Matthew 26c

 We come now to one of the foundational moments in our Christian tradition as well as a keystone to our beliefs about who Jesus is (Christology), what God is up to (theology), what their actions mean for our salvation (soteriology). As you can see, these are so central to our faith that whole areas of study have grown up around the Passover Supper, the Crucifixion, and Resurrection. Get these three right and you have gone a long way down the road to being a well-trained disciple.  

 We should note, however, that there is not just one Passover story. The oldest written fragment of this story is found in one of Paul’s early letters at a time when the story was still an oral tradition. All of Paul’s letters were written before the Gospels were written. Paul’s account is brief and it is set in a context of correcting the practices of the Corinthian church. This implies that, at the time of Paul’s letter, AD 50 or 51, this church and others were already celebrating the Lord’s Supper, that is, about 20 years after the event. It takes a while to establish the standard ritual. 

 Paul first writes that something is wrong in the way that they celebrate “the Lord’s supper” (I Corinthians 11: 17-22). Specifically, everyone is starting at different times and eating their own food, not waiting for others who are less well off. Presumably, they have to work later, and they are not able to bring as much food for supper. Paul even accuses some of beginning to drink too soon and becoming drunk before the others arrive. Clearly this is different from our tradition.

 Paul then corrects them with this opening phrase, “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for[f] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (I Corinthians 23-26). 

 You can see that this is a bare bones tradition, but it is not all that Paul knew (see below, verse 34b). Paul gives a warning (27-32) and then makes a suggestion about how to carry out the ritual (33-23a). Perhaps later we will examine Paul’s Passover story in more detail. My point now is that we have accounts from Paul, Mark, Luke, and John as well as Matthew, and they all differ in some respect. Out of respect for the writer and his intent, we narrow our focus on what Matthew had to say in the assumption that he has a point to make.  

 26: 20-25.  When it was evening, he took his place with the twelve disciples, and while they were eating he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me.” And they became greatly distressed and began to say to him one after another, “Surely not I, Lord?” He answered, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born.” Judas, who betrayed him, said, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” He replied, “You have said so.”

 In the typical structure of a First Century Passover meal food is served in courses and there are four cups of wine, one at the beginning, twice during the supper, and one at the end. There should also be a Passover lamb. However, Matthew does not mention the symbolism of the sacrificed lamb, nor does he tell us where we are in the schedule. Matthew gets right to the point with Jesus claiming that someone in the group will betray him. Yet perhaps this was his point: that the Passover meal involved slaughtering and butchering an innocent lamb, but the innocent lamb at this meal is Jesus himself.

 What Jesus says causes dismay among the disciples. Yet, as Witherington points out (Matthew, 2006, page 483), the disciples miss the point about Jesus’ fate; instead they seem concerned only with their own personal honor. Each of them calls Jesus ‘Lord’, then with incredulity implies that it could not be them. Each one except Judas who calls Jesus ‘Rabbi’ meaning in words of a disciple, ‘Teacher’. Is that significant? Maybe. 

 The treachery of the betrayal is exposed by Jesus’ claim that someone who has shared his food is the one who will betray him. This goes back to Ancient Near Eastern codes of hospitality. When gathered around a table, one would not raise a hand against even an enemy, let alone a friend. This will be a serious breach of the rules of teacher-disciple relations as well as of the customary behavior expected during table fellowship. David even wrote about a similar deception. 

 “All who hate me whisper together about me; they imagine the worst for me. They think that a deadly thing has fastened on me, that I will not rise again from where I lie. Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has lifted the heel against me. But you, O LORD, be gracious to me, and raise me up, that I may repay them” (Psalm 41: 7-10). 

26: 26-30. While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

 For the second time, Matthew says, “While they were eating.” The participants have reclined on couches and social rank has been revealed by the seating arrangement. The communal meal came first, while conversation or discussion came later. This seems to be a form that Jesus upset. After the last cup, the diners would sing a hymn. Matthew does not specify the particular cup over which Jesus declared the new covenant, though Luke is more specific (Luke 22: 17, 20). 

