Lamentations 2:10-18

The following comments are based on relevant comments from those on Lamentations 2:8-15 of October 21, 2009 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One), on the comments of March 20, 2008 (Maundy Thursday, Year Two), and earlier comments, as noted there.

Lamentations has been described as “a sequence of five lyric poems that lament the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BCE (see 2 Kings 25:8-21)” (F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, Introduction to Lamentations). Remarkably, however, while there are eight references to Jerusalem’s “enemies” (1:2, 5, 10, 21; 2:16, 22; 3:46, 52) and other references to the “enemy” (singular), and exile is mentioned twice (1:3; 4:22), the Babylonians are never mentioned as such. Based on Lamentations, it is the LORD that has brought about Jerusalem’s disaster.

Chapter 2 of Lamentations has been called “The People’s Agony and their Cry to God for Mercy” ( R. B. Y. Scott & Roland E. Murphy, NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Lam. 2:1-22). Daniel Grossberg just calls it “the second lament,” but characterizes it as angry in tone. “In contrast to the previous ch.,” he says, “where the tone is one of despair and mourning, the tone of this ch. is angry. God is depicted throughout as an angry enemy who destroyed the physical structures of Jerusalem with violent force” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Lam. 2:1-22). Commenting on the part of the chapter in today’s reading, Grossberg says “the survivors bewail their suffering” (ibid., on vv. 10-19).

The last verse of yesterday’s reading and the first of today’s follow Jerusalem’s angry complaints against the Lord (Lam. 2:1-8) with description of her desolation.

9. Ufb4FA, tāv ^e‘û. “Her gates have sunk into the ground; / he has ruined and broken her bars; / her king and princes are among the nations; / guidance (hrAOT, tôrāh) is no more, / and her prophets obtain / no vision from the LORD” (v. 9). “Her gates have sunk into the ground,” says Dobbs-Allsopp, means “either the battered doors lying in the dirt, or the ruined gate-towers (Jer. 14:2)” (op. cit., on v. 9). He adds that “among the nations” means “in exile” (ibid.). Werner E. Lemke, revised by Kathleen O’Connor, says, “Guidance [hrAOT, tôrāh], or priestly ‘instruction’ [is meant]” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lam. 2:9).

10. Ubw4y2, yēš^evû (Many ancient versions have the perfect–past–tense, Ubw4y!, yāš^evû, instead of the imperfect, translated in the present tense NRSV, cf. AV/KJV). The elders of daughter Zion / sit on the ground in silence; / they have thrown dust on their heads / and put on sackcloth; / the young girls of Jerusalem / have bowed their heads to the ground” (Lam. 2:10). The Hebrew word order puts “sit” first, and thus fits the verse into the acrostic. The word order is natural in Hebrew, but awkward in English: “[they] sit to the ground motionless [lit. ‘stand still’ based on the LXX, cf. BHS apparatus] the elders of the house of Zion.” “Each action,” says Grossberg, “is a sign of mourning (see Ezek. 27:30; Job 2:12-13). Some current Jewish mourning practices reflect these ancient practices. Mention of elders and maidens [‘young girls’ NRSV] is an example of a merism, a literary device whereby two opposites are used to express totality: The two and all in between mourn” (op. cit., on v. 10).

Then the poet gets personal.

11. UlK0!, kālû. “My eyes are spent with weeping; / my stomach churns; / my bile is poured out on the ground / because of the destruction of my people (Ym09fa-tBa, bat-‘ammî), / because infants and babes faint / in the streets (tObHor4, r ^echōvôth) of the city” (v. 11). According to Dobbs-Allsopp, “The poet’s words echo those of Zion in 1:20” (op. cit., on v. 11). “My people,” he adds, is lit. ‘Daughter of My People,’ another of the city’s epithets (cf. 3:48; 4:3, 6, 10).” “Streets,” he says is “better, ‘plazas’ or ‘squares,’ broad open places near gates (Judg. 19:15; Esth. 4:6; 6:9; 2 Chr. 32:6)” (ibid.; cf. William L. Holladay, A concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 4^th impression, 1978, s.v. bHor4, r ^echôv).

