Matthew 26:28 / Mark 14:24In both Matthew and Mark’s account of Jesus’ words over the cup at the Last Supper we read, τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης (“this is my blood of the covenant”; RSVCE). It is generally recognized that the backdrop to Jesus’ words here is the covenant ratification ceremony of Exodus 24. There we read about Moses ratifying the covenant God made with Israel in similar language as that found in the Last Supper narrative. Moses takes the blood (Exod 24:8 LXX: λαβὼν…τὸ αἷμα), and says (εἶπον), “Behold, the blood of the covenant” (Exod 24:8 LXX: Ἰδοὺ τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης). This of course mirrors Jesus’ actions, who takes the cup (λαβὼν ποτήριον, Mark 14:24), and says (εἶπεν), τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης (“this is my blood of the covenant”). In all of this, it seems clear that Jesus is describing himself as a New Moses, who ratifies a New Covenant.
[1] In fact, the covenant was sealed at Sinai with a meal―an appropriate backdrop for the Last Supper.
Of course, it should also be noted that the backdrop for the Last Supper is clearly the Passover in Matthew and Mark’s account. As we noted above, the Exodus and Passover were more than past events for first century Jews—they were tied up with future hopes. Indeed, there is a growing recognition that such hopes played a key role in the teaching of Jesus.
[2] It is generally accepted among scholars that Jesus’ selection of the twelve apostles was linked to pan-Israelite tribal reconstitution hope.
[3] Jesus’ Galilean ministry also seems to evoke these hopes, since it had been the home of the northern tribes.
[4] In addition to all of this, of course, there are also various sayings of Jesus concerning the eschatological of the “twelve tribes” (τὰς δώδεκα φυλὰς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30) and his mission to τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἀπολωλότα οἴκου Ἰσραήλ (Matt 10:6; 15:24).
With that in mind, Jesus’ words at the Last Supper evoking Exodus 24 should probably be interpreted against this restoration backdrop. The Eucharistic celebration associated with the restoration of Israel―the eschatological ingathering. This is even more clearly seen in the Lukan / Pauline version of the institution narrative.
Luke 22:20 / 1 Cor 11:25One of the most noteworthy additions in the account of the words of institution in Luke 22:20 / 1 Cor 11:25 is the modifier “new” to the word “covenant”: τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι (“This cup is the new covenant in my blood”). With this addition another Old Testament context comes in to focus. Since the phrase “new covenant” appears in only one place in the Old Testament, it is clear that, in addition to Exodus 24, another passage likely stands in the backdrop―Jeremiah 31:31.
[5]Jeremiah 31 is a prophecy concerning the future restoration of Israel. The prophet describes how the Lord will save a remnant of Israel and “bring them from the north country and gather them from the farthest parts of the earth” (Jer 31:8; cf. v. 10). In Jeremiah 31:31 this ingathering is described in terms of a “new covenant”― “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah”. This covenant is contrasted with the covenant made with Israel at Mt. Sinai―the covenant ratified in Exodus 24: “not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke” (Jer 31:32).
What is interesting is that Jeremiah links this ingathering to the flourishing of crops and vineyards, specifically mentioning how the redeemed will rejoice over “grain, the wine and the oil” (Jer 31:12). The prophecy of the New Covenant also seems to include nuptial imagery. The first covenant is described in terms of a marriage covenant―“I was their husband, says the Lord” (Jer 31:32). For more on that see the following footnote
[6].
ConclusionOur interpretation of Revelation 19 at the beginning of this essay would seem to confirm the conviction that Jesus saw the Institution of the Eucharist in terms of the eschatological restoration of Israel. The tradition found in the Apocalypse―although more clearly developed―could be traced back into the Upper Room. There on the night he was killed Jesus explained that the eschatological ingathering of Israel would be fulfilled, not in the restoration of a political dynasty, but through something else. Restoration is inextricably linked with the cult of the new covenant community.
Such an interpretation may at first sound less like first-century Judaism than twentieth century sacramental theology. However, a close examination of the Qumran literature indicates some striking similarities. It is now generally agreed that in 1QS 6:2-5 the common communal meal is described in such a way as to link it with the eschatological banquet of 1QSa 2:1-22. In addition, it is noteworthy in connection with this that 1QS 8:4-10 describes the community in terms of the eschatological temple.
[7] Aune concludes: “The fact that aspects of final eschatological salvation were realized within a cultic and communal setting by members of the Qumran community supplies us with a basic approach to the problem of the significance of realized eschatology…”
[8]Much more needs to be said―a great deal more in fact!. As I’ve explained in previous posts, this is in large part my dissertation project. However, I put this out here now in hopes of stimulating a discussion and learning from your thoughts and comments. So keep them coming.
