The Last Supper - Retrospection or Reunion?
The Last Supper is more than we think it is. Matthew and Mark's accounts of Passover, are essentially identical. However, the focus of Jesus' words in Matthew is not the same as in the Gospel of Luke, or the same as the Apostle Pauls account in 1Cor11:17-34. Matthew is the only eyewitness account of the words Jesus spoke at the Last Supper, so, if the eye-witness account matters, Paul's addition of, "do this in remembrance of me", must find its meaning elsewhere, in the context, or in taking latitude with Jesus' words. In general, Communion is conveyed as a time of introspection and subdued contemplation, mostly about sin or the horrors of the crucifixion, whatever that means from a psychological perspective. But does this solemn approach to communion accurately reflect the context of the Last Supper, or convey the truth about what Jesus spoke to the Apostles? Some aspects of this account might not be as biblical as we think, and psychologically counter-productive, in terms of what we aim for. The fundamental context of this event is that Jesus and the Apostles were celebrating "Passover", a time of celebration, and Jesus utilised the signs of the times to usher in the New Covenant, not the subdued contemplation we see conveyed today.
When confronted with Communion, how many of us experience something akin to cognitive inadequacy as we attempt to engage an acceptable disposition that ascribes the appropriate feelings implied in the sombre tone of communion language? For whatever reason that tone appears to be the accepted default mood. And, "Do this in remembrance of me" is the cause of this default mood, but it's a loaded statement that depends on whether the statement is true, and what Paul was referring to. Nonetheless, it elicits an emotion that identifies with Christ's suffering on the cross, so 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 representations I allude to here. But why a proclivity for identification with 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 impart the appropriate feelings 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 was the only eye-witness to Jesus's words at the Last Supper because he was one of the twelve Apostles. Neither Matthew nor Mark recorded the words "Do this in remembrance of me", why?
Luke's and Paul's accounts were third-hand. Even though their accounts were third-hand, their statements didn't alter the story, but they did raise questions about 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 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 make the Last Supper narrative wrong, it changes the prophetic nature of Jesus words. By adding these words the focus of Communion is constantly looking back to the cross which nullifies any advantage that might otherwise be gained, by seeing Communion as the adventure we’re engaged in. 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 the context of Paul's statements to the Corinthian Church and 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 Lord's Supper (Communion) by treating it like any other meal without 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 entirety of the letter to the Corinthian Church. There was only one reason for them gathering together and Paul clarifies in, "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 come together for the "Lord's Supper", that they acknowledge Christ, instead of the hedonistic tone in their current behaviour. Therefore, adding the phrase serves Paul's intention to correct the Corinthian Church about why they come together, but his words misrepresent the focus of Jesus's words to Matthew. Because Paul ascribes these words to Jesus it creates further tension with an eye-witness account, therefore, his use of the phrase appears more plausible if he was making a true statement within the context of the rebuke, but taking literary licence with the actual words Jesus spoke.
Paul was not privy to Matthews's account because Matthew's gospel was penned some 30 years after Paul's letter. Unfortunately, Paul's statement has dominated the Communion landscape ever since. It's not insignificant that Matthew was the only eyewitness 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 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 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 (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 with where we are going. Communion is not about where Jesus was, it's about remembering where Jesus is now. We need to take hold of the accountability for an adventure where Jesus has given us the pen, to write the final chapters, of our redemptive story.