12. Mt!m0ox9l4, l^e’immōthām. “They cry to their mothers, / ‘Where is bread and wine?’ / as they faint like the wounded / in the streets of the city, / as their life is poured out / on their mothers' bosom” (v. 12). The NJPS translation brings out the continuing action aspect of the imperfect tense (cf. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2^nd English ed., 1910, reprint 1985, sec. 107): “They keep asking their mothers, ‘Where is bread and wine?’ ” (v. 12a, b). Dobbs-Allsopp comments, “The lives of innocent victims are poured out on their mothers’ bosom where they should find succor (Ruth 4:16; cf. P)s. 22:9; Job 3:12) and security (1 Kings 3:20)” (op. cit., on Lam. 2:12).

13. hm!, māh. “What can I say for you, to what compare you, / O daughter Jerusalem? / To what can I liken you, that I may comfort you, / O virgin daughter Zion? / For vast as the sea is your ruin; / who can heal you?” (v. 13). Grossberg explains the phrase “vast as the sea,” which he calls a “simile expressing infinite size (see Isa. 48:18; Ps. 104:25; Job 11:9)” (op. cit., on Lam. 2:13).

14. j`y9x1yb9n4, n^evî’ayik. “Your prophets (seers, NJPS) have seen for you / false and deceptive visions; / they have not exposed your iniquity / to restore your fortunes, / but have seen oracles for you / that are false and misleading” (v. 14). To the “oracles of delusion and deception” (v. 14 NJPS; ‘false and deceptive visions’ NRSV), Grossberg compares Jeremiah 14:13-16; 23:25-27)” (ibid., on v. 14).

15. Uqp4s!&, sāf ^eqû. “All who pass along the way / clap their hands at you; / they hiss and wag their heads / at daughter Jerusalem; / ‘Is this the city that was called / the perfection of beauty, / the joy of all the earth?’ ” (v. 15). The Hebrew word order puts the second half-line first, thus starting with (they) clap: “Clap their hands at you / all who pass along the way” (awkward order in English). This word order has the effect of emphasizing the derisive clapping, to which the acrostic pattern also calls attention. Dobbs-Allsopp calls the references to “clap . . . hiss . . . wag, gestures of derision and contempt” (op. cit., on v. 15; cf. Grossberg on v. 15, “gestures of shock or derision”).

16. UcP!, pātsû. “All your enemies / open their mouths against you; / they hiss, they gnash their teeth, / they cry: ‘We have devoured her! / Ah, this is the day we longed for; / at last we have seen it!’ ” (v. 16). The NJPS translation begins with “All your enemies / Jeer at you; . . .” (v. 16a, b NJPS). Here, too, the Hebrew word order has the second half-line first, again emphasizing the derisive opening of their mouths by the enemies. Grossberg notes that, “In this acrostic, and in the following two chs. [but not in chap. 1], the letter ‘pe’ [p] precedes the ‘ ‘ayin’ [f], reflecting an alternative order of the alphabet, attested in inscriptions from Izbet Sartah and Kuntillet Ajrud” (on v. 16).

17. hW!f!, ‘āśāh. “The LORD has done what he purposed, / he has carried out his threat; / as he ordained long ago, / he has demolished without pity; / he has made the enemy rejoice over you, / and exalted the might of your foes” (v. 17). The judgment which was the LORD’s purpose has been carried out. “The language” here, says Dobbs-Allsopp, “alludes to 2:1-8)” (on v. 17). Grossberg explains the words, “has carried out the decree” (v. 17 NJPS), as “to punish sinners (1 Kings 9:6-9)” (on v. 17).

