A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings 9781472550248, 9780567149084, 9780567097309

Citation preview

Library of New Testament Studies

495 Formerly the Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

Editor Mark Goodacre Editorial Board John M. G. Barclay, Craig Blomberg, R. Alan Culpepper, James D. G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Robert Wall, Steve Walton, Robert L. Webb, Catrin H. Williams

A SCRIPTURAL THEOLOGY OF EUCHARISTIC BLESSINGS

Susan I. BUBBERS

LON DON • N E W DE L H I • N E W YOR K • SY DN EY

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway London New York WC1B 3DP NY 10018 UK USA www.bloomsbury.com First published 2013 © Susan I. Bubbers, 2013 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Susan I. Bubbers has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury Academic or the author.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: ePDF:

978-0-56709-730-9

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Typeset by Free Range Book Design & Production

Contents Abbreviations xi Preface xiii Introduction xv 1 Methodology 1.1 Interpretive approaches

1 1

1.1.1 VANTAGE POINTS 1.1.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THOUGHT 1.1.3 DISTINCTIVENESS OF ST 1.1.3.1 Bounded multivalence 1.1.3.2 Contemporary influences 1.1.4 SCRIPTURAL THEOLOGY 1.1.4.1 Description 1.1.4.2 Clarification of authority 1.1.4.3 Nature of God 1.1.4.4 Trajectories of meaning 1.1.4.5 Pond metaphor

1 3 8 8 9 14 14 16 21 24 25



1.2 Interpretive tools

25

1.2.1 TYPES 1.2.1.1 Description 1.2.1.2 Not allegory 1.2.1.3 Developing messages 1.2.2 MOTIFS 1.2.2.1 Description 1.2.2.2 Developing messages 1.2.3 ALLUSIONS 1.2.3.1 Description 1.2.3.2 Metalepsis 1.2.3.3 Subtexts 1.2.4 PARADIGMS 1.2.4.1 Typological 1.2.4.2 Structural 1.2.5 TRAJECTORIES

25 25 27 27 30 30 31 34 34 36 38 39 39 40 41



45

1.3 Literature Review

1.3.1 LAST SUPPER AND PASSOVER 1.3.2 RELATED STUDIES 1.3.2.1 Ritual and liturgical studies 1.3.2.2 Systematic and dogmatic studies 1.3.2.3 Historical studies 1.3.2.4 NT surveys

46 47 47 50 53 55



56

1.4 Summary

Contents

vi 2

Last Supper and Passover 2.1 Paschal nature

57 57

2.1.1 MARK’S BASELINE 2.1.2 LANDSCAPE OF THE DISCUSSION 2.1.3 LAST SUPPER IS NOT AN ESSENE MEAL 2.1.4 LAST SUPPER IS A PASSOVER MEAL 2.1.4.1 Fourteen supporting points 2.1.4.2 Responses to eight objections

57 58 59 60 60 62



63

2.2 John’s chronology

2.2.1 APPARENT DIFFICULTY 2.2.2 FRIDAY IS NISAN 15 AND JOHN IS THEOLOGICAL 2.2.3 FRIDAY IS NISAN 14 AGAINST THE SYNOPTICS 2.2.4 FRIDAY IS BOTH 2.2.5 FRIDAY IS NISAN 15 AND JOHN IS CONSISTENT 2.2.5.1 Milligan’s observations 2.2.5.2 Story’s analysis 2.2.5.3 Further linguistic evidence 2.2.5.4 Corroborating view

63 64 65 66 68 68 69 71 73



2.3 Examples of Passover messages that inform the Feast 2.4 Summary

74 75

3

Historical-Literary Analysis 3.1 Words of institution

76 76

3.1.1 MARK AS BASELINE 3.1.1.1 Two textual versions 3.1.1.2 Mark’s version overall is earlier 3.1.1.3 Other accounts retain some elements older than Mark’s 3.1.2 SUPPLEMENTS FROM MATTHEW, LUKE AND PAUL 3.1.2.1 Matthew shows liturgical development 3.1.2.2 Paul’s theological connotations 3.1.2.3 Luke’s text also transmits allusions 3.1.2.4 Supplemented version of the words of institution 3.1.3 INSIGHTS FROM JOHN 3.1.3.1 Arrangement supports Last Supper texts as ancient proclamations 3.1.3.2 Eucharistic interpretation 3.1.3.3 Intention for 6:51-58 3.1.3.4 Selection of material



3.2 Words of interpretation

3.2.1 MARK AS BASELINE 3.2.1.1 Hebrew phrases 3.2.1.2 Consistent with Jesus’ speech 3.2.2 SUPPLEMENTS FROM MATTHEW, LUKE AND PAUL 3.2.2.1 Identificational terminology 3.2.2.2 Instructive terminology 3.2.2.3 Allusive terminology 3.2.2.4 Reference to wine develops to a reference to the cup 3.2.2.5 Bridge terminology 3.2.2.6 Luke and Paul contribute remembrance terminology

77 77 77 79 81 82 83 85 89 90 90 91 92 101

103 103 103 104 104 105 106 106 108 109 110

Contents

3.2.3 INSIGHTS FROM JOHN





3.2.2.7 Suggested original form of the words of interpretation 3.2.2.8 Messages arising from this form 3.2.2.9 Servant allusion 3.2.3.1 Words of interpretation in John 6 rather than John 13 3.2.3.2 John contributes flesh terminology

­vii 112 114 117 122 122 122

3.3 Summary

123

4 Blessing in Mark 4.1 To God 4.2 From God

126 126 128

4.2.1 AUTHENTIC OBJECT 4.2.1.1 Jeremias’ view that euvloge,w paired with a direct object must be a graecism 4.2.1.2 Jeremias’ conflicting view that euvloge,w with a direct object is original to Mark 4.2.1.3 Mark’s use of euvloge,w with Jesus as the subject includes the use of a direct object 4.2.2 INTENTIONAL OBJECT 4.2.2.1 Accusative pronoun limits the action of blessing 4.2.2.2 euvcariste,w (8:6) and euvloge,w (8:7) clarify the direction of euvloge,w is not Godward 4.2.3 SUPERNATURAL EFFECTS 4.2.3.1 The direct object in 8:7 points to effectual encounter with Jesus 4.2.3.2 Exodus framework supports a consistent understanding of euvloge,w 4.2.3.3 Heavenward gesture is a reference to divine power



4.3 Persisting power

4.3.1 LITERARY AND GRAMMATICAL DETAILS INDICATE PERSISTENCE 4.3.1.1 Durative aorist euvlo,ghsen (6:41) points to blessing over time 4.3.1.2 Comparable participle euvlogh,saj in 8:7 is also durative 4.3.1.3 ‘While blessing’ is a better translation for Mark 14:22 4.3.1.4 Trajectory of persisting power is strengthened by subtexts 4.3.2 ENDURING BLESSING FOR BELIEVERS’ FEAST 4.3.2.1 ‘While blessing’ describes an overarching dynamic 4.3.2.2 Dual role of Jesus affirms dual nature of eucharistic blessing



4.4 Related terms

4.4.1 THE TERMS euvloge,w AND euvcariste,w EACH HAVE EMPHASIS 4.4.2 POPULARIZATION OF euvcariste,w 4.4.2.1 Liturgical setting focuses on the people’s role of thanksgiving

128 129 129 130 132 132 132 134 134 136 137

139 140 140 141 142 143 144 144 145

146 146 147 147

Contents

viii 4.4.2.2 4.4.2.3



Paul emphasizes each concept, blessing then thanksgiving Post-meal placement and prayer

4.5 Summary

5 Blessing in the Remembrance Motif 5.1 Remembrance motif in Exodus



5.2 Remembrance motif at the Last Supper





5.1.1 DEVELOPMENT 5.1.2 DIMENSIONS 5.1.3 MESSAGES 5.2.1 DIMENSIONS CONTINUE 5.2.2 MESSAGES INFORM

5.3 Summary

6 Blessing in the Remembrance Paradigm 6.1 Interwoven motifs in a paradigm for remembrance 6.1.1 NEXUS OF MOTIFS 6.1.2 TYPOLOGICAL PARADIGM 6.1.2.1 Jesus and the Cross are antitypes of Exodus 20:24 6.1.2.2 The Feast is the antitype of the covenantal meal 6.1.2.3 Typological place points forward to broader site and rite 6.1.3 STRUCTURAL PARADIGM 6.1.3.1 Review of structural paradigms 6.1.3.2 Exodus 20:24 is in the context of covenant 6.1.3.3 Exodus 20:24 evidences the motif of right worship 6.1.3.4 Exodus 20:24 presents blessing as a rationale 6.1.4 MANIFESTATIONS OF THE PARADIGM 6.1.4.1 All six Passover observances conform 6.1.4.2 Named altar serves as remembrance of victory 6.1.4.3 Named altar serves as remembrance of peace 6.1.4.4 Invocation results in blessing 6.1.4.5 Remembrance is an occasion to rejoice 6.1.4.6 Remembrance is an occasion for intercession 6.1.4.7 Echoes of the remembrance paradigm 6.1.5 LAST SUPPER LINKS TO THE PARADIGM 6.1.5.1 Shepherding images allude to the paradigm 6.1.5.2 Bread and wine are interwoven with the paradigm



6.2 Parallels between OT and NT remembrance

6.2.1 EMPHASIS ON DIVINE IDENTIFICATION 6.2.2 UNIQUE PHRASES 6.2.2.1 OT grammatical construction 6.2.2.2 NT grammatical construction 6.2.2.3 God remembering 6.2.2.4 People of God remembering 6.2.2.5 Remembrance involves both God and his people



6.3 Summary

148 153

154 156 156 157 164 164

166 166 170

172 173 173 173 175 175 175 176 177 177 177 178 180 180 180 185 186 186 187 188 189 190 190 192

194 194 195 195 197 198 199 201

203

Contents

­ix

7 Survey of Blessings 205 7.1 Blessings associated with the Feast through words of interpretation allusions 206 7.2 Blessings associated with the Feast through the feeding miracles 206 7.3 Blessings associated with the Feast through the remembrance motif 207 7.4 Blessings associated with the Feast through the remembrance paradigm 208 7.5 Summary 210 Conclusion The benefits of the Feast Original contribution to knowledge Conclusions throughout our study Strengths and limitations Implications Final Summary

211 211 212 213 216 216 221

Appendix A The Words of Institution Appendix B The Words of Interpretation Appendix C An Outline of a First Century Passover Meal

223 225 227

Bibliography 229 Index of Scriptural References

243

Index of Modern Authors

253

Abbreviations Abbreviations follow the SBL Handbook of Style. Additional abbreviations are listed below. AYB Albright, William F. and David N. Freedman, eds. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. BDAG Bauer, Walter, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edn. Rev. and edited by F. W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. BGT Bibleworks combination LXX and NT. LXX, Septuaginta edited by Alfred Rahlfs, Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt/Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1935. NT, Novum Testamentum Graece, NestleAland 27th edition, Stuttgart: Deutsch Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. CUP Cambridge University Press. DTIB Vanhoozer, Kevin J., ed. et al. Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Eccl. Pol. Hooker, Richard. Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity: Books I–V. London: John Windet, 1597. The Folger Library Edition of The Works of Richard Hooker. Edited by W. Hill. London: Belknap, 1977. Hist. Eccl. Eusebius Pamphilus: Church History. Trans. by A. C. McGiffert, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. Edited by Philip Schaff. New York: T&T Clark, 1890. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201. html, March, 2010. IB Instone-Brewer, David. Traditions of the Rabbis from the Era of the New Testament. vol.1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. NAU New American Standard Bible. Updated Edition. 1995. Scripture references will be to the NAU unless otherwise noted. NDBT T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy, eds. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000. NIB New International Version (UK). 1984. NIV New International Version (US). 1984. PLNTC The Pillar New Testament Commentary. 13 vols. Edited by D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–2010.

xii

Abbreviations

WTT Bibleworks BHS (Hebrew Bible, Masoretic Text, or Hebrew Old Testament), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudoph, Fourth Corrected Edition, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1990. Unless otherwise noted, translations are from the NAU, the Greek is from BGT, and the Hebrew is from WTT.

­­ ­

Preface The thesis of A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings is that there is scriptural justification for believers to expect the Eucharist to be a place where God will come and bless them with freedom and formation. The focus of this book is not on liturgics or the nature of the elements, but rather on the biblical message of the benefits of participation in the Eucharist. Why keep this Feast? As Richard Hooker wrote in Ecclesiastical Polity V.lxvii.3, ‘I wishe that men would more give them selves to meditate with silence what wee have by the sacrament, and less to dispute of the manner how.’ This is a detailed Bible study which considers the use of the OT in the NT, especially regarding the concept of ‘blessing’ in the context of the Last Supper and the Lord’s Supper. Passover passages, and the motifs arising from them, are shown to provide many insights into God’s design and purpose for the Eucharist. The scriptural messages elucidated here arise from careful biblical exegesis and theological reflection, and they can guide the Church’s continuing interest and involvement in the Feast. The Eucharist is both a biblical reality and a reality in the ongoing church, so this study employs a hybrid interpretive approach. It is a synthesis of historical-literary aspects of Biblical Theology and canonical-creedal aspects of the Theological Reading of Scripture, augmented by additional interpretive guidelines. This study suggests the term Scriptural Theology for this interpretive approach. This question and method are innovative in the field of eucharistic studies. Sections 2 and 3 show the Last Supper is a Passover meal and serves as a bridge between OT motifs and the NT Feast. The Johannine chronology has been difficult to correlate with the Synoptics’ Last Supper chronology and has made the paschal nature of that meal problematic for some. This study suggests a linguistic resolution to the issue. The words of institution and interpretation link back to OT antecedents and point forward to the blessings of the ongoing Feast. Section 4 argues that Mark understands the concept of blessing to be overarching, bidirectional, persistent, and dynamic. Sections 5 and 6 show that the Exodus context reveals a paradigm which links blessing with remembrance, and the remembrance motif describes these blessings. Section 7 gathers from the previous sections a lengthy catalogue of specific blessings, summarized by freedom and formation. The conclusion is the Feast is a divinely designed paradigm for right worship which is accompanied by a promise of epiphanic transformational encounters.



­­

Introduction Why study eucharistic blessings? Bishop Cocksworth affirms, ‘If the rising sacramentalism observable in this period [1960s–1980s] is to be sustained in later decades, the process of theological reflection and integration must also continue.’1 This study is part of that process. The Eucharist, in one form or another, called by one name or another, is an important aspect of Christianity. Across denominational lines, there is currently popular interest in the Eucharist.2 Such interest merits careful theological reflection to undergird and guide it, reflection especially upon the Scriptures.3 1 Christopher J. Cocksworth, Evangelical Eucharistic Thought in the Church of England (Cambridge: CUP, 1993; repr., 2002), 11. 2 e.g., devotional works such as Peter Leithart, Blessed are the Hungry (Idaho: Canon Press, 2000); E. E. Phillips, Do This in Remembrance of Me: Communion, the Passion of Christ (n.p.: Xlibris Corporation, 2004); Janet Morley and Jane Leach, Share this Feast: Reflecting on Holy Communion (Werrington: Trustees for Methodist Church Purposes, 2006); Douglas Feaver, This Do in Remembrance of Me (Greenville, SC: Ambassador International, 2008); Clinton Holloway, Lest We Forget: Meditations at the Meal of Remembrance (Nashville: Cold Tree Press, 2008); Craig Perry, Do This in Remembrance of Me: The Lost Supper (n.p.: Xulon Press, 2008), who believes Communion should be a meal with wine rather than a churchly ritual; catechetical works such as Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy (Athens, Ohio: National Student Christian Federation, 1963. 2nd ed. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 1973); Alexander Schmemann, The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 1988); Martin Marty, The Lord’s Supper (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1980); Steve Motyer, Remember Jesus (Fearn: Christian Focus, 1995), who comments briefly on the Eucharist as a prophetic sign; Robert DeGrandis, The Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist (Clear Lake, Texas: Praising God Catholic Association, 1998); Tom Wright, Holy Communion for Amateurs (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1999. Republished as The Meal Jesus Gave Us. Louisville: John Knox, 2002); Dennis Billy, Eucharist: Exploring the Diamond of Our Faith (Mystic: Twenty-Third Publications, 2004), who uses the metaphor of a diamond to refer to the multifaceted nature of the Eucharist; Thomas Watson, The Lord’s Supper (London: n.pb., 1665; repr., Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2004); Louis Accola, Given for You: Reflections on the Meaning of the Lord’s Supper (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2007); Jeanne Kun, Food from Heaven: The Eucharist in Scripture (Ijamsville, Maryland: The Word Among Us, 2007); Ralph McMichael, Eucharist: A Guide for the Perplexed (New York: T&T Clark, 2010); topical works such as John Hampsch, The Healing Power of the Eucharist (Cincinnati: St. Anthony Messenger, 1999), and Breige McKenna, The Power of the Sacraments (Dublin: Veritas, 2009), who focus on healing in the Eucharist based on their belief in transubstantiation; John Hicks, Come to the Table: Revisioning the Lord’s Supper (n.p.: Leafwood, 2002), who contends Communion is a meal at a table and is opposed to using altars. 3 Academic reflection about the Eucharist is ongoing in related fields such as historical, ritual and liturgical studies, but there is a deficit in the area of scripturally focused reflection, cf. section 1.3.2.

xvi

Introduction

This study seeks to offer such reflection and help to bridge the gap between church and academy. If the Eucharist really does warrant a preeminent position in the church, then there will be a scriptural basis for it. Richard Hooker writes in Eccl. Pol. V.lxvii.12 that Jesus meant by ‘This is my bodie’ the following: This hallowed foode, through concurrence of divine power, is in veritie and truth, unto faithfull receivers, instrumentallie a cause of that mysticall participation, whereby as I make my selfe whollie theires, so I give them in hande an actuall possession of all such saving grace as my sacrificed bodie can yeeld, and as theire soules do presently need, this is ‘to them and in them’ my bodie.

This study will argue that there is scriptural justification for understanding the bread and wine rite to serve such an important and effective role.

Where does this study fit into the larger academic discussion regarding the Eucharist? Extensive and valuable work has been done in the field of eucharistic studies over many years. The work spans a broad range of topics including the nature of the elements, the mode of the presence of the Lord, the role of the president, the qualifications for efficacy, proper preparation, the placement and wording of an epiclesis, liturgical forms, and the differentiation between Catholic and Protestant views of these issues. In most of this writing, acknowledgment is made that there is a benefit to the observance of the dominical sacrament of the Eucharist (except in the more extreme Puritanistic views). General references to ‘blessings’ and ‘innumerable benefits’ are plentiful. However, there is a void in the area of a scriptural theology to reveal in more detail what these benefits are. If the meaning and significance of the Eucharist were easily observable on the surface of Scripture, then it is possible that Christians would have had a more complete and unified view throughout Church history. However, this is not the case. A more complex application of hermeneutical methods is necessary to hear the scriptural message about the Eucharist. In this era of theological inquiry, interpreters have the benefit of learning from the strengths of Biblical Theology, and also integrating strengths of the more recent Theological Reading of Scripture; therefore, such a complex use of hermeneutical methods for eucharistic study may well be accessible now. The terminology of ‘the Feast’ will often be used in this study to avoid common preconceptions associated with other terms, such as ‘the Mass,’ which arise from various dogmatic systems. When an author prefers a certain term, such as ‘the Lord’s Supper,’ that terminology may be maintained in the discussion. Some of the foundational issues which others have explored to some degree and which are relevant to this current study include: the harmonization of the

Introduction

­xvii

Synoptics with John, which directly impacts the validity of the claim that the Last Supper was a Passover meal; identifying the most original versions of the words of institution and interpretation available to us, which clarifies the dominical intent and subsequent understandings of the rite; and, the meanings of primary terms in these words. Issues that relate more to anthropological ritualistic studies, liturgics, early Christian writers, and the development of eucharistic dogmatics and practice throughout church history are beyond the scope of this book. Ultimately, the goal of this current study is to employ a scriptural theology method and explore the potential benefits of the Feast with more specificity than has been done before.

What is the basic question of this study? Our overarching question is What are the potential benefits of celebrating, or keeping, the Feast? ‘Let us celebrate the feast’ (1 Cor 5:8). Why? Is there scriptural evidence to support an expectation of receiving blessing during the Feast? If so, are these blessings specified? The answer to this question impacts personal belief and expectations, guides communal teaching and practices, and contributes toward a biblical view around which various Christian groups could coalesce. Three primary subquestions relate to the larger question What are the potential benefits of keeping the Feast? First, it will be important to discover if the Last Supper was a Passover meal for if so, Passover will contribute to the meaning and expectations of the Feast. Secondly, if there are OT antecedents relevant to concepts found at the Last Supper and if the OT itself develops those concepts, they further illumine the meaning of motifs that persist through the Last Supper. Thirdly, if those concepts are expanded in the NT, they indicate trajectories of meaning relevant to the ongoing Feast.

What is the overall structure of this study? This book’s structure begins with a very broad view, looking at the world of biblical and theological study in general and positioning this work in its midst. Gradually the lens tightens to focus on the field of eucharistic studies, then the concept of blessing as it relates to the Feast, and then specific blessings of the Feast. Section 1 provides the vantage-point and methodology for this study. How can the scriptural message about the Feast be best understood? The Eucharist is a biblical topic, and therefore there are historical-literary insights which will help guide our discoveries. However, the Eucharist is not just a static historic occurrence. The Eucharist is also an ongoing reality in the church, and therefore canonical-creedal insights will also inform us. This section will describe our

xviii

Introduction

approach of Scriptural Theology in relationship to Biblical Theology and the Theological Reading of Scripture, the guiding commitments which will bound our study, and why Scriptural Theology is the preferred approach to answer our research questions. This section will then describe methodological tools including types, motifs, allusions, paradigms, and trajectories which will help to uncover the complete message of the relevant texts. Finally, section 1 will survey related literature and reveal the unique nature of this study’s question and method. Section 2 will focus on the subquestion of the Last Supper and Passover. Was the Last Supper a Passover meal? If so, Passover material and the broader Exodus context become important considerations. Literary and historical evidence and an analysis of the precise use of terminology will be used to search for indications of a Passover setting. Section 3 will set the stage for answering the subquestions regarding OT concepts by seeking to establish the text relevant to the Last Supper. A literary analysis of Last Supper narrative accounts in the Gospels and 1 Corinthians will seek forms of the words of institution and interpretation which reflect as much as possible Jesus’ own intent. Such authentic wording is necessary to form the bridge between OT antecedents and subsequent NT developments. Tracing the development of concepts from the OT, to Jesus’ intent at the Last Supper, to early church developments, is necessary in order to clarify how the canonical message about the Feast progresses within Scripture. Section 4 will explore Is there a controlling concept which can serve as a way in to the larger topic of the Eucharist? Since a detailed examination of all of the primary terms4 in the words of institution and interpretation is beyond a book of this size, this section will narrow our study around the concept of blessing. The concept of blessing features prominently in biblical texts related to the Eucharist and is elaborated upon in a relevant manner by Mark especially. The concept of blessing is directly related to our overarching question about the benefits, or blessings, of keeping the Eucharist. An investigation of linguistic (which words are used) and grammatical (how words relate to other words) details will uncover which dimensions of the overall concept of blessing can be pursued further in relationship to the Feast. Sections 5 and 6 will further pursue eucharistic blessing by asking Are there OT antecedents which are related to the Last Supper concept of blessing? This examination will keep in view the contexts and controlling concepts related to Passover and blessing uncovered thus far. The hermeneutical tools presented in section 1 will be applied to biblical texts which correspond with the controlling concepts. These tools are necessary to better elucidate the complete message of the established texts. Section 5 identifies OT motifs 4 For example, eschatological issues related to phrases such as ‘until he comes’ (1 Cor 11:26) and ‘new in the kingdom of God’ (Mark 14:25) which follow after the words of interpretation per se (see sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2) are subjects of great potential interest. However, such a study would be of a more systematic nature and is outside the scope of this study. See also section 1.3.2.2 regarding related studies.

Introduction

xix

which are antecedents to and further inform an NT understanding of the Feast. Section 6 describes a pattern for remembrance which persists into the Last Supper and Feast. Section 7 asks What specific blessings are associated with the Feast based upon the evidence thus far? This section will survey the previous sections and accumulate a catalogue of blessings which are associated with the Feast based upon types, allusions, motifs, paradigms, and trajectories. The themes of freedom and formation summarize the catalogue. The Conclusion aggregates an impressive list of sixty specific blessings this study shows Scripture links with the Feast. The Conclusion also includes suggestions for further study, topics which if studied with a similar method will yield even additional eucharistic blessings, indications that the liturgical phrase ‘innumerable’ may not simply be poetic hyperbole. The Feast is a place of remembrance where God promises to come and bless his people in countless life-changing ways.

1 Methodology The purpose of section 1 is to describe the method of Scriptural Theology, its relevance to our topic, and the unique nature of our inquiry in the field of eucharistic studies. Scriptural Theology is a synthesis of the historicalliterary aspects of Biblical Theology and the canonical-creedal aspects of the Theological Reading of Scripture. This approach is best suited for our question because the Feast is not only a biblical historical reality but also an ongoing reality in the church. Scriptural Theology augments the Theological Reading of Scripture by suggesting further guidelines to discovering the meaning of Scripture, including the starting point of the nature of God, and trajectories rooted in biblical evidence. Interpretive tools such as typology, motifs, allusions, and paradigms are instrumental in this approach. Our quest to answer, ‘Why keep the Feast?’ employing this method takes us into new territory in the field of eucharistic studies.

1.1

Interpretive approaches

1.1.1 Vantage points The Bible can be studied from a variety of different vantage points. It can be approached from the direction of history, literature, human endeavor, divine inspiration, sociology, or philosophy, to name a few. Each of these perspectives may yield helpful insights into the message to be found in the Bible; yet, one approach will function above the others as the starting point, as the basis from which to gauge the others. This study begins with the view which has been the mainstream Christian view for the last 2000 years, that the Bible is Scripture. It is not only a product of human authorship, but also of divine authorship. The nature of Scripture is dual; divinely inspired, and yet encapsulated in human history and language. Because we are approaching Scripture as a product of dual authorship, we will employ both general and special hermeneutics. General hermeneutics1 refers 1 Though not explicitly defined in exactly this way, the terminology of general and special hermeneutics is also used by: Treier addressing the issue of applying ‘general hermeneutics… theories of interpretation for any text to the special case of understanding Scripture…special hermeneutics…involved in reading the Bible as Scripture.’ Daniel Treier, Introducing Theological

2

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

to methods used to study the Bible as literature (e.g., grammatical structure, genre, figures of speech) and history (e.g., definition of terms in context, cultural considerations).2 Such historical-literary data can inform an understanding of the biblical texts and also aid in making important correctives to dogma gone awry. But, this data does not exhaust the message of the biblical texts. ‘Historical criticism is not comprehensive of interpretation but rather is preparatory for it.’3 General hermeneutics suffice only given the presupposition that the Bible is merely a historical record written disjointedly by various human authors. Given the presupposition that the Bible is inspired Scripture, additional specialized hermeneutics are necessary to discern Scripture’s full meaning. Special hermeneutics refers to methods used to study Scripture as divine revelation (e.g., according to the creeds, considering the church’s universal guidance over time, and viewing the text of Scripture as not only the product of human intention but also as a source for divine self-revelation). Special hermeneutics also refers to studying Scripture as a comprehensive book, that divine inspiration involves the initial inscripturation and also the ongoing process which resulted in the canon4 of Scripture. This approach to interpretation seeks to answer not only the questions of ‘What did the text originally mean?’ and ‘What was the Sitz im Leben of the text’s writing and initial application?’ but also ‘What is the divine author’s intent for this text?’ This final question probes not only the nature of Scripture itself, but also issues of God’s nature,5 God’s use of history, and God’s ongoing relationship with the community of faith. This study will employ aspects of both general hermeneutics and special hermeneutics. Biblical Theology is largely concerned with the former, and the Theological Reading of Scripture is a current trend toward incorporating the latter in the interpretive process. We will describe the development of thought leading from Biblical Theology through the Theological Reading of Scripture, to our hybrid approach of Scriptural Theology. Scriptural Theology includes a clarification of authority, an explanation of the guiding role of the nature of God in the interpretive process, and the validity of recognizing how concepts are developed along trajectories across the canon. Interpretation of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 35, 144–5; and by Vanhoozer, ‘What is the relation between special and general hermeneutics?’ and ‘I wish to explore the possibility that the Spirit plays a role in general hermeneutics as well.’ Kevin Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 414, 407. 2 ‘In 1860 Benjamin Jowett famously exhorted people to “read Scripture like any other book.”’ Treier, Interpretation, 127, referencing Benjamin Jowett, ‘On the Interpretation of Scripture,’ in Essays and Reviews: The 1860 Text and Its Reading, ed. Victor Shea and William Whitla (Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia, 2000), 482. 3 Treier, Interpretation, 16. 4 John Webster, ‘Canon,’ DTIB, 97. Here the list is what is commonly referred to as the Protestant canon, the thirty-nine Hebrew texts recognized by Jerome in the fourth century, and Athanasius’ AD 367 list of the twenty-seven NT books. 5 By God’s nature we mean here all attributes of his being, his character, and his relationships with his creation (e.g., universe, world, animals, and supremely humans).

Methodology

­3

The starting point of a biblical study impacts not only how other vantage points are judged but also the definition of specific hermeneutical tools. For example, if the Bible is solely a human endeavor, a disparate collection of literary records of historical (or even unhistorical) events, then there is little rationale for understanding a ‘type’ as something which is divinely intended to develop within the canon. However, if the Bible is Scripture, and God is the divine author of both history and all of Scripture, then a ‘type’ can be understood as a historical object with a meaning which transcends its own context and which can be developed in later books. After describing our vantage point of Scriptural Theology, this section describes our interpretive tools of types, motifs, allusions, paradigms, and trajectories. Finally, this section surveys others who have written about the Eucharist to learn if they address our questions, and if they do so from the vantage point of Scriptural Theology. 1.1.2 Development of thought J. P. Gabler’s distinction between biblical and dogmatic theology in 17876 was a watershed event which led to a chasm between academy and church, between modernistic Biblical Theology and dogmatic theology.7 Such modernistic Biblical Theology was predicated upon the importance of objectivity.8 In 1962, Krister Stendahl wrote accordingly of a marked distinction between what the text meant originally and what it can mean contemporarily,9 potentially pitting academy and church against one another. This version of Biblical Theology attempts interpretation independent of influences deemed unscientific, and it can result in a fragmentation or atomization of the Bible into various historically defined disjointed texts. Karl Barth,10 one of the forerunners of Theological Reading of Scripture, reintroduced a classic11 sense of the inspiration of Scripture. The Biblical Theology Movement of the next few decades was an early attempt to bring 6 Originally given as an address to the University of Altdorf, later published in Latin. Johann P. Gabler, ‘Oratio de iusto discrimine theologiae biblicae et dogmaticae regundisque recte utriusque finibus,’ Kleinere theologische Schriften (vol.2, ed. T. A. Gabler and J. G. Gabler; Ulm: Verlag des Stetttinischen Buchhandlung, 1831) 179–98, cited by D. A. Carson, ‘Current Issues in Biblical Theology: A New Testament Perspective,’ BBR 5 (1995): 17–41, citing 17. 7 Dogmatic, or systematic, theology refers to doctrines developed by the church’s systematic analysis, often focusing on concepts and themes (e.g., Trinity, missiology). 8 This is a false sense of objectivity. Even the modern ‘objective’ approach is dependent upon experience and presuppositions. It is a reaction against emotion and against dogma. ‘Biblical criticism is itself a confessional tradition that begins with a faith in reason’s unprejudiced ability to discover truth.’ Kevin Vanhoozer, Introduction, DTIB, 21. 9 Krister Stendahl, ‘Biblical Theology, Contemporary,’ IDB 1:430. 10 Karl Barth, ‘The Preface to the First Edition,’ in The Epistle to the Romans, translated from the 6th edn by Edwyn Hoskyns (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933), 1. 11 The term ‘classic’ refers to the era of the generations immediately following the apostolic era. This term is preferred over ‘pre-critical’ and ‘pre-modern’ which give the connotation that history is best understood relative to modernism and criticism. Rather, critical/ modern is one era or approach alongside the others. The others are better identified according to their own distinctives.

4

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

God’s self-revelation in history back into Biblical Theology, but it still doubted the supernatural dimension. James Barr criticizes the approach of some advocates of Biblical Theology who practice ‘illegitimate totality transfer,’12 noting that a term does not necessarily carry all of its potential meanings into every occurrence. Brevard Childs built on Barth’s work and responded to Barr with an emphasis on interpretation in light of the final canonical form of the text.13 The original intent of the human author is not as important as the message communicated by the final form of the text. Treier is concerned that this view at times can seem detached from a historical grounding.14 Christopher Seitz, like Childs, emphasizes the final form of Scripture. ‘By noting the prehistory of the text…a canonical reading can seek to understand the theology of the final-form presentation as a kind of commentary.’15 The canon is instructive and includes a perspective which guides interpretation. Francis Watson and Charles Scobie define Biblical Theology as an interdisciplinary approach, a bridge between historical and dogmatic interests. Watson emphasizes that the OT is to be read christologically. ‘From the standpoint of Christian faith, it must be said that the Old Testament comes to us with Jesus and from Jesus, and can never be understood in abstraction from him.’16 He understands such a bridge to be a ‘framework…capable of accommodating these new practices [e.g., feminist and canonical approaches] while not excluding more conventional [e.g., critical historical-literary] approaches.’17 Scobie also sees Biblical Theology as ‘a bridge discipline, standing in an intermediate position between the historical study of the Bible and the use of the Bible as authoritative Scripture by the church.’18 Treier19 suggests canon, creed, and culture as a way to describe the special hermeneutics of Theological Reading of Scripture that extend beyond Biblical Theology.20 Creed refers to reading in the light of the rule of faith 12 James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford University Press, 1961; repr., Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2004), 218. 13 Brevard Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 70. 14 Treier, Interpretation, 115. 15 Christopher Seitz, ‘Canonical Approach,’ DTIB, 100. 16 Francis Watson, Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 182, italics his. 17 Watson, Text, 95. 18 Charles Scobie, The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 8. 19 Treier, Interpretation, provides a helpful introduction to an emerging interpretive trend called the Theological Reading of Scripture, theological reading, or theological exegesis. Edward Klink’s review, RBL online http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/6649_7207.pdf, published and accessed May, 2009, refers to this book as ‘an excellent introduction.…Treier is well informed in the secondary literature.’ Theological Reading of Scripture may not be best described as ‘the renewal of a premodern reading strategy.’ Instead, it is the blend of pre-modern, modern, and postmodern ‘sensibilities…making this trend a truly new phenomenon.’ 20 Treier, Interpretation, 201.

Methodology

­5

Regula Fidei which ‘took shape in the ecumenical creeds and directed the church’s interpretation of Scripture for centuries.’21 The expression means ‘the faith of the church, received from apostolic preaching,’22 predates the era of the councils, and is found for example in Tertullian23 and Irenaeus.24 Such interpretation allows for presuppositions including: the Trinity, the Incarnation, the full humanity and divinity of Jesus, the centrality of the Cross, the Resurrection, the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit, the second coming, the final judgment, and a future eschatological order.25 The rule of faith also limits or borders interpretation by excluding non-creedal viewpoints. A. K. M. Adam recognizes the Bible has a theological sense and to read it accordingly requires more than a univalent approach. He and other interpreters in the Theological Reading of Scripture sphere are still debating the roles attributed to the text (Scripture), the community (church), and the reader (experience), but they agree ‘that the church makes a vital contribution to their discourse.’26 He agrees with Augustine that a scriptural text may have multiple senses, ‘What more liberal and more fruitful provision could God have made in regard to the Sacred Scripture than that the same words might be understood in several senses?’27 Adam’s weakness is an anthropological starting point which results in meaning being primarily a function of the reader. We will interact with him on this point further in section 1.1.3.2. Fowl provides additional arguments in favor of multivalence, not that the text has multiple senses, but a ‘multi-voiced literal sense.’28 He cites Aquinas’ Summa theologiae, Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Scripture is God, Who by one act comprehends everything all at once in 21 Ibid., 57. 22 Kathryn Greene-McCreight, ‘Rule of Faith,’ DTIB, 703. 23 Tertullian, Virg., 1. 24 Irenaeus elaborates that the rule functions like the key necessary to properly assemble mosaic tiles into the intended image of a king rather than a possible but unintended image of a fox. The person ‘who retains unchangeable in his heart the rule of the truth which he received by means of baptism…will certainly not receive the fox instead of the likeness of the king.’ Irenaeus, Ag. Her., 1.9.4. 25 As a way to combat gnostic heresy, Irenaeus mentions these scriptural standards in Apostolic creed-like sections in Ag. Her. 1.10.1 and 1.22.1 as summaries of a tradition or rule already two generations old (the apostle John had discipled Polycarp, who had discipled Irenaeus). See Tony Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought, rev. edn (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 12–14. 26 A. K. M. Adam, et al., Reading Scripture with the Church: Toward a Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 9. 27 A. K. M. Adam, ‘Poaching on Zion: Biblical Theology as a Signifying Practice,’ in Adam, Reading, 24, referencing Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 3.27.38 (trans. J. F. Shaw; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2), online http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.v.vi.xxvii. html, February, 2010. 28 Stephen Fowl, ‘The Importance of a Multivoiced Literal Sense of Scripture,’ in Adam, Reading, 35.

6

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings God’s understanding, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says [Confessions 12], if many meanings [plures sensus] are present even in the literal sense of a passage of Scripture.29

Like Adam and others, Fowl does acknowledge the rule of faith as a boundary. Fowl’s weakness, similar to Adam’s, is in a sociological starting point for interpretation. This leads him to view issues with a priority on human interaction, which section 1.1.3.2 will refute. Carson suggests a way to blend Biblical Theology and Theological Reading of Scripture which does emphasize the priority of the text over contemporary voices. His focus is on progressive revelation. This overarching concept serves to resolve the modernistic tendency of ‘atomization’ of the Bible and substantiates ‘eine gesamtbiblische Theologie a whole-biblical theology.’30 Treier’s concern is that this approach to blending does not seem to interact enough with the voices of the church across the centuries and the contemporary culture.31 Vanhoozer, like Treier, summarizes the views of many Theological Reading of Scripture interpreters who study the Bible not only as any other text, but also as different from other texts. Vanhoozer adds his own emphasis on the nature of Scripture as the divine discourse. Scripture will be rightly interpreted in light of God’s intended purposes for the text as uniquely inspired Scripture, ‘a word from God about God.’32 Joel Green agrees that reading the Bible as Scripture ‘draws attention to the origin, role, and aim of these texts in God’s self-communication.’33 Scripture is not just information, it is revelation. The four-year Scripture Project hosted by the Center of Theological Inquiry, Princeton, NJ, and its resulting The Art of Reading Scripture is a good summary of the Theological Reading of Scripture. Our Scriptural Theology approach is very similar to that project’s nine theses.34

29 Fowl, ‘Multivoiced,’ 41, referencing Summa theologiae 1.Q.1.art.10. 30 D. A. Carson, ‘Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,’ NDBT, 90. 31 Treier, Interpretation, 112–13. 32 Vanhoozer, Introduction, DTIB, 23. 33 Joel Green, Seized by Truth: Reading the Bible as Scripture (Nashville: Abingdon, 2007), 5. 34 Ellen Davis and Richard Hays, eds, The Art of Reading Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 1–5. The following refinements better align their theses to the method called here Scriptural Theology. Their first and second theses refer to God and the rule of faith. There can be great variety in how these are understood. We understand these in the classic sense. We understand the multivalence of the fourth thesis as ‘bounded multivalence’ as we describe in section 1.1.3.1. Their thesis six would be better clarified, ‘…presupposes ongoing maturing participation….’ The piety, not just the membership, of the reader is important. There is an ongoing reciprocal exchange as Scripture shapes the reader and the reader shapes an understanding of Scripture. The formation happens within the context of community, so a reader’s understanding is not actually individualistic, but communal. We see theses one through seven having precedence over thesis eight. We understand thesis nine’s rereadings to be part of progressive revelation not progressive truth, synthesis not syncretism.

Methodology

­7

Scriptural Theology attempts to synthesize the best of all these authors. Scriptural Theology tracks along with Barth’s and Childs’ move away from Gabler’s legacy of a dualistic view of Bible and church. Scriptural Theology agrees with certain points made by Adam and Fowl, but disagrees with their fundamental starting points. Scriptural Theology is indebted to Treier’s and Vanhoozer’s summary and analysis of Theological Reading of Scripture. In section 1.1.3 we will differentiate our Scriptural Theology approach from certain aspects of Theological Reading of Scripture as illustrated by Fowl and Adam. We will proceed in section 1.1.4 to detail Scriptural Theology’s contributions more fully. Here, we will note broadly how Scriptural Theology relates to Biblical Theology and Theological Reading of Scripture. Scriptural Theology is a hybrid interpretive method which is biblically grounded yet also open to reading Scripture theologically. Scriptural Theology contributes to the Theological Reading of Scripture discussion regarding how to validly determine multivalence given such moorings in the biblical text, and how to incorporate the interests of contemporary contexts. In section 1.1.4.2 we engage with Richard Hooker and clarify a line of authority with a priority on Scripture and discernment. Scriptural Theology builds upon Vanhoozer’s comments about the nature of Scripture by elaborating, in section 1.1.4.3, on the nature of God as the starting point for interpretation. God’s nature offers a way to synthesize the approaches of Childs, Carson, and Watson, as well as a way to address potential weaknesses. God’s nature, comprising issues such as: ‘What is God revealing about himself in Scripture?’; ‘What is God communicating about himself in this historic event?’; and ‘Why did God inspire its record in such a way?’, integrates canonical connectivity, progressive revelation, and historical grounding. An additional strength of Scriptural Theology is that the starting point of God’s nature helps to correct the dualistic ‘meaning then’ ‘meaning now’ approach. As Green notes, ‘The first question, then, is not what separates us (language…worldview…) from the biblical authors, but whether we are ready to embrace the God to whom…these writers bear witness.’35 Instead of ‘what did the text mean?’ Scriptural Theology emphasizes initial questions such as, ‘What is the text revealing about God?’ The answer to this question will be a transcultural revelation about the living God and his transformational purposes. The overarching purpose for the text is first God’s self-revelation. Then follow questions such as: ‘Did the first audience receive this revelation fully, in part, or at all?’; ‘What impact did this revelation have upon the first audience?’; and ‘Is this God’s intended impact for all audiences?’ Audiences do change, so Scriptural Theology is also a synthesis of boundaries paired with an openness to maturing insight into the full meaning of Scripture. Scriptural Theology recognizes that within bounds and over time, questions raised by contemporary voices may contribute to valid interpretation. 35 Green, Truth, 18.

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

8

Scriptural Theology also has its limitations. For those who prefer biblical study as a more academic discipline, distinct from issues of faith, this approach may not seem objective enough. For those who prefer a more pure form of practical theology, this approach may seem tediously tied to textual details. For those who want to read Scripture theologically with the concerns of the contemporary reader having priority, this approach may seem too limited by outmoded views of authority. However, given that our purpose is to address a churchly understanding of what Scripture has to say about the ongoing practice of keeping the Feast, Scriptural Theology’s synthetic approach is best suited to our task. 1.1.3

Distinctiveness of ST

1.1.3.1 Bounded multivalence We will describe the contributions of Scriptural Theology in section 1.1.4. Here we will differentiate Scriptural Theology from some in the arena of Theological Reading of Scripture. Scriptural Theology has a limited view of multivalence, and disagrees with those within Theological Reading of Scripture who prioritize the voice of contemporary or sociological interests. Ironically, the term ‘multivalence’ itself must be clarified here or it may be taken to signify a meaning outside what is intended for the purposes of this study. Adam comments that the ‘single best option’ mentality necessary for those interested in translation need not restrict interpreters.36 Adam’s point is basically that the semiotic (sign-ing) nature of language points to the potentiality of multi-meanings or multivalence in the text. As stated, Scriptural Theology disagrees with the subjective nature of his kind of multivalence. Rather, we espouse what we will call ‘bounded multivalence,’ the possibility that a text has meaning beyond what critical historical-literary methods may endorse, but meaning that is within the bounds of canon, creed, and the other criteria we will describe in section 1.1.4. Multivalence does not mean that the biblical text, being comprised of words, can mean whatever those words connote to different readers in their own contexts. It does not mean that the words of the text can have a meaning in a contemporary context divorced from their meaning in their original context. It does not mean ‘opposing’ meanings. It is not the same as arbitrary subjectivity. Opening the door beyond narrowly bounded critical Biblical Theology does not mean throwing that door open to reader-response approaches which allow the reader to create meaning without constraint.37 Multivalence does mean that the divine author may intend the words written by the human author to have multiple layers of meaning, all rooted in their historical Sitz im Leben. It does mean that when the biblical text is understood in light of its position in the canon Sitz im Kanon, the divine author may intend a fuller message to be heard through the text. ‘The Psalms, for example, have an 36 Adam, ‘Poaching,’ 21. 37 Robin Parry, ‘Reader-Response Criticism,’ DTIB, 658–61.

Methodology

­9

original cultic location that is then transposed into another theological key when cited in relation to the New Testament passion narratives (e.g., Matt 27:46’s allusion to Ps 22:1).’38 The full message of the text may have multiple layers. 1.1.3.2 Contemporary influences Within the ongoing discussion about Theological Reading of Scripture, there is still real debate over the volume or relative authority which should be attributed to contemporary influences. There seems to be basic agreement that cultural concerns, original, historic, and current, rightly figure in to the interpretive process.39 But in cases when these concerns seem divergent, for example if the original culture affirmed slavery and a current culture does not, which voice has priority, and why? This section will describe the tension in terms of synthesis versus syncretism, and then dialogue with Fowl and Adam as examples of syncretism. The voices in the contemporary context of the reader, including those of the current era of postmodernism, do play a role in interpretation. Some of these voices may be in contradiction to the rule of faith, and therefore from a Theological Reading of Scripture point of view are out of bounds. Some may be consonant and are at least initially worthy of consideration. We can summarize a plethora of opinions about the definition of postmodernism by saying that it is not a time of categorically new technology or concepts. Rather, it is a time when aspects of previous eras are being reevaluated and redeployed in an attempt to orchestrate a more wholistic totality. ‘Postmodernity extends modern suspicion to include…criticism of critical methods.…Critical biblical scholarship offers much help…but…a postcritical approach can incorporate the precritical spirit of interpreting Scripture as well.’40 Regarding ideologies in general and biblical interpretation specifically, this reevaluation can result in what we will call here synthesis versus syncretism. A reexamination of interpretive models from previous eras with the goal of a more wholistic totality may produce a synthesis of correlating, complementing, concepts; or, this reevaluation may result in a syncretism of incongruous elements. The challenge for interpretation is to grow in a synthetic rather than syncretistic direction; that is, to become more mature in our methodology, learning from the strengths and weaknesses of preceding eras, not getting stuck at any previous stage, yet not losing our moorings, either. Stephen Fowl and A. K. M. Adam provide examples of syncretistic interpretation. They listen to contemporary influences yet mix them with matters of faith in a way that detaches from classic and orderly interpretation. Their method, though within the broad definition of Theological Reading of Scripture, is not the same as Scriptural Theology. 38 Christine Helmer, ed., The Multivalence of Biblical Texts and Theological Meanings (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 4. 39 e.g., Davis, ed., Art, xiv–xv; Green, Truth, 17; Stephen Fowl, Theological Interpretation of Scripture (Eugene: Cascade, 2009), 14; Treier, Interpretation, 34–5. 40 Treier, Interpretation, 34.

10

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Fowl and Adam reorder the interpretive process to start with anthropological or sociological concerns rather than the classic priority on the text as God’s self-revelation. They give the voice of the current reader and culture precedence over the voices of the text and of the community of faith over time. As section 1.1.4 will describe, Scriptural Theology instead seeks to adhere to a clear order of authority which prioritizes Scripture and to a starting point of the nature of God, a theo-centric rather than human-centric approach. Fowl prioritizes the community and believes interpretation ‘needs to involve a complex interaction in which Christian convictions, practices, and concerns are brought to bear on scriptural interpretation in ways that both shape that interpretation and are shaped by it.’41 This study agrees with Fowl’s point in general, that the community’s voice plays a role in interpretation, but not with the priority he gives it. Two points can serve to elucidate our different approaches. Our first point of departure from Fowl is that our starting points are different. Fowl states his guiding principle for interpretation as Christians’ ‘ongoing struggles to live and worship faithfully before the triune God in ways that bring them into ever deeper communion with God and others.’42 In contrast, the starting point for Scriptural Theology is rooted in the nature of God, not the struggles of humanity. Fowl references Webster and gives a fair summary of Webster’s view of the central role of doctrines about the triune God, God’s self-presentation, and God’s desire for humanity to share in the divine life.43 However, as Fowl summarizes Webster, he presents wording which shifts an ordering which Webster states is essential. This shift results in elevating the goal of fellowship above the goal of God’s own self-manifestation. This in turn shifts Fowl’s hermeneutical lens to focus first on relationships rather than on the nature and character of God. Webster recognizes that revelation begins with the distinct dimension of God’s own self-expression. ‘“Holy Scripture” is a shorthand term for the nature and function of the biblical writings in a set of communicative acts which stretch from God’s merciful self-manifestation to the obedient hearing of the community of faith.’44 Further, God’s self-expression is not dependent upon humanity to any degree. ‘As spiritual presence, the presence of God is free: it is not called forth by any reality other than itself.…Its origin, actualisation and accomplishment require nothing beyond God.’45 The first goal of Scripture is not to serve humanity in a quest to enter into relationship with God and one another, as Fowl would say. 41 Stephen Fowl, Engaging Scripture: A Model for Theological Interpretation (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998), 8. 42 Fowl, Engaging, 3. 43 Stephen Fowl, Theological Interpretation of Scripture (Eugene: Cascade, 2009), 6. 44 John Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch, Current Issues in Theology (Cambridge: CUP, 2003), 5, italics added. 45 Webster, Scripture, 15.

Methodology

11­

Scriptural Theology would say along with Webster that the first goal of Scripture is to serve God as a vehicle for his self-expression. ‘The theological notion of inspiration needs to be expounded in clear connection to the end or purpose of Holy Scripture, which is service to God’s self-manifestation.’46 Webster also frames this approach in terms of proper ordering. ‘Holy Scripture’ does refer to a composite reality.…both the texts and the processes surrounding their reception are subservient to the self-presentation of the triune God, of which the text is a servant and by which readers are accosted…. This order is critically important because, unless their strict subservience to communicative divine activity is stated with some firmness, both text and practices of reading and reception may break loose and become matters for independent…explanation.47

And, Webster puts this ordering in trinitarian terms. ‘Revelation…is identical with God’s triune being in its active self-presence. As Father, God is the… origin of this self-presence; as Son, God actualises his self-presence…; as Holy Spirit…making it real and effective to and in the history of humankind.’48 It is here that Fowl moves away from Webster, phrasing the goal of Scripture in a reversed order. ‘God’s self-presentation or self-communication is an essential element in establishing and maintaining the fellowship God freely desires to have with humans.’49 Fowl frames the goal of Scripture in terms of first serving humanity’s need for fellowship. And, ‘For Christians, the ends of reading, interpreting, and embodying Scripture are determined decisively by the ends of God’s self-revelation, which are directed towards drawing humans into ever-deeper communion with the triune God and each other.’50 The first goal of Scripture, according to Fowl, is once again phrased in terms of fellowship, ‘the aims and purposes which Christians bring to scriptural interpretation (i.e. faithful life and worship).’51 Fowl here points first to human experience without acknowledging the priority of conforming such experience to God’s self-expression of his nature and character. Fowl goes further to even categorize Scripture in creaturely terms. ‘Scripture is the result of God’s condescension to human sinfulness.’52 Fowl even more clearly departs from Webster in his characterization of Scripture as accommodation to the human condition rather than as servant to divine self-expression.

46 Webster, Scripture, 35. Also, ‘In the context of discussing the relation between divine self-revelation and the nature of Holy Scripture, sanctification functions as a middle term, indicating in a general way God’s activity of appointing and ordering the creaturely realities of the biblical texts towards the end of the divine self-manifestation.’ Ibid., 9–10. 47 Ibid., 5–6. 48 Ibid., 14. 49 Fowl, Interpretation, 6. 50 Ibid., 6–7. 51 Fowl, Engaging, 12. 52 Fowl, Interpretation, 7.

12

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Fowl points to fellowship first, but Webster says, ‘Revelation is, third, the establishment of saving fellowship.’53 While Scripture does serve ‘in the saving economy of God’s self-communication,’54 Webster’s triune order points more fundamentally to the eternal self-existent expression of God’s Word. ‘It is very important to stress that, in proceeding from the doctrine of God’s self-revelation to the doctrine of the church, we do not move away from the Christian doctrine of God.’55 Scriptural Theology’s interpretive approach aligns with Webster’s ordering of the nature of Scripture, namely, that God’s eternal manifestation of his nature and character has priority over his merciful saving fellowship with humanity. At its core, Fowl’s is an anthropological and sociological starting point; its first and guiding subject is human experience and human relationship. In contrast, the starting point for our study is theo-centric. As we will discuss further in section 1.1.4, Scripture is first about God; it is his self-revelation of his nature. It is therefore incongruous to seek to interpret Scripture in a way that does not focus first on God’s nature. A logical precursor to Fowl’s guiding principle56 is the need to clarify the nature of the God with whom Christians desire to commune. God’s nature is of first concern for those desiring to relate rightly to him, for that relating must be on his terms. The nature and character of God’s being is a precursor to any discussion of communion with him. Fowl begins with the human need to relate to God and others, and proceeds interpretively from there. Scriptural Theology begins with the revelation of God’s nature, albeit perceived through relational means such as creation and redemption, and proceeds interpretively from there. Scriptural Theology’s first and guiding subject is the nature of God. In this sense, our study has a theo-centric rather than humancentric starting point. Our second point of departure with Fowl is the role of historical-literary tools in the interpretive process. We agree with Fowl that modernistic Biblical Theology falls short of discerning the full message of Scripture. However, Fowl embraces a starker separation between such biblical study and Theological Reading of Scripture than our study does. ‘The…works of professional biblical scholars can be usefully employed…on an ad hoc basis. There is no sense in which these things are necessary to Christian interpretation of scripture.…This tradition is deeply at odds with the type of theological interpretation I am advocating.’57 Rather, our study sees Theological Reading of Scripture as building upon certain aspects of Biblical Theology and maintaining continuity with historical-literary insights. God’s acts in history and God’s inspiration of their recording serve as the anchor, the moorings, for his self-revelation. So, our study does see a necessary role for certain biblical study tools. 53 Webster, Scripture, 15, italics his. 54 Ibid., 17. 55 Ibid., 42. 56 Christians’ ‘ongoing struggles to live and worship faithfully before the triune God in ways that bring them into ever deeper communion with God and others.’ Fowl, Engaging, 3. 57 Fowl, Engaging, 12–13.

Methodology

­13

In this era of synthesis, the goal is to integrate the best of the interpretive methods which God has brought to light in his church over time. One challenge to this goal is not to fall into hermeneutical syncretism, which in this sense would mean discarding some tools (e.g., historical-literary), re-ordering authority (e.g., elevating the role of the reader), or not operating within a consistent system (e.g., the rule of faith). Another challenge is not to get stuck in a previous era of interpretive practice.58 Fowl sees as an invalid practice that ‘A biblical theologian will posit that one or another theological view…is the controlling one that shapes and holds together all the others.’59 Yet, that is substantively what he himself does with his view that ‘to live and worship faithfully before the triune God in ways that bring them into ever deeper communion with God and others’ should have priority as a guide to interpretation. Our study admits to having a starting point meant to guide interpretation, which is God’s own nature as revealed in Scripture.60 Adam like Fowl has a sociological starting point. He states without caveat that historical-critical interpretation does not ‘set the terms on which further reflection must proceed.’61 He does not locate meaning as a function of the biblical text itself, basically because texts do not have self-evident universallyagreed-upon meaning. Adam’s view is that meaning is a function of the reader. ‘We infer meaning from the experience of attempting to arrive at a shared understanding.’62 In essence, he elevates the authority of current shared experience over the authority of established norms of interpretation. Adam has moved beyond the narrowly constricting approach of modernism, but he continues on to a place that is beyond boundaries other than experience. Addressing the familiar controversial issue of homosexuality, he begins without justifying his implicit assumptions that God has created more than two genders, that homosexuality should be addressed in the arena of social equality rather than sexual morality. He can only get to this place if he gives no role to the biblical texts which place it in the latter arena. He offers no explanation as to how his hermeneutical approach responds to the other texts, except generally to dismiss them as having no relevant meaning.63 Adam’s hermeneutical argument starts with anthropology and fashions his interpretation around human experience. Adam seems adept at listening to the voice of a segment of contemporary society, but he does not include a consideration of the voice of generations of Christians worldwide, neither does he address the significance of a majority voice in his own Communion which is still speaking against his theory. Adam ultimately appeals to his own 58 See section 1.1.4.4, referencing Spiritual Formation Principles. 59 Fowl, Engaging, 18. 60 See section 1.1.4.3. 61 A. K. M. Adam, Faithful Interpretation: Reading the Bible in a Postmodern World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 1. 62 Adam, Postmodern, 5. 63 Ibid., 148–53.

14

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

experience over the voice of the community. Like Fowl, he does not provide a justification as to why anthropology is a proper starting point for interpretation. Our hope is that the contemporary church will learn from previous generations yet press on to greater appropriation of God’s truth. In this postmodern era, God seems to be guiding the church into a more mature synthesis of interpretive method and of apprehended truth.64 Such synthesis includes dimensions of authority and order. However, as is so often true, there is a coinciding counterfeit of this process, in this case namely syncretism. Syncretism tends to level influences into an interpretive system without structured authority. We have described the development and distinctiveness of Scriptural Theology. Next we will describe in more detail the contributions Scriptural Theology makes regarding how to bound theological interpretation according to the boundaries of authority, the nature of God, and biblically rooted trajectories. 1.1.4

Scriptural Theology

1.1.4.1 Description Why are the interpretive approaches of Biblical Theology and Theological Reading of Scripture relevant to our question ‘What are the potential benefits of keeping the Feast’? Biblical Theology offers the historical-literary tools which can delve into the Last Supper texts, correspondences in the OT, and NT conceptual developments. A current understanding of the Feast can be rooted in the biblical answers of sub-questions including: ‘Is the Last Supper a Passover meal?’ (to resolve the chronology issue); ‘Are there OT antecedents relevant to the Last Supper?’ (to reveal Exodus paradigms); ‘Does the OT itself develop Exodus concepts?’ (to examine motifs and Prophets’ contributions); ‘Does the NT further expand upon those concepts?’ (to trace a trajectory from Exodus to Last Supper to Eucharist to Heavenly Feast). Theological Reading of Scripture offers insights from the community of faith, the one people of God spanning OT, NT, and Church eras, and how they have understood the nature of Scripture and the meaning of texts related to the Eucharist. The community’s understanding is reflected not only in their literature, but also in their practice. Biblical Theology’s literary analysis alone is therefore useful but insufficient. Further, neither the Passover nor the Eucharist are events that happened only at one point in history. Both are ongoing observances. Biblical Theology’s historical tools are therefore insufficient to uncover the full meaning of an ongoing phenomenon. 64 An example is the ‘redemptive-movement hermeneutic’ which supports a gradually improving understanding of the biblical message regarding Jews and Greeks, slaves and free, and men and women. Scripture communicates a message which condemns slavery, but that message is in germ form and has been fully comprehended only over time. This same gradual comprehension principle may apply to other issues which have similar scriptural germs. See William J. Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001).

Methodology

­15

The Theological Reading of Scripture interpretive approach helps to answer sub-questions including: ‘How can the Scriptural message about the Feast be best understood?’ (building upon historical-literary insights, but also incorporating the church’s approach to the Bible as inspired Scripture); ‘Is there a divine plan for appropriation?’ (considering the divine author’s voice through the canonical text regarding a divine paradigm for remembrance); ‘How does a churchly reading of the types and motifs uncovered by historicalliterary tools inform our understanding of specific blessings of the Feast?’ (discerning scriptural messages regarding divinely designed transformational encounters). Treating the current ongoing discussion of Theological Reading of Scripture as our Ausgangspunkt point of departure, this study suggests Scriptural Theology as a way to gauge and bound all the voices. Scriptural Theology does not include all elements of either Biblical Theology or Theological Reading of Scripture, but some elements of both, plus added dimensions of boundedness. The use of the term Scriptural Theology here is to be differentiated from how it is used by Gerhard Ebeling.65 Writing in the era of the modernistic schism between biblical study and systematic theology, he uses the term to distinguish between the theology espoused by the original writers and audiences of the biblical text, and the theology which can be subsequently derived from that text. In the modernistic Biblical Theology sense, Ebeling sees the former as ‘the theology contained in the Bible, the theology of the Bible itself’ ‘die in der Bibel enthaltene Theologie, die Theologie der Bibel selbst.’66 Ebeling sees the latter as ‘the theology that accords with the Bible, scriptural theology’ ‘die der Bibel gemäße, die schriftgemäße Theologie.’67 However, and as Scobie believes, ‘the problem with this is that all forms of Christian theology claim to be based in some way upon the Bible.…The idea of making a clear separation between what the Bible meant…and what it means…is a relatively modern one.’68 ‘Scriptural theology’ as we will use the term here, in contrast with Ebeling, indicates an integrated biblical message, a theology that is grounded in historical Sitz im Leben, understood through a divinely designed Sitz im Kanon, and perceived amidst the maturing church in der Mitte der reifenden Kirche.69 Scriptural Theology is a synthesis of classic, historical-literary, canonical, communal, and contemporary viewpoints. This interpretive approach does 65 Gerhard Ebeling, ‘The Meaning of “Biblical Theology”,’ in Word and Faith, trans. by J. W. Leitch. (London: SCM, 1963), 79. ‘Was heißt “Biblische Theologie”?’ in Wort und Glaube. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1960. 3rd edn (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967), 69. 66 Ebeling, ‘Biblical Theology,’ 79; ‘Biblische Theologie,’ 69. 67 Ibid. 68 Scobie, Ways, 5. 69 We introduce these latter two German phrases as a manner of communicating that these issues are as valid and important as the issue represented by the well established former phrase.

16

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

not embrace subjective multivalence, but rather ‘bounded multivalence.’70 Scriptural Theology also clarifies the boundaries of the order of authority, a starting point of the nature of God, and biblically rooted trajectories. 1.1.4.2 Clarification of authority As we noted above in section 1.1.3.2, there is an ongoing discussion within Theological Reading of Scripture regarding the relative roles of the biblical text (the historical-literary analysis of the human author’s original intent), the church (the creedal interpretations over the centuries), and the contemporary reader (with particular contextual concerns). Francis Watson’s description of how to order them serves to introduce our added clarification.71 First, the text is a trustworthy historic record and further its canonical form is a unified message revealing God’s intentions in Christ. The text includes internal commentaries, meaning that later texts can comment on previous texts within the canonical framework. Next, the church is to undertake interpretation with Jesus Christ as the center of both OT and NT, including consideration of previous and current questions and teachings. Readings of OT and NT are ‘reciprocally shaped’72 and the creed provides interpreters with ‘the limits within which it must work and beyond which it must not stray.’73 Then, current cultural issues can offer innovative yet consistent insights.74 Watson’s approach rejects the fragmentation of disciplines such as OT, NT, dogmatic theology, and biblical studies, in favor of an integrated method which he calls an ‘interdisciplinary engagement’ where ‘biblical interpretation should no longer neglect its theological responsibilities,’75 and where ‘exegesis and theology must proceed in dialogue with one another.’76 Watson’s approach serves to introduce our added clarification of the line of authority. Each voice and discipline inform the others, but in order for interpretation to be a synthesis of corresponding complementary concepts rather than a syncretism of dissimilar detached data, a priority of influence needs to be established. The movement of theological reflection is multidirectional, even if in a sense the line of authority moves in one direction, from the Bible to contemporary theology. These subdisciplines – exegetical, biblical, historical, systematic, and practical theology – parallel broadly…Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.…Scripture sits in judgment over proposals from the others.77

70 See the discussion of multivalence in section 1.1.3.1. 71 Francis Watson, Text, Church and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994). See especially chapters ‘The Autonomous Text’ and ‘Theology and Postmodernism.’ 72 Watson, World, 3. 73 Ibid., 6. 74 Ibid., 292. 75 Ibid., vii. 76 Ibid., 222. 77 Treier, Interpretation, 198.

Methodology

­17

So for example, the reasonable idea of reading Scripture according to literary genres may have come from secular literary studies, but it does not conflict with the authority of Scripture or tradition; therefore, it may be useful in interpretation. However, suggestions such as the presuppositions that Jesus could not have been divine, or that miracles did not and do not exist, run counter to Scripture and tradition and can therefore be discarded. Scripture, tradition, reason, experience. These are customary ways of referring to the sources of authority for determining truth. Treier uses the metaphor of lenses to describe these sources. Thinking in terms of lenses may provide a useful metaphor.…The very detailed historical and literary lenses of biblical scholarship help us to see vital aspects of truth that we dare not miss. But, used exclusively, they can leave out other dimensions of the reality that we are studying.…Theological interpretation of Scripture uses multiple lenses along the way but tries to integrate these various perspectives into a coherent vision of who God is and who that calls us to become in Christ. This…puts biblical interpretation into proper perspective. Historical and literary details may then appear in a different light.78

There is an order to authority. Scriptural Theology is clear, whereas Theological Reading of Scripture is not, as evidenced by Fowl and Adam, that Scripture and its vision of God are to take precedence. ‘Reading the Bible as Scripture accords privilege to the role of this text in divine self-disclosure.’79 One way to guard against subjectivism and syncretism is to seek to prioritize the scriptural message over contemporary interests. Contrary to the error which allows contemporary culture to be the extratextual starting point for determining the meaning of the text, an approach which grants first priority to the text provides the biblical lens through which to view current issues.80 Here Treier is of like mind with Richard Hooker’s ordering of Scripture, reason, and tradition. Richard Hooker81 has been largely misunderstood and misquoted over the years.82 The metaphor of a three-legged stool,83 where each leg is considered 78 Treier, Interpretation, 202. 79 Green, Truth, 11. 80 Treier, Interpretation, 81–2, referencing George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984). Ideally, contemporary issues are kept secondary to biblical authority. But, just as pure objectivism is out of reach, interpreters are likely to be somehow influenced by their own contexts. The goal is to be self-aware about such influences, and as intentional as possible about considering the message of Scripture as having priority. 81 Richard Hooker (1554–1600), an Elizabethan Divine who wrote in the sixteenth century, affirmed that there is an eternally existent, objective God who must be spiritually perceived. For him, ‘reason is the God-given faculty for apprehending the truth revealed by God in nature and Scripture.’ Chuck Collins, ‘The Three-Legged Stool and Helen W.’ Mission and Ministry 10 (1993): 1–3, citing 1. 82 I argued similarly in ‘A Contemporary Restatement of “Reason”, ’Anglican Moral Theology, VTS, December 10, 1993. 83 About the Anglican view of a tri-pod of Scripture, tradition, and reason (or four-legged

18

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

of equal measure regarding authority, grossly distorts his writing. A better metaphor for how the sources of authority relate involves three circles and three filters. Meaning spirals and filters down from God to human perception. Picture three gradually smaller concentric circles. The largest represents the infinite realm of all truth.84 The next smaller circle represents the finite realm of truth which is potentially perceivable by creatures. The next smaller circle represents truth perceivable within the fallen order. Within this final circle, truth is perceived through three filters: Scripture first, then spiritual discernment, and then tradition. The hierarchy is clear. What Scripture doth plainly deliver it is that the first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by the force of reason. After these the voice of the Church succeedeth.85

Scripture is the first filter, and second in the order of authority is reason. Hooker’s term ‘reason’ refers to the faculty to perceive that which is consistent with God’s nature,86 that which is godly or good. ‘Reason is the director of man’s Will by discovering in action what is good. For the Laws of well doing are the dictates of right Reason.’87 This perception of God’s nature includes a spiritual dimension and is not simply a mental activity.88 Therefore, the term spiritual discernment is a more accurate restatement of Hooker’s ‘reason.’ Recent interpretive discussion refers to the supra-mental, or spiritual, dimension of perception using the terminology of performance.89 The text of Scripture is not perceived only at the cognitive surface level; rather, just like notes in a musical score or words in a theater drama, deeper meaning lives at a participatory level. For Scripture, this participation is through faith. The biblical text will communicate messages to eyes and ears of faith which may escape unbelievers. ‘Resurrection faith does not come from the accumulation of evidence.…the truth of the resurrection can be perceived only by faith.’90 Just as with the musical analogy, some of the score of Scripture can be perceived at

stool, including experience), McGrath says, ‘Like all the best liturgical formulations, its origins are lost in the mists of history. However, as Cyprian of Carthage reminded his readers in the third century, an ancient tradition can just be an old mistake.’ Alister McGrath, The Renewal of Anglicanism (Harrisburg: Morehouse, 1993), 66. 84 Kirk agrees with Hooker that ‘the foundation of all things is in the eternal law of God’s own Being’ and is thus infinite and immutable. Terrell Kirk, ‘The Meaning and Application of Reason in Richard Hooker,’ SLJT 4 (1961): 22–35, citing 23. 85 Eccl. Pol. V.viii.2. 86 Stephen Neill agrees that Hooker’s definition of ‘reason’ is ‘the faculty in man which makes it possible for him to receive the revelation of God, to receive the revelation in the form of the Word of God.’ Stephen Neill, Anglicanism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), 123. 87 Eccl. Pol. I.vii.4. 88 cf. John 4:24; 1 Cor 2:12-14. 89 Barton offers a summary of the relevant works of Nicholas Lash, Rowan Williams, and Frances Young. Stephen Barton, Life Together (New York: T&T Clark, 2001), chap. 12. 90 Ibid., 240.

Methodology

19­

the surface level without Christian faith; however, Scriptural Theology affirms that there is a deeper meaning to Scripture available to believers. Spiritual discernment, what Hooker calls ‘reason,’ functions at this level. Faulty definitions of reason have contributed to interpretive troubles. Reason became equated with logic or the power of the mind. On the contrary Hooker believed, ‘The understanding is grounded…upon sensory impressions, while Reason is a higher and evaluative faculty.’91 Hooker’s term ‘reason’ means spiritual discernment and refers to the faculty to perceive that which is consistent with God’s nature, that which is true and right. Unfortunately, Hooker’s original meaning was lost and his use of the term ‘reason’ has been misunderstood. For example, a current author erroneously imposes a modernistic meaning and writes, ‘There is good precedent for the respectful wariness of contemporary Anglicans towards the exclusively revelationoriented theology of Karl Barth.…From Hooker onwards, human or natural reason has also been allowed to contribute.’92 This kind of confusion is not new. In Jesus’ day, people were trying to define what was true based on their own human logic. Luke 5:21 refers to the scribes and Pharisees who were questioning Jesus’ right to pronounce forgiveness. The scribes and Pharisees could not understand the spiritual truth that Jesus was properly exercising the authority, the divine authority, to forgive sins. Jesus’ actions were right, but they could not intellectually understand them. So, they decided logically that he was a blasphemer. Leaning on their own human reasonings, they called what was right, wrong, and what was divine, evil. In doing so they themselves were in danger of being the real blasphemers.93 Interpretation is not strictly a rational exercise where the mind is filled with more and more logic and facts. A capacity to evaluate the data is involved. This ability to discern right from wrong, truth from error, what is good or godly and what is not, can become increasingly accurate because the Christian reader and the church are being progressively spiritually transformed. This maturity process happens over time, and leads to the next source of authority, the corporate community. Tradition is third in the order of authority, not second as Hooker is often misquoted. Tradition to Hooker does not refer to dusty dogmatic doctrines; rather, it refers to the corporate spiritual discernment of the universal church community across the centuries. Hooker gives great credence to established beliefs and practices of the faith community. ‘Neither may we in this case lightlie esteeme what hath bene allowed as fitt in the judgment of antiquitie and by the long continewed practise of the whole Church, from which unnecessarelie to swarve experience hath never as yet found it safe.’94 Hooker

91 Kirk, ‘Reason,’ 25. 92 A. S. McGrade, ‘Reason,’ The Study of Anglicanism, edited by S. Sykes and J. Booty (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988; rev. edn 1998), 116. 93 cf. Matt 12:22-31. 94 Eccl. Pol. V.vii.1.

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

20

describes the basis from which such church belief and practice proceed, the apostolic message and the confessions of the first martyrs. This is basically the rule of faith. This wee believe, this we hold, this the Prophets and Evangelists have declared, this the Apostles have delivered, this Martyrs have sealed with theire blood and confessed in the midst of torments, to this we cleave as to the ancre of our Soules, against this though an Angell from heaven should preach unto us we would not believe.95

Hooker also recognizes that over time, that community may officially approve or approbate stances which are in line with the rule of faith. This is his meaning of tradition, the maturing voice of the church over time. And the framinge of our particular experimentes accordinge to the rule of theire principles shall make us such as they are. If therefore even at the first so greate accompt should be made of wise mens counsels touchinge thinges that are publiquelie don, as tyme shall ad thereunto continewance and approbation of succeeding ages, theire credit and authoritie must needes be greater.…For the world will not indure to heare that we are wiser then anie have bene which went before.…So that in this kinde there are fewe thinges knowne to be good, till such time as they grow to be ancient.…In thinges the fittnes whereof is not of it selfe apparent nor easie to be made sufficientlie manifest unto all, yeat the judgment of antiquitie concurringe with that which is receyved may induce them to thinke it not unfitt.96

Hooker’s approach to perceiving what is good or true is governed firstly by the voice of Scripture, next by the voice of discernment (i.e., what is consistent with God’s goodness or his nature), and thirdly by the voice of the gradual corporate consensus of the believing community. Scriptural Theology agrees. Scriptural Theology approaches the biblical text as Scripture, God’s divinely inspired self-revelation, and seeks to discern its message, which will first of all be consistent with God’s own nature. The text reveals who God is; and, who God is guides how to interpret the text. This is a reciprocal system, discerning what God is saying through the biblical text in a way that is consistent with who that same text reveals God to be. And, this discernment manifests corporately over time in the shared determinations of the universal community of faith. As this community experiences centuries of growth, it matures in its grasp of truth, recognizing both strengths and weaknesses of prior generations. Scriptural Theology understands the line of authority for interpretation in order as Scripture, reason, tradition, and then experience. The divine author’s voice arises from the text and from God’s nature. The human author’s voice arises from the text and from historical-literary analysis of its human setting. The church’s voice arises from generations of believers seeking to hear the authors’ voices, initially summarized in the canon and 95 96

Eccl. Pol. V.viii.2. Eccl. Pol. V.vii.3-4.

Methodology

21

creeds. The reader’s voice arises from the current interpreter hearing all these voices within the contemporary community of faith. The Scriptural Theology interpretive approach proceeds by listening to the voices in that order. 1.1.4.3 Nature of God Here we will elaborate on what we have already mentioned in the course of our discussion, that Scriptural Theology prioritizes the nature of God in the interpretive process. In his goal to discern ‘how Christian readers exemplify both freedom and restraint in their theological interpretation of the Bible,’97 Vanhoozer describes bounds in addition to the rule of faith, namely the interpretive guidelines which grow out of the nature of Scripture itself. Scripture is the vehicle for discourse, and the task of interpretation is ‘to discern what the Spirit is saying by means of what the human authors of Scripture have said.’98 This discerning is to be in accord with the divine author’s intent for the canon itself. ‘Readers ideally should approach the text in a manner that corresponds to what it is. Everything thus depends on how we understand the nature or ontology of the biblical text.’99 Vanhoozer believes this ontology involves divinely inspired discourse. The canon of Scripture is ‘both what humans have said through the Spirit and what God has said through humans.’100 Webster sees the terminology of ‘Holy Scripture’ as fitting ‘to depict these texts in the light of their origin, function and end in divine self-communication.’101 This discourse is not a simply verbal transaction, but also exists in the realm of action and effect.102 Vanhoozer sees the ontology of the Bible as being ‘a medium of divine illocutionary and perlocutionary action, a creaturely reality that has been set aside – sanctified – for a divine purpose.’103 Scripture is an ontological unity, and ‘because God is the ultimate author of the whole of Scripture…some illocutions will emerge only in light of the canonical context.’104 To miss these connections can result in what Vanhoozer terms ‘thin’ interpretations, rather than the ‘thick descriptions of the divine discourse.’105 Scripture is ultimately from God, about God, for God. The question, ‘Who is God?’ therefore precedes even Vanhoozer’s question, ‘What is Scripture?’ Vanhoozer does refer to the centrality of a reader’s doctrine of God, but he does not actually articulate God’s nature as a boundary for multivalence. ‘A properly theological criticism will…seek to do justice to the priority of 97 Kevin Vanhoozer, ‘Imprisoned or Free? Text, Status, and Theological Interpretation in the Master/Slave Discourse of Philemon,’ in Adam, Reading, 58. 98 Vanhoozer, ‘Free,’ 60–61. 99 Ibid., 62. 100 Ibid., 63. 101 Webster, Scripture, 5. 102 Vanhoozer, ‘Free,’ 65. Vanhoozer expounds on speech act theory which involves the three aspects of a speech act, the saying (locution), what is done in saying or in order to say something (illocution), and what is done by saying something (perlocution). 103 Ibid. 104 Ibid., 71. 105 Ibid.

22

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

God.’106 ‘Our doctrine of God affects the way we interpret the Scriptures, while simultaneously…our interpretation of Scripture affects our doctrine of God.’107 Vanhoozer states that his ‘focus here is less on establishing “what actually happened” than on reading the Bible in terms of divine authorship or as divinely appropriated human discourse.’108 Scriptural Theology’s claim is that considerations of God’s nature address a concern that Vanhoozer’s discourse approach can lack historical grounding. This is so because consideration of God’s nature, ‘Who is God?’ includes related questions such as: ‘What is God revealing about himself through this actual historic event?’; ‘Why did he inspire its inscripturation in this final form?’; and ‘What is he revealing about his relationships with his creation and his people?’ These theology-proper questions validate the need for contributions from historic, literary, and canonical-creedal data. Establishing God’s nature as the starting point for interpretation binds or directs the role of each of these other disciplines with a unified and orderly raison d’être. So, Scriptural Theology takes Vanhoozer’s discussion a bit further by articulating that the nature of God is a fundamental boundary and starting point for interpretation. God’s word will reflect not contradict God’s nature.109 For example, if something in Scripture, such as Jesus himself, or marriage, or creation, is a revelation or insight into the nature of God, then those things will be consistent with God’s own nature.110 Thus theology proper, the study of God himself, is the queen of all the other disciplines. A valid interpretation of God’s word, even the multivalent full meaning, will be justifiably consistent with God’s own nature. Our interpretive approach anchored in the nature of God can be illustrated with a modification of the round table conversation suggested by Caird. He believes the interpretive process is like presiding ‘at a conference of faith and order. Around the table sit the authors of the New Testament, and it is the presider’s task to engage them in a colloquium about theological matters which they themselves have placed on the agenda.’111 Caird assumes the validity of the modernistic compartmentalization of OT and NT theologies as distinct disciplines, and such biblical theologies are distinct from the influence of dogmatics. As a modernist, Caird supports the possibility of pure objectivity

106 Vanhoozer, Introduction, DTIB, 22. 107 Ibid., 23. 108 Ibid. 109 Again, as previously stated just above, this is a valid reciprocal system, not a problematic circular system. As with any literature when the author is not immediately present, we learn about the author through his writing, and as we know him better, we can better gauge how and why he might write in a certain way. This is all the more true given a belief in the ongoing role of the Holy Spirit as an active guide in the interpretive process. See also comments regarding the NT writers’ dialogical interaction with the OT in section 1.2.3.3. 110 This would be a point to debate or clarify with Adam and Fowl. 111 G. B. Caird, New Testament Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 18.

Methodology

­23

and the accessibility of the original author’s intent through historical-literary criticism.112 Scriptural Theology recognizes the instructive value of historic and literary studies, but rejects modernistic divisions and reliance upon supposed autonomy. Rather, Scripture is an integrated whole and is best understood as such. Caird answers the question, ‘Ought not Mark, Paul, and John to sit down at the conference table with Moses and all the prophets?…The simple and final answer is that this is an academic impossibility: the modern Apollos cannot be equally learned in the scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments.’113 Scriptural Theology resolves such a modernistic cliquish table by embracing communal interpretation. Even if one scholar cannot exhaustively describe such a trans-testamental conversation, the community together can work toward doing so. Caird admits that the convener of the conversation ‘is bound to influence the discussion by the questions it puts on the agenda and by the order in which it calls on the speakers.’114 The goal of the Scriptural Theology convener is to pull up enough chairs for all who can contribute to the conversation, and continually to orient the discussion around a foundational issue, namely, the self-revelation of God in Scripture. Scriptural Theology puts on the table God’s nature as a means to link all the voices, and as a means for ‘then’ and ‘now’ to coalesce. The Scriptural Theology convener guides the discussion by keeping in play questions such as, ‘What was God revealing about his nature through that historic event, or through the manner in which he inspired its inscripturation?’ The Scriptural Theology convener does not have in mind, as Caird does, presiding at a conversation in front of or for the sake of a modernistic audience whose need is to uncover what is ‘rational’ in the modernistic sense. Rather, the Scriptural Theology convener allows in a proper order the audience to contribute to the conversation. Caird himself opens the door to this elaboration of his round table model. He looks to the Jerusalem council described in Galatians 2:1-10 as the template for his conversation. He affirms there the priority of apostolic arbitration of truth, the role for spiritual insight, understanding Jesus’ message in light of its roots in the OT, and the role of the church in recognizing contextualization through consensus.115 Ongoing tensions were manageable ‘because they had recognized that the same God was at work both in Peter’s mission to the Jews and in Paul’s mission to the Gentiles.’116 The Jerusalem council’s convener brought the discussion back to God, his being and his mission. Scriptural Theology invites OT and NT authors to sit at the same table, allows voices from the era of the creeds and canon to offer insights, and when all these deem it appropriate, opens the floor to suggestions from the audience. 112 Caird, Theology, 1–3. 113 Ibid., 24. 114 Ibid., 19. 115 Ibid., 22–4. 116 Ibid., 24.

24

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Over time, the interpretive community of faith matures in its understanding and appropriation of God’s self-revelation in Scripture. 1.1.4.4 Trajectories of meaning We have introduced the terminology ‘bounded multivalence’ and have described it as involving a clarified line of authority and the priority of God’s nature for interpretation. Multivalence can be further bounded by refining the classic use of types and motifs. Scripture at times develops concepts along a trajectory employing types and motifs. For example, the concept of relating to God moves from general monotheism, to a covenant people with primarily external interactions with God, to a covenant people with internal spiritual interactions with God, to someday a covenant people with complete immediate interaction with God. In Christ, there is the capacity for progress.117 Scriptural Theology’s claim is that a way to gauge the validity of a suggested meaning is if it can be shown to be a further step along a justifiable trajectory of meaning evidenced in the scriptural text. Types and motifs are practical tools to this end. A meaning without any antecedent in Scripture falls outside the bounds of multivalence as we understand it. The introduction to the new Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible points to an interpretive process which incorporates consideration of the church’s understanding over time, how the church arrived at those understandings, the church’s practices as lived-out understandings, and also an analysis of Scripture as interrelated texts.118 This analysis is a method which recognizes types and the development of concepts through motifs. Scriptural Theology articulates that types119 and motifs can indicate valid trajectories of meaning within the biblical text, and they can help bound suggested meanings of Scripture.

