ABSTRACT
The subject of this research is ‗The attitude of Christians towards the Lord’s supper: Luke 22:7-23‘.The study was conducted using the narrative criticism in order to examine the effect of Jesus‘ words on the disciples. It discussed unity among believers, the new covenant and salvation in relation to the Supper. The research establishes that the Lord‘s Supper was instituted precisely for the Disciples of Christ and that it is through faith that one can get the blessings associated with observing the Supper. It has also revealed that the supper represents both cooperate and individual family relation with God which must be emphasized in the Eucharistic celebration through a strong bond of unity. Again the death of Christ which is symbolically interpreted in the Lord‘s Supper was sacrificial. In sacrifice, blood is always presented as symbolism of life and so Jesus‘ death is to be understood from this background. The research also establishes that some of these important values being communicated through the Supper to the disciples are not alien to the Nigerian traditional culture. Most of these values are practiced within the Nigerian society. Therefore the celebration of the Supper helps Nigerian Christians to better understand them as they appropriate the meaning of the Supper as interpreted in the Lucan account of the institution narrative. The research draws the conclusion that for the Nigerian Christian, the Supper is a ritual that seeks to transform the believer. This transformation which occurs both in the way the Supper is observed and its meaning integrated into their daily relationship within the Christian community is what underlines the celebration of the Eucharist.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
The Lord‘s Supper is one of the most important sacraments instituted by Jesus when he was approaching the climax of his ministry on earth. In the ancient world as everywhere else, people ate meals primarily for the sake of satisfying their hunger and enjoying the pleasure given by food. Food is often served at various occasions to be enjoyed with people, friends, family and strangers, as an expression of hospitality. In Nigeria, for instance, meals are served at naming ceremonies, puberty rites, marriages, and even funerals where people are supposed to be mourning, because of its social significance. In some parts of the world, meals are used to seal reconciliatory activities between disputing factions. In the Old Testament when Jacob returned to Laban after his flight from Haran, the reconciliation was sealed with a meal (Gen 31:54). This goes a long way to express the importance of meals in the social setup of both ancient and modern cultures. In the New Testament, Jesus ate meals in the homes of some people during his ministry (Luke 7:34). Roger Bowen maintains that Jesus often enjoyed meals with his disciples and with
‗sinners‘. He provided for the hungry, went to parties, and enjoyed eating and drinking often in bad company.1 So did his disciples.
Meals also carry religious significance depending on how, where and why they are offered and eaten. According to Howard Ian Marshall, in ancient Israel, people went to the temple to offer animal sacrifices and to share in a common meal. Marshall posits that,
‗They could be said to be eating before the Lord,‘2 and the occasion was one of praise and rejoicing. Such meals could be regarded as communion between God and his people and
1 Roger Bowen, ‘… So I Send You’: A Study Guide to Mission, (London: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 48.
2 Ian Howard Marshal, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper (Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1980), 18.
seen to be religious.3 Meanwhile, there were religious dimensions, expressed in thanksgiving to God, in ordinary Jewish meals which was different from the religious meals which had elements of sacrifice. This ascertain the fact that prior to Jesus‘ era and that of the church, thanksgiving to God for what was eaten and drunk certainly existed.
There were other Jewish festal meals which were eaten by the people of Israel. One of such was the Passover, the context in which the Synoptic Gospels indicate Jesus‘ Last Supper took place.4 This view has been challenged by some scholars on account of the time it was eaten and the elements used. Benjamin Wisner Bacon argues that the ritual observance that Jesus‘ supper proceeds from was not the Passover, but the far simpler one of the Kiddush,5 a common Jewish ritual on the eve of every Sabbath and of every feast- day.6 Its name (Kiddush, ‗sanctification‘) is derived from the fact that the day was made
‗holy‘. In this ritual sanctification, the elements used are simply ‗a cup of wine and a loaf of leavened bread‘ and the ministrant is the head of the family. In his view, Jesus, according to the Lucan account, employs this ritual of sanctification. By the time it was celebrated it could be understood as sanctification of Passover; making Luke‘s chronology coincides with that of John‘s Gospel. To him, there is no connection of the ceremony to Jesus‘ death. 7
Meanwhile, J. Jeremias has listed and examined features in the same account that suggest that a Passover meal was held as cited by Marshall. Jeremias argues on this account using the twelve disciples that Jesus ate the Supper with as against the large crowd that Jesus sometimes ate with as remarkable of the number required for a Passover meal.8
4Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper, 66.3Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper, 66.
5 This is a common Jewish ritual performed on the eve of every Sabbath and of every feast-day in which a cup of wine and a loaf of leavened bread is used with the purpose of sanctifying the day. In this ritual the
ministrant is the head of the family.
6Benjamin Wisner Bacon, ‗The Lukan Tradition of the Lord Supper‘, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 5. No.3 (1912): 322-348, 337.
