian churches the practice has been to use grape
juice rather than wine in the Lord's Supper! We are uncertain as to
the origins of this practice, but it seems fairly certain that in first
century churches in the Mediterranean world wine was used in the Lord's
Supper (else how were they getting drunk in 1 Cor 11: 20?).
The practice of using grape juice as substitute or interpretation of
"fruit of the vine," which is the custom in many Protestant
churches, possibly stems from our Puritan and Temperance Movement heritage
(Puritan refers to a religious movement, dating in England from the 16th
century, with strict moral codes, emphasis on personal conversion, and
self examination. The early settlers in America [The Mayflower
Pilgrims and Massachusetts Bay Colony] were Puritan in persuasion.
The Temperance Movement refers to the prohibition of the use of alcohol
because of its sociologically destructive impact) in both Britain and the
United States.
It is as legitimate in
certain sociological settings (cultures and nations) to use wine in the
Lord's Supper as it is in certain sociological settings where alcoholism
is a serious problem and where sociological mores are against the
consumption of alcohol, to use grape
juice. Such matters should be considered individually in each
sociological setting according to the mores of each culture.
"... when he had
given thanks,
he gave it (the cup, IAF) to them..." The expression "given
thanks"
euxaristhsis
-
euxaristew
- eucharisteo is the word from which the English word Eucharist,
used in some Christian traditions for the Lord's Supper, is derived.
Euxaristhsis
- eucharistesis is found only in one other place in Matthew, i.e.
Matt 15:36 at the feeding of the 4,000, "he took the seven loaves and
the fish, and
having given thanks
he broke them and gave
them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds."
"for this is
my blood of the covenant..."
as in the case of the bread means this
represents
or
symbolizes
the blood of the
covenant. There is a textual variant in this clause in Matt 26:28 in
which in some
manuscripts the word
new
is inserted, as in "the blood of the new
covenant..." The word "new"
is also absent in Mk 14:24, but is found in Lk 22:20 and 1 Cor 11:25.
The reference to a new
covenant is the new
covenant prophesied in Jer 31:31-34, and used in Heb 8:6-13 and 9:15-22 as
fulfillments of Jer 31:31-34. The new covenant prophesied in Jer 31
was fulfilled in the blood shed by Jesus on the cross. Those
drinking the cup in the Lord's Supper ,which symbolizes the blood of
Jesus, are reminded of the promises of the new new covenant and
participate in those promises. The promises of the new covenant are:
Heb 8:10-12 This
is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after
those days, says the Lord:
I will put my laws into
their minds, and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God, and
they shall be my people.
11 And they shall not teach every one his fellow or every one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for all shall know me, from
the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more." |
|
The new covenant of which the
Lord's Supper is a reminder is a covenant of God's people holding his word
in their heart, of their becoming in a unique manner, His people,
of God's mercy and grace and forgiveness of sins. It is new
covenant of deliverance empowered by Jesus blood (atoning death).
Matthew adds in a striking manner (remember that Matthew's community is
now in a Gentile area) that Jesus' blood was "poured
out for [in behalf of] many."
It seems obvious that both Jesus and Matthew intend Jesus' death and
atoning blood to be for both Jews and Gentiles, not simply for Jews.
There is a universalistic element in Jesus' expression. this poured
out atoning blood is for "the
forgiveness of sins"!
In light of Jesus "great commission" of Matt 28:19 ff., the
Lord's Supper enfolds an evangelistic element as well as an element of
atonement and deliverance!
The final statement of Jesus before he and the disciples sing the Hallel
hymn of the Passover was an affirming statement that
he would drink with the
cup with them again,
but
not until he does so in
his father's kingdom
(Matt 26:29). This statement is somewhat enigmatic in the sense that
Jesus is somewhat mystical in his comment! What did he mean
when he said, "I
tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day
when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom"?
Did Jesus mean until he drinks it with them in the Eucharist, or did he
mean until he drinks it with them in the final eschatological banquet?
Possibly either or both!
Hagner opts for the eschatological banquet. Surely this is what
Jesus meant!
However, the Eucharist or Lord's Supper is a proleptic eschatological
experience in which Christians enjoy the benefits of the eschatological
banquet in advance of
the final end!
This proleptic
eschatological experience of the Eucharist is one of the powerful
theological elements of the meal. Not only are Christians reminded
of what God did for them on the cross, but they are encouraged to look
ahead to the final end and eschatological banquet.
Hagner adds that
"Amidst the rich symbolism of the Passover meal, Jesus creates a new
complex of symbols relating to his sacrificial death. It was not an
accident of history but the working of divine sovereignty that Jesus was
crucified at the Passover season. For Jesus was the new,
eschatological Passover Lamb... whose sacrificial death was the atonement
for the sins of the world." Matthew 13-28, p. 774.
Christians in some Lord's Supper liturgies tend to look back at the cross
and the suffering of Jesus (which no serious Christian will take lightly)
and to overlook the eschatological joy of the meal. It was for this
reason that early Christians favored the term Eucharist - Thanksgiving to
define the experience of the Lord's Supper. The Eucharist should be
a celebration, not an occasion of mourning (although, again, all serious
Christians should mourn that human sin caused the death of Jesus).
PETER'S DENIAL FORETOLD (Matt 26:30-35)
Matthew begins the
pericope with the statement, "And when they had sung a hymn..."
obviously intending this to be the final Hallel of the Passover,
Jesus and his disciples leave for the Mount of Olives, the
"hill" to the east of the Temple mount which overlooked the
Temple itself. Olives groves, with many of the olive trees
themselves very old, provided a shady "garden" and place of some
privacy.
This sad narrative that
follows stresses and brings home the tragic frailty of all human effort!
Whatever prompted Jesus to warn the disciples of the frailty of their
faith we cannot ascertain for sure, but Jesus warning indicated his
knowledge of their coming weakness and denial.
Jesus' statement, "I will strike the shepherd and the sheep of the
flock will be scattered" suggests that it is possible that he intended the events that followed to be seen as a
typological fulfillment of the prophecy in Zech 13:6ff.:
|
And if one asks him,
‘What are these wounds on your back?’ he will say,
‘The wounds I received in the
house of my friends.’"
"Awake, O sword, against my shepherd,
against the man who stands next to me," says the Lord of
hosts.
"Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered;
I will turn my hand against the little ones...." |
Nevertheless, Jesus'
warning of the falling away of the disciples obviously disturbed
them! First Peter, then all the disciples denied that they would
fall away and deny Jesus. Jesus, however, forewarned Pater that
before sunrise (when the cock would crow three times) Peter would in fact
deny Jesus.
The one positive element of the pericope was the statement that Jesus
would rise and go before them to Galilee! In spite of their weakness,
Jesus had not given up on them! He expected to see them again in
Galilee!
The steadfast love of
the Lord endures forever!
The narrative of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, and the betrayal of
Jesus is in the next lesson, Matt 26:36-75.
Click here to go to that
lesson.
Click here to go to an
Excursus on the Lord's Supper.
(Coming soon!)
|