117 I introduced an understanding of Galatians 3:28 in my D.Min. dissertation which includes studying how God has been at work maturing the Bride of Christ throughout history. Just as a mentor disciples a pupil, God is discipling the Bride. Successive eras of church history can be shown to reflect certain characteristics in this process (e.g., core truth, then transcendence, then personal responsibility, then immanence). In this light, Gal 3:28 can be seen as chronologically progressing. In church history, the Jew-Gentile issue was tackled first, then slavery, now women. Each step takes centuries, and may not be fully complete until the final day. The trajectories are in Scripture, and take a long time for the church to corporately discern. Susan Bubbers, Reviving Spiritual Formation Principles for Postmodern America, D.Min. Dissertation, RTS, May 2002, 76–8, 88, 157–8, 212. 118 R. R. Reno, series preface in Joseph Mangina, Revelation, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005), 9–14. 119 Note Scriptural Theology’s definition of a type includes consideration of historicity, which is a distinction as compared with, for example, Pelikan’s emphasis (Brazos Acts) on the history of interpretation, which is critiqued as a rejection of history by Charlie Trimm, ‘Evangelicals, Theology, and Biblical Interpretation: Reflections on the Theological Interpretation of Scripture,’ BBR 20 (2010): 311–30, citing 319.

Methodology

­25

1.1.4.5 Pond metaphor Various metaphors have been suggested by various authors thus far, including in section 1.1.2 Scobie’s suggestion that Biblical Theology functions like a bridge, in section 1.1.4.2 Treier’s referring to Biblical Theology and Theological Reading of Scripture as lenses, and in section 1.1.4.3 Vanhoozer’s image of thin and thick descriptions of the divine discourse. Given our discussion of bounds, another metaphor seems in order, the metaphor of a pond. Picture a pond. It represents the full meaning of Scripture. It has edges or bounds. It has depth. The bounds ideally are God’s divine intentions for Scripture. These are approximated as best as humanly possible by canon, creed, the nature of God, orderly authority, and justifiable trajectories of meaning. The depth of the pond represents a progressively more mature corporate apprehension of Scripture’s full meaning. This study will plumb the depths of the pond according to Scriptural Theology, seeking to answer the question, ‘What are the potential benefits of keeping the Feast?’ With Scriptural Theology established as our vantage point for interpretation, the next step is to describe more specific tools for examining Scripture. Our interpretive approach includes the following understanding of types, motifs, allusions, paradigms, and trajectories.

1.2

Interpretive tools

Before engaging the question of the Last Supper and Passover (section 2), section 1.2 will describe the hermeneutical tools that will be used later in the study (sections 3–6). Here we will describe our understanding of types, motifs, allusions, paradigms, and trajectories. We will include examples of how these tools will function in our study. These examples also provide background information relevant to our analysis of Passover and its impact on understanding the Last Supper and the ongoing worship of the community of faith. Our Scriptural Theology method affirms approaching Scripture as a unified whole, so these tools have an intertextual scope which can range within books, between books, and between OT and NT. These tools are those best suited for our intertextual topic of the Feast for, as we shall see in sections 2 through 6, its roots are in the OT Exodus and Passover, and the NT commissions it as an ongoing observance. Tools such as these provide a way to identify links between the Feast and its antecedents, and to trace the development of messages which arise from employing both general and special hermeneutics. 1.2.1 Types 1.2.1.1 Description The classic use of typology arose from a different mentality regarding meaning itself, so it has been difficult for modernists to value. Modernists have a ‘referential theory of meaning, which assumes that our words and sentences

26

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

are meaningful insofar as they successfully refer or point.’120 In other words, the meaning of the words ‘guilt offering’ is limited to the historical objects to which those words refer. Patristic exegesis was grounded in a different assumption of meaning. For them, divine providence shaped the text, and therefore terms could be heard together on the surface of Scripture, without seeking a connecting reality of authorial intent behind the text.121 In other words, even if the human author who wrote ‘guilt offering’ did not have Jesus in mind when he wrote the words, the divine author did, and so the words can serve another purpose, which is to refer to the one whom Scripture describes as consistent with realities in the guilt offering. Such word associations were deemed valid in classic interpretation if over time they proved to be part of the ‘intensive work of reading the details of scripture so that they fit together into an interlocking whole’122 and if they ‘served the broad patristic goal of providing Christ-centered, comprehensive interpretation of scripture.’123 Theological Reading of Scripture moves in the direction of recovering such a classic use of typology. Treier believes recently ‘a number of scholars have begun to pursue and defend a more nuanced understanding of typology in order to hold together the Testaments.’124 Scriptural Theology is located here. However, it is important for us to clarify how our use of typology differs from some others. Our definition of a type is a historical-literary person, object or event with meaning in its own context, correspondence with subsequent biblical reality(ies), retrospectively evident value for instruction, and explicit or derived identification. There are times when the subsequent reality escalates and fulfills the type, such as Jesus being the perfect man and antitype of Adam.125 This does not detract from the type’s significance in its own setting. 120 John J. O’Keefe and R. R. Reno, Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of the Bible (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2005), 8. 121 This view is consistent with Webster’s discussion of the meaning of inspiration. The words of Scripture are consecrated servants for God’s communication. Webster’s understanding of ‘Those moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God’ (2 Pet 1:21) is that the inspiration of the text includes but is not limited to a past moment of divine interaction with a human author. Rather, inspiration is ‘operative,’ the verbal character of the text is not a ‘docetic…distinction between (inspired) content and (creaturely) form’ and it is ‘the relation of God’s communication and specific creaturely forms.’ Webster, Scripture, 25, 36–8. Throughout his book, Webster describes the involvement of the Holy Spirit throughout God’s communicative process with his people, including inscripturation, canonization, interpretation, and formation of readers. 122 O’Keefe, Vision, 45. 123 Ibid., 66. 124 Treier, Interpretation, 47. 125 Rom 5:14. Though the OT does not explicitly identify Adam as a type, Paul does. This illustrates Scriptural Theology’s position that types need not be explicitly identified in Scripture. This example of typology also helps to clarify typology’s relationship to exegesis in general. Exegesis is the pursuit of determining the meaning of a text based upon the author’s original intent, including the use of the historical-critical method. Typology provides additional insight in retrospect from the vantage point of the NT era. Taken together, the full value of the text becomes clearer. See Friedbert Ninow, Indicators of Typology within the Old Testament: The Exodus Motif

Methodology

­27

There are also times when the type serves a more particularly instructional role, such as Israel’s idolatry being a type or example of what Christians are to avoid.126 Thiselton agrees, ‘Now these events occurred as formative models for us’ (1 Cor 10:6).127 1.2.1.2 Not allegory Though Scriptural Theology does recognize types beyond those explicitly labeled as such in the text, correspondences based upon textual evidence must be established between the realities. Not every bit of biblical minutia can be labeled a ‘type’ just because it shows some similarity with another element or idea. This can quickly deteriorate into unfounded allegory. Zuck provides the examples of Clement who taught that ‘in the feeding of the 5,000 (Luke 9:10-17) the two fish represent Greek philosophy (The Miscellanies 6.11)’128 and Origen who taught that ‘in Jesus’ triumphal entry the donkey represented the Old Testament, its colt depicted the New Testament, and the two apostles pictured the moral and mystic senses of Scripture.’129 Ninow believes, ‘This typological-allegorical approach tended to depreciate the historicity of facts and events transmitted in the biblical account.’130 Such allegorizing of Scripture cannot be allowed to confuse the issue of genuine typology. ‘Much of what was later used to discredit typology was based on the misperception of typology as allegory stemming from developments within this patristic period.’131 Typology as it is used in this study is not allegory. 1.2.1.3 Developing messages Typology as we use it is a way to identify biblical realities which contribute to messages which the divine author develops over time in history and in the canonical text. This interpretive approach is consistent with that evidenced in the text itself. Israel’s view of their own history is an indicator that even within the OT the collection of types expands through explicit identification and also derived usages, and they refer frequently to such types. Israel’s pivotal encounters with God are historical anchors which OT writers repeatedly draw upon to interpret their own eras and frame expectations for the future. Foulkes writes, (Friedensauer Schriftenreigh, Reihe Theologie, Band 4. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2001), 48, 67, 80–89. 126 1 Cor 10:1-13. Another example would be how God ‘speaks altogether for our sake’ about not muzzling the ox as a way to offer instruction regarding how Christians are not to hinder those who labor on their behalf (1 Cor 9:9-14). The OT law had meaning in its own setting, and further the divine author adds another layer of meaning as the canonical message develops. 127 Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 719. 128 Roy Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Colorado Springs: Cook Communications, 1991), 33–6. Clement AD 155–216, not Clement of Rome AD 30–95. 129 Zuck, Interpretation, 36, no original source cited. 130 Ninow, Typology, 24. Zuck adds that these ‘hermeneutical views…had a strong impact on the church for centuries to come.’ Zuck, Interpretation, 35. 131 J. E. Alsup, ‘Typology,’ ABD 6:684a.

28

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

In the very early stages of the national life of Israel there was a looking back to what God had done for them in making them a nation and to the way in which He had covenanted with them that He would be their God and they would be His people. They came to look back in particular to three great ‘moments’ in their history, the call of Abraham, the Exodus, and the reign of David.132

OT and NT writers affirm the reality and significance of the historic event, for example the covenant with Abraham.133 Then, based upon this literal exegesis and meaning, they employ typology to point beyond to a further meaning.134 This is ‘…a method of interpretation of history. Its basis is in the Old Testament understanding of the unchanging nature of God and His unchanging covenant and principles of dealing with men.’135 Polliack explores an example of this in Isaiah.136 Scripture does not explicitly identify Jacob as a type, but Polliack presents evidence that Isaiah uses him as such. Polliack prefers Michael Fishbane’s terminology of ‘inner-biblical typology’ to the more general ‘intertextuality’ as she examines ‘Deutero-Isaiah’s appropriation of earlier biblical materials.’137 Inner-biblical typology is an interpretive method, that relates to certain characters or events as archetypes of characters or events that are conceived of as operating in a later time zone. Deutero-Isaiah’s references to Jacob may be assigned to the subcategory defined by Fishbane as ‘biographical typology’, which constitutes ‘the typological alignment in the Hebrew Bible of persons and the correlation or interfacing of their personal traits and personal behaviors.’ The personality of Jacob is aligned in this respect with that of his descendants.138

Polliack discusses how Isaiah uses Jacob as a type of: the collective of God’s people (e.g., Isa 41:8); those guilty of sin (e.g., Isa 40:27); and, the process of transformation and overcoming struggles through trust (e.g., Isa 40:27-31; 41:8-13; 43:1-7).139 Zuck would refer to such OT non-explicit prefigurations as ‘illustrations’ rather than types,140 but he does acknowledge the same innerbiblical dialogue.

132 Francis Foulkes, The Acts of God: A Study of the Basis of Typology in the Old Testament (London: Tyndale, 1955), 9. 133 e.g., Exod 2:24; 2 Kings 13:23; Ps 105:9; Acts 3:25, 7:8. 134 e.g., Micah 7:20; Rom 4:16; Gal 3:6-7, 18, 4:22-31; Heb 11:17; Rom 8:32. 135 Foulkes, Acts, 40. 136 Meira Polliack, ‘Deutero-Isaiah’s Typological Use of Jacob in the Portrayal of Israel’s National Renewal’ in Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition, JSOTSup 319 (ed. David Clines and Philip Davies; London: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 72–110. 137 Polliack, ‘Jacob,’ 74–5. 138 Ibid., 75–6. Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1988), 372. 139 Polliack, ‘Jacob,’ 76–80. 140 Zuck, Interpretation, 176.

Methodology

­29

The NT writers continue this interpretive method of repeatedly recognizing types. David Pao studies several Isaianic types which recur and progress in Luke-Acts. For example, the journey of deliverance and provision out of Egypt (e.g., Exod 17:2-7) is the type for Isaiah’s message of future deliverance (Isa 40:3-5; 43:16-19; 48:20-21; 52:7-12) and the basis for o`do,j ‘way’ terminology in Acts (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22).141 Our study will explore types related to Israel’s worship within the Exodus framework of God’s deliverance and forming of a people for himself. And, our study will listen for messages about right worship which develop as subsequent canonical texts revisit these types. ‘The OT realities are linked to their eschatological fulfillment in Christ’s first coming (inaugurated), the Church (appropriated), and/or Christ’s second coming (consummated).’142 This progression is supported by Davidson’s conclusions regarding the meaning of tu,poj, ‘(1) the matrix or Vorbild, i.e., what leaves its impress; (2) the impression or Nachbild, i.e., the result of the impress or blow, or what is produced by the matrix; and (3) the matrix or Vorbild which is at the same time an impression or Nachbild.’143 We will look at texts about Exodus and Passover and identify concepts which develop in the canon and inform our understanding of the Last Supper, the Feast, and even glimpses into an ultimate feast after Christ’s second coming. A concept may recur across OT and NT even if the same type is not always explicitly referenced in relation to it. For example, given that the Passover is a type of salvation in Christ, the Passover-concepts of ‘deliverance/freedom’ and ‘relationship/formation of a people’ reoccur through various types and are (using Davidson’s pattern): accomplished historically (the Passover event itself, Vorbild )

inaugurated by Christ’s blood (the Cross, the Nachbild)

memorialized memorialized (the Passover rite, Vorbild ) (the Last Supper, Nachbild, also the Vorbild for the ongoing Feast) appropriated historically (possession of Promises, Vorbild, and the Vorbild rite is maintained)

appropriated by the Church (possession of Promises, Nachbild, and the rite is maintained in the Feast, the Nachbild of the Last Supper and the Vorbild for the eschatological Feast)

consummation prophesied (e.g., Isa 65:17-25; Jer 31:10-14)

consummated (the Parousia and new order, Nachbild)

141 David Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 54–9. 142 Edward Glenny, ‘Typology: A Summary of the Present Evangelical Discussion,’ JETS 40 (1997): 627–8, citing 636. 143 Davidson, Typology, 131–2.

30

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Another example of types contributing to a recurring concept is the motif of right worship found in: the types of the tabernacle (Exod 25:40; Acts 7:43-44 contrasted with the tu,poj ‘images’ for the worship of Moloch); the types of the sacrifices offered there (e.g., the guilt offering which is to be offered for sins ‘against the Lord’s holy things’ Lev 5:15; Isa 53:10); and, the types of Moses and the Israelites as they journeyed through the wilderness (1 Cor 10:1-12, esp. vv.6 and 7). We will further describe such motifs below in section 1.2.2. Typology is a divinely appointed use of history and tangible reality which abets the communication of timeless principles and the identification of timely applications. In Ellis’ words, When Paul speaks of the Exodus events happening tupikw/j and written ‘for our admonition’ (1 Cor. 10.11; cf. Rom. 15.4; 1 Pet. 3.21), there can be no doubt that, in the apostle’s mind, Divine intent is of the essence both in their occurrence and in their inscripturation. The rationale of NT typological exegesis is…moulding and using history to reveal and illumine His purpose. God writes His parables in the sands of time.144

Typology is a means for God to reveal truths about himself, his nature and his will. A type is a way for God to make immanent, physical, and relational some concept that is transcendent and eternal. 1.2.2 Motifs 1.2.2.1 Description A motif is a recurring concept or theme arising from the repeated use of related types, allusions, terms, or phrases in various combinations. The motif of right worship above is an example of a motif which develops across OT and NT books. Another example of a motif is that of God being portrayed as a Shepherd. This concept or theme is conveyed not only through types (Moses a shepherd Exod 3:1 and Isa 63:11, succeeded by Joshua Num 27:17) but also through phrases (the Lord is my Shepherd Ps 23:1; Shepherd of Israel Ps 80:1) and related terms (‘gather’ and ‘scatter’ Jer 31:10; Ezek 34:12). A progression in scope and function occurs in this motif: Moses is a literal shepherd, then a shepherd of the people in the actual Exodus; then, the Psalms recognize more explicitly God as the Shepherd; then in the NT, Jesus is recognized as the supreme Shepherd (Heb 13:20; 1 Pet 2:25; 1 Pet 5:4). Our Scriptural Theology interpretive approach focuses on the development of motifs within the biblical text rather than on motifs drawn from extra-biblical texts.145

144 E. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 127–8. 145 In contrast, Keenan writes about motifs from the perspective of the history of religions and liturgical forms. Joseph Keenan, ‘The Importance of the Creation Motif in a Eucharistic Prayer,’ Worship 53 (1979): 341–56.

Methodology

­31

A biblical motif can be described as a form of figurative language, an intricate collection which can express complex concepts.146 ‘A motif is a representative complex theme which recurs in the Hebrew Bible in varying forms and configurations. Motifs are rooted in and arise out of existential situations…being implanted in the collective…memory of the group.’147 Motifs ‘can be adapted to entirely new literary settings’ and they ‘tend to be amalgamated with other motifs, themes and literary patterns.’148 Motifs can be interwoven with other hermeneutical tools. For example, the Lamb of God typology is entwined with the Shepherd motif in Revelation 7:17.149 And, the christological message of a motif can be related to ecclesiological ramifications. For example, the Body of Christ is to evidence characteristics of Christ the Shepherd (John 21:16; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2). We will see in sections 5 and 6 how the interwoven Exodus motifs of blessing and remembrance relate to the Feast. 1.2.2.2 Developing messages Patterson and Travers look with some detail at the Exodus motif, both in the OT and in the NT.150 Because of its relation to Passover, the Exodus motif serves to provide a relevant backdrop for our later examination of Last Supper motifs. Therefore, at least a sketch of their work will be helpful here. They trace the Exodus motif through the OT, summarize its messages, correlate Jesus’ earthly ministry to the Exodus, and show how the NT develops Exodus themes in the era of the risen Christ.151 Accounts of the Exodus have related precursor texts, such as Abraham’s deliverance from Egypt152 and the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant.153 ‘The data of these texts thus make it clear that the Exodus was intimately tied to the Abrahamic Covenant and comprised not only the actual deliverance from Egypt but the entire trek to the Promised Land.’154 Prophets also contribute to 146 Shemaryahu Talmon, ‘Har and Midbar: An Antithetical Pair of Biblical Motifs,’ in M. Mindlin et al., Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East (London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1987), 118. Talmon’s view is that biblical writers did not present ideas in systematic formulations, but rather through the record of the historical events themselves. ‘In a way, the modern student of the Hebrew Bible is called upon to emulate the ancients’ modes of thinking conceptually by association’…‘and accumulation.’ Talmon, ‘Motifs,’ 119, 137. 147 Talmon, ‘Motifs,’ 121. 148 Ibid., 123. 149 This complexity of motifs promotes an interpretive approach which allows for a multifaceted view of christological images, e.g., the Lamb is the Shepherd. Jukes’ explanation of the meaning of the Offerings is compatible, seeing for example the offerer, the offering, and the priest as all providing christological insights. Andrew Jukes, The Law of the Offerings (London: J. Nisbet & Co., 1847; repr., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1966). 150 Richard Patterson and Michael Travers, ‘Contours of the Exodus Motif in Jesus’ Earthly Ministry,’ WTJ 66 (2004): 25–47. 151 Patterson and Travers, ‘Exodus,’ 26–9, 29–37, 37–43, 43–6. 152 Gen 12:18-20; cf. Exod 12–19, from Egypt to Sinai. 153 Gen 12:1-3; cf. Exod 6:2-4. Other relevant precursor texts include Gen 13:14-18; 15:119; 17:1-8; 22:15-18. Ibid., 26–7. 154 Patterson and Travers, ‘Exodus,’ 26.

32

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

the Exodus motif, providing further details and expanding it to also refer to a future deliverance.155 The Exodus references throughout the OT serve to communicate several messages, including: the historicity of the Exodus;156 the Exodus as witness against Israel’s ingratitude;157 the Exodus as a source of instruction about the manner of life and worship;158 the Exodus as a source of warning;159 and, the Exodus as basis for praise and prayer.160 The Exodus motif continues into the NT, serving to frame events in Jesus’ life and ministry. Examples include: John as Isaianic herald (Mark 1:1-3); the name Immanuel pointing to the birth of the Messiah and the end of exile (Matt 1:23); wilderness baptism and trials (Mark 1:9-13); the transfiguration (Mark 9:2-8; Luke 9:28-36); journey to Jerusalem (Mark 10); entrance into Jerusalem (Mark 11); suffering and sacrificial death (Mark 15).161 Paul further develops the concept of freedom from slavery (e.g., Gal 4; 5:1; 2 Cor 6:18).162 It is the hermeneutical tool of motif which serves to network or connect so many references and concepts, relating them to each other and linking them to a central object, in this case the Exodus. Just as Patterson and Travers show how Exodus references combine in a motif and serve to communicate messages, Andrew Jukes shows how messages also arise from Levitical material. He, in line with Patterson and Travers, notes a parallel between the details of the Levitical offerings and the person and work of Christ. Worship rites performed at the tabernacle provide examples of types working together and contributing to motifs which convey instructional messages. For example, sin and guilt offering typological details contribute to a motif of sin’s effects upon worship. The Exodus subsumes the information contained in Leviticus, so worship rituals such as these inform the overall Exodus worship motif. The sin and guilt offerings are not of the soothing aroma classification like the burnt,163 grain,164 and peace offerings.165 Rather, they are of the classification which deals with payment for sin.166 An instructive detail is the location of the body of the sin offering, which is not on the altar inside the tabernacle as with 155 e.g., 2 Sam 22:8-16; Isa 10:26, 40:1-15, 48:20-21, 52:4-13; Jer 16:14-15, 23:7-8, 31:31-34; Ezek 20:32-38; Hos 2:13-23, 11:1-11. Ibid., 27–8. 156 e.g., Exod 19:1; 23:15; 34:18; Num 1:1; 9:1. 157 e.g., Exod 15:14; Num 11:1; Deut 1:2-6. 158 e.g., Exod 12:21-27; 13:1-16; Lev 23:4-8; Deut 16:1-8, 26:1-11, 29:1-29. 159 e.g., Exod 33:1-6; Jer 7:21-29; Hos 11:1-6. 160 e.g., Num 20:14-17; Deut 9:29; Josh 4:19-24; Ps 114; Jer 32:20-22, 40. Ibid., 29–34. 161 Patterson and Travers, ‘Exodus,’ 37–43. They make extensive use of Rikki Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1997). 162 Patterson and Travers, ‘Exodus,’ 45. 163 Lev 1:9, 13, 17; 8:21, 28. 164 Lev 2:2, 9, 12; 6:15, 21; 23:13, 18. 165 Lev 3:5, 16; 17:6. 166 Lev 4:20, 26, 35; 5:16, 18; 6:7. It is interesting to note that only two of the five offerings focus upon the issue of the penalty of sin. The offerings were each instructional, the first three regarding what is pleasing to God, and the final two regarding offenses. Jukes, Offerings, 150–51.

Methodology

­33

the soothing aroma offerings. Instead, it is ‘outside the camp where the ashes are poured out’ (Lev 4:12). This locational detail parallels or corresponds with the location of the crucifixion.167 Both point to the distance between sin and God’s presence. ‘It testifies how completely the offering was identified with the sin it suffered for; so completely identified that it was itself looked at as sin, and as such cast out of the camp.’168 The reality of sin shapes the sin offering, and the crucifixion, by affecting their location. This typological detail is instructive about the person and work of Christ, ‘He took our place that we may take his: he was “cast out” that we might be “brought nigh” (Eph. ii.13).’169 Another example of an instructive typological detail is the restitution aspect of the guilt offering. In addition to the offering of a ram (Lev 5:15), this offering also requires that restitution be made to the injured party, including to the priest (on behalf of God) for sins against the Lord’s holy things (Lev 5:16). The restitution is not just for the value of the offense, but also an additional twenty percent, or fifth part (Lev 5:16; 6:5). This twofold payment is a detail which distinguishes the guilt from the sin offering. In the case of sin – that is our sinful nature, where no actual robbery or wrong had been committed against any one – justice would be fully satisfied by the death and suffering of the sinner. But the mere suffering and death of the sinner would not make satisfaction for the wrong of trespass. For the victim merely to die…would leave the injured party a loser still…the injury would still remain.170

This complete payment parallels John’s record of Jesus’ words from the Cross, ‘It is finished’ (John 19:30). John uses the term tele,w, which as we will see is a comprehensive term connoting both the restitution and the fifth part. In the LXX phrase in Leviticus 5:16, ‘He shall make restitution ( Ml'#$f avpotei,sai) and shall add to it a fifth part,’ avpoti,nw refers to only the first part of the payment. The fifth part must be added to it to make the payment complete. The LXX term avpoti,nw does not appear in the NT except for Philemon 19, where it is used to refer to an actual money payment. John’s use of tele,w carries more of the meaning of completion, as it does elsewhere in the LXX.171 The twofold nature of the guilt offering’s payment points to an understanding of tele,w which includes not only an initial payment of what is due,172 but also the finished or completed form of the payment.173 167 Mark 15:22 specifies Golgotha, a hill outside Jerusalem, as the location of the crucifixion. The writer of Hebrews addresses the Christian’s need for perseverance (Heb 12–13) and appeals to the sin offering as a basis for exhortation. ‘Let us go out to him outside the camp, bearing his reproach’ (Heb 13:13). Hebrews 13:11-13 equates the body of Jesus with the sin offering through the parallelism of the location. 168 Jukes, Offerings, 145–6. 169 Ibid., 148. 170 Ibid., 179. 171 e.g., Ezra 5:16; 6:15; Neh 6:15. 172 cf. tele,w in Matt 17:24. 173 cf. tele,w in Matt 13:53; 19:1; 26:1; John 19:28.

34

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Within the motifs of right worship and the effect of sin upon worship, the typological detail of the twofold nature of the guilt offering’s payment gives insight into the person and work of Christ. The messages which arise from these types and motifs include that Jesus’ death on the Cross completely satisfies not only the penalty of sin (as typified in the sin offering), but also satisfies the penalty of specific sins (as typified in the guilt offering’s ram), the value or impact of that specific sin (as typified in the restitution portion of the guilt offering’s payment), as well as the further value or claim arising from the offense of that specific sin (as typified in the fifth portion of the guilt offering’s payment). God designs Israel’s worship to include such offerings which communicate messages about the person and work of Christ. They shed light on the meaning of the shedding of Christ’s blood and the death of his body. We will see as we follow motifs such as this into the Last Supper that Jesus connects these meanings with the bread and wine. He equates the bread with his body (Mark 14:22), the body that was outside the camp, the body that died to pay the full price of the penalty of sin, restitution, and the fifth part – all aspects of guilt – so that believers may come near and worship. The Feast is the rite of the New Covenant (1 Cor 11:25), an important expression of Christian worship, which proclaims and shows forth the (meanings of) the Lord’s death until he comes (1 Cor 11:26). It is the hermeneutical tool of motif which links all these texts in a thematic net. Our study takes Jukes’ work a step further. Mark and Paul integrate motifs, which comprise OT worship typology such as the guilt offering, into accounts of the Last Supper and the ongoing Feast. Our premise, which will become more clear through the following sections, is that the Feast is an opportunity to proclaim and apprehend the realities about which these motifs speak. So, we have described types and motifs, and shown through examples that hermeneutical tools such as these can aid in discovering the full meaning of texts.174 Our examples include messages arising from the expansion of the scope and function of the Shepherd motif, the Exodus motif, the motif of right worship, and the typological details of the tabernacle and the guilt offering. These examples provide background information which we will revisit in sections 3–6. Allusions are another helpful tool in the quest for biblical benefits of keeping the Feast. 1.2.3 Allusions 1.2.3.1 Description A biblical allusion is a term or phrase which implies a meaning beyond itself based upon a related antecedent text. For example, ‘a widow’s mite’ refers to 174 Aus employs a similar method which derives messages of meaning from intertextual motifs. Roger David Aus, Feeding the Five Thousand: Studies in the Judaic Background of Mark 6:30-44 par. and John 6:1-15, Studies in Judaism (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2010), 142–60.

Methodology

­35

an actual historical form of currency, and it also alludes to a biblical account (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4) with a message about sincere faith and humble abandonment to the Lord. Direct quotes and citations, whether with an introductory formula or not, employ wording that is exact or a close parallel, and they are obvious and clear.175 Allusions can employ terms and phrases which are indirect and subtle. Osborne suggests principles for identifying biblical allusions: (1) wording and style which correspond to another segment of Scripture; (2) the tendency of the writer to employ allusion; (3) an OT background which is in line with the thought-development of the passage.176 Because they are more subtle in nature, allusions can integrate meaning from more than one specific phrase or referent. Billy describes this kind of complexity using an analogy of a diamond.177 An allusion is a single object, yet with many facets, and different illuminations when viewed from different angles. He refers to the words of interpretation as an example. In this verse Jesus makes it very clear that his actions at the Last Supper are meant to establish a New Covenant between God and his people.…he identifies the cup of wine…as his own blood…. The specific reference, ‘the blood of the new covenant,’ is an allusion to the blood of sacrifice that concluded the covenant of Sinai between God and his people (see Ex 24:8). By alluding to this sacrifice in the context of his last Passover meal Jesus interprets…[he] is not only the new paschal lamb that gives substance to God’s people during their new journey from slavery to freedom, but he is also the sacrificial lamb, the death of which will establish a new bond between God and God’s people.178

Billy uses the term allusion to refer to the phrase ‘blood of the new covenant’ and how it brings to the wine multiple meanings in light of both the blood of the lamb of Exodus 12 and the blood of the sacrifice of Exodus 24. Though this is more complex than a direct citation, we can still have a high degree of confidence when we are careful to maintain corresponding contexts and concepts (in this case, Passover, covenant, and blood). It may help to describe allusions in terms of echoes. The term ‘allusion’ can be used more narrowly for a human author’s intentional reference to a prior text. However, this authorial intention can be difficult to substantiate. Also, since Scriptural Theology makes room for a churchly reading of Scripture and the overarching involvement of a divine author with the text, such references may arise within the canon without the human author’s knowledge.

175 e.g., citation with formula, ‘it is written’ Mark 1:2, cf. Mal 3:1; Mark 7:6, cf. Isa 29:13; no formula, Mark 4:12; 8:18, cf. Jer 5:21; Ezek 12:2. 176 Grant Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1991), 135–6. 177 Dennis Billy, Eucharist: Exploring the Diamond of Our Faith (Mystic: Twenty-Third Publications, 2004). 178 Billy, Diamond, 32, italics added.

36

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

To limit our interpretation of Paul’s scriptural echoes to what he intended by them is to impose a severe and arbitrary hermeneutical restriction. In the first place, what he intended is a matter of historical speculation; in the second place, his intertextual echoes are acts of figuration. Consequently, later readers will rightly grasp meanings of the figures that may have been veiled from Paul himself .179

In our study the terms allusion and echo will be used synonymously. In an allusion or echo, the voice of an antecedent text is heard through another text. ‘Old voices are overheard in new settings.’180 Hays describes tests which can aid in identifying echos, including: volume (how obvious is the reference; the degree of explicit repetition), recurrence (how frequent), thematic coherence (consistency with context), historical plausibility (meaning is rooted in historical situation, though can grow canonically), and history of interpretation (noticed by other interpreters).181 1.2.3.2 Metalepsis Allusions can refer to fairly limited portions of antecedent texts, or larger portions. Metalepsis is a particular kind of allusion. Its purpose is to convey a broader context and a bulk of background material. Dodd does not use the term metalepsis, but he describes this practice as ‘part of the equipment’ and method of the earliest NT writers.182 The OT is the backdrop for the NT. These sections [from the Prophets and Psalms] were understood as wholes, and… verses…were quoted from them…as pointers to the whole context.…At the same time, detached sentences from other parts of the Old Testament could be adduced to…elucidate the meaning of the main section under consideration.183

This kind of allusion brings with it into the current usage the broader story of the referent passage. ‘The transposition into a fresh situation involves a certain shift, nearly always an expansion, of the original scope of the passage.’184 Our study agrees with Dodd and employs this principle in our analysis of the meaning of the words of interpretation. To further substantiate the validity of examining the words of interpretation in this light, we will next give an example of how Mark wields the tool of metalepsis, and does so in the context of his narrative of the events leading up to the Last Supper, in a way that incorporates the motif of right worship. Mark’s account of the cleansing of the temple takes on a much richer meaning when read in this manner. The surface reading of Mark 11:15-18 179 Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 33. 180 Ibid., 19. 181 Ibid., 29–31. 182 C. H. Dodd, According to The Scriptures: The Sub-structure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952), 126. 183 Ibid., 126. 184 Ibid., 130.

Methodology

­37

(vs.17 cites Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11) produces themes such as God’s house is for prayer,185 and religion is not supposed to be used as a means to exploit people. But, grasping the references to Isaiah and Jeremiah in their context provides a fuller understanding to Jesus’ use of them in this case.186 Isaiah 56 is part of Isaiah’s message that there will be a Messianic age when all those in (and about to be in) exile will be invited into a renewed covenant. Verse 6 refers not just to the foreigners who will be accepted, but to the conditions of their acceptance, including loving the name of the Lord, and keeping the Sabbath and covenant. These references to the first and fourth commandments are consistent with the motif of right worship. This is a motif which maintains correspondence into Mark 11. Those who conform to right worship will be the ones who will enjoy God’s presence in his house (cf. Isa 56:7). Jeremiah 7 is part of Jeremiah’s message to Judah to return to the Lord or their fate will be like Israel’s. Verses 4-10 indicate that Judah thought that just being in the temple was enough to keep them spiritually safe, as if in a cave or den, regardless of their sins. But it is not just any den, it is a den of robbers. Judah is not just hiding, they are stealing. Verse 9 mentions sin and idolatry, but verse 10 says they think they are still acceptable to God even though they allow other religions in God’s house. This is the ultimate betrayal of the first commandment. Their true crime is claiming to possess ‘Peace with God’ (Jer 6:14; 8:11) when there is none. So, when Jesus echoes these passages in Mark 11:17, he is referring to more than a mercantile indiscretion. Through his authoritative actions in verse 15, and by citing Isaiah in verse 17, Jesus is claiming to be the one who determines what is acceptable in the Messianic age. Jesus then cites Jeremiah. To contrast himself (and right worship) with those in the temple, he accuses them not just of cheating their customers, but more to the point of the contrast, he accuses them of committing idolatry, of thinking they are right with God when they are not, of being spiritual thieves. They, like Judah, are claiming their religion will save them and that their sin is irrelevant. They practice religious abominations in God’s house as if it were their own to do with as they pleased. Jesus in essence is accusing the religious leaders of robbing God of the acceptable worship that is his due, and robbing God of his role of defining what is acceptable worship. This is why Mark 11:18 says the chief priests and scribes are so offended. This verse does not say that the merchants are upset. 185 France notes geographic details relevant to the temple trade, and he sees that Mark intends a deeper message. However, France does not suggest what that message might be, and he does not develop the idea of spiritual thievery. ‘The misuse of the temple area which Jesus’ action has highlighted is spelled out by means of two OT quotations.…commercial activities had crowded out worship as the main purpose of the temple.…But it does not seem to be here, as in Isaiah, the main point of the quotation, since Mark nowhere specifies that this was the Court of the Gentiles.’ R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 444–6. 186 ‘The importance of these texts is seen in their respective literary contexts.’ Craig Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, WBC 34b (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 175.

38

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Mark is presenting Jesus as the one who ushers in the prophecy of Isaiah 56:7187 and the religious establishment which rejects him as idolatrous Israel. The temple is not the setting for the celebration of a new covenant; instead, it has become the place of the profaning of even the old covenant. When the metalepsis is heard in this account, this street drama sets the stage for the other events which happen during the Passion week. Three chapters later in Mark 14, when Jesus uses the language of Isaiah’s Shepherd and sacrifice at the Last Supper, he identifies the Table rather than the temple as the place where the new covenant is to be celebrated. The Table becomes the ‘house of prayer for all peoples.’ The temple forfeits that role because it has become the place of false religion. Mark’s full message is only clear when the referent texts are heard metaleptically in concert with the immediate story. So, allusions can contribute to motifs, can be very obvious or more subtle, and can echo antecedent texts of limited scope or broad scope. Metalepsis is the latter, providing important background information for a current passage. This example from Mark 11 contributes to the backdrop of the Last Supper by revealing Jesus’ view of the temple and its authorities, which is important to keep in mind when seeking the meaning of the words he speaks at the Table. 1.2.3.3 Subtexts Through the use of various types, motifs, and allusions, bodies of antecedent biblical material can be brought into view as a way of providing background information. Subtexts are behind the scenes texts which exert consistent and significant influence. This study recognizes that the foundational accounts in Exodus serve as substructures, or subtexts, for much of both the OT and the NT. When examining our eucharistic texts of primary interest, it will be relevant to consider Exodus subtexts. The NT writers do not write in a vacuum, but as inheritors of the OT story. In dialogical fashion, what they know of the OT informs their beliefs and expectations, and their experiences and knowledge of Christ inform the way they come to understand the OT. Further, God’s consistent character is a basis for reading Scripture expecting the recurrence of similar purposes of deliverance and formation of his people. Rikki Watts devotes an entire study to Isaiah’s New Exodus throughout Mark.188 His basic premise is that Exodus and Isaiah’s development of Exodus motifs are essential to understanding Mark’s structure and meanings. Our examination of Mark 14 will keep in view these subtexts. Clifford agrees that Exodus rightfully serves as such a substructure. The Bible itself uses a powerful organizing principle that spans both testaments and unites them, namely the Exodus in its dual aspects of liberation and formation. There 187 Evans suggests yet another passage related to Mark 11:17. He sees parallels in 1 Kings 8 with Isaiah 56 and Jeremiah 7 and the elements of a foreigner, house, called by thy name, and all peoples. In metaleptic fashion (but not using that terminology), this is evidence that Jesus sees himself as a ‘Solomonic figure who…someday would preside over a temple in which the peoples of the world would come to worship God.’ Evans, Mark, 178–9. 188 Rikki Watts, Exodus.

Methodology

­39

are three Exodus moments. Exodus I is the thirteenth-century B.C.E. foundational event. Exodus II is its sixth-century renewal. Exodus III is the first-century C.E. climactic renewal of Israel by Jesus.189

Clifford explores many instances of Exodus I, II, and III surfacing in biblical passages. One is the opening of Mark, the conflation of Exodus 23:23, Malachi 3:1, and Isaiah 40:3 (Mark 1:2-3). Clifford understands Mark as interpreting the Isaiah passage in light of another Exodus,190 and he cites Marcus who explores this in detail.191 ‘Joel Marcus correctly assesses the wilderness motif in Mark (Mark 6:31-32, 35; see Exodus 18:21; Numbers 27:17) as allusions to the exilic hope of a second Exodus at the end of days.…Even in the earliest Gospel, Exodus is an important paradigm.’192 So, allusions are a hermeneutical tool which link texts, sometimes bringing a great bulk of background information with them. 1.2.4 Paradigms 1.2.4.1 Typological A paradigm is an exemplary type which conveys a general thematic message; or, a biblical reality which is presented in a literary structure (i.e., covenant context, worship motif, rationale) as being exemplary in nature. We just mentioned Clifford’s example of the Exodus as a paradigm or organizing principle, a type on a large scale. ‘The Exodus became an analogy for interpretation’ throughout Israel’s history.193 A paradigm can be an exemplary event which conveys a general thematic message. The Exodus is a paradigm of hope for exiles. Within the overarching Exodus paradigm are constituent paradigms.194 For instance, God calls Moses and Aaron. They can be understood as paradigms or examples of God’s choice to operate through human intermediaries. The general message here is God’s willingness to use imperfect humans, each suited to their gifting. Ultimately, God sends his own Son, the ultimate paradigm or pattern of his own nature and will (cf. Heb 1:3). A paradigm can be an exemplary person who conveys a thematic message.

189 Richard Clifford, ‘The Exodus in the Christian Bible: the case for “figural” reading,’ TS 63 (2002): 345–61, citing 345. 190 Ibid., 358. 191 Joel Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), 23–6. 192 Clifford, ‘Figural,’ 358. 193 Ibid. 194 Stephenson shows the New Exodus paradigm to be the framework for interpreting Luke-Acts. She highlights the concept of the creation of a new people of God and describes its pneumatological and ecclesiological ramifications. Lisa P. Stephenson, Dismantling the Dualisms for American Pentecostal Women in Ministry: A Feminist-Pneumatological Approach, Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies (Boston: Brill, 2012), especially 99–102.

40

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

1.2.4.2 Structural A paradigm can be a type of a more particular kind, one that conveys a thematic message. Further, a paradigm can be a biblical reality which is presented in a literary structure as being exemplary in nature. We will call these structural paradigms and identify them according to their presentation in the text. These tools of typological and structural paradigms will be a way for us in section 6 to describe Passover and its relevance to the Feast. Passover is a typological paradigm as a major feature of Exodus, and Passover is also a structural paradigm in its literary presentation. The literary structure of a textual segment can cast a portion as exemplary in nature, resulting in the communication of a paradigmatic message. Perhaps the clearest example is the account of the ten commandments. They are not referred to as a type, yet they are presented as exemplary principles. The second commandment (Exod 20:4-6) will serve as our more particular example of a structural paradigm. It articulates that it is essential not to make graven images and not to worship them. Explaining what it means to worship God rightly is accomplished by addressing it in the negative. And, this commandment is explicit about why, ‘for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God…’ (Exod 20:5). In the context of covenant-making (cf. Exod 19:5-6), related to the motif of right worship, God commands the Israelites not to make or worship graven images, and he provides the rationale as being rooted in his nature of justice. This literary structure of covenant context, worship motif, principle-in-germ, and rationale, is something of a signature – a way to identify a paradigmatic section. In this case, the paradigm prohibiting graven images conveys a general message which has a broader meaning than idolizing physical images. God’s people are not to worship anything other than God. The ten commandments can in one sense be read at face value and be normative. Each is also a paradigm to be worked out in different cultures and eras. The first commandment certainly applies to contemporary Christians, and so does the next paradigmatic prohibition of graven images, a general principle in germ form. This study recognizes that the book of Exodus is a valid context for the presentation of divinely initiated paradigms, germs which have an ongoing general message. Further evidence to support the existence and importance of biblical paradigms is found in the LXX. All LXX usages of para,deigma align with Scriptural Theology’s description of paradigms. The term para,deigma appears ten times in the LXX: six times as the translation of tynib;t@a tabnith ‘pattern’ as an alternative to tu,poj (Exod 25:9; 1 Chr 28:11, 12, 18, 19); once as the translation of y)ir/ roi ‘spectacle’ (Nah 3:6); and three times as the translation of Nmed&@ domen ‘dung’ (Jer 8:2; 9:22; 16:4). In every case, the literary structure around para,deigma conforms to what we observed in Exodus 20 and the ten commandments: covenant context, worship motif, principlein-germ, and rationale. These LXX uses of para,deigma are biblical segments which convey paradigmatic messages. Each of these usages conforms to

Methodology

41

this literary structure and conveys an exemplary message. We will see that the remembrance paradigm, described in more detail in section 6, is woven throughout the OT and NT. It reveals the biblical divine design for right worship, and it reveals how the Feast is a locus for blessed encounters with God. So, we have seen that a biblical paradigm can be an exemplary type which conveys a general thematic message. Further, a paradigm can be a biblical reality presented in a literary structure as being exemplary in nature, a structure which includes a covenant context, worship motif, principle-ingerm, and rationale. This understanding of paradigms will help us in section 6 as we describe a paradigm of remembrance and encountering God’s blessings. 1.2.5 Trajectories We have seen how types are retrospectively instructive. Motifs, allusions, and paradigms may undergo progressions which also become evident in retrospect. We will use the term trajectory to refer to this progression. When development of this kind happens, it points forward in a way that may be nonspecific but which will be consistent. Thus, a trajectory is the development of a biblical historical-literary reality which is retrospectively instructive and which points forward to a corresponding continuation. We will trace two progressions as a way of describing our trajectory tool: first, the development of the scope of the second commandment; second, the development of the locational dimension of the Passover. The people of God’s understanding of the second commandment evidences a progression which moves from a limited and external dimension to a more comprehensive and internal dimension. This is a trajectory which points forward from a limited scope to a broader scope. The prohibition against making and worshiping idols (Exod 20:4-5) is expounded in: Exodus 34:1317 to include tearing down idols and avoiding idolatrous rituals; Leviticus 26:1 which adds a prohibition against sacred pillars; Deuteronomy 27:15 which adds a curse upon those who make idols; 1 Samuel 15:23 which expands the idea of idolatry to include insubordination and rejecting the word of the Lord; Isaiah 44:9-20 which emphasizes the futility and shame of idols; Ezekiel 8:5 and 14:7 which also make idolatry an internal matter; the NT, where Paul lists the concept of idolatry among ethical sins (1 Cor 5:11; 6:9) and seems to use ‘idolatry’ as a summary term (1 Cor 10:14) encompassing all of Israel’s typological sins including distrusting God and participating in pagan worship (1 Cor 10:7; Exod 32:6), immorality (1 Cor 10:8) and grumbling (1 Cor 10:10). This trajectory points forward and provides credence to a contemporary understanding of idolatry which would include living first for material wealth, or sexuality, or fame. Another example of a trajectory is the development of the location dimension of the Passover rite. Passover as a whole and its constituent parts, such as its sacrifice, are typological paradigms. Passover is integral to

42

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

the Exodus, the Exodus paradigm, and also the continuing tabernacle rites involved in the feast of Unleavened Bread.195 Passover is also presented as a structural paradigm in its initial description. The elements of a structural paradigm – the context of covenant, the worship motif, and rationale – frame Exodus chapter 12. The occasion for the first Passover rite, and the grounds for its repetition, is God remembering his covenant and acting on behalf of Israel.196 Worship is the sign of God’s remembrance of his covenant and deliverance of Israel.197 The reason for their leaving Egypt is to worship,198 and this departure ‘out’ is mentioned in the verse immediately prior to chapter 12 (11:10) and in the final verse of chapter 12 (v.51). The specifics of the Passover observance all have the potential of being principles-in-germ. Thus, Passover meets the criteria for being a structural paradigm. Based upon this doubly justifiable viewpoint of Passover as a covenant/ right-worship paradigm, each of its dimensions deserve careful attention. In paradigmatic fashion, the Passover rite is an initial event and also a developing event. Langston looks at Passover in his study of the reception history of Exodus.199 He summarizes, ‘Although the commemoration of the exodus significantly influenced Israel’s self-understanding, it was by no means a static ritual.’200 The initial rite, based upon its role in the Exodus as a whole, can be understood as including typological features. For example, it is a meal which happens the night before God’s act of deliverance (Exod 12; Num 33:3), timing which is in correspondence with the Last Supper and the crucifixion. This typological timing detail helps to join Mark’s account of the Last Supper to what follows (Mark 14-16) as an integrated unit. The meal is related to subsequent acts of God. The Passover rite is reemphasized when the covenant is renewed (Exod 34:25) and where the ordinances are elaborated (Lev 23:5).201 This corresponds with the Last Supper being the place to address a new covenant and elaborations upon its meaning (Mark 14:22-25; 1 Cor 11:23-34), which points forward to an understanding of the ongoing Feast which incorporates the concepts of covenant and instruction. Details about the location of the Passover rite are also instructive. This paradigm’s location undergoes a progression, one which proves to be an instructional principle. The trajectory of this paradigm’s location helps to guide an understanding of how the germ is to develop.

195 e.g., Exod 12:14-18; 34:25; Lev 23:5; Num 9: 2-14; 28:16-25; Deut 16:1-6. 196 e.g., Exod 2:24; 3:6, 16-17; 6:2-8; 13:5; circumcision required 12:48. 197 e.g., Exod 3:1; 12:27. 198 e.g., Exod 3:18; 5:1; 7:16; 8:1; 12:31; full departure required 8:25-27. 199 Scott Langston, Exodus Through the Centuries (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006), 106–7. 200 Langston, Exodus, 107. 201 The setting for all of Leviticus is still at Sinai and the initial location of the tabernacle, and the time lapse is very brief, probably about a month. John Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Exodus and Leviticus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1876), vol.2, 1.

Methodology

­43

Exodus 40, Leviticus 8:10-11, and Numbers 7:1 refer to the completion of the tabernacle and its inaugural anointing. It is at this time (Num 9:1-5), a year after the first observance in Egypt, that the Passover rite is observed in its new setting at Sinai in obedience to the mandate to keep it as an ongoing memorial rite.202 A month later Israel departs Sinai (Num 10:11), and God reaffirms that the Passover is to continue to be observed in subsequent generations even while they are on the move (Num 28:16). The Passover by this time has developed from a home meal in Egypt (Exod 12:1-28), to a more elaborate community observance at Sinai (Num 9:5), to a movable ongoing rite along their journey (Num 28:16). Even as its locational dimension develops, the rite maintains its purpose of memorializing the freedom God had wrought for them and God’s ongoing formation of them as his people (Exod 6:7; Lev 26:11-13). As Deuteronomy recaps Israel’s ordinances and forty years of travel, God again reiterates the Passover (Deut 16:1-8). In this case, Passover is located ‘in the place where the Lord chooses to establish his name’ (Deut 16:2), and it is further stipulated that, ‘You are not allowed to sacrifice the Passover in any of your towns which the Lord your God is giving you; but at the place where the Lord your God chooses to establish his name’ (Deut 16:5-6). Here we see the locational dimension of Passover directly associated with the location of God’s name. In Joshua 5, after Israel crosses through the Jordan at the end of their wilderness wanderings, God speaks of his action of deliverance and Joshua names the place Gilgal accordingly (Josh 5:9). They observe Passover in this place of encounter. The tabernacle is not mentioned explicitly, although it is assumed it is there. The locational emphasis for the Passover in this case moves beyond the tabernacle per se, to the place where God speaks and is encountered. It is interesting to note that at this time the manna stops and they eat ‘unleavened cakes’ (Josh 5:11). The locational dimension of Passover develops to include proximity to God’s word, God’s presence, and unleavened cakes. Passover happens in the place of God’s name, in the place where God’s word is heard, in the place of God’s presence, and in a place with unleavened cakes. Parallels with the Feast can easily be anticipated even here in Joshua 5. After the Assyrian captivity (ca.722 BC) of Israel in the north and before the Babylonian captivity (ca.586 BC) of Judah in the south, 2 Chronicles 30 includes an account of a Passover held by Judah’s king Hezekiah (ca.715 BC). It is celebrated a month late because of the time needed to consecrate enough priests and to spread the word even to far away areas of the northern kingdom (2 Chr 30:2-5). This all happens in the context of removing ‘uncleanness out from the holy place’ (2 Chr 29:5). The movement in terms of distance here is dual: gathering great numbers from far away and bringing them near for the Passover, which can be described by the theme of unity; and, creating distance between the holy and the unholy by removing uncleanness, which can be described by the theme of holiness. The development of the locational 202

cf. Exod 12:14, 24, 25; Lev 23:4-5.

44

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

dimension of the Passover here involves the paired themes of holiness and unity.203 Again in the context of temple restoration like Hezekiah, Josiah (ca.640 BC) initiates reforms and a renewal of the covenant upon the discovery of a book (2 Kings 22-23; 2 Chr 34-35) including the observance of Passover (2 Kings 23:21-23; 2 Chron 35:1-19). Like Hezekiah’s Passover, Josiah’s Passover addresses the paired themes of holiness and unity.204 Additionally, Josiah clarifies that Passover is to conform to God’s word (2 Kings 23:21; 2 Chr 35:12-13). Here we see again the message arising from Joshua’s account, that the locational dimension of Passover involves not just geographic movement but movement toward God’s word. Here we also see the Passover being held in a place dedicated according to the word of the Lord as the place for worship. After the Babylonian captivity begins, the latter chapters of Ezekiel (ca.593– 570 BC) address Judah’s and Israel’s future repentance and restoration. He has visions of a new temple, new worship, and a new land. Included is a Davidic prince (Ezek 34:24; 37:25) in the new Israel (Ezek 45:16). Passover will be observed (Ezek 45:21), ‘And on that day the prince shall provide for himself and all the people of the land a bull for a sin offering’ (Ezek 45:22), as well as providing for other offerings (Ezek 45:23-25). This location of a new land, a new Israel, warrants a new Davidic prince, a central figure who is the provider of the means of sacrifice.205 Here the locational dimension of Passover points to the future. The trajectory indicates future development. After the beginning of the return from exile, Exodus II,206 Persia’s king Darius (ca.522 BC) completes Cyrus’ work and dedicates the temple (ca.516 BC; Ezra 6:15). The exiles return, restore and dedicate the Temple, purify themselves, and observe the Passover at the proper time (Ezra 6:13-20). This parallels the original Exodus, building of the tabernacle, purifications, and observance of the first Passover at Sinai. Those who have been in bondage gather together in proximity to God’s presence and commemorate his acts of deliverance. This Ezra account of Passover emphasizes the purification of those who gather (Ezra 6:20, 21). This parallels Hezekiah’s message of movement away from the unholy. The emphasis is on movement toward purity. Both have the theme of formation. The dimension of movement or location is not only geographical, it is formational. Exiles are gathered, i.e., freed from bondage, and exiles are purified, i.e., formed according to God’s holy word. Not only are the exiles gathered, they are gathered together, evidencing again the theme 203 This is an interesting dual feature, since there can be a tendency for some to choose only one theme or the other in contemporary eucharistic belief and practice. 204 Josiah made extensive efforts to rid the area of instruments of idol worship (2 Kgs 23:4-16, 19-20; 2 Chr 34:33), and his Passover was of a grand scale (2 Kgs 23:22; 2 Chr 35:18). 205 It would require a lengthier study than is possible here, but valid questions are, ‘To what extent are Ezekiel’s prince and the restoration role of the Persian kings related?’ And, ‘To what extent are Ezekiel’s prince and the role of Christ related?’ The prince may well be an instance of a type (a constituent part of the overarching Passover paradigm) which has both a literal and a spiritual sense. 206 See section 1.2.3.3.

Methodology

­45

of unity. Here we see interwoven in the locational dimension of Passover both the freedom and the formation of God’s people. This trajectory of the locational dimension of Passover helps to guide an understanding of how the paradigmatic Passover germ is to develop. This trajectory leads into the Last Supper and points forward from it. Let us recap the insights we have gained from this trajectory, and let us keep them in mind as we move forward in our quest to learn more about the Feast. These messages include Passover being: held in a place which addresses a new covenant and elaborations upon its meaning; a memorial of freedom and formation along a journey; directly associated with the location of God’s name; in proximity to God’s word, God’s presence, and unleavened cakes; interwoven with the paired themes of holiness and unity; held in a place dedicated according to the word of the Lord as a place for worship; integral with the freedom and the formation of a people God is drawing to himself; an occasion for movement away from the unholy toward what is pure; and, Passover points to the future, indicating future development.207 Thus far in section 1 we have described our interpretive approach of Scriptural Theology and our hermeneutical tools. This approach and these tools are the means for us to address the question, ‘What are the potential benefits of keeping the Feast?’ This topic encompasses but is not limited to historical data and the human author’s original intent. The complete message of Scripture about the Church’s ongoing Feast is heard only when the divine author’s voice is included. This voice can be discerned, in consistency with God’s own nature, through canonical intertextual types, motifs, allusions, paradigms, and trajectories.

1.3

Literature Review

Having described our interpretive approach and tools, we turn to the question, ‘Do others address our topic of eucharistic blessings using this interpretive approach?’ This section will show that the field is currently lacking a study which employs the Scriptural Theology method to address the question, ‘What are the potential benefits of keeping the Feast?’ Much of what others have written about the Feast is outside the scope of this book, but noting their work will help to locate our study and purpose. We do not seek to provide an exhaustive list of books relevant to eucharistic studies, but only a representative sample in several categories. Section 1.3.1 will mention the four works which will serve as points of departure later in our study. Section 1.3.2 will survey academic works related to eucharistic studies. These sections together indicate there is a current need for eucharistic studies from a primarily scriptural starting point.

207 We will revisit the locational dimension of Passover in sections 6.1.2.3 and 6.1.4.1.

46

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

1.3.1 Last Supper and Passover Our study in section 2 will investigate the relationship between the Last Supper and Passover. That issue was left without a definitive consensus as of thirty years ago. Joachim Jeremias is among the principal contributors to this discussion. His work has remained central to the discussion for decades. The second German edition of The Eucharistic Words of Jesus208 was published in 1949 and translated in 1955, the third edition, 1960, was translated in 1964. G. D. Kilpatrick, English rector and Oxford exegesis professor, refers to Jeremias’ work in his 1975 Moorhouse Lectures,209 as does I. H. Marshall who writes from the Methodist tradition in 1980.210 Jeremias presents a detailed discussion of various other opinions regarding the nature of the Last Supper, including suggestions that it was a sanctification meal, a fellowship meal, or an Essene meal. He notes a variety of hypotheses regarding the apparent dissimilar chronology of the Last Supper in the Synoptics and in John, including complicated descriptions of ancient calendars and astronomical timetables. He carefully answers these other views, and argues convincingly that the Last Supper conforms to a Passover meal. Our study aligns with Jeremias’ argument on this issue. Jeremias also addresses textual issues regarding an ancient form and liturgical developments of the words of institution and interpretation. He includes discussions of related issues such as semitisms and the longer and shorter forms of Luke’s eucharistic words. We will draw from his study as we identify the textual forms with which we will work. Jeremias’ book concludes with a survey of several key terms in the words of interpretation including Luke’s account of Jesus’ vow of abstinence, ‘take,’ ‘this,’ ‘body,’ and ‘blood,’ making extensive reference to rabbinic literature. Jeremias also elaborates on his view that God is the only active agent in ‘remembrance.’ Our study will incorporate some of his observations as we examine the words of interpretation. Overall, Jeremias’ book is broader and deeper than Marshall’s and Kilpatrick’s, serving as a point of departure for both of their works, as well as ours. Marshall’s work, though shorter, covers much the same territory as Jeremias’. Sometimes he agrees, sometimes he supplements, and sometimes he disagrees with Jeremias. Marshall does include a brief section on the Lord’s Supper in the early church which goes into more depth than Jeremias does regarding details of the historical development of the meal in Corinth, and the development of the church’s understanding of the meal as seen in the accounts of post-resurrection meals with Jesus. We will engage with Marshall mostly regarding the paschal nature of the Last Supper, and some in our textual analysis. Kilpatrick’s work is structured differently, dealing with primarily three topics through eight lectures. Three lectures address textual issues, three the paschal nature, one addresses liturgical problems, and the final one describes 208 Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966). 209 G. D. Kilpatrick, The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy (Cambridge: CUP, 1983). 210 I. Howard Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1980).

Methodology

­47

conclusions regarding mostly the attitudes with which the Eucharist should be approached. Kilpatrick’s fundamental starting point is different from Jeremias’ and Marshall’s, as well as our own. For example, ‘the Bible is a vehicle of the Word of God, but not the Word of God itself.’211 He sees John’s chronology as disagreeing with the Synoptics’. He focuses on a more systematic theological argument of the Last Supper as a sacrifice in Lecture IV, and argues for the Last Supper to be a fellowship meal rather than a Passover meal. His appeals are to extrabiblical sources; he does not present a biblical argument for his view, nor does he engage with Jeremias’ discussion points. Kilpatrick’s work is even briefer than Marshall’s, and while it is a good example of an alternative view, our study is more aligned with Jeremias’. Kilpatrick does make observations along the way about texts and terms which we will weave into our discussion. Although thirty to sixty years have passed since these authors’ writing, their work remains valuable in that they have provided thorough surveys of their predecessors as well as made contributions of their own. Eucharistic studies since that time have tended to focus more on liturgical, ritual, historical, or anthropological interests. Our purpose in this study is not to revisit every point in these authors’ discussions. Rather, we will summarize some of their primary arguments as a way of positioning ourselves in their midst, use their work as our point of departure, and move on to our own Scriptural Theology study, an intertextual consideration of eucharistic blessings, a topic which none of them address. Cullen I. K. Story,212 writing a bit more recently in 1989, contributes an article that brings clarity to the Johannine chronology question. In section 2, we will expand upon Story’s brief work in an attempt to suggest a better way to resolve that issue. This current study of the Feast seeks to build upon the work of the previous era and open a fresh discussion from a fresh perspective in this generation. 1.3.2 Related studies In addition to the host of popular interest books mentioned in the Introduction, further indication of ongoing interest in the field of eucharistic studies comes from a variety of disciplines operating at a more academic level, such as ritual and liturgical studies, systematic and dogmatic theologies, historical studies, and biblical surveys of the NT. Related writings such as these can be helpful but are tangential to our particular method and question. This collection also evidences the lack of writing done from a primarily scriptural perspective regarding the Eucharist. 1.3.2.1 Ritual and liturgical studies When works in the field of ritual and liturgical studies look at the Eucharist, they analyze it as human activity and look for the sociological development 211 Kilpatrick, Eucharist, 100. 212 Cullen Story, ‘The Bearing of Old Testament Terminology on the Johannine Chronology,’ NovT 31 (1989): 316–24.

48

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

and impact of shared symbols. They do not intend to look to Scripture for the meaning and purpose of the activity. Our study sometimes parallels their conclusions, such as the need for the rite to be treated as a unified whole, but our method is quite different. Bieler and Schottroff write from a liberation theology perspective and address themes such as ritual theory, world hunger, and liturgy.213 They see the ritual act of eating together as the central symbolism and meaning of the Eucharist. ‘This’ in the words of interpretation refers to the ritual, not the bread or wine.214 They use the term ‘eschatological imagination,’ but its meaning is the goal of humanity realizing justice in the current world order, correcting improper colonialism, rather than a Messianic second coming and future real judgement.215 Their method and content do not overlap with ours, except in their openness to be informed by voices outside of dogma, and in their understanding of the rite as a unified whole, which we will discuss in section 5.2.1. Fitzpatrick, a Roman Catholic priest, also encourages viewing the Eucharist as an entire rite, rather than focusing on a moment of transubstantiation.216 The meaning of the bread and wine is not disjoined from its role in the entire ritual. He sees ‘a propensity to isolate and to fence off what is most precious…the propensity must be resisted.’217 His is not a scriptural study. He cites councils, philosophers, and his tradition. Our study intersects this aspect of Fitzpatrick’s when we explore a scriptural pattern for remembrance which treats the ritual as a whole, section 5.2.1. There are other examples of those who have addressed the Eucharist from the perspective of ritual studies or liturgics in recent decades. Moore-Keish’s emphasis is on how ritual provides a meeting place for believers and Christ.218 Nathan Mitchell as a Catholic seeks to interact ecumenically about ritual studies.219 Gordon Smith focuses on communal symbolism.220 Saliers writes anecdotally about the experience of worship in the ritual.221 Power focuses on the liturgy as an act of faith.222 Willimon provides a concise summary 213 Andrea Bieler and L. Schottroff, The Eucharist: Bodies, Bread, & Resurrection (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 59, 65, 166. 214 Ibid., 59, 65, 166. 215 Ibid., 38–41. 216 P. J. Fitzpatrick, In Breaking of Bread: The Eucharist and Ritual (Cambridge: CUP, 1993). 217 Fitzpatrick, Bread, xiii. 218 Martha Moore-Keish, Do This in Remembrance of Me: A Ritual Approach to Reformed Eucharistic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). 219 Nathan Mitchell, Meeting Mystery: Liturgy, Worship, and Sacraments (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2006). 220 Gordon Smith, A Holy Meal: The Lord’s Supper in the Life of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005). 221 Don Saliers, Worship Come to Its Senses (Nashville: Abingdon: 1996), 13. 222 David Power, Unsearchable Riches: The Symbolic Nature of Liturgy (Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1984).

Methodology

­49

of the history of the development of the eucharistic worship ritual.223 Dom Gregory Dix explores the history of eucharistic text development.224 He does not exegete Scripture but he does cite early sources.225 He details the historic separation of the eucharistic rite and the agape meal, and he traces the evolution of the use of particular phrases and gestures in liturgies. Leonel Mitchell’s Praying Shapes Believing226 is a study of the American Book of Common Prayer (BCP). In the section about the Eucharist, he asserts ‘The eucharist is…the chief act of Christian worship on the Lord’s Day.…It is in the celebration of the eucharist that the Church most clearly acts as the Body of Christ.’227 He does cite Dix228 and the BCP, but not Scripture. He asserts the Passover memorial ‘made present to the participants’ God’s mighty ‘acts of redemption,’ and that this is the meaning of eucharistic remembrance: When Jesus sat at table with his disciples at the Last Supper, all the meaning of the feast, both the redemption which God accomplished through Moses in the Exodus and the new greater redemption that Christ himself was accomplishing, became focused in the meal. Thus, for us, the sharing of the broken bread and the cup of blessing become the remembrance…of the Paschal Mystery and the means of our participation in it.229

Mitchell’s purpose is not to justify this scripturally, only to note that this is the meaning of the BCP liturgy. Our study investigates whether or not this is a valid scriptural claim. Similarly, The Study of Liturgy has a section of 154 pages devoted to the Eucharist,230 but only sixteen of those pages consider Scripture. They are limited to the NT and their focus is not exegetical meaning but on providing a brief discussion of the original form of the words of institution and interpretation. Some works deal more topically with the event of remembrance, a concept we examine from a scriptural viewpoint in sections 5 and 6. These works however have a scope which ranges beyond the Eucharist alone. Childs offers one from a more critical historical viewpoint.231 Ginn surveys OT and NT and then does an interdisciplinary study with the philosophy of history.232 223 William Willimon, Word, Water, Wine and Bread (Valley Forge: Judson, 1980). 224 Dom Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (London: Dacre Press, 1945; repr., 1970), e.g., 68–70, 78. 225 e.g., Hippolytus, Tertullian. 226 Leonel Mitchell, Praying Shapes Believing: A Theological Commentary on the Book of Common Prayer (Harrisburg: Morehouse, 1985). 227 Mitchell, Praying, 128. 228 e.g., Dix, Liturgy, 743. 229 Mitchell, Praying, 163–4. 230 Cheslyn Jones, ed., The Study of Liturgy (New York: Oxford University, 1992). 231 Brevard Childs, Memory and Tradition in Israel, Studies in Biblical Theology 37 (London: SCM, 1962). 232 Richard Ginn, The Present and the Past: A Study of Anamnesis (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1989).

50

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Chenderlin considers remembrance according to varying world views, including extrabiblical sources.233 Gittoes considers the ramifications of proper remembrance on the church’s mission.234 Our study remains focused on Scripture’s description of remembrance as a biblical reality, motif, paradigm and ongoing practice in the community of faith. 1.3.2.2 Systematic and dogmatic theologies The rest of section 1.3 will mention a sampling of systematic, historical, and NT studies which serve to further sketch the landscape around our study, and which serve to illustrate the lack of Scriptural Theology eucharistic works. Systematic interests such as missiology do at times overlap with eucharistic studies. Some have written about the Eucharist while focusing more on eschatology, missiology, ecclesiology, or particular dogmatic viewpoints. Geoffrey Wainwright’s work, originally published in 1971, emphasizes the future orientation of the Feast.235 The fact that its third edition appeared in 2002 is evidence of ongoing interest in the Eucharist and eschatology. Garrow, an Anglican priest, offers a work which shows another angle and influence of the Eucharist.236 The book is a detailed academic treatment of Revelation with extensive interaction with other scholars. Though the Eucharist itself is not his primary topic, it does provide a framework for the entire study. Garrow offers a theory about the overall structure of Revelation, giving particular attention to the influence of the ‘theatre of reception.’237 Given explicit evidence that this text is to be read aloud and to congregations, Garrow proceeds based on the reasonable deduction that this means being read in installments in the theatre of reception of a eucharistic setting. Garrow builds a case for eucharistic markers in each of five primary sections, providing a structure for Revelation which otherwise is elusive.238 Garrow’s work does not delve into the meaning of the Eucharist, but he does show how the Eucharist and its liturgical setting can impact the meaning of a text. Hahn writes to show how the Catholic liturgy and the book of Revelation inform each other.239 He sees the liturgy as the doorway of experiencing heaven, the Lamb’s Supper as described in Revelation, on earth. He often refers to patristic voices and to the Catholic liturgy and Catechism.240 Similar to Garrow’s view, Hahn writes, ‘Many small details of John’s vision become clear when we try to encounter the book as its original audience might have.’241 233 Fritz Chenderlin, Do This As My Memorial (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1982). 234 Julie Gittoes, Anamnesis and the Eucharist: Contemporary Anglican Approaches (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008). 235 Geoffrey Wainwright, Eucharist and Eschatology (3rd ed. Akron: OSL Publications, 2002). 236 A. J. P. Garrow, Revelation (New York: Routledge, 1997). 237 Garrow, Revelation, 14, 35. 238 Ibid., 42, 50–53, 62–63. 239 Scott Hahn, The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth (New York: Doubleday, 1999). 240 e.g. Ignatius, Justin, Hippolytus. Hahn, Supper, 33–9. 241 Hahn, Supper, 67.

Methodology

­51

We will revisit these thoughts about the theater of reception as we examine John’s commentary on the Eucharist in his gospel.242 There are other examples of those who address the Eucharist from systematic or dogmatic perspectives. DeArteaga writes not about the meaning of the Eucharist but about its impact for mission across the centuries.243 Koenig also writes to emphasize the missiological nature of the Eucharist.244 Braaten edits a book which includes essays from a variety of mainline theologians about ecclesiastical issues related to the Eucharist such as church identity and church discipline,245 as does Oden’s study.246 Ironically, ecclesiastical bodies’ differing views on the Eucharist, though a mark of the church and its unity, have long served to divide the church. An attempt to reverse that trend is the 1982 Lima Text produced by more than a dozen different denominations.247 Its treatment of the Eucharist includes the assertions: The eucharist is the memorial of the crucified and risen Christ.…The biblical idea of memorial as applied to the eucharist refers to this present efficacy of God’s work when it is celebrated by God’s people in a liturgy.…The Church, gratefully recalling God’s mighty acts of redemption, beseeches God to give the benefits of these acts.248

Our study seeks a scriptural particularization of the benefits which can be expected at the Eucharist both by individuals and by the Body as a whole. It is beyond the scope of this current study to consider various denominations’ particular teachings about the Eucharist. Our point next is to provide some additional examples of interest in the Eucharist in the Sacramental, Reformed, Evangelical, and Pentecostal traditions. Hermann Sasse’s classic work on Lutheran eucharistic consubstantiation dogma was recently reprinted.249 Mitchell, though Roman Catholic, moves away from transubstantiation terminology but maintains the dogma of the ascended body/blood of Christ being physically present in the bread/wine.250

242 See section 3.1.3.2. 243 William DeArteaga, Forgotten Power: The Significance of the Lord’s Supper in Revival (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002). 244 John Koenig, The Feast of the World’s Redemption: Eucharistic Origins and Christian Mission (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000). 245 Carl Braaten and R. Jenson, eds, Marks of the Body of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). 246 Thomas Oden, Corrective Love:The Power of Communion Discipline (St. Louis: Concordia: 1995). 247 Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry. Faith and Order Paper No. 111 (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1982). 248 Ibid., 11. 249 Harmann Sasse, This is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1959; repr., Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2001). 250 Nathan Mitchell, Real Presence: The Work of Eucharist (Chicago: Liturgy Training, 2001).

52

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

The Syrian Catholic classic by Hanna reappears in 2003.251 Sveshnikov, Russian Orthodox priest, writes in a broader sense about the bread itself.252 He surveys Roman Catholic and Orthodox commentators’ views on the symbolism of bread and its role as an icon in liturgy. Levering, Roman Catholic professor, writes to defend Catholic sacrificial dogma and more firmly establish the ‘starting point for understanding Eucharistic theology’ as the aqedah (near-sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham).253 Mathison argues that the Reformed tradition has moved too far in the direction of seeing the bread and wine as visual symbols only. He argues that Calvin’s view, i.e., though nothing happens to the bread/wine the Spirit makes possible a heavenly feeding upon him by faith, should be recaptured.254 Similarly Letham, an Orthodox Presbyterian, writes contra physical presence (trans- and con-substantiation) and real absence (memorialism) in favor of real spiritual presence (communion).255 Davis also holds up Calvin’s Eucharistic teaching, with an emphasis on how the ascension serves as a key to understanding how to hold to both Christ’s presence and absence.256 Smith edited a book containing five essays, each written by a scholar in their tradition.257 In addition to the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed views already mentioned, this work also presents Baptist and Pentecostal essays. The majority view among Baptists is that the Lord’s Supper elements are not a means of grace, though grace may be active in the ordinance in the same way as it is during the proclamation or other forms of worship. The realm of pentecostalism is diverse but, in keeping with Zwingli, the emphasis is upon the faith which accompanies a cognitive symbolic act and the resulting strengthening by the Spirit. Interest has warranted another edition of Cocksworth’s historical survey and analysis of Anglicanism’s wrestling with Catholic and Reformation influences on its eucharistic theology and practice.258 He sees a need for a more thorough theological foundation for sacramentalism within Evangelicalism. ‘I am pointing to the directions that Evangelical theology must travel if it is to 251 E. E. Hanna, Pearl of Revelation Or The Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist from the Beginning of Time (New York: E. E. Hanna, 1929; repr., Kila, MT: Kessinger, 2003). 252 Sergei Sveshnikov, Break the Holy Bread, Master: A Theology of Communion Bread (n.p.: Sergei Sveshnikov, 2009). 253 Matthew Levering, Sacrifice and Community: Jewish Offering and Christian Eucharist (Malden: Blackwell, 2005), 194. 254 Keith Mathison, Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2002). 255 Robert Letham, The Lord’s Supper: Eternal Word in Broken Bread (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 2001). 256 Thomas Davis, This Is My Body: The Presence of Christ in Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008). 257 Gordon Smith, ed., The Lord’s Supper: Five Views (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2008). 258 Christopher Cocksworth, Evangelical Eucharistic Thought in the Church of England (Cambridge: CUP, 1993).

Methodology

­53

defend and extend its recovery of the central significance of the Eucharist in the life of the Church.’259 Our study seeks to respond to this need. Vander Zee writes with the purpose of recovering the sacraments for Evangelical worship.260 The bulk of his section on the Lord’s Supper is a history of theology. Webber and Chan offer two books each of which are not about the Eucharist per se, but all include the Eucharist as a central topic for revitalizing Evangelicalism. Webber writes about the relevance of Classic Christianity paradigms for the contemporary church.261 Webber wrote AncientFuture Worship knowing it was his final work before he died.262 Purposely reflecting upon his life and ministry, much of his final teaching communicates the importance of the Eucharist because worship shapes our memory and our hope, which essentially shape life and practice. He calls the contemporary church back to the Classic view that ‘bread and wine disclose Christ and transform us in his image.’263 Chan, Pentecostal Asian theology professor, writes with the goal of bringing together spirituality and theology.264 ‘Protestantism must return to its sacramental heritage if it hopes to discover an authentic spirituality that goes beyond individualistic piety.’265 Chan is also concerned with the problem of ‘evangelical capitulation to the ways of the world’266 arising from the lack of a solid theological view of worship and ecclesiology. He describes how worship is integrally related to ecclesiology. Our study seeks to contribute toward scriptural justification for Webber’s and Chan’s claims. 1.3.2.3 Historical studies Current interest also spans topics such as tracing the development of Eucharistic thought through church history, as we mentioned regarding Cocksworth, and studies of other historical issues. Their purpose overlaps with ours only insofar as they inform our exegetical work, but the bulk of their efforts are outside our scope. Scholars wonder to what degree, if any, Graeco-Roman meals influenced Paul’s thought and the events of the Corinthian church. Coutsoumpos concludes the Corinthian situation was influenced by social meals of the time.267 He does not recognize that there was a tradition (amended Passover) already at work, 259 Cocksworth, Evangelical, 14. 260 Leonard Vander Zee, Christ, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper: Recovering the Sacraments for Evangelical Worship (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004). 261 Robert Webber, Ancient-Future Faith: Rethinking Evangelicalism for a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999). 262 Robert Webber, Ancient-Future Worship: Proclaiming and Enacting God’s Narrative (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2008). 263 Webber, Worship, 141. 264 Simon Chan, Spiritual Theology: A Systematic Study of the Christian Life (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1998). 265 Chan, Spiritual, 109. 266 Simon Chan, Liturgical Theology: The Church as Worshiping Community (Downer’s Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), 9. 267 Panayotis Coutsoumpos, Paul and the Lord’s Supper: A Socio-Historical Investigation, Studies in Biblical Literature 84 (New York: Peter Lang, 2005).

54

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

influencing Paul’s writing. Dennis Smith suggests the Eucharist arose from a common Graeco-Roman banquet or symposium that was adapted to various settings, representing a spectrum with varying degrees of secular and sacred aspects.268 Like Coutsoumpos he discounts the influence of OT oral tradition and meal customs. Taussig takes the study of early meals a step further and shifts the significance from a descriptive to a causal frame.269 He sees early meals as the impetus for Christianity coalescing into a movement. His cynical view of the church is reflected in his writing. ‘A good deal of it [worship in America] is incompetent, totalitarian, or corrupt.’270 He doubts the reliability of the ‘master narrative’271 that Christianity is the movement arising from the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, that valid causal forces were divine revelation and the ongoing activity of the Holy Spirit. Taussig’s vantage point does not concede the authority of the Creeds,272 and even affirms ‘the master narrative itself is manipulative and illusory.’273 From this stance, Taussig’s entire basis for study is to identify another dynamic such as meals that could have resulted in a continuing gathering of people. Harnik, an anthropologist, does ground the Eucharist narratives in the Passover and other Jewish meals.274 Her interest is in the history of the ritual symbolism used to convey beliefs. She is not as concerned with the historicity of these events as with the symbolic effect of their narratives. On the other hand, Chilton focuses on the historical Jesus’ message about the kingdom of God.275 He does not feel bound by the rule of faith, and he states that history and theology are to be treated as distinct.276 His approach differs from ours which seeks to understand God’s nature through his activity in history. Guthrie offers a historical study which is predicated upon acceptance of Herman Gunkel’s work.277 Gunkel’s form critical analysis of the Psalms asserted two categories, hymn and thanksgiving. Guthrie summarizes each, then proceeds with a study of todah thanksgiving in the OT. He sees thanksgiving as the form and manner in which ancient Israel did theology, and the Eucharist is a continuation of such thanksgiving. 268 Dennis Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003). 269 Hal Taussig, In the Beginning was the Meal: Social Experimentation & Early Christian Identity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009). 270 Taussig, Social, 195. 271 Ibid., 12. 272 Ibid. 273 Ibid., 13. 274 Gillian Feeley-Harnik, The Lord’s Table: Eucharist and Passover in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981). 275 Bruce Chilton, Jesus’ Prayer and Jesus’ Eucharist: His Personal Practice of Spirituality (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1997). 276 Ibid., 2, 6. 277 Harvey Guthrie, Theology as Thanksgiving: From Israel’s Psalms to the Church’s Eucharist (New York: Seabury, 1981).

Methodology

­55

1.3.2.4 NT surveys Some academic authors offer brief surveys of several topics related to the Eucharist, rather than a detailed study of a particular topic. Their consideration of eucharistic topics is largely limited to the NT, revealing a modernistic compartmentalization of OT studies distinct from NT studies. We differ from these in that we seek to examine eucharistic blessing in detail, and we consider both OT and NT in doing so. Witherington addresses a dozen topics such as Essene influence on the Last Supper, an eschatological focus for the Eucharist in the Didache, and postmodernism’s openness to mystery.278 Schweizer briefly surveys issues such as proclamation, worthiness, and the mode of presence.279 Eichhorn confines his study to the NT. He writes as one of the founders of the history of religion school and against the dogma of transubstantiation.280 His interest is in how the concept of transubstantiation began. This method has caught the attention of current postcolonial interpreters, to the extent that SBL produced a reprint. Our study agrees that dogma may impose meaning onto the biblical text, and it is proper to question and reexamine it. However, we do not see such reexamination ‘as a means of liberation from dogma and canon’281 as if these by definition skew the true meaning of Scripture. Rather, as discussed above, Scriptural Theology sees that the canon and rule of faith are integral to proper scriptural interpretation. Moloney’s NT study focuses on who should be admitted to the Eucharist.282 While not countering his Roman Catholic dogma, he suggests that worthy reception includes acceptance of the broken and needy. Higgins states in the forward to his NT survey283 his ‘deep indebtedness to the work of J. Jeremias (Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu, 2nd edn., 1949).’ This book was published in 1952, three years before Jeremias’ was translated into English, as a way for English speakers to gain prior access to Jeremias’ work. Barclay likewise asks: ‘What was the original meal? What are the words of institution? What is the meaning of these words?’284 Jeremias treats the topics relevant to this current study in more detail and in a more exegetical fashion, so his will be our preferred resource.

278 Ben Witherington, Making a Meal of It (Waco: Baylor, 2007). 279 Eduard Schweizer, The Lord’s Supper According to the New Testament (trans. J. Davis; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967). 280 Albert Eichhorn, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament (Leipzig: Mohr Siebeck, 1898; repr., trans. J. F. Cayzer, History of Biblical Studies 1, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007). 281 Eichhorn, Supper, vii. 282 Francis Moloney, A Body Broken for a Broken People: Eucharist in the New Testament (rev. edn; Australia: Collins Dove, 1997). 283 Angus Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament (Chicago: Alec R. Allenson, 1952). 284 William Barclay, The Lord’s Supper (Hants, UK: John Hunt, 1967; repr., Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 11.

56

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

1.4 Summary So, many thorough academic works have been and are still being produced about topics which are in some way related to the Eucharist. However, there is currently a lack in the area of primarily scriptural studies which incorporate both the OT and the NT. Our study intends to address this need, and hopefully awaken interest in others to do the same. In section 1 we have described our method of Scriptural Theology, including details of its distinctive guidelines as well as its similarities with Theological Reading of Scripture and Biblical Theology. We have described hermeneutical tools and how they will function in our study. And, we have surveyed related and tangential literature in the field of eucharistic studies. The basic structure of our upcoming study is as follows. Section 2 will explore the paschal nature of the Last Supper and section 3 will establish texts for the words of institution and interpretation. These are important steps to establish linkages between OT antecedents and developing NT concepts. Section 4 will narrow our focus on the concept of blessing, an important term in the words of institution as well as a key concept in our quest to learn what benefits may be appropriated at the Feast. Sections 5 and 6 delve more deeply into OT antecedents which link the concepts of remembrance and blessing and which provide more specific messages about benefits of the Feast. Section 7 accumulates a list of the specific blessings from the previous sections. This study employs the methodology of scriptural theology to answer the question, ‘Why keep the Feast?’ We will discover that there is scriptural justification for believers to expect the Feast to be a place where God will come and bless them with freedom and formation. We will discover that Scripture links specific blessings with this remembrance, and we offer a partial list of such innumerable benefits. The next step toward these discoveries is to establish the Passover nature of the Last Supper.

2 Last Supper and Passover The purpose of section 2 is to explore the paschal nature of the Last Supper. If it is a Passover meal, then it serves as a bridge between OT Exodus and Passover motifs and the NT observance of the Feast. Johannine chronology has been a primary obstacle to this view, and we suggest a linguistic resolution to this issue.

