The Last Supper - Retrospection or Reunion?
The Last Supper is more than the catastrophe of the cross, it’s a victory statement, a prophetic story that ushers in the New Covenant and points us toward adventure. Matthew and Mark's accounts of the Last Supper, are essentially identical. The Apostle John’s account in Jn13-14 mentions that the evening meal was in progress, and the context, timing and conversation suggest it was the evening meal before Passover, thus the same event. However, the focus of Jesus' words in Matthew and John is not the same as in the Gospel of Luke or the Apostle Paul’s account in 1Cor11:17-34. The important thing to remember is Matthew and John are the only eyewitness accounts of the words Jesus spoke at the Last Supper, so, if the eye-witness account matters, Paul's claiming that Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me", stands in stark contrast. and must find its meaning within the context of his letter. Maybe the nuance in his language to emphasise his rebuke of the Corinthian Church.
Communion today is generally conveyed as a time of sombre introspection, maybe contemplation about the horrors of the crucifixion, or a brief identification with the purpose of Jesus's existence, whatever that means from a psychological perspective. But does this solemn, retrospective approach to communion, accurately reflect the context and intent of Jesus's words, or convey the truth about what Jesus spoke to the Disciples? Some aspects of interpretation might not be as biblical as we think, and psychologically counter-productive to where our focus should be. The context of this event is that Jesus and the Apostles were celebrating "Passover", a time of celebration The evening meal before Passover was served, and Jesus utilised a prophetic narrative embedded in the Passover story, to usher in the New Covenant. A covenant that secured salvation and a heavenly Kingdom to come, not a time of subdued contemplation about a past event that we see conveyed today.
When confronted with Communion, do we experience something akin to cognitive inadequacy as we attempt to engage an acceptable emotional disposition, that stimulates the appropriate feelings implied in the sombre tone of communion language? For whatever reason, that tone appears to be the default mood promoted in a communion service. And, "Do this in remembrance of me" is the nexus for this default mood. However, "Do this in remembrance of me" is a loaded statement that depends on whether the statement is contextually true, and what exactly Paul was referring to. Nonetheless, communion elicits an emotion that identifies with Christ's suffering on the cross, but why would God want born-again Christians retreating to a retrospective disposition that is finished, once and for all? I'm not suggesting Christians have a problem with the implications of the cross, nor that they experience all or any of the somewhat cynical examples I convey here. But why a proclivity for identification with the pain and suffering, or indeed the sin of the world? This group-identifying temperament reins everyone into sombre contemplation with a quasi-appropriate emotional call to receive the bread and the wine, walk to our seats, and ponder the "do this in remembrance of me" as if mere contemplation will supernaturally manifest the appropriate reverence to satisfy the moment.
Let's consider the biblical accounts and examine who said what. The Apostle Paul did not know Jesus, and wasn't around Jesus during his ministry years, Luke was a follower of Paul and did not know Jesus and wasn't around Jesus. Mark was a disciple and the youngest, he accompanied the disciples and heard Jesus speak many times, though not likely at the Last Supper because the account speaks only of the twelve Apostles. Mark followed the Apostle Peter and later Paul. Of all the accounts Matthew and John were the only eye-witnesses to Jesus's words at the Last Supper because they were among the twelve Apostles. Neither Matthew, John nor Mark recorded the words "Do this in remembrance of me", why?
Luke's and Paul's accounts were third-hand. Despite this, their commentaries didn't alter the story but created tension by changing the focus of Jesus' words. In any court of Law or theological evaluation, an eye-witness account always precedes third-hand statements. These are the actual verses of Matthew and Mark. Notice there's no mention of "do this in remembrance of me." Jesus's words were future-focused, and prophetic, and didn’t convey the sombre tones we encourage today. Nor did he mention the crucifixion.