18. qf1c!. tsā‘aq (yq9f!%c4 [cf. Jer. 22:20], ts^e‘āqî, imperative, as in the NRSV; cf. text note d; cf. vv. 19, 20). “Cry aloud to the Lord! / O wall of daughter Zion! / Let tears stream down like a torrent / day and night! / Give yourself no rest, / your eyes no respite!” (v. 18). Where the NRSV “corrects” the text, the NJPS follows the Hebrew (MT): “Their heart cried out to the Lord, / O wall of Fair Zion, . . .” (v. 18a, b NJPS); a text note (a) says, “Emendation yields ‘Cry aloud’.” Dobbs-Allsopp says the word “aloud,” “(lit. ‘heartily, from the heart,’ [refers to] one of the centers of the emotions), cf. 1:20b; 2:19b” (on v. 18). Grossberg sees here “a call to Zion (according to the emendation). The ‘wall’ is personified as a supplicant to God on behalf of the city” (on vv. 18-19). In effect, Jerusalem cries to God for mercy. Compare the later words, “Arise (ym9Uq6, qûmî), cry out in the night, . . . before the presence of the Lord . . .” (v. 19a, d), and “Look (hx2r4, r^e’ēh), O LORD, and consider!/ To whom have you done this?” (v. 20a, b). So Jerusalem cries to God for mercy. Unfortunately, the Jewish people have continued to see times of desolation and agony even in our “modern” world. And just as unfortunately, man’s inhumanity to man, including genocide, continues around the world.

1 Corinthians 10:14-17; 11:27-32

            Warning against Participation in Meals at Pagan Temples

14 Therefore, my dear friends, flee from the worship of idols. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. (1 Corinthians 10:14-17 NRSV)

            On Partaking of the Lord’s Supper in a Worthy Manner 

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:27-32 NRSV)

Relevant comments are repeated here from March 15 and 16, 2010 (Monday and Tuesday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Lent, Year Two), when the readings were 1 Corinthians 10:14-11:1 and 11:17-34. Earlier sources are indicated there.

Earlier, Paul warns the Corinthians against idolatry, “Do not become idolaters as some of them [the wilderness generation of Israelites] did” (1 Cor. 10:7, citing Ex. 32:6). He draws a parallel between the statement, “the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to revel” (Ex. 32:6; ‘rose up to play” as cited in 1 Cor. 10:7) and the meals in pagan temples with revelry to follow. Ben Witherington III says, “Paul exhorts the Corinthians not to be idolaters and then quotes directly from Exod. 32:6, the story of the golden calf (v. 7). He uses this text for its special relevance, in particular its allusion to sexual play or amusement after the idol feast” (Conflict & Community in Corinth, 1994, p. 221 on 1 Cor. 10:1-11:1).

Paul now draws a contrast between such idol feasts and the Christian Eucharist (Lord’s Supper). He commands: “Therefore, my dear friends, flee from the worship of idols” (1 Cor. 10:14). This, he believes, is a reasonable command. “I speak as to sensible people (frovnimoi, phronimoi),” he says; “judge for yourselves what I say” (v. 15). In his appeal to their thoughtful consideration of his advice, Paul’s adjective “pertains to understanding associated with insight and wisdom, sensible, thoughtful, prudent, wise” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. frovnimoV (phronimos). He reminds them, “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?” (v. 16). This sharing has to do with the unity of the Christian community. “Because there is one bread,” says Paul, “we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (v. 17). And he cites the practice of ancient Israel as an example. “Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?” (v. 18). At this point Victor Paul Furnish refers to 9:13 and Lev. 7:6, 15 where, in Jewish sacrifice “those who are employed in the temple service” (1 Cor. 9:13), the priests (Lev. 7:6) and the person bringing the sacrifice (? v. 15) eat the meat of the sacrificed animal (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 1 Cor. 10:18). Jacob Milgrom refers to the thanksgiving sacrifice of well-being,” which he says represent’s “P’s [i.e., the ‘Priestly Code’ of the Pentateuch] conflation of two sacrifices, the thanksgiving offering and the well-being offering, which H [i.e. the ‘Holiness Code’ of the Pentateuch] treats as distinct sacrifices (22:21, 29)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lev. 7:13-15). Sharing in the eating of the sacrificial meat, whether by the ancient Israelites or by those participating in the dinners in the temples of Corinth creates a certain bond, a communal unity. To these Paul compares the Christian Lord’s Supper.