2.1

Paschal nature

2.1.1 Mark’s Baseline We agree with the view that Mark’s is the earliest gospel narrative.1 In section 3 we will argue that Mark’s account of the words of institution and interpretation can largely be seen as the closest to the original we have available to us, lacking only a few other original phrases included by Luke and Paul. Given that Mark is an important source text, we will proceed using Mark 14 as our baseline and discuss how the other Last Supper narratives relate to it. Major contributors in this area of study are those we mentioned in section 1.3.1, Jeremias, Kilpatrick, and Marshall, who provide thorough summaries of their predecessors and whose conclusions serve as our points of departure. Mark 14:12-16 tells us that Jesus holds a supper with his disciples on Passover. Jesus fully expects to be put to death soon thereafter (Mark 9:31; 10:32-34; 14:8, 25, 27). Marshall refers to this expectation as Jesus’ ‘prophetic insight.’2 If the Last Supper is in the context of Passover, then it would not be surprising for Jesus to use this meal as an opportunity to offer final instructions to his followers. Instruction is expected during the Passover meal, the mood is anticipatory and filled with thoughts of the Messiah,3 so Jesus’ words of 1 So, Robert Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, WBC 34a (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1989), xxvi–xxvii. Robert Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 1031. Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8, AB 27 (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 40–42. To briefly summarize Guelich, Mark is described by Papias, cited by Eusebius (ca. AD 265) (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15), as Peter’s recorder or transmitter, making Peter’s preaching available in written form. Clement of Alexandria, cited by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 6.14; cf. 2:15) describes Mark as writing during Peter’s lifetime (ca. prior AD 64). This is consistent with internal evidence from Mark 13 which points to Mark writing prior to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Guelich, Mark, xxxi. 2 Marshall, Supper, 81. 3 Jeremias, Words, 206–7, 252, 256–62; and Marshall, Supper, 23, 77–8. Marshall cites

58

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

interpretation are especially relevant and effective. The setting predisposes the disciples to understand his teaching in light of Passover themes. Passover’s previous meaning gives Jesus a starting point from which he can offer amended and fuller revelation of his imminent death, its benefits, and the meaning of an amended memorial rite. 2.1.2 Landscape of the discussion Does the historical-literary evidence in Mark, and the other gospels, support the view that the Last Supper is a Passover meal, or some other kind of meal? This is the first of three primary subquestions related to our larger question, ‘What are the potential benefits of keeping the Feast?’ This section will examine the biblical text for clues arising from its historical setting and its literary composition. We need not start from scratch with this question, for others have previously devoted much attention to it. We will summarize the findings of Jeremias, Kilpatrick, and Marshall as a way of locating our own response to this question. Jeremias does believe the Last Supper is a Passover meal.4 He convincingly argues against suggestions that the Last Supper was a sanctification blessing or meal. The sanctification was a prayer not a full meal, in the time of Jesus involved only a cup and not bread, and it could not have been separated from the Sabbath meal by a whole day.5 Marshall agrees.6 Based primarily on the Johannine chronology, which we will address in detail in section 2.2, Kilpatrick does not believe the Last Supper was a Passover meal.7 Seeking an alternative, he looks to intertestamental Jewish literature written in Greek, in particular Joseph and Asenath. He sees in it an example of a meal which he believes is consistent with the Last Supper.8 Jeremias had argued against this view, pointing out that in three of the five relevant passages9 the bread of life and cup of immortality are mentioned in parallel with the oil of incorruptibility. This parallelism does not have an equivalent in the Last Supper accounts.10 Kilpatrick admits the oil is at variance with a eucharistic meal, but

Jeremias’ primary source evidence, which includes the meaning of tu,poj (1 Cor 10:1-6) reflecting the Passover deliverance as the prototype of ultimate deliverance, Targum and Rabbah Exodus references about Exodus 12:42 indicating the Messiah would come on Passover night, an ancient Passover poem which arguably reflects first-century thought about four major acts of God all happening on Nisan 14/15 and including the coming of the Messiah, an ancient Passover prayer from the haggadah asking God to remember the Messiah – an appeal for his appearance, and Midr. Psalm 118 – part of the Passover hallel. So, Joel Marcus, Mark 8–16, AB 27A (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 953, and Aus, Feeding, 150. 4 Aus cites Jeremias with agreement. Aus, Feeding, 151. 5 Jeremias, Words, 27–9, cites t.Ber. 3:7; b.Ber. 49a. 6 Marshall, Supper, 20. 7 Kilpatrick, Eucharist, 43. 8 Kilpatrick, Eucharist, 59. 9 Joseph and Asenath, 8.5; 15.5; and 16.15; not 8.9; 19.5. 10 Jeremias, Words, 33–4.

Last Supper and Passover

­59

does not offer any resolution.11 Marshall points out that Joseph and Asenath’s date and origin are so uncertain that no sure argument can be based upon it.12 So, Jeremias and Marshall support the view that the Last Supper is a Passover meal. Kilpatrick does not agree with the paschal nature of the Last Supper and looks instead to other alternatives, such as a meal similar to what is described in Joseph and Asenath. 2.1.3 Last Supper is not an Essene Fellowship meal Kilpatrick also considers Qumran, saying the Last Supper was a religious communal meal, where, after blessing God, bread and wine are taken.13 Jeremias disagrees, noting that Essene meals were held at a different time of day than the Last Supper, similarities in format are actually few, and there is no evidence that Jesus was influenced by the Essenes in his own actions.14 Jeremias agrees with many others in refuting the Last Supper as a fellowship meal by noting that, while fellowship in general happens during any meal, the actual format of such an event would have involved paying guests and the association with a specific event such as a wedding or funeral rather than being held at any time.15 Qumran research subsequent to the time of Jeremias supports his conclusions. For example, Stegemann notes, Jesus’ words of institution, which framed the (genuine) meal as a blessing over the bread and the chalice (1 Cor. 11:25)…have no parallel whatever in the Qumran texts.…The Essenes…always pronounced the blessing over the bread and wine at the beginning of their meals, not as a framework to them.16

Shanks makes a related comment, ‘There does not seem to be any indication that the meal of the Essenes was a Passover meal or one at which the bread and wine were charged with a sacramental kind of significance.’17 Qumran meals were distinct from what we see in the biblical accounts of the Last Supper and the early Christian eucharistic meals. Brooke agrees. In…the Qumran community…there was no covenantal anamnesis other than that described in Scripture itself, so the community stood under the authority of the whole Law. In the early Christian communities focus was variously on ‘the death of the Lord until he comes’ (1 Cor. 11.26) and that anticipated hope governed how the Law should be universalized.18 11 Kilpatrick, Eucharist, 61. 12 Marshall, Supper, 27. 13 Kilpatrick, Eucharist, 64. 14 Jeremias, Words, 31–6, cites Josephus, B.J. 2.129–33. 15 Jeremias, Words, 30–31, cites m.Sanh. 8:2; b.Pes. 113b. 16 Hartmut Stegemann, The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist, and Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 259–60. 17 Hershel Shanks, The Dead Sea Scrolls after Forty Years (Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1990), 33. 18 George Brooke, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 59.

60

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

So, the concept of remembrance, which we will show in sections 5 and 6 is integral with the eucharistic observance, was absent from Essene fellowship meals. Kilpatrick’s basic reason for looking for alternatives to a paschal Last Supper is the Johannine chronology. We will offer a resolution to this chronology issue in section 2.2, thus removing the catalyst for his other suggestions. Having briefly outlined the arguments against other suggestions for the nature of the Last Supper, next we will outline the arguments in favor of it being a Passover meal. Jeremias’ work over time has proven to be a standard, so we will follow his discussion. 2.1.4

Last Supper is a Passover meal

2.1.4.1 Fourteen supporting points Jeremias offers detailed evidence in favor of the Last Supper being a Passover meal. A summary of fourteen points in his argument will serve to illustrate the credibility of this view, which many have followed since the time of his writing.19 (1) The meal took place properly in Jerusalem,20 although Jesus’ custom had been to overnight outside the city in Bethany,21 probably because of the large number of pilgrims in the overcrowded area during the time of the festival. (2) The meal took place in a room readily made available in Jerusalem (Mark 14:13-16) according to Passover custom.22 (3) The meal took place at night (Mark 14:17), after the customary afternoon-time of ordinary meals,23 and (4) with a customary sized group of a minimum of ten.24 (5) The meal took place 19 Gundry, Mark, 822, recognizes Jeremias’ arguments as having ‘pride of place.’ C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark (Cambridge: CUP, 1959), 413, 420–22, and Robert Stein, Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 642–3 rehearse Jeremias with agreement. James Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark, PLNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), does not refer to Jeremias by name, but does make several of the same points in support of the Last Supper being a Passover meal, e.g., preparations 421–2, the hallel 423, reclining 423, breaking of bread in the course of the meal 425. So, Aus, Feeding, 97. Nolland agrees about the paschal nature of the meal, but times it a day early. John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 1045, 1073. Casey’s subsequent study of Aramaic sources also agrees with Jeremias and the paschal nature of the Last Supper. Maurice Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel, SNTSMS 102 (Cambridge: CUP, 1998; digital version, 2007), 228–9, 237. 20 Jeremias, Words, 42–3, cites Mark 14:13, 26; John 18:1; also, e.g., Sipre Num 69 on 9.10; m.Pes. 7:9.A; 7:12.A. Marcus cites Jeremias here, and also points out that even those who would describe the Last Supper as happening a day early must concede the paschal nature of the meal and the resulting exegetical impact of that reality. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 945, 957. cf. Aus, Feeding, 96. 21 Mark 11:1, 11-12, 19; 14:3, 13. 22 Jeremias, Words, 44, cites a baraita (a Tannaitic rule) on the Babylonian Talmud, b.Meg. 26a. 23 France refers to Jeremias’ point here with agreement. France, Mark, 562. cf. Aus, Feeding, 98. 24 Jeremias, Words, 47 fns. 2, 4, cites t.Pes. 4:3; b.Pes. 64b; Midr. Lam on 1:1; Josephus, B.J. 6.423, 425; m.Pes. 8:3.

Last Supper and Passover

­61

in the reclining position (Mark 14:18), which was proper for Passover.25 (6) The meal included washing and levitical purity appropriate for Passover but not necessary for ordinary meals.26 (7) The breaking of bread happens in the course of the meal (Mark 14:22) instead of at the beginning. (8) The meal included the drinking of wine (Mark 14:23, 25), which is not part of ordinary meals.27 (9) Red wine in particular is used rather than other available types.28 (10) Last-minute purchases (John 13:29-30) are understandable on the night beginning Nisan 15.29 (11) The interpretation by others that Judas is going out to give alms to the poor is consistent with the practice that even the poor are to have four cups of wine on Passover.30 (12) The singing of a hymn at the end of the meal (Mark 14:26) refers to the Passover hallel. (13) Jesus does not go out to Bethany since the night of Passover is to be spent within the city district, which includes the Garden (Mark 14:26).31 (14) Jesus speaks words of interpretation over the meal, which is part of the Passover ritual (Mark 14:22-25).32 Jeremias elaborates on this final point, giving evidence of various interpretations of the unleavened bread, both historically based and eschatologically directed, already present at the time of Jesus.33 Jeremias concludes that Jesus uses this context of the Passover to provide his own interpretation.34 In addition to this historical evidence related to the Last Supper events themselves, Jeremias provides an important analysis of the early church’s view of the relationship of the Last Supper to the Passover. Even though the early church did not practice the Lord’s Supper in a way that duplicated a Passover ritual, the gospel accounts still describe the Last Supper in Passover terms. This

25 Ibid., 48 fn. 4, cites j.Ber. 7.11c.48; p.49 fn.3 cites m.Pes. 10:1.B. Marcus cites Jeremias here with agreement. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 949. cf. Aus, Feeding, 98. 26 Jeremias, Words, 49, cites John 13:10; and, Rabbah Numbers 7.8 on 5.2. 27 Ibid., 50, cites b.Pes. 109a (bar.). 28 Ibid., 53, deduces red wine from the comparison with blood, and cites e.g., t.Pes. 10.1; b.Pes. 108b; Raba b.Pes. 108b as evidence of red wine used at Passover. 29 Whitacre refers to Jeremias with agreement. Rodney Whitacre, John, IVPNTC (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 337–8. 30 Jeremias, Words, 53, cites m.Pes. 10.1; Jub. 49.6, 9. 31 Stein notes this as a strong argument in favor of the paschal nature of the Last Supper. Stein, Mark, 654. Jeremias, Words, 55. cf. Deut 16:7. 32 Ibid., 41-56. ‘Interpretation of the special elements of the meal is a fixed part of the passover ritual. This custom…developed out of the exegesis of Exod 12.26f; 13.8. It took place after the preliminary course and the mixing of the second of the four ritual cups.’ Ibid., 56, cites m.Pes. 10:4, m.Pes. 10:5, b.Pes. 116b. 33 Ibid., 56–61, cites e.g., Mek. Exod 12.39; Philo, Spec. 2.158–61; Josephus, Ant. 2.316317; Sipre Deut 130 on 16.3; Mid. Song on 1.8. 34 Edwards agrees. ‘The careful and deliberate preparations for the Passover are a clue that in this foundational event Jesus sees the proper context for his own self-revelation. The sacrifice of the paschal lamb will both interpret and be fulfilled in his impending death that will inaugurate a new covenant in his own blood, “poured out for many” (14:24).’ Edwards, Mark, 421.

62

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

points to the gospel material regarding the Passover nature of the Last Supper as being rooted in the historic event, rather than in subsequent church practices.35 2.1.4.2 Eight responses to objections To further strengthen his position, after all this positive evidence, Jeremias goes on to refute various objections to the view that the Last Supper is a Passover meal. (1) Unleavened bread may rightly be referred to as a;rtoj.36 (2) Although by the time of Acts 2:42 the early church practiced daily meals, this frequent rather than annual observance need not be taken as evidence against the Passover nature of the Last Supper. The meals of the Early Church were not originally repetitions of the last meal… but of the daily table fellowship of the disciples with him. Only gradually, although indeed already in pre-Pauline times, was the early Christian celebration of meals linked with, and influenced by, the remembrance of the Last Supper.37

(3) The silence in Mark 14 regarding a paschal lamb or bitter herbs is immaterial since Mark’s purpose was not to give a historical description of the meal per se but only of those ‘moments which were constitutive for the celebration of the primitive Church.’38 (4) Contrary to a misunderstanding perpetuated since the thirteenth century, the correct order of events at a Passover meal was blessing and then breaking.39 (5) The phrase evn th/| e`orth/| ‘during the feast’ (Mark 14:2) is better understood in context as meaning ‘in the festal crowd,’40 so there is no 35 Jeremias, Words, 62. 36 Ibid., 63. Jeremias cites many sources including Philo, Josephus, and the Talmud. An example is how the loaves of showbread are referred to simply as ‘bread’ LXX a;rtoj (Exod 25:30; 2 Chr 13:11; 1 Sam 21:1-7; Exod 29:2; Lev 2:4). So, Stein, Mark, 650. 37 Ibid., 66. Jeremias cites E. Schwartz, ‘Osterbetrachtungen,’ ZNW 7 (1906), 1; Wellhausen, Evangelium Marci, 117f.; Lietzmann, Mass and Lord’s Supper, 204f.; Schlatter, Lukas, 455. Jeremias also cites Epiphanius, Panarion 30.16.1 (GCS 25.353.10-12) to recognize an exception to this which was a group of Jewish Christians, the Ebionites, who used bread and water to observe an annual festival with the Eucharist at the time of Passover. 38 Jeremias, Words, 67. 39 Jeremias explains how the erroneous ordering of breaking and then blessing arose from John Lightfoot (1602–75) who wrote, ‘First he blessed, then he brake it. Thus it always used to be done, except in the paschal bread. One of the two loaves was first divided into two parts, or, perhaps, into more, before it was blessed. One of them is divided: they are the words of Maimonides….’ John Lightfoot, ‘Exercitations on Matt. 26.26’ (Works XI, 332), http://philologos. org/__eb-jl/matt26.htm, March, 2010, italics his. Jeremias disagrees, explaining that Lightfoot misunderstood a saying of Maimonides who used qlaxf chalaq (to divide, share) instead of (sa#$f shasa (to divide, cleave) referring to a Passover practice in his day which involved the use of a partial loaf to symbolize affliction. Lightfoot thought Maimonides was referring to a pre-blessing breaking of bread, when actually Maimonides was referring to the use of a partial (symbolic) loaf. Jeremias believes others have perpetuated this mistake through to the present. Jeremias, Words, 68. 40 Jeremias, Words, 71–3, argues based upon the logical flow of the story and the understood intention of not causing a riot in the crowd, as well as comparing the phrase and connotation with John 7:11. France refers to Jeremias here with disagreement regarding the meaning of the Greek phrase, based upon his preference for the Johannine chronology. France, Mark, 549.

Last Supper and Passover

63

chronological inconsistency with Passover. (6) There was a distinction between the Roman Passover amnesty (Mark 15:6; John 18:39) and the temporary parole offered by Jewish authorities for some Jewish prisoners to observe Passover (cf. m.Pes. 8:6); therefore, m.Pes. 8:6 need not influence the interpretation of the timing of Passion events.41 (7) The reference to the paschal lamb in 1 Corinthians 5:7 is not a chronological reference to Nisan 14 and the timing of the crucifixion; rather, it is a comparison which ‘arose…out of the sayings of Jesus at the Last Supper.’42 (8) The reference in 1 Corinthians 15:20 to Christ as first-fruits can be taken to point to Friday being on Nisan 14 instead of Nisan 15 since Nisan 16 Sunday would be the day of first-fruits. However, the allusion is not intended to rely upon actual chronology; the expression is used figuratively and should not be pressed into chronological data in this context. We believe Jeremias has sufficiently defended the validity of characterizing the Last Supper as a Passover meal, and other scholars including Marshall, Aus, Marcus, Cranfield, Stein, Edwards, France, and Casey have subsequently concurred with and strengthened his writing, so we will proceed based on this view.

2.2

John’s chronology

The relationship of Passover and the Last Supper includes not only what happens at the supper, but also when the supper happens. The nature of the Last Supper conforms to a Passover meal. If the timing of that meal can also be shown to be consistent with Passover, then the links to OT Passover typology and meaning are that much stronger. As of a few decades ago when Jeremias and others were discussing this timing, there remained the issue of how to understand John’s chronology of events as compared with the Synoptics. At first glance, there seems to be a discrepancy. However, we will present a linguistic argument that all four gospel accounts present the same chronology, and the Last Supper therefore is unquestionably properly timed as a Passover meal. 2.2.1 Apparent difficulty The Synoptics all communicate the same message about the timing of the Last Supper. They specify that the disciples make preparations for the Passover meal ‘on the first day of Unleavened Bread’ (Mark 14:12; Matt 26:17; Luke 22:7). This expression can refer to either Nisan 14, the day when all leaven is removed from the house (Exod 12:15), or to Nisan 15, the first day of the house being leaven-free (Lev 23:5-6). Mark does not allow for confusion, however, because he adds the clarifying phrase, ‘when the Passover was being sacrificed’

41 Jeremias, Words, 73. 42 Ibid., 74.

64

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

(Mark 14:12).43 The Passover is sacrificed on Nisan 14 (Exod 12:6). The Last Supper is held the night after the sacrifice (Exod 12:8), which is the beginning of Nisan 15. John presents a chronology which has been difficult to harmonize with the Synoptics’ account of the Last Supper. This has been a primary argument against the claim that the Last Supper is a Passover meal. Jeremias, Kilpatrick, and Marshall all arrive at different conclusions as to how to understand the apparent difficulty. If this point could be sufficiently resolved, much of the doubt that remains about the Last Supper being a Passover meal would also be resolved. What follows is a summary of the views of Jeremais, Kilpatrick, and Marshall, followed by a lesser-known view by Story that does seem to set this issue to rest. Hopefully, this latter argument will find a wider audience and receive further attention in the future. 2.2.2 Friday is Nisan 15 and John is theological Jeremias examines the timing of the Last Supper. Is it held at the proper time for a Passover meal? All four Gospels place the crucifixion on a Friday.44 The question is whether or not this Friday is the first day of the Passover festival. The Synoptics place the crucifixion on Nisan 15, the day of Passover, thus Thursday evening was the time of the meal, a properly timed Passover meal. Some take John 18:28 to point to a different timing. ‘Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas into the praetorium, and it was early; and they themselves did not enter into the praetorium so that they would not be defiled, but might eat the Passover’ (John 18:28). If this means the Passover meal had not yet happened, then the Last Supper, which happened the night before, was held on Nisan 14 and was not the Passover meal. Various efforts have been made to address this apparent discrepancy between John and the Synoptics. These include: time references being too vague to consider contradictory; seeing John’s reference to the Passover meal to mean paschal meals throughout the feast instead of the actual Passover meal; and the complication of a double-observance of the Passover meal by Pharisees and Sadducees, or by Galileans and Judeans. None of these suggestions are credible, and it remains an open question as to how to harmonize John with the Synoptics’ presentation of the Last Supper coinciding with Nissan 15.45 Jeremias offers the suggestion that John 18:28, John’s depiction of Jesus being crucified before Passover evening, stems not from historical accuracy but from the early church’s emphasis on the Christian meaning over the Jewish 43 David Instone-Brewer, ‘Jesus’ Last Passover: The Synoptics and John,’ ExpTim 112 (2001): 122–3, citing 122. 44 The Passion – Last Supper, Gethsemane, arrest, Cross, burial – occurred between Thursday evening and Friday evening; Mark 14:17; 15:42; Matt 26:20; 27:57; Luke 22:14; 23:54; John 13:2; 19:31, 42. 45 Jeremias, Words, 15–26. Whitacre, John, 437–8 includes several of the same suggestions for resolving the chronology issue, concluding as Jeremias did that it is still a ‘puzzle.’ Whitacre, John, 438. France, Mark, 559, also believes this issue ‘remains unresolved.’

Last Supper and Passover

65

meaning of Passover. Jeremias suggests the paschal lamb typology became a chronological view portraying Christ’s crucifixion as coinciding with the Nisan 14 paschal lamb slaughters.46 Jeremias concludes that John intentionally communicates a different chronology than the Synoptics, a view that reads back into the historical narrative a theological viewpoint held by the early church.47 Thus, there is no discrepancy, but John’s account must be viewed first as theological rather than historical.48 2.2.3 Friday is Nisan 14 against the Synoptics Kilpatrick approaches the chronology puzzle a different way. He believes John’s chronology does actually contradict Mark’s, and therefore the Last Supper is not a Passover meal. He believes Luke embellishes to make the Last Supper look more like Passover, and that Mark is vague about a Nisan 15 timing.49 He interprets 1 Corinthians 5:7 to be a chronological message, supporting the view that Jesus is crucified when the Passover lambs are being slaughtered on Friday (day), Nisan 14.50 Kilpatrick notes Jeremias argues to the contrary. Kilpatrick also believes that Jesus is alienated from his family at the end of his life, and that since Passover can only be held with family and they are not part of the Last Supper, it cannot be a Passover meal.51 Kilpatrick does not sufficiently justify interpreting 1 Corinthians 5:7 as literal chronological data, nor does he explain how the Synoptics all come to be so consistently in error. His other point about Jesus’ family is also weak, especially in light of Jesus’ definition of his family found in Mark 3:35. Marshall reports that Passover groups of ten or more people could be family or friends,52 and Story notes these were sometimes ‘special pilgrim groups.’53 Neither the biblical account of the institution of Passover (Exod 12:4, 48) nor the Mishnah limits the association of those participating in a Passover meal to only the family.54 46 Jeremias, Words, 79–84. 47 Cranfield, Mark, 420, agrees with Jeremias regarding the theological nature of John 18:28. 48 Mark Goodacre also agrees with Jeremias here. ‘If John knows the Synoptics…we have to reckon with the possibility that he has simply adjusted the timing for theological reasons, with no parallel tradition about the dating.’ Mark Goodacre, academic blog http://ntweblog. blogspot.com, Friday, March 12, 2010, ‘Was the Last Supper a Passover Seder?’ http://tinyurl. com/y8ff4pf. 49 Kilpatrick, Eucharist, 43. 50 Brown is similar, seeing John’s chronology as Friday day being Nisan 14, and the Last Supper being a meal which the Synoptics describe with Passover characteristics, but not actually a properly timed Passover meal. Raymond Brown, The Gospel and Epistles of John (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1988), 66, 71. 51 Kilpatrick, Eucharist, 58 (no primary source cited). 52 Marshall, Supper, 21 (no primary source cited). cf. Aus, Feeding, 97, 114. 53 Story, ‘Terminology,’ 321 (no primary source cited). 54 The Mishnah provides for registered associations to include orphans (m.Pes. 8:1.G), and limits associations to not consist solely of women, slaves, or children (m.Pes. 8:7.D). But, there is no explicit statement limiting an association to only family members.

66

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Casey goes even further to show based upon the Aramaic source text that it is probable that not only Jesus and the twelve but also many other disciples including women and children were sharers in the Last Supper Passover.55 2.2.4 Friday is both Marshall offers a third approach to harmonizing John’s Last Supper chronology with the Synoptics.56 Instead of preferring the Synoptics’ as the historical account (cf. Jeremias), or altering the actual nature of the Last Supper to not coincide with Passover at all (cf. Kilpatrick), he maintains the Last Supper is a Passover meal, but he bases this upon John’s chronology. Marshall has no doubt that John 13 describes the same event as the other Last Supper narratives, given references to betrayal and the arrest.57 However, Marshall sees indications that, according to John, the Last Supper happens a day earlier than the way the Synoptics describe it. How does Marshall explain this apparent contradiction, yet maintain the Last Supper’s paschal nature? He believes the chronologies of John and the Synoptics are correct, but there are different ways to date the Passover itself, that in some way Friday is both Nisan 14 and 15. Marshall sees the Friday at issue as Nisan 14 according to what he defines as the Sadducean calendar. He believes Jesus was crucified when the paschal lambs were being slaughtered, taking 1 Corinthians 5:7 more the way Kilpatrick does, as literally chronological.58 So, if the Last Supper happened on Nisan 14, how can Marshall still classify it as a Passover meal? Marshall says there are several attempts to explain differing ways of dating the Passover (solar/lunar calendars, Galilean/Judean disagreements regarding sunrise/sunset measuring of days). He agrees with Jeremias that most are not based on solid evidence. Marshall sees the most likely to be Billerbeck’s theory.59 One group of Jews, including the Pharisees, considered Nisan 15 that year to begin on Thursday evening, and another group of Jews, the Sadducess, considered Nisan 15 that year to begin on Friday evening. The Sadducees that year allowed the Pharisees to sacrifice lambs a day early in the temple. The Synoptics reflect the Pharisaic calendar, and the account in John reflects the Sadducean calendar. The Last Supper is a Passover meal as reckoned by the Pharisees’ calendar and described in the Synoptics. But, it is held a day earlier than the official Sadducean calendar, which is depicted in John’s chronology.

55 Casey, Aramaic, 227–8. 56 Marshall, Supper, 66–75. 57 Brown, John, 48, 73–4, agrees. 58 Marshall, Supper, 70. 59 Ibid., 72. Instone-Brewer adds the detail that the Sadducees and Pharisees’ debate was over the date of the new moon. Instone-Brewer, ‘Passover,’ 122. Both Marshall and Instone-Brewer are referring to Str-B 2:847-853. http://www.archive.org/details/kommentarzumneue01stra, March, 2010.

Last Supper and Passover

­67

John’s account of the Last Supper and arrest reflects the priests’ observance of Nisan 15 beginning Friday evening according to the Sadducean calendar. In this way Marshall supports his view that both versions can be seen as accurate. Jeremias is not convinced by such arguments, saying they are conjectural and there is no evidence that paschal lambs were ever slaughtered two days in a row.60 Marshall is more convinced, ‘Our conclusion, then, is that Jesus held a Passover meal earlier than the official Jewish date, and that he was able to do so as the result of calendar differences among the Jews.’61 According to Marshall, the Jews would not enter the praetorium because they were on their way to a differently timed Passover meal. Subsequently, Marshall’s agreement with Billerbeck could be considered as strengthened by Maurice Casey’s work. Casey defends translating Mark 14:12 ‘when the Passover was being sacrificed.’62 In so doing, he addresses when such sacrifices may have occurred. He cites a rabbinic debate in the Mishnah (m.Zeb. 1:3, 4), which Instone-Brewer points out as having a date after AD 70,63 which involves what to do about Passover sacrifices which were either made under the wrong name or on the wrong day. Though technically this debate happens after Jesus’ time, Instone-Brewer admits it can still be relevant. It is likely that they were correct in their knowledge of pre-70 CE customs…some Jews were bringing Passover sacrifices to be sacrificed on the afternoon of the 13th, and they were calling them something else, perhaps a Peace Offering.…to avoid the rush, and that the priesthood and the Pharisees turned a blind eye to this for the practical purposes of getting all the sacrifices processed.64

However, even though Casey’s work does provide some evidence for paschal lambs being slaughtered two days in a row, neither Casey nor Instone-Brewer ‘use this to explain the contradictions between the Synoptics and John.’65 More likely, it addresses practical matters that arose due to large numbers of sacrifices, rather than an intentional system set up by the Sadducees to accommodate an early Passover for the Pharisees. Even after this complex explanation of how the Synoptics and John can both be right, which remains a tenuous theory, Marshall still admits that the arguments around John 18:28 remain troublesome.66 France favors a position similar to Marshall’s, yet readily admits the issue had not yet been adequately resolved.67

60 Jeremias, Words, 23. 61 Marshall, Supper, 75. 62 Casey, Aramaic, 222–6. 63 Instone-Brewer, ‘Passover,’ 123. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid. 66 Marshall, Supper, 69–70. 67 France, Mark, 559.

68

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

So, Jeremias seeks to reconcile the Synoptics with the apparent timing of the Last Supper on Nisan 14 in John 18:28 by explaining John’s account as a theological commentary rather than a chronological account. Kilpatrick’s answer is to recategorize the Last Supper as a different kind of meal, and to view John 18:28 as reflecting the proper timing of Passover on Nisan 15. Marshall’s explanation involves a complex theory regarding Passover being observed at both times by two different groups. 2.2.5 Friday is Nisan 15 and John is consistent The above three theories seem complicated and weak. They are intended for an admirable goal, that is, to understand the history which stands behind the different accounts. However, a simpler explanation may be more likely. The following is a straightforward, cogent argument which does not depend upon obscure historical evidence, nor does it require reframing any of the gospel accounts in tenuous ways. Rather, it is an analysis of linguistic and temporal details which are consistent with John’s style (e.g., John’s account is careful to include temporal phrases, including ‘and it was early’ John 18:28). This is a fourth option which Jeremias, Kilpatrick, and Marshall do not consider. Cullen Story presents this argument which is consistent with comments made as long ago as the year 1899 by Milligan and Moulton.68 We will bolster the argument with additional linguistic considerations. 2.2.5.1 Milligan and Moulton’s observations Milligan and Moulton make some interesting observations, and Story builds upon especially one of them. Milligan and Moulton note that the resistance of the Jews to entering the praetorium, the palace where Pilate would be, could not have been because of a Passover meal that had not yet started. They were there in the middle of the night, ‘early’ morning, with much time and opportunity to be prepared if the Passover meal was the following night. The hour was probably 3 or 3.30 A.M. The Passover was a night-festival. It certainly would not begin till the evening was well advanced…. These hours include a sunset, the time at which uncleanness of a much more serious kind than that produced by entering into the house of a Gentile was removed by the simple process of washing with water. The Jews could have no fear that by entering into Pilate’s hall they would unfit themselves for eating a Paschal meal to be celebrated the following evening.… [rather,] they were afraid that they might lose their Passover. The meal was not yet ended in the city. Jerusalem was crowded at the time: a very large number of lambs had to be killed and roasted…and it must have been impossible to close the feast in every Jewish family by midnight. The celebration must have gone on the whole night through. Now the persons here referred to had been interrupted in their feast.69

68 William Milligan and William Moulton, The Gospel According to John, The International Revision Commentary on the New Testament based upon the Revised Version of 1881, edited by Philip Schaff (New York: Charles Scribners’ Sons, 1899). 69 Ibid., 377 (no primary source cited).

Last Supper and Passover

­69­

Milligan and Moulton also note that the ‘true rendering’ of John 18:28 involves bringing ‘the two verbs “be defiled” and “eat” into close connection with each other.’70 This is the point which Story develops in more detail, and which this study expands even further as a way to resolve the chronology question.71 2.2.5.2 Story’s analysis In his treatment of John 18:28, Story first surveys a variety of explanations offered throughout the twentieth century, including that John’s account is not a Passover meal but a meal of consecration. Story disagrees with this because it is clear that John 13 is the Last Supper, and because the Synoptics clearly say it is a Passover meal. Another view Story disputes is that ‘to eat the Passover’ refers to observing the entire week of the feast. Story explains the context and the normal reading would be to refer to the meal which includes the paschal lamb. Story also disagrees with various early patristic views that Jesus ate the meal early, thus reserving a more mystical participation for himself in the Passover at the Cross, or that it was actually those who seized Jesus who were eating the meal at an illegal time.72 After these rebuttals, Story offers a convincing argument which explains how John’s account and the Synoptics all describe the same Passover meal happening at the proper time, making the plethora of objections and hypotheses about how to reconcile them unnecessary. The following summary draws heavily on Story’s explanation,73 and is followed by a further examination of the relevant terms. Story comments on John 19:14 which is sometimes translated ‘the day of preparation for the Passover’ (NAU) paraskeuh. tou/ pa,sca . If Jesus had already eaten the Last Supper and was now being interrogated, and yet it was still the day prior to Passover, then John’s chronology would be different than the Synoptics. However, Story believes along with Marshall and Jeremias that the better translation is ‘Friday of Passover week.’ Story strengthens Jeremias’ point that evidence has not been found in Aramaic literature from the proper period that this particular phrase refers to the day before Passover.74 Story notes that later Mishnah references have such a Hebrew phrase (e.g., m.Pes. 10:1), but a corresponding Aramaic form from an earlier time has not been identified. Story also adds to this evidence references to the Didache (8:1) and the Martyrdom of Polycarp (7:1) which use paraskeuh, to mean ‘Friday.’ Story notes that the NEB translates paraskeuh, as Friday in Matthew 27:62 ‘the morning after that Friday.’75 Understanding John 19:14 in this way also makes 70 Milligan and Moulton, John, 377. 71 Consistent with our Scriptural Theology interpretive approach, this study suggests that this is an example of the church’s faithful reading over time becoming gradually more clear. This linguistic concept, over the last one-hundred-ten years, is showing itself to be a clearer understanding than previous attempts to resolve the Last Supper chronology issue. 72 Story, ‘Terminology,’ 320. 73 Ibid., 321–3. 74 Jeremias, Words, 80. 75 Story, ‘Terminology,’ 318.

70

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

sense in light of John’s own use of the term paraskeuh, in 19:31, 42 which refer to Friday. Story believes tou/ pa,sca in John 19:14 is a possessive genitive. So, instead of ‘the day of preparation for the Passover,’ Story believes John 19:14 should read ‘the Friday of Passover week.’ The NIV and NIB reflect this thought in their translation ‘the day of preparation of Passover week.’76 However, this clarification of John 19:14 does not necessarily preclude the possibility that John was reporting these events according to what Marshall would call the Sadducean timing of Passover, Nisan 15 beginning Friday evening. There also remains Jeremias’ view that John reframes the chronology in order to make a theological point, namely that Jesus fulfills the paschal lamb typology. Both conclusions maintain that John’s chronology is in fact different than the Synoptics. Story builds upon Milligan and Moulton and presents linguistic evidence that this difference actually does not exist and the other explanations are not necessary. The text of 18:28 can only be understood against the background of the particular terms which describe what precedes the eating of the paschal lamb.…The comments of Milligan and Moulton that were made over a hundred years ago, lead us in our understanding of John 18:28.…the concern of the Jews as they stand before the praetorium was a concern for a passover meal that was in progress – not a meal to be celebrated 24 hours later.77

Story goes on to show that in the OT, the verb ‘keep’78 is a comprehensive term which refers to the entire seven-day feast (Exod 12:48; Num 9:2, 14; Deut 16:1; Ezra 6:19; 2 Chr 30:1, 13; 35:1). Additionally, special verbs refer to the sequential process of partaking of the Passover lamb itself. Each term has a particular meaning for successive steps in the process. ‘The Jews would: (1) slaughter the passover lamb, (2) prepare it, (3) roast it, and (4) eat it.’79 Story traces the occurrence of these terms in Josiah’s Passover, keep (2 Chr 35:1), slaughter (2 Chr 35:11), roast (2 Chr 35:13; cf. Deut 16:7), and eating is implied (2 Chr 35:18). Story notes consistent usages in Ezra, keep (Ezra 6:19), slaughter (Ezra 6:20), eat (Ezra 6:21), as well as in Hezekiah’s Passover, keep (2 Chr 30:13), slaughter (2 Chr 30:15), and eat (2 Chr 30:18). Story also sees consistent usage continuing into the NT, keep (Matt 26:18; cf. Heb 11:28), slaughter (Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7), preparation (Mark 14:12, 15, 16; Matt 26:17; Luke 22:8, 9, 12, 13). ‘John’s description in 18:28 is not comprehensive, and thus it is not parallel to…“to keep” the passover.’80 Instead, John is referring specifically to the final phase only, the ‘eating.’ 76 Marshall, Supper, 70; Jeremias, Words, 80, citing Aramaic referents and parallel phrases for the day before the New Year and the day before the Day of Atonement. Whitacre, John, 454–5 agrees that the day of preparation can be understood to mean Friday. 77 Story, ‘Terminology,’ 322. 78 Story’s discussion does not engage the original languages, but we shall do so just below. 79 Story, ‘Terminology,’ 321. 80 Ibid., 322.

Last Supper and Passover

­71

John’s account conveys that events move quickly after Judas’ betrayal. The religious leaders authorize an immediate arrest, causing all those involved to interrupt what they are doing. Although they had wanted to avoid such activities during the feast (Mark 14:2), this opportunity results in their doing so. They therefore ‘had only had time to slay the lamb, prepare it, and roast it, but no time to eat it.’81 The Mishnah (m.Pes. 10:9.A; m.Zeb.5:8.H) directs that the paschal lamb be eaten by midnight. However, Exodus 12:10 allows six more hours, which the Mishnah (m.Ber.1:1.L-N) allows as a grace period.82 The adverb of time in John 18:28 ‘early’ prwi< indicates the fourth watch, or 3:00–6:00 am.83 This was still within the time allowed to eat the paschal lamb on the actual night/morning of Passover. 2.2.5.3 Further linguistic evidence Because of the brevity of his article, Story does not address the original sources.84 As a way of expanding upon his work, the first list will summarize his observations just above. Our subsequent list will provide the corresponding Greek and Hebrew terms. Story’s observations:

comprehensive term, entire OT seven-day feast keep – Exod 12:48; Num 9:2, 14; Deut 16:1; Ezra 6:19; 2 Chr 30:1, 13; 35:1



Hezekiah’s Passover keep – 2 Chr 30:13 slaughter – 2 Chr 30:15 eat – 2 Chr 30:18



Josiah’s Passover keep – 2 Chr 35:1 slaughter – 2 Chr 35:11 roast – 2 Chr 35:13; cf. Deut 16:7 eating is implied – 2 Chr 35:18



81 Story, ‘Terminology,’ 322. 82 Subsequent to Story’s article, his argument is supported by IB who identifies the first two segments of m.Ber.1:1 as dating to pre-AD 70 (IB, Traditions, 43). These have to do with the Shema. The subsequent discussion expands into the topic of the time for eating sacrifices. R. (Rabbi, ‘my teacher’) Eliezer and Rabban (‘our teacher’) Gamaliel are noted by name. IB dates them AD 80–120, assuming the second Gamaliel. The term ‘sages’ is used, which refers to seekers of wisdom in general, apparently of any era (IB, Traditions, 4). Though not all of this discussion is clearly from Jesus’ era, it is comparatively very ancient. There does not seem to be evidence that the timing allowed for eating in Exodus 12:10 had been curtailed in the first century. The validity of 3–6am eating is reasonable. 83 BDAG, prwi< , 892. 84 Phone conversation with Cullen Story, January 29, 2007.

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

72

Ezra keep – Ezra 6:19 slaughter – Ezra 6:20 eat – Ezra 6:21 NT

keep – Matt 26:18; cf. Heb 11:28 slaughter – Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7 preparation – Mark 14:12, 15, 16; Matt 26:17; Luke 22:8, 9, 12, 13 eat – John 18:28

To these can be added: slaughter – Exod 12:6 prepare – 2 Chr 35:14; Matt 26:19 eat – Exod 12:7, 8; Deut 16:7; Matt 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:8

Further examination shows that the NT’s usage of terms is consistent with Hebrew and LXX referents. With a minor LXX exception for Exodus 12:6 and Ezra 6:20, the same Hebrew and Greek terms are used throughout for each stage. Thus, the specific use of evsqi,w in John 18:28 deserves attention. English

Hebrew

Greek/LXX

keep/celebrate entire 7 day feast h#&f(f poie,w Exod 12:48; Num 9:2,14; Deut 16:1; 2 Chr 30:1,13; 35:1; Ezra 6:19; Matt 26:18; Heb 11:28 slaughter/sacrifice +xa#$f 2 Chr 30:15, 35:11; Ezra 6:20; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7;1 Cor 5:7 Exod 12:6; Ezra 6:20

qu,w sfa,zw

prepare Nw%k@ e`toima,zw 2 Chr 35:14; Matt 26:17, 19; Mark 14:12, 15, 16; Luke 22:8, 9, 12, 13 roast l#$ab@f Deut 16:7 2 Chr 35:13

e[yw kai. ovpta,w ovpta,w

eat lka) evsqi,w Exod 12:7, 8; Deut 16:7; 2 Chr 30:18; Ezra 6:21; Matt 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:8; John 18:28 celebrate a feast Exod 5:1; 12:14; 1 Cor 5:8

ggFxf

e`orta,zw

Last Supper and Passover

­73

These usages are consistent through the biblical accounts of the Passover during the times of Moses (Exod, Num, Deut), Hezekiah (2 Chr 30), Josiah (2 Chr 35), and after the exile (Ezra). In the NT, only Matthew uses the comprehensive term ‘keep’ (Matt 26:18; cf. Heb 11:28), still distinct from ‘prepare’ and ‘eat.’ While the stage of ‘roasting’ in the NT seems to have been subsumed by the term ‘prepare,’ the stage of ‘eating’ is still obviously distinct. The precision and consistency of these terms does support the view that John’s use of the term ‘eat’ in 18:28 does not refer to the entirety of ‘keeping’ the Passover, nor to the paschal meal event in its entirety, but to the final stage of partaking of the paschal lamb. Story’s approach here is consistent with our Scriptural Theology interpretive approach of tracing concepts across biblical books, and with intensive classic exegesis which pays careful attention to the details of the biblical text.85 John’s account simply includes a few characters who want to have a late dinner. 2.2.5.4 Corroborating view Hamilton arrives at a similar conclusion. Instead of a linguistic rationale, however, his rationale revolves around the timing of the priests’ choice to arrest Jesus. First, he suggests that the priests’ Passover suppers were already postponed because of their busy day. ‘Because of the large numbers of pilgrims in Jerusalem…the priests would not have eaten until their work was finished.’86 Secondly, he suggests that the events surrounding Jesus’ arrest interrupted their late supper. Having received Judas’ offer (Mk. 14:10), after his advance warning (Mk. 14:43; John 18:3), they assembled their brethren…who would otherwise have been eating their paschal supper, and possibly also alerted Pilate. They then worked intensively through the night to secure charges against Jesus which they might press before Pilate. Therefore when they came to Pilate early (18:28) they had not yet eaten their paschal meal.87

According to the view held by Milligan and Moulton, Story, and Hamilton, then, there actually is no discrepancy between the Synoptics’ chronology and John’s. This study agrees and believes this is the best way to resolve the chronological objection to the Last Supper being a Passover meal.

85 See section 1.2.1.1; cf. the footnote at the end of section 1.1.3.2 regarding William Webb’s work and the gradual comprehension of a biblical message. This resolution to the Johannine chronology issue may also have come clearer into view in this era due to the increased credibility of allowing OT and NT studies to inform one another rather than being compartmentalized. In this case, the OT study of terms informs our NT understanding of chronology. 86 John Hamilton, ‘The Chronology of the Crucifixion and the Passover,’ Churchman 106 (1992): 323–8, citing 333. 87 Hamilton, ‘Chronology,’ 333. In a related footnote, Hamilton, like Story, acknowledges Milligan and Moulton, especially their suggestion that Judas’ betrayal interrupted the priests’ paschal meal. Milligan and Moulton, John, 204.

74

2.3

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Examples of Passover messages that inform the Feast

Establishing the Last Supper as a properly timed Passover meal contributes to the validity of claims that the meaning of the Last Supper, as well as the continuing Feast, can be properly informed by Passover themes. It also helps to verify that the events that happen in Mark 11–14 happen on Nisan 10–15, consistent with the original instructions given in Exodus 12:1-13, making the Passion events even more clearly their antitype. As we shall see in section 5.1, when Paul relates Christ, Passover, and an ongoing keeping of the Feast (1 Cor 5:8), he refers to yet another term e`orta,zw, which is a keeping or celebration directly related to the remembrance of God’s redemption (e.g., Exod 5:1; 12:14). Our Scriptural Theology interpretive approach recognizes the importance of the historical-literary analysis which supports the view that all the gospel accounts present the Last Supper as a properly timed Passover meal. Our Scriptural Theology interpretive approach also recognizes the validity of questions such as, ‘What might God’s purpose have been in orchestrating the Last Supper to be a Passover meal?’ and ‘What might God be revealing about himself through this meal?’ Just a brief consideration of these questions yields an even deeper meaning to the Last Supper, a Passover meal. The connection between Passover and the Last Supper helps to undergird messages which continue from the OT into the NT and into the Feast. For example, Motyer recognizes that the message of deliverance celebrated in the Passover continues into the Last Supper, yet with a new focus on a new covenant in Christ. Jesus was telling them to celebrate Passover no longer in remembrance of the Exodus, but instead in remembrance of himself. This had profound implications for the disciples.…Are they Jews, remembering with thankfulness God’s deliverance of their nation from slavery into freedom? No more. Their identity as disciples of Jesus Christ now takes over. And the new foundational event to which remembrance is directed?…His death takes over from the Exodus as the foundational event, but the style of remembering remains the same.88

The Last Supper was the last time followers of Jesus began the meal as a celebration of the Exodus deliverance. It was also the first time the meal incorporated its new focus on the death of Christ and deliverance under a new covenant.89 That new focus endures. At the Feast, Christians celebrate the deliverance won for them by Jesus’ blood just as the Jews had celebrated the deliverance won for them by the original Passover lamb’s blood. This correlation is deeply rooted in the historical and biblical connections between Passover and the Last Supper, connections orchestrated by God. God reveals at the Last Supper that his acts of deliverance continue in Christ. 88 Steve Motyer, Remember Jesus (Fearn: Christian Focus, 1995), 62–3, italics his. 89 So, John Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53, WBC 35c (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993), 1044.

Last Supper and Passover

75­

Another example of how this linkage between Passover and the Last Supper is relevant to the ongoing Feast involves the motif of new beginnings. Exodus 12 begins by describing a new beginning. ‘This month shall be the beginning of months for you; it is to be the first month of the year to you’ (Exod 12:2). The Lord instructs his people to observe this new memorial of Passover at the beginning of the new year, in celebration of their new deliverance. Routledge notes, ‘In the OT, celebration of the Passover is often associated with important new beginnings in Israel’s life (e.g., Josh 5:10-12; 2 Chr 35:1-19; Ezra 6:1921).’90 A new beginning is a transformation from what was to what is and what is yet to be. God transforms his people’s calendar, setting Passover aside as the time for transforming from old to new. The Last Supper, as a Passover meal, also marks the time of a new beginning. It marks the pivotal transformation from old to new covenant (1 Cor 11:25), including a new significance to the ordinance itself. This motif of new beginnings develops from application to the Israelites who left Egypt, to the Israelites who entered into the promised land, to the Israelites during the era of the monarchy, to post-exilic Israelites, to the disciples at the Last Supper.91 This trajectory points forward to those who participate in the ongoing Feast. The Feast is an opportunity for a new beginning, a fresh start. God orchestrates the Passover in history as a chronological new beginning, the Last Supper as a covenantal new beginning,92 and the Feast as an opportunity for spiritual new beginnings. God reveals himself in all of these as the God of infinite-secondchances. It is never too late for God’s acts of transformation. This is one of the innumerable benefits Christ our Passover has procured, and the Feast is a setting which can communicate this refreshing benefit to believers.

2.4 Summary So, we have aligned ourselves with Jeremias and others who support the paschal nature of the Last Supper, and we have expanded upon Story’s analysis of terminology to suggest a resolution to the Johannine chronological issue. This historical-literary evidence provides sufficient grounds for us to proceed with the view that the Last Supper is a Passover meal held at the proper time. The paschal nature of the Last Supper provides insight into the meaning of the ongoing Feast. The ongoing transformed Passover meal conveys that God’s acts of deliverance continue in Christ, and that new beginnings continue to flow from God. Our next step will be to focus our historical-literary analysis on the form of the biblical texts which describe the institution and interpretation of the Last Supper, and to investigate further linkages between OT and the Feast. 90 Robin Routledge, ‘Passover and Last Supper,’ TynBul 53 (2002): 203–21, citing 209. 91 Casey’s study in the Aramaic supports this view that the redemptive character of the feast of Passover was transmitted to the disciples in the fresh context of the Last Supper, and the Supper included an anticipation to newly experience the benefits of redemption. Casey, Aramaic, 240. 92 So, France, Mark, 570.

3 Historical-Literary Analysis The purpose of section 3 is to establish the texts for the words of institution and interpretation, both the most original form available to us, and also the earliest canonical developments. Such an original form helps point us toward Jesus’ intentions for the Last Supper and Feast, and it helps identify motifs which bridge from the OT into the Last Supper. Canonical developments help point us toward understanding the church’s early belief and practice. This progression from OT to Last Supper to early belief and practice provides grounds for identifying trajectories of meaning which carry forward to the ongoing Feast.

3.1

Words of institution

The words of institution and interpretation are important texts to consider as we search to answer, ‘What are the potential benefits of keeping the Feast?’ As we examine these texts, we will do so according to our starting point, the interpretive approach of Scriptural Theology. This generates our interest in questions related not only to the Sitz im Leben of the text and the intent of the original human author, but also the Sitz im Kanon of the text and the intent of the divine author. Further, Scriptural Theology recognizes that the global church is in the process of maturing across the centuries. Deeper insights into the words of institution and interpretation, still within bounds and in line with established trajectories of meaning, may be perceived amidst the maturing church in der Mitte der reifenden Kirche by successive generations of interpreters. In this section, we will narrow our focus to texts related to the institution and interpretation of the Last Supper and the ongoing Feast. This examination will seek to clarify, as much as possible, the words and actions of Jesus, as well as the way in which they are canonically reported. Such authentic wording is the nexus for trajectories of meaning back to OT antecedents and forward to NT developments and beyond. Tracing concepts from the OT, to Jesus’ intent at the Last Supper, to early church developments, helps to clarify how the message about the Feast progresses within Scripture. The prior sections show how the Passover nature of the Last Supper supports viewing Exodus and Passover as fundamental subtexts to our eucharistic texts.

Historical-Literary Analysis

­77

Establishing the wording, as best we can, which reflects Jesus’ own intentional allusions to Exodus and Passover will further strengthen the view that seeing the Feast in light of Exodus and Passover is due to more than liturgical or ecclesiastical accretion. 3.1.1

Mark as baseline

3.1.1.1 Two textual versions There are basically two textual versions of the words of institution and interpretation to consider, Mark/Matthew (Mark 14:22-25; Matt 26:26-29) and Paul/Luke (Luke 22:15-20; 1 Cor 11:23-25).1 Much literary analysis has been done in an attempt to identify, as nearly as is possible, which portions of these versions best reflect the original wording. This is a valid endeavor and, although most would say still inconclusive, has at least resulted in an assuredness that the Last Supper narratives are historical, reliable, and not additions of later practice read back into the text. Marshall affirms, Whichever form of the tradition is accepted as original, the essential theological content is not seriously affected…historical investigation of this kind is a necessary preliminary to a study of this story and has helped to show that the narrative is securely based in early and reliable tradition which has been preserved in more than one line of transmission.2

3.1.1.2 Mark’s version overall is earlier As with our discussion in 2.1.1, we will structure our discussion around seeing Mark’s version as earliest, and compare the other versions to this baseline. According to Mark, the words of institution are: 14:22a While they were eating, he took some bread, and after a blessing he broke it, and gave it to them, and said,

Kai. evsqio,ntwn auvtw/n labw.n a;rton euvlogh,saj e;klasen kai. e;dwken auvtoi/j kai. ei=pen\

14:23-24a And when he had taken a cup and given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And he said to them, kai. labw.n poth,rion euvcaristh,saj e;dwken auvtoi/j( kai. e;pion evx auvtou/ pa,ntejÅ 24 kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j\

Of all the Last Supper narratives in the gospels and 1 Corinthians, Mark’s is earliest.3 The distinct introduction, style, grammar, and vocabulary point to a 1 See Appendices A – The Words of Institution, and B – The Words of Interpretation. 2 Marshall, Supper, 56. 3 Fee repeatedly refers to Jeremias and Marshall in his discussion of 1 Cor 11:23-26. Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 545– 58. Fee agrees on the priority of Mark and that Paul’s text arose from a preexisting tradition. Ibid., 546, 548. So, Casey, Aramaic, 219, 251.

78

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

preexisting liturgical formula that was fixed even before inclusion in Mark.4 Jeremias prioritizes Mark 14:22-24, ‘whose antiquity approaches that of the early kerygma (1 Cor 15:3b-5).’5 Jeremias sees Mark’s verb euvlogh,saj (Mark 14:22a) as earlier than Paul’s euvcaristh,saj (1 Cor 11:24a) which shows redactional ‘graecizing’6 and which Luke later retains. The basic elements of the liturgical formula of take, bless/ thank, and break are common to all four accounts. Jeremias notes several other semitisms supporting his view that Mark transmits an older tradition, even though the date of the writing of 1 Corinthians is earlier.7 More recently, Casey presents a study of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls. Based upon his work with the Mark 14:12-26 text, he points to a date as early as AD 40 for these sources for Mark’s gospel, highlights the gospel’s semitic nature, agrees it is overall more original than 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, and provides insights into the paschal details of the Last Supper.8 Kilpatrick discusses the differences between the accounts in Mark and 1 Corinthians. He mostly agrees with Jeremias, making no substantial contributions to the contrary. Kilpatrick does offer a helpful clarifying comment about the lack of the definite article ‘a cup’ poth,rion (Mark 14:23; Matt 26:27) compared with ‘the cup’ to poth,rion (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). ‘There was a tendency in Greek stylists to be sparing in the use of the article … Though Mark’s account is less explicit, it would not imply a different practice.’9 Kilpatrick also points out the contrast between Mark 14:24 ‘my blood of the covenant’ and its recalling of Exodus 24:6-8, and 1 Corinthians 11:25 ‘the new covenant in my blood’ and its recalling of Jeremiah 31:31-33.10 Exodus explains ‘blood,’ while Jeremiah explains ‘new.’ Kilpatrick interprets this difference as supporting the view that Paul’s account is later than Mark’s because the reference to blood is a closer and more obvious link with covenant. ‘Jeremiah has nothing about blood at all. This suggests that 1 Corinthians is secondary in using the word “new” with reference to Jeremiah.’11

4 Jeremias, Words, 96–7. 5 Joseph Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, AYB 32 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 435, agrees the tradition predates Paul. Jeremias, Words, 100. Jeremias uses the term kerygma to refer to the earliest form of the truth that was preached concerning Jesus’ death and Resurrection. See 1 Cor 15:14 kh,rugma. Thiselton refers to Jeremias with agreement. Thiselton, Corinthians, 867. 6 Jeremias, Words, 113. We will discuss graecisms, i.e., terms or phrases which translate Hebrew sources and are smoothed for the sake of Greek language style, below in sections 3.1.1.3, 3.1.2.1, and 3.1.2.2. 7 Ibid., 186. 8 Casey, Aramaic, 219–52. 9 Kilpatrick, Eucharist, 26. 10 Fee also points out that the passage in Jeremiah refers to Exod 24, thus in Mark’s version ‘the Old Covenant is referred to explicitly and the New implicitly, while in Paul’s it is the reverse.’ Fee, Corinthians, 555. 11 Kilpatrick, Eucharist, 27.

Historical-Literary Analysis

­79

It is worth noting that while Marshall ultimately says that he believes the Paul/Luke tradition to be older than Mark’s, in so arguing he dates the tradition recorded in 1 Corinthians as very early but recognizes there is a source which is even older. Marshall takes note of reception and transmission terminology ‘received…delivered’ (1 Cor 11:23) which points to an even older tradition. ‘He [Paul] is using the same vocabulary as Jewish teachers used when they were passing on authoritative statements from past teachers which had first been passed on to them.’12 Marshall agrees with Jeremias that vocabulary and style which are not commonly Pauline also point to this being a quote of a preexisting source. Similar to Jeremias’ dates, Marshall maintains that the book of 1 Corinthians was written ca. AD 56, and Paul refers to this language which he had used while in their midst, which Marshall believes would have been ca. AD 51. ‘This means that Paul’s statement was in existence within some twenty years of the death of Jesus,’13 most likely a Greek translation of a semitic original from the church in Jerusalem.14 Although Marshall argues for the Paul/Luke text to be the most original, he allows for a semitic tradition older than 1 Corinthians. This point could allow for Jeremias’ preference for Mark. Both versions can be shown to be very early and based on preexisting sources. We prefer the priority of Mark, according to Jeremias’ and Casey’s convincing arguments. Jeremias argues for the priority of Mark by noting issues which impact the age of the tradition underlying the words of institution and interpretation.15 (1) The most primitive tradition was formulated in Aramaic or Hebrew. It underlies two independent Greek sources for the Mark tradition and for the Paul/Luke tradition. (2) Paul develops the oldest tradition for Greek-speaking congregations. (3) Paul wrote his account probably in the spring of ca. AD 54 (Jeremias dates 1 Corinthians two years earlier than Marshall), and he refers back to an oral transmission of the tradition which he would have given to the Corinthians in the autumn of ca. AD 49. (4) Luke has some material more original than Paul, which points to a pre-Pauline stage of the form found in 1 Corinthians.16 (5) Mark has preserved a linguistic form older than these, a form which Jeremias believes belongs to ‘the first decade after the death of Jesus.’17 3.1.1.3 Other accounts retain some elements older than Mark’s While the Markan tradition is linguistically oldest, the other accounts (except Matthew which depends upon Mark) transmit some elements which are even older. In Paul, ‘after supper’ (1 Cor 11:25) shows a more ancient order of events. The Last Supper follows the Passover sequence of events with the blessing of the bread, then the main meal, then the blessing of the cup.18 12 Marshall, Supper, 32. 13 Ibid., 32. 14 Ibid., 33. 15 Jeremias, Words, 186–9. So, Casey, Aramaic, 219–52. 16 See sections 3.1.1.3 and 3.1.2.3. 17 Jeremias, Words, 189. 18 Routledge, ‘Passover,’ 210–20. Jeremias, Words, 85–6, 109-110. Thiselton,

80

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Jeremias briefly traces the development in the early church of the bread and cup being brought together, and then eventually separated from the meal.19 Paul’s wording reflects the oldest order of events.20 Marshall agrees with the more original nature of this phrase in Paul.21 However, this one phrase is not enough to justify dating all of the Paul/Luke tradition prior to Mark. Luke supplements our understanding of the eschatological prospect (i.e., references to the coming kingdom, Mark 14:25; Matt 26:29; Luke 22:15-18; 1 Cor 11:26). Luke adheres to Markan arrangement with only slight variance (Luke 6:17-19; 8:19-21) prior to the Passion narrative. Jeremias calls Luke ‘in contrast to Matthew, an enemy of rearrangement.’22 In light of this, Luke’s placement of the eschatological prospect prior to the words of institution (Luke 22:15-18)23 indicates he is following a source other than Mark.24 Luke’s order regarding the eschatological prospect can be taken as more original than Mark because of: (1) the natural association of these words with the opening of the Passover meal (Luke 22:14-16); (2) their consistency with Jesus’ vow of abstinence (Luke 22:17-18);25 (3) and the more basic beginning to the words of institution in Luke 22:19 kai. labw,n ‘and taking,’ which is prior to the ‘liturgical…redactional connecting link’26 of Mark 14:22 kai. evsqio,ntwn auvtw/n Corinthians, 882. cf. Casey’s view that the blessing in Mark 14:22 is not the opening blessing, but a special blessing just before the words of interpretation over both bread and wine. Casey, Aramaic, 239–40. 19 Jeremias, Words, 115–22. He cites Jude 12; the Ethiopic and Coptic texts of the Epistula Apostolorum; Justin, Apol. I 67.3-7; Hippolytus, Ap. Trad. 28.1; Didache 9, 10. Jeremias interprets Acts 2:42 to refer to events in order, first teaching and agape, then eucharist (breaking of bread and prayers). He defines the term proskarterou/ntej ‘devoting themselves’ in light of the use of proskarte,rhsij found in a Panticapaeum inscription dated AD 80 which indicates regular visits to the synagogue (cf. MM, 548). Jeremias understands proskarterei/n elsewhere in Acts also to refer to worship ‘(2.46 Temple worship; 1.14 communal prayer; 6.4 prayer and ministry of the word).’ Jeremias, Words, 118. 20 Luke introduces a subtle change indicating movement toward the separation. His expression ‘in the same way the cup after they had eaten’ is subtly twofold and could have the meaning that the bread and the cup both were after the meal, or that the cup was handled similarly to the bread later in the evening. Paul’s account is from a different tradition but also reflects the order which is earlier than Mark/Matthew (Luke 22:20a and 1 Cor 11:25a). Mark/Matthew reveal the later order of when bread and wine were taken together apart from the meal. Marshall takes this evidence further than Jeremias and, also considering Mark’s longer form of the text involving the cup, concludes the entire Paul/Luke account is older. Marshall, Supper, 42. 21 Marshall, Supper, 42. 22 Jeremias, Words, 98. 23 The cup of Luke 22:17 would then be identified with the first cup of the Passover meal, the cup of sanctification. Routledge, ‘Passover,’ 210 and Jeremias, Words, 85. See Appendix C. cf. Casey’s view that the four cup schema for the paschal meal came at a later date. Casey, Aramaic, 240. 24 Marshall, Supper, 40, agrees with Jeremias that Luke had access to a source in addition to Mark, also citing H. Schürmann, Der Einsetzungsbericht, 17–42. Kilpatrick, Eucharist, 28, disagrees, seeing Mark as Luke’s only source, and scribes made internal changes to Mark’s account, resulting in Luke’s. 25 Nolland, Luke, 3:1050, prefers the expression ‘prophetic anticipation.’ 26 Jeremias, Words, 113.

Historical-Literary Analysis

­81

labw,n ‘and while they were eating he took,’ and Matthew 26:26 Vesqio,ntwn de. auvtw/n labw.n o` VIhsou/j ‘and while they were eating Jesus took.’27 Jeremias gives evidence for his view that there was a semitic original underlying both Mark’s shorter (Mark 14:25; Matt 26:29) and Luke’s longer (Luke 22:1518) eschatological prospect traditions.28 Luke’s shows more graecizing than Mark’s, so while Luke’s is reliable and the ordering is more original, Mark’s wording is more original.29 Jeremias concludes, ‘already in the Semitic stage of tradition the number of current variations of the eucharistic words was greater than our texts allow us to discern.’30 Then followed several Greek translations at a time before the liturgical formulation was fixed. Evidence of a pre-liturgical form underscores the claim that, ‘at the beginning there stands not liturgy, but historical account.’31 While the exact wording of the primitive form is not reconstructable, ‘Mark linguistically stands nearest to it.’32 So, we have seen evidence that the biblical narratives of the Last Supper are rooted in historical events and they are not simply literary constructs. These historical events quickly gave rise to an oral tradition reporting most likely semitic wording. This ancient semitic source gave rise to multiple translations and written records, quickly (perhaps even within a decade) formalized into a liturgical formula most closely reflected by Mark’s account. Luke and Paul do offer a few other phrases which seem nearer to the most ancient form, but these are not sufficient to warrant seeing their overall form as older than Mark’s. All of this evidence supports using Mark as a good starting point or baseline for the words of institution. 3.1.2 Supplements from Matthew, Luke and Paul In addition to Paul/Luke’s separation of the bread and cup, and Luke’s ordering of the eschatological prospect, there are additional insights to be gained from the other accounts. They offer other instances of terminology more original than Mark. They also offer clarifications which reflect use of the form over time by the community. The four versions of the words of institution and interpretation need not be treated as mutually exclusive. All arose from the same historic events. Each can potentially contribute to an understanding of the most original wording, 27 Ibid., 191–2. 28 Ibid., 161–3, 174–5. Examples of Jeremias’ indications of a semitic source include: the reference to eating the Passover; the expression ‘fruit of the vine’ referring to wine (m.Ber. 6:1; t.Ber. 4:3; b.Pes. 103a); the phrase ‘eat the Passover’ (Targ. 2 Chr 30:18); Mark’s use (Mark 14:25) of the semitic avmh,n compared to Luke’s use of the graecized ga,r (Luke 22:16); the use of the graecized euvcariste,w (Luke 22:17) instead of euvloge,w for bless K7rfb@f barak (cf. j.Ber. 6.10a.9; 6.10a.63; 6.10a.49; 8.12a.45). 29 Jeremias, Words, 161–4. 30 Ibid., 190. 31 Ibid., 192. So, Casey, Aramaic, 250. 32 Ibid., 191.

82

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

as seen above in section 3.1.1.3 in the discussion of the phrase ‘after supper.’ Each can reveal some of the earliest liturgical developments, which indicate the earliest church’s understanding and practice and help to establish the beginnings of trajectories for the ongoing Feast. 3.1.2.1 Matthew shows liturgical development We noted Mark’s version in section 3.1.1.2. We note the other versions here. Matthew substitutes the words in italics for Mark’s version of the words of institution:33 26:26a While they were eating, he Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing he broke it, and gave it to them the disciples, and said, VEsqio,ntwn de. auvtw/n labw.n o` VIhsou/j a;rton kai. euvlogh,saj e;klasen kai. dou.j toi/j maqhtai/j ei=pen\ 26:27 And when he had taken a cup and given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And he said to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you; kai. labw.n poth,rion kai. euvcaristh,saj e;dwken auvtoi/j le,gwn\ pi,ete evx auvtou/ pa,ntej(

Luke’s version of the words of institution: 22:19a And when he had taken some bread and given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, kai. labw.n a;rton euvcaristh,saj e;klasen kai. e;dwken auvtoi/j le,gwn\ 22:20a And in the same way he took the cup after they had eaten, saying, kai. to. poth,rion w`sau,twj meta. to. deipnh/sai( le,gwn\

Paul’s version of the words of institution in 1 Corinthians: 11:23b-24a the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, o` ku,rioj VIhsou/j evn th/| nukti. h-| paredi,deto e;laben a;rton 24kai. euvcaristh,saj e;klasen kai. ei=pen\ 11:25a In the same way he took the cup also after supper, saying, w`sau,twj kai. to. poth,rion meta. to. deipnh/sai le,gwn\

For the words concerning the bread, Matthew (Matt 26:26a) retains the more original ‘blessing’ euvloge,w instead of the graecized ‘give thinks’ euvcariste,w found in Paul and Luke (1 Cor 11:24a; Luke 22:19a).34 Although maintaining 33 See Appendix A – The Words of Institution. 34 Jeremias, Words, 174–5. Matthew maintains the semitic euvloge,w for bless arising from K7rfb@f barak (cf. j.Ber. 6.10a.9; 6.10a.63; 6.10a.49; 8.12a.45) instead of the graecized euvcariste,w

Historical-Literary Analysis

­83

the more original semitic form in ways such as this, the account in Matthew does also show subsequent liturgical development,35 providing terms which focus less on the historical persons and events, and are rather more descriptive and suited for the use of the community. ‘Jesus’ is clearly specified as the subject. ‘The disciples’ is a more general term, allowing for a broadening canonical understanding of participants beyond the historical ‘them.’ ‘All of you’ rather than ‘they all’ similarly invites the ongoing community’s involvement. The change from Mark’s indicative ‘they all drank from it’ e;pion evx auvtou/ pa,ntej to Matthew’s imperative ‘Drink from it all of you’ pi,ete evx auvtou/ pa,ntej is a ‘formula of distribution.’36 3.1.2.2 Paul’s theological connotations The account in Paul/Luke moves away from Mark’s baseline in ways that provide theological commentaries on the words of institution. The term for thanksgiving is emphasized, the divine action in the betrayal is highlighted, the cup is associated with blessing, and the Last Supper tradition is as significant as the kerygma tradition. Unlike Matthew, Luke and Paul move away from the use of the older semitic euvloge,w toward the term more commonly and comfortably used in Greek, euvcariste,w.37 They also simplify what would then be a redundancy if the term was used for both the bread portion and the cup portion. The result is the migration of the graecized term euvcariste,w to the position associated with the bread portion. An eventual consequence when the bread portion and the cup portion are brought into proximity is that the term serves as the broader themesetting term for the whole event.38 This has what we consider to be an unfortunate side-effect, that the use of the single term euvcariste,w results in a connotation of meaning which is narrower than Mark’s original use of euvloge,w.39 Paul’s liturgical formula also incorporates a commentary, the theologically significant words of 1 Corinthians 11:23b (YLT) ‘in the night in which he was delivered up.’ Though Judas’ betrayal could be the referent here, the fact that Paul is not giving a strictly historical narrative points toward an alternative meaning which is more theological.40 God himself is the referent, acting sovereignly for redemptive purposes. Jesus, ultimately, was delivered (Luke 22:17). Jeremias also supports his view that euvloge,w is the more original semitic form by observing its paired use with lamba,nw. The taking is ‘a movement (or attitude) which is preparatory to the action on which the stress lies; that is true for…e.g. Matt 13.31, o]n labw.n a;nqrwpoj e;speiren (“which a man took and sowed”); 13.33…; 14.19; 15.36; 17.27; 21.35, 39; 25.1; 26.26, 27; 27.24, 48, 59; Mark 6.41; 8.6; 9.36; 12.3, 8; Luke 6.4; 9.16; 13.19, 21; 24.30, 43; John 6.11; 13.4, 26; 19.1, 6, 23, 40; 21.13; Acts 9.25; 16.3; 27.35; I Cor. 11.23; Rev. 8.5.’ See also section 4 for the view that the stress lies on the act of blessing. 35 Ibid., 113. 36 Fee, Corinthians, 546. Jeremias, Words, 171. 37 See section 4.2.1.1. 38 See section 4.4.2.3. 39 See section 4.4. 40 Fee sees Judas as the ‘first reference,’ but also recognizes the ambiguity. Fee, Corinthians, 549.

84

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

up by God.41 Jeremias believes this phrase serves to free ‘the account of the institution from the concrete historical situation.’42 Paul generalizes the backdrop of the ongoing Feast. Allusions to Exodus themes and Passover, and not just the one specific Last Supper paschal meal, come into view. Casey agrees that Paul’s account is rewritten for its situation and to generalize the ongoing observance.43 Paul and Luke refer to the words of institution for the cup as following the meal,44 and they specify ‘the’ cup rather than ‘a’ cup as in Mark/Matthew.45 Mark and Matthew bring the words of institution for the cup into proximity with the words of institution for the bread, omit the reference to ‘after they had eaten/supper,’ and have no definite article for ‘cup.’46 Based on the discussion in section 3.1.1.3, the more original ‘after supper’ sequence of the words of institution for the cup, it is likely that the cup originally referred to the specific cup of blessing as in Luke and Paul and the article was later omitted.47 So, Paul’s use of ‘the’ cup is not only more original, but more clearly associates the cup with meanings associated with the Passover cup of blessing. Mark and Matthew offer cup wording which is parallel with the bread wording, referring to taking, giving thanks, giving, and drinking.48

41 The term for ‘was delivered up’ here is the imperfect passive form of paradi,dwmi. The LXX uses this verb regularly to describe God’s action of delivering someone or a nation over to another, as sovereign activity in general (e.g., Gen 27:20; Exod 21:13), as judgment (e.g., Lev 26:25; Judg. 2:14; Isa 19:4; Jer 34:2) or to be conquered (e.g., Gen 14:20; Exod 23:31; Lev 21:2-3; Num 21:34; 32:4; Deut 1:8, 21; Josh 2:14). Many of these references have to do with the promised land. Psalm 78:48 (LXX 77:48) uses this term specifically of the sixth plague (cf. Exod 9:19). Isaiah 53:12 LXX uses this verb also in the passive form to describe the Servant who was poured out or handed over to death and who was poured out or handed over on account of sins. Garland agrees that the better translation is ‘delivered up’ instead of ‘betrayed’ because it is difficult to be certain about whether the emphasis here is on Judas’ betrayal or on God’s purposes. ‘It can be a divine passive that refers to God’s plan…God’s hand (Rom. 4:25; 8:32; cf. Isa. 53:6-12 LXX) and Jesus’ willing submission (Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:2, 25) are ultimately behind Christ’s being delivered up.’ David Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 545. So, Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 436; Hays, Corinthians, 198; Edwards, Mark, 424, 429, who sees Mark 14:27-28 related to Mark 14:21 in this way. 42 Jeremias, Words, 115. 43 Casey, Aramaic, 249. 44 Jeremias, Words, 122. Luke’s wording is such that the bread may likewise have been after the meal. 45 Stein agrees this is likely the third cup of the Passover meal. Stein, Mark, 650. cf. the cup of blessing (1 Cor 10:16). Routledge, ‘Passover,’ 210–20. 46 The result is a broader more liturgically appropriate identification for the cup other than the specific Passover cup of blessing. 47 This is consistent with Kilpatrick’s observation about the cup in section 3.1.1.2. 48 Jeremias notes that one of the influences of liturgical usage on the ancient oral tradition was the ‘tendency to make parallel the word over the bread and the word over the cup.’ Jeremias, Words, 114. Marshall admits it is hard to say whether Luke’s or Mark’s wording is more original here, since it is just as likely for original texts to be abbreviated, which Luke could have done. Marshall, Supper, 41–3.

Historical-Literary Analysis

­85

Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 corresponds with rabbinic technical terms related to the practice of passing on a tradition, supporting the view that Paul had a preexisting early semitic source. So, ‘1 Cor. 11.23 says nothing other than that the chain of tradition goes back unbroken to Jesus himself.’49 Jeremias sees indications such as parallelisms, placement of number after noun, and reference to the Hebrew/Aramaic Isaiah 53 rather than the LXX, that the early kerygma in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 was a translation of a semitic source. But, there are places where there is no direct Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent, so there is also an indication that this kerygma tradition was transmitted in a context including Greek influence. Paul’s repetition of reception language in both chapters 11 and 15 points to the Last Supper tradition being formed in the same way as the kerygma tradition, therefore being independent and ancient.50 This view aligns with our understanding that the phrase ‘after supper’ and the article with ‘the’ cup (1 Cor 11:25) are independent of and can be more original than Mark’s form. And, this elevates the Last Supper tradition to a level of importance and influence comparable with the kerygma itself. 3.1.2.3 Luke’s text also transmits allusions As we shall see below in section 3.2 concerning the words of interpretation, the phrase ‘given for you’ is an allusion to Isaiah’s servant and to the sacrificial system in general. As we shall see below in sections 5 and 6 concerning ‘remembrance,’ it alludes to an entire body of OT concepts and motifs. As we just mentioned regarding the term ‘new,’ it alludes to Jeremiah 31:31-33. Luke’s form of the words of institution and interpretation transmit these same allusions (Luke 22:19-20). There is a relevant question regarding textual variants for Luke’s words of institution for the cup and words of interpretation for both bread and cup. A short form omits Luke 22:19b-20. Walton provides a detailed description of the various readings.51 This study agrees with his conclusion, that ‘the overwhelming weight of the manuscript evidence is a strong factor…The editors of UBS4 were therefore right, in my judgement, to include the longer reading in their text and to increase the “rating” of the longer reading from C (UBS3) to B.’52 Jeremias describes the debate regarding the short and long text of the Lukan passage in detail.53 He notes that ‘the Short Text is attested solely by one branch of the Western text.’54 To hold that the short text was original would be to say that the overwhelming majority of texts all received the same identical additions, which is highly improbable. Although there are arguments to commend the short text,55 they can be dismissed in light of the pre-established view that this 49 Jeremias, Words, 101; cf. 1 Cor 15:3. 50 Jeremias, Words, 101–5. 51 Steve Walton, Leadership and Lifestyle (Cambridge: CUP, 2000), 137–9. 52 Walton, Leadership, 139. So, France, Mark, 567. 53 Jeremias, Words, 139–59. 54 By D and the Old Syriac. Jeremias, Words, 144. 55 e.g., shorter is older, more difficult is older, the longer text looks like it borrows from Paul

86

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

is a liturgical text. As such, typical Lukan style is not to be expected in these verses. Jeremias goes further to say that the differences between Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:25 (‘in the same way,’ ‘also’), and the similarity between Luke 22:19 and John 6:51c (‘given for’ and ‘give for’) actually support the view that the Lukan long text is from a third form of the liturgical eucharistic tradition and even more original than Paul.56 Jeremias believes that the short text arose out of the long text as an intentional abbreviation, a common practice ‘in antiquity in texts, scriptural quotations or prayers.’57 He believes this is another instance where ‘shortening took place in order to protect the Eucharist from profanation.’58 Kilpatrick disagrees, seeing Luke’s short text as original and, since he does not believe the Last Supper was a Passover meal, believes that Luke avoided repeating Mark 14:23-24 in order to eliminate the reference to blood.59 Marshall agrees with Jeremias over Kilpatrick that the long text is reliable, but differs with Jeremias’ explanation of the short version, suggesting instead later liturgical influence, intentional scribal simplification, or a unique scribe who made several omissions.60 A more recent article by Billings adds weight to the argument that the long text is the more original.61 He provides a suggestion for the origination of the short text which more specifically addresses what Walton refers to generally as ‘the possibility of scribal misunderstanding or deliberate change.’62 Though Billings does not say it quite this way, his basic suggestion is that the theater of reception of the textual variants can explain the shortening; therefore, the long form is even more reliable. Billings’ discussion centers on the short form found in the textual variants Codex Bezae-Cantabrigiensis, i.e., D, and also Old Latin (itb,e) and Syriac (syrc , syrs , syrp) witnesses.63 Billings recounts various attempts to explain the discrepancy. First, the long-reading has been discounted as non-Lukan in style; but, this is to be expected of a text reflecting an earlier tradition. and Mark. These are examples of what Osborne refers to as internal criteria which help to establish a text. ‘a. The more difficult reading is more likely.…b. The shorter reading is preferred.…c. The reading that best fits the author’s style…is more probable.’ Osborne, Spiral, 45–6. 56 Jeremias, Words, 156, e.g., in the more semitic style, Luke 22:20 does not include the copula evsti.n, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood,’ tou/to to. poth,rion h` kainh. diaqh,kh evn tw/| ai[mati, mou to. u`pe.r u`mw/n evkcunno,menon. Paul adds it, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood’ tou/to to. poth,rion h` kainh. diaqh,kh evsti.n evn tw/| evmw/| ai[mati (1 Cor 11:25). 57 Ibid., 158. 58 Ibid. See also section 3.1.3.4. 59 Kilpatrick, Eucharist, 42. 60 Marshall, Supper, 38. 61 Bradly S. Billings, ‘The Disputed Words in the Lukan Institution Narrative (Luke 22:19b-20): A Sociological Answer to a Textual Problem,’ JBL 125 (2006): 507–25. 62 Walton, Leadership, 139. 63 Billings, ‘Disputed,’ 509–11.

Historical-Literary Analysis

­87

The correspondences between Luke 22:19b-20; 1 Cor 11:23-26; and Mark 14:22-25, all of which are highly traditional passages occurring in liturgical contexts, are…just as easily explained by common dependence of all three on an underlying oral source, possibly the ipsissima verba [the very words] of Jesus himself.64

Billings affirms that phrases which we will later examine for allusions65 can reasonably be attributed to Jesus himself. This point is relevant to our tracing the development of such concepts from the OT, to the Last Supper, and then on into subsequent NT and church eras.66 A second attempt to explain the short text of Luke 22:19 is that a scribe unfamiliar with the paschal meal discounts the double reference to cups and deletes a perceived redundancy; but, such a scenario would more naturally have resulted in deleting the first rather than the second cup reference. Third, the omission is simply a scribal mistake; but, this is unlikely given the importance and familiarity of the text. Billings describes a fourth suggestion, Jeremias’, that the words were concealed as a way of protecting something sacred. Billings’ discussion adds to Jeremias’ by suggesting why such a concealment would happen. Billings believes that just as the Sitz im Leben of the biblical text is crucial to understanding textual meaning, it can also aid in understanding this case of textual variants. ‘Manuscripts such as Codex Bezae function as mirrors of the communities who produced them, and as windows into the world inhabited by them.’67 He proceeds to give extensive evidence regarding the second-century setting which probably gave rise to this variant shorter reading of Luke. Billings describes how dangerous it was for someone to be considered superstitious, involved in magic, sorcery, unaccepted sexual practices, or oaths (blood covenants). ‘Sorcery or divination was the motivation for human sacrifice carried out for the purposes of reading the entrails of the victim, after which the flesh was often eaten (Horace, Epod. 5.85; Juvenal, Sat. 6.548).’68 These were considered to be shameful practices, contrary to the established social system.69 Avoiding association with such things was part of ‘the initial missionary concern, present in the NT itself,…to protect the gospel and to

64 Billings, ‘Disputed,’ 510. 65 e.g., ‘poured out / given for’ ( to. evkcunno,menon u`pe.r pollw/n ‘which is poured out for many’ Mark 14:24b; to. u`pe.r u`mw/n dido,menon ‘which is given for you’ Luke 22:19b; to. u`pe.r u`mw/n evkcunno,menon ‘which is poured out for you’ Luke 22:20b; to. u`pe.r u`mw/n ‘which is for you’ 1 Cor 11:24b), ‘remembrance’ (eivj th.n evmh.n avna,mnhsin ‘in remembrance of me’ Luke 22:19b; 1 Cor 11:24b, 25b), and ‘covenant’ (th/j diaqh,khj ‘of the covenant’ Mark 14:24b; h` kainh. diaqh,kh ‘the new covenant’ Luke 22:20b; 1 Cor 11:25b). 66 See section 5. 67 Billings, ‘Disputed,’ 512. 68 Ibid., 518. 69 Billings, ‘Disputed,’ 512–21. Primary sources cited include: Cicero, Flac. 67; Dio Chrysostom, Dialexis (Or. 42) 26.2 and De Gloria iii (Or. 68) 32.102; Tacitus, Hist. 1.11; 2.4; 4.54; 5.8; 13.32.

88

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

resist accusations…that might impede its preaching and reception.’70 Customs regarding meals, social order in the home, and dress were all taken very seriously.71 ‘In this the gospel [inclusive meal] imperative was both radical and counter-cultural, even dangerously so.’72 When such anti-social practices were suspected, local mobs would take action, even prior to formal governmental persecution. Texts such as the institution narratives presented ominous difficulties. Should they fall into the possession of hostile neighbors, words attributed to Jesus…might further endanger the already precarious social status of the Christian community and, worse, provide quasi-legal grounds for authenticating the popular allegations being made against them in the volatile period of the later second century.73

An example of such violence happened in Lyons (Gaul) in ca. AD 177. Eusebius describes both the horrible degree of the persecution (Hist. Eccl. 5.1-3) and the reasons for it, which included allegations of cannibalism (Hist. Eccl. 5.1.14-15).74 Billings then deduces from the evidence that it is reasonable to relate such danger, even the actual instance of the persecution in Lyons, to the omission in Luke’s text. The date of the Old Latin and Syriac witnesses is near the time of the persecution in Lyons. ‘The textual tradition underlying Codex Bezae, containing the “shorter reading”…was current in the second century, as indicated by the Italic and Syriac witnesses.’75 And, Codex Bezae itself can be argued to be associated with Lyons.76 Billings summarizes his proposed scenario:

70 Billings, ‘Disputed,’ 514–16. Billings sees this concern to protect and refute accusations apparent in Christian apologists such as Justin Martyr (ca. AD 152) (1 Apol. 26; 2 Apol. 12), Theophilus, Autol. 3.4-15; Tertullian, Nat. 1.7; Apol. 7; Minucius Felix, Oct. 7-9; Melito, Petition, Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.26; Tatian, Or. 25; Lactantius, Inst. 7.26; Athenagoras, Leg. 31-35; Origen, Cels. 6.27. They wrote to address mistaken accusations of sexual immorality, cannibalism, and human sacrifice. Some such misunderstandings arose from somewhat secret Christian rituals which were held in the early morning or late night, e.g., Pliny’s letter to Trajan (Ep. 10.96), Hippolytus, Trad. ap. 23; Tertullian, An. 9; Cor. 3; Ux. 2.4-5. 71 Billings, ‘Disputed,’ 514, e.g., the household codes, Haustafeln, in Sir. 7:18-35; Tob. 4:3-21; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.199-208; Hippolytus, Trad. ap. 18.5; Tertullian, Virg. 2.7. 72 Billings, ‘Disputed,’ 519. 73 Ibid., 520. 74 Ibid., 521. 75 Ibid., 523. 76 Other uncials (484, 478, 604, 431, 9550) share typographical features and ink characteristics with Codex Bezae. And, ‘the Reformation scholar Theodore Beza acquired Codex Bezae from the monastery of St. Irenaeus in Lyons during the 1562 civil war and later presented it to Cambridge University, where it remains.’ Ibid., 524. Parker discounts the view of D’s original homeland being in Gaul, but agrees its history begins in the second century, and its travels eventually lead to Lyons at least by the ninth century. David Parker, Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and its Text (Cambridge: CUP, 1992), 147, 261, 277.