 For First Century Jews, Passover would have been a joyous occasion, remembering that God saved them from slavery in Egypt and led them out toward a new land. Specifically, God protected them from the tenth plague by directing them to smear the blood of the lamb on their doorposts which would cause the Angel of Death to Passover their house. Passover is a reminder that God acts in the favor of Israel and will do it again.

 Jesus has made this Passover meal more somber with his declaration that he would be betrayed. Then he declares what amounts to a new covenant, a salvation salvific relationship with God that grows out of the old covenant but centers on Jesus himself as the sacrificial lamb. 

 Certain of Jesus’ announcements would be hard to swallow, so to speak. Historically, and according to the Mosaic covenant, the Israelite people were forbidden to eat or drink blood. Blood could be splashed on the altar or sprinkled on the priest’s clothing (Exodus 24: 6-8, 29:12. 16. 20, and many verses in Leviticus). The prophet Ezekiel interprets this act in a reminder to the people of Israel. 

 “Moses took the blood and dashed it on the people, and said, ‘Here is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words’” (Ezekiel 24: 8). 

 Yet, Moses also said that one could not eat or drink blood either in a ritual or for an everyday meal.

 “You must not eat any blood whatever, either of bird or of animal, in any of your settlements. Any one of you who eats any blood shall be cut off from your people” (Leviticus 7: 26-27). 

 So, the disciples’ understanding of what Jesus said depends how literal they take his words. First, all of the disciples are Jews, so they all know the prohibition on drinking blood. Second, the disciple Matthew who wrote this Gospel story records no complaint from the other disciples nor does he criticize what Jesus said. The implication is that he did not take it literally. Finally, there is no account in the New Testament that indicates that any follower of Jesus ate flesh or drank blood. However, in later centuries, there was misinformation spread by opponents of Christianity that the sect practiced cannibalism. 

 Jesus’ words are simple, and his instructions are not detailed. Bless the bread for the meal, break the bread, then pass it around. The bread is the body of Christ. The wine is the blood of Christ. A lot of unfortunate ink has been spilled over the centuries trying to nail down the meaning more than Jesus did. The result was argument and division in the church. But, really, just say what Jesus said and leave it at that. He did.   

 26: 30.  When they had sung the hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

 This is the only time Matthew recognizes some normal schedule of events in the Passover. This is the hymn at the end of the ritual; notice the text says, ‘the hymn’.

 The Lord’s Supper is our central ritual. Whether Protestant or Catholic, the Lord's supper is one of the sacraments. The Last Supper, however, is not the last supper. It is a hint of the coming Messianic Banquet. 

 Jesus says, “I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness…” (Matthew 8: 11-12; see also Isaiah 25: 6-8 and Revelation 19:9). 

 So, the Great Banquet or Wedding Supper of the Lamb will be inclusive, except for those who presume on their genealogy or position in society to get them in. 

 One of my favorites is the last scene in the movie “Places in the Heart.” The movie begins with a drunken Black teenager accidently shooting the sheriff. He is taken from jail by a lynch mob, drug through the streets, then hung. This is Texas in the Depression-era. The sheriff’s widow can only save her farm if she is able to plant and harvest cotton and then be first at the mill to receive the best price. She is helped by a homeless black man, her philandering brother-in-law, a blind border brought by the banker, and her children.

 The end of the story is not when she is able to save her farm, but rather a church scene on Sunday morning. The camera focuses on each face as communion is passed. The homeless black man, who had been beaten by the Ku Klux Klan and forced to leave town, passes the host to the widow with the words, “The Peace of God.” Then the widow passes the elements to her husband (by now you can see that neither the black man nor the husband could actually be there) and the sheriff passes the elements to the black teenager who shot him. The widow’s sister and her penitent husband also take communion. I have never watched that scene without tears coming to my eyes. 

 Why? Because that is the way communion ought to be: friends and enemies, all penitent and one in Christ, gathered around communion for table fellowship.