The present reading passes over 10:18-11:26. For comments on the intervening section, see the Archives for March 15 and 16, 2010 (as indicated above). That would include concluding comments on idolatry (10:18-22), doing all to the glory of God (vv. 10:23-11:1), discussion of head coverings (11:2-16), abuses at the Lord’s Supper (vv. 17-22), and the Institution of the Lord’s Supper (vv. 23-26).

On Partaking of the Supper Unworthily

“This passage,” says Horsley, “would fit readily after 11:2, if the preceding discussion of hairstyles were not in the original letter. In a manner typical of ancient arguments, Paul would then be commending the Corinthians for maintaining the traditions in general before admonishing them about the divisions at the Lord’s Supper in particular. After rebuking the Corinthians for their divisions (vv. 17-22), he repeats the words of institution (23-26), then applies that tradition to their situation (vv. 27-32), and finally instructs them as to how they should proceed in the future (vv. 33-34)” (op. cit., on vv. 17-34). Paul continues with admonitions not found in the Gospel accounts. With reference to the earlier statements about abuses (vv. 17-22), he gives some warnings, “sober warnings and earnest appeals,” says Furnish (op. cit., on vv. 27-34). “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord” (v. 27). “Examine yourselves,” Paul adds, “and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (v. 28). And he explains, “For all who eat and drink without discerning (diakrivnwn, diakrinōn, present participle of diakrivnw, diakrinō ) the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves” (v. 29). According to Richard A. Horsley, “Answerable for the body . . . means that those who fail to discern the body, i.e., the community, eat and drink judgment against themselves” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 1 Cor. 11:27-32). Furnish refers here to 2 Corinthians 13:5, “Examine yourselves to see whether you are living in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you?–unless, indeed, you fail to meet the test!” He also refers to Galatians 6:4 (ibid., on v. 28). “For all who eat and drink without discerning the body,” says Paul, “eat and drink judgment against themselves” (v. 29). Horsley says, “Picking up on ‘until [the Lord] comes’ in v. 26 (see 1:7-8), Paul’s application of the tradition is dominated by references to judgment. Answerable for the body . . . , means that those who fail to discern the body, i.e., the community, eat and drink judgment against themselves”(op. cit., on 1 Cor. 11:27-32). Furnish says, “When believers neither discern nor are concerned for one another’s needs, Christ’s body (see 10:16-17; 12:12-13) is being disregarded and violated (cf. 8:12)” (op. cit., on v. 29). “For this reason,” says Paul, “many of you are weak and ill, and some have died (koimw:ntai, koimōntai, lit. ‘are asleep, have fallen asleep,’ cf. NRSV text note c)” (v. 30). Furnish says, “How many and who were ill or had died is unknown. These illnesses and deaths are interpreted as the consequence of disorders within the congregation” (ibid., on v. 30). “But if we judged (diekrivnomen, diekrinomen, imperfect tense of diakrivnw, diakrinō ) ourselves,” says Paul, “we would not be judged (ejkrinovmeqa, ekrinometha, imperfect tense of krivnw, krinō ). “If we judged ourselves,” says Furnish, “involves a wordplay, since the Greek term translated judged can also be rendered discerned, as in v. 29” (ibid., on v. 31). And we note that variations on the verb krivnw (krinō, “judge”) continue. “But when we are judged (krinovmenoi, krinomenoi, participle, ‘being judged’) by the Lord, we are disciplined (paideuovmeqa, paideuometha) so that we may not be condemned (katakriqw:men, katakrithōmen, aorist passive subjunctive of katakrivnw, katakrinō ) along with the world” (v. 32). Horsley says, “Picking up on ‘until [the Lord] comes’ in v. 26 (see 1:7-8), Paul’s application of the tradition is dominated by references to judgment ” (loc. cit.).