For a much more articulate and in-depth examination along these lines check out Scott Hahn’s article on Luke 22:
Scott Hahn, “
Kingdom and Church in Luke-Acts: From Davidic Christology to Kingdom Ecclesiology,” in Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflection, Formation (C. G. Bartholomew, J. Green and A. Thiselton, eds; Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2005).
NOTES[1] W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison,
Matthew19-28 (ICC; London: T & T Clark, 1997), 475: “One wonders whether the sequence in Exod 24:8-11 does not underlie vv. 28-29. In Exodus the establishing of the covenant through blood is followed by eating and drinking and seeing God. In Matthew the proclamation of the eschatological covenant through blood prefaces the promise of the eschatological banquet.”
[2] For restoration expectations in historical Jesus research see Ben Meyer,
The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM, 1979) and E. P. Sanders,
Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985). Also see specialized works such as Scot McKnight,
A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); Steven M. Bryan, “Excurses: Jesus and the end of the exile,” in
Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgment and Restoration (SNTSMS 117; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 2002), 12-20; Craig Evans, “Aspects of Exile and Restoration in the Proclamation of Jesus and the Gospels,” in
Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration (AGJU 39; B. Chilton and C. A. Evans, eds.; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 263-93; F. G. Downing, “Exile in Formative Judaism,” in
Making Sense in (and of) First Chrstian Century (JSNTSup 197; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 148-68); Michael Knibb, “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period,”
HeyJ 17 (1976): 253-72; Pitre,
Jesus, the Tribulation and the End of the Exile (cited above). Also see the essays in James M. Scott, ed.,
Exile: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Conceptions (JSJSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997); idem,
Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish and Christian Perspectives (JSJSup 72: Leiden: Brill, 2001); David J. Bryan, “Exile and Return from Jerusalem,” in Apocalyptic
in History and Tradition (JSPSup 43; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 60-18. Other scholars have analyzed the importance of restoration theology in specialized studies such as David Ravens,
Luke and the Restoration of Israel (JSOT Supplement Series 119; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995); Rikki Watts,
Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark (WUZNT2 88; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997); Mark L. Strauss,
The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology (JSNTSup 110; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995); Michael E. Fuller,
The Restoration of Israel. Israel's Re-gathering and the Fate of the Nations in Early Jewish Literature and Luke-Acts (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006); David W. Pao, Acts
and the New Exodus (WUZNT2 130; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000).
[3] E. P. Sanders,
Jesus and Judaism, 98-106. Though Sanders is skeptical regarding the details of the identity of the twelve or what they did, he argues “…we can see that Jesus fitted his own work into Jewish eschatological expectation if we know only that he thought of there being twelve around him” (104). Also see Wright,
Jesus and the Victory of God, 300: “The very existence of the twelve speaks, of course, of the reconstitution of Israel; Israel had not had twelve visible tribes since the Assyrian invasion in 734 BC, and for Jesus to give twelve followers a place of prominence…indicates pretty clearly that he was thinking in terms of the eschatological restoration of Israel.” Still also see, Paula Fredricksen,
Jesus of Nazareth: King of the Jews (New York: Vintage, 1999), 98; John P. Meier,
A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (vol. 3 of The Roots of the Problem and Person; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 148-54; idem, “Jesus, the Twelve and Restoration,” in
Restoration, 365-404; Ben Meyer,
The Aims of Jesus, 154.
[4] That the Galileans were Israelites of non-Jewish stock, see Sean Freyne,
Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels: Literary Approaches and Historical Investigations (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 130-31, 170-71. Also see David Ravens who comments that Jesus’ ministry in northern Israel should be viewed in terms of the restoration of the Davidic idealic kingdom of the united two houses of Israel. Ravens,
Luke and the Restoration of Israel, 99.
[5] See John Nolland,
Luke 18:35-24:53 (WBC 35c; Dallas: Word Books, 1993); Ben Meyer, “The Expiation Motif in the Eucharistic Words,” in
One Loaf, One Cup: Ecumenical Studies of 1 Cor 11 and other Eucharistic Texts (The Cambridge Conference on the Eucharist August 1988; New Gospel Studies 6; B. F. Meyer, ed.; Macon: Mercer, 1993) 33.
[6] The word here translated “husband” is בעל (bā∙˓ǎl ) might also be translated “master”. It can have the connotation of oppression. The other word for husband is אישׁ (˒yš), which can have the sense of a more loving husband. The two words are contrasted in Hosea 2:16. There we read that in the restoration the Lord will no longer be Israel’s “master” (bā∙˓ǎl ), but her “husband” אישׁ (˒yš). Interestingly within that context we also read that the Lord will make for Israel an abundance of “the grain, the wine and the oil”.
[7] See John J. Collins, “Powers in Heaven,” in
Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature (J. J. Collins and R. A. Kugler, eds.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 11-14, who concludes, “The community in effect was a substitute temple” (13).
[8] Aune,
The Cultic Setting, 44.