Historical-Literary Analysis

­89

Sometime between 150 and 200 C.E. the Lukan text…was altered at the point of the institution narrative, producing the enigmatic ‘shorter reading’ represented in Codex Bezae and its small number of Syriac and Italic allies…to safeguard the Christian communities for whom the texts were produced from further allegations…and from further outbreaks of the violence experienced at Lyons.77

The significance of this explanation for this textual variant is that it affirms the originality of the longer version. ‘This carries with it the further theological, liturgical, and pastoral implication that the command to remembrance and perpetual observance (“Do this in remembrance of me” [Luke 22:19]) is genuine and is to be located in the Gospel tradition alongside the traditional formula recited by Paul (1 Cor 11:23-26).’78 So, this study agrees that the long form of Luke’s words of institution and interpretation is original and supplements our understanding of the most ancient form available to us. Luke’s form also transmits allusions that are theologically significant. 3.1.2.4 Supplemented version of the words of interpretation Based on the above arguments, Mark’s version is our baseline, and we can add to it insights of Luke and Paul’s more original order for the cup after supper, and the specification of ‘the’ cup. We will proceed using the following version of the words of institution which supplements Mark’s form by adding the after supper phrase (Luke 22:20a and 1 Cor 11:25a) and the article for the cup. While they were eating, he took some bread, and after a blessing he broke it, and gave it to them, and said, Kai. evsqio,ntwn auvtw/n labw.n a;rton euvlogh,saj e;klasen kai. e;dwken auvtoi/j kai. ei=pen\ And when he had taken a cup taking the cup in the same way after they had eaten and giving thanks he gave it to them, kai. labw.n to. poth,rion w`sau,twj meta. to. deipnh/sai euvcaristh,saj e;dwken auvtoi/j( and they all drank from it. And he said to them, kai. e;pion evx auvtou/ pa,ntejÅ kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j\

Further, based on the above arguments, we recognize some very early developments already present in the early church’s liturgical observance including: (1) specifically identifying Jesus as the one performing the actions (Matt 26:26a, ‘Jesus’ instead of ‘he’ Mark 14:22a); (2) a more generalized application of the action to Jesus’ disciples, beyond the original historic participants (Matt 26:26a, ‘the disciples’ instead of ‘them’ Mark 14:22a); (3) an imperative rather than a narrative tone (Matt 26:27, ‘Drink from it all of you’ instead of ‘they all drank from it’ Mark 14:23); (4) moving the bread 77 Billings, ‘Disputed,’ 525. 78 Ibid., 526.

90

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

portion into proximity with the cup portion (‘In the same way he took the cup [also] after they had eaten/supper’ Luke 22:20a and 1 Cor 11:25a, instead of ‘When he had taken a cup’ Mark 14:23 and Matt 26:27); (5) referring more generally to a cup rather than the historic Last Supper paschal meal cup (Mark 14:23; Matt 26:27, ‘a cup’ instead of ‘the cup’ Luke 22:20a; 1 Cor 11:25a); (6) the migration of the graecized euvcariste,w‘give thanks’ from the cup portion (Mark 14:23; Matt 26:27) to the overall setting (Luke 22:19a; 1 Cor 11:24a) replacing the more original euvloge,w ‘bless’ (Mark 14:22a; Matt 26:26a). These early church developments will inform our understanding of trajectories of meaning as our study continues. 3.1.3

Insights from John

3.1.3.1 Arrangement supports Last Supper texts as ancient proclamations John’s gospel provides additional insight into the development of the Last Supper texts in relation to the larger Passion narrative as a whole. This serves to strengthen the argument that the Last Supper texts are very ancient and that it is reasonable to look to them for concepts and words from Jesus himself and from the earliest Christian community. Also, John, like Paul (1 Cor 11:23), presents what is likely some of the earliest commentary on the meaning of the Last Supper and the ongoing Feast. John’s gospel uncharacteristically dovetails with the Synoptics at the point when Jesus enters into Jerusalem.79 Jeremias deduces that the Passion narrative is a very early tradition. An early Passion narrative communicated several key events, which together he calls the long account: the triumphal entry, the cleansing of the temple, the question of Jesus’ authority, the announcement of the betrayal, the Last Supper, Gethsemane, the arrest, and the events through to the burial.80 Mark’s and John’s arrangement of material prior to the arrest differs, but the betrayal81 and what follows82 is more consistent. This consonant Passion narrative Jeremias calls the short account. All four gospels reflect the same early source for this ‘passion kerygma…the betrayal/ arrest (which is also mentioned in the early 1 Cor 11:23), the condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrin, the delivering up to Pilate, the trial before Pilate, the mocking and scourging, the crucifixion, and the burial.’83 Jeremias thus presents the general development of the Passion narrative tradition as: first stage, the kerygma of 1 Corinthians 15:3b-5; second stage, the short account; third stage, the long account; fourth stage, expansions in each of the four gospels.84 This means that the account of the Last Supper is among 79 Mark 11:1-10; Matt 21:1-9; Luke 19:29-38; John 12:12-19. 80 Jeremias, Words, 93. 81 Mark 14:43-52; Matt 26:47-56; Luke 22:47-53; John 18:1-11. 82 Though not in the other accounts, Jeremias also sees the footwashing (John 13:1-20) as early material because of the accompanying pre-existing interpretations (vv.6-11, 12-20) and semitisms. Jeremias, Words, 100. 83 Jeremias, Words, 94–5. 84 Ibid., 96.

Historical-Literary Analysis

91­

the most ancient of Christian proclamations. This points to its importance and also to its appropriate positioning to serve as a bridge between OT concepts and NT era developments. John’s ordering of material in chapters 18 and 19 reflects the short account. The Last Supper as part of the long account Passion narrative tradition is reflected in Mark and predates Paul’s writing to the Corinthians. Thus, the Last Supper tradition existed during the earliest time of the church. It has been shown that the term katagge,llw is used for the Hebrew Passover practice of reciting the Exodus account with an explanation.85 Jeremias points to this and to 1 Corinthians 11:26 katagge,llete ‘you proclaim’ as evidence that proclaiming the Last Supper tradition, and probably an accompanying sermon of some kind, was part of the early church’s eucharistic practice. The observance of a covenant-rite with accompanying interpretation can therefore be seen in the earliest Passover (e.g., Exod 13:14; Deut 6:20-21), the Last Supper (e.g., Mark 14:22-25), and the early church’s Eucharist (1 Cor 11:23-25). 3.1.3.2 Eucharistic interpretation In addition to John’s contribution of supporting the ancient nature of the Passion narrative tradition including the Last Supper, he also contributes commentary on the meaning of the Feast. He emphasizes union, by the Spirit, with Christ who was truly incarnate. John 6:51-58 is an example of a eucharistic interpretation of bread involving the person of Jesus and his flesh. Although not put in sequence with the Last Supper itself, Jeremias believes the variation in this text from typical Johannine vocabulary is evidence of John’s use of some form of traditional eucharistic material.86 Given Jeremias’ point about the early practice of accompanying eucharistic practice with a sermon, it is reasonable to suggest that even this portion of John’s gospel could itself have served such a function. Garrow argues for considering the theater of reception, including Scripture reading and eucharistic sermons, as an essential consideration for proper interpretation of John’s book of the Revelation.87 Suggit agrees regarding his gospel that ‘it is legitimate, if not essential, to take into account the circumstances of the audience for whom John wrote. (“Audience” is used deliberately, for the gospel was written to be heard rather then read.)’88

85 Jeremias cites Symmachus (Ps 39[40].6); G. H. Box, ‘The Jewish Antecedents of the Eucharist,’ JTS 3 (1901–2), 365 fn.1, who identifies this use of katagge,llein with the Hebrew higgid practice at Passover, recounting Deut 26:5-9, following the higgadti, Deut 26:3; D. Jones, ‘avna,mnhsij in the LXX and the Interpretation of 1 Cor. XII.25,’ JTS 6 (1955), 188f.; Daube, New Testament and Rabinic Judaism, 5. Jeremias, Words, 106–7. 86 Jeremias, Words, 107, cf. John 6:51c and 1 Cor 11:24b. Keener cites Jeremias here and agrees that eucharistic language is at least in the background of John 6. Craig Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, vol.1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 690. So, Andrew Lincoln, The Gospel According to Saint John (London: Continuum, 2005), 232. 87 Garrow, Revelation, 14, 35, 42, 50–53, 62–63. 88 John Suggit, ‘Exegesis: The Eucharistic Significance of John 20.19-29,’ JTSA 16 (1976): 52–9, citing 52.

92

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

The question of the eucharistic nature of this passage in John 6 is a topic of ongoing debate. Whether John’s intent is to craft Jesus’ words as primarily eucharistic, or only eucharistic on the level of a ‘secondary allusion,’89 the motifs of the Exodus manna and the Last Supper eating and drinking of Jesus’ body and blood are clear. Though Carson believes ‘John 6 does not directly speak of the eucharist’ he immediately adds ‘it does expose the true meaning of the Lord’s Supper as clearly as any passage in Scripture.’90 The meaning is Jesus’ call to be united with himself. Dunn has a similar understanding of the image of consumption.91 Dunn believes John’s authorial intent is to use the concept of eating flesh to refer to Jesus’ death, which is integral with his ‘resurrection, ascension and gift of the Spirit which John presents as a theological unity.’92 Thus, eating and drinking are metaphorical only, referring to how ‘the life-giving consumption of the Son of Man really refers to the reception of the Spirit of the exalted Jesus. For it is the Spirit who gives life (v.63).’93 Or, to put it another way, ‘It is in the believing reception of the Spirit of Christ…that we eat the flesh and drink the blood of the incarnate Christ.’94 Dunn like Carson does not see John’s intent as depicting Jesus’ words as primarily referring to eucharistic belief or practice. He sees John’s choice of words as being influenced by the concern to refute the docetic resistance to understanding Jesus as having a real body and dying a real death on the Cross. The anti-docetic polemic of this…passage [vv.51-58] is surely the principal reason for its inclusion…. The substitution of sa,rx [even more than sw/ma] for a;rtoj [bread]…is best understood as a deliberate attempt to exclude docetism by heavily, if somewhat crudely, underscoring the reality of the incarnation in all its offensiveness.95

So, John’s arrangement, theater of reception, and connotations of palpable union with Christ through the Spirit, supplement our understanding of Last Supper texts even though he does not provide a Last Supper narrative per se. 3.1.3.3 Intention for 6:51-58 For Dunn, John’s intent in chapter 6 is to address belief and Christology, but not eucharistic practice. Though the contribution of John’s gospel to our understanding of the Feast could come solely from the canonical level, that is, insights gained from the received texts in dialogue with one another from the perspective of the church, it may not be necessary to limit the book’s 89 D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 295. 90 Carson, John, 298. 91 James Dunn, ‘John VI – A Eucharistic Discourse?’ NTS 17 (1971): 328–38. 92 Dunn, ‘John,’ 331. Dunn briefly supports this integrated view by pointing to an ongoing interweaving of the concepts throughout John’s gospel, including 7:39; 12:16, 23; 13:31; 17:1; 3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34; 13:1, 3; 14:4, 18-23, 28; 16:5, 7, 16-24, 28; 19:30, 34. 93 Ibid., 331. 94 Ibid., 338. 95 Ibid., 335–6.

Historical-Literary Analysis

­93

contribution to that level. John’s own purpose arguably is more concerned with the Eucharist than Dunn allows. Dunn leans upon two primary arguments as limits to the eucharistic meaning of John 6:51-58. First, he believes John’s omission of Jesus’ breaking of bread is determinatively non-eucharistic. ‘If there is a deliberate eucharistic colouring in the initial miracle, why is there nothing about Jesus breaking the bread?’96 He does not explain or defend this argument from silence, except to note that John is unique among the other feeding miracle and Last Supper accounts in this way. He does not justify why a passage cannot have a eucharistic message unless it explicitly includes a report of the breaking of bread. Dunn bases his denial of John’s authorial intent being eucharistic, second, on his view that the term euvcariste,w (6:11, 23, John’s account of the feeding miracle) ‘cannot be described as a eucharistic word: Matthew and Mark use it for the feeding of the 4,000 and not for the Last Supper.’97 These two arguments are not convincing. The former point can be answered simply by saying that John may be offering a theological commentary on the meaning of the Feast, leaving the narrative accounts to tell the story of the event itself. Whitacre and Beasley-Murray see sufficient consistency between the various feeding miracle accounts, the Last Supper, and John 6 even without the explicit mention of breaking bread.98 Dunn’s latter argument can be answered by arguing that euvcariste,w is in fact eucharistic, and that the feeding miracles add to rather than subtract from this use of the term. The term euvcariste,w is explicit in the words of institution in Mark 14:23 and Matthew 26:27. Further, our study will offer a rationale for understanding the feeding miracle (John 6, Mark 6, Matt 14, Luke 9) as instructively preparatory for the Last Supper account.99 Dunn carries his noneucharistic view of the feeding miracle in the first part of John 6 into the latter part of the chapter. However, there is room to allow for John’s intending a eucharistic message in 6:51-58 based upon his use of terminology so similar to the words of interpretation (eating and drinking Jesus’ flesh and blood), this terminology being used in proximity to the feeding miracle at Passover time, his use of the term euvcariste,w, and our later defense of the feeding-miracle being related to the meaning of the Last Supper and Feast. Milligan and Moulton helpfully point to a way to recognize both aspects of meaning, belief/union as well as Eucharist, in John 6. After acknowledging that Jesus spoke to a particular occasion, they attest to the ongoing nature of 96 Dunn, ‘John,’ 332. 97 Ibid. 98 e.g., ‘The wording of verse 53 follows the pattern given in the Synoptic account of the institution of the Eucharist…take and eat.’ Whitacre, John, 169. ‘The conjunction of the terms “give,” “flesh,” and “on behalf of” in v. 51c strongly suggests a sacrificial death for the sake of others (observe the use of u`pe.r of the death of Christ in 10:11, 15 on behalf of the flock; in 11:5051 on behalf of the Jewish people; in 11:52 on behalf of the nations; in 17:19 on behalf of the disciples).’ George Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 94. 99 See section 4.

94

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

the impact of his words for those who trust in him, and to John’s intention of connecting the imagery of such union with the paschal meal. This discourse is occupied with that lasting, continuous act of which afterwards the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was made a symbol; and the sacrament is still a symbol of the unchanging truth so fully set forth in this discourse, the believer’s union with his Lord, his complete dependence upon him for life, his continued appropriation by faith of his very self, his feeding on him, living on him, his experience that Jesus in giving himself satisfies every want of the soul.100

Milligan and Moulton, Beasley-Murray, and Whitacre, contrary to Dunn, do see intentional eucharistic imagery in John 6:51-58. Milligan and Moulton add that the terminology is not limited to eating alone, but includes drinking (6:53-56; cf. 6:35), resulting in the theme of a ‘more complete realization of a feast’ and ‘the Paschal meal.’101 The eating and drinking in verse 53 include a eucharistic message, even if it is not exclusively so. This verse expands beyond the image of eating the bread of life (6:35, 40, 50, 51). It is not necessary to interpret the statement exclusively in terms of the body and blood of the Lord’s Supper. Nevertheless, it is evident that neither the Evangelist nor the Christian readers could have written or read the saying without conscious reference to the Eucharist; to say the least, they would have acknowledged it as supremely fulfilled in the worship event.102

We are seeing here in John 6 an example of how, consistent with the Scriptural Theology interpretive approach, the meaning of a passage may have deeper layers. John reports Jesus teaching that belief in and union with himself are essential. This report also alludes to eucharistic practice, integrating this rite with this belief and union. The canonical validity of this message is not lessened by the cryptic nature of the words. Jesus’ mention of blood at the time would not have been fully understood, for the Cross was yet future. However, the full impact of his words is accessible to those on the other side of the Cross. The end was ever present to Jesus…and many of his words can only receive their proper interpretation by the application of this principle.…They were rather a secret prophecy, like the mysterious sayings of chap. 2:19 (‘Destroy this Temple’).…The 100 Milligan and Moulton, John, 164. 101 Milligan and Moulton, John, 162. ‘We should also recall the Passover context for the feeding of the multitude (v 4): he who is the living Bread is to die as the Lamb of God for the sin of the world (1:29).’ Beasley-Murray, John, 94. ‘There are several hints…Jesus is referring to the sacrament here. First, the image of drinking Christ’s blood (6:53) does not correspond to the starting point…to the feeding of the five thousand and the manna in the wilderness. Jesus started with the simple image of bread, and now he brings in the idea of blood and drink.’ Whitacre, John, 168. 102 Beasley-Murray, John, 95.

Historical-Literary Analysis

­95

central thought of the chapter is undoubtedly that of a meal, a feast, an experimental reception of a living Christ which is symbolized by ‘eating’ and ‘drinking;’ and to that the whole interpretation must be subordinated.103

Another consideration is that Dunn arrives at his non-eucharistic view of John 6 based upon a more modernistic interpretive approach which makes a sharp distinction between conscious human authorial intent and other meaning. ‘It has yet to be demonstrated that a deeper meaning was intended by the Evangelists.’104 The preceding paragraphs suggest this point itself is questionable; in actuality, there is reason to believe John intended a eucharistic meaning. Further, Scriptural Theology recognizes that equally weighty meaning can be present in the canonical form of the text, even if we cannot be sure of the human author’s full intent. Scriptural Theology is interested not only in whether or not John intentionally drew this passage from the Last Supper tradition. Scriptural Theology is also interested in the situation of this passage in the canon. What message might be communicated by having this passage situated in the canon in this place? What message might be communicated by the canonical wording which is used? The text in John 6:51-58 speaks the message that believers can have true union with God in Christ, the true manna who came down from heaven, and thus partake of eternal life. This text also speaks the message that eating and drinking in a concrete dimension, namely with bread (and wine), impacts such participation in the spiritual and eternal dimension. Dunn does not consider these Scriptural Theology questions. He remains focused on resisting an intentional eucharistic interpretation which points to eternal life itself being mediated through physical eating and drinking. So eager is he to make this point, he goes even further to conclude that there is no benefit whatsoever in the physical eating and drinking involved in eucharistic practice. The ‘eucharistic overtones’ of the passage are secondary and negative in import. The eucharistic language describes not the effect of the sacrament as such, but the union of the ascended Jesus with his believing followers through the Spirit. Beyond that the message is one of caution and warning: the eucharistic element ‘does no good whatever’, it is the Spirit who gives life through the words of Jesus.105

How ironic that Dunn points out the danger of docetism which downplays the importance of real physicality, and John’s own recognition of it, yet Dunn does not allow for any value for the physicality of eucharistic practice. In his focus on resisting perhaps a magical rather than faith-based eucharistic experience, he does not address, for example, a eucharistic interpretation of John which points to eating and drinking as an opportunity to encounter the Jesus of whom 103 Milligan and Moulton, John, 163. 104 Dunn, ‘John,’ 333. 105 Dunn, ‘John,’ 337.

96

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

the bread and wine speak.106 ‘It might…be said that the Eucharist for John furnishes the special occasion for the meeting between the believer and the risen Christ.…It is the action of the Spirit which makes this possible.’107 Our Scriptural Theology approach provides a way to validate some of Dunn’s insights into John 6, yet also leaves room for the inclusion of a clear eucharistic message. Dunn believes John’s terminology emphasizes the reality of the scandalous nature of Jesus’ incarnation and death, contra docetism. This is fine, but it need not preclude that this passage also communicates a message about the value of eucharistic practice, another form of physicality. Actually, John 6 could therefore be taken as an overt affirmation of the value of the physicality of the Feast. Dunn focuses on John’s message of belief and union with Christ by the Spirit, and he warns against relying upon physical forms. This is fine, but it need not preclude this passage’s participation in intertextual dialogue, for example with that which we have already explored in Mark 11.108 There Jesus denounces those who rely upon external religious forms alone. Dunn would agree on consistency between John 6 and Mark 11 at this point. But, in Mark 11 Jesus also denounces those who take it upon themselves to determine what form of worship is pleasing to God (including no form at all). The motif of right worship, interwoven with the motif of Passover, actually affirms a proper place for rightly motivated and God-designed worship forms, in Exodus 12, Mark 11, Mark 14, and also here in John 6. John’s themes of belief and union with Christ are not disembodied realities; they take shape, for example, in worship. John makes a point to conclude the section by specifying that Jesus spoke these things in the synagogue (John 6:59), and John has recently shown an interest in the topic of worship itself (John 4:20-24). The themes of belief and union are interwoven with the motif of worship. Suggit agrees that the circumstances of the audience of John 6 need to be considered, and ‘these circumstances would naturally include the context of liturgical worship: it was when the Church was assembled for worship that the gospel would normally be read.’109 Scriptural Theology asks the question of how the text’s Sitz im Kanon impacts its meaning. John shapes his eucharistic commentary in chapter 6 to accord with issues of relationship and spiritual effects, rather than with issues of liturgical form and historical rooting like Mark, Luke, and Paul do. This does not necessitate, however, the view that John therefore is arguing 106 Whitacre offers a balanced view of how to accept a crucial role for the Eucharist yet maintain the primacy of faith. ‘The actual life-giving efficacy in feeding is only appropriated by faith.…The Eucharist is a point of contact with divine reality.…It is a part of God’s dealing with us as material and relational beings.…The insistence on the Eucharist, this physical activity for eternal life, is theologically and spiritually very important. It protects us from an overly cerebral or falsely spiritual form of Christianity.…John teaches us not to simply embrace spirit and oppose matter like the Gnostics did.’ Whitacre, John, 170–71. 107 Suggit, ‘Exegesis,’ 52. 108 See section 1.2.3.2. 109 Suggit, ‘Exegesis,’ 52. Suggit cites Justin Apol. 1.67; Tertullian Apol. 39.3.

Historical-Literary Analysis

­97

against liturgical form. John is offering further commentary on the meaning of the Last Supper and the Feast which is not emphasized by the others. Proper eucharistic practice involves union through the Spirit with God, and this union has a physical dimension. Here our approach dovetails better with Dunn, who goes so far as to acknowledge, ‘John…uses eucharistic terminology with a metaphorical sense, namely, to describe not the effect of the sacrament as such, but the union of the ascended Jesus with his believing followers through the Spirit.’110 The effect may not be caused directly by the bread and wine, but John nowhere says that the physicality of eating and drinking bread and wine is superfluous, ‘does no good whatever,’ to union with Christ by the Spirit. Dunn lifts the phrase ‘does no good whatever’ or another version ‘profits nothing’ from John 6:63, ‘It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.’ In so doing, he is equating the term ‘flesh’ with the eucharistic rite. He offers no justification for interpreting ‘flesh’ in this way. To avoid such an errant atomistic use of this phrase, it is important to clarify what ‘flesh’ is meant to communicate, both by the human author and by the divine author. At the level of Johannine intent, the overall purpose of the book and the situation of this verse in its context must be considered. At the level of divine intent, this verse in relation to the canon must be considered. The gospel of John was written after the fall of Jerusalem (AD 70) and the loss of Temple-centric cultic life. As we saw in section 1.2.5 with the progression of its locational dimension, Passover began as a mobile rite. It was then centralized at Solomon’s Temple, interrupted by the Babylonians and destruction of the first Temple and the exile, rediscovered in exile, and recentralized at the second Temple by the time of the Synoptics. The Last Supper served as a bridge from the old covenant Passover observance to an amended passover-like observance for new covenant believers. By the time of John, John 6 reflects how this new observance was situated at the new temple of Jesus himself (John 2:19). John 6:63 must be interpreted in this light. John’s fundamental purpose for his gospel is to address the issue of who Jesus is.111 Jesus is divine. In chapter 6 this is communicated through the messages of him being better than Moses and Elisha (through the feeding miracle), lord over nature (through the walking on water miracle and the allusion to ‘I Am’), and better than manna, having come down from heaven.112 Three pillar Passover narratives undergird this treatise which deals with divinity. At the beginning, John 2 describes Jesus’ first miracle where he turned water (which was used for purification) into wine (by John’s time understood as connoting Jesus’ blood that purifies). This happens in the context of a wedding feast, only a few days before Passover. Already we hear echoes of a messianic banquet. The end of John’s gospel, which takes up the final ten chapters covering the triumphal entry through post-resurrection appearances, 110 Dunn, ‘John,’ 334. 111 Whitacre, John, 163, 173. 112 Lincoln, John, 234.

98

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

is also set in the context of Passover. In the middle of the intervening chapters is the third Passover pillar, the John 6 feeding miracle. Compared with Matthew and Mark’s single explicit mention of Passover (Matt 26; Mark 14) and Luke’s double mention (Luke 2, 22), it is clear that John emphasizes Passover. And, this emphasis was not on Passover as it was, but as it had become in the era of the new covenant. Craig Keener highlights how John’s focus is Jesus’ divine claims, the christological meaning of passages, and the importance of reading those sections in Passover settings accordingly.113 Sherri Brown agrees that the method of interpreting John is to keep interwoven theological themes of the whole in view as specific portions are examined. Her focus is on the theme of covenant. She describes John as catechetical, written for those expelled from synagogues who needed to replace their previous festal observances, that Jesus’ identity was a main concern of John’s, and she notes the triple presence of Passover.114 So, Jesus’ divinity, Passover’s important role, and a fresh cultic context must be kept in mind when looking at John chapter 6, including verse 63, and the term ‘flesh.’ The basic structure of the immediate context of 6:63 can be summarized as: belief-good, flesh-good (bread of life discourse); flesh-bad, word and spirit-good (6:63); disbelief-bad (6:64-71). The difficult statements (cf. 6:60) of the bread of life discourse emphasize belief for appropriating eternal life, especially belief in the divinity of Jesus and the Incarnation, and are expressed through language such as eating his flesh. Jesus answers questions about this with another difficult phrase about the flesh profiting nothing (6:63). Then follows the affirming phrase about words and spirit and life. Immediately next, Jesus says ‘but’ and contrasts 6:63 with disbelief (6:64). The only way to resolve this tension between the good flesh and the bad flesh is to realize that ‘flesh’ refers to different things.115 In the first case (6:51-56), it refers to the reality of Jesus. Ingesting him, by faith, through word and spirit, is good. The second case of ‘flesh’ (6:63) refers to the carnality and disbelief that is bad. If the ‘flesh’ of 6:63 is taken to refer to Jesus’ flesh as it does in 1:14, 6:51-56, this implies that Jesus’ incarnate ministry was somehow fruitless, and only post-ascension experiences of the gospel are profitable.116 There is better cause to view the ‘flesh’ of 6:63 as referring to the human domain and in particular to human imperfection and weakness.117 There is no biblical basis to interpret the ‘flesh’ of 6:63 as a synecdoche referring to everything physical. That would lead to a gnostic devaluing even of the Incarnation, the bodily 113 Keener, John, 654, 663, 664. 114 Sherri Brown, Gift Upon Gift: Covenant through Word in the Gospel of John, PTMS (Eugene: Pickwick, 2010), 1, 69, 141–3, 145, 174. 115 Whitacre, John, 173. 116 Jerome Neyrey, The Gospel of John (Cambridge: CUP, 2007), 132. 117 e.g., John 1:13; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Mark 14:38; Rom 6:19; 7:5, 14; 8:5; 2 Cor 1:17; 10:2; Gal 3:3; 5:16; 2 Pet 2:10; 1 John 2:16. So, Lincoln, John, 237.

Historical-Literary Analysis

­99

Resurrection, moral holiness, and so on. Rather, ‘Here, in the incarnation, is the supreme example of matter as spirit-bearing.’118 Instead of Jesus’ flesh, or everything physical, ‘flesh’ in 6:63 refers to that which is done by humans in an earthly way, without faith, without spiritual apprehension. The phrase ‘the flesh profits nothing’ does not promote the expunging of physicality from worship. This is clear elsewhere in John, for example in the ‘unless’ passages. These passages require not fleshly but spiritual responses, yet they also include a material dimension. Eternal life and a fruitful life do not come: ‘unless one is born again’ (John 3:3); ‘unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood’ (John 6:53); ‘unless I wash you’ (John 13:8); ‘unless you abide in Me’ as branch does in a vine (John 15:4). ‘In these “unless” demands, one is either transformed in status or confirmed in membership. Meals, especially sacred or sacrificial ones, confirm one’s membership in a certain group as well as one’s role and status there.’119 Nicodemus had not been able to understand Jesus’ words because he attempted to take them at surface value (John 3:1-15).120 In that case, also, important terms and concepts were flesh, faith, the Spirit, and the ascension. In 6:63 as there, ‘A merely human, “fleshly” perspective on Jesus and his words is inadequate (2 Cor 5:16).…In John, the “flesh” includes the best of human religion…which, as here profits nothing.…Only religion birthed from the Spirit of God himself proves adequate for true worshipers (4:23-24).’121 Keener does not say that any and all physicality in worship profits nothing. Rather, whatever is lacking the Spirit profits nothing. In this book, we take Keener’s point one step further and learn that Scripture describes Spiritdesigned worship according to the remembrance motif and paradigm, which we discuss in sections 5 and 6. Jesus’ teaching has the result of not allowing for hidden, internalized belief, a faith that does not find material expression in worship and lifestyle and ministry. In John chapter 6, the eucharistic nature of the demand for faith requires the readers choose ‘whether they would participate in solidarity with Johannine Christians in the rite that visibly expressed this controversial Christological belief.’122 Although Barrett is not concerned with ‘the uniqueness of the eucharist as a means of grace,’ a view which he does not attempt to justify, he affirms that the bread being identified with the flesh of Jesus in John 6:51 does recall Mark 14:22, and that ‘it is inevitable that the reader should think of the Christian supper as the context in which Jesus gives himself to the believer as his life.’123 Keener focuses on how John’s eucharistic language emphasizes 118 Whitacre, John, 163. 119 Neyrey, John, 128. 120 Lincoln, John, 232. ‘In fact, none of Jesus’ teaching makes sense unless we realize who he really is.’ Whitacre, John, 173. 121 Keener, John, 695. 122 Lincoln, John, 240. 123 C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd edn (London: SPCK, 1978), 297.

100

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

faith and the Spirit, not the symbols of Jesus’ death. Yet, he also admits ‘early Christians would experience and articulate’ such faith at the Lord’s Supper.124 So, even those who do not have an overtly sacramental view of John 6 do admit that something concrete, even essential, happens at the Lord’s Supper. God does not leave us on our own to determine what faith looks like or what faithful worship looks like. This entire study presents the view that the remembrance paradigm, manifested at the Feast, is God’s design for such right worship. ‘Fleshly’ or human-devised, human-centered, human-designed efforts are what profit nothing. Just as Jesus classified misuse of the Temple as robbing God of his role of defining what right worship is,125 so Jesus classifies any human-designed, divinity-denying, faith-lacking, or ascensionvoid worship as fleshly and null. In this light, this passage in John actually serves as a profound motivator to discover what spiritual, faithful, ascensioncharacterized worship really is. In the context of the three Passover pillars in John, the Passover context of 6:63, and the immediate context of flesh and blood and eating and drinking, the first place to look for the answer is the remembrance paradigm of the Feast. Given that ‘flesh’ has two different referents in 6:51-56 and 6:63, what is the relationship between belief and eating (the Feast)? Believing is a necessity ‘in order to appropriate life…. Belief is a continuous activity which enables a person to remain in Jesus, and the eucharistic associations of eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood point to the visible expression of belief in the efficacy of Jesus’ death through ongoing participation in the eucharist.’126 Lincoln articulates only one benefit of faithful participation in the Feast, that is, visible expression of belief. This entire study is dedicated to showing biblical evidence for many more benefits, such as the actual nurturing of union with God. Jesus sets forth the goal as being to eat his flesh and drink his blood and thus to have union with him (John 6:56). We ask the same question as that found in verse 52, how is this possible? While contemporary readers may not leap to the same misunderstanding as the first hearers of Jesus’ words, that is, cannibalism, the meaning is still not easily grasped on the surface. ‘Like other foils in the Gospel (e.g., 3:4; 4:15; 11:12), the “Jews” here understand Jesus more literally than they should, ignorant of his deeper meaning.’127 The rational mind tends to try to offer an explanation on one end of the spectrum or the other. Either, the bread and wine transubstantiate and the eating and drinking is literal, or the bread and wine are superfluous and the eating and drinking are optional and purely metaphorical. However, the truth of Scripture must be spiritually discerned. There is a mystery here which cannot be neatly explained by either extreme view. The latter view actually falls into the error of docetism, ironically, for it refuses to accept that Jesus somehow can be present in the physicality of the Eucharist. The mystery of how Jesus can be present is 124 Keener, John, 691. 125 See section 1.2.3.2. 126 Lincoln, John, 234. 127 Keener, John, 688.

Historical-Literary Analysis

­101

heightened by the fact Jesus Incarnate has now ascended, and Jesus highlights this aspect of the mystery himself in verses 58 and 64. He then gives the answer in verse 63, through the Spirit, and consistent with theological concepts such as perichoresis and the Trinity, he also includes reference to the Father (cf. John 6:44; 17:11; 14:26; 15:26). The Word of God does not come to us disembodied, nor immeasurably (1 Cor 2:4). The Word was spoken (Gen 1:3), the Spirit hovered (Gen 1:2), and creation came from chaos. The Word emptied evke,nwsen (Phil 2:7), the Spirit descended (Mark 1:10; John 1:33), and miracles manifested. The Word is believed, the Word is eaten, by the power of the Spirit. Barrett resolves the surface tension between ‘eating flesh’ and ‘the flesh profits nothing’ not by distancing proclamation and belief from a covenant meal action. Rather, he resolves the tension by bringing the two together in proper relation, which is consistent with the remembrance paradigm we present in this study. The solution is ‘that action and word are parallel as they are at 13.8-11 (feetwashing) and 15.3 (cleansing by the word).’128 So, John’s intent includes encouraging new cultic encounters via a new paschal rite with the newly revealed divine life Jesus, through the Spirit. The ‘flesh’ of John 6:63 is best understood in light of the contrast Jesus is making between carnal human understanding and spiritual apprehension. Such apprehension requires right cognitive belief, and also Spirit inspired incarnate expression, specifically through proper eucharistic worship. John 6:63 does not point away in docetic fashion from the value and impact of participation in the bread and wine rite; rather, 6:63 points to faithful eating as a manner in which the Spirit nurtures union and participation in Christ. John chose this method…not to promote the Eucharist as such, but to help the Church understand that the Eucharist celebrated on each Lord’s day is no mere liturgical rite, but…[God’s] gracious revelation in Christ. It offers to worshippers the visible signs of Christ’s presence and redemptive love, and calls forth from them their continued faith in Christ…and Christians are brought to see once more that they participate in the new age as surely as the first disciples who greeted their risen Lord.129

So, we agree with Jeremias, Milligan and Moulton, Beasley-Murray, Whitacre, Suggit, Keener, and Lincoln that John 6:51-58 conveys a eucharistic message. And, we see this message as adding to the intertextual right worship motif by describing more specifically a dimension of eucharistic practice, that is, belief and union with Christ by the Spirit which involves a physical dimension. 3.1.3.4 Selection of material There is also the question about the foot-washing at the Passover meal in John 13. Why would John include this but omit the words of institution and interpretation? We have already suggested, just above, that John shapes his 128 Barrett, John, 304–5. 129 Suggit, ‘Exegesis,’ 59.

102

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

eucharistic comments to focus on issues of belief and union, physicality and spiritual effects, rather than on issues of liturgical form and historical rooting. Jeremias offers a further answer. John does not overlook nor downplay the eucharistic tradition of the meal in John 13, but omits specific institution and interpretation texts out of a desire to protect ‘the sacred formula.’130 Such esoteric literature would not be foreign to Palestine in the NT era. Similar to the mystery religions, the Essenes limited knowledge and participation in rites until after probationary years. The apocalyptic style of veiled writing dates from the time of Daniel. Jeremias believes the scribes were seen as those with secret knowledge. The Jewish oral tradition itself was not written down until the second century AD in order to protect it. Rabbinic practice also included limiting the teaching of certain topics to certain groups. Jeremias includes examples of esoteric writing and didactic practices in Paul, Luke, Hebrews, Revelation, the Didache, Pliny, Justin Martyr, and Hippolytus.131 Basically, this was all intended to protect the sacred from being profaned. Jesus’ own teaching reflects this esoteric quality (e.g., silence regarding his messiahship; his use of the phrase Son of man; his Passion predictions; his cryptic comments about eschatological signs; giving explanations to limited groups; teaching only for those who would hear it). One reason for the early church to separate the Eucharist from the agape would be to prevent nonmembers from participating. John’s farewell discourses (chaps. 13-17) show Jesus in private conversation with his disciples. John’s inclusion of a homily on the eucharistic words (6:51-58) is expressed in a way the initiated would have understood.132 So, we have established the historicity and reliability of the Last Supper tradition to help support the claims that the Last Supper was a Passover meal, that these are ancient accounts which reflect Jesus’ own actions and words, and that the gospel accounts and Paul make contributions to our understanding of an original form as well as the developing canonical message about the ongoing Feast. We looked at Mark as a good, early baseline, and identified some supplements such as ‘the’ cup and ‘after supper’ which are also closest to an original semitic source for our Last Supper tradition. We have also gained insight from John regarding additional evidence for the ancient nature of the Last Supper tradition, and a very early eucharistic commentary. John’s message emphasizes the role of faith and a real encounter of union with Christ 130 Jeremias, Words, 125. See related discussion of the short form of Luke 22 and its theater of reception in section 3.1.2.3. 131 Jeremias’ citations include Josephus, C. Ap., 82; Josephus, B.J. 2.129, 133, 136, 137, 141, 142; 1QS 6.12-23; Dan 12:4; Luke 11:52; Pesik.R.5(14b); Mark 8:30; 9:9; Matt 11:15; 19:12; 1 Cor 2:6, 7, 10, 13; 4:1; 2 Cor 12:1-10; Heb 5:11-6:8; Didache structure not addressing the eucharist until after chapter 7, and then not in any detail; Did. 9.5; Matt 7:6; Pliny, Letters II (Loeb Classical Library 59) Ep. 10.96.7, refuting misunderstandings arising from the mysterious nature of the meal; Justin Martyr, Apology I 66.1 (150/5), 66.3; Hippolytus, Ap. Trad. 23.14. Jeremias, Words, 126–36. 132 Jeremias, Words, 125–37. Brown, John, 74–5, similarly sees Jesus’ Last Supper words for believers.

Historical-Literary Analysis

­103

in connection with the eating and drinking involved in eucharistic practice. Next, we will follow a similar path of analysis as we study the words of interpretation.

3.2

Words of interpretation

3.2.1 Mark as baseline The words of institution report the events of the Last Supper, the institution of the ongoing observance of the Feast. The words of interpretation report Jesus’ words spoken over the bread and wine at the Last Supper, the interpretation of these events and elements. Using Mark as a baseline, the words of interpretation are:133 14:22b ‘Take it; this is my body.’ la,bete( tou/to, evstin to. sw/ma, mouÅ 14:24b ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.’ tou/to, evstin to. ai-ma, mou th/j diaqh,khj to. evkcunno,menon u`pe.r pollw/nÅ

As we explore the meaning of these phrases, we will consider both the most original ancient form we can deduce, and also the canonical form before us. The various versions provided by the Synoptics and Paul each provide insight into developing concepts, just as with the words of institution. 3.2.1.1 Hebrew phrases Jeremias, Marshall, and Casey agree that the sayings of Jesus at the Last Supper were probably originally spoken in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Hebrew dam beriti or Aramaic adam keyami ‘my covenant blood’ corresponds to the Greek to. ai-ma, mou th/j diaqh,khj ‘my blood of the covenant’ (Mark 14:24b).134 Marshall adds that ‘it is highly probable that the first account of the meal was given in one of these languages rather than in Greek. Consequently, our Greek versions of the account are translations, and one may look for features which suggest a literal translation from Aramaic or Hebrew into Greek.’135 Though Aramaic often underlies Jesus’ words in the gospels, Jeremias believes it most likely that Jesus spoke the words of interpretation in Hebrew, which was ‘in use as a lingua sacra.’136 The Hebrew terms can therefore be researched as background material for the words of interpretation.

133 See Appendix B – The Words of Interpretation. 134 Jeremias, Words, 195. cf. Casey, Aramaic, 241. 135 Marshall, Supper, 39. So, Casey, Aramaic, 219–52. 136 Jeremias, Words, 197. See also Finkelstein who argues for a pre-Maccabean date for the Hebrew introduction of the haggadah which he calls ‘A,’ and the ongoing use of Hebrew in the Mishnah. Louis Finkelstein, ‘Pre-Maccabean documents in the Passover haggadah,’ [part 1] HTR 35 (1942): 291–332, citing 291–2.

104

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Jeremias believes sw/ma ‘body’ (Mark 14:22b) has such a semitic referent. He sees it as parallel with sa,rx (John 6:51-56) and that the two are Greek translation variants of the original Hebrew r#&fb@f bas,ar or Aramaic bis,ra, ‘flesh’ being literal, ‘body’ being idiomatic.137 The parallelism is seen in the pairing of the Hebrew terms for body – blood, r#&fb@f _ Md@f,138 and the Greek terms for flesh/body – blood, sa,rx/sw/ma – ai-ma.139 This pairing140 is mirrored by the twofold grace of bread – wine before and after the Passover meal.141 Noting that evstin has no equivalent in Hebrew, and is not included in Luke’s version (Luke 22:20; cf. Heb 9:20), Jeremias deduces the original form very likely could have been yrI#&fb@; hze ‘this my body’ and ymidF hze ‘this my blood.’142 3.2.1.2 Consistent with Jesus’ speech Jeremias elaborates on why he believes these to be Jesus’ own words. They occur in conjunction with other phrases common to Jesus’ speech, making it likely they are part of the oldest tradition. The phrase avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n ‘Truly I say to you’ (Mark 14:25) is a ‘new idiom of Jesus.’ Also, o[tou plhrwqh/| ‘It is fulfilled’ (Luke 22:16), which is a passive reference to divine activity, is common to Jesus’ speech143 but not to other rabbinic sources. And, the general custom of Jesus for ‘similitudes, comparisons and parabolic expressions’ is reflected in these words of interpretation.144 Paul’s use of avpo, (1 Cor 11:23) points toward the words coming from Jesus himself, rather than from someone handing on a tradition, where Paul more likely would have used para,.145 Mark therefore provides us with valuable insight into the terms Jesus uses as he explains the meaning of the Last Supper. The terms Jesus uses explicitly communicate some meaning, but they also allude to much more. These terms, ‘this my body’ and ‘this my blood,’ serve as a basis for exegesis and for determining allusions and deeper meaning. 3.2.2 Supplements from Matthew, Luke and Paul As with the words of institution, the other versions supplement our understanding of the words of interpretation.

137 Jeremias, Words, 199. Nolland, Luke, 3:1046. Casey prefers M#$'g%:. Casey, Aramaic, 239. 138 Gen 9:4; Lev 17:11; Ezek 39:17; m.Naz. 9:5; m.Zeb. 4:4; m.Ker. 6:1; m.Meil. 1:2; m.Pes. 7:5. Jeremias, Words, 200, 221–2. 139 John 6:53-6; Heb 13:11; LXX Lev 17:11-14; Ezek 44:7; Job 6:4. Ibid., 200, 222. 140 The pairing points to the sacrificial system. Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 438. 141 Jeremias, Words, 200. 142 Ibid., 201. cf. Casey’s reconstruction of an Aramaic source text. Casey, Aramaic, 220. 143 cf. Matt 5:4, 6, 7; Mark 2:5. 144 cf. Mark 1:17; 2:17, 19-22, 25-26; 3:25, 27; 4:3-8, 21, 26-29, 31-32, et al. 145 cf. Gal 1:12; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 1:13; 2:2; 3:14. Jeremias, Words, 202. So, Nolland, Matthew, 1072.

Historical-Literary Analysis

­105

Matthew’s version: 26:26b ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ la,bete fa,gete( tou/to, evstin to. sw/ma, mou. 26:28

‘for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.’ tou/to ga,r evstin to. ai-ma, mou th/j diaqh,khj to. peri. pollw/n evkcunno,menon eivj a;fesin a`martiw/nÅ

Luke’s version: 22:19b ‘This is my body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ tou/to, evstin to. sw/ma, mou to. u`pe.r u`mw/n dido,menon\ tou/to poiei/te eivj th.n evmh.n avna,mnhsinÅ 22:20b ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’ tou/to to. poth,rion h` kainh. diaqh,kh evn tw/| ai[mati, mou to. u`pe.r u`mw/n evkcunno,menonÅ

Paul’s version in 1 Corinthians: 11:24b ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ tou/to, mou, evstin to. sw/ma mou to. u`pe.r u`mw/n\ tou/to poiei/te eivj th.n evmh.n avna,mnhsinÅ 11:25b

‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ tou/to to. poth,rion h` kainh. diaqh,kh evsti.n evn tw/| evmw/| ai[mati\ tou/to poiei/te( o`sa,kij eva.n pi,nhte( eivj th.n evmh.n avna,mnhsinÅ

3.2.2.1 Identificational terminology All of the texts include ‘This is my body,’ which Jeremias sees as equivalent to ‘my flesh’ in John 6:51c. Marshall agrees and sees that the words ‘are thus the most firmly attested part of the whole tradition.’146 Mark, Matthew, and Luke have the same wording, tou/to, evstin to. sw/ma, mou, while Paul’s Greek phrase moves the pronoun mou to immediately after tou/to, tou/to, mou, evstin to. sw/ma, yet all of them translate the even more original ‘this my body.’ The terminology in Luke 22:20 is closer to the semitic original; there is no ‘is’ evstin between cup and covenant, tou/to to. poth,rion h` kainh. diaqh,kh. Paul adds it ‘for smoothness.’147 In both the words over the bread and the words over the cup, therefore, the evstin can be seen as a canonical development, for the copula is not always necessary in Greek either. This development points 146 Marshall, Supper, 43. 147 Jeremias, Words, 168, 172.

106

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

toward a direct identification of some kind.148 The evstin identifies the bread with the body and the wine with the blood in a manner which is more direct than terms such as ‘represent,’ ‘symbolizes,’ or ‘is a parable of.’ The fact that the Greek phrases which relate bread/wine with body/blood use evstin rather than some other term such as parabolh, points toward more than imagery. France rightly observes, ‘Since it is generally agreed that in Aramaic the statement of Jesus would not have had an expressed verb, the elaborate attempts in later eucharistic debate to determine the nature of Jesus’ “eucharistic presence” from the Greek verb are built on a shaky foundation.’149 However, he overcompensates for a concern about views that approach transubstantiation when he says, ‘“Symbolism” is as much as the words allow us to discover.’150 Reading ‘is’ to mean ‘is a symbol’ is just as assumptive as reading ‘is’ to mean ‘is the same substance as.’151 We are left with a perhaps mysterious correlation, which for the purposes of our study is not necessary to clarify. As we said in the Introduction, agreeing with Richard Hooker, our focus here is to learn what benefit comes from participating in this rite which involves bread which Jesus says is his body. 3.2.2.2 Instructive terminology Jeremias allows for fa,gete ‘eat’ to be an amplification in Matthew 26:26b,152 but he argues for the originality of la,bete ‘take’ in Mark 14:22b. He notes that Luke actually includes la,bete ‘take’ (Luke 22:17). And, ‘take’ was in contemporary usage with the cup.153 The term ‘take’ is understandable as instruction to his disciples. It is therefore reasonable that Paul and Luke do not maintain the term which is more grounded in the details of a narrative account. Marshall agrees and adds that its omission in Luke and Paul could be because it seemed redundant alongside ‘do this.’154 The instructive and invitational force of ‘take’ in Mark’s more original form is maintained in Paul/ Luke’s ‘do this.’ 3.2.2.3 Allusive terminology The placement and use of the ‘for many’ and ‘for you’ phrases reveal allusions and provide insight into the liturgical development of the words of interpretation.155 Jeremias sees Mark’s cup phrase u`pe.r pollw/n ‘for many’ as 148 This identification does not require a change to the substance of the bread. See Fee, Corinthians, 550. 149 France, Mark, 569. 150 France, Mark, 569. So, Marshall, Supper, 86. 151 So, Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 438; Edwards, Mark, 425. 152 So, Nolland, Matthew, 1073. 153 Jeremias cites archeological evidence from the Jewish golden beaker in the Vatican Library which has an inscription, la,be euvlogi,a meta. tw/n sw/npa,ntwn ‘Take! Blessing to all of your own!’ and other beakers with similar inscriptions of pi,e zh,shj ‘Drink! May you live!’ Jeremias, Words, 166 fn.3, 219. 154 Marshall, Supper, 44. 155 These phrases are part of a ‘web of OT allusions.’ Marcus, Mark 8-16, 958, 966. e.g., Exod 24:8; Isaiah 53:11-12; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Zechariah 9:11. France, Mark, 570.

Historical-Literary Analysis

­107

more closely derived from a semitic tradition and therefore more original.156 Casey agrees there is an Aramaic source for ‘for many’ and Paul amends it to ‘for you.’157 Matthew’s form is similar, yet reflects the more graecized style of peri,.158 Luke likewise has the ‘for’ phrase with the cup but he uses the more personal ‘you’ u`pe.r u`mw/n. Luke includes a parallel usage with the bread, to. u`pe.r u`mw/n dido,menon ‘which is given for you’ (Luke 22:19). Paul retains to. u`pe.r u`mw/n ‘which is for you’ (1 Cor 11:24) with the bread, but does not repeat it with the cup. The use of ‘you’ most likely arose out of the liturgical tendency to personalize and invite participation in the ongoing table rite. Jeremias attempts to explain the various positioning of the ‘for’ phrase by seeing in Mark an intentional emphasis given to the interpretive words over the cup, while simply not including any theological interpretation over the bread. Jeremias believes the ‘for’ phrase in the other accounts would have been the result of the tendency toward making parallel the words over the bread and the words over the cup, as well as a desire to have more explanation included in the words over the bread.159 Marshall is helpful here. He believes u`pe.r pollw/n ‘for many’ (Mark 14:24b) is an allusion to Isaiah 53:12160 and agrees with Jeremias that it is an older form than u`pe.r u`mw/n ‘for you.’ He goes on to argue that the original saying over the bread did contain some element of interpretation which Mark omits, perhaps because when the phrases were brought into proximity, the bread could also be understood in light of the interpretation of the cup.161 Without ‘which is for you’ (Paul) or ‘which is given for you’ (Luke) the bread saying would ‘have been extremely cryptic, and we must ask whether Jesus is likely to have spoken so cryptically,’ especially since the interpretive phrase over the cup would have been separated from the bread by an entire meal.162 Marshall references Schürmann who argues, regarding Luke 22:19, ‘behind the wording lies the thought of the Servant who gives himself as a ransom for the many.’163 Nolland agrees that the original interpretive words over the bread included a ‘for’ phrase.164 156 Jeremias points to the postpositive position of Mark’s adjectival phrase ‘for many’ after the verb ‘poured out,’ and to the Hebrew referent Myb@irA rabbim ‘whole/all’ which has more of an inclusive sense than the ‘many but not all’ sense, as he argued in his TWNT:6 article for polloi,. Jeremias, Words, 167, 179. 157 Casey, Aramaic, 242, 248. 158 Jeremias, Words, 179, notes the genitive peri, occurs in Isa 53:10 LXX. 159 Ibid., 167. 160 Fee agrees ‘for you’ is ‘an adaptation of the language of Isa. 53:12.…By giving them a share in “his body” in this way, he invited his disciples to participate in the meaning and benefits of that death.’ Fee, Corinthians, 551. So, France, Mark, 570. 161 Marshall, Supper, 48. 162 Ibid. 163 Ibid., 49, cites H. Schürmann, Der Einsetzungsbericht (Munster, 1955), 17–30. 164 Nolland, Matthew, 1072, 1075.

108

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Isaiah 53:10 uses ‘give’ di,dwmi with the genitive ‘for sin’ peri. a`marti,aj. Luke 22:19b uses ‘give’ di,dwmi with the genitive ‘for you’ u`pe.r u`mw/n. If Isaiah 53:12 was in Jesus’ mind as he spoke the words of interpretation over the cup, then it is possible Isaiah 53:10 was in his mind as he spoke the words of interpretation over the bread. The phrases ‘which is given for sin’ and ‘which is given for many,’ are very close to Luke’s ‘which is given for you,’ and are both reasonable suggestions for the original form of the words of interpretation over the bread. We can look to Matthew’s addition of eivj a;fesin a`martiw/n ‘for the forgiveness of sins’ (Matt 26:28) and reason that he may be providing theological commentary arising from Isaiah 53:10.165 Considering Luke and Paul’s movement away from ‘for many’ toward the more liturgical ‘for you,’ it is possible that Jesus’ original words over the bread were ‘which is given for sin.’ But, since much of this reasoning is deductive, it is less sure than the other observations we are making from phrases we have before us in various forms. The phrase is offered as a way of suggesting what a fuller original form of the words of interpretation over the bread might have been. 3.2.2.4 Reference to wine develops to a reference to the cup Marshall believes that the Paul/Luke form ‘This cup’ is a more original form and Mark changed it to ‘This is my blood’ because of a desire for symmetry with the bread words.166 This is not a strong point, however. If Mark were motivated by a movement toward symmetry, he would not have dropped the interpretive phrase over the bread. But, Marshall depends upon this omission by Mark to support his view that the Paul/Luke version is earlier. There is an inconsistency in Marshall’s rationale here. On the one hand he claims Mark is motivated by symmetry and replaces ‘cup’ with ‘blood,’ but on the other hand he is not motivated by symmetry so he omits interpretive words over the bread. Rather, it is more consistent to see Mark’s wording ‘this my blood’ as being more original, and his choice not to report interpretive words over the bread arises from his purpose of focusing on the cup, or from liturgical development when the two sets of interpretive words were brought together. Marshall again shows inconsistent rationale as he seeks to justify his view of Paul’s version of the words of interpretation overall being earliest. On the one hand, Marshall claims Paul adds (to Luke’s version) the second ‘do this… in remembrance of me’ (1 Cor 11:25b) for the sake of creating symmetry. On the other hand, he claims Mark dropped ‘which is given for you’ (original to Luke’s version), which initially paralleled the cup words ‘which is poured out,’ for the sake of avoiding redundancy.167 These arguments seem to appeal arbitrarily to symmetry or its opposite, redundancy. It is more straightforward to accept Mark as overall the earlier form. 165 Nolland agrees, seeing the covenant language in Matt 26:28 as a link not only to the Jewish sacrificial system, and to the Mosaic covenant’s fresh beginning in Exod 32:30, but also to the Servant’s death in Isaiah 53:10. Nolland, Matthew, 1080–81. 166 Marshall, Supper, 50. 167 Ibid., 50.

Historical-Literary Analysis

109

The various wordings over the cup all communicate substantially the same meaning. ‘This’ in Mark/Matthew and ‘This cup’ in Paul/Luke signify the contents of the cup. The wine then is equated with ‘my blood of the covenant’ in Mark/Matthew and ‘the new covenant in my blood’ in Paul/Luke. Both versions ‘compare the wine with the blood, through whose outpouring the new covenant is established.’168 Jeremias presents additional evidence for the Mark/Matthew form of the words over the cup being older than the Paul/Luke form. Mark/Matthew’s ‘This is my blood’ is a more difficult wording than ‘This cup…in my blood’ and is more open to misunderstanding. Mark is even more original, since Matthew includes the movement from the indicative ‘they all drank from it’ (Mark 14:23) to the imperative ‘Drink’ (Matt 26:27), which reveals the liturgical influences of inviting personal participation and also the tendency to harmonize the words over the bread and cup. 3.2.2.5 Bridge terminology The use of the term ‘new’ helps to solidify the Last Supper’s role as a bridge between the OT and the NT, between the old covenant and the new covenant. Jeremias sees in Paul/Luke’s ‘new’ in ‘the new covenant’ h` kainh. diaqh,kh (1 Cor 11:25b; Luke 22:20b) a reference to Jeremiah 31:31-34. Since it is in both Paul and Luke, Jeremias sees it as an addition that was pre-Pauline and therefore very early.169 Jeremias however does not see ‘new’ as original to Jesus because the adjective ‘new’ is positioned prior to the noun ‘covenant’ and the phrase is therefore unsemitic in word order. Here it is necessary to call Jeremias’ attention to his own argument given several pages later170 where, also dealing with these words over the cup, he retracts a previous argument. Referring to to. ai-ma, mou th/j diaqh,khj ‘my blood of the covenant’ (Mark 14:24; Matt 26:28), Jeremias’ original argument was, ‘This phrase is very difficult in a literal translation into Hebrew…a noun with a pronominal suffix can generally tolerate no genitive after itself.’171 But, Jeremias then corrects himself. ‘The error lies in the implied presupposition that the sequence of words in Greek must have been also that of the Semitic original.’172 Therefore, Jeremias can conclude that the Hebrew ytiyrIb;@ Md@f ‘my covenant blood’ is the source of the Greek ‘my blood of the covenant.’173 So, if ‘new’ is not original, he needs to provide a reason other than the word order of adjective prior to noun. In light of this line of reasoning, Paul and Luke’s ‘new’ is not so easily identified as an addition, at least not because of word-order, which is the only reason Jeremias offers. Jeremias does provide reasons why he believes Jesus 168 Jeremias, Words, 169. Jeremias adds an interpretive thought here, saying that the texts communicate the meaning ‘This wine is my blood shed for the concluding of the covenant.’ The idea of ‘concluding’ is very interesting, but he does not elaborate. 169 Jeremias, Words, 171–2. 170 Ibid., 194. 171 Ibid., 193. 172 Ibid., 194. 173 Ibid., 195.

110

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

would have thoughts of and speak of covenant during the Last Supper.174 This all points to at least allowing for the possibility that ‘new’ is a concept that could have been in Jesus’ mind at the Last Supper, and he could have included it in his words of interpretation over the cup, either explicitly or allusively. An ingredient which Jeremias overlooks is that Mark and Matthew do in fact include the use of the term ‘new’ (Mark 14:25; Matt 26:29) in their relocated versions of the eschatological prospect. It is reasonable, then, that Jesus originally said the term ‘new’ in both places, and the two traditions each maintain it according to their theological emphasis. Mark and Matthew, being more interested in the narrative, allow the emphasis of the words of interpretation to be on how Jesus’ blood is fulfilling the (old) covenant,175 and a new one is on the horizon, after subsequent events take place. Paul and Luke report the words of interpretation over the cup with an emphasis on what Jesus’ blood has accomplished, the inauguration of a new covenant. However, given the above point that Mark seems interested in being more elaborate in his treatment of the cup words, it does not seem likely that he would omit the term ‘new’ if Jesus had actually spoken it there and if Mark was aware of it in the tradition he received. On this basis, then, we will see ‘new’ as a very early addition to the ancient words of interpretation tradition, properly reflecting a concept likely in Jesus’ view at the time.176 The terminology at the Last Supper itself is therefore closer to OT referents related to the old covenant, while the earliest canonical development includes a more explicit reference to the new covenant. This underscores seeing the Last Supper as a bridge between OT and NT concepts. So far, we have provided justification for the original words of interpretation spoken over the bread as being, ‘Take; this my body which is given for [sin]’ and the words of interpretation spoken over the cup, ‘This my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many.’ The Hebrew original did not include an explicit linking copula ‘is’ between the subject and predicate, and it probably did include the terms r#&fb@f ‘body,’ Md@f ‘blood,’ tyrIb@; ‘covenant,’177 hrf(f ‘poured out,’ and Myb@irA ‘for many.’ What remains is to determine the originality of the phrase included in Paul and Luke, ‘Do this in remembrance of me.’ 3.2.2.6 Luke and Paul contribute original remembrance terminology Jeremias sees the ‘Do this…in remembrance of me’ phrases (1 Cor 11:24b, 25b; Luke 22:19b) as additions because they do not appear in the earliest Markan version.178 It seems that here Jeremias makes an absolute conclusion, but his observations elsewhere actually leave room for another view. Jeremias 174 Ibid., citing Jer 31:31 which includes the phrase h#$fdFxj tyrIb@; ‘a new covenant.’ 175 So, France, Mark, 568. 176 So, France, Mark, 559. 177 This is likely an allusion to the intertwined motifs of paschal and covenant blood Exod 12:7, 13, 22, 23; 23:18; 24:6, 8; 34:25. 178 Jeremias, Words, 168, 237. cf. Casey’s Aramaic reconstruction does not include an explicit command to ‘remember.’ Casey, Aramaic, 220, 248.

Historical-Literary Analysis

­111

notes that avna,mnhsij ‘remembrance’ is a term otherwise foreign to Paul but used by him in the context of the traditional formulation of the words of interpretation.179 In other words, the phrase pre-existed Paul and could therefore supplement our knowledge of an original. Jeremias also allows that an independent tradition known to Luke but not to Mark preserved a part of the tradition that was pre-Pauline, namely, the lack of the use of evstin in Luke 22:20b.180 Again, this points to Luke having access to an original not reflected in Mark. So, Jeremias is not on solid ground in his dismissal of the remembrance phrases. Since we will return to the remembrance concept in sections 5 and 6, we will take a moment here to strengthen our view that the remembrance phrase does belong to the most original form available to us and can serve as a bridge back to OT antecedents. Schürmann offers several arguments in favor of the originality of both ‘Do this in remembrance of me’ repetition commands. He understands Luke’s ‘in the same way’ (Luke 22:20a) to imply the presence of the second repetition command. …durch w`sau,twj gengend zum Ausdruck gebracht habe, daß Jesus auch nach der Bechereucharistie einen, und zwar genau denselben Wiederholungsbefehl gesprochen habe wie nach den Brotbrechen, und daß er sich wegen des identischen Wortlautes die Wiederholung ersparen könnte.181 (…through likewise sufficiently brings to the expression that Jesus also after the cup-thanksgiving spoke precisely the same repetition command as after the breadbreaking, and due to the identical wording he [Luke] could save the repetition.)

Schürmann thinks it is reasonable that the tradition that came to Mark responded to the original by excluding both repetition commands. ‘Eine Angleichung an Mk würde nur glaubwürdig sein, wenn beide Befehle beseitigt worden wären.’182 (An alignment with Mark is credible only if both orders had been removed.) This is consistent with his view that Luke’s form reflects an implicit second repetition command, because removing only one would have needed a very good reason. ‘Eine sekundäre Beseitigung dieses Parallelismus, dazu noch in der Form, daß nur der erste Wiederholungsbefehl beibehalten wird, ist ohne schwerwiegende Motive kaum denkbar.’183 (A later removal of this parallelism, which is still evident in this form though only the first repetitioncommand is maintained, is hardly conceivable without serious motives.)

179 Ibid., 104. 180 Ibid., 185, 188. We would add also Luke’s preservation of the term ‘given’ in the words of interpretation over the bread. 181 Heinz Schürmann, Der Einsetzungsbericht (Münster Westf: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1955), 69. 182 Ibid., 70. 183 Ibid.

112

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Marshall agrees with Schürmann’s claim that Luke’s ‘in the same way’ (Luke 22:20a) implies the originality of the double use of the ‘Do this…’ phrase, and Paul simply makes it explicit again.184 Marshall adds to Schürmann that the ‘Do this…’ commands probably influenced the early church’s practice of observing the rite frequently rather than just annually like the Passover, and this strengthens the view that they are original to Jesus.185 Marshall explains that Luke’s tradition, influenced by liturgical use, retains the remembrance command which was relevant to church practice, but Mark’s narrative which is more about what historically happened does not need to preserve it.186 Concerning the ‘Do this’ phrase, Marshall summarizes ‘the arguments against its historicity are not conclusive, and that at the very least we may use the saying as a guide to the intention of Jesus at the Last Supper.’187 For the purposes of this study, it is not crucial to determine absolutely if Jesus speaks the ‘Do this…’ phrase over both the bread and cup. Whether or not it is used a second time, the same message of a command to continue the table rite in a certain way is communicated. Even if used only once, ‘Do this’ could refer to both elements and all the accompanying words and actions. We will include the phrase as Paul does with both the bread and cup, assuming that Jesus’ reason for repeating it is to underscore that both the bread and cup aspects of the modified Passover meal are now directly related to the remembrance of himself. In the original setting, this may not have been as clear since the two aspects were separated by the supper. 3.2.2.7 Suggested original form of the words of interpretation Jeremias summarizes his study and presents the following as ‘the oldest form of the tradition of the words of interpretation attainable by a comparison of the texts:’188 Take This la,bete tou/to

my body /my flesh to. sw/ma, mou / h` sa,rx mou

This my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many tou/to o. ai-ma, mou th/j diaqh,khj to. evkcunno,menon u`pe.rpollw/n (synonymous phrases the covenant in my blood translating the Hebrew) h` diaqh,kh evn tw/| ai[mati, mou

Marshall says of the texts in Mark, Luke, and Paul, ‘Each of the three versions can in theory preserve different features of the hypothetical original account, so that a reconstruction of this basic account could contain features drawn 184 Marshall, Supper, 51, cites Schürmann, Der Einsetzungsbericht, 69–73. 185 Marshall, Supper, 52. 186 Fee agrees that Mark’s silence need not be troublesome and that to Mark and the early church the remembrance command ‘is implicit in the continuation of the Supper itself.’ Fee, Corinthians, 552. So, France, Mark, 567. 187 Marshall, Supper, 53. So, Nolland, Luke, 3:1047. 188 Jeremias, Words, 173.

Historical-Literary Analysis

113

from all three surviving versions.’189 Based upon the insights offered by the other versions, we suggest the following supplemented version of the words of interpretation: ‘Take; this is my body which is given for [sin]. Do this in remembrance of me.’ la,bete( tou/to, evstin to. sw/ma, mou to. peri. a`marti,aj dido,menonÅ tou/to poiei/te eivj th.n evmh.n avna,mnhsinÅ ‘This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many. Do this in remembrance of me.’ tou/to, evstin to. ai-ma, mou th/j diaqh,khj to. evkcunno,menon u`pe.r pollw/nÅ tou/to poiei/te eivj th.n evmh.n avna,mnhsinÅ

This version of the words of interpretation reflects the deductions discussed above. Jesus probably spoke the words of interpretation originally in Hebrew, and the phrases lacked the ‘is’ evident in the earliest Greek forms. The relationship therefore between Jesus’ body and the bread, and his blood and the wine, is rooted in a less precise semantic correlation. ‘This my body’ and ‘This my blood’ do not easily describe the relationship between bread and body, and wine and blood, only that they are identified in some way. The canonical development of the evstin points in the direction of a direct correlation of some kind, an identification which goes beyond what it would if a term such as parabolh, had been used instead. In our quest to learn the benefits of keeping the Feast, one of our subquestions involves identifying OT antecedents to Last Supper concepts. The words of interpretation at the Last Supper are rooted in Hebrew terms which, taken properly as a pair, point us back to the concepts of memorial and offering. For example, the terms r#&fb@f ‘body’ and Md@f ‘blood’ are integral to the initial Passover (Exod 12:7-8, where they are mentioned in context with bread) which is to be memorialized (Exod 12:14, 17, 24, 25). These terms are also paired as a reference to the sin offering (Lev 6:27; 16:27; 17:11, 14), burnt offering (Deut 12:27), and offerings in general (Ps 50:13). The Hebrew words of interpretation support the continuity of the concepts of memorial and offering from the OT into the Last Supper. Our supplemented version indicates that the original words of interpretation probably had parallel remembrance phrases as Paul reports, and explanations of both bread and wine. As we mentioned just above while discussing Marshall and Jeremias’ view that the ‘for’ phrase in Mark is more original, the words of interpretation over the cup (Mark 14:24b) u`pe.r pollw/n ‘for many’ phrase is an allusion to Isaiah 53:12. Our suggestion for an original phrase over the bread is a related extrapolation from Luke 22:19b ‘which is given for you.’ There was probably a predecessor to the liturgical ‘for you,’ something similar to ‘for many.’ Isaiah 53:10 and Matthew 26:28 point toward the concept ‘given’ 189 Marshall, Supper, 39.

114

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

being related to the concept of sin, so we suggest the original phrase was close to Luke’s ‘which is given for you sin.’ Even if this wording seems too conjectural, the dynamics of an allusion allow the context of Isaiah 53:12 to be relevant, so the concepts of Isaiah 53:10 are in view either way. 3.2.2.8 Messages arising from this form Given this double allusion to Isaiah 53:10 and 53:12, we can clarify concepts which are at work in the words of interpretation at the Last Supper, and which are then developed even in the earliest canonical forms of the words of interpretation. The Isaiah allusions point to who Jesus is, the Servant who gives his body and pours out his blood. This meaning then informs the identification Jesus makes between his body and the bread, his blood and the wine. For instance, the bread can properly be seen as identified not just with Jesus’ body in general, but more specifically with a given body, an offered body. The wine is identified not just with Jesus’ blood in general, but with blood that is poured out. The liturgical actions of breaking the bread and pouring the wine take on an added depth of meaning when properly understood against this backdrop. During the Last Supper, Jesus in essence says, ‘This bread in-some-way-isidentified-with my body which is given for sin.’ ‘This bread in-some-way-isidentified-with my body which is the guilt offering Isaiah spoke about.’ ‘This wine in-some-way-is-identified-with my blood which is about to be poured out for many.’ ‘This wine in-some-way-is-identified-with my blood which is the blood of the Servant Isaiah spoke about.’ Not just as a later church development, but already in the actual moment of the amending of the Last Supper, Jesus identifies his body as that which is given as a guilt offering, and his blood as that of the Servant. Further, by saying ‘This my body…This my blood’ at the pivot point of the Last Supper, Jesus connects the dots between OT typology and the elements of bread and wine. Not that the bread and wine serve to fulfill the OT typology; he himself, his body and blood, do that. But, in some sense the instructive quality and the encounter opportunity of the OT typological offerings are infused into the new ritual involving bread and wine. Hooker writes, His bodie and blood...minister life...by a farre more divine and mysticall kinde of union which maketh us one with him even as he and the father are one. The reall presence of Christes most blessed bodie and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthie receiver of the sacrament.190

It is Christ in the believer, not the bread and wine per se in the believer, that is the effective encounter. Yet, the bread and wine serve an integral role, both instructive and instrumental. It is conceivable that Jesus uses the term ‘given’ (Luke22:19b) in the context of the Last Supper to emphasize his impending death, the imminent giving of himself on the Cross, and as a parallel with ‘poured out’ to reference Isaiah 53. 190

Eccl. Pol. V. lxvii.5.

Historical-Literary Analysis

­115

This forward pointing emphasis is dropped in Paul’s liturgical version since the giving was accomplished in the past. However, Paul maintains the more general expression ‘which is ___ for you’ (1 Cor 11:24b). This phrase moves in the direction of describing a more generalized offering.191 Jesus’ body is given as with the guilt offering’s giving of restitution, but also implicitly his body is offered, slain, burnt, offered up in smoke, offered outside the camp, and eaten, as with other offerings. Paul’s phrasing in the words of interpretation shows movement already in the early church toward understanding Jesus’ offering as being all inclusive, as fulfilling not just the guilt offering, but the entire sacrificial system. This also helps to explain why Paul does not include a ‘for you’ phrase in the cup words (1 Cor 11:25b). The all encompassing offering has already been mentioned in the previous verse. So, through the use and placement of the ‘for many’ and ‘for you’ phrases, the words of interpretation reveal development in the offering concept. This trajectory is rooted in Jesus’ allusion to Isaiah 53, and moves in the direction of encompassing all of the OT sacrificial system.192 There is movement from Jesus’ ‘This my body given for [sin]’ to Luke’s phrase ‘This is my body which is given for you’ to Paul’s more general phrase ‘This is my body which is for you.’ This trajectory points to the bread in some way correlating to Jesus’ body which is an all encompassing offering for those who participate in the ongoing Feast. The double allusion to Isaiah points to who Jesus is; the double reference to remembrance points to how this rite relates to him. The remembrance phrase is original to Jesus, although it is less clear whether it was spoken once or repeated. In either case, the concept of remembrance is not a liturgical development, but it resides at the level of the bridge event of the Last Supper. As such, remembrance serves as a way to look back to the OT for antecedent texts. Such texts can then inform our understanding of what Jesus meant by, ‘Do this in remembrance of me.’ This will be the focus of our study in sections 5 and 6. Luke’s version reflects the original double reference to the ‘which is for…’ phrases. Paul’s generalized ‘which is for you’ phrase is with the bread, an introductory placement. Mark’s ‘poured out for many’ phrase is with the cup. We have noted that Mark seems to be focusing his attention on the cup words. What has happened to the first allusion to Isaiah 53:10? Is it somehow subsumed in what follows, similar to the function of Paul’s singular phrase? This is best understood when we see the ‘for many’ phrase in light of Mark’s 191 Thiselton relates ‘which is for you’ to both Paul’s and Luke’s traditions, both the representative and substitutionary natures of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, and other OT parallels including the sin offering. Thiselton, Corinthians, 877. 192 Collins agrees ‘which is poured out for many’ has sacrificial connotations and is related to the Exod 24:6-8 covenant and the benefit of the many in Isa 53:11-12. Collins, Mark, 656. So, Stein, Mark, 650–52 and France, Mark, 570 who add also the covenant of Zech 9:11; cf. our discussion just below of the related concept of the Shepherd of a new covenant in Zech 13.

116

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

elaboration in 14:25-28. In this way, his use of the ‘for many’ phrase serves a similar role but in a summary placement. Mark follows his use of the ‘for many’ phrase with Jesus’ comments about drinking the fruit of the vine in a new era (Mark 14:25). Immediately following this is Mark’s report of the singing of a hymn, probably the second portion of the hallel, Psalm 115-118,193 and Jesus’ comments when they reach the Mount of Olives. Jesus cites Zechariah 13:7 (Mark 14:27), identifying himself with the struck down Shepherd, and identifying his disciples as the sheep who will be scattered.194 Then, in verse 28, Jesus offers the contrasting concepts of being raised, and the disciples having him go before them. The intertextual interweaving of the Servant, new vine and new kingdom, and Shepherd motifs is not surprising given the cosmic implications of the Cross. Jesus identifies the wine with his covenant blood which is poured out for many (Mark 14:25). Then, he refers to the new wine of the new kingdom (Mark 14:25). Then, he identifies himself as the Shepherd (Mark 14:27) of Zechariah 13:7 by rephrasing it in the first person future rather than the imperative, which is again closer to a Hebrew original than the LXX.195 What does the wine have to do with the Shepherd? A look at the broader message of Zechariah 13 reveals the outpouring of Jesus’ blood is for sin and also for regathering. The reference in Mark 14:27 to Zechariah 13:7 is a metalepsis and the entirety of Zechariah chapter 13 is relevant.196 God is judging sin, and the form this judgement takes includes silencing prophets, striking the Shepherd, and scattering the sheep. These sheep are little ones, who will be tested and refined through this time. Some will respond by calling upon the name of the Lord.197 He will answer them, and the covenant will be restored. This entire scene is introduced with the image of ‘a fountain will be opened,’ and even more specifically ‘for sin and for impurity’ (Zech 13:1).

193 Pss 113–114 before and meal and 115–118 after. France, Mark, 574, citing m.Pes. 10:5-7. Stein, Mark, 654. 194 France agrees. ‘In Jesus’ application the flock becomes his disciples, who, after the “smiting” of their leader, will be scattered. The remainder of the passage in Zechariah, though not explicitly cited, is also relevant…those who pass the test will be restored.’ R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament (Vancouver: Regent College, 1998), 65. 195 Mark 14:27b pata,xw to.n poime,na( kai. ta. pro,bata diaskorpisqh,sontaiÅ I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered. LXX Zech 13:7b pata,xate tou.j poime,naj kai. evkspa,sate ta. pro,bata kai. evpa,xw th.n cei/ra, mou evpi. tou.j poime,naj (imperative) Strike down the shepherds and spear the sheep and I will turn my hand against the shepherds. Zech 13:7b N)coha Nfycew%pt;w% h(er&hf\-t)e K7ha Strike the Shepherd that the sheep may be scattered. 196 France notes the relevance of Zech chaps 9-14 to the larger topic of Jesus’ passion. France, Mark, 576. 197 This motif of the name of the Lord is also interwoven with the remembrance motif, as we will discuss in section 6.2.1.

Historical-Literary Analysis

­117

Mark’s narrative, 14:24-31, mirrors the concepts of Zechariah 13. First, the hallel (Mark 14:26) repeatedly refers to calling upon the Lord, and his hearing and saving. Secondly, Jesus’ comments indicate there will be a falling away, a scattering of sheep (Mark 14:27). This includes the testing of Peter and the others (Mark 14:29-31).198 But,199 thirdly, there will be a rising, and a ‘regathering,’200 Jesus going before them to Galilee (Mark 14:28).201 And, fourthly, the entire scene is introduced with the image of the ‘blood of the covenant which is poured out for many’ (Mark 14:24) an image which echoes Zechariah’s fountain. The pouring out of the blood of the Shepherd, for many, is not only for sin and impurity, but also to prepare the way for the regathering, the new kingdom and the new wine. In essence, Jesus is identifying his blood which is poured out for many (Mark 14:25) with the fountain which will be opened for sin and for impurity (Zech 13:1), and the regathering of his disciples (Mark 14:28) with those who will experience the renewed covenant (Zech 13:9). Mark’s position and use of the ‘for many’ phrase with its image of being poured out is like Paul’s use of the generalized ‘for you’ phrase. It is a way to broaden the scope and bring into view multiple OT referents which are instructive concerning what Jesus is about to do in his death and Resurrection. So, Mark’s summary positioning and use of the ‘for many’ phrase results in an emphasis on the interweaving of the Servant motif from Isaiah with the Shepherd motif from Zechariah; and, Paul’s introductory positioning and use of the ‘for you’ phrase results in an emphasis on the generalized all encompassing nature of Jesus’ self offering. In each case, these concepts are integrated with ‘this my blood’ the wine, and ‘this my body’ the bread. ‘Jesus saw himself as fulfilling several different Old Testament types simultaneously. This would be entirely consistent with what we know from elsewhere in the Gospels of his self-understanding as the One who fulfils the Law and the Prophets.’202 Jesus identifies bread and wine with himself, the fulfilment. The bread and wine are therefore linked with the Servant, the Shepherd, and the offerings. Interacting with the bread and wine in some sense is interacting with the Servant, the Shepherd, and the offerings. 3.2.2.9 Servant allusion Before moving on to seek further insights about the words of interpretation from John, let us address the issue of the allusion of Mark 14:24b and Luke 198 Mark 14:29-30 employs the imagery of two and three just as Zech 13:8-9 does; cf. Luke’s parallel account (Luke 22:31-32) mirrors Zechariah’s concepts even more clearly by specifying that Simon will be sifted, and that he will ultimately not fail the test, but will strengthen others. 199 Stein, Mark, 654 notes the avlla, in 14:28 is an emphatic introduction to the encouragement which follows about his resurrection and their restoration. 200 France, Mark, 577. So, Edwards, Mark, 429. 201 France agrees that Zechariah’s shepherd and flock theme ‘appears also in Mark 14:28.’ France, Jesus, 208. 202 Marshall, Supper, 89.

118

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

22:19b to Isaiah 53. Is there sufficient reason to see the concept of the Servant here, interwoven with the concept of suffering? Marshall elaborates, …the suffering Servant of Yahweh described in Isaiah 52:13-53:12…is the supreme example of martyrdom, and it is certain that Jesus had this figure in mind when he referred to his own impending death. The idea of giving himself reflects Is. 53:10. The phrase ‘for you’ is to be understood as equivalent to the phrase ‘for many’ in the cup-saying in Mark.…Jesus thus envisaged himself as the Servant who carries the sin of the people, pours himself out in death, and so achieves reconciliation with God.203

Jeremias agrees that this is an allusion to Isaiah 53:12, and based upon this proceeds to look in Isaiah 52 and 53 for a proper understanding of ‘many.’204 Morna Hooker arrives at a different conclusion, but one that is based upon a very different methodology. She investigates the question about whether these words in Mark alluding to Isaiah 53 were spoken by Jesus, or subsequently put in his mouth by the early church.205 If so, then Jesus did not have substitutionary suffering in mind at the Last Supper. Her approach to this question ‘depends largely on our answer to this problem of the New Testament use of Scripture. If we adopt Dodd’s [pointer texts] viewpoint, then we must attach far more importance to the Servant references than if we hold that the writers used the Old Testament in a purely atomistic way.’206 In other words, if OT phrases used in the NT are interpreted only to the level of their grammatical value, then very little insight comes with them. For example, Jesus’ blood being ‘poured out’ only means that he bled, perhaps profusely – and nothing more. The words have no connection with the use of the phrase in other contexts. Such a method is a very different starting point than our Scriptural Theology interpretive method. Our study recognizes Dodd’s pointer texts, the validity of intertextual dialogue, allusions, metalepsis, and developing motifs. Therefore, we arrive at a much different conclusion than does Morna Hooker, who believes Dodd ‘…has failed to prove his case, and that the “atomistic” interpretation is therefore the correct one.’207 Another factor is that Morna Hooker writes in a way significantly shaped by the history of theology approach. Such an approach assumes that even if Jesus did see himself in light of Isaiah 53, the impact was that he then would orchestrate his actions and words accordingly.208 Such an approach does not recognize the possibility that it was Isaiah 53 that was framed in such a way, by God acting in history and in the inspiration of the canon, so as to foreshadow Jesus’ actions and words. Morna Hooker’s approach thus leads her to conclude 203 Ibid. 204 Jeremias, Words, 226–7. 205 Morna Hooker, Jesus and the Servant (London: SPCK, 1959). 206 Ibid., 22. 207 Ibid., 23. 208 Hooker, Servant, 1, 24.