So it appears that correction of abuses at the agape meals and/or the Lord’s Supper, rather than simply passing on the tradition, has been Paul’s main concern. “So then, my brothers and sisters,” he says, “when you come together to eat, wait for ( ejkdevcesqe, ekdechesthe) one another” (v. 33). “Wait for one another,” says Furnish, “may suggest that the poorer members always had to arrive late for congregational meals; the verb here could also be translated ‘accept’ or ‘welcome.’ Cf. 8:11-13; 12:25” (op. cit., on v.33). “If you are hungry, eat at home,” says Paul, “so that when you come together, it will not be for your condemnation (eijV krivma, eis krima, a noun, the result of judging, krivnw, krinō ). Paul has more to say, but for now, he suggests, it can wait. “About the other things I will give instructions when I come” (v. 34b).

Mark 14:12-25

The Passover with the Disciples (Mt 26.17-25; Lk 22.7-13; Jn 13.21-30)

12 On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb is sacrificed, his disciples said to him, "Where do you want us to go and make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?" 13 So he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him, 14 and wherever he enters, say to the owner of the house, 'The Teacher asks, Where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' 15 He will show you a large room upstairs, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there." 16 So the disciples set out and went to the city, and found everything as he had told them; and they prepared the Passover meal.

17 When it was evening, he came with the twelve. 18 And when they had taken their places and were eating, Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me." 19 They began to be distressed and to say to him one after another, "Surely, not I?" 20 He said to them, "It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the bowl with me. 21 For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born."

The Institution of the Lord's Supper (Mt 26.26-29; Lk 22.14-23; 1 Cor 11.23-26)

22 While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." 23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. 24 He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly I tell 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." (Mark 14:12-25, NRSV)

The following comments are based on, mainly repeated here, from August 27, 2009 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 24, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from March 20, 2008 (Maundy Thursday, Year Two), when comments were repeated earlier as indicated there. Parallel passages in Matthew and Luke for this reading from Mark are presented in the separate file, Passover-Lord’s Supper.

“On the first day of Unleavened Bread,” says Mark, “when the Passover lamb is sacrificed, his [i.e., Jesus’] disciples said to him, ‘Where do you want us to go and make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?’ ” (Mk. 14:12; cf. Mt. 26:17). Matthew omits “when the Passover lamb is sacrificed,” probably an unnecessary explanation for his Jewish and/or Jewish Christian readers. Luke keeps the explanation, “Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed” (Lk. 22:7), but has Jesus take the initiative: “So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and prepare the Passover meal for us that we may eat it’ ” (v. 8). So Jesus “sent two of his disciples saying to them, ‘Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him, and wherever he enters, say to the owner of the house, “The Teacher asks, Where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?” ’ ” (Mk. 14:13-14; cf. Lk. 22:9-11). Again Matthew abbreviates, omitting the reference to the jar the man is to be carrying and the anticipated dialogue. “He [i.e., Jesus] said, ‘Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, “The Teacher says, My time is near; I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples” ’ ” (Mt. 26:18). According to Richard A. Horsley, “Just as the chief priests and scribes had resorted to covert means to arrest Jesus by stealth ( [Mk.] 14:1), so Jesus and his disciples are now operating covertly, ‘underground,’ as indicated by Jesus’ instructions for discreet movement inside the city and the carefully planned signal of a man carrying a jar of water (a task that a woman would usually have performed). Jesus says the man “will show you a large room upstairs, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there” (Mk. 14:15; cf. Lk. 22:12). This detail, apparently assumed, is omitted by Matthew, but all report that the disciples followed instructions. “So the disciples set out and went to the city, and found everything as he had told them; and they prepared the Passover meal” (Mk. 14:16; cf. Lk. 22:13; Mt. 26:19). And the supper takes place as planned. “When it was evening, he came with the twelve” (Mk. 14:17; cf. Mt. 26:20; Lk. 22:14).