7Bacon, ‗The Lukan Tradition of the Lord‘s Supper‘, 337.
8Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper, 59.
This argument has, however, been refuted on the account that there is no proof that Jesus usually ate with a large company of people and also that there is the possibility of some of the women associated with Jesus‘ followers being present at the Last Supper. A stronger argument put forth by Jeremias in support of the meal as a Passover one is the interpretation of the significance of the bread and wine by Jesus.9 He explains that Jesus was following the normal practice of the Passover.
In the article, ‗The Early History of the Lord‘s Supper‘, Hank Jan de Jonge also argues that the pattern of the Lord‘s Supper conforms to that of normal Hellenistic Communal Supper, which consisted of a meal and ensuing symposium.10 He explains that such suppers were held periodically in all sorts of clubs, societies, associations, religious guilds and other groups, in which the members wanted to give shape to their ideal of unity, community, equality and brotherhood. In line with the various scholarly arguments on the Last Supper as a Passover meal, I agree with Marshall that the agreement of the Synoptic Gospels, with the paschal features in the account of the institution makes the Passover meal the most obvious background for the Last Supper of Jesus and his disciples.
The Lord‘s Supper, θπξηαθόλ δείπλνλ, occurs once in the New Testament (I Cor. 11:20), but its institution is described in all the four gospels. Δείπλνλ most often designates the ordinary meal, to which guests could be invited.11Nelson B. Baker defines it as the taking of bread and wine in accordance with Christ‘s institution.12 Other meaningful names are the Holy Communion, the Eucharist, and Breaking of Bread. Scholars are of the view that the tradition concerning the institution of the Lord‘s Supper by Jesus during the Last
10Henk Jan de Jonge, ‗The Early History of the Lord‘s Supper‘, https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/961/279_123.pdf?sequence=1, [accessed 25 March 2012], 224.9Marshall, Lord’s Supper and Last Supper, 59.
11J. Wanke, δείπλνλ δείπέω in Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider (eds), Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 281.
12 Nelson B. Baker, ‗Lord‘s Supper‘ in Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard F. Vos, John Rea, (eds), Wycliffe Bible Dictionary (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2008), 1050.
Supper is most likely a Post-Easter aetiology. Bacon affirming this view says that ‗the history of the Lord‘s Supper goes back to the practice of one single group of Jewish followers of Jesus who remains faithful to him after his death‘.13 This is because all early Christian witnesses of the weekly celebration of the Lord‘s Supper agree that it was celebrated on Sunday evening.
In an attempt to resolve the dilemma as to whether the words of Jesus at the Last Supper should be taken as referring to the Lord‘s Supper or to the heavenly banquet, Marshall discusses the argument by L. Goppelt that the Lord‘s Supper can be regarded as the feast of fulfilment in the kingdom of God inasmuch as it is in anticipation of the heavenly banquet.14 He therefore establishes the fact that as the early church met to celebrate the rite; it came to be known as the Lord‘s Supper. Though this idea is supported by most scholars, some prefer the use of other terminologies depending on their church‘s tradition. The choice of Luke‘s Gospel for this study is because of its comprehensive nature15 and the emphasis on special issues in the gospel. Beginning with the annunciations of John the Baptist and Jesus, he continues with the infant narratives and ends with the ascension; something which is not common to the other synoptic accounts. It has a longer account of the Lord‘s Supper than its synoptic counterparts, and it is especially detailed in its account. In another respect, he alone presents two cups in his institution narrative, one before the bread and another one afterwards (Luke 22: 17 and 20). 13 Bacon,‘ History of the Lord‘s Supper‘, 229. 14Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper, 80. 15 Bock, ‗Luke 1:1-9:50‘, 1.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Due to the fact that the evangelists did not write a history or biography of Jesus but presented faith to the people, they composed their texts to suit their readers who obviously were from different cultural backgrounds.16 In view of this there are different accounts of the Lord‘s Supper which differ from one another in some details. From this backdrop, one begins to wonder whether Christians today understands what the evangelists communicated to their readers. Some also wonder if what is done in the observance of the Supper is actually in consonance with the word of God. It is therefore important to study the gospel accounts individually to know what the authors aimed at communicating to their respective readers.
More important is such an approach because the interpretation of the different gospel accounts has influenced Christian thought including the understanding of the Lord‘s Supper.17David Steinmetz, in his article ‗Scripture and the Lord‘s Supper in Luther‘s Theology‘ intimates that ‗the debate about the Eucharist between Luther and his Protestant opponents was in fact a struggle over the way to understand and appropriate Scripture‘.18 Zwingli, for instance interpreted the words, ―this is my body,‖ in line with certain exegetical suggestions made by Cornelius Hoen, a Dutch humanist.19 This makes biblical exegesis indispensable in theological thinking. But researchers seem to focus more on the historical and theological developments of the Lord‘s Supper than exegetical studies of the texts.