Matt26:28-29 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.“
Mar 14:24-25 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.“
Throughout the Bible, authors contributed personal perspectives to the same events, that Luke was the only Gospel to add the phrase "do this" is not of itself unusual and while it doesn't alter the Last Supper narrative, it changes the prophetic nature of the event and the focus of Jesus words. By adding these words the focus of Communion today is constantly looking back to the cross which nullifies any advantage that might otherwise be gained, by seeing the New Covenant, through Communion, as prophetic, an adventure, a race encapsulated in celebration of where we want to be. We might assume Luke gained his perspective from Paul because Paul penned his letter to the Corinthians 30-40 years before Luke's Gospel. So what was Paul trying to say and what about the context of Paul's statements to the Corinthian Church. What motive might have caused him to add the words contested here?
Paul opens his account in 1Cor11:17-22 with a series of rebukes about believers turning the Last Supper into a gathering for the wealthy to eat and drink too much, beginning with, "In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good". He continues with a stinging attack on their divisions and disagreement, and their dishonouring of the communion meal by treating it like any other meal, with no acknowledgement of the reason they gathered. There was a general disregard for those who were poor and had nothing to eat and the extent of these issues is outlined in the body of his letter to the Corinthian Church. There was only one reason for them gathering together and Paul clarifies it in the form of a reverse statement, "It is not the Lord's Supper you eat" vs 20-22. The "unworthy manner" is that they were treating the meal like any other meal, thus mocking God and bringing judgment on their actions vs29. So when Paul says, "Do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me", the "do this" refers to the entire meal, not just the bread and wine as we portray it today. Paul says "Whenever you drink" implying, whenever they assemble for the "Lord's Supper", that they acknowledge the purpose of the meal, instead of the self-centred attitude in their current behaviour. Therefore, adding the phrase serves Paul's intention to correct the Corinthian Church about why they come together, and in this sense, the phrase is structurally true, however, it changes the focus, and the tone, of the words Jesus spoke to Matthew. Because Paul ascribes these words to Jesus he creates further tension with Matthew’s account. Paul’s use of the phrase is understandable, and consistent with Matthew, if “remembrance of me” refers to the person of Christ, not the crucifixion, and points to where Jesus is now, in heaven, and not where he was going to be at that time, which was on the cross. Thus Paul was making a true statement and conceivably taking a literary licence with the “focus of remembrance”, that Jesus conveyed to Matthew and John.
Paul was not privy to Matthews's account because Matthew's gospel was penned some 30 years after Paul's letter. Since Matthew’s account was written after Paul is interesting, and raises questions about whether Matthew was aware of what Paul said. Unfortunately, Paul's statement has dominated the Communion landscape ever since. It's not insignificant that Matthew and John were the only eyewitnesses to the Last Supper events and the words spoken, and we know that Matthew was meticulous in his approach to detail. Matthew's recollection of Jesus's words was NOT focused on the cross, it was prophetic and adventurous, it pointed heaven-ward like a good friend leaving and saying goodbye, but letting us know he will be waiting for us at the finish line.
Passover was a celebration of God's power and deliverance over oppression. It's a prophetic story echoed throughout the Biblical Corpus, from Abraham to Moses, Moses to Christ, and Christ to the Judgement Seat, where redemption and hope are intended to drive us to greater exploits. The Last Supper was also Passover and thus a celebration. Jesus uses the Passover to introduce the New Covenant in his blood, therefore, Communion today should be a celebration of relationship, through which we see the future, and find purpose in the present, striving forward to enter the Father's Kingdom. Communion should be a time of focusing on eternal considerations, a time for asking hard questions about what we are doing, a time of pressing forward to where Jesus is, not a time for looking back on pain and suffering, "I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." Jesus is not on the cross, he's in Heaven and, this is the entire point of this commentary. Taking the bread and the wine presumes we are already saved, and thus in a race to the Judgement seat of Christ. It's a time for gratitude, thankfulness, hope and adventure. Between justification (born-again) and entering the Father's Kingdom (physical death), is sanctification (the transformation of our lives). The Last Supper is Jesus telling us he’s waiting at that finish line, thus the story conveyed has less to do with the crucifixion and more about where we are going, and who is waiting for us. Communion is not about where Jesus was, it's about remembering where Jesus is now. We might consider our accountability in this adventure because Jesus has given us the pen to write the final chapters of our redemptive story.