At the meal Jesus clearly indicates who it is that will betray him. “And when they had taken their places and were eating,” says Mark, “Jesus said, ‘Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me’ ” ( Mk. 14:18; cf. Mt. 26:21, omitting “one who is eating with me”). In Luke, Jesus says, “But see, the one who betrays me is with me, and his hand is on the table” (Lk. 22:21). “They began to be distressed,” says Mark, “became greatly distressed,” says Matthew, “and [began, Mt.] to say to him one after another, ‘Surely, not I?’ ” (Mk. 14:19; Mt. 26:22). Compare Luke’s later statement, “Then they began to ask one another which one of them it could be who would do this” (Lk. 22:23). Jesus says the betrayer is at the supper. “He said to them, ‘It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the bowl with me’ ” (Mk. 14:20; cf. Mt. 26:23; Lk. 22:21). Horsley says that this is “the most intimate form of fellowship” (ibid., on v. 20). Each Gospel has Jesus relate his forthcoming betrayal and crucifixion to prophecy. “For the Son of Man goes as it is written of him,” says Jesus, “but woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one not to have been born” (Mk. 14:21; cf. Mt. 26:24; Lk. 22:22).

The Gospels introduce this meal, the Lord’s Supper, as “the Passover (Mk. 14:12 [twice], 14, 16; Mt. 26:17, 18, 19; Lk. 22:;7, 8, 11, 13). In the following verses, words sacred for many as the “words of institution” of the Lord’s Supper, are practically identical in Matthew and Mark (Mt. 26:26-29; Mk. 14:22-25). The words “Jesus/he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave [a participle in Mt., a finite verb in Mk.] it to the disciples/them and said, “Take, [eat], this is my body” (Mt. 26:26; Mk. 14:22) have only slight variation between Matthew’s and Mark’s versions. If the word “this” refers to the Seder meal, or part of it, then Jesus is saying that his sacrifice of himself is the fulfillment of what is represented by the slain Passover Lamb. Mark’s pronouns clearly refer to the nouns Matthew uses in their place. Matthew’s word “eat” is clearly implied by Mark. As for the cup, Mark says, “Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all (pavnteV, pantes, masculine plural) of them drank from it” (Mk. 14:23); compare Matthew’s version, “Then he took a cup and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all (pavnteV, pantes, masculine plural) of you’ ” (Mt. 26:27); cf. Luke’s, “Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, ‘Take this and divide it among yourselves’ ” (Lk. 22:17–before the bread). Where Mark says “all of them drank from it [i.e., the cup],” Matthew adds emphasis that is clear in Greek (cf. pavnteV, pantes, masculine plural), above. The Authorized (King James) Version is ambiguous: “Drink ye all [all of the disciples? all of the wine? Clearly the former in the Greek] of it” (Mt. 26:27, last five words).

There are a few other minor differences, the most significant, perhaps, Matthew’s phrase “for the forgiveness of sins” in the parallel (Mt. 26:28) to Mark’s statement, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” (Mk. 14:24). Luke has more significant differences, for example, the word “new” in his reference to the “new covenant” (Lk 22:20). J. Andrew Overman says that “for Matthew it is not a new covenant the Supper initiates: Jesus’ death and resurrection is the clear fulfillment of God’s historic and ancient covenant with the people of Israel” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 26:28).

According to Luke, Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Lk. 22:19; cf. 1 Cor. 11:24-25). Do this Passover? This Eucharist? According to David L. Tiede, revised by Christopher R. Matthews, “Passover was already a feast of remembrance (i.e. of God's deliverance of Israel from bondage in Egypt; see Ex. 12:14)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lk. 22:19). “Truly I tell 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” (Mk. 14:25; cf Mt. 26:29, and, earlier–before the reference to the bread–in Lk. 22:17-18). While most Christian believers have understood Jesus' words on this occasion to be “Words of Institution” of the Eucharist, or Lord's Supper,” some, including many Quakers, have seen this as the “Last Passover” rather than the “First Eucharist” and have sought to emphasize the spiritual realities represented by these rituals. The reality of communion with God is clearly essential, though the form this takes has certainly varied among God's people over the centuries. Regardless of various views about the Lord’s Supper, what Jesus said and did on that occasion clearly interprets the Passover Seder as pointing to his own crucifixion, “for many” (Mk. 14:24; Mt. 26:28; cf. “for you,” Lk. 22:19, 20).