Manfred Oeming has indicated that the text to be interpreted is that which partially carries the intention of the author, and interpretation is the process by which the reader 17Tad W. Guzie, Jesus and the Eucharist, (New York: Paulist Press, 1974), 4.16 Vincent P. Branick, Understanding the New Testament and its Message: An Introduction (New York: Paulist Press, 1998), 158-9.
18David C. Steinmetz, ‗Scripture and the Lord‘s Supper in Luther‘s Theology‘ http://int.sagepub.com/content/37/3/253, [accessed March 23 2012].
19Steinmetz, ‗Scripture and the Lord‘s Supper‘, 255 interacts with the text. That is, read the text, examines and listens to the words of the text as a medium of communicating the author‘s message.20 Ossom-Batsa defines a text as ‗A structured event of communication between the subjects of the communication, where the subjects are the author and the reader‘.21 Each of these subjects play significant roles to make communication occur because, meaning is an event that engages both the author and the reader. In the light of this, one may want to find out how Christians interpret the events that occurred at the Lords supper.
1.3 Research Questions
The main research question for this study is:
What message did Jesus intends to communicate to his readers in Luke‘s account of the institution of the Lord‘s Supper?
The Sub research question is:
How has the interpretation of Luke‘s Gospel account informed the understanding and celebration of the institution of the Lord‘s Supper among Christians in Nigeria? 21George Ossom-Batsa, ‗Bread for the Broken: Pragmatic Meaning of Mark 14:22-25‘, Neotestamenica 40.2, (2006): 6-29, 8-9.20 Manfred Oeming, Contemporary Biblical Hermeneutics: An Introduction, (England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2006), 7.
1.4 Aims and Objectives
The study sought to achieve the following objectives:
- To establish the message Luke intends to communicate to his readers to understand its uniqueness in order to enhance teaching and learning of the
- To explore the major theological themes from the analysis for further understanding of the Supper among Christians.
- To underscore the relevance of the interpretation of Luke‘s account of the Lord‘s Supper for the celebration of the Supper among Christians in
1.5 Methodology and Methods of Data Collection
The Literary Critical Method was used for this research. According to Randolph Tate, it is an explication of a text that attempts to understand the intention and accomplishment of the author by analysing the compositional structural element of the text.22 Under this method, I used Narrative Criticism which is the analysis of the narrative content within the context of relationship between author, text, and readers.23 This method was chosen because it is primarily oriented on the reader. It has in view the effect of the narrative on the readers and the way in which the text makes them cooperate in deciphering the meaning.24The author of the gospel categorized it as a narrative or orderly account in the preface of the gospel. Therefore using this method helped to keep to order which is relevant in reading narratives and also in analysing the coordination between the compositional elements of the narrative. 23 Randolph W. Tate, Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach, Third Ed. (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. 2008), 336.22 Randolph Tate, Interpreting the Bible: Hand Book for Terms and Methods, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006), 199.
24 Daniel Marguerat and Yvan Bourguin (eds), How to Read Bible Stories (London: SMC Press, 1999), 7.
25 Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997),
I used primary and secondary sources for data collection. The primary sources include The Greek New Testament Bible and The New Revised Standard Version Bible. I used these sources because they are critical editions of the Bible required for scholarly work. The secondary sources I used were critical Bible commentaries on the Gospel of Luke and other critical Bible Commentaries, published books, journal articles and internet sources on the topic. In order to situate the work within the scholarly purview, The Speech Act theory has been used as the theoretical framework for the research. The theory contends that ‗verbal utterances not only say things; they also do things‘.26 Eugene Botha also agrees that it is a theory of language use and its effect.27J. L. Austin, the chief proponent of this theory as cited by Brown posits that an utterance has locution which is what the person said, an illocution which refers to what is accomplished by what the speaker said and the intended effect inherent in what is said as perlocution.28 The theory emphasizes the functional nature of language which both says and does things.
When Christians observe the Lord‘s Supper, they participate in it in obedience to the command and example of Jesus; that is, what he said and did. There is therefore an intimate connection between the word and sacrament, and this affirms the actions of the words Jesus spoke in the Eucharistic narrative. This affirms that actions other than speaking can be performed in the act of speaking and by the act of speaking as Kevin Vanhoozer intimates in the work of Clarke.29 In effect, the Supper must be understood in the context of the gospel and its sacramental function should be explained to those participating in it.
27 Eugene Botha, ‗Speech Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation‘, Neotestamentica, 41.2(2007): 274-294, 275.26Jeannine K. Brown, Scripture as Communication: Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 32.
28 Brown, Scripture as Communication, 32.
29 Ros Clarke, ‗The Function of the Words of Institution in the Celebration of the Lord‘s Supper‘, Internet Journal for Integrated Theology, www.theologian.org.uk/wordsofinstitution.html, [accessed 10 May 2013].
