This
statement as related in the Gospel of John occurs on the day after the feeding
of the 5000. Following that event
Yeshua withdrew alone, and his disciples attempted to cross Lake Galilee to Capernaum
in their boat. After they had
gotten only a short way from shore a strong wind came up to hinder their
progress, and then they saw Yeshua walking to them on the water. After he got into the boat with them,
they were immediately at the opposite shore to which they had been
heading. The following day, a
large number of the crowd made the trip across the lake to Capernaum, and they
were astounded to find Yeshua there with his disciples. (After all, they had seen the disciples
leave without him, and it was a long walk around the lake from where they had
started.) Yeshua’s immediate
response was to castigate them for merely wanting a repetition or the previous
day’s sign. They brought up the
giving of the manna during the exodus travels, but Yeshua’s response was to
assert that he was the true bread to come down from heaven, and they must eat
his flesh and drink his blood. The
result was predictable: Many of those who had been following Yeshua did so no
more (Jn 6:65).
But
what was Yeshua’s point about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. No interpreter I am aware of connects
this statement with anything in the Hebrew bible. I suppose the most obvious Christian response would be that
this anticipates the event during the Last Supper when Yeshua reinterpreted the
last cup and last matzo as his blood and body. This event is recorded in the Synoptic Gospels and in 1
Corinthians (Mat 26:26-26, Mk 14:22-25, Lk 22:14-19, 1 Cor 11:23-26), but not
in John. There are three different
common Christian interpretations for the so called ‘Lord’s Supper’:
·
Catholic: Transubstantiation in which the bread
and wine are transformed into the literal body and blood of Yeshua. The event is interpreted as the
bloodless sacrifice of the Mass and functions like a repetition of a sin
sacrifice.
·
Lutheran:
Consubstantiation in which the body and blood of Yeshua are mystically present
without literal transformation of the elements.
·
Memorial: Most Protestants adhere to this
view. Yeshua said, “Do this in
remembrance of me.” The book of
Hebrews emphasizes that Yeshua’s sacrifice for sin was done just once and would
never be repeated.
It
is not my purpose to discuss the relative merits of these Christian
interpretations, but they all do have a common deficiency: they have no point
of contact with the tabernacle/temple and its rituals. These disciples were all Jews, and all of their experiences
with Yeshua would have been understood through the lens of their cultural
heritage.
·
The
order in which wine and bread are presented in the four descriptions of the
‘Lord’s Supper’ differ. Luke
indicates that the wine was distributed first, but the other three reverse the
order. There is no way to know
exactly how the Passover seder proceeded 2000 years ago, but the modern seder
is built around four cups of wine, and the blessing of the wine is the first
thing to be done during each phase of the celebration, but the wine is not drunk
until after everything else for that phase of the seder has been
completed. Since the gospel
accounts agree that the ‘Lord’s Supper’ was the last thing done for their
seder, most interpreters agree that the wine corresponded to the fourth cup, the cup of praise according to current tradition.. All of the accounts agree that the wine
represented Yeshua’s blood as that necessary to inaugurate the New
Covenant -- this is my blood of the New Covenant shed for you and for many. This is a reference to
Jeremiah 31:31-37. For those
Christians who assert that Torah no longer has any relevance for believers in
Yeshua, you should read this passage in Jeremiah: The primary difference
between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is that under the New Covenant Torah would be written on human hearts rather than tablets of stone. Those Christians who assert that the
heritage of Israel has passed to the church should read Jeremiah 31:35-40.
The
reference to eating the flesh of Yeshua is clearly metaphorical rather than
literal, but what is the point?
The New Covenant texts are consistent in asserting that Yeshua died as a
vicarious sin sacrifice for his people and also that he represented the Passover sacrificial lamb, which accomplished redemption from slavery for the people of Israel.
The understanding of details is much debated among Christian
theologians, but I have never read any of them that did any more than make a
superficial connection (if that) with the sacrificial rituals as described in Leviticus.
o The person who has sinned must bring a
sacrifice that is appropriate for his level of social position of
responsibility before YHWH. During
the time of the tabernacle, this was done at the door to the tent of meeting; following
the construction of the temple this was done in the courtyard near the altar of
burnt offering.
o The individual or individuals presenting
the offering must place his hand on the head of the animal in symbolic
acknowledgement that the animal was dying in place of the one who sinned.
o That person then slaughtered the animal, and the priest collected its blood. Some of the
blood was put on the one presenting the sacrifice and some was put on the horns
of the altar.
o The fat parts of the sacrifice were
placed on the altar, a portion of the meat was set aside for the priest to eat,
but the rest of the animal was burned outside the camp. The author of Hebrews laid considerable
stress on this last part of the ritual because Yeshua was crucified outside the
city walls of Jerusalem.
o Following the deaths of Nadab and Abihu,
Aaron and his remaining two sons failed to eat the designated portion of the
sin sacrifice, making Moses angry with them (Lev 10:16, 17). The reason for his anger was that YHWH
had given this ritual as the means for bearing away the sin of the people. I suggest that this is the connection
with eating the flesh of Yeshua. Believers in Yeshua are called a royal priesthood by Peter (1 Pet 2:9 and Exodus 19:6), and like the Levitical priests they are called upon to eat (symbolically) some of the flesh of their sin sacrifice in the role of believer priest.
o The Passover lamb is never called a sin sacrifice, but rather it redeemed the people of Israel from slavery. Yeshua said that anyone who sins becomes a slave to sin. Just so, Yeshua's death as the Passover lamb redeems those who believe in him from slavery to sin so that they can live righteous lives here and now on earth. The people were commanded to eat the Passover lamb during a single evening, and anything remaining the following day was to be burned.
The priests were commanded to eat a portion of every sin sacrifice; all the people were commanded to eat the entire Passover lamb during a single night. This is the point of connection for Yeshua's comment in the gospel of John.
The "Lord's Supper" is different. All of the peoples of the ancient Near East had some form of ritual of table fellowship with their God or gods. In this ritual, individual participants ate a meal with their God/gods in mystical attendance. Israel did as well. The first example of this is in Exodus 24:9-11 in which Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and 70 elders ate a meal in the visual presence of YHWH. This was subsequently formalized with the various forms of Shlamim (Peace) offerings described in Leviticus. Let me suggest that the "Lord's Supper" and the "Marriage Supper of the Lamb" constitute Shlamim instituted by the New Covenant scriptures.
No comments:
Post a Comment