Historical-Literary Analysis

­119

that at the earliest stage of the tradition, there is ‘no connection between the sufferings of Christ and the forgiveness of sins.’209 ‘The meaning of the death of Christ is interpreted in terms of Isa. 53 in the later books of the New Testament – in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1 Peter, and possibly the fourth gospel – and in the literature of the first half of the second century A.D.’210 However, ‘There is no evidence that Jesus himself connected his death in particular with the forgiveness of sins.…It is only later…that the association with his sufferings is made.’211 Though on canonical grounds we could still associate the concept of the forgiveness of sins with the words of interpretation of the blood which is ‘poured out,’ the function of this phrase as a Last Supper bridge to OT antecedents would be weakened. However, subsequently evidence has come to light which challenges Morna Hooker’s conclusions from a direction other than method. Brooke investigates the theme of the Suffering Servant in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In 4Q541 he finds evidence which would date to the century before Christ that Isaiah’s Servant was already being understood as an individual eschatological Suffering Servant.212 Thus, there is evidence that this dimension of the Servant’s identity and role could have been integrated by Jesus’ time. So, Jesus’ use of the expression ‘poured out for many’ can even more confidently be associated with the concept of suffering for the forgiveness of sins, even given Morna Hooker’s methodology. The Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q540 and 4Q541 refer to the first and second copies of a manuscript found in Qumran cave 4 named the Apocryphon of Levi. They are denoted by the superscripts a and b. They are written in Aramaic and so noted by ‘ar.’ Thus, we have the label 4QAprocryphon of Levib ar for the second copy. The shorter form is 4Q541. These two manuscripts are dated ca. 100 BC. Fragments related to the second copy show that ‘its writing is akin to that of 1QS [Rule of the Community], 1QIsaa [Isaiah], and 4Q175 [Testimonia].’213 Another connection with Isaiah is its ‘Aramaic is replete with Hebraisms… formed under the influence of mk’b [b)&k;ma sorrows] which features in both Isaiah 53.3 and 53.4.’214 The manuscript addresses subject matter also found in the OT Pseudepigrapha Greek Testament of Levi. ‘The text concerns a leading priest who has particular roles and who endures much, possibly being put to death.’215 Levi is a figure who is a priest, and ‘whose inheritance was not territorial, but the cult.’216

209 Ibid., 138. 210 Ibid., 152. 211 Ibid., 153. 212 Brooke, Scrolls, 152–3. 213 Ibid., 143. 214 Ibid. 215 Ibid. 216 Ibid., 142.

120

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Brooke argues that the appearance of 4Q541 significantly impacts the question of whether or not the earliest NT texts understood Isaiah’s Servant as a Suffering Servant, whether or not the priestly role included suffering for the sake of others. ‘It now seems that there is a Jewish text whose author used the Servant passages of Isaiah to support the understanding that there was to be an eschatological priest who would suffer, possibly even that the suffering involved death, death that would lead to joyous benefits for others.’217 We can add to this evidence for the Suffering Servant the fact that it is consistent to understand Mark’s words of interpretation in the light of Isaiah. We have already seen how Mark relies upon the subtext of Isaiah, which Rikki Watts explores in detail in Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark.218 Mark presents Jesus as one whose vocation from the beginning is both priestly and will involve death. At Jesus’ baptism Mark’s vocabulary of having the heavens rent apart is a deliberate anticipation of the rending of the veil of the temple at the moment of Jesus’ death (Mk 15.38; cf. Gk T. Levi 10.3). Thus…Jesus vocation of servanthood (Isa. 42.1; Mk 1.11)…is his vocation to die, a death which will grant access to the…Holy of Holies, where only the high priest goes once a year.219

Brooke goes into great detail to firmly establish the linkages between 4Q541, the priestly figure of the Testament of Levi, and Isaiah’s Servant. Thus, it is reasonable to see Mark presenting Jesus as the Suffering Servant, and the words of interpretation are best understood in this light. Brooke analyzes the ninth fragment of 4Q541, listing parallels with T. Levi which underscore the role of the figure as a teaching priest who is the object of derision and violence.220 For example, 4Q541 9 I, 2 mentions ‘his wisdom,’ and ‘he will make expiation.’ 4Q541 9 I, 3 mentions ‘his word,’ ‘his teaching.’ 4Q541 9 I, 5-7 mention ‘they will speak many words against him,’ ‘they will invent fables against him,’ and ‘violence will be its setting.’221 Brooke notes that ‘the instructive and illuminating imagery of light is…a connecting point between this wise priest and the figure of the servant (Isa. 42.9; 49.6).’222 A similar analysis of the twenty-fourth fragment produces more connections,223 and allusions to Isaiah are more obvious; for example, ‘the righteous God,’224

217 Ibid., 153. 218 Rikki Watts, Exodus. 219 Brooke, Scrolls, 156. 220 Ibid., 144–6, e.g., images of light 4Q541 9 I, 3-4; T. Levi 4.3; 18.3, 4, 9; seven men 4Q541 9 II, 5; T. Levi 8.2; teaching and wisdom 4Q541 2 II, 3; 4Q541 4 I; 4Q541 7; 4Q541 14; 4Q541 15; 4Q541 9 I, 3; atoning function 4Q541 9 I, 2; T. Levi 4.2-6; T. Levi 18.2-9. 221 Brooke, Scrolls, 144. 222 Ibid., 146. 223 Brooke, Scrolls, 147–8, e.g., mourning 4Q541 24 II, 2; T. Levi 18.9; light 4Q541 24 II, 6; T. Levi 19.1. 224 4Q541 24 II, 3; Isa 45:21.

Historical-Literary Analysis

­121

‘and you will see light,’225 and ‘do not renounce him by means of exhaustion and hanging.’226 Brooke concludes that 4Q541 provides evidence of ‘already existing traditions about the suffering of the eschatological Servant priest.’227 NT allusions to Isaiah’s Servant can therefore include the concept of suffering for others. This strengthens our view that the words of interpretation allude to Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 13 and weave together Jesus as Servant and as Sufferer, pouring out as if from a fountain his blood for the sins of many. ‘All in all, this priest’s activities are not only referred to with some of the phraseology associated with the Servant of Isaiah, but his career seems to mirror that of the Servant – a universal mission, light against darkness, vilification, violent suffering, sacrifice, benefits for others.’228 So, thus far in section 3.2 we have looked in detail at the versions of the words of interpretation, seeking the most original form we can reasonably reconstruct. The value of this underlying form is that it serves as a bridge back from the Last Supper to OT antecedent concepts. Through his words of interpretation, Jesus identifies himself with OT typological offerings, with Isaiah’s suffering Servant, and also Zechariah’s Shepherd. He then relates the body and blood of this offering /Servant/ Shepherd to the bread and wine of the amended Passover Last Supper meal. The identification of ‘this’ with ‘my body/blood’ is originally conveyed by the proximity of the Hebrew terms. The canonical Greek translations provide the explicit copula ‘is,’ even without grammatical necessity. On the one hand, in neither language do we find a straightforward term like ‘represents’ as with the images in a parable. So, the development indicated by ‘is’ is more than that. On the other hand, a literal physical equation of bread with body goes beyond the evidence of the words of interpretation and the events of the Last Supper. So, we are left with a manner of correlation which identifies one with the other. The best clue we have about how to appropriate the benefits of this identification is the explanatory ‘Do this in remembrance of me.’ Sections 5 and 6 explore remembrance. The placement and wording of the ‘for many’ and ‘for you’ phrases give insight into the earliest oral tradition we can access, as well as revealing some of the earliest liturgical and theological developments of the church. An issue important to the interpreting of these phrases is whether or not they can be taken as allusions to Isaiah 53. This section has argued that the suffering character of Isaiah’s Servant, affirmed by 4Q541, does inform our understanding of the meaning of the words of interpretation. 225 4Q541 24 II, 6; Isaiah 53:11 in 1QIsaa and 1QIsab. 226 Brooke, Scrolls, 149. 4Q541 24 II, 4; Deut 28:22 identifies this exhaustion as the result of God’s act of striking; this striking is what happens to the Servant in Isa 53:4. Further examples from other fragments linking this figure to Isaiah’s Servant are ‘sorrows’ 4Q541 6, 3; Isa 53:3-4; ‘furnace of affliction’ 4Q541 10, 4; Isa 48:10. 227 Ibid., 157. 228 Ibid., 150.

122

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

So, now we turn to John’s gospel to search for additional insights into the words of interpretation. 3.2.3

Insights from John

3.2.3.1 Words of interpretation in John 6 rather than John 13 As we discussed in section 3.1.3.3, the absence of institution narrative language in John 13 need not be troublesome, and we find eucharistic commentary in John 6:51-58. This then can be taken as John’s version of the words of interpretation, providing Jesus’ own interpretation of his body and blood using bread.229 Although in an unusual context, the relevance of this passage is also supported by its proximity to the miraculous feeding and its timing near Passover (John 6:4), ‘the appropriate chronological setting for an exposition by Jesus which takes up themes associated with the Exodus from Egypt.’230 John’s passage is poised to address Passover concepts and their relationship with miraculous feedings. Jesus uses contrasts to communicate that the spiritual nourishment he provides is imperishable, not perishable, food which gives spiritual life to the world rather than just for the body. Marshall notes that the Jewish interpretation of manna was that it is a type of the Word of God, so to eat manna represents receiving God’s Word and the life it brings.231 Jesus equates himself to this manna and the life giving Word, and then he equates his flesh with bread (John 6:51). The bread is therefore correlated with manna and with the life that comes from God’s Word, imperishable spiritual life. John’s text supports understanding the words of interpretation to mean that the bread is not the source, but it somehow correlates with the body that is the source of spiritual nourishment, life, and wisdom. The giving of Jesus’ flesh (John 6:51) is clearly a reference to his death on the Cross and is an allusion to the Last Supper especially because of the mention of blood. The pairing of body and blood here again indicates a sacrificial death.232 John’s passage emphasizes the sacrificial dimension of Jesus’ self offering, and uses eating and drinking as descriptors of participation in the offered body and blood. 3.2.3.2 John contributes flesh terminology John provides another insight into the words of interpretation. In John 6:51, the term sa,rx,, while parallel with sw/ma as noted previously, actually has a more direct

229 Brown, John, 47, agrees, emphasizing the meaning of the Eucharist as nourishment. 230 Marshall, Supper, 134. 231 Ibid., 135. Marshall does not offer any primary source evidence for his discussion of manna in Supper. However, in an email exchange April 4, 2010, he provides further information including references to Philo, Legum allegoriae, ‘Allegorical Interpretation,’ III, 169 and 175; Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat, ‘That the Worse Attacks the Better,’ 118. Jesus’ reference to manna in the context of heavenly food in a Messianic age is consistent with the Syrian Apocalypse of Baruch, S. Bar. 29:8 and the Midrash on Ecclesiastes, Qohelet rabba, Qoh. r. on 1:9. 232 Marshall, Supper, 136.

Historical-Literary Analysis

123­

Hebrew/Aramaic referent than sw/ma (Mark 14:22).233 Jeremias explains that sw/ma ‘body’ (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24) is used in literary parallel with John’s version of the words of interpretation which employs sa,rx ‘flesh’ (John 6:51c).234 Jeremias describes how r#&b f f@ ‘body’ is usually translated by sa,rx ‘flesh’ in the LXX, and that sw/ma ‘body’ could have been introduced as a graecism because ‘flesh’ had a pejorative connotation and because of the comparable endings of sw/ma ‘body’ and ai-ma ‘blood.’235 This points to John’s term being more original, even though it is used in a setting (John 6:51) outside the typical Synoptic narrative.236 We can therefore amend our supplemented version of the words of interpretation one more time, using sa,rx instead of sw/ma for ‘body’ in the words over the bread. This results in a connotation that has a more tangible quality. The eucharistic bread does not just correlate with a ‘body’ of literature or concepts; it correlates somehow with the flesh which was offered on the Cross. This sacrificial flesh concept is a motif with OT antecedents,237 all the way back to the germ of the initial right-worship pattern described in Exodus 20.238 So, John’s differently-styled version of the words of interpretation in chapter 6 adds to our insights: a term with a more material connotation, sa,rx ‘flesh,’ offering a more concrete link to antecedent OT offering typology; and a more physical image of participating in and internalizing the nourishment or benefits of Jesus’ offering.

3.3 Summary Bringing all of these literary analyses and historical reconstructions together produces the following suggestion as an approximation of the original form of the words of institution and interpretation. This aggregate text will serve as our basis as we continue to look back into the OT for corresponding antecedents and forward into the NT for developments. (At the point of the Cup of Sanctification, see Appendix C, point 1.) ‘Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.’ avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n o[ti ouvke,ti ouv mh. pi,w evk tou/ genh,matoj th/j avmpe,lou e[wj th/j h`me,raj evkei,nhj o[tan auvto. pi,nw kaino.n evn th/| basilei,a| tou/ qeou/Å

233 Whitacre, John, 166. Jeremias, Words, 107–8, 178. 234 Jeremias, Words, 199, 222. cf. Barrett, who does see John 6 unmistakably pointing to the Eucharist, takes sa,rx as John working from Mark and emphasizing an anti-docetic message, the reality of the Incarnation, divinity, abiding in physicality. Barrett, John, 298–9. So, Lincoln, John, 232. 235 Ibid., 200–201. 236 Marcus sites Jeremias here with agreement. Marcus, Mark 8-16, 957. 237 Fee, Corinthians, 551, refers to this flesh being an ‘analogy’ of sacrificial victims on the altar. 238 cf. Exodus 20:24, which will be considered in more detail in section 6.

124

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

(At the point of the beginning of the main meal, see Appendix C, point 6.) Words of institution239 While they were eating, he took some bread, and after a blessing he broke it, and gave it to them, and said, Kai. evsqio,ntwn auvtw/n labw.n a;rton euvlogh,saj e;klasen kai. e;dwken auvtoi/j kai. ei=pen\

Words of interpretation ‘Take; this my body which is given for [sin]. Do this in remembrance of me.’ la,bete( tou/to to. sa,rx mou to. peri. a`marti,aj dido,menonÅ tou/to poiei/te eivj th.n evmh.n avna,mnhsinÅ

(At the Third Cup, the Cup of Redemption / Blessing, see Appendix C, point 8.) Words of institution And taking the cup in the same way after they had eaten, giving thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And he said to them, kai. labw.n to. poth,rion w`sau,twj meta. to. deipnh/sai euvcaristh,saj e;dwken auvtoi/j( kai. e;pion evx auvtou/ pa,ntejÅ kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j\

Words of interpretation ‘This my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many. Do this in remembrance of me.’ tou/to to. ai-ma, mou th/j diaqh,khj to. evkcunno,menon u`pe.r pollw/nÅ tou/to poiei/te eivj th.n evmh.n avna,mnhsinÅ

Jesus says these words and does these actions in the context of the Last Supper meal. This supper is a pivotal Passover meal and occurs at the conclusion of his earthly ministry and immediately preceding his death and Resurrection. In this context and with these words, Jesus amends the Passover meal and its elements, identifying his own body and blood with the bread and wine. Given this historical context and multiple literary allusions, the words of institution and interpretation serve as a bridge between OT antecedents and NT developments regarding the Feast. Concepts which continue from the OT through the Last Supper and into the NT include those integral with the motifs of right worship, deliverance or freedom, and transformation. The earliest textual liturgical developments such as ‘which is for you’ and ‘new,’ and the

239 The next section, Blessing in Mark, will make a case for a better translation of labw.n a;rton euvlogh,saj e;klasen kai. e;dwken auvtoi/j kai. ei=pen\ being instead ‘Taking bread while blessing he broke it and gave it to them and said.’

Historical-Literary Analysis

125

development of concepts such as new beginnings, indicate a trajectory which points to continuing impact of this rite upon its participants. So, in section 3 we have discovered interesting insights about the original form of the words of institution and interpretation, early canonical developments, and the instruction these texts and allusions provide about who Jesus is and the significance of his self offering. The relationship between remembrance and appropriating the meaning of the bread and wine will be the focus of sections 5 and 6. For now, we will provide the assertion which we will further justify at that time. Our assertion is that as the rite is observed according to the God-designed pattern of remembrance, God manifests his presence and makes available to those who participate in faith the appropriation of all the benefits of Christ’s body and blood. The linkages between bread and wine and the Servant, Shepherd, and offerings begin to enumerate what these blessings are. In other words, as the bread and wine rite is rightly observed by faith, the reality of, for example, Jesus as guilt offering, or the Shepherd who regathers, or the Servant who bears the penalty of sin, may be appropriated in a life-changing encounter by the participant and by the community as a whole. Building upon this base, the next section will explore the concept of blessing. As one of the introductory terms in the words of institution, it sets the stage for what follows, and it is integral to the interpretation of the Feast as a whole.

4 Blessing in Mark So, we now have our topic, our method, our position that the Last Supper is a Passover meal, and the texts of the words of institution and interpretation. An investigation of all of the significant terms in these texts is outside the scope of this book. We will therefore focus our attention on a term that occurs early in the words of institution, and as we shall see it serves as an overarching dynamic of the event as a whole. This term is ‘bless.’ The purpose of section 4 is to investigate the concept of blessing as it relates to the Last Supper and Feast. Blessing is an important concept in Mark and Matthew’s words of institution, our baseline. Blessing is a concept relevant to our overarching question about benefits. And, blessing is a concept which we shall see in the following sections is linked in Passover and Exodus contexts with a concept which is intrinsic to the Feast, remembrance. Mark’s use of the concept in the feeding miracles, and literary details of its use elsewhere, reveal it to be a concept with a broad scope. It is an overarching, bidirectional, persisting dynamic.

4.1

To God

In this section we will explore Mark’s particular use of forms of the term euvloge,w ‘bless.’ First, we will look briefly at an obvious meaning of the term which is to offer praise or thanksgiving to God. Secondly, we will look at how the term actually has a much broader meaning in Mark, a meaning which also encompasses action by God. Thirdly, we will look at the nature of this action, that is, that Mark depicts it as having persisting power. Fourthly, we will look at how the dual nature of the concept of blessing is reflected in the use of related terms. This bidirectional nature of blessing contributes to the setting of the Last Supper, and it sets the stage for understanding the related concept of remembrance, which as we shall see in sections 5 and 6 is also bidirectional in nature. ‘Bless’ is one of the primary verbs in the words of institution in Mark 14:22. Mark’s phrase labw.n a;rton euvlogh,saj ‘he took some bread, and after a blessing’ comes after the context establishing phrase Kai. evsqio,ntwn auvtw/n ‘While they were eating.’ Our analysis in section 3 did not produce evidence for an older form of the Greek phrase which includes the concept of blessing. However, we will suggest an English translation which is based upon the use of the verb in relation to other terms and upon the use of the verb in its conceptual framework. This translation will reflect a broader meaning and influence which better

Blessing in Mark

­127

communicates Mark’s intent and the canonical trajectory of meaning for this occurrence of ‘bless’ in the words of institution. Jesus is the subject of this verb. But, what is its object? Where is the blessing directed, toward God or toward something else? What is Jesus blessing – God, or elements, or the proximate amended institution and interpretation as a whole? In general, the verb euvloge,w has at least three possible meanings in the NT: to praise or extol, God or Christ being the object; to bless or act graciously toward, God or Christ being the subject; or, to ask God’s blessing upon.1 What does the term mean in the context of Mark 14, and how does this inform our understanding of the ongoing Feast? Jeremias believes the only meaning of blessing in Mark 14:22 is to offer praise to God,2 so the object of Jesus’ blessing is God alone. Jeremias defines euvlogh,saj as an idiomatic semitism, similar to our ‘saying grace,’ which intentionally omits a specific object. Jews would understand this term and Mark does not smooth its usage. Jeremias sees Mark’s use of euvloge,w without an object in 14:22 as consistent with Mark’s similar wording in 6:41. Here again, contrary to some translations such as the NAU, Jeremias believes Jesus is blessing God only. Mark 6:41 And he took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up toward heaven, he blessed the food and broke the loaves and he kept giving them to the disciples to set before them; and he divided up the two fish among them all. Mark 6:41 kai. labw.n tou.j pe,nte a;rtouj kai. tou.j du,o ivcqu,aj avnable,yaj eivj to.n ouvrano.n euvlo,ghsen kai. kate,klasen tou.j a;rtouj kai. evdi,dou toi/j maqhtai/j Îauvtou/Ð i[na paratiqw/sin auvtoi/j( kai. tou.j du,o ivcqu,aj evme,risen pa/sinÅ

Secular Greeks used euvlo,gein to mean ‘to praise or glorify someone’ and it included a personal or impersonal object.3 Therefore, without the object, the more comfortable Greek term is euvcariste,w ‘to offer thanks.’ Thus, in Luke’s parallel account of Mark 14:22, he chooses to substitute the term euvcariste,w as a Gentile writer for his Gentile audience. 1 Praise offered to God by people (Luke 1:64, 2:28, 24:53; 1 Cor 14:16; Eph 1:3; Jas 3:9); ‘Blessed is he’ praise acclamation by people recognizing God’s blessing upon his sent one (Matt 21:9, 23:39; Mark 11:9; Luke 13:35, 19:38; John 12:13); blessed by God (Matt 25:34; Mark 11:10; Luke 1:42; Gal 3:9; Eph 1:3; Heb 6:14; 1 Pet 3:9); person blessing a person (Luke 2:34, 6:28; Rom 12:14; 1 Cor 4:12; Heb 7:1, 6, 7; Heb 11:20, 21; 1 Pet 3:9); may God bless (1 Cor 10:16 probably). Instances that involve Christ as the subject cannot be simply categorized since they encompass both human and divine dynamics (Matt 14:19, 26:26; Mark 6:41, 8:7, 10:16, 14:22; Luke 9:16, 24:30, 24:50, 51; Acts 3:26). The noun form is not found in the gospels; elsewhere, it means spiritual blessing (Rom 15:29; Eph 1:3), bountiful gift (2 Cor 9:5), or praise of God (Rev 5:12). BDAG, euvloge,w, 408, agrees with these meanings and also recognizes the eucharistic references in both the praise and consecration categories. 2 Jeremias, Words, 175. 3 Ibid. Jeremias does not provide references for this point. LSJ euvlogew does provide examples, such as ‘to praise a city’ euvlogein po,lin from Aeschylus, Ag. 580. Online: http://www. perseus.tufts.edu, October, 2009. BDAG, euvlogew, 408, gives e.g., cp. ins Pful-Möbius II, 1606, 2 [II AD].

128

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Luke 22:19 And when he had taken some bread and given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ Luke 22:19 kai. labw.n a;rton euvcaristh,saj e;klasen kai. e;dwken auvtoi/j le,gwn\ tou/to, evstin to. sw/ma, mou to. u`pe.r u`mw/n dido,menon\ tou/to poiei/te eivj th.n evmh.n avna,mnhsinÅ

Luke’s graecism exhibits an understanding of euvloge,w which emphasizes the offering of praise or thanks to God. Jeremias sees this as supporting his understanding of ‘bless’ in this context as being limited to a Godward direction only.4 Jeremias believes Paul’s rationale is the same in 1 Corinthians 11:24, where again ‘euvcaristh,saj stands in place of euvlogh,saj, which could be misunderstood by the Greek reader.’5 So, Luke’s graecism in Luke 22:19, a parallel account to Mark 14:22, emphasizes blessing’s meaning of praise or thanksgiving directed Godward. Jeremias would add that the absence of a direct object further underscores this meaning, to the point of limiting the concept to be unidirectional. While this graecizing could be the strongest influence for Luke and Paul’s choice of euvcariste,w, section 4.4 will explore this choice on a conceptual basis. Also, while the majority of usages point to a meaning related to the giving of thanks, it is also true that LSJ provides a meaning for euvcariste,w which is, ‘bestow a favour on,’ based upon three third-century BC sources: the Flinders Petrie Papyri 2p.4, the Hibeh Papyri 1.66.5, and an inscription from the Greek island of Delos, Inscriptiones Graecae IG11 (4).665.6 If euvloge,w and euvcariste,w are translation variants of an underlying semitic concept for blessing such as K7rfb@f,7 then these usages may show that euvcariste,w like euvloge,w echoes both the effectual and the thanksgiving senses, each with its own emphasis.

4.2

From God

4.2.1 Authentic object So, we agree with Jeremias that euvloge,w reflects an important meaning of blessing in the words of institution which concerns the offering of thanks or praise to God. However, Jeremias does not address an important question. Is it possible that Luke’s graecism in Luke 22:19 does not retain and convey the full meaning of the original semitic background of euvloge,w in the oldest form 4 Stein, Mark, 650–51 concurs, pointing to euvcariste,w which is ‘probably directed to God’ in the parallel phrase in Mark 14:23 as an indicator of the direction of euvlogew. We will argue below in section 4.4.1 that each term has its own emphasis. Stein does leave a door open to this possibility in his brief phrase, ‘Note, however, 1 Cor. 10:16, where the cup is the recipient of the blessing.’ 5 Jeremias, Words, 185. 6 LSJ, euvcariste,w. Online: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu, April, 2010. 7 So, Casey, Aramaic, 240.

Blessing in Mark

­129

of the words of institution reflected in Mark 14:22? Is it possible that Mark’s retention of euvloge,w includes an intentional allusion to a broader meaning of blessing which is applicable to the Last Supper and the ongoing Feast? 4.2.1.1 Jeremias’ view that euvloge,w paired with a direct object must be a graecisim What does bless mean in the words of institution? In other places Jesus is recorded to have specified an object for euvloge,w. Jeremias explains the occurrence of such an object in Luke 9:16, the parallel account of Mark 6:41, as Luke graecizing once again.8 Jeremias’ view is that here, Luke chooses to retain the use of euvloge,w instead of substituting euvcariste,w as he does in Luke 22:19. Jeremias does not offer an explanation for this inconsistency. In this case, Jeremias believes Luke clarifies for his Greek readers the use of euvlo,ghsen by instead moving the explicit reference to the direct object of the bread from being near the verb for breaking euvlo,ghsen kai. kate,klasen tou.j a;rtouj (Mark 6:41) to being near the verb for blessing euvlo,ghsen auvtou.j kai. kate,klasen (Luke 9:16). Luke 9:16 Then he took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them, and broke them, and kept giving them to the disciples to set before the people. Luke 9:16 labw.n de. tou.j pe,nte a;rtouj kai. tou.j du,o ivcqu,aj avnable,yaj eivj to.n ouvrano.n euvlo,ghsen auvtou.j kai. kate,klasen kai. evdi,dou toi/j maqhtai/j paraqei/nai tw/| o;clw|Å

Jeremias concludes that Luke’s pairing of a direct object with euvlo,ghsen is an alternative form of graecizing, one that subsequently has led to an unsubstantiated practice of consecration,9 of directing blessing toward the elements. However, Jeremias is not consistent here. He seems to press the anti-consecration view too far when it is compared to his other comments regarding Mark 8:7 and 14:22, as we shall now discuss. 4.2.1.2 Jeremias’ conflicting view that euvloge,w with a direct object is original to Mark In support of his view that Mark 14:22-25 is largely shaped by a preexisting oral liturgical tradition, Jeremias grants that Mark himself did not determine the specific linguistic features of euvlogh,saj and its lack of an object in 14:22. Jeremias points to Mark 8:7 euvlogh,saj auvta, as Mark’s own wording to support the view of 14:22 being preexistent. Mark 8:7 They also had a few small fish; and after he had blessed them, he ordered these to be served as well. Mark 8:7 kai. ei=con ivcqu,dia ovli,ga\ kai. euvlogh,saj auvta. ei=pen kai. tau/ta paratiqe,naiÅ

8 Jeremias, Words, 175. 9 Ibid.

130

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Jeremias calls the auvta, ‘traitorous,’10 but he does attribute it to Mark. Jeremias seems to be saying that here in 8:7, Mark is uncharacteristically graecizing in the style of Luke 9:16. Jeremias does not provide any justification or motivation for Mark doing so in this context, nor an explanation as to why in one place graecizing took the form of substituting euvcariste,w (Luke 22:19) for euvloge,w (Mark 14:22), and in another place graecizing took the form of adding auvta (Mark 8:7) or auvtouj (Luke 9:16) to euvloge,w. So, Jeremias admits that Mark himself includes an object for euvloge,w in 8:7, in addition to using euvloge,w without an object in 14:22.11 Since Mark employs euvloge,w so broadly, Jeremias does not sufficiently defend his conclusion that the inclusion of an object is a graecism and it has led to misunderstanding. Given this evidence from Mark, we see the object is authentic and plays a role in determining the meaning of euvloge,w. 4.2.1.3 Mark’s use of euvloge,w with Jesus as the subject includes the use of a direct object Contrary to Jeremias, is it possible that Mark’s use of auvta, in Mark 8:7 has an intentional purpose?12 Is it plausible that in this pericope Mark seizes an opportunity to provide insight into the fuller meaning of the semitic background of euvloge,w? We find a better explanation of the wording in Mark 8:7 when it is understood in context with 8:6. Mark 8:6 And he directed the people to sit down on the ground; and taking the seven loaves, he gave thanks and broke them, and started giving them to his disciples to serve to them, and they served them to the people.7 They also had a few small fish; and after he had blessed them, he ordered these to be served as well. Mark 8:6 kai. paragge,llei tw/| o;clw| avnapesei/n evpi. th/j gh/j\ kai. labw.n tou.j e`pta. a;rtouj euvcaristh,saj e;klasen kai. evdi,dou toi/j maqhtai/j auvtou/ i[na paratiqw/sin( kai. pare,qhkan tw/| o;clw|Å7 kai. ei=con ivcqu,dia ovli,ga\ kai. euvlogh,saj auvta. ei=pen kai. tau/ta paratiqe,naiÅ

For Mark, who is more likely to maintain semitisms, the inclusion of the object auvta, in 8:7 is remarkable because it seems contradictory to the semitic idiom described above. If Mark neglects the object in 14:22, even due to a preexistent oral tradition, why does he include it here in 8:7? And, why does he in 8:6 use euvcariste,w instead? There is some but not considerable doubt concerning the wording for this phrase in 8:7. The oldest texts have euvlogh,saj auvta,.13 Some early 10 Jeremias, Words, 97, fn.4. 11 Adela Collins, Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 377, notes the originality of the object in 8:7 based on textual evidence. Cranfield, Mark, 256, notices the same evidence but is uncertain if it is original or a graecism. Commentators do not seem to have explored 8:7 in relationship to 14:22 regarding the object. 12 And, perhaps even Luke in Luke 9:16 is emphasizing the blessing of the loaves by intentionally putting the pronoun in proximity to that verb. 13 ) (4th cent.), B (4th cent.), C (5th cent.), et al.

Blessing in Mark

­131

variants14 reverse the word order, and some do so and alter the pronoun15 to tau/ta euvlogh,saj,, harmonizing it with the following kai. tau/ta paratiqe,nai, but this does not change the focus or direction of the blessing itself. Only later variants16 drop the pronoun auvta,.17 Neither alternative calls into question the view that the pronoun was original to Mark. Only two sources18 use euvcaristh,saj, which shows some attempt to graecize or use liturgical language, but again does not throw a shadow on the Markan authenticity of the auvta,.19 France agrees that ‘the various readings…do not affect the sense.’20 Guelich affirms the auvta, as original, though he offers the only rationale for its later omission in textual variants was to conform to ‘the Jewish practice of thanking/blessing God rather than the food.’21 So, the use of the auvta, in Mark 8:7 is authentic and reliable. Jesus blesses the fish. Luke maintains this terminology in Luke 9:16. Jesus blesses the loaves and fish. It is reasonable to read Mark 6:41 as having the sense that Jesus both blesses and breaks the loaves. Mark presents Jesus as the subject of euvloge,w, and he provides an object for the verb. For Mark, euvloge,w encompasses a meaning broader than solely a person directing thanks to God; it also means what Jesus directs toward the loaves and fish. Mark portrays Jesus as the subject, in the role of the one from whom blessing comes, a divine role. This understanding of euvloge,w cannot be ignored when we encounter the term in Mark 14:22. Using Mark 6 and 8 to shed light on Mark 14 is a valid approach which is supported by the independent development of the former passages.22 In other words, the usage and meaning of terms such as ‘bless’ in Mark 6 and 8 was not read back into them from the vantage point of Mark 14. Rather, they inform how Mark 14 is to be understood, specifically, that Jesus blesses a direct object.

14 e.g., W (4th/5th cent.). 15 e.g., A (5th cent.), K (9th cent.). 16 e.g., N (6th cent.), G (10th cent.). 17 Cranfield disagrees with siding with the majority and oldest texts, but his reason depends upon the assumption of scribes over a wide spectrum happening to make the same edits. Cranfield, Mark, 256. 18 D (5th/6th cent.), q (6th/7th cent.). 19 The variant use of euvcaristh,saj could be the result of scribes tending to conform language to eucharistic usage. France states ‘ euvcaristh,saj in D is probably an assimilation to v.6, aided by an assumed eucharistic interpretation.’ France, Mark, 305. 20 France, Mark, 305. 21 Guelich, Mark, 400. Another possible rationale for the later omission in 8:7 would be to bring this account closer to the grammatical structure of Mark 14:22, making the consistent meaning for ‘blessing’ in the two events more obvious. 22 So, Dieter-Alex Koch, Die Bedeutung der Wundererzählungen für die Christologie des Markusevangeliums, BZNW 42 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975), 103; Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (Freiburg: Herder, 1984), 352.

132 4.2.2

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings Intentional object

4.2.2.1 Accusative pronoun limits the action of blessing It might be suggested that the direction of the verb in Mark 8:7 is still toward God, classifying the auvta, as an accusative of respect; that is, that Jesus is blessing God concerning the fish.23 However, this grammatical view is difficult to support. Wallace maintains that such a usage of the accusative ‘is rare enough in the NT that this should be employed as a last resort – that is, only after other categories are exhausted.’24 Also, in none of the usages he lists as valid examples does the accusative pronoun immediately follow the verb.25 A more natural reading would be to assign the accusative pronoun the role of limiting the action of the transitive verb, thus serving as its direct object.26 So, in Mark 8:7, the pronoun intentionally means that Jesus blesses them, the fish, not that Jesus blesses God for the fish. 4.2.2.2 euvcariste,w (8:6) and euvloge,w (8:7) clarify the direction of euvloge,w is not Godward Mark uses the term euvcaristh,saj in 8:6, and the phrase euvlogh,saj auvta, in 8:7. Why? Does this distinction impact our understanding of the purpose of the direct object? Guelich takes the position that the feeding miracle of Mark 8 is a doublet, a retelling or independent variant, of the same miracle as that in Mark 6.27 Further, he thinks it ‘most likely’ that 8:7 is a later addition ‘by a community unfamiliar with the Jewish blessing formulas’ since the blessing is directed at the fish and is distinct from the thanksgiving offered for the bread.28 So, Guelich explains the existence of euvcaristh,saj by categorizing the feeding in Mark 8 as a variant tradition of the same feeding event as Mark 6, and that variant reflects Greek terminology; thus, euvcaristh,saj in 8:6 is a literary development, an unhistorical retelling, to which 8:7 is later added. Guelich does recognize that special emphasis is given to the blessing of the fish in 8:7 since it is treated separately from the account of the bread in 8:6.29 While Guelich’s observation concerning the emphasis on the blessing of the fish is valid, it need not depend upon his view that 8:6-7 is a variant tradition of 6:41.30 Meyer, Schniewind, and Gnilka all believe something historic is in 23 Cranfield, Mark, 256. 24 Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 203. 25 Ibid., 204. 26 Ibid., 179. Dana and Mantey agree that the normal meaning of the accusative is to identify the limits of the verb, unless there is some cause for it to be taken differently. H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1955), 91–2. 27 Guelich, Mark, 401. 28 Ibid., 407. 29 Ibid., 406. 30 cf. Aus’ view that Mark’s semitic source contained two distinct feeding miracles, although he interprets them more at the literary level than at the historical level. Aus, Feeding, 169. Contra Schmithals who believes Mark constructed the second feeding miracle narrative. Walter Schmithals, Das Evangelium nach Markus, Kapitel 1–9,1 (Gütersloh : Gerd Mohn, 1979), 363.

Blessing in Mark

­133

the background of the source text.31 A subsequent historical feeding miracle and its recording may well have had both differences and similarities with its predecessor. Guelich admits that seeing verse 7 as a subsequent development in this account is an assumption,32 so 8:6-7 may well be a unified segment reporting a subsequent historic event. A question relevant to our Scriptural Theology approach is: What might God be communicating through the detailed differences in the two feeding events? Why would God orchestrate the miracles with different numbers of people, loaves, and fish? Why did God inspire the inscripturation of these events using the terms that are in the canonical forms? We will investigate the paired terms euvcaristh,saj and euvlogh,saj in 8:6-7, and the use of numbers, for clues to answer this question. Our approach is different than that which downplays the historicity of the second miracle, and that which accords only literary significance to the pairing of euvcaristh,saj and euvlogh,saj and assumes they are synonyms. Such an approach leads Guelich to identify 8:6-7 as a doublet, and to classify the use of euvcaristh,saj and euvlogh,saj in 8:6-7 as an illustration of the terms being interchangeable, a view he then assigns to Mark 14:22-23.33 France has a similar view that ‘the two verbs were virtually interchangeable in Jewish Greek usage’ and the use of euvcariste,w (8:6) instead of euvloge,w (6:41) in the similar miracle account may be only a ‘stylistic variation.’34 While these two terms are similar, is there room to allow for each to maintain a distinctive purpose? This purpose is seen when euvloge,w with an intentional object is examined in its own right, rather than seeing this structure as necessarily a graecism or accommodation to euvcariste,w . Guelich does not present a solid case for seeing the miracle of 8:6-7 as simply a retelling of the same miracle as 6:41,35 neither does he nor France fully explain the use of the terms euvcariste,w and euvloge,w. Their assumption is that since the two terms are used in proximity referring to similar activities and the same historical event, they are therefore synonymous. This is not a logically sound argument. Words in proximity can also provide clarification or nuance of meaning. Without an initial assumption of their being synonyms, the introduction of euvcariste,w in 8:6 as compared with euvloge,w in 6:41 may just as easily be taken as evidence for a different event altogether, one requiring a different term. France does allow for the interesting alternative that Mark 31 Meyer argues for the historicity of at least one feeding miracle underlying Mark’s account. Heinrich Meyer, Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch über die Evangelien des Markus und des Lukas (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1846), 263. So, Julius Schniewind, Das Evangelium nach Markus, NTD (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960), 64; Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Mk 1–8,26) (Zurich: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1989), 263. 32 Guelich, Mark, 402. 33 Ibid., 405. 34 France, Mark, 308. 35 Contra Geulich, Marcus observes the similarity between the OT pattern of two feeding miracles in the wilderness (Exod 16, Num 11) and Mark’s presentation of two feeding miracles (Mark 6, 8). Marcus, Mark 1–8, 495.

134

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

uses euvcariste,w in 8:6 to explicitly ‘draw out the eucharistic significance of the feeding.’36 However, France does not elaborate on Mark’s intention for euvloge,w in 8:7. There is an alternative to seeing euvlogh,saj auvta, (Mark 8:7) as involving a ‘traitorous’ object and graecism as Jeremias does, or seeing it as part of an unhistorical doublet,37 or changing the direction of the verb and treating it as a synonym of euvcariste,w as Guelich and France do. Guelich does recognize that emphasis is placed upon the separately treated account of the blessing of the fish. France does recognize that Mark uses euvcariste,w intentionally. We will take these two points a step further. Mark may well have had an intention for each term. In 8:6, euvcariste,w clarifies the eucharistic nature of the feeding miracle. In 8:7, euvloge,w emphasizes something specific about Jesus’ actions related to the fish. This emphasis is further highlighted because it is part of a separate account, one which elaborates a blessing more fully than the account of the event in 6:41. The emphasis arising from the distinct uses of euvcariste,w in 8:6 and euvloge,w in 8:738 serves to clarify that the object of euvloge,w has an intentional purpose, that the blessing is directed somewhere other than Godward. So, Mark’s use of euvcariste,w (8:6) regarding Jesus’ action with the seven loaves emphasizes the eucharistic nature of the feeding miracle. Mark’s use of euvloge,w (8:7) with a direct object regarding Jesus’ action with the few fish emphasizes the direction of the blessing. Mark’s use of euvloge,w can include a direction both toward God39 and from God, so the understanding of Mark’s use of euvloge,w in chapter 14 cannot so quickly be assumed to be unidirectional. Therefore, it is necessary to consider whether euvloge,w serves a broader function at the Last Supper, encompassing both the semitic Godward connotation associated with the use of euvloge,w without an object, and also the effectual bread- or fish-ward connotation associated with euvloge,w and an intentional object in 8:7 and 6:41. 4.2.3

Supernatural effects

4.2.3.1 The direct object in 8:7 points to effectual encounter with Jesus What might Mark have been trying to communicate about the impact of Jesus’ blessing the fish in 8:7? A comparison of 8:7 with 6:41 helps uncover Mark’s 36 France, Mark, 308. 37 Stein and Edwards agree that there is sufficient evidence to treat the two feeding miracles as distinct events. Stein notes several differences in numbers, and how Mark and Matthew treat them as distinct (Mark 8:19-20; Matt 14:13-21; 15:32-39; 16:9-10). Stein, Mark, 310. Edwards adds to the differences including the term for fish and ‘in the second feeding Jesus’ dialogue is recorded in the first person, which corresponds with his speech at the Last Supper (14:22-26).’ Edwards, Mark, 228–9. Neither Stein nor Edwards address the presence or purpose of the auvta, in Mark 8:7. 38 Collins does not comment on the meaning of auvta, in 8:7, but does rebut the view that the use of euvcariste,w and euvloge,w indicates that 8:7 was a later redaction. Collins, Mark, 380. 39 cf. Jeremias’ understanding of Mark 6:41, section 4.1.

Blessing in Mark

­135

message and emphasis for euvloge,w with a direct object here in 8:7. This in turn will shed light on the fuller meaning of blessing in 14:22. A few details about the use of numbers and the auvta, object reveal a deeper message, a message emphasizing the divine power encountered through blessing. Numbers appear in: Mark 6:41-44, five loaves, two fish, twelve baskets, 5,000 men; Mark 8:6-9, seven loaves, a few fish, seven baskets, 4,000 people. Guelich notes40 but does not elaborate on how the change in numbers could in some way be significant to the meaning of euvloge,w. Understanding this change helps to uncover Mark’s purpose for using euvloge,w with an object in 8:7. While the symbolism of numbers is based upon more allusive grounds,41 the obvious and repetitive nature of the use of numbers in Mark’s two feeding accounts helps bolster the argument. The number two is included in 6:41 du,o ivcqu,aj ‘two fish.’ The number two is not explicit in 8:7 which uses the diminutive ivcqu,dia ‘small fish’ and the general adjective ovli,ga ‘few,’ so 8:7 downplays the importance of the actual number of fish and allows the emphasis to remain on what is happening to the fish. The first feeding miracle, which does not elaborate on the action taken upon the fish, is explicit about there being only two fish (6:41). The number two is also significant in 6:41 because combined with the fifties (6:40), the five loaves (6:38, 41), and the five thousand (6:44), the number seven becomes prominent, which represents the concept of ‘divine perfection.’42 In the second feeding miracle, the number seven43 appears in the seven loaves (8:6) and again in the seven baskets (8:8). Thus, the verses on either side of Mark 8:7 communicate the concept of a divinely perfect feeding and ensure that there is consistent numerology in the two feeding accounts. Again, the emphasis in 8:7 rests clearly upon what happens to the fish rather than on the number of fish. The use of the auvta, in 8:7 further emphasizes and clarifies the action of blessing the fish. The object of the blessing is made explicit. Additionally, the movement from the personal pronoun to the demonstrative pronoun tau/ta a few words later can be seen to emphasize the aftermath of this blessing. Jesus blesses a few fish. Then, in some sense different fish, ‘these’ fish, miraculous multitudes of fish, are served. Marcus allows for the possibility that the act 40 Guelich, Mark, 405. 41 Stein recognizes that the loaves make symbolic reference to the Lord’s Supper. Stein, Mark, 314–15. Collins does see the number twelve as symbolic in Mark 6:43, which ‘would probably recall the hope for the restoration of the twelve tribes in the time of fulfillment.’ Collins, Mark, 326. 42 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 411. 43 Marcus analyzes in detail the eucharistic patterns, Exodus typologies, and messianic expectations in both of the feeding miracles. ‘Mark’s symbolism of seven may also go along with the Mosaic and Passover typology of our passage; Passover is a festival lasting seven days (Exod 12:14), and Moses spent six days on Mount Sinai before ascending further to receive the Torah on the seventh (Exod 24:16; cf. “after six days” in Mark 9:2).’ He adds concerning the number seven that it is associated with ‘eschatological fullness and with the identification of Jesus as a Mosaic figure.’ Ibid., 489, 497.

136

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

of blessing may be ‘the means for their multiplication.’44 Jesus directs that what is supernaturally multiplied, what is blessed, is to be served. The fish are still fish. Nothing indicates that their actual nature has been changed. However, they are instruments in a miracle, involved in a divine intervention, an expression of the supernatural effects of Jesus’ blessing. Mark’s use of euvloge,w in 8:7 reveals the verb, with Jesus as the subject, being directed at objects, and resulting in supernatural effects. Although Mark’s emphasis in 6:41 is different45 and he does not use auvta, immediately following the verb, the same meaning is implied by the word order euvlo,ghsen kai. kate,klasen tou.j a;rtouj, both verbs having the loaves as their object. Mark’s numeric terminology differs in the two accounts, but the direction of the blessing is the same, toward the fish in 8:7 and toward the bread in 6:41. The two events communicate complementary messages, each with their own emphasis.46 The omission of ‘two,’ the inclusion of the object auvta,, and the movement to the demonstrative tau/ta all contribute to 8:7 emphasizing the blessing’s supernatural effect involving the fish. Collins describes the message these two Markan feeding miracles offer to a eucharistic theater of reception, that is, that such a context is a setting for a similar epiphanic encounter. This message aligns with our argument that the grammatical use of the direct object with euvloge,w points in the direction of effectual blessing. Collins agrees with Achtemeier that the sequencing of the feeding miracles punctuates the series of Markan miracle accounts, and along with eucharistic imagery, indicates they ‘had their locus in a liturgy accompanying a eucharistic celebration…the point of which was to clarify the meaning and import of that celebration.’47 Collins also agrees with Achtemeier that, while such a liturgy was early and likely informal, the purpose of reading such miracle accounts in that setting was to undergird the early church’s expectation of encountering Christ. The church used such ‘epiphanic events in the life of Jesus to give substance to its epiphanic interpretation of the eucharistic meal.’48 The feeding miracles were read to bolster participants’ expectation of encountering Christ and his blessing at the Feast. Our understanding of Mark’s use of euvloge,w aligns with this use of the text. 4.2.3.2 Exodus framework supports a consistent understanding of euvloge,w So, Mark uses euvloge,w as a verb which means more than human praise directed toward God. With Jesus as the subject, it is also a verb used in relation with objects and supernatural effects. Further, and relevant to linkage with the Last 44 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 409. 45 The repeated use of the term ‘two,’ paired with ‘five’ and ‘heaven’ point toward an emphasis on the divine authority or power at work. See below discussion regarding ‘heaven.’ 46 Section 4.2.3.3 explores the emphasis of 6:41 regarding ‘looking up toward heaven.’ 47 Collins, Mark, 379. Paul Achtemeier, ‘The Origin and Function of the Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae,’ JBL 91 (1972): 198–221, citing 208. Note the similarity with Garrow and Suggit, sections 1.3.2.2 and 3.1.3.2. 48 Achtemeier, ‘Function,’ 209.

Blessing in Mark

­137

Supper, all of these usages of euvloge,w occur in the context of Passover and Exodus motifs. Both of Mark’s feeding miracles (6:34-44; 8:1-9) include allusions to Exodus motifs.49 For example, the wilderness motif appears in ‘The place is desolate’ (Mark 6:35) and ‘a desolate place’ (Mark 8:4). The grouping of recipients (Mark 6:39-40) is the same as that in Exodus 18:25.50 The descriptive ‘on the green grass’ (Mark 6:39) points to Passover and the expectation of a renewed Exodus.51 The reclining posture is appropriate for Passover (Mark 6:39).52 ‘They all ate and were satisfied’ (Mark 6:42) ‘recalls the description of the promised land at the end of the exodus journey’ (cf. Deut 8:10).53 In chapter six, Mark relies upon these allusions to set the scene and context for understanding the miracle.54 In chapter eight, Mark does not repeat every detail; however, the term ‘again’ (8:1) and the reference to ‘desolate place’ (8:4) provide enough linkage to maintain continuity in the framework for understanding euvloge,w. Taken together, Mark’s grammatical structures, terminology, and allusions support understanding euvloge,w in the light of the feeding miracles and Exodus and Passover motifs. This includes allowing for euvloge,w to have an effectual, supernatural dimension. 4.2.3.3 Heavenward gesture is a reference to divine power Understanding euvloge,w as having a supernatural dimension when Jesus is the subject is further supported by its situation in 6:41. Immediately prior to the use of the term euvloge,w, Mark includes Jesus’ action of looking heavenward, avnable,yaj eivj to.n ouvrano.n euvlo,ghsen kai. kate,klasen tou.j a;rtouj. This 49 Marcus discusses how Mark’s feeding miracles parallel the Exodus manna miracles and reveal Jesus as the new Moses who brings a new Law (manna being a symbol of the Torah, as Marshall stated above; Deut 8:3; Prov 9:5; Philo On the Change of Names 259-60; Gen. Rab. 43.6; 54.1; 70.5) and who shepherds a new Israel (represented by the recurring number 12) through the wilderness (Mark 6:34 and Num 27:17; we would add Mark 14:27). Marcus, Mark 1–8, 407–10, 417–21, 482, 487. 50 Guelich notes that the Qumran community also understood the grouping as ‘an eschatological model…for the messianic banquet (1QSa 2:11-22). Thus, the arrangement points back to the time of God’s miraculous provision for the needs of the people in the wilderness and hints at the eschatological…gathering of God’s people into communities.’ Guelich, Mark, 341. 51 ‘In Palestine grass grows in the desert only in springtime, and the parallel in John 6:4 sets this miracle during Passover, a spring festival…Blooming grass, like the Passover/exodus typology in general, points forward to an expected eschatological recapitulation of the exodus events (see Gnilka [I.260], who cites Isa 35:1-2 and 2 Apoc. Bar. 29:5-8).’ Marcus, Mark 1–8, 408. 52 ‘In the ancient world, banqueters normally reclined on banqueting couches, but in the Jewish sphere the reclining posture was especially associated with Passover (cf. 14:18 and see Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 48-49, and Bokser, Origins, 130 n.48).’ Marcus, Mark 1–8, 407. 53 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 421. 54 John adds the detail of the Passover timing in his parallel account (John 6:4). This feeding miracle, along with Jesus’ discussion of it (John 6:26-58; including an explicit reference to manna in the wilderness and bread from heaven, cf. Exod 16:4, 15; John 6:31), serve as John’s explication of Jesus’ teaching that his flesh is food and his blood is drink. See sections 3.1.3 and 3.2.3.

138

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

is consistent with the Exodus typology of God telling Moses he would rain bread from heaven (Exod 16:4). The action does not imply that the blessing is directed heavenward as an act of thanksgiving. Rather, Jesus looks to heaven as his ‘source of power.’55 Evidence for understanding Jesus’ upward look as an acknowledgment of heaven as the source of authority includes: references to heaven at Jesus’ own baptism (Mark 1:10-11); references to heaven as the seat of power (Mark 8:11, 13:25, 14:62; 16:19); and, looking to heaven as he heals the man who could not hear or speak (Mark 7:34) and as he raises Lazarus (John 11:41). Guelich believes references to heavenward gestures in prayer, such as Luke 18:13 and OT practices, weaken the argument that the gesture is acknowledging heavenly authority. He prefers the view that ‘such a gesture comes appropriately at this point, since in Jewish practice God rather than the food (cf. 8:7) is the object of the blessing.’56 It seems that Guelich is allowing his presupposition about blessing being unidirectional to influence his interpretation of the heavenward gesture. While a heavenward gesture or look may be associated with prayer in general, there is insufficient biblical evidence that it is to be equated narrowly with the giving of thanks. The evidence actually supports a prayerful seeking in 6:41 of divine intervention of some kind.57 Guelich does not elaborate on any OT practices, and his reference to Psalm 121:1 is only tangentially relevant since this verse involves looking to mountains, not heaven.58 His example of Luke 18:13 is likewise inconclusive at best, and could actually be viewed as acknowledging the authority of God in heaven and invoking his power. The humble pray-er is so respectful of that authority he keeps his gaze turned downward, seeking mercy. OT evidence also suggests heavenward gestures in prayer are associated with supplication and God’s power. After Solomon’s prayer of supplication (1 Kings 8:30) with hands lifted toward heaven (1 Kings 8:22, 54), God appears and speaks in a powerful way (1 Kings 9:3). Nebuchadnezzar experiences healing as he raises his eyes toward heaven (Dan 4:34). Guelich also cites Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 11:56 as a way of refuting the claim that the heavenward look means ‘Jesus looked to God for the power to do this mighty work.’59 However, this verse in Ant. does not refer to heaven. It is true that Ant. 11:55, 64, 143, 162 do refer to heaven. The first is a general reference to the grand nature of heaven. The second example does refer to prayers of thanksgiving, but the same episode of prayer includes a request for ‘like favor’ for victory (11:65). The third example is a prayer beseeching God 55 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 496, cites Mark 11:30 where Jesus attributes John’s authority to heaven. 56 Guelich, Mark, 342. 57 Cranfield, Mark, 219. 58 Note that even in this instance the glance is associated with seeking help, not offering thanksgiving. 59 Guelich, Mark, 342.

Blessing in Mark

139

for forgiveness (11:144), including a downcast glance similar to Luke 18:13, again an acknowledgment of God’s authority and power. The fourth example is a prayer of lament, an appeal for God’s intervention and salvation. Therefore, the evidence from this book of Josephus does not indicate that heavenward glances in prayer are always associated with thanksgiving; in fact, it is the exception. Psalm 123:1-2 is a good parallel, ‘To you I lift up my eyes, O you who are enthroned in the heavens! Behold, as the eyes of servants look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the Lord our God, until he is gracious to us.’60 Mark’s phrase avnable,yaj eivj to.n ouvrano,n ‘looking up toward heaven’ then is an argument in favor of seeing the act of blessing in 6:41 as an occasion for divine intervention, rather than being an argument in favor of heavenward thanksgiving. Based upon the evidence, a heavenward glance is much more likely to signal divine activity than human thanksgiving. Aus’ purpose is to show the semitic background of this passage and to show how Mark uses it to present Jesus as surpassing Elisha. He looks to subtexts such as 2 Kings 4:33; 6:17, 18, 20 to show how the heavenward gesture in Mark 6:41 is an echo of Elisha’s prayers for miracles. He interprets the gesture as a way to associate the two miracle workers.61 So, Mark’s broad use of euvloge,w is more than a unidirectional verb with only God as its object. In the feeding miracles, Mark uses euvloge,w with Jesus as the subject and with authentic, intentional direct objects, bread and fish. The pairing of euvcariste,w with euvloge,w in the second feeding miracle is a way to highlight both the eucharistic nature of the account, and also the supernatural effects of the blessing. In the first feeding miracle, Jesus’ heavenward look introduces the term euvloge,w, thus further emphasizing that divine power is at work. Both feeding miracles exhibit continuity with multiple Exodus and Passover motifs. Thus, our interpretation of the concept of ‘bless’ in Mark 14 will consider its function as a complex multidirectional verb within a framework of motifs.

4.3

Persisting power

Returning to Mark 14:22, we can now understand Mark’s use of euvloge,w to mean more than offering thanksgiving to God. Though Mark does not 60 Aus includes a reference to Psalm 123:1 among his seventeen examples (e.g., Philo Cont.. 66, Midr. Pss. 121) of semitic prayers including heavenward gestures. Only two include thanksgiving, one of which was preliminary to Jesus working a miracle in John 11:41. He argues against those who claim heavenward gestures in prayer came only after the first century CE, e.g., Schniewind, Das Evangelium nach Markus, 64. Aus, Feeding, 68–71. 61 Aus, Feeding, 71–3. See especially his fn.318 citing Alkuin Heising, Die Botschaft der Brotvermehrung, SBS 15 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1966), 18, who ‘correctly notes that Elisha’s pointing to God’s aid in 2 Kgs 4:43b could be thought of as corresponding to God’s aid when Jesus looks up to “heaven.”’

140

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

explicitly pair euvloge,w with an object here, neither does he abandon euvloge,w in favor of euvcariste,w. Further, the bread a;rton which is the explicit object of the taking labw.n is also the implied object of the breaking and the giving e;klasen kai. e;dwken, so it is reasonable to think that it is also the object of the blessing euvlogh,saj. This allows for the term to remain broad and comprehensive, encompassing both Godward and object-ward directions, as well as serving as a more general introductory concept for the whole of what follows. This concept includes the dimension of divine power, like that seen in the Exodus and in the feeding miracles. Through literary and grammatical details, which we will examine in 4.3.1, Mark shows Jesus at the Last Supper as the subject of euvloge,w, blessing with power just as God does,62 which is consistent with his portrayal of Jesus as the divine teacher who exercises miraculous heavenly authority and proclaims amended truth.63 Mark’s crafting of such details involving euvloge,w reveals a trajectory which indicates that this power persists through the ongoing observance of the Feast. In section 4.3.2, we will comment on how this scriptural support is augmented by considerations of the texts’s theater of reception and the rule of faith’s view of the dual nature of Christ. 4.3.1

Literary and gramatical details indicate persistence

4.3.1.1 Durative aorist euvlo,ghsen (6:41) points to blessing over time The term euvloge,w is used in the context of the manifestation of supernatural power in both feeding miracles. Note the linguistic detail of the aorist euvlo,ghsen in 6:41 and the aorist participle euvlogh,saj in 8:7 and 14:22. The constative aorist indicative in 6:41 emphasizes the historic nature of the event, but it does not rule out a durative meaning.64 A miracle really happens, and it is more than a momentary expression of power. The use of the imperfect tense for the verb evdi,dou ‘kept giving’ (6:41) leads logically to understand Jesus’ actions as durative, happening over a period of time. Perhaps Jesus blesses and breaks the original source of bread once, and then those broken pieces are multiplied, supernaturally broken into more and more pieces. Or, perhaps Jesus keeps blessing and breaking the original source 62 Mark uses the linguistic tool of the divine passive to show God as the source of blessing in 11:9 euvloghme,noj and 11:10 euvloghme,nh ‘Blessed is…’ (by God). Mark’s only uses of euvloge,w are 6:41; 8:7; 11:9-10; 14:22. Mark 14:61 euvloghtou/ is an adjective referring to God himself. Mark 10:16 kateuloge,w also means bestowing a blessing. 63 Examples of Jesus providing corrections or deeper insight or an expanded view of previous teachings include: Mark 2:15-17; 2:18-22; 2:23-28; 3:1-5; 3:22-30; 3:31-35; 7:1-23; 8:31-38; 9:33-37; 10:2-12; 10:17-27; 10:35-45; 11:11-33; 12:13-17, 18-27, 41-44; 13:1-2; 14:3-9; and, 14:22 is when Jesus amends the meaning of the bread, and 14:23-25 is when he amends the meaning of the wine. 64 ‘The aorist normally views the action as a whole, taking no interest in the internal workings of the action…This is by far the most common use of the aorist, especially with the indicative mood. The constative aorist…might be iterative in nature, or durative, or momentary… It places the stress on the fact of the occurrence, not its nature.’ Wallace, Greek, 557.

Blessing in Mark

141­

of bread. In proximity, the use of the aorist for ‘divided up’ (aorist active indicative of meri,zw 6:41), ‘ate’ (aorist active indicative of evsqi,w 6:42), ‘were satisfied’ (aorist passive indicative of corta,zw 6:42), and ‘picked up’ (aorist active indicative of ai;rw 6:43) points to actions that happen over a period of time. It takes more than a moment to divide up enough bread for a multitude, more than a moment to eat and to pick up the pieces, and being satisfied is the description of a state that lasts more than a moment. These verbs though aorist are not momentary; they are durative. The action of dividing the fish in 6:41 is given in the aorist and describes the fish being distributed among many, which certainly would have taken more than a moment in time. ‘He divided up the two fish among them all’ tou.j du,o ivcqu,aj evme,risen pa/sin (6:41). The aorist for ‘divided’ is durative in nature. We will return to this term in a moment when we discuss the parallel action of distribution in Mark 8:7. It is reasonable to understand the aorist for ‘bless’ (aorist active indicative of euvloge,w 6:41) and ‘break’ (aorist active indicative of katakla,w 6:41) to be durative rather than momentary as well.65 This implies that Jesus’ activity of blessing happens throughout the miracle, rather than at a singular point in time at the beginning of it. The miraculous power is not manifested in a flash, but over the span of time it takes to produce the amount of bread that is needed. The imperfect ‘he kept giving’ evdi,dou focuses attention on the ongoing current activity of distribution in the story, which does not detract from the durative nature of the aorist verbs; rather, it tends to pull them into an ongoing story rather than leaving them as a static historic account.66 The thrust of the narrative as Mark portrays it is of a blessing that was miraculous and spanned an amount of time, and of a giving which connects the historic events of the past with a current story. 4.3.1.2 Comparable participle euvlogh,saj in 8:7 is also durative The durative Aktionsart of the aorist form of euvloge,w is also evident in the participle euvlogh,saj in 8:7. This participle is best understood in light of the distribution in the subsequent phrase.67 The usage of the durative aorist ‘he divided’ evme,risen in 6:41 is important to understanding the comparable distribution of fish in 8:7, ‘he ordered these to be served as well’ ei=pen kai. tau/ta paratiqe,naiÅ The command – a combination of an aorist ‘he ordered’ ei=pen and a present infinitive ‘to be served’ paratiqe,nai

65 Cranfield, Mark, 219; Collins, Mark, 325; Edwards, Mark, 192; France, Mark, 267, comment on rabbinic sources to support the view that the blessing in 6:41 is the usual thanksgiving said over bread. Stein, Mark, 317 allows for the possibility of objectward blessing, cf. 1 Cor 10:16. It seems that commentators have not explored the durative nature of the blessing, either in the feeding miracles or in Mark 14:22. 66 See Marcus and Fitzmyer below in section 4.3.1.3. 67 ‘The varieties in adverbial use come, not from alterations in the essential function of the participle, but from variations in the relation of its noun to the main verb and the context.’ Dana and Mantey, Greek, 226.

142

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

– is momentary, but the implication is that it is followed,68 so the resulting action in this story is the same as the action in 6:41. The accomplishment of the distribution in each case takes a span of time, and is dependent upon a blessing which results in a miraculous quantity. As with the loaves in 6:41, perhaps here in 8:7 Jesus keeps blessing the original few fish until they produce a mountain of fish. Or, perhaps Jesus keeps blessing and multiplying fish as they are shared. In either case, the blessing, the effects of the blessing, and the time required to distribute the results of the blessing, are durative. So, for the comparable event in 8:7, the durative actions of the story pull the sense of the temporal adverbial participle euvlogh,saj toward a durative Aktionsart as with euvlo,ghsen in 6:41. The blessing happens during the process of making provision for the distribution, and even while the distribution is accomplished. A possible translation for 8:7 euvlogh,saj auvta. ei=pen kai. tau/ ta paratiqe,nai could therefore be ‘while blessing them he ordered these to be served as well’69 instead of the NAU translation ‘after he had blessed them, he ordered these to be served as well.’ While Jesus blesses, the fish are divided up (6:41) and served (8:7). These grammatical details point to a durative understanding of euvlogh,saj (8:7).70 This view is strengthened by both grammatical and canonical considerations in Mark 14:22. 4.3.1.3 ‘While blessing’ is a better translation for Mark 14:22 This durative contemporaneous understanding is also found in the grammatical construction of Mark 14:22. While Jesus blesses, he takes bread and breaks it and gives it to them. ‘Take’ (aorist active participle of lamba,nw ), ‘break’ (aorist active indicative of kla,w ) and ‘give’ (aorist active indicative of di,dwmi) are aorist verbs, in this context reporting the historic actions of the Last Supper. All of these are preparatory for the following imperative ‘take’ (aorist active imperative of lamba,nw). 68 Gundry, Mark, 326, suggests that in the feeding miracles the ‘spotlight concentrates on Jesus’ so the activities of the disciples, such as distribution, are not made explicit. 69 ‘The contemporaneous participle should normally be translated while doing.’ Wallace, Greek, 623. 70 It could be argued that the aorist forms of blessing in 6:41 and 8:7 are ingressive (inceptive), that is, that they ‘stress the beginning of an action or the entrance into a state. Unlike the ingressive imperfect, there is no implication that the action continues.’ Wallace, Greek, 558. Preferring this classification would not substantially change our argument, for if the blessing resulted in an ongoing state, our point of the persisting nature of the blessing remains. ‘The force of this aorist may be brought out by the gloss began to do (with activities), became (with stative verbs).’ Ibid. If Jesus ‘began to bless,’ or if the bread and fish ‘became blessed,’ our point stands. However, even if the account in 6:41 could be taken to introduce the action of blessing to Jesus, this could not be said of Jesus’ repeated actions of blessing in 8:7 or 14:22. And, Mark does not depict the objects of the blessing as undergoing a change of state. They are eaten and treated normally. It is best in this case to treat these aorist forms of blessing as constative, and then look to the surrounding grammatical details for the Aktionsart.

Blessing in Mark

­143

It is true that the imperative ‘take’ is a command which applies to the specific reception of bread at the Last Supper. Like Jesus’ command in Mark 8:7, this verb has a durative nature. The taking would happen either over the shorter amount of time it would take for each of those gathered to receive and to eat a particular piece of bread, or over a longer amount of time to eat this bread throughout the meal. Further, at the canonical level we recognize that the command also applies to the ongoing reception of a continuing rite. Marcus sees this implication of continued reception in Mark 6:41 in the use of the imperfect tense for ‘giving’ evdi,dou, which we mentioned just above in 4.3.1.1. The tense is used ‘perhaps to indicate the repetition of the action because the supply of eucharistic loaves is never exhausted…cf. John 6:34: “Lord, give us this bread always.” ’71 The ‘taking’ is durative.72 Canonically, we can say that Jesus not only commanded those present at the Last Supper to ‘take,’ but he also commands all who come to his table to ‘take.’ In this sense, the blessing is contemporaneous with the ‘taking’ at the Last Supper, and the blessing is contemporaneous with the ‘taking’ throughout the ongoing observance through time. Here as with 8:7, for both grammatical and conceptual reasons, a better translation is therefore ‘while blessing.’ ‘While blessing he broke and gave to them and said, Take’ euvlogh,saj e;klasen kai. e;dwken auvtoi/j kai. ei=pen\ la,bete (Mark 14:22b). Mark’s use of the participle euvlogh,saj points to the ongoing nature of the blessing in 8:7 and 14:22. This supports seeing the Last Supper as the beginning of an ongoing new table rite where blessing and power will continue. 4.3.1.4 Trajectory of persisting power is strengthened by subtexts The trajectory which points toward the persisting power of blessing is also strengthened by the underlying literary substructure for both feeding miracles.73 Elisha tells a man who has loaves of barley to set them before one hundred men, and they will eat, and they will have leftovers (2 Kings 4:4244), which all happened ‘according to the word of the Lord’ (2 Kings 4:44). Just as Jesus is the new Moses, bringing new bread from heaven, so he is also the new Elisha, in line with the trajectory of supernatural power, performing miraculous blessing and feeding. Billy summarizes, The benefit to shaping the account…after Elisha’s multiplication of the loaves is plain.…By adopting this narrative substructure, the sacred authors depict Jesus as the New Elijah who speaks the Word of God to God’s people and performs wonderful feats on their behalf.…Jesus’ feeding of the multitude takes on the dimensions of a prophetic action.…this action points beyond itself and actually brings into effect

71 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 410. Fitzmyer acknowledges the ongoing blessing upon the bread and wine rite ‘which have been consecrated by the Lord’s words.’ Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 441. 72 This durative concept is also affirmed by the trajectory of the earliest liturgical developments which we noted in section 3.2.2.2, i.e., ‘take,’ ‘eat,’ and ‘all of you.’ 73 Gundry, Mark, 326, notes the comparison with 2 Kings 4:42-44.

144

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

what it symbolizes.…the event can easily be understood as a foreshadowing of the Eucharist, a meal that itself is considered a foretaste of the messianic banquet.74

Jesus’ actions at the Last Supper follow in line with those of prophets such as Elijah, who communicate the reality of who God is and what he is doing through their own actions.75 The visual actions are not just to stimulate cognitive thoughts. The actions are prophetic, effectual at that moment, and also signs of larger realities. Jesus’ actions of taking and blessing and breaking and giving are in continuity with this motif of prophetic actions. 4.3.2

Enduring blessing for believers’ feast

4.3.2.1 ‘While blessing’ describes an overarching dynamic The persistent nature of the power of blessing is bolstered even further by consideration of the theater of reception of Mark’s gospel. These narratives were put together not for private devotion, but to be read aloud during a community celebration.…The eucharistic symbolism in the accounts helps the believing community to identify more closely with the action of Jesus that is taking place before them. Just as Jesus performed the miracle of the loaves and fish, they are invited – through the symbols in the text and in the action in which they are presently participating – to behold another miracle that will soon take place in the breaking of the bread.76

Just as we have mentioned previously,77 the deeper message of biblical texts becomes clearer when not only the language and culture of the NT author is considered, but also the context in which these texts were formed and read and heard. Our Scriptural Theology approach affirms the validity of considering that a group gathered for eucharistic worship will hear the accounts of the feeding miracles, the words of institution, and the words of interpretation from the appropriate vantage point of these texts’ relevance to their gathering. Given what we noted above at the end of 4.2.3.1 about evidence of this influence in the early pre-Markan collection of miracle narratives, there is a scriptural root grounding a trajectory for similar influence in ongoing observances. That is, because the earliest gatherings of Christians heard messages supporting an expectation of epiphanic eucharistic encounters through the feeding miracles, current gatherings of Christians have justification to do the same. 74 Billy, Diamond, 9. 75 Collins has a similar view of the feeding miracle in Mark 6, seeing Jesus’ actions in line with Elijah’s miraculous meals in 1 Kings 17:8-16 and Elisha’s multiplication miracle in 2 Kings 4:42. Collins, Mark, 320. Note similarity with Motyer’s view of the Eucharist as prophetic sign, see section 1.3.2. 76 Billy, Diamond, 12. 77 Regarding the theater of reception’s relevance, see section 1.3.2.2 Garrow and the structure and message of Revelation, section 3.1.2.3 Billings and Luke 22 textual variants, and section 3.1.3.2 Suggit and the interpretation of John 6.

Blessing in Mark

­145

So, the concept of blessing is not unidirectional toward God only. When Jesus is the subject, Mark relates the concept within an Exodus and Passover framework to supernatural effects amidst feeding miracles. Mark’s use of literary substructure and grammatical details points to such power persisting into the ongoing Feast. As we suggested at the end of 4.3.1.3, ‘while blessing’ is a better English translation of Mark 14:22, and it is a better way to reflect the broad meaning of euvloge,w and its purpose in the setting as a whole.78 We will proceed using the following translation, which follows the context establishing phrase of ‘While they were eating,’ Taking bread while blessing he broke it and gave it to them and said, labw.n a;rton euvlogh,saj e;klasen kai. e;dwken auvtoi/j kai. ei=pen\ ‘Take, this my body.’ la,bete( tou/to, [evstin] to. sw/ma, mouÅ

Although the order of ‘take, bless, break, give’ is thoroughly entrenched in liturgical thought and practice, we would even go so far as to suggest that a valid grammatical ordering for the English phrase would be ‘While blessing, taking bread he broke it and gave it to them, and said….’ Here, the important point is to show that the concept of blessing is complex and durative, rather than unidirectional and momentary. It serves an introductory role, and it is an overarching dynamic at work in and behind the rest of the words of institution and interpretation at the Last Supper, and also in the ongoing Feast. 4.3.2.2 Dual role of Jesus affirms dual nature of eucharistic blessing When a human blesses God, the meaning is to praise or give thanks. When God blesses humans or elements, the meaning is generally to benefit. Given our observations that Jesus acts as the divine subject of ‘bless’ resulting in supernatural benefits, and given our Scriptural Theology approach which grants the rule of faith and the full humanity and divinity of Christ, then the meaning of euvloge,w in Mark 14:22 is complex. If the meaning of ‘bless’ is largely determined by who is speaking, the subject, then at the Last Supper Jesus’ blessing has a dual meaning. Jesus blesses as a man, and also with divine power as God. The Exodus and feeding miracle antecedents to the Last Supper blessing indicate that such divine blessing is powerful, and they 78 Treating blessing in regard to the rite as a whole, rather than locating blessing only at the beginning or only at a moment involving the bread, is consistent with seeing the whole rite as a remembrance rite, the meaning of which we will explore in sections 5 and 6. This is also consistent with Schürmann’s view that the liturgical development of one command covering both actions does not detract from the originality of both remembrance phrases. ‘Die liturgische Tendenz, die beiden eucharitischen Akte als Einheit zu fassen und darum als Ganzes zur Wiederholung anzubefehlen, hätte wohl entweder wie Justin den Befehl beiden Akten vor- oder – wie Tatian und verschiedene Liturgien – nachgestellt.’ (The liturgical tendency to hold both eucharistic acts as a unity and therefore the command is to repeat as a whole, in either the order before both, like Justin, or adjusted to after, like Tatian and various liturgies.) Schürmann, Der Einsetzungsbericht, 70.

146

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

indicate a trajectory which points forward to such blessing enduring into the Feast of Christ’s church. This dual role of Jesus is consistent with our understanding that Mark 8:6-7 is an intentional pairing of euvcaristh,saj and euvlogh,saj.79 This pairing then also reflects the human-divine nature of Jesus. Jesus offers thanksgiving to God, but he also blesses the fish with miraculous effects. This paired expression can be taken as a revelation of Jesus offering thanks as the human leader at a meal and also as a revelation of Jesus pronouncing blessing as God. With the term euvcaristh,saj (Mark 8:6) purposely communicating the offering of thanks, the phrase euvlogh,saj auvta, (Mark 8:7) can more pointedly communicate the divine action during the event. This understanding of Mark 8:6-7 undergirds a view of Mark 14:22-23 which presents Jesus, the God-man, offering thanksgiving to God and also pronouncing divine blessing. There is room for Jeremias’ view with which we started section 4, that Jesus as a human is blessing God in Mark 14:22. In the context of the Passover meal, there was a traditional prayer before the main meal. This blessing likely included thanksgiving to God as provider.80 However, throughout this section we have discovered numerous reasons why euvloge,w has a much broader and deeper meaning. Throughout his gospel, Mark reveals Jesus as the Christ, the new Moses, the divinely authoritative teacher. In Mark 14, there is no evidence limiting euvloge,w to narrowly mean only ‘thanksgiving.’ With Jesus as the divine subject, the blessing at the Last Supper has persisting supernatural power. Believers are on solid ground to approach the Feast with expectations that miraculous blessing is at hand.

4.4

Related terms

4.4.1 The terms euvloge,w and euvcariste,w each have an emphasis If this concept of blessing is so persistent and encompassing, then why would Mark use both euvloge,w (14:22) and euvcariste,w (14:23) in the same account? How are these terms related? We have already seen in the above section 4.2.2 that euvcariste,w clarifies the eucharistic nature of the feeding miracle (8:6) and euvloge,w emphasizes Jesus’ action of blessing related to the fish (8:7). The same pattern is seen in Mark’s Last Supper, a setting which can be expected to include both Godward thanksgiving and effective blessing. 79 See section 4.2.2.2. 80 Marcus, commenting on euvlo,ghsen in Mark 6:41 says, ‘But whom or what does Jesus bless, God or the bread? Mark ambiguously leaves the object unexpressed. The traditional Jewish grace before meals blesses God…(cf. m.Ber. 6:1).’ Marcus goes on to address the other side of the ambiguity, noting it ‘might suggest that Jesus blesses the loaves…In Judaism there is, in addition to a short grace before the meal, also a longer series of four benedictions after it. The first three… are among the most ancient…Parts…are suggestively similar to the themes of the…feeding…for they call God the shepherd of Israel, emphasize his compassion, and invoke his mercy.’ Marcus, Mark 1–8, 409.

Blessing in Mark

147

The concept of blessing plays an introductory, durative, overarching role. It is integral with the motif of divine power and supernatural feeding which follows a trajectory from Exodus,81 to Elisha, through the NT feeding miracles, and into the Last Supper. The concept of thanksgiving appears in the words of institution regarding the cup (14:23), which in Mark’s account is paired with the significance of Jesus’ blood (14:24b). This structure results in euvloge,w emphasizing the divine involvement of blessing with power, and euvcariste,w emphasizing the response of thanksgiving for the benefits of Jesus’ blood of the covenant which is poured out for many. An observation Nolland makes about Luke 22:19 is also relevant here. ‘The use…of euvcaristh,saj may reflect a Christian emphasis on partaking of the eucharist with thanksgiving.’82 So, euvloge,w primarily concerns God’s role of divine intervention with power, and euvcariste,w primarily concerns the community’s manner of relating to God in that context. Certainly thanksgiving is the proper response to such blessing, and such an exchange serves as a great motivation to constantly approach God in this way. As Wardlaw would say: When a benefactor has conferred upon us undeserved kindness, we cannot but acknowledge his claim to gratitude….But in what terms shall sense of obligation be expressed, if he should invite us to ask whatever our self-love can suggest for our well-being; if he should even take such delight in doing us good that our very solicitations give him pleasure, and the importunity of our petitions make us the more welcome to his presence.83

The Feast is God’s invitation to his people to come to his table, to confess their hungers to him, to receive his blessing, and to respond with thanksgiving. 4.4.2

Popularization of euvcariste,w

4.4.2.1 Liturgical setting focuses on the people’s role of thanksgiving Another question regarding terminology is, if euvloge,w is such an important concept at the Last Supper, what happens to it in Luke and Paul’s accounts (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24)? How does euvcariste,w come to be in the introductory place with the bread? Is it simply a graecism as Jeremias says, or is there more of an answer? We will look in the liturgical development of the Last Supper accounts, and in Paul’s larger discussion including 1 Corinthians 10. 81 As discussed in sections 1.2.1.3 and 1.2.2.2, the Exodus events leading to the freedom and formation of God’s people are a step along the trajectory rooted in the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant. This blessing is an overarching description of the entire Exodus and entrance into the promised land. Sections 5 and 6 will clarify the relationship between such blessing and a remembrance rite. 82 Nolland, Luke, 3:1052. 83 Gilbert Wardlaw, The Testimony of Scripture to the Obligations and Efficacy of Prayer; more especially for the gift of the Holy Spirit: in three discourses (Boston: Peirce and Williams, 1830), 3.

148

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Though Luke’s Last Supper account more explicitly refers to the ancient order of bread, followed by supper, then cup (Luke 22:19-20), Mark’s account reflects the more ancient concept of blessing, followed by thanksgiving (Mark 14:22-23). Paul’s phrase ‘in the same way he took the cup also after supper’ (1 Cor 11:25) is a clever way to both reflect the ancient order, and also – with the ‘also’ – present the liturgical development of moving the bread observance to accompany the cup observance after supper. So, what happens to the euvloge,w in Luke and Paul’s forms?84 Mark’s account does implicitly follow the ancient order. First, there is blessing and bread. Then, between verses 22 and 23, there is supper. Then, there is the cup and thanksgiving. Paul and Luke do not mention thanksgiving with the cup, but only with the bread in the introductory position. So, when the liturgical development brings the bread into proximity with the cup after supper, the ‘blessing’ is basically left behind, and the cup’s ‘thanksgiving’ moves up and expands to cover both bread and cup. We have already seen that euvcariste,w emphasizes the community’s thanksgiving, the role of the people, as compared to God’s role of blessing. So, it is reasonable that the term for thanksgiving comes to the fore in liturgical development. But, does this mean that the canonical form minimizes the importance of ‘blessing’ in favor of ‘thanksgiving,’ or is there another answer? A closer examination of Paul’s account reveals that he does not omit ‘blessing,’ but rather develops it even more fully in an introductory section of its own, before focusing on the more liturgically oriented thanksgiving terminology.85 4.4.2.2 Paul emphasizes each concept, blessing then thanksgiving In 1 Corinthians, Paul answers reports and questions concerning proper conduct of Christians and how to properly conduct worship. We will set 11:2325 within the broad context of the letter, then we will explore the concept of ‘blessing’ in chapter ten. Broadly speaking, Paul addresses the report of divisions in chapters 1-4, the report about immorality in 5-6, and he answers questions in 7-16. Paul refers to our key phrase, ‘Let us celebrate the Feast,’ amidst his discipline discourse regarding immorality (5:8). The fundamental contrast is between the ‘leaven’ of wickedness and the ‘unleavened’ bread of sincerity and truth. Already we see Paul referring to the Feast in a way which harvests its images as guidance for faith and practice. When believers assemble (5:4), Paul is with them ‘in spirit,’ but immorality is not to be among them (5:5-6). Paul derives this message of purity from 84 Fitzmyer recognizes that Paul’s use of euvcariste,w in 1 Cor 11:24 maintains a connotation of ‘God’s blessing on what is broken.’ Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 437. 85 Fee notes euvloge,w ‘more closely reflects the semitic idiom’ and that Paul and Luke use euvcariste,w instead. He then includes a short parenthetical note ‘(however, see 1 Cor. 10:16).’ In his discussion of 10:16 he notes the incompatibility of idolatry and the Lord’s Table, and identifies the cup of blessing as the Last Supper and the eucharistic cup, but he does not elaborate on how Paul’s treatment of the concept of blessing in chapter 10 may impact his use of euvcariste,w in chapter 11, which we will do below. Fee, Corinthians, 550, 465–8.

Blessing in Mark

149

the nature of the one who is also present, the pure Christ who was sacrificed as the ultimate Passover (5:7).86 Their assembly happens ‘in the name of our Lord Jesus…with the power of our Lord Jesus’ (5:4).87 It is ‘therefore’ (5:8) proper for the assembly to consist of purity rather than impurity. Paul appeals to the worship of the community as the grounds for his counsel regarding the problem of immorality. Their communal purpose is to gather for the Feast in Christ’s presence; therefore, they are called to purity. Paul repeats this manner of appeal in chapters 10-11 when he addresses the problems of inequality and lack of discernment. Chapter ten is in the section whose primary topic is idolatry, and chapter eleven follows quickly with the primary topic of right worship, a motif we have been tracing since Exodus. After discussing divisions and immorality, which both impact the worship life of the community, Paul addresses (noted by peri. de,) the questions of marriage (7:1), remaining single (7:25), idol offerings (8:1), spiritual gifts (12:1), collections (16:1), and Apollos (16:12). It is likely that the Corinthians had also asked about practices for men and women (11:2), the gospel (15:1) and resurrection (15:12), topics which are introduced with the more general de,. As Paul answers each one, he offers instruction which can be broadly described as follows:



Chapter 7 – God’s pattern for marriage and singleness; both have a place in the community of faith. Chapter 8 – God’s pattern for liberty; neither licentiousness nor legalism are proper in the community of faith. Chapter 9 – God’s pattern for supporting Christian laborers; it is proper that the community of faith support its ministers. Chapter 10 – God’s pattern, beginning in the OT, for proper worship; contrasted with idolatry. Chapter 11 – God’s pattern for proper worship includes consideration of the role of tradition and culture; tradition is good, and there is a need to balance current cultural expectations with kingdom ideals. Chapter 11:17-34 – God’s pattern for proper worship centers on the bread and wine rite. Chapters 12–14 – God’s pattern for proper worship includes spiritual gifts, rooted in love. Chapter 15 – God’s pattern for the message to be preached. Chapter 16 – begins with God’s pattern for stewardship, collections for the saints.

When these topics are considered as a whole, they provide Paul’s view of an orderly, healthy, vibrant, Spirit-filled church. He treats each question as a presenting problem, symptoms which are related to a more fundamental issue, 86 ‘As in John’s gospel, this is a direct application of the death of Christ to the slaughter of the Paschal lambs….The slaying of the lamb is what led to the Jews’ being “unleavened.” So too with us, Paul says.’ Fee, Corinthians, 218. 87 Note how this is consistent with our later discussion in section 6 of a pattern for right worship which involves assembling, God’s name, and God’s power.