This theory was relevant for the study because it directs attention toward utterances and the effects achieved by these utterances in a particular speech context. It helped in analysing what Jesus said and did at the Last Supper and the resulting action of what was said by the disciples. Again, it was suitable for the study because it helps in analyzing a text at more than one level.30 In this speech context, the utterances of the characters and the communicative acts that took place were analyzed. As the biblical exegete seeks to comprehend meaning, his aim is to grasp the original intent of the author; and as Botha contends ‗language and words are not neutral careers of meaning but actually have effect and achieve‘.31 This theory which focuses on the performative aspect of language is a relevant framework for the study because in an attempt to examine whether the disciples understood what Jesus said in the narrative and the influence this interpretation had on the disciples and in contemporary times. The theory helps to focus on the performative aspect of the text.
1.6 Scope of the Research
This study which concerns the analysis of scripture focuses on the Evangelist Luke‘s account of the institution of the Lord‘s Supper as found in Chapter 22:7-23 of the Gospel. The study is limited to the literary analysis of the institution of the Lord‘s Supper in Luke. Though it forms part of a larger block of narratives, this passage presents the full account of the Supper. Again, the passage of institution in Luke is not a mere agglutination of unrelated fragments, but a closely connected whole, having its own very marked and distinctive character.32 The Gospel of Luke was selected because unlike the other Gospel Evangelists, Luke was quite early seen as the evangelist who wrote for Gentiles,33 and so
33 Carl R. Holladay, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament: Interpreting the Message and Meaning of Jesus Christ, (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 169.30Botha, ‗Speech Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation‘, 282. 31Botha, ‗Speech Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation‘, 282 32Bacon, ‗The Lukan Tradition of Lord‘s Supper‘, 337.
his account is relevant for the context of the study. Holladay posits that Luke supplied an account that is comprehensive, coherent and well researched,34 and so was meaningful for this study. In addition, the style of Luke‘s Gospel is very unique and he writes very good Greek which facilitates the analysis of the pericope. The chosen passage is a complete unit and so could be considered for the study.
I have also limited the contextualization of the text to the Church in Nigeria with the Methodist Church Nigeria as an example. The Methodist Church Nigeria was chosen because apart from being in a gentile context like that of Luke‘s readers, the observance of the Supper by this church is similar to Luke‘s Eucharistic narrative and so studying the text in this context helps to ascertain the interpretation that guides their celebration.
1.7Literature Review
There are a lot of scholarly works on the subject because of its importance in Christianity. However, only those relevant to the study were reviewed. Joseph A. Fitzmyer in his book, The Gospel According to Luke: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary has done a very comprehensive work on the second part of the Gospel of Luke. He looked at the ministry of Jesus in Jerusalem, the various teachings and parables, healings which occurred etc. He indicates that as part of the passion narratives, the preparation for the Passover meal and the Last Supper comes after Judas‘ agreement to betray Jesus and it is followed by Jesus foretelling his betrayal. To him though it seems to be a straightforward account, ‗The Lucan account of the Last Supper is a scholar‘s paradise and a beginner‘s nightmare‘.35 The account is very different from that of John. He explains that though inspired by the Marcan account, Luke has transposed the mention of Judas‘ betrayal slightly changing its order to create a better discourse after the meal itself. Fitzmyer also
34Holladay, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament, 169.
35 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Anchor Bible, The Gospel According to Luke: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary Vol.28A (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1985), 1386.
establishes that apart from the meal proposed to be a Kiddush meal, it is also said to be a hābûrāh36 and an Essene meal.37 His analysis is very detailed and expounds on the words. The commentary also provides background understanding to the text. Alfred Plummer‘s Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke also affirms the Last Supper as a Passover meal as he analyses the text. He adds that ἐπηζπκίᾳ ἐπεζύκεζα is a Hebraism common expression and its combination with ηνύ κε παζείλis very remarkable;38 because Jesus‘ knowledge of the intensity of the suffering did not cancel the intensity of his desire. His detailed word study gives in depth knowledge of the text.
Describing the nature of the Lord‘s Supper, Philip Camp drew theological and ethical links between the New Testament texts on the subject and the Sabbath in his article
‗The Lord‘s Supper as Sabbath Observance‘. Camp indicated in his work that there is still enough theological links between the Lord‘s Supper and the Sabbath commandments.39 Dwelling on the Old Testament texts in Exodus and Deuteronomy and some New Testaments texts on the Lord‘s Supper, he posits that biblical commentators often draw their theological reflections of
Do you need help? Talk to us right now: (+234) 08060082010, 08107932631 (Call/WhatsApp). Email: [email protected].IF YOU CAN'T FIND YOUR TOPIC, CLICK HERE TO HIRE A WRITER»