On the traditional Friends (Quaker) view of Communion

In the Friends (Quaker) tradition, emphasis is placed on “Communion, or Participation in the Body and Blood of Christ” as inward and spiritual (from Proposition 13, [Robert] Barclay’s Apology in Modern English, edited by Dean Freiday [Barclay Press], c. 1991). The fuller statement of this “theological thesis” follows (p. 11):

The communion of the body and blood of Christ is inward and spiritual. It is by participation in his flesh and blood that the inward man is nourished daily in the hearts of those in whom Christ dwells. The breaking of bread by Christ with his disciples was a symbol (1 Cor 10:16-17; John 6:32-33, 35; 1 Cor 5:8). For the sake of the weak, it was used in the church for a time, even by those who had received the substance.

Just as abstaining from things strangled and from blood was practiced for a time (Acts 15:20); this, and the washing of one another's feet John 13:14) and the anointing of the sick with oil (James 5: 14) were all commanded with no less authority and solemnity than the breaking of bread. But since they were but shadows of better things, they are no longer to be practiced by those who have obtained the substance.

As for the other propositions, fifteen in all, a full chapter is devoted to Proposition 13 (ibid., pp. 327-361). While there is not room here for a fuller treatment of Friends views according to Barclay, a couple points might be of interest to some. (1) Barclay suggests that if John Calvin had been consistent he would have come to agree with the Friends on this issue (260-261); and (2) Barclay urges the Friends to exercise tolerance (“they may be indulged”) for those who “practice this ceremony with a true tenderness of spirit, and with real conscience toward God, and in the manner of the primitive Christians, as recognized in scripture” (ibid., p. 261):

(1)Indeed I am inclined to look very favorably on Calvin's ingenuous admission that although he can neither understand nor express it in words, he knows by having experienced it that the Lord is spiritually Present. No doubt Calvin sometimes had a sense of his Presence without the use of this ceremony. It is probable that the understanding of God that was given him then made him justifiably reject the false notions of transubstantiation and consubstantiation. But he did not know what to put in their place.

If he had waited entirely in the light that makes all things manifest (Eph 5:13), rather than using his own imagination, he might have come closer to understanding this mystery than those who went before him. If that had been the case, he would not have decided that the external ceremony is the chief or principal place where the spiritual presence is to be found. It is not the only place, as he well knew from experience. (ibid., pp. 261-2)

(2)Finally, if there are any in this day who practice this ceremony with a true tenderness of spirit, and with real conscience toward God, and in the manner of the primitive Christians, as recognized in scripture, that is another matter. I do not doubt but that they may be indulged in it. The Lord may take these facts into consideration and appear to them for a time when they use these things. Many of us have known him to do this for us in our own times of ignorance. But there is always the provision that they must not try to force these things upon others, or to be critical of those who have. been delivered from these things and who do not cling to them with pertinacity.

Another version of Barclay’s Apology, apparently prepared by Licia Kuenning, Quaker Heritage Press editor, is available on the Internet at http://www.qhpress.org/texts/barclay/apology/ (accessed again, March 31, 2010).

It is to be noted the Friends (Quaker) view, as presented by Barclay, does not forbid the practice of the Lord’s Supper, but it does insist on the priority of the inward and spiritual meaning. At the present time, some Friends groups– probably to the dismay of more traditional Quakers–do use the Lord’s Supper in the manner of other Christian denominations as a significant worship experience.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net