150

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

that is, the Corinthians’ call to reflect and worship God. Paul begins the letter by referring to them as ‘the church of God,’ ‘those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus,’ ‘saints by calling,’ ‘with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1:2).88 That is their fundamental identity and purpose. All that follows is unto the end of nurturing the Corinthians to conform to and worship Christ.89 Positioned centrally in these latter chapters is his reference to bread and wine. Paul communicates the importance of proper worship through this literary structure, his specific comments in 10:14-22 and 11:23-25, and his repeated manner of appealing to right worship as the grounds for setting other guidelines.90 The Eucharist is to be observed in the context of unity, purity, genuine faith, humble fellowship, love for the brethren, spiritual gifts, and the preaching of the gospel. This context is relevant for a specific occasion of worship, and for the church’s life in general. Though Paul is addressing a list of various topics and questions, his letter is organized in such a way that the right worship motif 91 continues throughout,92 operating as an underlying rationale for other dimensions of the church’s belief and practice. When Paul’s letter is considered as an integrated message,93 we see that the topics are not unrelated; rather, together they address the proper conduct of believers and their worship. Paul pairs the expression ‘the Feast’ (1 Cor 5:8) with the verb ‘to keep,’ which we have seen94 is a general verb pointing to a comprehensive observance. Paul therefore may be using the expression ‘the Feast’ to refer not narrowly to the bread and wine ritual, but more comprehensively to a broader context for right worship, one that also includes, for example, morality and spiritual gifts and preaching.95 These chapters do not require a sequential order of bread

88 Note how this too is consistent with our later discussion in section 6 of a pattern for right worship which involves every place God causes his name to be remembered. 89 Fitzmyer agrees the topics relate to faith and practice. ‘In taking up each topic, Paul is concerned to relate it to the Christian faith of the Corinthians…to the way that faith should be working itself out in love.’ Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 55. Fee agrees that themes are ‘crucial to…understanding the letter as a whole’ and ‘the nature of the church, especially in its local expression…and…the truly corporate nature of such worship.’ Fee, Corinthians, 16, 18, 19. 90 e.g., 5:8; 6:19-20; 8:4; 10:1-13, 14-24; 11:20-22; 11:27-29; 14:39-40. 91 e.g., 1:2; 2:4; 3:16; 5:4; 6:20; 7:19, 32-35; 8:4-6; 9:13-14, 23; 10:7, 14-22, 31; 11:3334; 12:2, 4-11; 13:1; 14:23-26; 15:1, 57-58; 16:2. 92 The question of whether this organization happens at the level of authorial intent or at the level of the canonical text would be an interesting subject to pursue, but for our purposes here and given our method, either way the point of the underlying motif remains. 93 ‘1 Corinthians should not be read as if it were a series of essays on different themes.’ Garland, Corinthians, 20. 94 See section 2.2.5. 95 So, Fee, Corinthians, 218. ‘God’s people are to keep an ongoing feast of the celebration of God’s forgiveness by holy living…further reference to celebrating the Feast also includes an allusion to their sitting at the Table of the Lord…an allusion to the Table in the context of expelling a brother would certainly be fitting, especially in light of the command in v.11 that they not even eat with him.’

Blessing in Mark

­151

and wine, then spiritual gifts, then sermon, then stewardship.96 In any order, these would be the ingredients of a vibrant community and a powerful worship service. The point is that eucharistic worship is foundational to the life of the faith community, and the other topics are integral with its proper observance. So, based upon this overall view of the book, we can now examine Paul’s references to euvloge,w (10:16)97 and euvcariste,w (11:24)98 in their settings, noting the emphasis of each. Our understanding of the concept of blessing in chapter ten must take into consideration not only the recurring theme of bread and wine in chapter eleven but also the larger message of the proper context for celebrating the Feast which we just described. Chapter ten emphasizes the contrast between blessing and the idolatry portrayed via Exodus typology. Chapter eleven emphasizes the liturgical observance of the community. Each of these emphases contribute to the message of the importance of proper worship. Paul begins chapter ten by appealing to Exodus typology, highlighting the divine power at work.99 God’s people experienced his supernatural power in their deliverance and in the provision of food and drink. And, judgement came upon those who fell into idolatry and immorality. Paul refers to these types and says to his audience,100 ‘therefore’ (10:14), they too must ‘flee from idolatry.’ He exhorts them to judge for themselves, a theme which recurs toward the end of his discussion of the Eucharist (11:27-32), and to be careful to maintain proper worship rather than fall into such idolatry. Paul uses ‘the cup of blessing’ and ‘the bread which we break’ (10:16) in contradistinction to this concept of idolatry.101 Paul again refers to Exodus typology, ‘look at the nation Israel’ (10:18) and ‘do we provoke the Lord to jealousy?’ (10:22), alluding to the second commandment (Exod 20:5) and also to the renewal of the covenant (Exod 34:14). These Exodus types and allusions are Paul’s way of underlining his message that it is crucial to avoid idolatry, it is crucial to maintain the covenant, it is crucial to adhere to right worship, it is crucial to maintain the integrity of ‘the cup of blessing’ and ‘the bread which we break’ (10:16).

96 Fitzmyer makes the related observation, ‘The order of topics is dictated almost certainly by the sequence of topics that have come to Paul’s attention in the reports…and by the questions.’ Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 55. 97 1 Cor 10:16 regarding bread and wine; cf. 4:12 regarding prayers for abusers, and 14:16 regarding humans praising God. 98 1 Cor 11:24 regarding bread and wine; cf. 1:4, 14 regarding prayers of thanks in general; 10:30 regarding eating in general; 14:16-18 regarding humans praising God. 99 e.g., cloud and sea both repeated in 10:1-2; spiritual or supernatural food and drink and rock 10:3-4; 23,000 fell in a day 10:8; destruction by the serpent 10:9. 100 Paul ‘takes for granted that God’s attitude toward idolatry has not changed with the coming of Christ. The OT paradigm…’ maintains relevance for his own audience. Garland, Corinthians, 483. 101 Garland, Corinthians, 476–7.

152

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Paul’s choice to use the cup and the bread as the contrast to idolatry, and the larger literary structure we observed above, point to the understanding that the cup and the bread epitomize this right worship. The connotations of this cup and this bread are not limited to cognitive beliefs about God; right worship is not limited to right beliefs. Paul relates the cup and bread to power-encounters with God. He points to supernatural spiritual food and drink in 10:3-4 as a way of describing Israel’s encounter with God’s power, in contrast with their idolatrous behavior involving food and drink and subsequent supernatural judgment in 10:7-8. Likewise, Paul now contrasts the spiritual food of ‘cup’ and ‘bread’ in 10:16, and the cup and table of demons in 10:21 (with implied subsequent judgment in phrases such as ‘I do not want you to become sharers in demons’ 10:20, and ‘Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy?’ 10:22). Both sides of both contrasts link spiritual food and drink, the cup and bread, with encountering divine power. Paul’s use of euvloge,w here is in the context of divine power.102 If the pairing of cup with bread, and the parallelism with the Exodus manna and water, are not clear enough, Paul uses the phrase ‘the table of the Lord’ (10:21) to make it obvious that he is indeed addressing the eucharistic cup with the phrase ‘the cup of blessing.’ This cup will draw God’s blessing in just as powerful a way as the table of demons will provoke him to jealousy and judgment. The effective nature of blessing is also indicated by the pairing of blessing and judgment. Since the concept of judgment encompasses power such as ‘many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep,’ (11:29-30; cf. 10:710), then the concept of blessing likewise encompasses power (cf. 10:2-4). So, through his discussion of idolatry, Paul addresses the power of blessing and judgment. This blessing he associates with the eucharistic cup, which is in parallel with the ‘bread which we break’ (10:16), thus the power of blessing relates to both the bread and the wine. Far from omitting the concept of blessing as it relates to the Eucharist, Paul appeals to and elaborates on this concept throughout the chapter which is prior to his more specific narration of the Last Supper. Given the background of chapter ten’s discussion of powerful blessing and judgement, proper worship and idolatry, Paul is then free to focus more specifically on the liturgical tradition in chapter eleven. Having already described at length the divine power associated with the bread and cup of blessing, he now can focus more particularly on the community’s proper observance of the rite itself. In this setting, rather then using euvloge,w with the bread (as in Mark 14:22) and euvcariste,w with the cup (as in Mark 14:23), he simplifies the liturgical description and uses euvcariste,w alone (1 Cor 11:24). Although Paul’s words of institution and interpretation (11:23-26) do not address the concepts of blessing or power directly, they are bookended on either side by discussions of the power of judgement and blessing (cf. 10:1102 Ibid., 482.

Blessing in Mark

­153

22; 11:27-34). The literary structure itself communicates the message that the community observes eucharistic worship surrounded by the power of God. This theme is addressed in more detail in Paul’s next topic, spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12-14). Paul uses euvcariste,w as he focuses on the liturgical observance which occurs in the midst of the divine power associated with blessing. So, although it appears that Paul retains euvcariste,w from the cup observance and drops euvloge,w from the bread observance, in actuality he does not omit the concept of blessing. Rather, he provides a lengthier treatment of it, even emphasizing the divine power at work, in the preceding section. Therefore his words of institution and interpretation, now in a more liturgical form, are predicated upon euvloge,w and surrounded by the concept of God’s power. Paul’s literary structure in 1 Corinthians 10-11 associates blessing with the power of God and associates thanksgiving with the liturgy of God’s people. This message is consistent with seeing Jesus in a divine role as the subject of powerful blessing in Mark 14:22, and seeing Jesus in an exemplary human role as one offering thanksgiving in Mark 14:23. The Feast is where God offers blessings, and where God’s people offer thanksgiving. Thus, the canonical developments which retain euvcariste,w make sense in the NT liturgical context and also in the theater of reception of the contemporary church. However, the overarching theological context does not lose sight of effectual blessing. A relevant Scriptural Theology question at this stage is, what is God revealing about himself and his purposes through these uses of euvloge,w and euvcariste,w? A likely message is that God alone is the source of the supernatural power of blessing, that Jesus’ divine role at the Last Supper and the ongoing Feast includes this power, that this power is to encompass the community’s eucharistic worship, and our proper response is thanksgiving. 4.4.2.3 Post-meal placement and prayer A related terminology question is, if the concept of blessing is so important to a proper understanding of the Feast, how could the term ‘Eucharist’ from euvcariste,w have become so prominent? In addition to the tendency to graecize the language, the movement of the ceremony including both bread and wine to after the meal may also have influenced wording. Jeremias103 and InstoneBrewer104 look to the Passover post-meal prayer as the immediate precursor to the first Jewish-Christian eucharistic prayers. The wording includes ‘Blessed art thou, O Lord, our God’ and ‘We thank thee, O Lord, our God.’105 These are prayers offered by humans to God. Understandably, the thanksgiving nature of the prayer is emphasized, which as we have already noted is appropriate given the liturgical purpose of the 103 Jeremias, Words, 110. 104 ‘Christians celebrated the Lord’s Supper at the end of communal meals (cf. Acts 2.42, 46; 1 Cor 11.20-29). The Lord’s Supper was celebrated with the “cup of blessing” – i.e., a modification of the Grace after Meals.’ IB, Traditions, 1:83. 105 Jeremias, Words, 110, citing L. Finkelstein, ‘The Birkat Ha-Mazon,’ JQR 19 (1928-9), 211–62, including evidence from Jub. 22.6-9.

154

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

words of institution and interpretation. However, this should not result in the loss of Paul’s, Mark’s, and the canonical meaning and intent for the concept of blessing. Additionally, while both euvcariste,w and euvloge,w are translation variants of the underlying K7rfb@f,106 as with any language each Greek term has its own emphasis and nuance. Although the term Eucharist has been popularized, the term euvcariste,w cannot be taken as fully comprising all of the meaning of euvloge,w. In this section we have discussed how euvcariste,w clarifies the eucharistic nature of the feeding miracle in Mark 8:6, and how it also emphasizes the concept of thanksgiving in the liturgical life of the community (1 Cor 11:24). This does not detract from how euvloge,w emphasizes Jesus’ action of blessing, related to the bread in Mark 6:41, to the fish in Mark 8:7, and to the words of institution in Mark 14:22.107 While euvcariste,w primarily concerns the community’s manner of relating thankfully to God because of all of the benefits of the blood of the covenant, euvloge,w primarily concerns God’s role of divine intervention with power. The popularization of the terminology ‘Eucharist’ likely derives from a liturgical emphasis on the role of the community, the separation in literary structure which occurs when the bread is brought into proximity with the cup after supper and the cup’s term ‘thanksgiving’ expands to cover both bread and cup, and terminology which may have its roots in an original post-meal Passover prayer. Giving due attention to Mark’s retention of euvloge,w, and also to Paul’s discussion of the concept of blessing preliminary to his report of the words of institution and interpretation, brings back into proper perspective the importance and power of the concept of ‘blessing’ as it relates to the Feast. Such intensive exegesis reveals a deeper understanding of God’s intentions for eucharistic worship. Jesus’ divine role and the power of blessing is the context within which the community’s observance properly occurs. Mark’s narratives of the feeding miracles portray this divine power with grammatical and functional details which point to its persistence. All of these factors appropriately inform an understanding of blessing at the Last Supper and Feast which incorporates not only thanks offered to God, but blessing effected by God. So, the terminology of thanksgiving focuses on the people’s role in the rite, and the terminology of blessing focuses on God’s role in the rite.

4.5 Summary

Before proceeding to our next step of considering OT antecedents to the concept of blessing, let us summarize the major discoveries we have made thus far on 106 Marcus, Mark 1-8, 488 agrees with Jeremias, Words, 175, that both euvloge,w and euvcariste,w can translate K7rfb@f. So, Casey, Aramaic, 240. 107 Heising and Kertelge affirm these are Markan and not theological redactions by a later Christian community, thus strengthening the influence of the concept of ‘blessing’ upon the church, rather than vice versa. Heising, Die Botschaft der Brotvermehrung, 61–8. Karl Kertelge, Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium, SANT 23 (Munich: Kösel, 1970), 136.

Blessing in Mark

­155

our journey. We began in section 1 by describing our approach vector Scriptural Theology, a hybrid of historical-literary Biblical Theology and the more recent trend toward Theological Reading of Scripture. We offered clarifications of such a method including: the line of authority; the nature of God; and trajectories of meaning. Next we detailed the tools necessary to explore the topic of eucharistic worship, a topic which draws upon both OT and NT. These tools include types, motifs, allusions, paradigms, and trajectories. Messages arising from these intertextual tools, when sufficient correspondence is maintained, are important to hearing the full meaning of Scripture. Our question, ‘What are the potential benefits of keeping the Feast?’ and our method are innovative, and address a need for careful scriptural reflection to inform the current popular interest in the Eucharist. Section 2 picked up where Jeremias and Marshall and others left off, providing evidence of the paschal nature of the Last Supper. This study expanded upon Story’s brief work to offer a more complete explanation of the Johannine chronology of the Last Supper, which results in an even firmer argument for Passover’s relevance to the Last Supper. Section 3 took an intensive look at the biblical texts of the words of institution and interpretation, seeking the most original form available to us. This was a way to establish a starting point, so that OT antecedents and liturgical developments in the canonical forms could be clarified. The result was the ability to identify trajectories of meaning already evident in texts related to the ongoing Feast. We offered our own understanding of the original forms of the words of institution and interpretation, which inform later sections of this study. Section 4 narrowed the focus of the study even further, looking closely at Mark’s treatment of the concept of blessing. Recurring Passover imagery, grammatical details, and literary structures involving euvloge,w and euvcariste,w showed that Mark links the feeding miracles with the Last Supper. The meaning ‘bless’ in 6:41 and 8:7 carries into 14:22. Mark’s use of euvloge,w is much broader than a unidirectional act of offering thanks to God. He incorporates a divine subject, supernatural effects, and persisting power. This section also offered an explanation of the popularization of the term Eucharist in light of the importance of the concept of blessing, concluding that blessing communicates more about God’s role, and thanksgiving communicates more about the community’s role. Next, in section 5, we will seek to add relevant OT insights to our NT insights of sections 2 through 4. Are there OT antecedents to the concept of blessing which we have been examining? Does the OT address blessing in a way that is consistent with divine encounter or supernatural effects? We will focus our investigation on motifs which interweave concepts related to Exodus and Passover, including worship, remembrance, and blessing. Section 6 will similarly investigate an antecedent paradigm. Section 7 will specify blessings associated with the Feast because of the linkages established in the preceding sections. Two fundamental themes, freedom and formation, sum up the specific blessings.

5 Blessing in the Remembrance Motif In addition to Mark’s broader usage of euvloge,w, the full meaning of the concept of blessing in the words of institution must take into consideration the immediate setting of the Last Supper, which is the memorial called Passover. Remembrance is intrinsic to the context of the Last Supper and the Feast. All references to the concept of blessing in the OT do not necessarily impact our understanding of the Feast. Those references to blessing which maintain continuity with the shared controlling context of remembrance, especially within an Exodus framework, are relevant. The purpose of section 5 is to describe how remembrance develops into a motif within an Exodus framework, and to show how this motif persists into the Last Supper. Our understanding of the Feast is informed by messages which arise from this OT antecedent of remembrance and its related blessings. In section 5.1 we will investigate the remembrance motif within an Exodus framework – the framework shared by Passover, the Last Supper, and Mark’s narrative in general. In section 5.2 we will look more closely at how the Last Supper maintains continuity with this motif, and therefore is informed by its messages.

5.1

Remembrance motif in Exodus

The words of interpretation make explicit the definitive role of remembrance at the Last Supper. We established in section 3.2 that Paul and Luke’s phrase ‘Do this in remembrance of me’ (1 Cor 11:24-25; Luke 22:19) is part of the original words of interpretation. Consistently, Passover is identified as a memorial (Exod 12:14; 13:3, 9), so remembrance is an overarching concept of the rite. Therefore, remembrance in the Passover context is an important OT antecedent to the concept of remembrance at the Last Supper. The concept of blessing is also integral to multiple Exodus types and motifs,1 so these blessing and remembrance concepts are interwoven in the subtext as well as the actual text of the Last Supper. 1 e.g., Exod 18:10 blessing directed toward God; 20:11 God blessing the Sabbath; 20:24 God blessing during right worship; 23:25 blessing of bread and drink; 32:29 consecration preliminary to God’s blessing; 39:43 blessing during right worship; Lev 9:22 blessing during right worship; 9:23 right worship, blessing, and divine encounter; 25:21 blessing during jubilee.

Blessing in the Remembrance Motif

­157

Exodus types and motifs serve as background and are crucial to a full understanding of subsequent related biblical texts.2 Thus, we must be prepared for a complex interplay of related concepts which inform each other in dialogue. We have already shown that blessing is an important concept in Mark’s portrayal of the Last Supper, and since the Feast is the remembrance rite of the church’s worship, we will pay special attention to the dialogue between blessing, remembrance, and right worship in Exodus. We will trace how the remembrance concept develops into a motif throughout Exodus.3 Through this development (5.1.1), we will see ten dimensions of remembrance revealed (5.1.2). We will then suggest messages which arise from this motif within an Exodus framework (5.1.3). This will form a basis for our examination of remembrance at the Last Supper (5.2), which shows continuity with the antecedent dimensions and messages. The consistent intertextual dialogue between blessing, remembrance, and right worship, within an Exodus framework, is a masterpiece mosaic of meaning which is necessary to understand blessing at the Last Supper and in the ongoing Feast. Ultimately, we will see that integral with these motifs are specific benefits which can be summarized by the themes of freedom and formation. 5.1.1 Development The concept of remembrance develops into a motif throughout the book of Exodus. We will trace the development of this motif by examining Hebrew terms which are forms of rkazF ‘remember,’ which the LXX translates with forms of either the noun avna,mnhsij or the verb mimnh|,skw.4 There are seventeen occurrences of rkz in Exodus in various forms:5 memorial NwOrkf@zI mnhmo,sunon 12:14; 17:14; 28:12 twice; 28:29; 30:16; 39:7 reminder NwOrkf@zI mnhmo,sunon 13:9 remember rkazF mimnh,|skomai 2:24; 6:5; 20:8; 32:13 mnhmoneu,w 13:3 rkazF evponoma,sw to. o;noma, mou ‘cause my name to be remembered’ 20:24 2 See section 1.2.3.3 regarding Clifford’s view of three Exodus ‘moments’ as paradigmatic, and section 1.2.5 regarding Langston’s survey of the reception history of Exodus. 3 A motif is a concept, or set of related concepts, which is repeated using various types, allusions, terms, or phrases, and which may evidence progression between OT and NT. Here, our treatment of remembrance will include various forms of the Hebrew noun NwOrk@fzI, the verb rkazF, as well as the Greek noun avna,mnhsij, spanning both OT and NT. Thus, we refer to it as a motif. Our treatment of blessing has thus far been focused on forms of the verb euvloge,w in Mark. Thus, so far we have referred to it as a concept. As this section continues, we will incorporate the Hebrew verb K7rfb@f and the noun hkfrfb,@; so blessing will also become an intertextual motif. 4 Childs has done a detailed study of the nuances of all the Hebrew usages and forms. He does not expand his study to consider related Greek terms or the concept of remembrance in the NT. This study seeks to take a few steps forward in this direction. Brevard Childs, Memory and Tradition in Israel, SBT 37 (London: SCM, 1962). 5 Not including the uses of rkfzF which are used to mean ‘male,’ e.g., 12:5.

158

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

mention rkazF memorial name rkez' memory rkez'

avnamimnh,|skw mnhmo,sunon mnhmo,sunon

23:13 3:15 17:14

We will briefly describe these in their settings throughout the book. These usages guide us to see ten dimensions of the remembrance motif within an Exodus framework.6 The entire drama of God’s freeing Israel and forming them into a people for himself begins with his remembering the covenant. God’s people are living both geographically and spiritually distant from the covenant of Genesis 12. God acts in Exodus to address this separation. God’s intervention begins when he remembers, ‘God remembered (rkazF mimnh,|skomai) his covenant’ (Exod 2:24). The Exodus concept of remembrance begins in a verbal form with God as the subject, and this concept is interwoven with covenant. The concept of remembrance quickly develops into a motif which includes not only the concept of covenant, but also the concept of God’s covenant name, ‘I am’ (Exod 3:14). This is the name, the identification, of the God who will bring Israel out of slavery and to a fruitful land (Exod 3:17). This M#$' name God also refers to as his rkez' memorial forever (Exod 3:15). Here the remembrance motif expands to include a reality, a noun form, which is interwoven with God’s name. God’s self-identification and memorial are inextricably linked.7 A memorial, in relation to God, is remembering his right identity and is linked with covenant. God’s covenant name ‘I am’ is his memorial, and as ‘I am’ remembers, he acts to free Israel and form them as a people for himself. The remembrance motif interweaves God’s memorial, name, covenant, and acts of freedom and formation. Exodus 4 and 5 describe Moses’ initial efforts to obey God’s commission, and Pharaoh’s and Israel’s resistance. In Exodus 6, God reassures Moses, emphasizing he has revealed his name ‘I am’ (Exod 6:3) and reiterates that he has remembered his covenant with Israel (Exod 6:5). Remembrance paired with God’s covenant name serves as a means of reassurance. Exodus 12 provides the instructions for Passover, including a clear identification of it as a memorial, or remembrance. ‘Now this day will be a memorial (NwOrk@fzI) to you’ (Exod 12:14). Israel is to ‘celebrate ( ggfxf e`orta,zw) it as a feast to the Lord; throughout your generations you are to celebrate it as a permanent ordinance’ (Exod 12:14). In addition to being an antecedent to remembrance at the Last Supper, this Passover memorial is also an antecedent to Paul’s expression, ‘Let us celebrate (e`orta,zw) the feast’ (1 Cor 5:8). Exodus 12 goes on to describes the actual event of the Passover and God’s freeing 6 Eising traces the ‘motif of remembering’ through many OT books, but our focus is on the motif in Exodus because of how this book serves as a subtext to our topic. He affirms its sense is that ‘past events are significant for the faith and conduct of the present.’ Eising, ‘ rkazF zakhar,’ TDOT 4:68. 7 Alan Cole, Exodus, TOTC (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1973), 76; James Bruckner, Exodus, NIBCOT (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008), 45.

Blessing in the Remembrance Motif

­159

of Israel from slavery. Verse 42 reiterates that this night is ‘for the Lord’ and is to be perpetually observed. This trajectory clearly points forward to the people of God celebrating this feast in the future, making Paul’s exhortation of 1 Corinthians 5:8 all the more understandable. The remembrance motif in relation to Passover means a memorial which is to be perpetually celebrated as a feast because of God’s saving acts. Exodus 13:3 continues to develop the remembrance motif, adding to its list of related concepts divine power and unleavened bread.8 ‘Remember this day in which you went out from Egypt, from the house of slavery; for by a powerful hand the Lord brought you out from this place. And nothing leavened shall be eaten.’ Exodus13 also addresses the entrance into the fruitful land, and at that time Israel is to ‘observe this rite in this month’ (13:5), the rite of the seven-day feast of unleavened bread, and this is to serve as a reminder (13:9) of God’s powerful hand (13:3, 9, 16), his acts of the past being a basis for their ongoing relationship with him in the promised land. Here the remembrance motif develops to include not only the initial freeing of Israel, but also their entrance into the fruitful land. Also at the time of this entrance, Israel is to ‘devote to the Lord the first offspring’ (13:12) because their deliverance finally happened after the killing of first-borns on the night of the Passover.9 Exodus 13 tells of the sanctification of the first-born, and lambs as the way to redeem first-born sons and donkeys (13:13). Thus, chapter 13 links with remembrance: Passover, seven days of unleavened bread, divine power, entrance into the fruitful land, the death of the first-born,10 and redemption with a lamb. Exodus 13 then begins the account of God’s continuing actions. Having brought Israel out of Egypt, he now acts to separate them from Egypt and Pharoah’s power, to bring them to himself (Exod 19:4; cf. Num 3:13), the purpose of which ‘is the formation of “a holy nation.”’11 The wilderness journey begins, God’s presence accompanies them (Exod 13:21), supernaturally providing for them. Then, in Exodus 17:14, the concept of remembrance resurfaces. Verses 8-14 describe Israel’s victory over Amalek. The victory is to be written ‘in a 8 Durham notes the ‘motif of remembering’ is related to bread both here in 13:3 and in 12:14. John Durham, Exodus, WBC 3 (Waco, Word Books, 1987), 156, 177–8. Carasik clarifies that the ‘this day’ of 12:14 is actually not defined until 13:3, where ‘we learn that the day on which they went free is the day of remembrance.’ Michael Carasik, Exodus, The Commentators’ Bible (New York: Jewish Publication Society, 2005), 81. This correlates with the eventual timing of the Feast occurring on Sundays, the day of the Resurrection. 9 Durham, Exodus, 179. 10 An example of christological typology that could be developed from this instance of remembrance is the antitype of Jesus as the first-born (Luke 2:7, 23; Rom 8:29; Col 1:15, 18; Heb 12:23) who died on the Cross for humanity’s freedom. So, Tertullian, ‘For who is really holy but the Son of God? Who properly opened the womb but he who opened a closed one?’ On the Flesh of Christ 23.4-5, ANF 3:541. Remembrance is the occasion to rehearse the death of the first-born (cf. Exod 13:14-15) and to make personal its effects (cf. Exod 13:16). 11 Durham, Exodus, 318.

160

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

book as a memorial’ (Exod 17:14). Here the remembrance motif expands to incorporate a written form, a record of God’s ongoing saving acts and ultimate victory. Related to this memorial, Moses builds an altar and names it as a way of proclaiming God’s victory over Amalek (17:15-16). The identity of ‘I am’ who has freed them expands to include the God who ‘overwhelms’ (17:13) the enemy. Though the altar is not explicitly referred to as a memorial, the structure of 17:14-16 indicates that what is written and spoken, which is explicitly referred to as a memorial (17:14), includes the naming or proclamation of God as ‘The Lord is my banner’ (17:15). ‘My banner’ identifies ‘the Lord,’ and in this sense is God’s name. It is not the altar itself which is the banner. The altar points to God, a testimony of God revealing himself as the banner. The altar serves the same purpose as the book. Both preserve and proclaim the truth of who God is.12 The memorial preserves this instance of God’s self-revelation, of his identity as ‘my banner.’ This remembrance of God’s name also accomplishes the prevention of the remembrance of Amalek (Exod 17:14). This remembrance has effects into the future. The remembrance motif develops to include the preservation of God’s identity as victor, and the recitation of God’s name over against the naming of God’s enemies. This preservation and proclamation involve a book and an altar, a way to record God’s acts and self-revelation and a place to bear testimony to this revelation.13 Exodus 19 describes Israel’s arrival at Sinai three months after Passover, God’s conversation with Moses on the mountain about covenant, Moses’ conversation with the people and their acceptance of the covenant, and on the third day God’s coming to the mountain. This section of Exodus pivots the perspective from an account of Israel’s departure from Egypt and initial steps of their journey, to revelations about God’s word and will for them. Exodus 20 is the account of God giving the ten commandments for all to hear. He begins by identifying himself as the one ‘who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery’ (Exod 20:1). God’s true identity continues to be paramount.14 After commandments one and two about right worship, the third commandment involves right use of God’s name, and then the concept of remembrance surfaces again. The Sabbath day is to be remembered (Exod 20:8). Much could be said about these first four commandments and their interrelationships, but for now it is important to note that in the context of right worship the remembrance motif expands to include a period of time. This temporally oriented ongoing remembrance is based upon God’s own acts of creation followed by his rest. Further, we see the interweaving of such remembrance with the concept of blessing (Exod 20:11). The remembrance 12 Eising agrees that the book serves the purpose of remembering, ‘Thus a book preserved in the sanctuary could also be a way of remembering.’ Eising, ‘rkazF zakhar,’ TDOT 4:78. 13 Durham emphasizes the book’s role in reminding the people of God’s victory, and the altar’s role of speaking of God’s promise for continuing that provision. Durham, Exodus, 237–8. 14 This coincides with Scriptural Theology’s approach which grounds interpretation in God’s nature.

Blessing in the Remembrance Motif

­161

motif develops to link the concepts of blessing and a recurring consecrated period of time, rooted in the acts and rest of God.15 The next appearance of remembrance is in Exodus 20:24. We will look at this text in more detail in section 6.1. For now, we will broadly note that it interweaves the motifs of right worship, consecrated space, God’s name, remembrance, God’s coming, and God’s blessing. Exodus 21-23 describe a wide variety of rights and regulations for God’s people. In a summary statement, to contrast with all the instructions for proper worship, God instructs Israel not to rkazF remember other gods. The emphasis in this case is on the prohibition of proclaiming other gods’ names. ‘Now concerning everything which I have said to you, be on your guard; and do not mention the name of other gods (w%ryk@iz:ta )l|o MyrIx')j Myxilo)v M#$'w:), nor let them be heard from your mouth’ (Exod 23:13). In section 6.2.1, we will look in more detail at the relationship of this verse to Exodus 20:24 and how it clarifies the meaning of remembrance. Here, we will note that this verse adds to the remembrance motif the concept that God’s name is exclusive in proper remembrance. Exodus 24 is the ratification of the covenant, including writing and reading God’s word (Exod 24:3-4, 7-8), an altar (Exod 24:4, 6), a theophany (Exod 24:10), a meal in God’s presence (Exod 24:11), and the tablets of the ten commandments (Exod 24:12). Exodus 25-27 describe God’s plan for the tabernacle and its appointments. Then, our remembrance motif appears as a facet of God’s plan for garments fitted for tabernacle use. Our Scriptural Theology approach recognizes the tabernacle is an explicit type and its details are derived types related to the motif of right worship. Stones with the twelve names of Israel’s sons are to be worn by Aaron the priest as a memorial (Exod 28:12, 29). The memorial is to be ‘before the Lord.’ The stones name those who are involved in the worship. They are types pointing to God’s people, participants in right worship, who are carried into the presence of God by the great High Priest Jesus.16 Now, remembrance involves not only the name of God, but also the names of his people in worship. The remembrance motif develops to incorporate the people 15 Douma comments on various views of the relevance of OT commands and ethics to the NT era. As we described above, Scriptural Theology’s approach is different from a modernistic method which would create different categories for OT and NT ethics. Our starting point of God’s nature seeks a canonical intertextual understanding of divinely designed ethics which reflect his character and purposes. Since it is rooted in God’s nature, the Sabbath has relevance in the NT era. We revisit this Sabbath topic in the Implications section of the Conclusion. But, for our purposes here, our focus is on how the Sabbath is described in terms of remembrance. cf. J. Douma, The Ten Commandments: Manual for the Christian Life (trans. N. Kloosterman; Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1996), 5, 8, 358–90. 16 cf. Rev 21:12, 14, 19-27, an antitypical account of the renewed Israel restored to the presence of God; Heb 7:25-26; 9:24, Jesus as the antitypical high priest brings believers near to God; ‘The comparison reflects upon the typological relation between the old and new covenants,’ William Lane, Hebrews 9–13, WBC 47 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991), 248; and, note the consistency with the number twelve in Mark 6:43, linking blessed bread with this renewed Israel.

162

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

of God in the context of right worship, in the explicit setting of the presence of the Lord. One of the details in Exodus 30 describes a ransom, which is atonement money. This cost of atonement is a memorial, ‘the atonement money (Myr&p I k u% h i@ a Psek-e@ t)e)… that it may be a memorial (NwOrk@fzI)’ (30:16). The remembrance motif expands to involve the concept of atonement. Exodus 32 is the account of what is happening back in the camp while Moses is receiving all these instructions from God up on the mountain. The people lapse into idolatry, God tells Moses what they are doing and announces he intends to destroy them, and Moses intercedes. This intercession includes an appeal for God to ‘remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel’ (Exod 32:13). It is interesting to note that Moses does not say the common phrase, ‘and Jacob,’ but rather, ‘and Israel,’ as if pointing out to God that this people has also entered into a covenant with God themselves (cf. Exodus 24), so both the Abrahamic and the Mosaic covenants are in view. Moberly sees the use of Israel instead of Jacob as ‘thus claiming God’s promise in all its fullness.’17 Moses appeals to ‘the faithfulness of Yahweh as the basis for mercy.’18 This tactic seems effective, for God then decides not to destroy them. The remembrance motif expands to incorporate the concept of intercession, based upon covenant. Moberly refers to this interaction as paradigmatic,19 a description which agrees with our methodological approach which identified Exodus as a valid context for the presentation of divinely initiated paradigms, germs which have an ongoing general message.20 After Moses’ return to the camp, the destruction and replacement of the tablets of the law, and the renewal of the covenant, God’s commands about the tabernacle are repeated. Again, in the midst of these repeated commands, Exodus 39 like Exodus 28 focuses on garments before returning to other tabernacle details. Exodus 39:7 makes a point to repeat the concept of memorial already mentioned in Exodus 28:12, 29. Here, remembrance involving the incorporation of God’s people recurs in the context of covenant renewal. So, the broad topical outline of Exodus which provides the context for the developing remembrance motif is, by chapter:

17 R. W. L. Moberly, At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34, JSOTSup 22 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1983), 50. 18 Ibid. 19 ‘Just as 32:1-6 presents a paradigm of sin and apostasy, so 32:7-14 can be seen to present a paradigm of judgment, intercession, and forgiveness. Both scenes have a certain exemplary quality, the juxtaposition of which forms an effective contrast.’ Ibid., 52. 20 See the end of section 1.2.4.2. We will explore this paradigmatic function of Exodus material in greater detail in section 6 as we consider Exodus 20:24.

Blessing in the Remembrance Motif

­163

1 Israel’s slavery in Egypt. 2 Moses’ escapes; God’s intervention begins with remembering covenant. Remembrance – begins with God’s action (2:24). 3 bush theophany; God reveals his name ‘I am.’ Remembrance – covenant name as a memorial (3:15). 4-5 Moses’ initial obedience; Pharoah’s and Israel’s resistance. 6 God reassures Moses, reiterates ‘I am’ and remembering his covenant. Remembrance – serves as a means of reassurance (6:5). 7-11 Aaron and Moses confront Pharaoh together, who resists; the ten plagues. 12 Passover instructions; Passover event. Remembrance – Passover, the event of divine power, is an ongoing memorial celebrated as a feast (12:14). 13 God’s instructions for entrance into the fruitful land; begins in wilderness. Remembrance – integrates divine power, unleavened bread (13:3, 9); linked with promised land, death of first-born, redemption with a lamb. 14-15 God brings Israel through the Red Sea. 15-17 supernatural drink and bread; victory over Amalek. Remembrance – memorial in the form of a book (17:14), the recitation of God’s name over against the names of enemies, a named altar. 18 Jethro’s arrival with Moses’ family and Moses’ delegation of duties. 19 Sinai arrival; conversation about God’s covenant; pivot focus onto revelation. 20 Ten commandments; fourth is Sabbath. Remembrance – consecrated time, based on God’s acts and rest, God’s blessing (20:8). Paradigm (20:24) – place, name, remembrance, nearness, blessing.21 21-23 Rights and regulations for God’s people. God’s name is exclusive in proper remembrance (23:13). 24 Ratification of the covenant. 25-27 God’s plan for the tabernacle and its appointments. 28-29 Priests’ garments, consecration, offerings. Remembrance – twelve names of Israel before the Lord; incorporation of God’s people in the context of right worship, with an emphasis on God’s presence (28:12, 29). 30 More about the tabernacle’s appointments; the ransom, atonement money. Remembrance – the cost of atonement is a memorial (30:16). 30-31 Tabernacle and the Sabbath. 32 Idolatry in the camp; God’s intended judgment; Moses’ intercession. Remembrance – intercession for God to remember covenant (32:13). 33 Destruction of tablets, continued intercession, God’s revelation of his glory. 34-38 Two new tablets, renewal of the covenant, repeated commands. 39 Again, priests’ garments, and mention of memorial stones. Remembrance – reaffirmation of the incorporation of God’s people in the context of covenant renewal (39:7). 39-40 Tabernacle’s completion, consecration and filling with the glory of the Lord. 21 The occurrences of remembrance in 20:24 and its partner 23:13 will be examined in detail in section 6 where we will describe a paradigm, a pattern which encapsulates these dimensions and relates them to blessing.

164

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

These are all of the uses of rkazF in Exodus, and they all contribute to the remembrance motif. These references considered in their settings evince ten dimensions of this motif, which we will list in the next section. Afterwards, we suggest messages which arise from them, and we offer grounds for their persistence into the Last Supper and Feast. 5.1.2 Dimensions So, throughout the book of Exodus, the concept of remembrance recurs, and develops into a motif which incorporates other concepts. Summarily, we can say that the remembrance motif within an Exodus framework includes at least ten dimensions. The words in bold will serve as a way to label each dimension. Remembrance: (1) begins with God’s acts and covenant (2:24); (2) takes the form of God’s name or self-identification (3:15; 17:14); (3) takes the form of Passover – an occasion of divine power, and the celebration of an ongoing feast involving unleavened bread (12:14; 13:3, 9); (4) involves the right recitation of God’s name over against the name of his enemies, involving a book and a consecrated site (17:14; cf. 23:13); (5) is interwoven with a consecrated time, God’s own acts and rest, and God’s blessing (20:8); (6) incorporates God’s people in the context of right worship, with an emphasis on God’s presence (28:12, 29; 39:7); (7) takes the form of the cost of atonement (30:16); (8) takes the form of an appeal for God to act based upon his covenant (32:13); (9) recurs and incorporates God’s people in the context of covenant renewal (39:7); (10) is linked with reassurance (6:5), entrance into the fruitful land, the death of the first-born, and redemption with a lamb (13:3, 9).

These dimensions can be grouped into three categories, some overlapping, based upon who is doing the remembering and whether or not some medium is involved. The dimensions where God is or is asked to do the remembering are (1-Covenant) and (8-Appeal). The dimensions where the people of God are doing the remembering are (2-Name) through (7-Atonement), and (9-Renewal). The dimensions which involve media are (3-Passover) through (7-Atonement), and (10-Reassurance). 5.1.3 Messages Each of these dimensions of the Exodus remembrance motif persists into the church’s ongoing Feast, a claim we will explore more in sections 5.2 and 6. For now, we will describe briefly some messages which arise from this motif. What might God be communicating through these historic Exodus events involving remembrance and through the literary structure of their report? Dimensions (1-Covenant) and (2-Name) can be taken to communicate the message that God is the instigator and power behind remembrance. He is

Blessing in the Remembrance Motif

­165

the subject of the first two occurrences. He describes his own name in terms of remembrance. Dimensions (2-Name) and (4-Site) together emphasize that proper remembrance requires a right understanding of who God is, and that he alone be named and worshiped in the rite. Further, he is a covenant God, and this is the rite of his covenant people. The next occurrence (3-Passover) builds upon the foundation of God’s name and covenant. The Passover is a memorial of God’s divine initiative and power. Here we see the development of remembrance beyond God’s own nature. He extends remembrance to incorporate his people via a cultic rite, a rite which involves eating and drinking. Further, remembrance is an occasion where God manifests his divine power. In (4-Site), remembrance is related to maintaining, even reciting, a right view of God as victor. This remembrance involves media, objects which serve the remembrance, including a book and an altar. The objects are significant in their role of preserving a right understanding of God’s identity. The altar is also significant in its role of providing a consecrated place for the recitation of this identity. Remembrance involves the name of God in contrast with the name of his enemies. Here we see interwoven the motif of worship because naming God and avoiding naming other gods is part of right worship. Dimension (1-Covenant) and (2-Name)’s message of God as initiative or grounds, and dimension (3-Passover) and (4-Site)’s message of right worship, expand in dimension (5-Time) to incorporate the Sabbath. The ten commandments are fundamentally about the right worship of God, the Sabbath being a way to keep holy a consecrated time in recognition of God’s acts and rest. Here remembrance explicitly coincides with blessing, which is integral with right worship and keeping holy time.22 The trajectory of remembrance thus far has moved from God as foundation to the incorporation of his people to the involvement of objects to the recitation of God’s name to the keeping of consecrated time. The interweaving of God’s name, his people, and objects happens again in (6-People), this time with an emphasis on God’s presence. The message here is that remembrance is not a mechanical phenomenon, but a relational one, dependent upon God’s own nearness or accessibility. The next development is therefore very poignant, for (7-Atonement) addresses the cost of atonement. The message here is that remembrance is possible, God’s accessibility is possible, as atonement is appropriated. And so (8-Appeal) also makes sense in this development, for remembrance is the occasion for God’s people to appeal to God for his nearness based upon the satisfaction of the cost of atonement. Such an appeal must be ongoing, for God’s flawed people need to constantly rely upon God’s mercy in ever-renewing (9-Renewal) his covenant.

22 Thiselton understands Paul’s exhortations in 1 Cor 11:22 to include sacred time and space for the observance of the Lord’s Supper. Thiselton, Corinthians, 865.

166

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Dimensions (6-People) through (9-Renewal) accelerate the momentum carrying us toward messages of Christ. Dimension (10-Reassurance) involves the christological types of the death of the first-born and redemption with a lamb. These point forward to the NT era and Christ as the ultimate satisfaction of (7-Atonement) the cost of atonement and the basis for (8-Appeal) God’s people to appeal for his mercy under the new covenant. The message here (10-Reassurance) is that remembrance is linked with Christ, the first-born of God, the lamb of redemption, the basis for Christian reassurance. So, the development of the remembrance motif has a trajectory which points to an ongoing remembrance which begins and ends with God, and which in his mercy provides a way for his people to be brought near to him as they worship him rightly. This trajectory, along with the persisting Exodus and Passover framework, indicate that these dimensions and messages impact our understanding of remembrance at the Last Supper.

5.2

Remembrance motif at the Last Supper

5.2.1 Dimensions continue Having established the dimensions, messages, and trajectory of the Exodus remembrance motif, let us now examine how these correlate with remembrance at the Last Supper. Let us suggest a description of remembrance which summarizes the dimensions and messages which we discovered in Exodus. Remembrance begins with God, incorporates his covenant people as they rightly worship him by name, includes a recurring rite involving consecrated media, is based upon atonement, and provides a way for God’s people to draw near to his powerful presence. This relationship between God and a worshipful community of faith is succinctly and profoundly reflected at the Last Supper in the phrase ‘Do this in remembrance of me.’ Jesus institutes this covenant worship rite of remembrance to be held in his name; believers are included in the rite of bread and wine based upon his atonement. This phrase provides an overarching continuity between the Exodus remembrance motif and the Last Supper as a rite of remembrance. It also indicates a trajectory of ongoing remembrance. The words of institution and interpretation provide further consonance. The Last Supper maintains continuity with the dimensions of the Exodus remembrance motif as a whole, and therefore there is a basis for their messages to persist into the Last Supper, and the ongoing Feast as well. We will continue using the numbers of the dimensions as above. (1-Covenant) God’s initiative can be seen in the words of institution in Paul’s choice of words for ‘in the night in which he was betrayed (paredi,deto)’ (1 Cor 11:23). The verb for betrayed is in the passive voice (imperfect passive indicative of paradi,dwmi), and is better translated ‘in the night in which he was delivered up’ (Darby, NAB, YLT). This is another example of a divine

Blessing in the Remembrance Motif

167­

passive.23 The context of covenant can be seen in the words of interpretation in all four accounts (Mark 14:24b; Matt 26:28; Luke 22:20b; 1 Cor 11:25b). (2-Name) ‘This my body’ and ‘This my blood’ express that Christ’s body and blood in some sense are identified with bread and wine. From the perspective of Christ’s divinity, this is a form of divine self-identification. The memorial bread and wine communicate regarding God’s nature, even as the name ‘I am’ (Exod 3:15) and the altar named ‘The Lord is my banner’ (Exod 17:15) do. (3-Passover) The Last Supper is a Passover meal. Therefore, there is a direct association with the Passover dimension of remembrance. Both are ongoing cultic feasts for God’s covenant people which include unleavened bread and which recognize God’s divine intervention to free his people. Both involve interpretive words and media in the remembrance. Subsequent to the Last Supper itself, observances of the Feast would also have in view the divine activity at the Cross and Resurrection (and arguably also the Ascension and Pentecost). (4-Site) The Last Supper accounts do not explicitly mention a book, but passages from the OT such as the hallel would have been recited, and biblical allusions (such as those we have already described to Isaiah) are at work. Paul’s wording of handing on a tradition (1 Cor 11:23; cf. 1 Cor 15:3) is in continuity with the dimension of preserving a tradition in a book. And, in the church era, Christians do in fact root the rite in the biblical text, a book which preserves the tradition of God’s deliverance in Christ. Further, the explicit ‘of me’ (‘Do this in remembrance of me’ 1 Cor 11:24b; Lk 22:19b) names whose the remembrance is. These particulars all conform to dimension (4-Site) which involves God’s name and a book which preserves his nature and works. The furniture differs, an altar in Exodus 17:15 and a table at the Last Supper, but continuity is maintained in that remembrance happens at a designated location for gathering (cf. Mark 14:12-16). (5-Time) This dimension recognizes how remembrance interweaves consecrated time, blessing, and God’s acts. The Last Supper itself took place on a day set apart, Passover. The church quickly adopted the practice of observing the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week, which was set apart in recognition of the day of the Resurrection.24 Section 4 described at length how blessing is at work in this Passover/Last Supper context, blessing that is fundamentally God’s persisting power. This fifth dimension of the motif (Exod 20:8-11) weaves Sabbath rest together with the blessing associated with

23 See section 3.1.2.2. 24 cf. Wainwright’s view of the set-apart meal pointing toward ultimate rest and fulfilment, e.g., how the early church perceived a link between Jesus’ post-resurrection meals (Luke 24:28-35; 36-43; Acts 10:41; John 21:13) and the ongoing weekly eucharistic practice (Acts 2:42; 20:7-12; 1 Cor 10:16). The final consummation has not yet happened (Mark 14:25; Matt 26:29) so complete fulfillment of the verbal and acted signs of the meal is yet future. However, in some sense they are realized in the present (Luke 17:21; 22:16), at the time of the Eucharist. Wainwright, Eucharist, 46–51.

168

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

remembrance.25 Scharbert points to the Sabbath as the medium for receiving blessing. God ‘blesses the sabbath, which probably means that through it he mediates the divine blessing to the person who keeps,’ or remembers, it.26 Though the allusion is more subtle, such rest is mentioned in the introduction of Mark’s first feeding miracle (Mark 6:31). This is combined with the exhortation to ‘come’ (Mark 6:31). A similar expression, though in a different context, is used by Matthew to connote coming to a feast (Matt 11:28) which results in Sabbath rest.27 Suggestions of how to further pursue this integration of Sabbath rest with blessing and remembrance are given in the Conclusion. (6-People) The role of the stones in the priests’ garments is to incorporate God’s people into the remembrance via objects in God’s presence. This dimension continues into the Last Supper in Jesus’ statement that the wine is ‘for many’ (Mark 14:24). As Jesus holds the cup in his hands, he is addressing the first of ‘the many’ as those who are here involved. We have seen that the early liturgical development of ‘for you’ (1 Cor 11:24; Luke 22:19, 20) and ‘you drink’ (1 Cor 11:15) point to all future participants. As the participants ‘Do this,’ the eucharistic objects serve as the media of their involvement, incorporating them into the remembrance rite. Given our Scriptural Theology method of acknowledging the rule of faith, Jesus himself is the divine presence at the Last Supper and thus evidences continuity with the Exodus motif’s dimension involving objects in God’s presence. Given God’s presence in this dimension of remembrance in Exodus (28:12, 29; 39:7) and at the Last Supper, the trajectory points toward an expectation of God’s presence amidst proper remembrance of the ongoing Feast.28 25 See the linkage of Sabbath and rest in e.g., Gen 2:2; Exod 23:12; 31:15; 33:14; 35:2, which all have either katapau,w or avna,pausij for ‘rest’ in the LXX, which is consistent with avnapau,w in Mark 6:31. 26 Scharbert, ‘K7rfb@f brk,’ TDOT 2:295. 27 This point is explored in greater detail in Susan Bubbers, ‘A Presentation of Matthew 11:28,’ unpublished paper, November 2009. The study includes an exploration of the pericope which is unique to Matthew, and the phrase Deu/te pro,j me ‘Come to me’ which is unique in the entire LXX. Relevant uses of deu/te as a primary verb involve an invitation to conversation and relational encounter, including the context of a feast (Job 17:10; 2 Kings 6:19; Rev 19:17; Matt 22:4; Mark 6:31; John 21:12). Related uses continue to include the elements of encountering Jesus (John 4:29; Matt 28:6). The phrases closest to Matt 11:28 include both an exhortation and a promise, ‘Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men’(Matt 4:19; Mark 1:17). Just as the familiar ‘Follow me’ connotes more than just a historical literal walking with Jesus, so ‘Come to me’ deserves deeper reflection. Jesus promises that being yoked to him will result in relief. Elizabeth Talbot looks with greater detail at how this unique segment in Matthew next presents Jesus as Lord of the Sabbath (Matt 12:1-8), and this influences the meaning of rest in Matt 11:2830. Elizabeth Talbot, ‘Rest, Eschatology and Sabbath in Matthew 11:28-30: An Investigation of Jesus’ Offer of Rest in the Light of the Septuagint’s Use of Anapausis (rest),’ Unpublished paper presented at SBL, New Orleans, November 23, 2009. 28 This expectation is also consistent with our understanding of the divine power that is present in this context of judgment and blessing, cf. section 4.4.2.2, 1 Cor 10 and spiritual food and drink.

Blessing in the Remembrance Motif

­169

(7-Atonement) We have seen that the phrase ‘for many’ (Mark 14:24) alludes to Isaiah and the concept of atonement.29 We have also seen that the related phrases ‘given for you’ (Lk 22:19), ‘poured out for you’ (Luke 22:20), and ‘which is for you’ (1 Cor 11:24) provide further allusions to the broader sacrificial system as a whole.30 These phrases therefore are in continuity with the dimension of remembrance which involves the concept of atonement. (8-Appeal) These same phrases indicate that what Jesus did he did for others. Moses asked not for himself, for he would have been a great nation regardless of the intercession (Exod 32:10), but on behalf of others, and this was based upon covenant (Exod 32:13). Likewise, the blood that Jesus poured out, which he spoke of at the Last Supper, was not for himself but ‘for many,’ and this too is linked in the same phrase with covenant (Mark 14:24). The people of God drink this cup in remembrance. There is also the heavenward gesture we discussed earlier.31 This is a more subtle allusion, but it also aligns with this remembrance dimension of appeal to God. (9-Renewal) The move from ‘covenant’ (Mark 14:24; Matt 26:28) to ‘new covenant’ (1 Cor 11:25; Luke 22:20) highlights how the Last Supper speaks of the covenant renewal of the Cross. This Passover remembrance meal commemorates, even as an anticipation just like the original Passover meal, God’s saving acts which usher in not the Mosaic covenant, but the new covenant. (10-Reassurance) Links with reassurance and entrance into the fruitful land are not as obvious in the words of institution and interpretation themselves, but in proximity Jesus’ words (Mark 14:27-28) may be taken as reassurance, that the risen Shepherd will go before and regather his sheep. Links with the death of the first-born and redemption with a lamb can be made from broader brushstrokes, such as Mark’s introduction of Jesus as the ‘Son of God’ (Mark 1:1) paired with the same identification at the crucifixion near the end of his gospel (Mark 15:39), and Paul’s ‘Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Let us therefore keep the feast’ (1 Cor 5:7-8). In addition to these particulars about the words of institution and interpretation which correlate with Exodus remembrance dimensions, another more general point adds to the grounds for the view that there is continuity between remembrance in Exodus, the Last Supper, and the Feast. We have seen that the liturgical developments in the words of institution and interpretation indicate that the Last Supper accounts are meant to be not only narratives of historical events, but also the basis for the ongoing Feast. Paul’s account clearly has this purpose. The Last Supper amends but is rooted in Passover, and the Feast is not identical but is born out of the Last Supper. It is reasonable that antecedent messages likewise continue to speak to the successors. So, we have seen that the ten dimensions of the remembrance motif in Exodus maintain continuity into the Last Supper and ongoing Feast. All of 29 See section 3.2.2. 30 See section 3.2.2. 31 See section 4.2.3.3.

170

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

these dimensions coalesce into this one amended Passover rite. This rite, in both its inaugural and ongoing state, is best understood as an integrated whole; the dimensions do not operate distinctly from one another. The rite cannot be parsed as if only a certain section involves remembrance. All of ‘this’ is in remembrance. Schmemann agrees that such ‘dismemberment…into parts, which are then studied and explained outside of their connection with the other parts’ results in reductionism which ‘narrows and then ultimately distorts the understanding…of the entire sacrament.’32 The messages which arise from this complex of dimensions are like the various spectrum colors which show through the various facets of a diamond. 5.2.2 Messages inform What light do these Exodus remembrance motif messages shed on the church’s ongoing remembrance rite? Given that the dimensions of the motif continue, the next step is to examine how their messages inform an understanding of the Feast.33 The first message we suggested, arising from dimensions (1-Covenant) and (2-Name) is that God is the instigator and power behind remembrance. This message can continue to speak to the people of God who remember through the Feast. All such human efforts of remembrance must be understood in the light of God’s initiative and action, and not in a magical sense as if the ritual conjures God’s presence or has any power in and of itself. The ultimate source of any benefit of the Feast is God himself. The second message, from (2-Name) and (4-Site), communicates that it is essential to proper remembrance to maintain a right understanding of who God is, and that he alone be named and worshiped in the rite. Further, he is a covenant God, and this is the rite of his covenant people. The Feast is for Christians. Syncretistic rituals attempting to blend the Feast with nonChristian elements are not consistent with the scriptural message. Blessings associated with proper remembrance will be limited or even prevented if God is not the one uniquely named in worship. The message from dimension (3-Passover) communicates that right and genuine belief are essential, but the focus is not on human faith. Rather, the focus is on God’s nature and acts. Just as with Passover, the Feast is to focus upon divine power and intervention. Here, Christ’s birth, ministry, death, Resurrection, Ascension, and ongoing ministry through the Spirit, i.e., the fulfillment of all of the Exodus types, are celebrated and proclaimed. God’s 32 Schmemann, Eucharist, 192–3. This agrees with Bieler and Fitzpatrick, section 1.3.2.1. 33 In his brief and informal format, Wright does not present a detailed explanation or justification of his views, but he does briefly look to the OT in a manner that is similar to our method of identifying messages which arise from types. He notes that the Eucharist is ‘our equivalent of the grapes of Eshcol…that tells us where our destination is…which will assure us we are on the right road…fresh grapes from the land of promise for those at present wandering in the dusty desert.’ Wright, Communion, 66.

Blessing in the Remembrance Motif

­171

divine acts in the OT are not irrelevant or forgotten. They are historical events which continue to inform God’s people about his nature and serve as precedents for Christian faith. In that sense even the original Exodus is still in view of the remembrance of the Feast. But, while the historic types serve a certain instructive function, their NT antitypes are the new focus of the amended bread and wine rite. Section 6 will explore in more detail whether having such historical events and divine power in view means only a mental image – an encouragement to faith in general – or actual access to such power and blessing. We can already note at this point based upon God’s inclusion of his people in the Passover ritual and event, an event of divine power resulting in life-changing freedom and formation, the message does communicate that the Feast is an occasion of divine power and transformational blessings. The message from dimension (4-Site) emphasizes the role of Scripture and preaching in the Feast. The message in Exodus of God’s victory over Amalek, memorialized with a book and an altar, can be restated to speak of how God’s victory in Christ is the cornerstone for preaching and for gathering. The OT people of God gathered around a physical altar to observe typological offerings. The NT does not carry forward the use of a literal altar in the observance of the Feast. However, the deeper purpose of a gathering site and rite remains unchanged. God, who is a Trinity, calls his people to gather around the truth, and to gather together, as a community, in a place for worship. Just as God through his acts reveals his nature in concrete ways, so believers’ worship of that God is to be expressive and concrete. Whether the furniture is a table or an altar or a cross or a pulpit or a baptismal font, or a combination, the purpose is to have a place designated for corporate worship, in particular for remembrance. This message speaks against the practice of an individual attempting to observe the Feast in isolation. This message supports efforts, like Hezekiah’s, which promote gathering God’s people together for worship as God has designed. And, like Hezekiah’s observance, gathering for the Feast is an occasion for the community to hear God’s word proclaimed and to experience the blessing of great joy. This is related to (5-Time) the message of remembrance and consecrated time. To gather, a time and a place simply need to be designated for that purpose. This is the basic meaning of consecrated time and space. Ideally, prayer asks God to honor that time and place, to anoint and use it for his purposes, to make it truly holy. Such a practice is not only logistically practical, but theologically rooted. The creation account portrays God as acting, and then setting apart a time for rest and satisfaction. God’s nature is again the starting point for the worship of God’s people. They, in his image, reflectively, set apart time to remember and encounter God’s blessings such as rest and fulfillment. The message arising from dimension (6-People) speaks about how God’s people, via media, come into God’s presence. All human words, efforts, and items of worship are futile unless God accepts and comes near. While it is true that God is omnipresent, humanity’s experience of him may be more or less clear, perceivable, or powerful through the working of the Spirit. This

172

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

relational dynamic is expressed biblically in terms of proximity.34 God’s presence is the supreme blessing, not just the source of blessings. Proximity to God is based fundamentally upon the message of dimension (7-Atonement), Christ’s atonement.35 Only through Christ is God accessible. Only in Christ is remembrance possible. Jesus has paid the cost of atonement, purchasing and making available all other benefits and blessings. Jesus himself, not human rituals or elements, is the basis for remembrance, for drawing near and encountering God. It is important that this truth be recited, and that only therefore can (8-Appeal) appeal be made to God for his nearness and covenant promises. Every Feast is an opportunity for believers to make fresh and lively such faith and appeals. Every Feast is an opportunity for believers to draw near and to (9-Renewal) renew their covenant relationship with God and appropriate the blessings made available in Christ. As we shall see in the paradigmatic Exodus 20:24, there is reason for believers to observe the Feast with great expectations, when they do so according to the dimensions and messages we have been describing. For, God promises to come and bless his people in such a place through such a rite. It is still God’s prerogative, but as God’s people rightly worship, blessings can be confidently anticipated, including the blessings of (10-Reassurance) the lamb of redemption, reassurance, and entrance into a fruitful land.

5.3 Summary So, in this section we have traced the development of the remembrance motif throughout Exodus. From the references to remembrance we have identified dimensions to the motif, and we have articulated scriptural messages which arise from them. We have also shown that these dimensions maintain continuity into the Last Supper. Therefore, the messages maintain relevance and can inform our understanding of the Last Supper and the Feast. We will keep these insights in view as we now explore Exodus 20:24 and the blessings associated with proper observance of a pattern for remembrance.

34 This relational proximity is sometimes depicted as God’s people moving toward him, and sometimes God moving toward them. God brought Israel to himself (Exod 19:14). God came to meet Moses (Exod 19:9). Moses went up to meet God (Exod 19:20). God may be near (Isa 55:6), or his Spirit may depart (Ps 51:11). These OT events and images do not lose relevance in the NT era, even though the Spirit comes to live within (Rom 5:5; Col 1:27). Believers are exhorted to draw near (Heb 4:16; 10:22), and God also still draws near (Jas 4:8). Believers can be drawn away from God (2 Pet 3:17), wander away from the faith (1 Tim 6:10), or move away from the gospel (Col 1:23). Schmemann depicts eucharistic movement as ‘the ascent of the Church to heaven.’ Schmemann, Eucharist, 191. Yong’s ‘pneumatological theology of the liturgy’ describes the movement as ‘the Spirit enables us to step into and inhabit the world of the scriptural narrative.’ Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 161–2. 35 cf. Eph 2:13.

­

6 Blessing in the Remembrance Paradigm The purpose of section 6 is to integrate remembrance and blessing according to a pattern which is rooted in Exodus and carries through into the NT. This pattern proves to be a divinely designed paradigm for right worship, which is accompanied by a promise of epiphanic transformational encounter. In section 5.1, we noted dimensions and messages of the Exodus remembrance motif. Such remembrance begins and ends with God, and in his mercy he provides a way for his people to be brought near to his powerful presence as they worship him rightly. In section 5.2, we correlated Exodus remembrance with the words of institution and interpretation of the Last Supper. Such remembrance informs our understanding of the Feast as a whole through insights such as God’s initiative, his people’s role, consecrated spatiotemporal media, the basis of Christ’s atonement, and renewed encounters with covenant promises. As we studied these dimensions and messages, we reserved the pattern in Exodus 20:24 to treat with special attention, which we will do in this section. Here we will clarify the relationship between blessing and remembrance. We will give evidence of this pattern’s relationship to Passover, of this pattern’s broader impact on worship, and of a strong link between the OT manifestations of this pattern and the NT manifestation of the Feast.

6.1

Interwoven motifs in a paradigm for remembrance

6.1.1 Nexus of Motifs In Exodus 20:24,1 we find an interplay of four motifs: remembrance, right worship, divine self-identification or revelation, and blessing. Here in this nexus, God provides a pattern for encountering his transformational presence. Remembrance begins with God, incorporating his covenant people as they rightly worship him by name, based upon Christ the Lamb’s atoning death. Is such remembrance isolated from the divine power seen in God’s previous saving acts, or does that power remain effectual, even as we have seen that it 1 Throughout this section, our reference to Exodus 20:24 focuses on the latter portion of the verse, ‘In every place where I cause my name to be remembered, I will come to you and bless you.’

174

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

does regarding blessing? We have already noted that remembrance involves (3-Passover) God’s presence and (5-Time) blessing, and these indicate divine power can be expected amidst remembrance. And, there is further evidence to support this expectation. Exodus 20:24 makes explicit the relationship between remembrance and blessing. ‘You shall make an altar of earth for me, and you shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause my name to be remembered, I will come to you and bless you.’ This is a pattern for remembrance, for how God’s people come near to him and encounter his blessing.2 Exodus 20:24 shows that there is cohesion between remembrance and blessing, in the context of right worship. Let us recall our Scriptural Theology definition of a paradigm. A typological paradigm is an exemplary type which conveys a general thematic message, such as the Exodus (a paradigm of hope for exiles), or Moses (a paradigm of God’s human intermediary). A structural paradigm is a biblical reality which is presented in a literary structure (covenant context, worship motif, rationale) as being exemplary in nature, such as the ten commandments. The book of Exodus is a valid context for the presentation of divinely initiated paradigms, germs which have an ongoing message. The LXX usages of para,deigma give rise to the messages that there is a biblical emphasis on the motif of right worship rooted in covenant, that God has provided the design or paradigm for such worship, and that there are serious consequences for straying from that pattern. The tabernacle, temple, and related rites serve as sources to understand this paradigm. They also communicate messages such as: ‘Worship according to the pattern I have set for you, and I will dwell among you’ (Exodus 25:9; 1 Chr 28:11-19); ‘God chooses people to be instrumental in settings of worship’ and ‘Your worship on earth is not entirely distinct from worship that is ongoing in heaven’ (1 Chr 28:11-19); ‘God will judge, he will scatter those who break his covenant, those who do not worship rightly’ (Nah 2:1; 3:6); ‘It is dangerous to claim the role of defining what is pleasing worship to God, and it is dangerous to think that external forms of worship are sufficient’ (Jer 8:2; 9:22; 16:4). The LXX usages of para,deigma provide examples of the existence and definition of paradigms. As with types, this is not an exhaustive list. Both Block3 (Moses’ instructions for leadership) and Hamm4 (prayer in Acts) provide examples which show that the biblical schema for identifying paradigms can be used beyond the explicit para,deigma usages. Paradigms, germs like the ten commandments, can be observed in the text by subsequent generations of God’s people. 2 Scharbert describes the meaning of K7rfb@f in the piel here to have the sense of ‘giving vitality, prosperity, abundance, or fertility.’ Scharbert, ‘K7rfb@f brk,’ TDOT 2:294. 3 Daniel Block, ‘The Burden of Leadership: the Mosaic Paradigm of Kingship (Deut 17: 14-20),’ Bibliotheca Sacra 162 (2005): 259–78. 4 Dennis Hamm, ‘Acts 4:23-31: a Neglected Biblical Paradigm of Christian Worship,’ Worship 77 (2003): 225–37.

Blessing in the Remembrance Paradigm

175­

Next, we will show that Exodus 20:24 is such a paradigm, both typologically and structurally. Then, sections 6.1.4 and 6.1.5 will explore how the Last Supper maintains correspondence with the paradigm, and section 6.2 will describe the continuity of such remembrance from the OT into the NT. 6.1.2

Typological paradigm

6.1.2.1 Jesus and the Cross are antitypes of Exodus 20:24 Exodus 20:24 qualifies as a typological paradigm. It is made up of types which together convey a general thematic message. Broadly, this command regards the practice of worship within the Exodus framework as a whole. As we have said, such a setting is where types are often found.5 More specifically, it addresses burnt offerings and peace offerings, which are types.6 Its piece of furniture, an altar, is the location for these offerings.7 The offerings have correspondence with the death of Christ and its ramifications. The altar has correspondence with the Cross where Jesus was offered up as the ultimate sacrifice. Jesus is the antitype of the offerings; the Cross is the antitype of the altar.8 Taken together, the typological general thematic message of Exodus 20:24 is ‘On the Cross Jesus became your burnt and your peace offering, and I revealed my nature to you there, and I have provided blessings there.’ From this fundamental message arise many others as the germ grows throughout the canon. 6.1.2.2 The Feast is the antitype of the covenant meal The first record of the command of Exodus 20:24 being implemented is Exodus 24:4-5, where God manifests himself to Moses and the elders (Exod 24:10), they eat a covenant meal in his presence safely (Exod 24:9-11), and then God comes to Mount Sinai and meets Moses there, speaking to him and giving him the divinely produced tablets (Exod 24:12-30:18). Here we see the paradigmatic elements of place and altar (‘altar at the foot of the mountain’ Exod 24:4), burnt and peace offerings (Exod 24:5), heeding the covenant (Exod 24:3, 4, 7, 8), God’s presence (Exod 24:10-11), and blessing (God’s presence, and the tablets Exod 24:12). This first implementation coincides with the elements of the Exodus 20:24 typological paradigm. Further, this first implementation extends the typology of the paradigm; the germ grows and reveals more detail. The peace offering includes a covenant meal, and here we find details about encountering God, seeing him, and eating and drinking in his presence. The peace offering typology includes not only a sacrifice, but also a meal shared by God and his worshipers. Christ is the antitype of the sacrifice, and he instituted a covenant meal which is the antitype of the 5 Section 1.2.1.3. 6 cf. Rom 8:3; Eph 5:2; Heb 10:10, 14, 18-22; 13:11-12. 7 Section 1.2.2.2. 8 cf. Eph 2:14-16; Col 1:20; 2:14; 1 Pet 2:22-24 (which draws upon the Servant of Isa 53 as the words of interpretation do), 25 (which draws upon the Shepherd motif as the feeding miracles and Mark 14:27-28 do).

176

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

peace offering’s meal, namely, the Feast. Already in this first manifestation of the paradigm, we find a foreshadowing of the Feast. If here in an early manifestation God reveals his presence in divinely powerful ways in the typological event, surely an even greater encounter can be anticipated in the antitypical event. 6.1.2.3 Typological place points forward to broader site and rite Exodus 20:24 is preliminary to God’s instructions regarding the tabernacle itself (Exod 25-31). However, it is related. Lange describes the embryonic nature of Exodus 20:24 and its site of an altar, that it presents



in the simplest possible form this ritual devoted to theocratic worship. It may be taken as significant for the service of the Church also, that this fundamental, simple regulation did not exclude further developments, or even modifications.… How then did the altar of the tabernacle grow out of the low altar of earth or of unhewn stones?…The altar of burnt-offering was…overlaid with copper…The altar of incense…was overlaid with gold; finally, the mercy-seat was of pure gold. This gradation points back from the gold through the gilding and the copper to the starting-point, the altar of earth or of stone.9

This worship paradigm reveals the relationship between location, remembrance, offering, and blessing. Worship involves offering and remembrance at a location, and in such a place God comes and blesses. At the altar, Israel offered sacrifices, and in such a place God said he would cause his name to be remembered, and he would come to them and bless them. The term for ‘place’ MwOqmf in Exodus 20:24 can be understood in the broader sense of site or even rite10 and refers to the practical dimension of where God’s people are gathered together to remember him, to name his name rightly and offer him worship according to the divine design. The paradigmatic verse focuses on the activities that happen there, not on the site itself. The site is significant not on its own, but because of its role in worship.11 The typological offerings and place of Exodus 20:24 find their antitype in Christ and the Cross. The Cross is the place: where Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice; where God revealed his nature and character, his name, through Jesus; which is central to NT remembrance; where God’s people continue to meet him and encounter his blessing. The typological paradigm of Exodus 20:24 maintains correspondence with the general thematic NT message that the Cross of Christ is where believers encounter God and his blessings. 9 Lange, Exodus, 83. 10 This is consistent with the locational dimension of Passover, see section 1.2.5. 11 ‘(I)n every place…most likely means here “sacred site,” that is, a site rendered sacred by the location there of an altar to God.’ Nahum Sarna, Exodus, The JPS Torah Commentary (New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 116. Such an altar was ‘the concrete structure at the heart of the act of communication between humanity and God…a symbol so central to the God-human relationship…[a] reflection of Israel’s understanding of the nature of that relationship itself and of its core values about God.’ Theodore Hiebert, ‘Altars of Stone and Bronze: Two Biblical Views of Technology,’ Mission Studies 15 (1998): 75–84, citing 76.

Blessing in the Remembrance Paradigm

177

But, does the message of Exodus 20:24 for the NT stop there? Is it only a message about Christ and the Cross in general? Or, does it speak to any other site or rite with more specific insights about Christ? To answer this question, it is necessary to see how this verse relates to its more immediate context, and then proceed from there to see how it relates to the broader biblical context. In its more immediate context, we will see that Exodus 20:24 is also a structural paradigm, which we will explore in section 6.1.3. As this paradigm recurs as a canonical subtext at other occasions of divine encounter, which we will show in section 6.1.4, a trajectory for remembrance develops which points forward to the Last Supper and the ongoing Feast, which we will describe in section 6.1.5. The meaning of the remembrance paradigm’s ‘place’ regards not only the Cross, but also sites and rites that anticipate or reflect back upon the Cross. 6.1.3 Structural paradigm Exodus 20:24 qualifies as a typological paradigm, and it also meets the criteria for a structural paradigm. This section will revisit what structural paradigms are, recalling our prior examples, and then will identify the specific elements of a structural paradigm in Exodus 20:24. Afterward, section 6.1.4 will show how this paradigm manifests itself in another structural paradigm, the observances of Passover; i.e., the paradigm of Exodus 20:24 is a canonical subtext for all of the biblical accounts of Passover observances. Then, 6.1.4 will provide a sampling of other manifestations of this paradigm. The next section, 6.1.5, will proceed to show how this paradigm has correspondence with the Last Supper, which is to be expected since it too is a Passover observance. 6.1.3.1 Review of structural paradigms Recall that section 1.2.4.2 identified the second commandment as a particular example of a structural paradigm. In the context of covenant-making (cf. Exod 19:5-6), related to the motif of right worship, God commands the Israelites not to make or worship graven images, and he provides the rationale as being rooted in his nature of justice (Exod 20:5). This literary structure of covenant context, worship motif, pattern, and rationale, is something of a signature, a way to identify a paradigmatic section. The second commandment communicates in embryonic form a paradigm which speaks about how to worship God rightly. It can also be shown that in all of the LXX usages, the literary structure around para,deigma conforms to the context of making/keeping covenant, the motif of worship, and includes a rationale. Given this definition of a structural paradigm, does Exodus 20:24 meet the criteria? 6.1.3.2 Exodus 20:24 is in the context of covenant Both the broad and immediate contexts of Exodus 20:24 incorporate covenant. Exodus as a whole involves God’s remembering his covenant with Abraham, and bringing Israel out of Egypt to himself to form them into a covenant people. Exodus 19 addresses Israel’s arrival at Sinai and God’s declarations about the establishment of the Mosaic covenant (cf. esp. Exod 19:4-8). After preparations are made in chapter 19, chapter 20 reports God’s words to all

178

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

the people regarding the commandments of this covenant. Specific commands are given in Exodus 20:1-17, and the next few verses describe the people’s response (Exod 20:18-21). Exodus 20:24 is in the context of covenant. 6.1.3.3 Exodus 20:24 evidences the motif of right worship The next feature of a structural paradigm is the motif of right worship. There is reason to see verse 24 arising not only from the covenant commandments in general, all of which relate to right worship, but more specifically from commandments three and four. These two commandments contrast the idolatry which the second commandment forbids and describe right worship more particularly. Exodus 20:22 directly refers to what God just said in verses 1-17.12 The first and second commandments (cf. 20:3-6) are rephrased in verse 23,13 adding a more specific comment about what is not to be made, ‘gods of silver or gods of gold.’ In like manner, verse 24 rephrases commandments three and four regarding God’s name and proper worship (cf. 20:7-11),14 with a few specifics added in verses 25 and 26. Then, the next section of Exodus (21:1-23:9) provides many specifics which are related to the more horizontal commandments five through ten (20:12-17).15 This view of the overall structure of Exodus 20:22-26 and what follows provides an answer to the role of verses 24-26. This addresses Durham’s concern that Exodus 20:24-26 does not evidence any logical sequencing, that 12 The text of Exodus 20:22–23:33 most likely stems from a variety of sources, but we treat it here in its received final form. cf. T. Desmond Alexander, ‘The Composition of the Sinai Narrative in Exodus 19:1-25:11’ VT 49 (1999):2-20. ‘…Arguments for the importance of the final text are clear and, in my opinion, both uncontroversial and irrefutable.’ Moberly, Mountain, 20. So, Brevard Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster, 1974), 465. 13 Durham agrees that Exodus 20:22-23 are ‘a variation on the first two of the ten commandments…in logical sequence to the authentication of the instructions that follow.’ Durham, Exodus, 319. 14 cf. Deut 6:13; 10:20 as examples of the link between properly swearing by God’s name and worship. 15 As we mentioned above in our reference to Douma in section 5.1.1, the question of the transcultural and transtemporal relevance of OT passages such as this belongs in a larger discussion of hermeneutical systems. According to Scriptural Theology, such historic details which have been inscripturated maintain significance in how they provide instruction concerning the nature and purposes of God. Paul provides an explicit example of this in 1 Cor 9:1-14, where he refers to a detail about the treatment of oxen under the OT covenant code as a grounds for his instruction concerning provision for NT preachers. In 1 Cor 9:4, Paul asserts that the worker (a preacher/apostle) has the right to eat and drink, and that the Law addresses this right (vs.8), and he quotes Deut 25:4 (which is of the same theme as Deut 22:1-4/Exod 23:4-5) which says do not muzzle the ox while he is threshing. Paul then points to God’s nature, that if God is concerned with providing for the hungry working ox, implicitly he is all the more concerned with providing for the hungry working preacher. In 1 Cor 9:10 Paul goes so far as to say that OT texts about such things were inscripturated for the purpose of addressing, for example, the issue of providing for the needs of the NT preacher. Exodus 21:1–23:9 may more obviously relate to commandments (e.g., 21:12-14 and sixth commandment), or more typologically (e.g., 23:4-5 and eighth commandment).

Blessing in the Remembrance Paradigm

­179

these ‘altar instructions are not appropriate prologue to what follows them, nor is there any reason why they should be linked to the two verses preceding them.’16 We agree that 20:24-26 is not directly a continuation of the thought in 20:22-23, and it does not serve as the introduction to the next section. But, instead of leaving these verses as a disjointed bit of extra information, it is better to see them in the midst of the flow of what precedes and what follows. Before them, verse 22 serves as an introductory verse like 20:1-2 and verse 23 serves as an explanatory verse to 20:3-4. After them comes the rest of the 20:22-23:19 section which is recognized as ‘the Book of the Covenant’ or the ‘Covenant Code.’17 Both Olson and Durham acknowledge this section as ‘laws that interpret and apply the ten commandments.’18 If this section begins by revisiting God’s self-identification as the law giver, and an elaboration of the first two commandments about monotheism and idolatry, it is reasonable that what follows arises from the rest of the commandments. ‘In their present literary context, the laws of the Book of the Covenant function as an interpretative extension of the Ten Commandments into various details of the community’s life.’19 Moberly agrees and even refers to the paradigmatic nature of this section. The ten commandments are ‘a revelation of the character of Yahweh and the moral and religious basis of the future life of the people. In addition to this a selection of laws provides in greater detail than the decalogue the paradigmatic basis for the just and orderly life of the newly-constituted people of Yahweh.’20 Though many of these laws are context driven, at their core they portray belief and behavior which is pleasing to God, and fundamentally the nature of God himself. In this sense their meaning is transtemporal and transcultural. ‘A…purpose for the laws…is to paint the character of God for the reader.’21 This is consistent with our Scriptural Theology method of rooting interpretation in God’s nature. Therefore, it is reasonable to see 20:24-26 as arising from the third and fourth commandments and providing further insights into the will of God concerning them, just as 20:23 did for the first two commandments. So, the role of 20:24 can be seen based on the structure of the beginning of the section. Its role can also be seen based on the structure of the end of the section. The themes of commandments three and four are revisited in 23:1023. The themes of commandments one and two are revisited in 23:24-33.22 16 Durham, Exodus, 319. 17 Dennis Olson, ‘The Jagged Cliffs of Mount Sinai: A Theological Reading of the Book of the Covenant (Exod 20:22-23:19)’ Int 50 (1996): 251–63, citing 251. 18 Durham, Exodus, 318. 19 Olson, Covenant, 252. 20 Moberly, Mountain, 44–5, italics added. 21 Joe Sprinkle, ‘Law and Narrative in Exodus 19–24’ JETS 47 (2004): 235–52, citing 238. 22 This kind of chiastic structure is not foreign to this area of text, as Watson notes about 20:23 itself. Wilfred Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 47, 51.

180

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Then, the next chapter describes the actual ratification of the covenant. The literary structure regarding the commandments in 20:1-23:33 is therefore: commandments Exodus introduction 20:1-2 1-2 20:3-6 3-4 20:7-11 5-10 20:12-17 people’s response 20:18-21 introduction 20:22 1-2 20:23 3-4 20:24-26 5-10 21:1-23:9 3-4 23:10-23 1-2 23:24-33 people’s response 24:3

This positioning for 20:24 affirms not only the covenantal context, but its connection with the right worship motif. It also strengthens the view that 20:24 is a paradigm which is rooted in transtemporal and transcultural commandments, and therefore has a reliable enduring role even into the NT era. 6.1.3.4 Exodus 20:24 presents blessing as a rationale The aspect of rationale, the third feature of a structural paradigm, manifests in Exodus 20:24 in three ways. First, built into 20:24 is the rationale of the promise of God’s coming and blessing. Secondly, the paired segment of 23:1023 includes more specific benefits of Sabbath practices (23:11,12). Thirdly, the promises of 23:20-33 are conditional (e.g., 23:21-22) upon right worship (e.g., 23:24-25); i.e., right worship is the reason the promises are fulfilled. The rationale of blessing is interwoven with the motifs of covenant and right worship in the summary promise ‘But you shall serve the Lord your God, and he will bless your bread and your water; and I will remove sickness from your midst’ (23:25). The next verses continue to list other blessings arising from such right service including progeny, long-life and victory. Blessing is a rationale for right worship. So, Exodus 20:24 meets the criteria to be not only a typological paradigm, but also a structural paradigm. Further, this paradigm weaves together right worship, remembrance, and blessing. 6.1.4

Manifestations of the paradigm

6.1.4.1 All six Passover observances conform This section will first describe how this paradigm relates to Passover, which will build the bridge more clearly between Exodus 20:24, the Last Supper and the Feast. Then, a sampling of other manifestations of the paradigm in the OT

Blessing in the Remembrance Paradigm

­181

will strengthen this linkage. The next section, 6.1.5, will look specifically at the Last Supper itself for evidence of the paradigm. Recall that section 1.2.5 traced the development of the locational dimension of Passover. Passover itself is a structural paradigm. So, Exodus 20:24 and Passover have in common that they are both structural paradigms with specific reference to the concepts of remembrance and place. Are they otherwise affiliated? There is evidence for seeing them closely related, for Passover can be shown to be an ongoing manifestation of the Exodus 20:24 paradigm. We will look at all six observances of Passover which the canonical record includes in the OT. At its original site in Egypt, the day of Passover is called a memorial (Exod 12:14), the sacrifice is made at a specified time perhaps at each home (Exod 12:6),23 the people observe the Lord’s instructions and worship (Exod 12:1-28), and God manifests divine power (Exod 12:29, 36, 51). This first observance is a precursor to the articulation of the paradigm in Exodus 20:24, but it does have all of the elements: place, remembrance, right worship, and divine encounter.24 The second recorded Passover observance occurs after Israel finishes the tabernacle a year later. God’s glory comes (Exod 40:34; Num 9:15), and while they are still at Sinai (Num 9:1), they celebrate Passover (Num 9:5). This second Passover is at Sinai, the place God had originally revealed his covenant name to Moses (Exod 3:15),25 the place of God’s revelations of the covenant and commandments. The remembrance rite of Passover happens at the site of the revelation of God’s name and at the site of the newly completed tabernacle. This worship is in proximity to God’s cloud and fire (Exod 40:34, 38). This Passover, too, has all of the elements of the Exodus 20:24 paradigm: place, remembrance, right worship, and the blessing of divine encounter. Israel departs Sinai a month later (Num 10:11). Prior to this departure, Moses rehearses God’s instructions. Deuteronomy includes an elaboration regarding the place of subsequent Passovers, ‘You shall sacrifice the Passover to the Lord your God from the flock and the herd, in the place where the Lord chooses to establish his name’ (Deut 16:2). Though the phrases are not identical, they

23 On this occasion, the place is described more broadly in terms of the Israelites’ homes in Egypt, for the Passover meals and the Lord’s passing-over happened throughout the area. 24 Note the interesting correspondences in this precursor expression of the paradigm and the Last Supper. Both anticipate imminent divine intervention. Both are followed by remembrance rites which progress in details of site and form, but remain within the framework of the paradigm. 25 The mountain of God is called Horeb in Exod 3:1, but this refers to the same mountain as Sinai. This is indicated in context by the phrase, ‘when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God at this mountain,’ Exod 3:12, and is clarified in Deut 1:6. Horeb is ‘an alternative name for Mount Sinai…In some passages Horeb seems to designate an area larger than Mount Sinai (Deut 4:10; Deut 9:8; Deut 18:16). Moses struck the rock in the region of Horeb (Exo 17:6), but not on Mount Sinai which the Israelites did not reach until later (Exo 19:1).’ R. Harris, ‘Horeb,’ TWOT, 1:319.

182

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

convey the same concept of the Lord’s initiative of self-identification in a particular place he has chosen for worship.26 Exod 20:24 ‘in every place where I cause my name to be remembered’ evn panti. to,pw| ou- eva.n evponoma,sw to. o;noma, mou evkei/ ymi#$;-t)e ryk@iz:)a r#$e)j MwOqm@fha-lkfb@; Deut 16:2

‘in the place where the LORD chooses to establish his name’ evn tw/| to,pw| w-| eva.n evkle,xhtai ku,rioj o` qeo,j sou auvto.n evpiklhqh/nai to. o;noma auvtou/ evkei/ M#$f\ wOmu#$; Nk@'#$al; hwFhy: rxab;yI-r#$e)j MwOqm@fb@a

This priority of God’s design is emphasized by the repetitions in Deuteronomy 16:6 and 11 and the shortened ‘in the place which the Lord your God chooses’ in the repetitions in verses 7, 15, and 16. The deuteronomic commentary on Passover evidences an intention for the paradigm’s ongoing relevance. Further, it continues to link such worship with remembrance (Deut 16:3, 12) and blessing (Deut 16:15, 17). The deuteronomic elaboration for subsequent Passovers also includes the prescript that Passover is to remain rooted in Israel’s deliverance; however, the location of the rite will be mobile (Deut 16:5-6). Though we do not have canonical narratives describing them, we assume that Israel observes Passover while journeying through the wilderness. The remembrance of Passover is not in the actual place, Egypt, of God’s act of deliverance. Passover becomes a mobile memorial rather than a stationary altar. God makes ‘the places where he had previously done something places of blessing’27 and in the case of Passover this ‘place’ is defined by where the memorial rite is observed rather than by a particular geographic location. ‘God designates the centers of worship as the chief places where blessing is mediated to the people.’28 The Passover is a place of blessing because it is where God’s revelation and works are remembered and it is where God comes to his people. The ‘place’ of Passover is understood as a rite, in a location of God’s choosing, which remembers God’s saving acts at a previous foundational site. This aspect of Passover has its antitype in the Last Supper and ongoing Feast. Just as God reveals himself and his plan to Moses at Sinai before the Exodus happens, so Jesus reveals his true nature and his plan to the disciples at the Last Supper before the Cross happens. And, just as God brought Moses back to that same place of revelation (literally at first, and then subsequently in a mobile rite) in 26 There arose historically a tendency to move away from the multiplicity of such sites toward a centralization at the Temple (e.g., Deut 12:5; 16:2; 1 Kings 5:5), cf. S. R. Driver, The Book of Exodus (Cambridge: CUP, 1953), 208. However, just as we did with the locational trajectory of Passover, we can trace the canonical intertextual motif of the place of God’s name (e.g., Exod 20:24; Isa 18:7; Jer 7:12-14; Mal 1:7, 11; 1 Cor 1:2) pointing toward the place of worship for the NT people of God, cf. Childs, Exodus, 466. 27 Christopher Mitchell, The Meaning of BRK ‘To Bless’ in the Old Testament, SBL Dissertation Series 95 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 38. 28 Ibid.

Blessing in the Remembrance Paradigm

183

order to remember the Exodus and all its ramifications, so Jesus brings believers back to the place of the Feast in order to remember the Cross and all of its ramifications. This is consistent with the pattern of God appearing in places where he had previously done a miracle.29 The Feast is the mobile memorial of the Cross, just as Passover was the mobile memorial of the Exodus. The third account of a Passover observance occurs after Israel’s forty year journey (cf. Num 33:1-49). God delivers Israel through the Jordan river (Josh 3:10, 16-17). Israel enters into the promised land, and they observe Passover four days later (Josh 4:19; 5:10). The timing is correct (Josh 5:10) and the site is where God had specified (Exod 12:25). Further, this site also becomes a place of God’s revelation. Upon crossing the Jordan, they build an altar of twelve stones (Josh 4:3).30 Joshua indicates that these stones commemorate this event, an event comparable to the Exodus deliverance through the Red Sea (Josh 4:23-24). God speaks and reveals his nature and the nature of this act, that he has ‘rolled away the reproach of Egypt’ and accordingly names the site Gilgal (Josh 5:9). So, in Joshua, the third account of Passover includes a memorial altar which is additional to those in the tabernacle and is a named site where God reveals his nature and divine power. Again, all the elements of the Exodus 20:24 paradigm are here: place, remembrance, right worship, and divine encounter. Recall that at the end of section 1.2.5 about trajectories, we summarized how the Hezekiah, Josiah, and Darius Passover accounts contribute to the trajectory of the locational dimension of Passover, including not only geographic movement but also formational movement. These accounts also provide examples of the Exodus 20:24 paradigm. The fourth account of a Passover observance, Hezekiah’s Passover in 2 Chronicles 30:1-27, begins by specifying God’s identity ‘the Lord God of Israel’ and the place for his Passover, ‘come to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem’ (2 Chr 30:1). In this time of reform, Hezekiah has to choose whether to observe the Passover on the right day, but lacking proper preparation and centralization, or to postpone the event a month so that all the appropriate consecrations and gathering can happen (2 Chr 30:2-5). He chooses the latter. This points to the importance of gathering and unifying God’s people for the Passover.31 29 e.g., Moriah Gen 22:2 and 2 Chr 3:1; Horeb/Sinai Exod 3:1; 17:6; 19:1, 2, 11. 30 Note these interesting consistencies: (1) the numerology of these 12 stones and Moses’ 12 pillars of Exod 24:4; (2) the 12 representatives of Josh 4:2 and the 12 names on two stones of Exod 28:12, 29; (3) the stones came from the proximity of the ark Josh 4:3, 5, just as the stones of Exod 28:12, 29 were in the presence of the Lord; and (4) Joshua’s altar of 12 stones at the actual site of the divine intervention, Josh 4:9, and an additional altar of 12 stones used among the people where they were after their deliverance, is consistent with the paired original and subsequent Passover rites. 31 These themes of gathering and unification are to be expected given the Chronicler’s interest in showing ‘that all the twelve tribes are an integral part of Israel…Until the reign of Solomon, all Israel had an equal share in the life of the nation.’ H. G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of the Chronicles (Cambridge: CUP, 1977), 139. The Chronicler shapes this narrative of Passover in a way that is a ‘conscious reflection of the extended festival which marked the original

184

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

This fourth account also more explicitly links Passover with blessing. After the full seven days of feasting, God’s people are experiencing such joy and abundance and thanksgiving they decide to double the duration of the event (2 Chr 30:23). The Levites pray for blessing (2 Chr 30:27).32 A particular expression of God’s power in this setting is God’s act to heal the people in response to intercession (2 Chr 30:20). So, this account includes: place, remembrance, right worship, and the particular blessings of healing and extraordinary communal unity and joyfulness. The fifth OT account of a Passover observance, Josiah’s Passover in 2 Kings 23:21-23 and 2 Chronicles 35:1-19, also conforms to the paradigm. The shorter summary style of 2 Kings takes care to be explicit that the celebration is to be ‘to the Lord your God as it is written in this book of the covenant’ (2 Kings 23:21) and that it was observed ‘to the Lord in Jerusalem’ (2 Kings 23:23). The parallel account in 2 Chronicles adds the commentary that the ark, intentionally described as ‘the holy ark’ (2 Chr 35:3), is to be restored to the temple.33 This and the phrase ‘do according to the word of the Lord by Moses’ (2 Chr 35:6; cf. vs.12) emphasize conforming to right worship in God’s presence as it has been described previously. Though the account does not address God’s intervention directly, verse 18 indicates this is a successful, a blessed, event.34 The goal of restoring order to God’s house and to worship is achieved, and it is a grand occasion. The echoes of the Exodus paradigm continue. The sixth OT account of a Passover observance is after the beginning of the return from exile, Exodus II. Persia’s king Darius (ca. 522 BC) completes Cyrus’ work and dedicates the temple (ca. 516 BC; Ezra 6:15). The decree he issues for this work includes, ‘May the God who has caused his name to dwell there overthrow…’ (Ezra 6:12). Darius recognizes that God’s presence, his name, abides at the site. At the proper time, ‘the exiles’ (Ezra 6:19), ‘the sons of Israel who returned from exile’ (Ezra 6:21) observe Passover. Passover is a way for them to ‘seek the Lord God of Israel’ (Ezra 6:21). They are reclaiming dedication of the temple under Solomon (7:8-9).’ This is another instance of the Chronicler portraying Hezekiah as ‘a second Solomon.’ H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 371. 32 Note the interesting consistency here with the dimension of intercession in Exodus 32:13. The Levites pray for blessing upon the people, 2 Chr 30:27. Also, Hezekiah intercedes on behalf of those who partook of the Passover with right hearts but without going through the customary sanctification rituals, 2 Chr 30:18-20. This could be a departure point for a study about a trajectory which would lead to a justifiable exception to the norm of baptism for eucharistic participation. 33 Between 2 Chr 6:11, 41 when Solomon put the ark into the temple, and the next time the ark is mentioned in 2 Chr 35:3 during Josiah’s restoration, the ark seems to have been moved during the intervening three centuries divided kingdom era. Or, another view is that the term ‘Put’ would be better translated ‘Leave.’ Williamson, Chronicles, 405. In either case, the emphasis is on conforming to God’s design for worship in his presence. 34 cf. 2 Sam 6:11-12; 1 Chr 13:14 where the presence of the ark is explicitly linked with blessing.

Blessing in the Remembrance Paradigm

­185

their worship-site, their God who is the God of Israel, and their identity as his covenant people. These are consistent with the paradigmatic elements of place, remembrance, and right worship. The next verse is explicit about two specific divine interventions, ‘the Lord had caused them to rejoice, and had turned the heart of the king’ (Ezra 6:22). So, the structural paradigm of Exodus 20:24 is a canonical subtext for all of the OT Passover narratives. This indicates a trajectory of expectation that subsequent Passovers, including the Last Supper, are to likewise manifest this paradigm. 6.1.4.2 Named altar serves as remembrance of victory Before we look at the account of the Last Supper as another Passover observance in line with the Exodus 20:24 paradigm, we will look briefly at other OT manifestations of this paradigm. These will serve to show that the paradigm persists beyond the historical Passover observances per se into other worship settings. Thus, even though Jesus amends the Last Supper and it becomes the germ for a worship setting not identical to Passover, these other manifestations are evidence that the paradigm maintains relevance. Passover’s manifestations of the paradigm have an explicit connection with the remembrance element, since it is by nature a memorial. The Passovers after the original setting also have an explicit connection with the right worship motif, since it is a communal feast related to the tabernacle or temple or other altar. Other manifestations of the paradigm relate to remembrance and right worship through various treatments of God’s name. We have already looked at Exodus 17:14-15 with respect to dimension (4-Site) of the remembrance motif. This episode is also a preview of the remembrance paradigm. It includes: the site of a named altar, ‘The Lord is my banner’ as God’s self-identification, remembrance in the form of the memorial book and the recitation of God’s name over against Amalek’s, and God’s victory over Amalek. Lange notes that the Exodus 20:24 pattern relates altar and revelation and human response and remembrance. This pattern both reflects prior biblical books and also persists into subsequent biblical books.



This primitive form continued to be the normal type for the altars which…were always prescribed for extraordinary places of revelation (Deut. xxvii. 5; Josh. viii.30; Judg. vi. 26). Not only the right, but also the duty, of marking by altars real places of revelations, was therefore reserved…Most especially it is a monument of the place where God is revealed; then a symbol of the response of a human soul yielding to the divine call.35

The Exodus 20:24 paradigm in this case is reflecting the prior instance of worship at the named altar in Exodus 17:14-16. Altars mark the site of God’s revelation and action. Remembrance happens at such a site. Exodus 17:14-15 precedes the explicit statement of the paradigm, but is nonetheless consistent 35 Lange, Exodus, 83.

186

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

with it. The altar named ‘The Lord is my banner’ serves as remembrance for victory. 6.1.4.3 Named altar serves as remembrance of peace A later narrative of another victory shows many parallelisms with Exodus 17:14-1536 and is another manifestation of the Exodus 20:24 paradigm. Judges 6 is the account of Gideon and the Midianites. All of the elements of the paradigm are present: place, remembrance, right worship, and blessing.37 God’s identity is reiterated (Judges 6:8-9). His requirement of right worship is emphasized (6:10).38 God reveals himself to Gideon in a theophanic encounter (6:11-12)39 and promises the power of his presence (6:16). Gideon prepares a sacrifice (6:19-20) which has features consistent with a burnt offering (burnt unto God, cf. 6:21) and a peace offering (esp. a thanksgiving offering, cf. Lev 7:12-14). God accepts the offering through fire, thereby sharing the meal with Gideon (6:21). God speaks peace to Gideon reassuring him he is safe in his presence (6:23). ‘Then Gideon built an altar there to the Lord and named it the Lord is Peace’ (6:24). Niditch clearly links this passage with antecedent altars. ‘Gideon’s altar building, like theirs, serves to mark the place as belonging to Yhwh and his people….’40 As Gideon follows God’s instructions, the Spirit of the Lord comes upon him (6:34), and God gives the victory over the Midianites (Judg. 8:28). The altar marks both a previous revelation of God, and the beginning of a victory wrought by God. It is not the altar per se which is the effectual element in this account; rather, it is the presence and power of God himself. The site serves remembrance and worship, and God comes in power, both to transform Israel from a defeated people to a free people, and to transform Gideon from fear to courage and from inaction to action. The altar named ‘The Lord is peace’ serves as remembrance of peace. 6.1.4.4 Invocation results in blessing Remembrance involves worshiping God according to his name,41 according to his self-revelation. Such remembrance, according to the paradigm, results in blessing. In the context of worship in Numbers 6, God instructs Aaron and his sons to acknowledge his name through the act of invocation, and promises 36 Webb relates several aspects of Judges 6 with Exodus 17, Moses, and the overall Exodus. Barry Webb, The Book of Judges, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 222–33. 37 Niditch notes the presence of ‘the Gideon cycle’ which is ‘the pattern of faithfulness, decline and defeat, crying out to God, and rescue.’ Susan Niditch, Judges: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), 89. This shows the writer does employ such a device, and this points toward not away from the existence of other patterns. e.g., ‘Gideon’s commissioning follows the classical paradigm established by the call and commissioning of Moses in Exodus 3.’ Webb, Judges, 227. 38 Niditch notes this in terms of Exodus and covenant. Niditch, Judges, 90. 39 Niditch correlates this with theophanies in Genesis and Exodus. Ibid., 90–91. 40 Niditch, Judges, 91. 41 See the more detailed discussion of the relationship between remembrance and God’s name in section 6.2.1 below.

Blessing in the Remembrance Paradigm

­187

to meet such invocation with blessing (Num 6:22-27).42 This structure echoes the dynamics of the Exodus 20:24 paradigm. In Numbers 1-6, God gives to Moses further instructions for Israel while they are still at Sinai. The passage about invocation is at the conclusion of these instructions. God tells Moses to tell Aaron and his sons what to say to Israel (Num 6:22-23). In context, these would be words integral with corporate worship. ‘The Lord bless you, and keep you; the Lord make his face shine on you, and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance on you, and give you peace’ (Num 6:24-26). It is not the priests but God himself who is the active force of the blessing.43 ‘So they shall invoke my name on the sons of Israel, and I then will bless them’ (Num 6:27). God promises that when, in the context of right worship, his name is invoked, he will come and bless.44 6.1.4.5 Remembrance is an occasion to rejoice Deuteronomy 27 reports some of Moses’ final instructions. He charges Israel that upon their entrance into the promised land, they are to build an altar for worship (27:5-8), and this charge is stated in a way that is an allusion to the Exodus 20:24 paradigm.45 After the forty year journey (Deut 1:3) and a month before entering the promised land (Josh 4:19), Moses addresses the people again about all of God’s commandments. In this way, Deuteronomy is a repetition of much of Exodus and Leviticus, bookended on the other side of their journey. So, it is reasonable to listen for the message of Exodus 20:24 in a passage which is revisiting important Exodus material.46 Deuteronomy 1-26 review Israel’s history, appeal to God’s prior revelations and acts as a basis for remembering and obeying God, recount the ten 42 Stubbs emphasizes the importance of the concept of blessing. ‘“Blessing” is a central organizing image within both the Pentateuch and the overarching story of the Bible.’ David Stubbs, Numbers, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2009), 69. cf. our section 4. 43 Scharbert agrees that God causes the blessing, not the priests directly. ‘Here, “to bless” means to commend the people, assembled in the cult, to Yahweh’s blessing…their word of blessing is not magical.’ Scharbert, ‘ K7rfb@f brk,’ TDOT 2:290. So, Stubbs, Numbers, 71. 44 Stubbs discusses the relationship between blessing and God’s name, including explicit references to Exodus 20:18-21 (the people’s response to the giving of the 10 commandments), Exodus 20:7 (the second commandment, regarding God’s name), and Exodus 33:11 (Moses’ encounter with God). Stubbs, Numbers, 70, 72, 75. Given that these passages are in view here in Numbers 6, it is reasonable to also see Exodus 20:24 in view. Stubbs does note the role Numbers 6 itself has subsequently played in the Christian worship. Stubbs, Numbers, 69. This shows the pattern for blessing in Numbers 6 has proven to have an enduring quality. 45 McConville does not explicitly mention Exodus 20:24, but he does see similarities between this altar event and those in Exodus 24:3-8 and Joshua 4. J. G. McConville, Deuteronomy (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 389. We have shown in section 6.1.2.2 how Exodus 24 is the first implementation of the Exodus 20:24 paradigm, and in section 6.1.4.1 how Joshua 4 as the third observance of Passover also conforms to the Exodus 20:24 paradigm. 46 von Rad concurs that both Joshua 4 and Exodus 24 are in view here. And, even closer to an explicit recognition of Exodus 20:24, he writes, ‘On the command not to use an iron tool on the stones for the altar, see Ex. 20.25.’ Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966), 165.

188

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

commandments and elaborations on the law, and exhort covenant obedience. Chapter 27 then provides details about setting up an altar when they have entered that new land. Details are provided which align clearly with the remembrance paradigm including an altar of uncut stones and burnt and peace offerings (Exod 20:24-25; Deut 27:5-7). The covenant-memorial-name of ‘the Lord your God’ is repeated seven times in Deuteronomy 27:1-8, four times in verses 5-7. Remembrance is also seen in this account in a way similar to Exodus 17, that is, writing on stones (Deut 27:3, 8). These instructions are implemented in Joshua 8:30-32. The biblical repetition of an altar of uncut stones (Josh 8:30, 31), burnt and peace offerings (Josh 8:31), the written record (Josh 8:32), the explicit mention of the ark (Josh 8:33), and the blessings of the covenant (Josh 8:34) add to the volume of the allusion to the paradigm. The phrases which are closest to the wording of Exodus 20:24, those in Deuteronomy 27:5-7, add a specific feature to the worship, ‘and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God’ (Deut 27:7). The rationale for this celebration is clear, ‘This day you have become a people for the Lord your God’ (Deut 27:9). This manifestation of the paradigm highlights the joy that accompanies entrance into the promised land, being formed into God’s people. 6.1.4.6 Remembrance is an occasion for intercession The next example of a manifestation of the remembrance paradigm in a worship setting beyond Passover is the account of Solomon’s prayer in the temple upon its completion (1 Kings 8; 2 Chr 6). Here we once again find the elements of place, remembrance, right worship, and blessing. In this instance, more of the narrative concerns specific intercessions. Nelson highlights the context of covenant renewal and relates this passage to Moses’ altar instructions in Deuteronomy (Deut 27:1-8; 31:9-13).47 Though Nelson does not trace the concepts back another stage, Moses’ instructions in Deuteronomy are expansions of his altar instructions in Exodus. The paradigmantic Exodus 20:24 is arguably the germ behind the deuteronomic backdrop which Nelson sees. Nelson does describe the passage’s final form as having ‘a high order of theological unity and literary structure’ including a chiastic schema for the entire chapter,48 which is consistent with allowing for the influence of subtexts. At the site of the newly completed temple (1 Kings 7:51), Solomon remembers God’s dealings with Israel and David (1 Kings 8:12-21; cf. 51-53). He then ‘stood before the altar of the Lord’ (1 Kings 8:22, 54) in ‘the house for the name of the Lord (1 Kings 8: 20) and makes intercession based upon God’s promise to heed wherever ‘my name shall be there’ (1 Kings 8:29; cf. 33, 35, 38, 42, 44, 48). The paradigmatic element of blessing is at the beginning of Solomon’s recitation both as an invocation of blessing upon the people (1 Kings 8:14) and as praise toward God (1 Kings 8:15). Blessing similarly bookends the segment (1 Kings 8:55-56), adding specific blessings of God’s 47 Richard Nelson, First and Second Kings, IBC (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1987), 51. 48 Ibid., 50.

Blessing in the Remembrance Paradigm

­189

enduring presence, obedient hearts, daily requirements, and the conversion of all peoples (1 Kings 8:57-60). Other specific blessings are requested between the bookends including forgiveness and restoration (1 Kings 8:34), instruction and provision (1 Kings 8:36, 39), victory (1 Kings 8:45), and deliverance (1 Kings 8:50). The paradigmatic element of divine presence and power can be seen in the ark (1 Kings 8:1-9), cloud (1 Kings 8:10-11), spoken words and renewal of covenant (1 Kings 9:3).49 The parallel account elaborates on the divine encounter, ‘Fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the Lord filled the house’ (2 Chr 7:1). In the context of remembering the Davidic covenant, God hears intercessions and comes to his people. 6.1.4.7 Echoes of the remembrance paradigm Some manifestations of the Exodus 20:24 paradigm are subtle echoes rather than clear allusions. Nehemiah calls upon God to remember his words to Moses, that after scattering his people, if they turn back to him, ‘I will gather them from there and will bring them to the place where I have chosen to cause my name to dwell’ (Neh 1:8-11). Psalm 24 weaves together the holy place, right worship, and blessing. ‘Who may ascend into the hill of the Lord? And who may stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart…He shall receive a blessing from the Lord’ (Ps 24:3-5). Psalm 118:26 similarly says, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord; we have blessed you from the house of the Lord.’ Joel 2 includes an exhortation to return to the Lord, ‘for he is gracious and compassionate’ (Joel 2:13; cf. Exod 33:19). Among the actions and attitudes involved in such turning are ‘proclaim a solemn assembly…sanctify the congregation…let the priests, the Lord’s ministers, weep between the porch and the altar’ (Joel 2:15-17). The hope is that God will ‘leave a blessing behind him’ (Joel 2:14). Echoes of the remembrance paradigm can also be heard in Paul’s treatment of the cup of blessing in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22. He begins by saying ‘flee from idolatry,’ (1 Cor 10:14) a clear affirmation of right worship. He points to Israel, brings to mind the sacrificial system, and affirms that ‘those who eat the sacrifices [are] sharers in the altar’ (1 Cor 10:18), referring to the peace offering which included a meal. He refers to the identity of God as the Lord who can be provoked to jealousy, bringing to mind the second commandment and a metaleptic history of Israel and the Exodus (Exod 20:5; 34:14; Deut 4:24). He then refers to the eucharistic table in parallel with the altar, and the elements of bread and wine in parallel with the offerings, thus presenting the table as a fresh manifestation of the worship previously evidenced through the sacrificial system. 49 DeVries does not explicitly reference Exodus 20:24, but he does comment here on the relevant concepts of God’s incomparable identity, the real presence of the transcendent God in the place of God’s name, and links between this passage and the Mosaic covenant. Simon DeVries, 1 Kings, WBC 12 Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003), 125­–8.

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

190 verse 16 verse 18 verse 20 verse 21

cup of blessing… bread which we break… those who eat sacrifices… Gentiles sacrifice to demons… drink the cup of the Lord…

sharing in the blood of Christ sharing in the body of Christ sharers in the altar sharers in demons partake of the table of the Lord

So, while addressing the Corinthian issue of right worship, Paul appeals to the site of the altar and the rite of the table, to the remembrance of God’s commandments and history with Israel, and indicates that failure to conform to a right pattern would result in the Lord’s jealousy rather than blessing. While Paul does not use phrasing which clearly alludes to Exodus 20:24, and it would be difficult to show that the Exodus text per se was in Paul’s view as he wrote this text, the canonical shape of this portion of Corinthians evidences the elements of the remembrance paradigm. Given that such a pattern reflects a divinely designed paradigm for God’s interaction with his people in worship, it is reasonable that it would recur in the context of Paul’s discussion of proper worship, subtly and thematically if not explicitly. These echoes are consistent with how the Exodus 20:24 paradigm is the background to Passover, which is the background to the Last Supper, which is the background to the Feast. So, these examples, along with the previous Passover instances, are a strong argument for understanding Exodus 20:24 as a paradigm, a nexus for the interweaving of the motifs of remembrance, right worship, and blessing. This outworking of the Exodus 20:24 paradigm in the broader biblical text indicates that it is reasonable to treat it as a pervasive and persisting pattern. In section 6.1.2 we have seen that Exodus 20:24 is a typological paradigm whose antitype is Christ and the Cross. In section 6.1.3 we have seen it is also a structural paradigm which gives rise to a repeating pattern for remembrance and right worship. In section 6.1.4 we have looked at manifestations of the remembrance paradigm. Such remembrance is manifested through all of the OT accounts of the mobile Passover rite, as well as at other sites and occasions. God initiates an intervention with his people, through words and or deeds which reveal his nature, and the remembrance rite is an opportunity for God’s people to call upon his name accordingly. God’s promises related to such paradigmatic worship include the blessings of divine self-revelation, victory, healing, instruction, provision, and peace. All such blessings can be summarized as transformational encounters with the divine presence. The next section, 6.1.5, will develop further what the paragraph above about 1 Corinthians 10 began to explore, and show how the Exodus 20:24 paradigm is a canonical subtext for the Last Supper, not based only on its nature as a Passover observance, but also based upon other evidence of the paradigmatic elements. 6.1.5

Last Supper links to the paradigm

6.1.5.1 Shepherding images allude to the paradigm In addition to its Passover nature, allusions also link the Last Supper to the elements of the remembrance paradigm. Let us begin with the echoes to the

Blessing in the Remembrance Paradigm

­191

Exodus 20:24 paradigm in Nehemiah which we mentioned at the beginning of section 6.1.4.7. Nehemiah calls upon God to remember that the scattered are those whom he redeemed through the Exodus (Neh 1:10). He intercedes for God to heed those who revere his name and bring success (Neh 1:11). He describes the regathering of those who have been scattered in terms of bringing them ‘to the place where I have chosen to cause my name to dwell’ (Neh 1:9). The shepherding image of a scattered flock describes the state of God’s people who have turned away from him. This is true in Nehemiah 1:8-9 and in Mark 14:27 when Jesus cites the words of Zechariah 13:7, ‘I will strike down the shepherd and the sheep will be will be scattered.’50 The Last Supper account does not allude directly to Nehemiah, but via Zechariah the same scattering and regathering come into view. This is an example of what Dodd describes as related verses offering further insight.51 Jesus refers to Zechariah’s image of striking down the shepherd and scattering the sheep (Mark 14:27; Zech 13:7). In context, Jesus had also referred to the covenant (Mark 14:24), which results in the allusion to Zechariah being broad enough in scope to encompass the related verse in Zechariah 13:9, ‘I will say, “They are my people,” and they will say, “The Lord is my God.”’ God will bring (Neh 1:9; Zech 13:9), will gather (Neh 1:9) those who have been scattered, to the place of worship (Neh 1:9).52 The regathered sheep are those who will ‘call on my name, and I will answer them’ (Zech 13:9). God will answer the scattered who revere God’s name (Neh 1:11), who call on God’s name (Zech 13:9). This echoes the motif of right worship and the blessings of Exodus 20:24. Jesus’ comments after the final hymn of the Passover supper do not stop with his reference to scattering. Mark 14:28 begins with the notable contrasting ‘But’ avlla,. Jesus will not leave the sheep scattered and alone. Rather, he will rise again, and he ‘will go before you to Galilee.’ Though Mark does not use the term gather, the message is the same. The shepherding image of gathering together speaks to a time of restoration for God’s people. This is true in Nehemiah 1:9, in Mark 14:25 regarding the future eschatological meal, and in Mark 14:28 which speaks of Jesus’ more immediate post-resurrection reunion with his followers. This reunion is also described in Luke 24:13-32 as happening in the context of a meal, which itself includes eucharistic terminology (Luke 24:30, 35). Luke 24:33 uses the expression ‘gathered together,’ and Jesus comes to them again in that place, and eats with them (Luke 24:36, 42-43). The canonical message is that gathering together in the context of a eucharistic meal is the setting for encountering the resurrected Jesus, and it is the setting contrasted with the scattering of the sheep. 50 cf. references to France, Stein, and Edwards in section 3.2.2.8. 51 See section 1.2.3.2. 52 Stein, Mark, 615, relates Neh 1:9 to Mark 13:27 and the gathering at the time of the second coming for ‘the great messianic banquet.’ We are suggesting here that there is also a foretaste of this gathering at the Feast.

192

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Nehemiah speaks of the redemption (Neh 1:10) of the scattered as a gathering (Neh 1:9) to the dwelling-place of God’s name, a place he himself has designated (Neh 1:9). The canonical message is that such gathering is associated with where God causes his name to be remembered. In the words of interpretation, Jesus himself speaks words of identification. He identifies himself with the bread and wine of the amended Passover rite. They speak of him, of his identity, of his name. The Feast is to be the place where he is rightly remembered, through a meal.53 From Jesus’ words ‘my blood of the covenant,’ ‘Do this in remembrance of me,’ ‘sheep shall be scattered,’ ‘but…’, arise the interwoven paradigmatic elements of covenant (Neh 1:10; Zech 13:9; Mark 14:24), remembrance (Neh 1:8; Zech 13:2; 1 Cor 14:24, 25) and name (Neh 1:9, 11; Zech 13:9), scattering (Neh 1:8, 9; Zech 13:7; Mark 14:27), gathering (Neh 1:9; Zech 13:9; Mark 14:28; Luke 24:33) and meal (Mark 14:25; Luke 24:30), and God’s response and blessing (Neh 1:11; Zech 13:9; Luke 24:31). At least one fulfillment, then, of a gathering together in Nehemiah-like fashion is the Feast where God’s people call upon his name in Zechariahlike fashion. The echoes of Nehemiah and Zechariah link the Last Supper with Exodus 20:24 paradigm. The Last Supper and the Feast are a gathering place for the scattered, the place of God’s self-identification, the place of remembrance, and therefore a place where God’s people can expect blessing. These allusions point to the Feast as a place where God gathers and meets his people. This message is consistent with the backdrop which had been set by Jesus’ cleansing of the temple and the metaleptic citations in Mark 11:1518.54 6.1.5.2 Bread and wine are interwoven with the paradigm The shepherding images linked the Last Supper to the paradigm at the level of allusion. There are also more direct connections between the elements of the Last Supper and the elements of the paradigm. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul’s double mention of remembrance (1 Cor 11:24b, 25b) emphasizes that the Feast is the place of remembrance. The Exodus 20:24 paradigm says, ‘In every place where I cause my name to be remembered, I will come to you and bless you.’ In the words of interpretation, Jesus says of the bread and wine, ‘This my body,’ ‘This my blood,’ thus identifying himself with the elements. They speak of his identity. The Feast is a place where Jesus’ nature and character are communicated by the bread and wine, and it is a place where his identity as such is remembered. These are direct links with the paradigmatic elements of remembrance and self-identification. All of the typological meaning already resident in the Passover meaning of bread, such as manna and divine feeding from heaven, is directed by the words ‘This my body’ to point to Jesus. Jesus amends the meaning of the bread to now speak of himself. 53 See discussion relating remembrance and divine identification in section 6.2.1. 54 See section 1.2.3.2.

Blessing in the Remembrance Paradigm

193­

The bread and wine are identified with the body and blood which are the antitypes of the sacrificial system. Jesus is still the antitype; yet, the pairing of bread and wine now point to him just as the sacrificial system did. The typology of the sacrificial system which points to Jesus is now routed through the bread and wine.55 This results in the importation of all of the typological meaning of the sacrificial system into the Last Supper. All of the insight gained through the typological instruction afforded by the sacrificial system regarding the person and work of Christ is encapsulated and infused into the meaning of the bread and wine. The bread and wine speak of who Jesus is, just as the named altars of the OT spoke the identity of God. The bread and wine thus serve the role of divine identification. The Last Supper is the rite of remembrance, and it is the site of the elements which speak of Christ’s identity. When believers gather and do this bread and wine rite in remembrance of Christ, they are conforming to the paradigmatic, ‘In every place where I cause my name to be remembered,’ and therefore believers can expect the Feast to be a place where God will, as the paradigm says, come and bless them. The gospel accounts focus on the historical narrative of the Last Supper, so the blessings of Jesus’ Resurrection and all of its ramifications are only latent. Paul’s account in 1 Corinthians which addresses the church can go a step further in communicating the final aspect of the Exodus 20:24 paradigm, that of the activity of divine power and blessing. The theme of this portion of Paul’s message to the Corinthians is correction, so this aspect manifests in the negative rather than in the positive. This is not unusual for the paradigm, as seen in the warnings in the second commandment. Paul states explicitly that not rightly observing this rite results in detrimental divine judgment (1 Cor 11:27-30). It is reasonable to deduce that proper observance of this rite results in beneficial divine blessing. So, Exodus 20:24 is a paradigm which serves as the nexus for the motifs of remembrance, right worship, and blessing. The typology of the paradigm points to fulfillment fundamentally at the Cross. Further, the meal which is integral with the typological paradigm points to the antitypical meal of the Feast, as well as the future eschatological meal. The literary structure of the paradigm relates it to other divinely established patterns in germ form, such as the ten commandments. Exodus 20:24 is the canonical subtext for all of the OT accounts of Passover observances, which indicates a trajectory which leads us to expect the Last Supper and the Feast to also be manifestations of this paradigm. Additional manifestations of the paradigm strengthen the view that this is a persisting pattern which links remembrance and blessing. The Last Supper also conforms to the paradigm, not only as a Passover meal, but also through 55 Again, this is consistent with the metaleptic message from section 1.2.3.2 that the Table replaces the temple as the place of a new covenant; and, this is consistent with the shepherding images which point to the Feast as the gathering place for God’s people. The place of God’s name is the Table not the temple. The elements for God’s name being remembered are at the Table not the temple.

194

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

allusions and direct references to remembrance and divine self-identification. Next, we will explore parallels in OT and NT remembrance which strengthen the argument that its dimensions, messages, and effectual nature persist.

6.2

Parallels between OT and NT remembrance

The linkage between OT and NT remembrance is strengthened by a parallel emphasis on the proper identification of God, and by parallel unique phrases which convey a bi-directional effectual meaning. 6.2.1 Emphasis on divine identification Remembrance in the context of right worship requires the proper identification of who is being worshiped, whose nature and actions are being remembered. In the OT, we have seen such identification emphasized through a focus on God’s name through his own self-revelation (e.g., Exod 3:15; 20:2; 34:14), through the naming of altars in recognition of God’s identity (e.g., Exod 17:15; Judg. 6:24), and through the contrast of the prohibition of naming others (e.g., Exod 17:14). The close association of remembrance and God’s name can also be seen in LXX terminology. An alternate translation of rkazF results in an emphasis on naming God rightly. In our Exodus 20:24 paradigm, the LXX translates ‘I cause my name to be remembered’ ymi#$;-t)e ryk@iz:)a not with a form of avna,mnhsij, but by emphasizing the concept of name, ‘I call by name my name’ evponoma,sw to. o;noma, mou . When this verse is understood in light of its partnerpassage, the consistency with remembrance is made even clearer. This phrase in Exodus 20:24 is best understood when read in partnership with Exodus 23:13, ‘Now concerning everything which I have said to you, be on your guard; and do not mention the name of other gods, nor let them be heard from your mouth.’ This verse is the summary statement referring to all of God’s instructions between 20:24 and 23:12. It is the matching bookend for 20:24, and here the concept of remembrance occurs in the negative. God prohibits the remembrance, or the naming, of other gods. As we saw with the relating of God’s own covenant name with remembrance in 3:15, here again in 23:13 we see naming related to remembrance. Right remembrance involves God’s identity, God’s name. Prohibited remembrance involves other gods’ names. In both 3:15 and 23:13, the LXX uses forms of avna,mnhsij in relationship to names. For the Hebrew of 23:13 w%ryk@iz:ta )l|o MyrIx')j Myxilo)v M#$'w: ‘and do not mention the name of other gods’ the LXX has kai. o;noma qew/n e`te,rwn ouvk avnamnhsqh,sesqe ‘and the name of other gods shall not be remembered.’ So, in 20:24 the naming is referred to by evponoma,sw , and in its partner 23:13 naming is referred to by avnamimnh,|skw. The Greek terms are in parallel, and though not identical in emphasis, related in meaning.56 The relationship between naming 56 Louw & Nida do not deal with the usages of these terms in the LXX since their Lexicon based on semantic domains is limited to the NT. Their analysis of the use of avna,mnhsij

Blessing in the Remembrance Paradigm

­195

and remembrance is comparable in 20:24 and 23:13. God is remembered as his name is proclaimed. The LXX terminology in the paradigm emphasizes that remembrance involves naming God’s name rightly, that is, getting his identity right.57 A similar phenomenon happens in the NT use of avna,mnhsij ‘remembrance.’ The phrase eivj th.n evmh.n avna,mnhsin ‘in remembrance of me’ (1 Cor 11:24b, 25b; Luke 22:19b) is an unusual construction. The grammatical form has a reflective ‘of me’ quality. The statement is not, ‘Do this as a memorial,’ or ‘This is a memorial,’ or ‘Do this in remembrance.’ Rather, the identity of Christ is the clear focal point, ‘Do this in remembrance of me.’ This is very much like how the identity of God is the focal point of Exodus 20:24 ‘I cause my name to be remembered,’ or LXX ‘I call by name my name.’ The impact in both the OT and the NT is that there is divine action at work in accomplishing the remembrance, and the focus is not on impersonal cognitive facts, but on the person of God himself. 6.2.2

Unique phrases

6.2.2.1 OT grammatical construction In both the OT paradigm and the NT eucharistic usages, the phrases referring to remembrance are unique constructions. The Exodus 20:24 phrase ‘in every place where I cause my name to be remembered’ (NAU, NRS) has been variously translated, KJV

in all places where I record my name Wherever I cause my name to be honored NJB Wherever I choose to have my name remembered NKJ In every place where I record My name58 NLT Build altars in the places where I remind you who I am NIV

sets it in domain 29 related to the concept of memory and recall, and their analysis of the use of evponoma,zomai ( evponoma,sw LXX) sets it in domain 33 related to the concept of communication. However, they do recognize that mnei,a and mnhmoneu,w (1 Thess 1:3; cf. Rom 1:9-10; 2 Tim 1:3) ‘overlap with the domain of Communication (33), since the meaning involves not only remembering but making mention of a person in prayer’ (L&N, 349). This observation certainly applies also to our LXX phrases under consideration where God is mentioned in worship. 57 The NT also recognizes naming God’s name is an act of reverence, e.g., Eph 1:21; 2 Tim 2:19. 58 Buttrick is similar, ‘in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee,’ and adds commentary regarding the likelihood that ‘the idea of the omnipresence of God was not yet a part of the religious faith of the time.’ IB 1:993. The meaning of ‘God’s coming’ would therefore have been more spatially understood at that time. However, given our observations above regarding the presence of God being communicated by the concept of proximity, the dynamics of this verse persist into the era of the more fully formed theology of omnipresence.

196

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

This phrase is enigmatic but crucial to understanding the protasis for blessing. Sarna interprets the unique phrase ymi#;$-t)e ryk@iz:)f to mean ‘I cause my name to be mentioned’ and writes, ‘This construction, with both subject and object referring to God, is unparalleled.’59 The other occurrences of the hiphil imperfect first person common singular of rkazF concur with this centering on God. This grammatical construction is used to refer to the declaration of God’s works (‘I shall make mention of the lovingkindnesses of the LORD’ Isa 63:7) related to the Exodus (e.g., Isa 63:13; Ps 77:11, 14-20), a proclamation to many (‘I will cause your name to be remembered in all generations’ Ps 45:17; ‘I will make mention of Your righteousness…to all’ Ps 71:16, 18), and also God’s identification of those who belong to him (Ps 87:4). God is the focus and the initiator of remembrance in this grammatical construction.60 Durham does not address the Hebrew terminology in Exodus 20:24 directly, but he does understand the verse to emphasize God’s initiative, ‘that Yahweh himself will choose the place where such altars are to be built and that he will come in person to his people assembled at these places and there bless them.’61 He sees Exodus 20:24-26 as focusing on the media of worship and the place where Israel comes into closest contact with the presence of Yahweh.62 Childs does not comment directly about the unique use of rkazF in Exodus 20:24. He does cite related uses where worshipful proclamation results in God’s name being remembered (Isa 12:4; Ps 45:17).63 Childs understands verse 24 to mean that ‘altars were not to be constructed at will, but only in those places where God had “revealed his name.”’64 Childs agrees with Durham that worship is to be based on God’s initiative. An additional insight provided by Isaiah 12:4 is the associating of calling on the name of the Lord and remembering his name.65 The phrases ‘call on his name’ and ‘make them remember that this name is exalted’ are in parallel. And in that day you will say, ‘Give thanks hdfyF to the Lord, call )rfqf on his name. Make known (dfyF his deeds among the peoples; make them remember rkazF that his name is exalted.’

59 Sarna, Exodus, 116. 60 It is interesting to note the ongoing appearance of shepherding images in relationship to remembrance in these contexts, e.g., Ps 77:20; Isa 63:11. 61 Durham, Exodus, 319. 62 Ibid. 63 Childs, Exodus, 447. 64 Ibid., 466. 65 It is interesting to note that in Isaiah 12:4 the term for ‘give thanks’ in the LXX is not from euvcariste,w but from avna,mnhsij. ‘And in that day you will say, “Give thanks u`mne,w to the Lord, call on his name. Make known his deeds among the peoples; make them remember mimnh,|skomai that his name is exalted.”’ This results in relating thanksgiving in a worship context to remembrance.

Blessing in the Remembrance Paradigm

­197

This parallelism adds to the list of potential meanings above for rkazF in the protasis of Exodus 20:24. It is reasonable to say that it includes the connotation66 of ‘wherever you call upon the name of the Lord’ in proper worship. Allen sees Exodus 20:24 as an example of when ‘God causes his name “to be invoked” at the sanctuary.’67 Proper invocation is required for the apodosis of blessing. The meaning of the unique use of rkazF in the Exodus 20:24 paradigm encompasses the concepts that the remembrance is focused upon God’s own nature, that God initiates the remembrance, and the people play a role of declaration or invocation. This is consistent with the remembrance motif messages and dimensions of (1-Covenant), (2-Name), and (4-Site),68 as well as our overall Scriptural Theology approach which looks to ground interpretation in God’s nature. 6.2.2.2 NT grammatical construction Likewise, the NT has a unique grammatical structure for Paul and Luke’s phrase, ‘Do this in remembrance of me’ tou/to poiei/te eivj th.n evmh.n avna,mnhsin (1 Cor 11:24-25; Luke 22:19). The preposition eivj with the accusative article th,n can have various nuances of in, into, to, concerning.69 The accusative possessive adjective evmh,n and accusative noun avna,mnhsin could be phrased ‘my remembrance’ or given the LXX usages (e.g., Lev 24:7) ‘my memorial.’ Jeremias identifies it as an objective genitive, and so ‘that I be remembered.’70 Like the unique phrase in Exodus 20:24, a number of other translations are possible. BBE

do this in memory of me do this as a memorial to me NLT do this to remember me NIRV do it in memory of me YLT this do ye to the remembrance of me CJB

The rare construction eivj avna,mnhsin is absent from hellenistic commemorations of the dead,71 appears only three times in the OT (LXX Lev 24:7; Ps 37(38):1; 69(70):1), and uniquely in the NT in the words of interpretation (Luke 22:19;

66 The term ‘connotation’ is used to mean the larger sense of a term in addition to the specific referent which it denotes. Osborne, Spiral, 77. In this case, ‘remember’ in Exodus 20:24 is unique and has an unclear direct referent, so the connotations of related usages are especially helpful. 67 Leslie Allen, ‘rkz zkr,’ NIDOTTE 1:1104. 68 See sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.3. 69 NA27, 53, glossary general meanings; Dana and Mantey, Greek, 104, lists 1 Cor 11:24 with the more specific meaning of ‘for the purpose of’; BDAG, eivj , 290, lists 1 Cor 11:24 with ‘the vocation, use, or end indicated for, as’ and Luke 22:19 with ‘to denote purpose in order to.’ 70 Jeremias, Words, 251. 71 Ibid., 239–41.

198

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

1 Cor 11:24, 25).72 A similar construction eivj mnhmo,sunon is found in both biblical and extrabiblical texts.73 6.2.2.3 God remembering Jeremias interprets this unique phrase to refer only to an action taken by God, and therefore eucharistic remembrance is God remembering Christ and acting accordingly. He derives this from his interpretation of the memorial portion for the bread (Lev 24:7) which he believes refers to what is offered to God as an appeal ‘to insure that God remembers mercifully the givers of the sacrifices.’74 He does not address the question of whether or not the remembrance phrase in the words of interpretation and this OT antecedent could possibly have other meanings. There are other suggestions for the OT antecedent, which would then indicate a broader realm of possibility for the NT words of interpretation. For example, the showbread memorial may refer to the smoke, a symbol of the offerer’s prayers of thanksgiving for God’s divine provision of bread. The meaning of memorial then would be thanksgiving to God, not a request for action by God. Another meaning could draw from the grain offering in Leviticus 2. The memorial in this case refers to the frankincense, a type which points to what is preserved through trial and fire. The memorial then would point to the offerer’s remembrance of God’s ongoing acts of deliverance and preservation, such as Israel through the Exodus, or Jesus’ own death and Resurrection. This is compatible with Kiuchi’s view that a better translation for this offering is ‘the loyalty offering’ since ‘its purpose was to express one’s allegiance to the Lord.’75 The meaning of memorial then would be a mixture of recognition by the worshiper of God’s previous acts, and expectation of God’s ongoing acts. Jeremias concludes that the OT antecedent memorial refers only to an appeal to God to accept the offerer. He proceeds from this narrow perspective to interpret similarly both phrases, eivj avna,mnhsin and eivj mnhmo,sunon, and concludes that the words of interpretation mean, ‘This do, that God may 72 Jeremias also notes an occurrence in the Wisdom of Solomon 16:6, where the expression refers to people remembering the commandments of God. Ibid., 246. 73 LXX Exod 17:14; Esth 1:1; 2:23; 9:32; 10:2; Ps 111(112):6; Isa 66:3; NT Matt 26:13; Mark 14:9; Acts 10:4. Jeremias also notes e.g., Eccl 45:9, 11, 16; 50:16; 1 Enoch 99:3; 97:7; 103:4. Ibid., 247. 74 Ibid., 244. Marshall, Supper, 89–90, disagrees, because in the OT passages where God is doing the remembering, God is mentioned explicitly, and that the more natural reading of the text is that the disciples would ‘do this’ so that they would remember Jesus and ‘the significance of his death for them.’ 75 Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, Leviticus, Apollos Old Testament Commentary 3 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007), 68. Kiuchi’s rationale includes noting that though grain is the main ingredient it is not unique to this offering, that this offering incorporates the idea of reminding, the offering size is small and not the significant issue, and the text specifies a soul #$pene as the agent of this offering. The offering is a gift to the Lord, who receives a token portion, and the rest is eaten by the priest. All that the offerer gives is for others. And, the whole being of the offerer belongs to the Lord, as seen in how the token portion is ‘substitutionary for the entire offering.’ John Currid, A Study Commentary on Leviticus (Webster, New York: Evangelical, 2004), 38.

Blessing in the Remembrance Paradigm

­199

remember me.’76 Jeremias sees God as the only one doing the remembering. And, based upon a prayer in the Passover haggadah which appeals to God for the appearance of the Messiah, the appeal of the words of interpretation is for the parousia.77 While this connotation is most likely valid, Jeremias’ view does not capture the full meaning of remembrance. Just as he did with the meaning of ‘bless,’ Jeremias limits remembrance to be unidirectional. While the remembrance motif does incorporate the dimension of intercession favored by Jeremias, the entire concept of remembrance cannot be simplified to this one aspect. 6.2.2.4 People of God remembering Wainwright agrees that Jeremias’ view has a certain credibility, but it is not the whole story.78 He notes, for example, how Israel is the subject of remembering in Exodus 13:3-10, that ‘the combined feast of the passover and unleavened bread…is to serve Israel’s remembering of the day of the deliverance from Egypt.’79 He describes a dual nature of remembrance which ‘serves to remind the faithful of the past mercies of God as a ground for their present obedience but also enables them to recall before God past promises and deeds in thanksgiving and in prayer for new blessings.’80 Wainwright brings this view of remembrance to bear on his focus of eschatology, showing how the dimensions of past, present, and future are all at work, even as we observed in the remembrance motif. Jesus said, ‘Do this in memory of me.’ It is Christ himself who is commemorated, and Christ is not only clothed with all that he did at his first coming but is also the one who is to come again.…The church recalls before the Father in thanksgiving the first coming of Christ and prays for the second coming of Christ in final fulfillment of that promise. And because the Blessed Trinity is Lord of time, the one Christ who came and who is to come can come even now at the eucharist in answer to the church’s prayer in partial fulfillment of the promise and therefore as its strengthening…At every eucharist…if the Father ‘merely’ sends his Son in the sacramental mode we have at least a taste of that future.81

Wainwright’s wording supports our view that the Feast is the place, according to the remembrance paradigm, where God will come. Hays focuses on the latter dimension of remembrance as he looks to Paul’s purpose of addressing how Corinthian believers are to conduct themselves between the Lord’s first and second coming. The church is doing

76 Jeremias, Words, 252, italics his. 77 Ibid., 252. 78 Wainwright, Eucharist, 81–2. 79 Ibid., 83, italics his. 80 Ibid., 83. 81 Ibid., 84-85, italics his; cf. Rev 22:13-21 which weaves together the timelessness of God, spiritual nourishment for believers, and the coming of Jesus.

200

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

the remembering in the meanwhile. From this perspective, Paul’s message emphasizes the meal’s impact of reminding the church of Jesus’ death: the proclamation of Jesus’ death (v.26) occurs in and for the community of faith. This interpretation of ‘remembrance’ is also consonant with readings that link the Lord’s Supper with Passover: according to Exodus 12:14, Passover is to be ‘a day of remembrance for you,’ a day in which Israel recalls God’s deliverance of his people from bondage. In the same way, the Lord’s Supper is to be an occasion for the people of God to remember God’s action of deliverance through Jesus’ death.82

Hays’ description of the Lord’s Supper in terms of Passover supports our view that in the new Passover, the Feast, avna,mnhsij is the expression of rkazF. What God’s people are remembering is not only all of God’s works in the literal freeing and forming of Israel, but even more their typological fulfillment, the freedom and transformation believers have in Christ. Fitzmyer also looks to Passover as the appropriate referent for the words of interpretation use of remembrance,83 therefore the believers are the subject of the remembering. The object is Jesus, who is to be understood in light of the Passover referent. ‘As Jesus has substituted himself for the Passover lamb (recall 5:7), so the memento of him is to replace the anamnesis of Passover itself.’84 Fitzmyer like Hays draws upon the context of the Corinthian letter and points out that ‘Paul is concerned to affirm the cultic nature of the eating of this bread and the drinking of this cup (v.26), which have been consecrated by the Lord’s words.’85 Fitzmyer does not elaborate on this point, but his statement does bring together the concepts of remembrance and blessing. The Lord’s words of blessing at the Last Supper have a continuing effect on the Corinthians’ cultic event involving bread and wine, the event of remembrance. This is consistent with our previous study in section 4 Blessing in Mark. Fitzmyer does elaborate that the results of such blessed remembrance are ‘to give the participants a share through faith in what God has promised will be implemented through the saving death of Jesus.’86 Fitzmyer does not explain why his understanding of the concept of remembrance includes this dynamic of sharing, or encountering, blessing. Our current study, through types, motifs, allusions, and paradigms, is providing a more specific scripturally founded description of the benefits or blessings of ‘what God has promised.’ 82 Richard Hays, First Corinthians, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox, 1997), 199. 83 He cites in addition to Exod 12:14 and 13:3, Deuteronomy 16:3d, ‘so that you may remember all the days of your life the day when you came out of the land of Egypt.’ Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 441. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid. 86 Fitzmyer, Corinthians, 441.

Blessing in the Remembrance Paradigm

­201

Thiselton suggests a biblical basis for a balanced view of remembrance, emphasizing neither extreme of a meaning which is limited to ‘an exclusively subjective mental…recollection’ nor a meaning which is an ‘exaggerated… “reenactment”.’87 Remembrance is not simply to call…to mind but to assign…an active role within one’s ‘world.’ ‘To remember’ God (cf. Deut 8:18; Judg 8:34; Ps 22:7) is to engage in worship, trust, and obedience, just as ‘to forget’ God is to turn one’s back on him. Failure to remember is not absent-mindedness but unfaithfulness to the covenant and disobedience. ‘Remembering’ the gospel tradition (Rom 15:15; 1 Cor 15:3) or ‘remembering’ Christian leaders (Acts 20:31; Heb 13:7) transforms attitude and action. To ‘remember’ the poor is to relieve their needs.88

Thiselton’s view seems to emphasize the human action side of remembrance. However, this view taken in isolation would result in the same unidirectional problem as Jeremias, only from the other side. Human commitment and activity play a role, but is not descriptive of the entirety of remembrance which we have uncovered in Scripture. 6.2.2.5 Remembrance involves both God and his people Fee agrees that OT remembrance is not solely mental, but active, both on God’s part and on humans’ part. The NT meaning must reflect this background. ‘What Jesus intended lies within the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread.… Jesus is now reconstituting the “memorial” for the true Israel that will gather around the table in his name to “remember” its own deliverance through him.’89 Fee underscores that the community remembers in Christ’s name. Daniel Siegel, MD, psychiatrist, studies the workings of the human brain from both medical and psychological viewpoints. He offers a brief, helpful definition of memory which is congruous with the biblical and theological viewpoint expounded here. ‘Memory is the way past events affect future function.’90 Such function is dependent not on thought and will alone, but on identity, and upon identity within community. This supports our view that God’s acts of freeing and forming a people for himself, as well as his people’s appropriation of those acts, are both integral aspects of remembrance. Both God and his people are active agents in the remembrance of the Feast. Eising sees the concept of covenant as undergirding this mutuality in remembrance. He notes how people’s remembrance and God’s remembrance

87 Thiselton, Corinthians, 879. 88 Ibid. 89 Fee, Corinthians, 553. 90 Daniel Siegel, The Developing Mind: How Relationships and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are (New York: Guilford, 1999), 24.

202

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

are rooted in covenant and evidence action.91 ‘The fundamental bond of mutual remembrance that unites God and man leads further to the observation that the covenant idea is obviously also important in this context.’92 Such mutual remembrance incorporates a proper balance of both blessing and thanksgiving. Though our study has focused upon expounding a scriptural theology undergirding proper expectation of God’s effectual blessing through the remembrance rite, this need not detract from maintaining a healthy, balanced view of thanksgiving in the Eucharist. Both blessing and thanksgiving are not just moments within but are dimensions of the remembrance paradigm. As we noted in section 4.4.1, the terms euvloge,w and euvcariste,w each have an emphasis. The first primarily concerns God’s role of divine intervention with power. The latter primarily concerns the community’s manner of relating to God in that context. Neither is limited to a singular element in the paradigm because of the wholistic nature of the rite, as we noted with Bieler and Schmemann at the end of 5.2.1. We also just noted this pattern of relational exchange in 6.2.2.3 and 6.2.2.4. God remembers and acts, and in the remembrance paradigm the people of God rehearse God’s identity and previous acts and encounter him afresh. Dimensions of such rehearsal, as we saw in 5.1.2 and 5.1.3, include thanksgiving and proclaiming God’s nature and works in right worship. So, in the unique phrases of both the OT and the NT, remembrance happens upon God’s initiative, and is rooted in God’s nature, but is not God’s activity alone. In the context of right worship, remembrance is the response of God’s people, and the occasion for transformational blessing. In the context of the words of interpretation, then, to ‘remember’ Christ is not only to be ‘there’ at the cross, thankfully to appropriate Christ’s death, and to allow this redemptive event to constitute, shape, and transform individual and corporate identity of the persons and community who are his ‘body’ (1 Corinthians 12) with an eschatological goal…; it is also to ‘remember’ in the sense of pleading guilty, and pleading the body and blood of Christ under the weight of judgment and the glory of promise.93

So, both the OT and the NT have unique phrases which present God as both the subject and object of remembrance, and that remembrance is not just cognitive but effectual. Another parallel between OT and NT remembrance is their shared emphasis on God’s nature. These shared factors indicate that remembrance can be treated in a unified way intertextually.

91 e.g., people – Exod 13:3; 20:8; Num 15:39; Deut 5:15; 7:18; 8:2, 18; 9:7; 15:15; 16:3, 12; 24:18, 22; 32:7; Josh 1:13; 1 Chron 16:12; Neh 9:17; Ps 78:42; 103:18; 105:5; 106:7; 119:52; 143:5; Isa 46:8; 63:11; Ezek 6:9; 36:31; Mal 4:4; God – Jer 14:21; Ps 74:2; Gen 9:15; Lev 26:45; Ezek 16:60; Exod 2:24; 6:5; Ps 105:8; 1 Chr 16:15; Ps 106:45; 111:5. Eising, ‘rkazF zakhar,’ TDOT 4:67–70. 92 Ibid., 4:70. 93 Thiselton, Corinthians, 881.

Blessing in the Remembrance Paradigm

­203

6.3 Summary In this section we have described remembrance in terms of a scriptural paradigm. It is a nexus which links blessing with remembrance. It is a paradigm which is typological, which is inherent to right worship, to which all biblical observances of Passover conform, as do other biblical instances of remembrance linked with blessing. We described some ways, such as shepherding images and the usages of bread and wine, which additionally link the Last Supper to the paradigm. We then looked at the paradigm from the perspective of its emphasis on the identification of God, the bidirectional nature of remembrance, and how these are parallel in both the OT and the NT. So, based upon the Passover nature of the Last Supper, both subtle more obvious allusions, and the parallels between OT and NT remembrance, dimensions and messages integral to the OT remembrance motif continue to speak and inform our understanding of the Feast. The Feast is a manifestation of a paradigm which extends back to the Exodus and reaches forward along a trajectory which points to ongoing blessing. The Feast is the place where God’s people gather to rightly remember him according to his name, ultimately expressed in Christ. Based upon all of the paradigmatic evidence, God’s people can expect God to come and to bless in this context.94 This paradigm for remembrance and blessing was encoded into the features of Passover, elaborated through the details of the Sinai sacrificial system, expanded upon by the prophets through subsequent situations and eras, encapsulated in an amended form by Jesus at the Last Supper, and continues to be the divine pattern for encountering the transformational presence of God. The force of all the previous sections about the persistence of the Exodus 20:24 paradigm is that the divine power which is described in the biblical text is not a cognitive message alone, but because of the coming of God’s presence during the ongoing manifestation of the paradigm, that divine power retains effectual impact in the Feast. We have come to the place where we can state an answer to our overarching question of ‘Why?’ which arises from Paul’s exhortation, ‘Let us celebrate the

94 It would be interesting to investigate the meaning of ‘until he comes’ further in light of the remembrance/coming/blessing paradigm. The meaning of ‘coming’ may well include a canonical deeper meaning in addition to the more obvious reference to the future eschatological second coming. From a realized eschatology standpoint, the ‘coming’ could be more immediate in response to the proclamation or remembrance. Kilpatrick, Eucharist, 13–15, looks to katagge,llw (1 Cor 11:26) to explain avna,mnhsij (1 Cor 11:25), also referring to how the LXX relates proclamation to remembrance in Exod 23:23, Amos 6:10, and Ps 14:17 (14:18). A related passage is ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’ (Mark 11:9), an ancient liturgical proclamation associated with the Eucharist. Here again blessing, coming, and the name of the Lord are associated. The MT for Psalm 118:26 hwhy refers more directly to the coming of God, while the LXX which Mark cites (LXX 117:26 ku,rioj) is a more general reference to Lord. Could ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of God’ in a eucharistic setting actually refer to the coming of Jesus, the blessed one and the source of blessing, into the midst of believers?

204

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Feast.’ The answer is because the Feast is God’s divinely designed pattern for encountering his presence and transformational blessings. What might some of these specific blessings be? Now that we have examined a great range of linkages between OT antecedents, the Last Supper, and the Feast, we can articulate potential benefits of remembrance according to the divinely-designed paradigm. Section 7 will survey each of the prior sections and gather a list of specific blessings associated with the Feast.

7 Survey of Blessings The purpose of section 7 is to glean from the previous sections a more particular catalogue of the blessings associated with proper participation in the Feast. Approaching Scripture with our Scriptural Theology method and tools, we have discovered blessings which carry forward through the amended Passover meal of the Last Supper and into the Feast. Allusions to Isaiah’s Servant and the OT sacrificial system, the remembrance motif, and the remembrance paradigm all provide links to blessings which carry forward into the Feast and which may be appropriated there. ‘Let us celebrate the feast’ (1 Cor 5:8). Why? Because, in this bread and wine rite believers partake of the antitype of the OT sacrificial system and can appropriate the benefits of the person and work of Christ. Because, in this breaking of bread believers can expect to encounter the persistent and effective power of God. Because, at this remembrance rite God promises to come and bless his people in ways that are consistent with his nature as evidenced at antecedent remembrance occasions. The answer to our question is rooted in the formation of God’s people in Exodus, and it affects the ongoing Feast of NT believers. An inquiry spanning such a range has required an interpretive method which approaches the Bible according to general hermeneutics, to shed light upon its historical and literary meaning, and also according to special hermeneutics, to shed light upon canonical meaning received by the church. This blend of Biblical Theology and Theological Reading of Scripture we have called Scriptural Theology. This method has incorporated the hermeneutical tools of typology, motifs, allusions, paradigms, and trajectories. Such a scriptural study of passages related to Passover, especially texts in Exodus, Mark, and 1 Corinthians, reveals justification for expecting persisting and effectual eucharistic benefits. Such benefits can be specified based upon allusions to Isaiah in the words of interpretation, upon a comprehensive understanding of the concept of blessing in Mark’s treatment of the feeding miracles and the words of institution, upon the remembrance motif within an Exodus framework, and upon the intertextual scriptural pattern for remembrance. These blessings can be summarized by the themes freedom and formation. Given the Scriptural Theology method described in section 1, the Passover nature of the Last Supper as described in section 2, the textual shape of

206

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

the words of institution and interpretation as described in section 3, the bidirectional and persisting nature of blessing in Mark as described in section 4, the remembrance motif as described in section 5, and the remembrance paradigm as described in section 6, it is possible to identify specific benefits which are associated with the Feast. Pulling all of these threads together, we can offer a catalogue of some of the blessings that come from faithful eucharistic participation. We will accumulate our list by revisiting focal points along our journey and gathering from each the specific blessings which are linked to the Feast at that point. We will revisit the allusions to Isaiah in the words of interpretation, the words of institution concept of blessing which is illumined by the feeding miracles in Mark, the Exodus remembrance motif, and the remembrance paradigm.

7.1 Blessings associated with the Feast through words of interpretation allusions Informed by Scriptural Theology messages from allusions to Isaiah in the words of interpretation,1 the Feast can be understood as the remembrance of Christ’s work of atonement, a blessing for the many, to be appropriated by each believer as they obey, ‘Take…this is…for you.’ The words of interpretation allude not only to the guilt offering, but to the broader sacrificial system as a whole. This system is replete with types which point to Christ. This is the one whose body and blood are identified with bread and wine. This is the one whom believers encounter in the remembrance rite when it is observed properly in his name. The bread and wine speak of the myriad instructional details in the sacrificial system which illuminate the person and work of the one who will come and bless believers in the context of the Feast. Therefore, these christological typological details contribute to our catalogue and indicate specific blessings such as: the forgiveness of sins (including human beings’ sinful nature, the penalty of sins, and the offense caused by sin); being brought near to God; cleansed conscience; covenantal relationship; nourishment both physical and spiritual; union with God; knowing God is fully satisfied in Christ; and believers being fully satisfied in Christ.

7.2 Blessings associated with the Feast through the feeding miracles Informed by Scriptural Theology messages from our more comprehensive understanding of the concept of blessing in Mark, we see that blessing continues to be effectual into the ongoing Feast. 1 See especially sections 1.2.2.2 and 3.2.2.

Survey of Blessings

­207

Combining the Exodus background of God’s provision of actual sustenance, Mark’s linkage of the feeding miracles with the Last Supper, and Paul’s exhortations regarding meal practices, one blessing of the Feast is provision for physical needs. This blessing may manifest immediately, or may be in latent form, a promise of God to be realized afterward. Such provision may be in the form of an actual meal, the leading of the Spirit to participate in meeting the needs of others, or the manifestation of a new job. A related blessing comes with the accompanying recognition of Jesus as the worker of miracles, the source of the provision. Unlike the disciples in the boat, who missed this truth, believers at the Feast can come into a greater awareness of who Jesus is, which is a more spiritual kind of nourishment, including greater trust and hope when future needs arise.

7.3 motif

Blessings associated with the Feast through the remembrance

Paul is explicit that ‘Do this’ properly requires ‘remembrance of me.’ Many blessings are directly associated with proper remembrance. Paul notes the consequences of when the people of God fail to remember God rightly. From this we can deduce blessings that arise from properly keeping the Feast, such as a more unified community and healing. Informed by Scriptural Theology messages from the OT remembrance motif within an Exodus framework, we see that blessings of freedom and formation begin with God. As God remembers his covenant with his people, he acts to ensure their freedom and to form them into a people for himself. God then involves his people in remembrance through means such as a mobile rite, worshipful invocation of his name, records of his revelations, consecrated sites and times. God meets this involvement with blessings such as divinely accomplished deliverance, victory over enemies, Sabbath rest, his own presence and self revelation, meeting the cost of atonement, responding to intercession, and reassurance of renewed covenant acceptance. The blessing of freedom is broad-reaching in the life of the Christian.2 Freedom from sin means freedom from both the death that it causes spiritually and its various bondages that hinder vitality and holiness. The Feast is not only an opportunity to thank God for his initial saving acts of grace but also a place to appropriate his power to gain the victory over sinful behaviors and to be healed of the inner wounds caused by sin. This victory and healing is transformational. Freedom does not end with exiting the domain of death.

2 The message of freedom at the Feast arises from Exodus freedom from bondage, Passover freedom from death, freedom from enemies as in Exod 17, freedom from the penalty of sin as in Isaiah 53, and Mark’s feeding miracles’ freedom from want and deception. This message of freedom continues into the NT, e.g., John 8:36; Rom 5:14-15; 6:17-18; 7:24-25; 8:1-4; 2 Cor 3:17; Gal 5:1, 13.

208

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Freedom is also entrance into abundant life, a life formed by God’s grace to be pleasing in his sight. The blessing of such formation is typologically portrayed in the remembrance motif by God’s victory over Amalek (Exod 17:13-16), Esau’s son, and Amalekites, his descendants. Amalekites are a type of the ramifications of when Christians do not esteem their inheritance, when they hand over their birthright in Christ all too easily for the temporary and immediate gratifications of sin (cf. Heb 12:16). Remembrance blessings include encountering the God who is the banner of victory over such loss and shame and pain. The Feast is a place where God comes to reform a conscience from heavy and guilty to light and clear, to reform a character from compromising to Christlike. Remembrance blessings include encountering the God who created all things and then consecrated a time for rest. This is a rest of fullness and satisfaction. The Feast is an opportunity to rest in God, to recognize the full satisfaction of atonement in Christ, to offer thanks for the work of re-creation by the power of his Spirit, to relax in the sufficiency of Jesus and cease from works-righteousness (cf. Heb 4:9-11). The Feast is a time for God to reform, to re-orient, his people in holiness. Remembrance blessings are not only for individual benefit, but also for corporate benefit. The names of the tribes of Israel were not brought into God’s presence one at a time; rather, they form a corporate memorial (Exod 28:12, 29). Gathered together, believers access God’s presence corporately (Matt 18:20; cf. Ps 22:3; Heb 10:25). The Feast is one of many venues for prayer and intercession, yet the remembrance motif and Moses’ example (Exod 32:13-14) provide precedent to expect this corporate gathering to be a setting for especially effective intercession. It is a blessing to be able to approach God with confidence and with the agreement of the community. Such intercession sows the seeds for yet further answered prayers and blessings. Another blessing is participation in God’s process of answering others’ needs.

7.4 Blessings associated with the Feast through the remembrance paradigm God divinely designed and initiated this corporate pattern for remembrance and blessing. Informed by Scriptural Theology messages from OT antecedents, we see that the blessings of freedom and formation begin with God, yet also involve the people of God rightly remembering. Exodus 20:24 encapsulates this pattern. God promises that in every place where he causes his name to be remembered, he will come and bless. This pattern for right worship integrates remembrance with encountering God’s presence and his blessing. This pattern grows out of the transcultural and transtemporal ten commandments, recurs through every biblical account of a Passover observance, and also expands into other manifestations of worship. These ongoing manifestations indicate a trajectory which points forward to the Last

Survey of Blessings

­209

Supper and the Feast. Such a pervasive pattern reflects a divinely intended design for how God desires to relate to his people in worship. The pattern is paradigmatic. The OT manifestations are the Vorbild; the believers’ Feast is the Nachbild. Further, even the believers’ Feast is the Vorbild for the future eschatological Feast, the ultimate Nachbild for encountering God. When believers conform to the remembrance paradigm, as directed by Christ in the words of interpretation, there is scriptural justification for expecting to encounter God at the Feast. The OT antecedents to the Last Supper and Feast reveal specific blessings which are associated with encountering God through Passover observances as well as other manifestations of this paradigm. The first manifestation of the pattern subsequent to its explicit encapsulation in Exodus 20:24 is the Mosaic covenant meal. Here God’s people receive the blessing of perceiving a vision of God (Exod 24:10). This peace offering also points to the blessings of communion with God, his full satisfaction in Christ, and his people’s full satisfaction in him. The blood of the covenant applies to both the altar and the people (Exod 24:6). Christ shed his blood on the Cross as perfect human to satisfy perfectly God’s justice. Christ’s blood is the antitype not only for the blood of the peace offering, but also for all of the blood of the old covenant sacrificial system. The words of interpretation identify this covenant blood with the eucharistic wine. Christ’s body is the antitype not only for the peace offering, but also for all of the bodies and bread of the sacrificial system. The words of interpretation identify these with the eucharistic bread. The blessings associated with the types of this manifestation of the remembrance paradigm are infused into the remembrance of the antitype at the Feast. Paul uses the concept of the peace offering to refer to the ongoing remembrance rite of the Feast (cf. 1 Cor 10:18, 21), including the blessing of sharing in Christ himself (1 Cor 10:16). At the Feast, believers encounter God through yet another manifestation of the remembrance paradigm at a covenant meal. In this continuing context, believers can expect God to come and bless in like manner, with visions of God, encountering and being in communion with his presence, being fully satisfied in Christ, and knowing God is fully satisfied in Christ. The canonical record selects six observances of Passover for which to provide narratives, and all of them conform to the remembrance paradigm. Each gives insight into blessings linked with such remembrance. The initial Passover (Exod 12), which evidences the pattern in germ even before its explicit articulation, reveals that in the context of remembrance God comes and blesses his people with divinely accomplished deliverance. The second observance of Passover (Num 9) includes the blessing of God’s glory coming to dwell with his people. The third observance (Josh 5) includes the blessings of celebrating God’s fulfillment of his promise to bring his people into a land of abundance, and encountering God’s self revelation as the one who removes reproach. The fourth (2 Chr 30) includes the blessings of overflowing communal joy, and healing in response to intercession. The fifth (2 Kings 23; 2 Chr 35) includes the blessings of order successfully being restored to God’s

210

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

house and to worship. The sixth observance of Passover (Ezra 6) includes the blessing of God causing those who have been exiled to come together in his presence and experience joy. The account of Gideon (Judges 6) is another manifestation of the remembrance paradigm. God comes with the blessings of peace, empowerment by the Spirit of the Lord, transformation from a defeated people to a victorious people, transformation from fear to courage, and from inaction to action. The manifestation of the remembrance paradigm in Numbers 6 includes the description of how God may use others in the community to convey his blessing. The manifestation of the remembrance paradigm in Solomon’s prayer (1 Kings 8; 2 Chron 6) includes the blessings of forgiveness, restoration, instruction, provision, victory, deliverance, God’s enduring presence, obedient hearts, daily requirements, and the conversion of all peoples.

7.5 Summary In this section we have revisited our previous sections, taking note of the blessings we uncovered along our journey. Not every blessing necessarily applies to every person at every observance of the Feast. The biblical record shows that God comes and manifests blessings variously in the context of remembrance. So, this is best understood as a survey of some blessings that may potentially be appropriated from faithful participation in the Feast. The phenomenon of remembrance in worship reaches from the OT Exodus to the NT Last Supper and Feast. God’s design for remembrance integrates it with his coming and blessing. When observed rightly as a remembrance rite, the Feast is an occasion where believers can expect to encounter God’s presence and appropriate blessings whose scope is both individual and corporate, and which can be summarized by the themes of freedom and formation. Our next section will bring our journey to a conclusion by offering these blessings in the form of a list, perhaps one that could even be used by a believer as he or she prepares to participate in the Feast, to bolster faith and lift expectations based upon scriptural evidence. Again in a way that is consistent to our Scriptural Theology method, having asked questions such as, ‘What was God revealing about himself through the details of the historic instances of Passover, and through their inscripturation?’, a believer could approach the Feast asking, ‘Father, what are you doing at this Feast?’ (cf. John 5:19) and ‘God, what scriptural blessing have you designed for my encounter with you in this place of remembrance?’ The next section will also complete our journey by offering comments related to this study’s conclusions, original contributions, strengths and limitations, and implications for further investigation.

­

Conclusion The benefits of the Feast ‘Let us keep the feast.’ Why? In Scripture, we have discovered four primary reasons. First, the Feast is an opportunity to appropriate the benefits of the person and work of Christ. Second, the Feast is an occasion to encounter God’s persisting divine power. Third, the Feast is a place where God promises to come and bless his people. Fourth, corporate and individual blessings are related to this remembrance rite. From sections 3 through 6, we can accumulate a list of specific blessings Scripture links with the Feast: Words of interpretation allusions the forgiveness of sins (Isa 53:10-12; Zech 13; including human beings’ sinful nature, penalty for sins, and offense caused by sin); being brought near to God; cleansed conscience; covenantal relationship (Lev 1-7); Feeding miracles nourishment both physical and spiritual; union with God; satisfaction in God; actual provision for physical needs; participating in meeting the needs of others; greater awareness of who Jesus is; trust, hope (Mark 6:31-52; 8:1-21); Remembrance motif a more unified community; healing (1 Cor 11:17-34); divinely accomplished deliverance (Exod 12:14 Passover); victory over enemies; cleansed conscience; a character reformed from compromising to Christlike (Exod 17:13-16 Amalekites); rest in God and full satisfaction of atonement in Christ; an opportunity to offer thanks for the work of re-creation by the power of the Spirit, to enjoy and relax in the sufficiency of Jesus and cease from works-righteousness (Exod 20:8-11 Sabbath); God’s own presence and self revelation; shared communal worship encounters; communal intercession; participation in God’s process of answering the needs of others (Exod 28:12, 29 twelve stones); the cost of atonement paid (Exod 30:16); answered intercession (Exod 32:13 Moses); reassurance of renewed covenant acceptance (Exod 39:7); Remembrance paradigm visions of God; encountering and being in communion with his presence; knowing God is fully satisfied in Christ; believers being fully satisfied in Christ (Exod 24 peace offering covenant meal); 6 Passovers: divinely accomplished deliverance (Exod 12); God’s glory coming to dwell with

212

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings his people (Num 9); celebrating God’s fulfillment of his promise to bring his people into a land of abundance; encountering God’s self-revelation as the one who removes reproach (Josh 5); overflowing communal joy; and healing in response to intercession (2 Chr 30 Hezekiah); order successfully restored to God’s house and to worship (2 Kings 23; 2 Chr 35 Josiah); those who have been exiled coming together in his presence and experiencing joy (Ezra 6);

Other manifestations of the paradigm peace; empowerment by the Spirit; transformation from a defeated people to a victorious people; transformation from fear to courage, and from inaction to action (Judges 6 Gideon); forgiveness; restoration; instruction; provision; victory; deliverance; God’s enduring presence; obedient hearts; daily requirements; and the conversion of all peoples (1 Kings 8; 2 Chr 6 Solomon’s prayer).

These blessings can be summarized by the themes freedom and formation.

Original contribution to knowledge This study makes an original contribution to knowledge by articulating eucharistic blessings with greater specificity than has been done before based upon scriptural evidence. We have broken ground in new territory, uncovering a wealth of material which supports the view that there is great benefit to the Feast, and therefore there is reason for it to have a prominent place in the life of the church. In the course of making our arguments to this end, this study encompasses several original contributions to the field of eucharistic studies. First, it brings the current discussion of the Theological Reading of Scripture to bear on the topic of the Eucharist, a topic which has not received widespread academic attention in recent decades. Secondly, it contributes to meeting the current need for a deeper biblical basis for eucharistic belief and practice. As we noted at the outset, ‘If the rising sacramentalism observed in this period is to be sustained in later decades, the process of theological reflection and integration must also continue.’1 This study contributes to that process. A third original contribution of this study is that it suggests an interpretive method called Scriptural Theology as a hybrid of Biblical Theology and Theological Reading of Scripture. Scriptural Theology suggests clarified guidelines for determining biblical meaning. These guidelines include an order of authority, the starting point of the nature of God, and scriptural trajectories. Fourthly, this study builds upon Cullen Story’s work and presents an explanation of the Johannine Last Supper chronology issue, thus strengthening the position that the Last Supper is a properly timed Passover meal. 1 Cocksworth, Evangelical, 11.

Conclusion

­213

Fifthly, this study examines in detail the concept of blessing in Mark as it relates to the Feast, and identifies it as an overarching, persistent, and bidirectional dynamic. A scriptural understanding of eucharistic blessing goes beyond the giving of thanks by the community of faith; it also encompasses effective encounters with God. Sixthly, employing the Scriptural Theology method, this study uncovers motif and paradigmatic antecedents in the OT relevant to understanding the NT concept of remembrance and its relationship with blessing. This study discovers scriptural linkages which reveal blessings that can be associated with proper observance of the Feast. Finally, this study brings together all of these features and provides a survey of specific blessings which can inform not only our understanding of the Feast, but our experience of it as well. Based upon Scripture, a believer can approach the Feast expecting to encounter God in life-changing ways.

Conclusions throughout our study In section 1, we determined that our topic spanned both historical-literary and canonical-communal data. We concluded that a blend of Biblical Theology and Theological Reading of Scripture would be the best way to proceed, and we named this method Scriptural Theology. We determined that the current discussion of Theological Reading of Scripture is still in its initial stages and further guidelines were necessary to keep interpretation properly bounded within such a hybrid approach, such as a proper line of authority, the nature of God, and trajectories arising from within Scripture. We concluded that our combination of question and method is innovative in the field of eucharistic studies. In the past, eucharistic study has been characterized more narrowly within areas such as NT biblical study or dogmatic studies. This study integrated insights from OT studies, NT studies, a canonical reading of Scripture according to the rule of faith, and contemporary interests of the church. The nature of this study therefore bridged the gap between the academy and the church which characterized much of the modernistic period. In section 2, we concluded that in order to have a stronger link between the relevant OT and NT texts, it was necessary to establish the Passover nature of the Last Supper. Previous authors had done much to defend this viewpoint, but the issue of the Johannine Last Supper chronology had been left largely unresolved. We built on the work of Cullen Story and, based on linguistic data, concluded that all four gospels report the Last Supper as a properly timed Passover meal. This strengthens the claim that the Feast is best understood in light of OT antecedents regarding Exodus and Passover. In section 3, we concluded that Mark’s account provides the bulk of the oldest form of the words of institution and interpretation available to us, and that the other accounts supplement this original form. We concluded that this original form did include the remembrance command, that the ‘for many’

214

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

phrase links the words of interpretation with Isaiah as well as OT typology, and that liturgical developments such as ‘for you’ indicate an early beginning to a trajectory of personal appropriation. In section 4, we concluded that an expectation of effectual benefits at the Feast is valid based upon how the feeding miracles inform the words of institution concept of blessing. We determined that believers can anticipate, in the context of the breaking of bread rite, encountering blessing as a persisting divine power. We concluded that the concept of blessing is bidirectional and cannot be understood simply as humans offering praise to God. It also includes blessing from God, which is the predominant sense in the feeding miracles. Our examination of linguistic and grammatical details showed that the concept of blessing at the Last Supper has an ongoing and effectual nature. We concluded that a better translation for the words of institution includes the phrase ‘Taking bread while blessing, he broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take.”’ This words of interpretation command is for God’s people to continue to ‘Take,’ and the scriptural message is that while they do so, they can expect blessing to continue. This expectation is bolstered by our next conclusion; that is, that the Feast is an occasion for God’s coming and blessing. We based this conclusion on how OT Exodus antecedents, in both motif and paradigmatic forms, enlighten our understanding of the Last Supper concept of remembrance. In section 5 we determined that the remembrance motif in Exodus persists through the Last Supper and the Feast, and therefore the blessings associated with it do as well. Next, in section 6, we identified a pattern for this remembrance, a paradigm of God’s divinely-initiated design to interact with his people in worship. We determined that this paradigm consistently manifests itself through all of the biblical accounts of Passover observances, as well as through other worship settings. We concluded that the Last Supper and the ongoing Feast continue along this trajectory of encountering God through the remembrance paradigm. The Feast is therefore a place where God promises to come and bless his people. Based upon our approach that the message of Scripture will cohere with the God who inspired Scripture, and his nature is constant, and that therefore scriptural messages are constant, we concluded that the messages revealed through the intertextual study of blessing and remembrance describe benefits of proper participation in the ongoing Feast. In section 7, we surveyed the scriptural messages arising from these NT and OT antecedents to the words of institution and interpretation and provided a catalogue of specific blessings associated with the remembrance rite of the Feast. We determined some of these messages based upon allusions to Isaiah in the words of interpretation. These allusions combine with the wording of identification, ‘This my body…given…This my blood…poured out.’ We concluded that the bread and wine are therefore linked with christological typology arising not only from the Servant, but also from the guilt offering, and the OT sacrificial system as a whole. Our catalogue of specific blessings

Conclusion

­215

associated with participating in the bread and wine ritual therefore began with a sampling of the benefits of participating in the person and work of Christ, namely: the forgiveness of sins (including human beings’ sinful nature, penalty for sins, and offense caused by sin); being brought near to God; cleansed conscience; covenantal relationship; nourishment both physical and spiritual; union with God; and, satisfaction in God. We concluded that Paul’s treatment of the Eucharist undergirds the expectation that the Feast can be a place of blessing in the form of actual provision for physical needs. The feeding miracles also indicate the related blessing of a greater awareness of who Jesus is, which is nourishment of a more spiritual kind, including greater trust and hope when future needs arise. The words of interpretation include the command to ‘Do this in remembrance,’ as a memorial of Christ. We concluded that the Feast is in line with the trajectory of encountering God’s blessings as described in the Exodus remembrance motif. Therefore, to our list of specific blessings we added: divinely accomplished deliverance, victory over enemies, Sabbath rest, God’s own presence and self revelation, meeting the cost of atonement, responding to intercession, reassurance of renewed covenant acceptance, cleansed conscience, reformed character from compromising to Christlike, rest in God, recognizing the full satisfaction of atonement in Christ, offering thanks for the work of re-creation by the power of the Spirit, enjoying and relaxing in the sufficiency of Jesus and ceasing from works-righteousness, shared communal worship encounters, communal intercession, and participation in God’s process of answering the needs of others. We also concluded that the Feast is another manifestation of the remembrance paradigm. The blessings which God came and provided for his people in the context of OT manifestations of this paradigm can therefore serve as the basis for the NT people of God’s expectations. These blessings include: visions of God, encountering and being in communion with his presence, knowing God is fully satisfied in Christ, believers being fully satisfied in Christ, God’s glory coming to dwell with his people, celebrating God’s fulfillment of his promise to bring his people into a land of abundance, encountering God’s self revelation as the one who removes reproach, overflowing communal joy, healing in response to intercession, order restored to God’s house and to worship, those who have been exiled coming together in God’s presence and experiencing joy, peace, empowerment by the Spirit, transformation from a defeated people to a victorious people, transformation from fear to courage and from inaction to action, forgiveness, restoration, instruction, provision, victory, deliverance, God’s enduring presence, obedient hearts, daily requirements, and the conversion of all peoples. In this study we discovered scriptural justification for expecting the Feast to be a place where God blesses his people with freedom and formation.

216

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Strengths and limitations This study evidences the strength of integrating insights from several valid sources, without losing its moorings in the historicity and inspiration of the biblical text. Another strength is its timely subject matter. The topic of the Eucharist has recently risen in popular interest, yet it has not received widespread academic attention in recent decades. This study’s method is academically rigorous while at the same time speaking to an issue of interest in the contemporary church, without relying upon any one distinct dogmatic starting point. Some may not be comfortable with the breadth of data siphoned into this one study. Some may be committed to perpetuating academic studies in a more separatist manner, and may not be as willing to embrace those arguments and messages in this study which arise from more innovative academic voices, such as the rule of faith, or a regained proper use of typology, or the interest of the contemporary church in the experiential component of the Eucharist. However, the complexity of our topic – engaging with the memorial rite of the people of God – has required such a broad consideration of OT material, NT material, intertextuality between books as well as testaments, and relevance to the ongoing Feast in the church. Because of the breadth of data and span of OT and NT texts considered, this study was not able to be exhaustive when considering any one text. This study may also require the reader to give more attention to grasping methodology than that which is required for books written from a purely Biblical Theology or liturgical or dogmatic starting point which is already more widely known. However, the purpose of this study has not been to produce a detailed analysis on any one passage, such as that done by commentaries of biblical books. And, the additional effort invested in method has resulted in a rich body of scriptural messages.

Implications This study provides a scriptural basis to challenge eucharistic belief and practice that limits the Feast to a cognitive dimension. This study provides the grounds for believers to approach the Feast with expectation for furthering freedom and formation, for encountering God in transformational ways. This scriptural message could serve to foster dialogue among Christians from diverse dogmatic eucharistic positions. This study also serves to clarify and strengthen the biblical moorings for those from traditions which already view the Feast as effectual in some way. The scope of this study has been limited to scriptural antecedents to the Feast which primarily are based upon blessing in Mark and remembrance in Exodus. In light of what we have seen, applying this method to other Last Supper concepts would reveal more of the innumerable benefits of keeping the Feast.

Conclusion

­217

Examples of biblical Last Supper concepts mentioned in the course of this study which could be developed in much greater detail are the concepts of Sabbath and Suffering Servant. It would also be interesting to explore early historical developments to learn if the messages discovered here persist into that era. For example, the Didache (9:1-5; 10:1-7; 14:1-3) includes eucharistic material. The Sabbath has figured into our discussion of blessing because of its role in right worship, and its nature as consecrated time to be remembered.2 Further investigation could include: the typological details of the rite of the showbread in the tabernacle to be performed every Sabbath day (Lev 24); the role of the Sabbath as a sign and as the agent in God’s self-revelation as Sanctifier (Exod 31:13-17); the recurrence of K7rfb@f blessing in contexts involving the concept of consecrated time (e.g., Gen 2:3; Exod 20:11); the link between the concepts of provision, perfection, and Sabbath (e.g., Gen 2:2-3; Exod 12:15-16; 15:27; 16:5, 22-30); and, the link between the concept of stewardship and Sabbath (e.g., Exod 23:10-12). A case could be made for the view that the Sabbath is not just a fulfilled type, but that it is a germ pointing to a means for appropriating true rest. Before the close of the NT an analogous day for Christians, the Lord’s Day, had already come into being, which suggests the concept of consecrated time maintains validity in that era.3 Jesus claims to be the Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28). When Jesus addresses the Sabbath, he does not annul it; rather, he affirms it was made for the benefit of humanity, and he himself has the authority to determine its rightful observance (Mark 2:23-28). These texts may be part of a trajectory pointing toward a preference for eucharistic worship at a time especially set apart. As with the motifs of remembrance and blessing, there is an interweaving of the motifs of Sabbath and Servant. This adds further to the mosaic of meaning which arises from all of the threads in the Last Supper texts. For example, the sabbatical concept of refreshment is also mentioned in Exodus 23:12, strengthening the claim that this is a benefit available to those who observe holy time. The term is #$panF (Exod 23:12; 31:17). #$pene and its various forms most often refer to life or soul. Seebass places the uses in Exodus 23:12 and 31:17 in the category of ‘breath,’ interpreting ‘refreshed’ to mean ‘breathe easily.’4 Seebass also treats the #$pene of God and develops more fully the view that the term is reflexive, referring to God’s relationship with himself. He cites Isaiah 42:1 where God’s own soul delights in his Servant. Pursuing this line of thought could show that the Feast is a place where God delights and where his people are refreshed. 2 Sections 1.2.3.2 and 5.1. 3 Wilfred Stott, ‘Sabbath,’ NIDNTT 3:411. Stott cites Acts 13:5, 14, 44; 14:1; 16:13; 17:2, 17; 18:4; 19:8 as evidence of Paul’s custom of preaching on the Sabbath in synagogues, and Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 as evidence of his meeting with Christians gathering on the first day of the week. Stott, ‘Sabbath,’ 410. 4 H. Seebass, ‘#$pene nepeš,’ TDOT 9:504.

218

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Mark continues this motif of the Servant/Sabbath blessing of refreshment. In Mark 1:11, God’s own voice echoes Isaiah 42:1, thereby identifying Jesus as the Servant in whom his own soul is pleased. Just as the sense of Exodus 31:17 is that God takes pleasure in his creation that followed upon the Spirit’s movement over the waters, likewise the sense of Mark 1:11 is that God takes pleasure in Jesus after the Spirit descends upon him at the waters of baptism. Here it is as if God is breathing a sigh of pride and pleasure over his Son. This motif continues at the Transfiguration with a similar proclamation by God, which follows quickly upon Peter’s proclamation of Jesus as the Christ (Mark 8:29; 9:7). This Christ is the Servant whose #$pene is poured out in Isaiah 53:12. Jesus employs a metonymic reference to this pouring-out in his words of interpretation (Mark 14:24). This intermix of concepts can be summarized by the assertion that Jesus identifies the cup with the blood of the Servant who pours out his life, breathes his last on the Cross (Mark 15:37), completes the work of redemption (‘for many’ Mark 14:24; ‘bore the sins of many’ Isa 53:12; cf. John 19:30), and satisfies the divine judgment against sin (typified by the torn veil, Mark 15:38). Jesus equates the cup with himself, the Servant who is the antitype of Sabbath rest. This rest may well be appropriated through encountering the Servant at the Feast. In addition to exploring the interweaving motifs of Sabbath and Suffering Servant, it would also be interesting to explore early historical developments to learn if the messages discovered in the biblical text persist into the literature of the next era. For example, the Didache includes eucharistic material. Do any of the concepts or motifs we have examined recur there? If so, they would bolster the scriptural trajectories we have identified do carry forward to the ongoing Feast. The Didache is a late first-century or early second-century church manual. It is not in the genre of gospel narrative, but rather conveys guidelines for the conduct of the early Christian community. ‘Our author’s primary concern is about the sort of prayers that should be offered at the meal,’5 not about providing another gospel account of the Last Supper. The fact that such a document treats eucharistic practice at all is an indication that such an observance ‘continued to be important for Christians’6 in that era. The Didache does not repeat the words of institution and interpretation, but passages relevant to eucharistic study include Did. 9:1-5; 10:1-7; 14:1-3.7 Support for the eucharistic nature of these sections includes the implications of 10:7, ‘And turn towards the prophets allowing them to eucharistize as much as they wish.’ This likely indicates a communal observation where leaders elaborate on the meaning of the eucharistic gathering. One issue to explore would be the Didache’s use of euvcariste,w. How might this align with our emphasis on euvloge,w? A study in this direction 5 Ben Witherington, Making a Meal of It (Waco: Baylor, 2007), 92. 6 Witherington, Meal, 94. 7 Aaron Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50–70 C.E. (New York: Newman, 2003), 31–5, 41.

Conclusion

­219

could consider other contemporaneous extra-canonical uses of euvcariste,w and its meanings. For example, Philo writes, ‘Every day two lambs are to be brought to the altar, one at dawn, the other toward dusk. Both these are for thanksgiving’ (Spec. 1, 169). These ‘thanksgivings’ refer to the daily offerings (Exod 29:38-43; Num 28:1-8). These passages refer not to the peace offering or thanksgiving offering, but to the burnt offering and the grain offering. Philo uses euvcariste,w in a much broader sense than the offering of thanks from humans toward God. Other sections could be investigated to learn if they are in continuity with scriptural messages we have discovered about the Feast, including allusions to the Servant (9:2, 3;10:2, 3), scattering and gathering (9:4; 10:5; 14:1), and Spirit-sent food and drink (10:3). The concept of remembrance occurs explicitly only in relation to God as the subject. The people intercede, asking God to remember, to save, perfect, and gather his church (10:5). But, since the purpose of these passages is to guide the prayers of the church in a eucharistic setting, it is not surprising that the remembrance dimension of intercession is prominent. It seems likely that further study into the Didache would confirm scriptural trajectories we have discovered in this study. In addition to further reflection on concepts such as Sabbath and Suffering Servant, and historical developments such as those in the Didache, another area for further reflection would be relating the catalogue of blessings to liturgical theology. The catalogue given at the beginning of the Conclusion can be understood as raw data, derived directly from Scripture. How might these blessings be grouped or related to theological messages provided through liturgy? One example would be to be more scripturally explicit and descriptive about the forgiveness which believers have in Christ, and the remembrance rite as a place designed by God for its appropriation. Rather than referring generally to forgiveness in an absolution, or citing general comforting words about God’s love and acceptance, our raw data provides us with the ability to be more biblically specific. Liturgical exhortations could aid participants in effectually appropriating: forgiveness for the debts or penalties of particular sins; reassurance of reconciled status with God; release from having offended God; instruction and grace to obediently seek reconciliation when necessary; and a cleansed or relieved conscience. A liturgical form for this could be: Liturgical invitation placed early in the rite. In response to God’s promise that wherever he causes his name to be remembered, he will come to us and bless us (Exod 20:24), we gather in obedience and with faith to nurture our union with Christ according to his design (Exod 24:5-11; Lev 7:11-15; John 6:47-58; 1 Cor 10:16). Here we proclaim God’s nature of love and justice and grace, and here we remember Jesus’ perfect life, his all-sufficient death on the Cross, his victorious Resurrection and Ascension, and his promise of coming again. In this place of remembrance, God’s people may ever more deeply appropriate the blessings of being in Christ.

220

A Scriptural Theology of Eucharistic Blessings

Liturgical exhortation placed near an absolution. Through the blood of Christ your communion with God can be restored and sure. This is an opportunity to appropriate forgiveness, to be set free from the penalties and bondages and shame of sin. This is an opportunity to be transformed more and more into sanctified vessels for honor (2 Tim 2:21), prepared to be useful to the Master.

Jesus as God’s Righteous Servant rendered himself a guilt offering making full restitution for the offenses of our sins, poured out himself as a sin offering fully satisfying God’s justice, sacrificed himself as a peace offering providing communion for God and his people, submitted himself as a grain offering furnishing incorruptible anointing, and suffered himself as a burnt offering ascending as a sweet aroma to God in perfect obedience. As the true Shepherd, Jesus gathers those who call on his name, refines them, answers their call, and forms them into his own people. (Isa 53:10-12; Zech 13; Lev 1-7; Mark 14:22-24; Matt 26:26-28; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-32).



Through this remembrance rite we obey God’s design, and we touch by faith this Jesus, his body and blood, encountering all these provisions of his love.



Therefore, we enter into God’s presence on the shoulders of Christ (Exod 28:12, 29; 30:16), accepting reassurance of a renewed covenant with God (Exod 39:7), and in this place we receive forgiveness for the penalties of particular sins (pause), reassurance of reconciled status with God (pause), release from having offended God (pause), instruction and grace to obediently seek reconciliation when necessary (1 Kgs 8:30, 36) (pause), and a cleansed or relieved conscience.

We recognize you, Most Holy God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as the source of these effectual blessings. We respond with heartfelt praise and thanksgiving, saying, (all together) Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come (Rev. 4:8), the great I Am. We remember your love shown in Jesus Christ, and we trust in this moment in this place you are remembering your covenant and pouring out these blessings according to your wisdom and mercy. Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to you, O God, as we clothe ourselves as the bride of the Lamb and accept your invitation to the marriage Feast (Rev. 19:7-8).

Further reflection would yield additional examples of how our raw data informs the liturgical expression of our union with Christ. Blessings related to victory could be included in praise and/or petition liturgical sections. Communal blessings could be included in gathering exhortations. The divine direction to involve physical media could be included in the Eucharistic prayer proper. Ultimately, each of the blessings in our catalogue can serve as a root for liturgical theology and as a resource for liturgical expression.

Conclusion

­221

Final Summary Our study has shown that the scriptural meaning of blessing and remembrance converge at the Last Supper and point forward to ongoing transformational encounters with God at the Feast. Such encounters include many specific blessings which can be summarized by the themes of freedom and formation. There is ample indication that further study into the meaning of biblical and historical material would reveal additional benefits which could be appropriated at the Feast. Ultimately, the blessing of the Feast is encountering God himself. He is the source of every blessing. Each of the biblical texts, and the canon as a whole, instructs us about who God is, how he interacts with his people, and how his people may seek to interact with him. Since God’s nature and the fundamental dynamics of how he interacts with his people are constant, then the biblical accounts of God coming to his people and blessing them in the context of remembrance can serve as a reliable source for the current people of God’s expectations. This study of Exodus, Mark, and 1 Corinthians sees in the details of textual accounts and the canonical shape of cohesive messages a way to articulate more specifically some of the innumerable benefits of knowing God. And, this study has shown that the effectual nature of blessing in the context of remembrance persists through the ongoing Feast. Here, such blessings can be not only cognitively acknowledged, but actually appropriated. There is scriptural justification for believers to expect God to meet them at the Feast and bless them with freedom and formation.

­

Appendix A The Words of Institution Mark’s version: 14:22a While they were eating, he took some bread, and after a blessing he broke it, and gave it to them, and said, Kai. evsqio,ntwn auvtw/n labw.n a;rton euvlogh,saj e;klasen kai. e;dwken auvtoi/j kai. ei=pen\ 14:23-24a And when he had taken a cup and given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And he said to them, kai. labw.n poth,rion euvcaristh,saj e;dwken auvtoi/j( kai. e;pion evx auvtou/ pa,ntejÅ 24 kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j\ Matthew’s version: 26:26a While they were eating, he Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing he broke it, and gave it to them the disciples, and said, VEsqio,ntwn de. auvtw/n labw.n o` VIhsou/j a;rton kai. euvlogh,saj e;klasen kai. dou.j toi/j maqhtai/j ei=pen\ 26:27 And when he had taken a cup and given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And he said to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you; kai. labw.n poth,rion kai. euvcaristh,saj e;dwken auvtoi/j le,gwn\ pi,ete evx auvtou/ pa,ntej( Luke’s version: 22:19a And when he had taken some bread and given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, kai. labw.n a;rton euvcaristh,saj e;klasen kai. e;dwken auvtoi/j le,gwn\ 22:20a And in the same way he took the cup after they had eaten, saying, kai. to. poth,rion w`sau,twj meta. to. deipnh/sai( le,gwn\ Paul’s version in 1 Corinthians: 11:23b-24a the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, o` ku,rioj VIhsou/j evn th/| nukti. h-| paredi,deto e;laben a;rton 24 kai. euvcaristh,saj e;klasen kai. ei=pen\ 11:25a In the same way he took the cup also after supper, saying, w`sau,twj kai. to. poth,rion meta. to. deipnh/sai le,gwn\

224

Appendix A

Supplemented version of the words of institution: While they were eating, he took some bread, and after a blessing he broke it, and gave it to them, and said, Kai. evsqio,ntwn auvtw/n labw.n a;rton euvlogh,saj e;klasen kai. e;dwken auvtoi/j kai. ei=pen\ And when he had taken a cup taking the cup in the same way after they had eaten and giving thanks he gave it to them, kai. labw.n to. poth,rion w`sau,twj meta. to. deipnh/sai euvcaristh,saj e;dwken auvtoi/j( and they all drank from it. And he said to them, kai. e;pion evx auvtou/ pa,ntejÅ kai. ei=pen auvtoi/j\ Amended English translation based upon Mark’s use of ‘bless’ While they were eating, Kai. evsqio,ntwn auvtw/n Taking bread while blessing, he broke it and gave it to them, and said, labw.n a;rton euvlogh,saj e;klasen kai. e;dwken auvtoi/j kai. ei=pen\

­

Appendix B The Words of Interpretation Mark’s version: 14:22b ‘Take it; this is my body.’ la,bete( tou/to, evstin to. sw/ma, mouÅ 14:24b

‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.’ tou/to, evstin to. ai-ma, mou th/j diaqh,khj to. evkcunno,menon u`pe.r pollw/nÅ



Matthew’s version: 26:26b ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ la,bete fa,gete( tou/to, evstin to. sw/ma, mouÅ 26:28 ‘for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.’ tou/to ga,r evstin to. ai-ma, mou th/j diaqh,khj to. peri. pollw/n evkcunno,menon eivj a;fesin a`martiw/nÅ Luke’s version: 22:19b ‘This is my body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ tou/to, evstin to. sw/ma, mou to. u`pe.r u`mw/n dido,menon\ tou/to poiei/te eivj th.n evmh.n avna,mnhsinÅ 22:20b



‘This cup which is poured out for you (is) the new covenant in my blood.’ tou/to to. poth,rion h` kainh. diaqh,kh evn tw/| ai[mati, mou to. u`pe.r u`mw/n evkcunno,menonÅ

Paul’s version in 1 Corinthians: 11:24b ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ tou/to, mou, evstin to. sw/ma mou to. u`pe.r u`mw/n\ tou/to poiei/te eivj th.n evmh.n avna,mnhsinÅ 11:25b ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ tou/to to. poth,rion h` kainh. diaqh,kh evsti.n evn tw/| evmw/| ai[mati\ tou/to poiei/te( o`sa,kij eva.n pi,nhte( eivj th.n evmh.n avna,mnhsinÅ

226

Appendix B

Supplemented version: ‘Take; this is my body which is given for [sin]. Do this in remembrance of me.’ la,bete( tou/to evstin to. sw/ma, sa,rx mou to. peri. a`marti,aj dido,menonÅ tou/to poiei/te eivj th.n evmh.n avna,mnhsinÅ ‘This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many. Do this in remembrance of me.’ tou/to evstin to. ai-ma, mou th/j diaqh,khj to. evkcunno,menon u`pe.r pollw/nÅ tou/to poiei/te eivj th.n evmh.n avna,mnhsinÅ

­

Appendix C An Outline of a First Century Passover Meal1 1. Blessing the meal (Kaddesh) First cup – Cup of Sanctification. (Exod 6:6-7, first of 4 promises) Word of dedication. (Luke 22:17) 2. Ritual washing (Urchatz) (John 13:12-15) 3. Dipping of Herbs (Karpas) Preliminary dish. Extended retelling of the Exodus story (dipping hyssop Exod 12:22). Note the appropriate symbolism of bitter herbs for the bitter betrayal. (Mark 14:18-21; Matt. 26:21- 25; John 13:21-30) 4. Uncovering the Unleavened Bread The bread of affliction (Deut. 16:3). After the Bread was uncovered, the lamb was brought to the table, but not yet eaten. The Second cup was poured – the Cup of Freedom. 5. Retelling the Story of Salvation Question-and-answer teaching session. (Exod 12:26; 13:14; Deut. 6:20) Maggid. Passover haggadah by paterfamilias in Aramaic. Teaching based on Deut 26:5-10, Israel’s history from Abraham to Exodus. The hallel part 1 (Ps 113, 114) sung in Hebrew. The Second cup was drunk. Washing prior to eating. Jesus’ teaching (John 13:31–17:26). 6. Blessing and Breaking the Unleavened Bread This was the main meal. (Mark 14:22; Matt. 26:26; Luke 22:19) Grace was spoken over the bread. Jesus broke, gave, and interpreted the bread in a new way. 7. Reliving the Exodus This was the point when the meal was actually eaten. ‘Passover…recalls the events of the Exodus…also seeks to involve each generation in that experience as a present reality…a reactualisation.’2 This concept is consistent with Jesus’ words ‘Do this in remembrance of me.’ Note use of avna,mnhsij in Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25; and related noun form mnhmo,sunon in the Passover Exod 3:15; 12:14; the Grain Offering Lev 2:2, 9, 16; the Sin Offering Lev 5:12.

1 Routledge, Passover, 210–20; Jeremias, Words, 85–6. 2 Routledge, Passover, 217.

228

Appendix C

8. Drinking the Wine The Third Cup – The Cup of Redemption. (Exod 6:6b) Also called the Cup of Blessing because it was preceded by a special blessing. (Mark 14:23-25; Matt 26:27-29; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 10:16). The Fourth Cup was filled – The Cup of Praise (Exod 6:7). It looked forward to God’s final vindication of His people. Jesus had another cup to drink, of suffering and death, before the final victory was won (Mark 14:35-36; Matt 26:38-39; Luke 22:42). The hallel part 2 (Ps 115-118; Mark 14:26; Matt 26:30). The Fourth Cup was drunk. Jesus may not have drunk the Fourth Cup, Mark 14:25.

­

Bibliography Aageson, James W. ‘Typology, Correspondence, and the Application of Scripture in Romans 9–11.’ JSNT 31 (1987): 51–72. Accola, Louis W. Given for You: Reflections on the Meaning of the Lord’s Supper. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2007. Achtemeier, Paul J. ‘The Origin and Function of the Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae.’ JBL 91 (1972): 198–221. Adam, A. K. M. Faithful Interpretation: Reading the Bible in a Postmodern World. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. Adam, A. K. M. ‘Poaching on Zion: Biblical Theology as a Signifying Practice.’ Pages 17–34 in Reading Scripture with the Church: Toward a Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation. Edited by A.K.M. Adam et al. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. Adam, A. K. M., et al. Reading Scripture with the Church: Toward a Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. Alexander, T. Desmond. ‘The Composition of the Sinai Narrative in Exodus 19:1–25:11.’ VT 49 (1999): 2-20. Allen, Leslie C. ‘rkz zkr.’ Pages 1100–1106 in vol.1 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997. Allen, Leslie C. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. Alsup, J. E. ‘Typology.’ Pages 684–5 in vol.6 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Alter, Robert and Frank Kermode, eds. The Literary Guide to the Bible. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1987. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 3.27.38. Translated by J. F. Shaw. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102. html, February, 2010. Aus, Roger David. Feeding the Five Thousand: Studies in the Judaic Background of Mark 6:30-44 par. and John 6:1-15. Studies in Judaism. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2010. Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry. Faith and Order Paper No. 111. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1982. Barclay, William. The Lord’s Supper. Hants, UK: John Hunt, 1967. Repr., Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford University Press, 1961. Repr., Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2004.

230

Bibliography

Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. 2nd edn. London: SPCK, 1978. Bartels, K. H. ‘Remember, Remembrance.’ Pages 230–47 in vol.3 of New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Edited by C. Brown. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975–85. Barth, Karl. The Epistle to the Romans. Translated from the 6th edition by Edwyn C. Hoskyns. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933. Barton, Stephen C. Life Together. New York: T&T Clark, 2001. Beasley-Murray, George R. John. Second edition. WBC 36. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999. Beyer, Hermann. ‘euvloge,w.’ Pages 754–65 in vol.2 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76. BibleWorks 6.0 Software. BibleWorks, LLC, 1992–2003. Bieler, Andrea and L. Schottroff. The Eucharist: Bodies, Bread, & Resurrection. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Billings, Bradly S. ‘The Disputed Words in the Lukan Institution Narrative (Luke 22:19b-20): A Sociological Answer to a Textual Problem.’ JBL 125 (2006): 507–25. Billy, Dennis J. Eucharist: Exploring the Diamond of Our Faith. Mystic: Twenty-Third Publications, 2004. Block, Daniel I. ‘The Burden of Leadership: the Mosaic Paradigm of Kingship (Deut. 17:14-20).’ Bibliotheca Sacra 162 (2005): 259–78. Braaten, Carl E. and Robert W. Jenson, eds. Marks of the Body of Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Brooke, George J. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Brown, Raymond. The Gospel and Epistles of John. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1988. Brown, Sherri. Gift Upon Gift: Covenant through Word in the Gospel of John. PTMS. Eugene: Pickwick, 2010. Bruckner, James. Exodus. NIBCOT. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008. Bubbers, Susan. ‘A Contemporary Restatement of “Reason.”’ Unpublished paper for Anglican Moral Theology, Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary in Virginia (VTS), December 10, 1993. Bubbers, Susan. ‘Reviving Spiritual Formation Principles for Postmodern America.’ Doctoral (D. Min) Dissertation, Reformed Theological Seminary, May 2002. Buttrick, George A. The Interpreter’s Bible. Vol.1. New York: AbingdonCokesbury, 1952. Caird, G. B. New Testament Theology. Edited by L. D. Hurst. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Carasik, Michael. Exodus. The Commentators’ Bible. New York: Jewish Publication Society, 2005.

Bibliography

­231

Carson, D. A. ‘Current Issues in Biblical Theology: A New Testament Perspective.’ BBR 5 (1995): 17–41. Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Carson, D. A. ‘Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology.’ Pages 89–104 in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000. Casey, Maurice. Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel. SNTSMS 102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998; digital version, 2007. Chan, Simon. Liturgical Theology: The Church as Worshiping Community. Downer’s Grove: IVP Academic, 2006. Chan, Simon. Spiritual Theology: A Systematic Study of the Christian Life. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1998. Chenderlin, Fritz. Do This As My Memorial. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1982. Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster, 1974. Childs, Brevard S. Memory and Tradition in Israel. SBT 37. London: SCM, 1962. Chilton, Bruce. Jesus’ Prayer and Jesus’ Eucharist: His Personal Practice of Spirituality. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1997. Chisholm, Robert B. ‘The Christological Fulfillment of Isaiah’s Servant Songs.’ Bibliotheca Sacra 163 (2006): 387–404. Clifford, Richard J. ‘The Exodus in the Christian Bible: the case for “figural” reading.’ TS 63 (2002): 345–61. Cocksworth, Christopher J. Evangelical Eucharistic Thought in the Church of England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Cole, Alan. Exodus. TOTC. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1973. Collins, Adela Yarbro. Mark. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Collins, Chuck. ‘The Three-Legged Stool and Helen W.’ Mission and Ministry 10 (1993): 1–3. Cotterell, Peter and Max Turner. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989. Coutsoumpos, Panayotis. Paul and the Lord’s Supper: A Socio-Historical Investigation. Studies in Biblical Literature 84. New York: Peter Lang, 2005. Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel According to St. Mark. CGTC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Currid, John D. A Study Commentary on Leviticus. Webster, New York: Evangelical, 2004. Daley, Brian. ‘Is Patristic Exegesis Still Usable? Reflections on Early Christian Interpretation of the Psalms.’ Communio 29 (2002): 185– 216.

232

Bibliography

Dana, H. E. and J. R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Macmillan, 1955. Davidson, Richard M. Typology in Scripture. Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University, 1981. Davis, Ellen F. and Richard B. Hays, eds. The Art of Reading Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Davis, Thomas J. This Is My Body: The Presence of Christ in Reformation Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008. De Arteaga, William L. Forgotten Power: The Significance of the Lord’s Supper in Revival. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002. DeGrandis, Robert. The Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. Clear Lake, Texas: Praising God Catholic Association, 1998. DeVries, Simon J. 1 Kings. WBC 12. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003. Dix, Dom Gregory. The Shape of the Liturgy. London: Dacre Press, 1945. Repr., 1970. Dodd, C. H. According to The Scriptures: The Sub-structure of New Testament Theology. London: Nisbet, 1952. Douma, J. The Ten Commandments: Manual for the Christian Life. Trans. by N. Kloosterman. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1996. Driver, S. R. The Book of Exodus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953. Dunn, James D. G. ‘John VI – A Eucharistic Discourse?’ NTS 17 (1971): 328–38. Durham, John I. Exodus. WBC 3. Waco: Word Books, 1987. Dwyer, Timothy. ‘The Motif of Wonder in the Gospel of Mark.’ JSNT 57 (1995): 49–59. Ebeling, Gerhard. ‘The Meaning of “Biblical Theology.”’ Pages 79–97 in Word and Faith. Trans. by J. W. Leitch. London: SCM, 1963. Ebeling, Gerhard. ‘Was heißt “Biblische Theologie”?’ Pages 69–89 in Wort und Glaube. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1960. 3rd edn. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967. Edwards, James R. The Gospel According to Mark. PLNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Eichhorn, Albert. The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament. Leipzig: Mohr Siebeck, 1898. Repr., translated by J. F. Cayzer; History of Biblical Studies 1, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. Eichrodt, Walther. ‘Is Typological Exegesis an Appropriate Method?’ Translated by James Barr. In Essays on Old Testament Hermeneutics, ed. Claus Westermann, 224–45. English edition edited by James L. Mays. Richmond: John Knox, 1963. Eising, H. ‘ rkazF zakhar.’ Pages 64–82 in vol.4 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006. Ellis, E. E. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957.

Bibliography

­233

Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27–16:20. WBC 34b. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001. Fairbairn, Patrick. The Typology of Scripture. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1876. 2 vols in one edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965. Feaver, Douglas D. This Do in Remembrance of Me. Greenville, SC: Ambassador International, 2008. Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Fee, Gordon D. Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991. Feeley-Harnik, Gillian. The Lord’s Table: Eucharist and Passover in Early Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1981. Finkelstein, Louis. ‘Pre-Maccabean documents in the Passover haggadah [part 1].’ HTR 35 (1942): 291–332. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1988. Repr., New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. First Corinthians. AYB 32. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Fitzpatrick, P. J. In Breaking of Bread: The Eucharist and Ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Foulkes, Francis. The Acts of God: A Study of the Basis of Typology in the Old Testament. London: Tyndale, 1955. Fowl, Stephen. Engaging Scripture: A Model for Theological Interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998. Fowl, Stephen. ‘Further Thoughts on Theological Interpretation.’ Pages 125–30 in Reading Scripture with the Church: Toward a Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation. Edited by A. K. M. Adam et al. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. Fowl, Stephen. ‘The Importance of a Multivoiced Literal Sense of Scripture.’ Pages 35–50 in Reading Scripture with the Church: Toward a Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation. Edited by A. K. M. Adam et al. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. Fowl, Stephen. Theological Interpretation of Scripture. Eugene: Cascade, 2009. France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. France, R. T. Jesus and the Old Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1971. Repr., Vancouver: Regent College, 1998. Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. Garrow, A. J. P. Revelation. New Testament Readings. New York: Routledge, 1997. Ginn, Richard J. The Present and the Past: A Study of Anamnesis. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1989. Gittoes, Julie. Anamnesis and the Eucharist: Contemporary Anglican Approaches. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008.

234

Bibliography

Glenny, W. Edward. ‘Typology: A Summary of the Present Evangelical Discussion.’ JETS 40 (1997): 627–38. Gnilka, Joachim. Das Evangelium nach Markus (Mk 1–8,26). 3rd edn. Evangelisch Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Zurich: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1989. Goodacre, Mark. ‘Was the Last Supper a Passover Seder?’ Academic blog, Friday, March 12, 2010, http://tinyurl.com/y8ff4pf. Green, Joel B. Seized by Truth: Reading the Bible as Scripture. Nashville: Abingdon, 2007. Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Greene-McCreight, Kathryn. ‘Rule of Faith.’ Pages 703–704 in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1–8:26. WBC 34a. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1989. Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Guthrie, Harvey H. Theology as Thanksgiving: From Israel’s Psalms to the Church’s Eucharist. New York: Seabury, 1981. Habershon, Ada R. Study of the Types. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1957. Hahn, Scott. The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth. New York: Doubleday, 1999. Hahn, Scott. Letter and Spirit: From Written Text to Living Word in the Liturgy. New York: Doubleday, 2005. Hamilton, John. ‘The Chronology of the Crucifixion and the Passover.’ Churchman 106 (1992): 323–38. Hamm, Dennis. ‘Acts 4:23-31: a Neglected Biblical Paradigm of Christian Worship.’ Worship 77 (2003): 225–37. Hampsch, John. The Healing Power of the Eucharist. Cincinnati: St. Anthony Messenger, 1999. Hanna, E. E. Pearl of Revelation Or The Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist from the Beginning of Time. New York: E. E. Hanna, 1929. Repr., Kila, MT: Kessinger, 2003. Harris, R. Laird and Gleason Archer, eds. ‘Horeb.’ Page 319 in vol.1 of Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody, 1980. Harvey, John. ‘The “With Christ” Motif in Paul’s Thought.’ JETS 35/3 (1992): 329–40. Hays, Richard B. ‘Can the Gospels Teach Us How to Read the Old Testament?’ ProEccl 11 (2002): 402–18. Hays, Richard B. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Hays, Richard B. First Corinthians. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1997.

Bibliography

­235

Hays, Richard B. ‘Shepherded by the Lamb.’ ChrCent 109/13 (1992): 395. Heising, Alkuin. Die Botschaft der Brotvermehrung. SBS 15. Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelwerk, 1966. Helmer, Christine, ed. The Multivalence of Biblical Texts and Theological Meanings. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. Heschel, Abraham J. The Prophets. New York: HarperCollins, 1962. Repr., Peabody: Prince, 2003. Heyman, George. ‘Review of Panayotis Coutsoumpos “Paul and the Lord’s Supper: A Socio-Historical Investigation,”’ RBL online http://www. bookreviews.org published and accessed March, 2006. Hicks, John. Come to the Table: Revisioning the Lord’s Supper. n.p.: Leafwood, 2002. Hiebert, Theodore. ‘Altars of Stone and Bronze: Two Biblical Views of Technology.’ Mission Studies 15 (1998): 75–84. Higgins, Angus J. G. The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament. Chicago: Alec R. Allenson, 1952. Holloway, Clinton J. Lest We Forget: Meditations at the Meal of Remembrance. Nashville: Cold Tree, 2008. Hooker, Morna D. Jesus and the Servant. London: SPCK, 1959. Hooker, Richard. Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity: Book I. London: John Windet, 1597. The Folger Library Edition of The Works of Richard Hooker. Edited by W. Speed Hill. London: Belknap, 1977. Hooker, Richard. Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity: Book V. London: John Windet, 1597. The Folger Library Edition of The Works of Richard Hooker. Edited by W. Speed Hill. London: Belknap, 1977. Instone-Brewer, David. ‘Jesus’ Last Passover: The Synoptics and John.’ ExpTim 112 (2001): 122–3. Instone-Brewer, David. Traditions of the Rabbis from the Era of the New Testament. vol.1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Instone-Brewer, David. ‘Tractate Pesachim: Passovers’ in Traditions of the Rabbis from the Era of the New Testament. vol.2. Pre-published form, 2007. Used by permission. Irenaeus. Against Heresies. vol.1. Digital repr., LaVergne, TN: Kessigner, 2009. Jeremias, Joachim. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. 2nd edn Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu, 1949. 3rd rev. edn, Göttingen, 1960. Translated by Norman Perrin, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966. Jones, Cheslyn, ed. et al. The Study of Liturgy. Rev. edn. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Jukes, Andrew. The Law of the Offerings. London: J. Nisbet & Co., 1847. Repr., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1966. Keenan, Joseph. ‘The Importance of the Creation Motif in a Eucharistic Prayer.’ Worship 53 (1979): 341–56. Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Vol.1. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.

236

Bibliography

Kertelge, Karl. Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium. SANT 23. Munich: Kösel, 1970. Kilpatrick, G. D. The Eucharist in Bible and Liturgy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Kirk, Terrell T. ‘The Meaning and Application of Reason in Richard Hooker.’ SLJT 4 (1961): 22–35. Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi. Leviticus. Apollos Old Testament Commentary 3. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007. Klink, Edward W. ‘Review of Daniel Treier “Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recovering a Christian Practice.” ’ RBL online http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/6649_7207.pdf, published and accessed May, 2009. Koch, Dieter-Alex. Die Bedeutung der Wundererzählungen für die Christologie des Markusevangeliums. BZNW 42. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975. Koenig, John. The Feast of the World’s Redemption. Harrisburg: Trinity, 2000. Kuitert, H. M. Do You Understand What You Read? Translated by L. Smedes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970. Kun, Jeanne. Food from Heaven: The Eucharist in Scripture. Ijamsville, Maryland: The Word Among Us, 2007. Laansma, John. ‘ “I Will Give You Rest”: The Background and Significance of the Rest Motif in the New Testament.’ TynBul 46 (1995): 385–8. Lane, Tony. A Concise History of Christian Thought. Rev. edn. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. Lane, William. Hebrews 9–13. WBC 47. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991. Lange, John P. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures : Exodus and Leviticus. Translated and edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1876. Langston, Scott. Exodus Through the Centuries. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006. Leithart, Peter J. Blessed are the Hungry. Idaho: Canon, 2000. Letham, Robert. The Lord’s Supper: Eternal Word in Broken Bread. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2001. Levering, Matthew. Participatory Biblical Exegesis: A Theology of Biblical Interpretation. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University, 2008. Levering, Matthew. Sacrifice and Community: Jewish Offering and Christian Eucharist. Malden: Blackwell, 2005. Liddell, Henry and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Revised by Henry Jones. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940. 9th edn. Accessed online http:// www.perseus.tufts.edu. Lightfoot, John. ‘Exercitations on Matt. 26.26’ (Works XI, 332). http:// philologos.org/__eb-jl/matt26.htm, March, 2010. Lincoln, Andrew T. The Gospel According to Saint John. Black’s New Testament Commentary. London: Continuum, 2005. Louw, J. P. and E. A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2nd edn. New York, 1989.

Bibliography

­237

Mangina, Joseph. Revelation. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2010. Marcus, Joel. Mark 1–8. AB 27. New York: Doubleday, 1999. Marcus, Joel. Mark 8–16. AB 27A. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Marcus, Joel. The Way of the Lord. Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992. Marshall, I. Howard. Email exchange. April 4, 2010. Marshall, I. Howard. Last Supper and Lord’s Supper. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1980. Biblical and Theological Classics Library edition, 1997. Marty, Martin E. The Lord’s Supper. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1980. Expanded edition. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1997. Mathison, Keith A. Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2002. Mays, James L. Psalms. IBC. Louisville: John Knox, 1994. McConville, J. G. Deuteronomy. The Apollos Old Testament Commentary. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002. McGrade, A. S. ‘Reason.’ Pages 115–28 in The Study of Anglicanism. Edited by S. Sykes and J. Booty. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Rev. edn. 1998. McGrath, Alister E. The Renewal of Anglicanism. Harrisburg: Morehouse, 1993. McKenna, Briege. The Power of the Sacraments. Dublin: Veritas, 2009. McMichael, Ralph. Eucharist: A Guide for the Perplexed. New York: T&T Clark, 2010. Meyer, Heinrich A. W.. Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch über die Evangelien des Markus und des Lukas. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1846. Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50–70 C.E. New York: Newman, 2003. Milligan, William and William Moulton. The Gospel According to John, in The International Revision Commentary on the New Testament based upon the Revised Version of 1881. Edited by Philip Schaff. New York: Charles Scribners’s Sons, 1899. Mitchell, Christopher. The Meaning of BRK ‘To Bless’ in the Old Testament. SBLDS 95. Atlanta: Scholars, 1987. Mitchell, Leonel L. Praying Shapes Believing: A Theological Commentary on the Book of Common Prayer. Harrisburg: Morehouse, 1985. Mitchell, Nathan. Meeting Mystery: Liturgy, Worship, and Sacraments. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2006. Mitchell, Nathan. Real Presence: The Work of Eucharist. Chicago: Liturgy Training, 2001. Moberly, R. W. L. At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34. JSOTSup 22. Sheffield: JSOT, 1983. Moloney, Francis. A Body Broken for a Broken People: Eucharist in the New Testament. Revised ed. Australia: Collins Dove, 1997. Moore-Keish, Martha L. Do This in Remembrance of Me: A Ritual Approach to Reformed Eucharistic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

238

Bibliography

Morley, Janet and Jane Leach. Share this Feast: Reflecting on Holy Communion. Werrington: Trustees for Methodist Church Purposes, 2006. Motyer, Steve. Remember Jesus. Fearn: Christian Focus, 1995. Moyise, Steve. ‘Intertextuality, Historical Criticism and Deconstruction.’ Pages 24–34 in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice. NTM 16. Edited by T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Portyer. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006. Neill, Stephen. Anglicanism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982. Nelson, Richard D. First and Second Kings. IBC. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1987. Neusner, Jacob. Introduction to Rabbinic Literature. New York: Doubleday, 1994. Neusner, Jacob. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. Newman, Barclay. A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament. Included on Bibleworks CD-ROM. United Bible Society, 1971. Neyrey, Jerome. The Gospel of John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Niditch, Susan. Judges: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008. Ninow, Friedbert. Indicators of Typology within the Old Testament: The Exodus Motif.Friedensauer Schriftenreigh, Reihe Theologie, Band 4. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2001. Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Nolland, John. Luke 18:35–24:53. WBC 35c. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1993. Oden, Thomas C. Corrective Love: The Power of Communion Discipline. St. Louis: Concordia: 1995. Olson, Dennis T. ‘The Jagged Cliffs of Mount Sinai: A Theological Reading of the Book of the Covenant (Exod 20:22-23:19).’ Int 50 (1996): 251–63. Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral. Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1991. Pao, David W. Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000. Parker, David. Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and its Text. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Parry, Robin. ‘Ideological Criticism.’ Pages 314–16 in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. Parry, Robin. ‘Reader-Response Criticism.’ Pages 658–61 in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. Patterson, Richard D. and Michael Travers. ‘Contours of the Exodus Motif in Jesus’ Earthly Ministry,’ WTJ 66 (2004): 25–47. Perry, Craig S. Do This in Remembrance of Me: The Lost Supper. n.p.: Xulon, 2008.

Bibliography

­239

Pesch, Rudolf. Das Markusevangelium. vol.1, 4th edn. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 1984. Phillips, E. E. Do This in Remembrance of Me: Communion, the Passion of Christ. n.p.: Xlibris Corporation, 2004. Polliack, Meira. ‘Deutero-Isaiah’s Typological Use of Jacob in the Portrayal of Israel’s National Renewal.’ Pages 72–110 in Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition. JSOTSup 319. Edited by David Clines and Philip Davies. London: Sheffield Academic, 2002. The Pontifical Biblical Commission. The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. USCC pub. 806-1. Washington, D.C.: USCC, 1993. Power, David N. Unsearchable Riches: The Symbolic Nature of Liturgy. Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1984. Pratt, Richard. He Gave Us Stories. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1990. Preuss, H. D. ‘ xaw%n nûach.’ Pages 277–86 in vol.9 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006. Routledge, Robin L. ‘Passover and Last Supper.’ TynBul 53 (2002): 203–21. Saliers, Don E. Worship Come to Its Senses. Nashville: Abingdon: 1996. Sarna, Nahum M., ed. Exodus. The JPS Torah Commentary. New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1991. Sasse, Harmann. This is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1959. Repr., Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2001. Scharbert, Josef. ‘ K7rfb@f brk.’ Pages 279–308 in vol.2 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E.Green. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006. Schmemann, Alexander. The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 1988. Schmemann, Alexander. For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy. Athens, Ohio: National Student Christian Federation, 1963. 2nd edn. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 1973. Schmithals, Walter. Das Evangelium nach Markus. Kapitel 1–9,1. Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament. Gütersloh : Gerd Mohn, 1979. Schniewind, Julius. Das Evangelium nach Markus. NTD. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960. Schürmann, Heinz. Der Einsetzungsbericht. Münster Westf: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1955. Schweizer, Eduard. The Lord’s Supper According to the New Testament. Translated by James Davis. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967. Scobie, Charles. The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

240

Bibliography

Seebass, H. ‘ #$pne e nepeš.’ Pages 497–519 in vol.9 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006. Seitz, Chrisopher. ‘Canonical Approach.’ Pages 100–102 in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. Shanks, Hershel, et al. The Dead Sea Scrolls after Forty Years. Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1990. Siegel, Daniel J. The Developing Mind: How Relationships and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are. New York: Guilford, 1999. Smith, Dennis E. From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Smith, Gordon T. A Holy Meal: The Lord’s Supper in the Life of the Church. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. Smith, Gordon T., ed. The Lord’s Supper: Five Views. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2008. Sprinkle, Joe M. ‘Law and Narrative in Exodus 19–24.’ JETS 47 (2004): 235–52. Stegemann, Hartmut. The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist, and Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Stein, Robert H. Mark. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Stendahl, Krister. ‘Biblical Theology, Contemporary.’ Pages 418–32 in vol.1 of Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by G. A. Buttrick. 4 vols. Nashville, Abingdon, 1962. Stephenson, Lisa P. Dismantling the Dualisms for American Pentecostal Women in Ministry: A Feminist-Pneumatological Approach. Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies. Boston: Brill, 2012. Story, Cullen I. K. ‘The Bearing of Old Testament Terminology on the Johannine Chronology.’ NovT 31 (1989): 316–24. Story, Cullen I. K. ‘The Form of the Prophetic Call and the Name of God in Exodus 3.’ Lecture notes for Princeton Theological Seminary. Used by permission via letter, Feb. 2, 2007. Story, Cullen I. K. Phone conversation, January 29, 2007. Stott, Wilfred. ‘Sabbath, Lord’s Day.’ Pages 405–14 in vol.3 of New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Edited by C. Brown. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975–85. Strack, Hermann L. and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. vol.II. München: Beck, 1922–61. http://www. archive.org/details/kommentarzumneue01stra, March, 2010. Stubbs, David L. Numbers. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2009. Suggit, John. ‘Exegesis: The Eucharistic Significance of John 20.19-29.’ JTSA 16 (1976): 52–9. Sveshnikov, Sergei. Break the Holy Bread, Master: A Theology of Communion Bread. n.p.: Sergei Sveshnikov, 2009.

Bibliography

­241

Talbot, Elizabeth. ‘Rest, Eschatology and Sabbath in Matthew 11:28-30: An Investigation of Jesus’ Offer of Rest in the Light of the Septuagint’s Use of Anapausis (rest).’ Unpublished paper presented at SBL, New Orleans, November 23, 2009. Talmon, Shemaryahu. ‘Har and Midbar: An Antithetical Pair of Biblical Motifs’ in M. Mindlin et al., Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1987, 117–42. Tate, W. Randolph. Interpreting the Bible. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006. Taussig, Hal. In the Beginning was the Meal: Social Experimentation & Early Christian Identity. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Treier, Daniel J. Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recovering a Christian Practice. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Trimm, Charlie. ‘Evangelicals, Theology, and Biblical Interpretation: Reflections on the Theological Interpretation of Scripture.’ BBR 20 (2010): 311–30. Vander Zee, Leonard J. Christ, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper: Recovering the Sacraments for Evangelical Worship. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004. Vanhoozer, Kevin J., ed. et al. Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. ‘Imprisoned or Free? Text, Status, and Theological Interpretation in the Master/Slave Discourse of Philemon.’ Pages 51–93 in Reading Scripture with the Church: Toward a Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation. Edited by A. K. M. Adam et al. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. Versteeg, J. P. Is Adam a “Teaching Model” in the New Testament? Translated by Richard Gaffin. New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1977. von Rad, Gerhard. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966. Wainwright, Geoffrey. Eucharist and Eschatology. Norwich: Epworth, 1971. 3rd edn, Akron: OSL Publications, 2002. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Walton, Steve. Leadership and Lifestyle. SNTSMS 108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Wardlaw, Gilbert. The Testimony of Scripture to the Obligations and Efficacy of Prayer; more especially for the gift of the Holy Spirit: in three discourses. Boston: Peirce and Williams, 1830. Watson, Francis. Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Watson, Francis. Text, Church, and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

242

Bibliography

Watson, Thomas. The Lord’s Supper. London: n.pb., 1665. Repr., Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2004. Watson, Wilfred. Classical Hebrew Poetry. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Watts, Rikki E. Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1997. Webb, Barry G. The Book of Judges. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Webb, William J. Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001. Webber, Robert E. Ancient-Future Faith: Rethinking Evangelicalism for a Postmodern World. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999. Webber, Robert E. Ancient-Future Worship: Proclaiming and Enacting God’s Narrative. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2008. Webster, John. ‘Canon.’ Pages 97–100 in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. Webster, John. Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch. Current Issues in Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Whitacre, Rodney A. John. IVPNTC. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1999. Williamson, H. G. M. 1 and 2 Chronicles. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Williamson, H. G. M. Israel in the Books of Chronicles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Willimon, William. Word, Water, Wine and Bread. Valley Forge: Judson, 1980. Witherington, Ben III. Making a Meal of It. Waco: Baylor, 2007. Wright, Tom. Holy Communion for Amateurs. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1999. Republished as The Meal Jesus Gave Us. Louisville: John Knox, 2002. Yong, Amos. The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Zuck, Roy B. Basic Bible Interpretation. Colorado Springs: Cook, 1991.

Index of Scriptural References Genesis Gen 1:2-3 101 2:2-3 217 2:2 168 9:4 104 9:15 202 12 158 12:1-3 31 12:18-20 31 13:14-18 31 14:20 84 15:1-19 31 17:1-8 31 22:2 183 22:15-18 31 27:20 84 Exodus Exod 2:24

28, 42, 158, 164, 202 3:1 30, 42, 181, 183 3:6 42 3:12 181 3:14 158 3:15 158, 163, 164, 167, 181, 194, 227 3:16-17 42 3:17 158 3:18 42 4 158 5 158 5:1 42, 72, 74 6 158 6:2-4 31 6:2-8 42 6:3 158 6:5 158, 164, 202 6:6 228 6:7 43 7:16 42

8:1 42 8:25-27 42 12 42, 75, 96, 158, 209, 211 12–19 31 12:1-13 74 12:1-28 43, 181 12:2 75 12:4 65 12:5 157 12:6 72, 181 12:7-8 113 12:7 72, 110 12:8 72 12:10 71 12:13 110 12:14-18 42 12:14 43, 72, 74, 113, 135, 156–9, 164, 200, 211, 227 12:15-16 217 12:17 113 12:21-27 32 12:22 110, 227 12:23 110 12:24 43, 113 12:25 43, 113 12:26 61, 227 12:27 42 12:29 181 12:31 42 12:36 181 12:42 58 12:48 42, 65, 70, 71, 72 12:51 181 13 159 13:1-16 32 13:3-10 199 13:3 156, 159, 164, 200, 202 13:5 42, 159

13:8 61 13:9 156, 157, 159, 164 13:12 159 13:13 159 13:14-15 159 13:14 91 13:16 159 13:21 159 15:14 32 15:27 217 16 133 16:4 137, 138 16:5 217 16:15 137 16:22-30 217 17 186, 188, 207 17:2-7 29 17:6 181, 183 17:8-14 159 17:13-16 208, 211 17:13 160 17:14-15 185, 186 17:14-16 160, 185 17:14 157–60, 164, 194, 198 17:15-16 160 17:15 160, 167, 194 18:10 156 18:21 39 18:25 137 19 160, 177 19:1 32, 181, 183 19:2 183 19:4-8 177 19:4 159 19:5-6 40, 177 19:9 172 19:11 183 19:14 172 19:20 172 20 40, 123, 160 20:1-2 180

244 20:1-17 178 20:1 160 20:2 194 20:3-6 178, 180 20:4-5 41 20:4-6 40 20:5 40, 151, 177, 189 20:7-11 178, 180 20:7 187 20:8-11 167, 211 20:8 160, 202 20:11 156, 160, 217 20:12-17 178, 180 20:18-21 178, 180, 187 20:22-26 178 20:22–23:33 178 20:22 178, 180 20:23 178, 180 20:24-26 178, 180 20:24 123, 156, 157, 161, 162, 172– 83, 185–97, 203, 208, 209, 219 20:25 178, 187 20:26 178 21–23 161 21:1–23:9 178, 180 21:12-14 178 21:13 84 23:4-5 178 23:10-12 217 23:10-23 179, 180 23:11 180 23:12 168, 180, 194, 217 23:13 158, 161, 164, 194 23:15 32 23:18 110 23:20-33 180 23:23 203 23:24-25 180 23:25 156, 180 23:24-33 179, 180 23:31 84 24 78, 162, 187, 211 24:3-4 161 24:3-8 187 24:3 175, 180 24:4-5 175

Index of Scriptural References 24:4 161, 175, 183 24:5-11 219 24:6-8 78 24:6 110, 161, 209 24:7-8 161 24:7 175 24:8 106, 110, 175 24:9-11 175 24:10 161, 175, 209 24:11 161 24:12-30:18 175 24:12 161, 175 24:16 135 25–27 161 25–31 176 25:9 40, 174 25:30 62 25:40 30 28 162 28:12 157, 161, 162, 168, 183, 208, 211, 220 28:29 157, 161, 162, 168, 183, 208, 211, 220 29:2 62 29:38-43 219 30 162 30:16 157, 162, 211, 220 31:15 168 31:17 217, 218 32 162 32:1-6 162 32:6 41 32:7-14 162 32:10 169 32:13-14 208 32:13 162, 169, 184, 211 32:29 156 33:1-6 32 33:11 187 33:14 168 33:19 189 34:13-17 41 34:14 151, 189, 194 34:18 32 34:25 42, 110 35:2 168 39 162 39:7 157, 162, 164, 168, 211, 220

39:43 156 40 43 40:34 181 Leviticus Lev 1–7 211, 220 1:9 32 1:13 32 1:17 32 2 198 2:2 32, 227 2:4 62 2:9 32, 227 2:12 32 2:16 227 3:5 32 3:16 32 4:12 33 4:20 32 4:26 32 4:35 32 5:12 227 5:15 30, 33 5:16 32, 33 5:18 32 6:5 33 6:7 32 6:15 32 6:21 32 6:27 113 7:11-15 219 7:12-14 186 8:10-11 43 8:21 32 8:28 32 9:22 156 9:23 156 16:27 113 17:6 32 17:11-14 104 17:11 104, 113 17:14 113 21:2-3 84 23:4-5 43 23:4-8 32 23:5-6 63 23:5 42 23:13 32 23:18 32 24 217 24:7 197, 198 25:21 156

Index of Scriptural References 26:1 41 26:11-13 43 26:25 84 26:45 202 Numbers Num 1–6 187 1:1 32 3:13 159 6 186, 187, 210 6:22-23 187 6:22-27 187 6:24-26 187 6:27 187 7:1 43 9 209 9:1-5 43 9:1 32, 181 9:2-14 42 9:2 70–72 9:5 43, 181 9:14 70–72 9:15 181 10:11 181 11 133 11:1 32 15:39 202 20:14-17 32 21:34 84 27:17 30, 39, 137 28:1-8 219 28:16-25 42 28:16 43 32:4 84 33:3 42 33:1-49 183 Deuteronomy Deut 1–26 187 1:2-6 32 1:3 187 1:6 181 1:8 84 1:21 84 4:10 181 4:24 189 5:15 202 6:13 178 6:20-21 91 6:20 227 7:18 202

­245

8:2 202 8:3 137 8:10 137 8:18 201, 202 9:7 202 9:8 181 9:29 32 10:20 178 12:5 182 12:27 113 15:15 202 16:1-6 42 16:1-8 32, 43 16:1 70–72 16:2 43, 181, 182 16:3 182, 200, 202 16:5-6 43, 182 16:6 182 16:7 61, 70–72, 182 16:11 182 16:12 182, 202 16:15 182 16:16 182 16:17 182 18:16 181 22:1-4 178 24:18 202 24:22 202 25:4 178 26:1-11 32 26:3 91 26:5-9 91 26:5-10 227 27:1-8 188 27:3 188 27:5-7 188 27:5 185 27:7 188 27:8 188 27:9 188 27:15 41 29:1-29 32 31:9-13 188 32:7 202

4:3 183 4:5 183 4:9 183 4:19-24 32 4:19 183, 187 4:23-24 183 5 43, 209 5:9 43, 183 5:10-12 75 5:10 183 5:11 43 8:30-32 188 8:30 185, 188 8:31 188 8:32 188 8:33 188 8:34 188

Joshua Josh 1:13 202 2:14 84 3:10 183 3:16-17 183 4 187 4:2 183

1 Kings 1 Kgs 5:5 182 7:51 188 8 38, 210, 212 8:1-9 189 8:10-11 189 8:12-21 188

Judges Judg 2:14 84 6 186, 210, 212 6:8-9 186 6:10 186 6:11-12 186 6:16 186 6:19-20 186 6:21 186 6:23 186 6:24 186, 194 6:26 185 6:34 186 8:28 186 8:34 201 Samuel 1 Sam 15:23 41 1 Sam 21:1-7 62 2 Sam 6:11-12 184 2 Sam 22:8-16 32

246 8:14 188 8:15 188 8:20 188 8:22 138, 188 8:29 188 8:30 138, 220 8:33 188 8:34 189 8:35 188 8:36 189, 220 8:38 188 8:39 189 8:42 188 8:44 188 8:45 189 8:48 188 8:50 189 8:51-53 188 8:54 138, 188 8:55-56 188 9:3 138, 189 17:8-16 144 2 Kings 2 Kgs 4:33 139 4:42-44 143 4:42 144 4:43 139 4:44 143 6:17 139 6:18 139 6:19 168 6:20 139 13:23 28 22–23 44 23 212 23:4-16 44 23:19-20 44 23:21-23 44, 184 23:21 44, 184 23:22 44 23:23 184 1 Chronicles 1 Chr 13:14 184 16:12 202 16:15 202 28:11-19 174 28:11 40 28:12 40 28:18 40

Index of Scriptural References 28:19 40 2 Chronicles 2 Chr 3:1 183 6 210, 212 6:11 184 6:41 184 7:1 189 13:11 62 29:5 43 30 43, 73, 212 30:1-27 183 30:1 70, 71, 72, 183 30:2-5 43, 183 30:13 70, 71, 72 30:15 70, 71, 72 30:18 70, 71, 72 30:20 184 30:23 184 30:27 184 34–35 44 34:33 44 35 73, 209, 212 35:1-19 44, 75, 184 35:1 70, 71, 72 35:3 184 35:6 184 35:11 70, 71, 72 35:12-13 44 35:12 184 35:13 70, 71, 72 35:14 72 35:18 44, 70, 71 Ezra 5:16 33 6 210, 212 6:12 184 6:13-20 44 6:15 33, 44, 184 6:19-21 75 6:19 70, 71, 72, 184 6:20 44, 70, 72 6:21 44, 70, 72, 184 6:22 185 Nehemiah Neh 1:8-9 191 1:8-11 189 1:8 192 1:9 191, 192

1:10 191, 192 1:11 191 6:15 33 9:17 202 Esther Esth 1:1 198 2:23 198 9:32 198 10:2 198 Job 6:4 104 17:10 168 Psalms Ps 14:17 203 22:1 9 22:3 208 22:7 201 23:1 30 24 189 24:3-5 189 37:1 197 45:17 196 50:13 113 51:11 172 69:1 197 71:16 196 71:18 196 74:2 202 77:11 196 77:14-20 196 77:20 196 78:42 202 78:48 84 80:1 30 87:4 196 103:18 202 105:5 202 105:8 202 105:9 28 106:7 202 106:45 202 111:5 202 111:6 198 113–114 116, 227 114 32 115–118 116, 228 118:26 189, 203 119:52 202

Index of Scriptural References 121:1 138 123:1-2 139 143:5 202 Proverbs Prov 9:5 137 Ecclesiastes Eccl 45:9 198 45:11 198 45:16 198 50:16 198 Isaiah Isa 10:26 32 12:4 196 18:7 182 19:4 84 29:13 35 35:1-2 137 40:1-15 32 40:3 39 40:27-31 28 40:27 28 40:35 29 41:8-13 28 41:8 28 42:1 120, 217, 218 43:1-7 28 43:16-19 29 44:9-20 41 45:21 120 46:8 202 48:20-21 29, 32 52 118 52:4-13 32 52:7-12 29 52:13-53:12 118 53 85, 115, 118, 119, 121, 175, 207 53:3 119 53:4 119 53:6-12 84 53:10-12 211, 220 53:10 30, 107, 108, 113, 114, 118 53:11-12 106 53:12 84, 107, 108, 113, 114, 118,

218 55:6 172 56 37, 38 56:7 37, 38 63:7 196 63:11 30, 196, 202 63:13 196 65:17-25 29 66:3 198 Jeremiah Jer 5:21 35 6:14 37 7 37, 38 7:4-10 37 7:11 37 7:12-14 182 7:21-29 32 8:2 40 8:11 37 9:22 40 14:21 202 16:4 40 16:14-15 32 23:7-8 32 31:10-14 29 31:10 30 31:31-33 78, 85 31:31-34 32, 106, 109 31:31 110 32:20-22 32 32:40 32 34:2 84 Ezekiel Ezek 6:9 202 8:5 41 12:2 35 14:7 41 16:60 202 20:32-38 32 34:12 30 34:24 44 36:31 202 37:25 44 39:17 104 44:7 104 45:16 44 45:21 44 45:22 44 45:23-25 44

­247

Daniel Dan 4:34 138 12:4 102 Hosea Hos 2:13-23 32 11:1-6 32 11:1-11 32 Joel Joel 2 189 2:13 189 2:14 189 2:15-17 189 Amos 6:10 203 Micah Mic 7:20 28 Nahum Nah 2:1 174 3:6 40, 174 Zechariah Zech 9:11 106, 115 13 115, 116, 117, 121, 211, 220 13:1 116, 117 13:2 192 13:7 116, 191, 192 13:8-9 117 13:9 117, 191, 192 Malachi Mal 1:7 182 1:11 182 3:1 35 4:4 202 Matthew Matt 4:19 168 5:4 104 5:6 104 5:7 104

248 11:28-30 168 11:28 168 12:1-8 168 12:22-31 19 13:31 83 13:53 33 14:13-21 134 14:19 127 15:32-39 134 16:9-10 134 17:24 33 18:20 208 19:1 33 21:1-9 90 21:9 127 22:4 168 23:39 127 25:34 127 26 98 26:1 33 26:13 198 26:17 70, 72 26:18 70, 72, 73 26:19 72 26:20 64 26:21-25 227 26:26-28 220 26:26-29 77 26:26 62, 81, 82, 89, 90, 105, 127, 223, 225, 227 26:27-29 228 26:27 78, 82, 89, 90, 93, 109, 223 26:28 167, 169, 105, 108, 109, 113, 225 26:29 80, 81, 110 26:30 228 26:38-39 228 26:47-56 90 27:46 9 27:57 64 27:62 69 28:6 168 Mark 1:1-3 32 1:1 169 1:2-3 39 1:2 35 1:9-13 32 1:10-11 138

Index of Scriptural References 1:10 101 1:11 120, 218 1:17 104 1:23 32 2:5 104 2:15-17 140 2:17 104 2:18-22 140 2:19-22 104 2:23-28 140, 217 2:25-26 104 2:28 217 3:1-5 140 3:22-30 140 3:25 104 3:27 104 3:31-35 140 4:3-8 104 4:12 35 4:21 104 4:26-29 104 4:31-32 104 6 93, 131, 132, 144 6:31-52 211 6:31-32 39 6:31 168 6:34-44 123 6:34 137 6:35 39, 137 6:38 135 6:39-40 137 6:39 137 6:41-44 135 6:41 127, 129, 131–43, 146, 154, 155 6:42 137, 141 6:43 135, 141, 161 6:44 135 7:1-23 140 7:6 35 7:34 138 8 131, 132 8:1-9 137 8:1 137 8:4 137 8:6-7 132, 133, 146 8:6-9 135 8:6 130, 132–5, 146, 154 8:7 127, 129–36, 138, 140–43,

146, 154, 155 8:8 135 8:11 138 8:18 35 8:19-20 134 8:29 218 8:30 102 8:31-38 140 9:2-8 32 9:2 135 9:7 218 9:9 102 9:31 57 9:33-37 140 10 32 10:2-12 140 10:16 127, 140 10:17-27 140 10:32-34 57 10:35-45 140 11–14 74 Mark 11 32, 37, 38, 96 11:1-10 90 11:1 60 11:9-10 140 11:9 127, 140, 203 11:10 127 11:11-33 140 11:11-12 60 11:15-18 36, 192 11:15 37 11:17 37, 38 11:18 37 11:19 60 11:30 138 12:13-17 140 12:18-27 140 12:41-44 35, 140 13 57 13:1-2 140 13:25 138 13:27 191 14–16 42 14 38, 57, 62, 96, 98, 127, 131, 134, 139, 146 14:2 62, 71 14:3-9 140 14:3 60 14:8 57 14:9 198 14:10 73 14:12-26 78

Index of Scriptural References 14:12-16 57, 167 14:12 64, 67, 70, 72 14:13-16 60 14:13 60 14:15 70, 72 14:16 70, 72 14:17 60, 64 14:18-21 227 14:18 61 14:21 84 14:22-23 133, 146, 148 14:22-24 78, 220 14:22-25 42, 61, 77, 87, 91, 129 14:22-26 134 14:22 34, 61, 77, 78, 80, 89, 90, 99, 103, 104, 106, 123, 126–31, 135, 139, 140, 142, 143, 145, 146, 148, 152–5, 223, 225, 227 14:23-25 228 14:23-24 77, 86, 223 14:23 61, 78, 89, 90, 93, 109, 128, 146, 147, 148, 152, 153 14:24-31 117 14:24 78, 87, 103, 107, 109, 113, 117, 147, 167, 168, 169, 191, 192, 218, 225 14:25-28 116 14:25 xviii, 57, 61, 80, 81, 104, 110, 116, 117, 191, 192, 228 14:26 61, 117, 228 14:27-28 84, 169, 175 14:27 57, 116, 117, 137, 191, 192 14:28 117, 191, 192 14:29-31 117 14:35-36 228 14:38 98 14:43-52 90 14:43 73 14:61 140 14:62 138

15 31 15:6 63 15:37 218 15:38 218 15:39 169 15:42 64 16:19 138 Luke 1:42 127 1:64 127 2 98 2:28 127 2:34 127 5:21 19 6:17-19 80 6:28 127 8:19-21 80 9 93 9:10-17 27 9:16 127, 129, 130 9:28-36 32 11:52 102 13:35 127 17:21 167 18:13 138, 139 19:29-38 90 19:38 127 21:1-4 35 22 98, 102, 144 22:7 70, 72 22:8 70, 72 22:9 70, 72 22:12 70, 72 22:13 70, 72 22:14-16 80 22:14 64 22:15-20 77 22:15-18 80, 81 22:16 81, 104, 167 22:17-18 80 22:17 80, 81, 83, 106 22:19-20 85, 87, 148, 220 22:19 80, 82, 86, 87, 89, 90, 105, 107, 108, 110, 113, 114, 118, 123, 128–30, 147, 156, 167– 9, 195, 197, 223, 225, 227 22:20 78, 80, 82, 86,

­249 87, 89, 90, 104, 105, 109, 111, 112, 167–9, 223, 225, 228 22:31-32 117 22:42 228 22:47-53 90 23:54 64 24:13-32 191 24:28-35 167 24:30 127, 191, 192 24:31 192 24:33 191, 192 24:35 191 24:36-43 167, 191 24:50 127 24:51 127 24:53 127 John 1:13 98 1:14 98 1:33 101 2:19 97 3:1-15 99 3:3 99 3:4 100 3:6 98 4:15 100 4:20-24 96, 99 4:24 18 4:29 168 5:19 210 6 91–100, 122, 123, 144 6:4 122, 137 6:11 93 6:23 93 6:26-58 137 6:31 137 6:34 143 6:35 94 6:40 94 6:44 101 6:47-58 219 6:50 94 6:51-56 98, 100, 104 6:51-58 91-95, 101, 102, 122 6:51 86, 91, 94, 99, 122, 123 6:53-56 94, 104 6:53 94, 99

250 6:56 100 6:59 96 6:60 98 6:63 92, 97, 98, 100, 101 6:64-71 98 6:64 98 7:11 62 8:15 98 8:36 207 11:12 100 11:41 138, 139 12:12-19 90 12:13 127 13–17 102 13 66, 69, 101, 102, 122 13:1-20 90 13:2 64 13:8-11 101 13:8 99 13:10 61 13:12-15 227 13:21-30 227 13:29-30 61 13:31-17:26 227 14:26 101 15:3 101 15:4 99 15:26 101 17:2 98 17:11 101 18:1-11 90 18:1 60 18:3 73 18:28 64, 65, 67–72 18:39 63 19:14 69, 70 19:28 33 19:30 33 19:31 64, 70 19:42 64, 70 21:12 168 21:13 167 21:16 31 Acts 1:14 80 2:42 62, 153, 167 2:46 80, 153 3:25 28 3:26 127 6:4 80

Index of Scriptural References 7:8 28 7:43-44 30 9:2 29 10:4 198 10:41 167 13:5 217 13:14 217 13:44 217 14:1 217 16:13 217 17:2 217 17:17 217 18:4 217 19:8 217 19:9 29 19:23 29 20:7-12 167 20:7 217 20:28 31 20:31 201 22:4 29 24:14 29 24:22 29 Romans Rom 1:9-10 195 4:16 28 4:25 84 5:5 172 5:14-15 207 5:14 26 6:17-18 207 6:19 98 7:5 98 7:14 98 7:24-25 207 8:1-4 207 8:3 175 8:5 98 8:29 159 8:32 28, 84 12:14 127 15:4 30 15:15 201 15:29 127 1 Corinthians 1 Cor 1:2 150, 182 1:4 151 1:14 151 2:4 101, 150

2:12-14 18 3:16 150 4:12 127, 151 5:4 148, 149, 150 5:5-6 148 5:7-8 169 5:7 63, 65, 66, 72, 149, 200 5:8 xvii, 72, 74, 148, 149, 150, 158, 159, 205 5:11 41 6:9 41 6:19-20 150 6:20 150 7–16 149 7:1 149 7:19 150 7:25 149 7:32-35 150 8:1 149 8:4-6 150 8:4 150 9:1-14 178 9:4 178 9:8 178 9:9-14 27 9:10 178 9:13-14 150 9:23 150 10:1-22 152 10:1-13 27, 150 10:1-12 30 10:1-2 151 10:2-4 152 10:3-4 151, 152 10:6 27 10:7-8 152 10:7 41, 150 10:8 41, 151 10:9 151 10:10 41 10:11 30 10:14-22 150, 189 10:14-24 150 10:14 41, 151, 189 10:16 84, 127, 128, 141, 148, 151, 152, 190, 209, 219 10:18 151, 189, 190, 209 10:20 152, 190

Index of Scriptural References 10:21 152, 190, 209 10:22 151, 152 10:30 151 10:31 150 11:2 149 11:15 168 11:20-29 153 11:20-22 150 11:22 165 11:23-34 42 11:23-32 220 11:23-26 87, 89, 152 11:23-25 77, 78, 82, 85, 91, 148, 150, 223 11:23 79, 83, 85, 90, 104, 166, 167 11:24-25 156, 197, 198, 227 11:24 78, 82, 87, 90, 91, 105, 107, 110, 115, 123, 128, 147, 148, 151, 152, 154, 167–9, 192, 195, 197, 225 11:25 34, 59, 75, 78–80, 85–7, 89, 90, 105, 108–10, 115, 167, 169, 192, 195, 203, 225 11:26 xviii, 34, 59, 80, 91, 200, 203 11:27-34 153 11:27-32 151 11:27-30 193 11:27-29 150 11:29-30 152 11:33-34 150 12:1 149 12:2 150 12:4-11 150 13:1 150 14:16-18 151 14:16 127 14:23-26 150 14:24-25 192 14:39-40 150 15:1 149, 150 15:3-5 78, 85, 90

­251

15:3 85, 167, 201 15:12 149 15:14 78 15:20 63 15:57-58 150 16:1 149 16:2 150 16:12 149

1 Thessalonians 1 Thess 1:3 195 2:13 104

2 Corinthians 2 Cor 1:17 98 3:17 207 6:18 32 9:5 127 10:2 98

2 Timothy 2 Tim 1:3 195 1:13 104 2:2 104 2:19 195 2:21 220 3:14 104

Galatians Gal 1:12 104 2:1-10 23 2:20 84 3:3 98 3:6-7 28 3:9 127 3:18 28 3:28 24 4 32 4:22-31 28 5:1 32, 207 5:13 207 5:16 98 Ephesians Eph 1:3 127 1:21 195 2:13 33, 172 2:14-16 175 5:2 84, 175 5:25 84 Philippians Phil 2:7 101 Colossians Col 1:20 175 1:23 172 1:27 172 2:14 175

1 Timothy 1 Tim 6:10 172

Philemon Phlm 19 33 Hebrews Heb 1:3 39 4:9-11 208 4:16 172 6:14 127 7:1 127 7:6 127 7:7 127 7:25-26 161 9:20 104 9:24 161 10:10 175 10:14 175 10:18-22 175 10:22 172 10:25 208 11:17 28 11:20 127 11:21 127 11:28 70, 72, 73 12–13 33 12:16 208 12:23 159 13:7 201 13:11-12 175 13:11-13 33 13:11 104 13:13 33 13:20 30

252 James Jas 3:9 127 4:8 172 1 Peter 1 Pet 2:22-24 175 2:25 30 3:9 127 3:17 172 3:21 30 5:2 31

Index of Scriptural References 5:4 30 2 Peter 2 Pet 1:21 26 2:10 98 1 John 2:16 98 Jude 12 80

Revelation Rev 4:8 220 7:17 31 8:5 83 5:12 127 19:7-8 220 19:17 168 21:12 161 21:14 161 21:19-27 161 22:13-21 199

­

Index of Modern Authors Accola, Louis W. xv Achtemeier, Paul J. 136 Adam, A. K. M. 5–10, 13, 17, 21, 22, 26 Allen, Leslie C. 197 Alsup, J. E. 27 Aus, Roger David 34, 58, 60, 61, 65, 132, 139 Barclay, William 55 Barr, James 4 Barrett, C. K. 99, 101, 123 Barth, Karl 3, 4, 7 Barton, Stephen C. 18 Beasley-Murray, George R. 93, 94, 101 Bieler, Andrea 48, 170, 202 Billerbeck, Paul 66, 67 Billings, Bradly S. 86–9, 144 Billy, Dennis J. xv, 35, 143, 144 Block, Daniel I. 174 Braaten, Carl E. 51 Brooke, George J. 59, 119–21 Brown, Raymond 65, 66, 102, 122 Brown, Sherri 98 Bruckner, James 158 Bubbers, Susan 24, 168 Buttrick, George A. 195 Caird, G. B. 22, 23 Carasik, Michael 159 Carson, D. A. 3, 6, 7, 92 Casey, Maurice 60, 66, 67, 75, 77–81, 84, 103, 104, 107, 110, 128, 154 Chan, Simon 53 Chenderlin, Fritz 50 Childs, Brevard S. 4, 7, 49, 157, 178, 182, 196 Chilton, Bruce 54 Clifford, Richard J. 38, 39, 157 Cocksworth, Christopher J. xv, 52, 53, 212 Cole, Alan 158 Collins, Adela Yarbro 130, 134–6, 141, 144

Collins, Chuck 17 Coutsoumpos, Panayotis 53 Currid, John D. 198 Dana, H. E. 132, 141, 197 Davidson, Richard 29 Davis, Ellen F. 6, 9 Davis, Thomas J. 52 De Arteaga, William 51 DeGrandis, Robert xv DeVries, Simon J. 189 Dix, Dom Gregory 49 Dodd, C. H. 36, 118, 191 Douma, J. 161, 178 Driver, S. R. 182 Dunn, James D. G. 92–7 Durham, John I. 159, 160, 178, 179, 196 Ebeling, Gerhard 15 Edwards, James R. 60, 61, 84, 106, 117, 134, 141, 191 Eichhorn, Albert 55 Eising, H. 158, 160, 201, 202 Ellis, E. E. 30 Evans, Craig A. 37, 38 Feaver, Douglas D. xv Fee, Gordon D. 77, 78, 83, 107, 112, 123, 148–50, 201 Feeley-Harnik, Gillian 54 Finkelstein, Louis 103, 153 Fishbane, Michael 28 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 78, 84, 106, 141, 143, 148, 150, 151, 200 Fitzpatrick, P. J. 48, 170 Foulkes, Francis 27, 28 Fowl, Stephen 5–7, 9–14, 17, 22 France, R. T. 37, 60, 62, 64, 67, 75, 85, 106, 107, 110, 112, 115–17, 131, 133–4, 141, 191

254

Index of Modern Authors

Garland, David E. 84, 150, 151 Garrow, A. J. P. 50, 91, 136, 144 Ginn, Richard J. 49 Gittoes, Julie 50 Glenny, W. Edward 29 Gnilka, Joachim 132, 133, 137 Goodacre, Mark 65 Green, Joel B. 6, 7, 9, 17 Greene-McCreight, Kathryn 5 Guelich, Robert A. 57, 131–5, 137, 138 Gundry, Robert H. 57, 60, 142, 143 Guthrie, Harvey H. 54

Lane, Tony 5 Lane, William 161 Lange, John P. 42, 176, 185 Langston, Scott 42, 157 Leach, Jane xv Leithart, Peter J. xv Letham, Robert 52 Levering, Matthew 52 Liddell, Henry 127, 128 Lightfoot, John 62 Lincoln, Andrew T. 91, 97–101, 123 Louw, J. P. 194

Hahn, Scott 50 Hamilton, John 73 Hamm, Dennis 174 Hampsch, John xv Hanna, E. E. 52 Harris, R. Laird 181 Hays, Richard B. 6, 36, 84, 199, 200 Heising, Alkuin 139, 154 Helmer, Christine 9 Hicks, John xv Hiebert, Theodore 176 Higgins, Angus 55 Holloway, Clinton J. xv Hooker, Morna D. 118, 119

Mangina, Joseph 24 Mantey, J. R. 132, 141, 197 Marcus, Joel 39, 57, 58, 60, 61, 106, 123, 133, 135– 8, 141, 143, 154 Marshall, I. Howard 46, 47, 57–9, 63– 70, 77, 79, 80, 84, 86, 103, 105–8, 112, 113, 117, 118, 122, 137, 155, 198 Marty, Martin E. xv Mathison, Keith A. 52 McConville, J. G. 187 McGrade, A. S. 19 McGrath, Alister E. 18 McKenna, Briege xv McMichael, Ralph xv Meyer, Heinrich 132, 133 Milavec, Aaron 218 Milligan, William 68–70, 73, 93–5, 101 Mitchell, Christopher 182 Mitchell, Leonel L. 49 Mitchell, Nathan 48, 51 Moberly, R. W. L. 162, 178, 179 Moloney, Francis 55 Moore-Keish, Martha 48 Morley, Janet xv Motyer, Steve xv, 74, 144 Moulton, William 68–70, 73, 93–5, 101

Instone-Brewer, David 64, 66, 67, 71, 153 Jenson, Robert W. 51 Jeremias, Joachim 46, 47, 55, 57–70, 75, 77–87, 90, 91, 101–7, 109–13, 118, 123, 127–30, 134, 137, 146, 147, 153– 5, 197–9, 201, 227 Jones, Cheslyn 49 Jukes, Andrew 31–4 Keenan, Joseph 30 Keener, Craig S. 91, 98–101 Kertelge, Karl 154 Kilpatrick, G. D. 46, 47, 57–60, 64–6, 68, 78, 80, 84, 86, 203 Kirk, Terrell T. 18, 19 Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi 198 Klink, Edward W. 4 Koch, Dieter-Alex 131 Koenig, John 51 Kun, Jeanne xv

Neill, Stephen 18 Nelson, Richard D. 188 Neyrey, Jerome 98, 99 Nida, E. A. 194 Niditch, Susan 186 Ninow, Friedbert 26, 27 Nolland, John 60, 74, 80, 104, 106–8, 112, 147

Index of Modern Authors Oden, Thomas C. 51 Olson, Dennis T. 179 Osborne, Grant R. 35, 86 Pao, David W. 29 Parker, David 88 Parry, Robin 8 Patterson, Richard D. 31, 32 Perry, Craig S. xv Pesch, Rudolf 131 Phillips, E. E. xv Polliack, Meira 28 Power, David N. 48 Routledge, Robin L. 75, 79, 84, 227 Saliers, Don E. 48 Sarna, Nahum M. 176, 196 Sasse, Harmann 51 Scharbert, Josef 168, 174, 187 Schmemann, Alexander xv, 170, 172, 202 Schmithals, Walter 132 Schniewind, Julius 132, 133, 139 Schottroff, L. 48, 170, 202 Schürmann, Heinz 80, 107, 111, 112, 145 Schweizer, Eduard 55 Scobie, Charles 4, 15, 25 Scott, Robert 127, 128 Seebass, H. 217 Seitz, Chrisopher 4 Shanks, Hershel 59 Siegel, Daniel J. 201 Smith, Dennis E. 54 Smith, Gordon T. 48, 52 Sprinkle, Joe M. 179 Stegemann, Hartmut 59 Stein, Robert H. 60–62, 84, 115–17, 128, 134, 135, 141, 191 Stendahl, Krister 3 Stephenson, Lisa P. 39 Story, Cullen I.K. 47, 64, 65, 68–71,

­255

73, 75, 155, 212, 213 Stott, Wilfred 217 Strack, Hermann L. 66, 67 Stubbs, David L. 187 Suggit, John 91, 96, 101, 136, 144 Sveshnikov, Sergei 52 Talbot, Elizabeth 168 Talmon, Shemaryahu 31 Taussig, Hal 54 Thiselton, Anthony 27, 78, 79, 115, 165, 201, 202 Travers, Michael 31, 32 Treier, Daniel J. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, 25, 26 Trimm, Charlie 24 Vander Zee, Leonard 53 Vanhoozer, Kevin J. 2, 3, 6, 7, 21, 22, 25 von Rad, Gerhard 187 Wainwright, Geoffrey 50, 167, 199 Wallace, Daniel B. 132, 140, 142 Walton, Steve 85, 86 Wardlaw, Gilbert 147 Watson, Francis 4, 7, 16 Watson, Thomas xv Watson, Wilfred 179 Watts, Rikki E. 32, 38, 120 Webb, Barry G. 186 Webb, William J. 14, 73 Webber, Robert E. 53 Webster, John 2, 10–12, 21, 26 Whitacre, Rodney A. 61, 64, 70, 93, 94, 96–9, 101, 123 Williamson, H. G. M. 183, 184 Willimon, William 48, 49 Witherington, Ben 55, 218 Wright, Tom xv, 170 Yong, Amos 172 Zuck, Roy B. 27, 28