This Is My Body; This Is My Blood Jesus’ Interpretation of the Passover Hal Schnee It is 14-Nissan-301. Your beloved teacher instructs you to find a special place to prepare to celebrate the Passover; all occurs just as he predicts. You are seated with your colleagues when your teacher—as he often has—says and does something shocking and unexpected: 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.” 23Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. 24He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25Truly 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 14:22-25, NRSV)

What could he mean by this? What have you just taken part in? Jesus has redefined the traditional symbols of Passover in surprising, possibly abhorrent ways. Over the centuries, Christians have interpreted and developed these symbols into the practice of the Eucharist, which has been called “the only distinctive thing about Christian worship.”2 But to understand Jesus’ intended meaning for the disciples, we need to put this passage in its proper historical and cultural context. This has proven exceptionally difficult. Van Cangh lays out a detailed map of where the elements in Mark’s account fit into a 1st century Passover Seder, based on a study of Jewish traditions of blessing the bread and wine, the order the prayers in the iuznv ,frc (grace after meals), and parallels with the Didache.3 Routledge details the place of these elements within the Seder as described by Pesachim 10 of the Mishnah, the oldest source of information on how the Seder is to be practiced.4 The trouble is that these traditions may not 1 2 3 4

Year approximate Bonnie Bowman Thurston, “Do This”, p. 207 Jean-Marie Van Cangh, “L’Evolution de la Tradition de la Cene” Robin Routledge, “Passover and the Last Supper”

have been so clearly defined in Jesus’ day, and have never been set in stone. Though some of the Rabbis quoted in Pesachim 10 were contemporary with Jesus, the Mishnah was written down some 180 years later. It is terse and often cryptic5, and as Routledge admits, it includes traditions from both before and during the second Temple period, and it is unclear which traditions are which.6 Others say that order of the Seder in the Mishnah is a Rabbinic adaptation of Greco-Roman Symposia, ritualized meals in which questions were spontaneously raised and discussed during the eating of the meal itself,7 suggesting a less rigidly structured ritual Given the paucity of ancient evidence, it seems impossible to be certain of the structure and content of this celebration. But all the scholars surveyed for this paper agree on several things: Mark’s account is the oldest version of this story that we have; Mark is indeed describing a celebration of Passover; this event forms part of the passion narrative; as the leader of the group, it was up to Jesus to explain the meaning of the Passover symbols; and Jesus spoke in Aramaic. This last point is important in interpreting Jesus’ words. In Aramaic (as in Hebrew), the verb “to be” in the present tense is implied, not explicitly stated; as such, when Jesus says “this is my body” or “this is my blood”, his meaning should be taken as symbolic.8 As the title of an article by Casey9 states, the disciples knew that they were not literally eating Jesus’ body. Symbolism was expected at Passover, as all the foods eaten and rituals observed are symbolic of the Exodus story—the Israelites’ rescue from slavery in Egypt. Although the exact symbols and the order of the Seder in Jesus’ time is difficult to determine, there is agreement that interpretation of symbols and retelling the story of the 5 see Jacob Neusner, A History of the Mishaic Law of Appointed Times, Part Two, p. 263-269 6 Routledge, p. 208 7 Elimelech David Ha-Levi Web, Inc. http://www.angelfire.com/pa2/passover/passoverhaggadah.html#originofthepassoverhaggadah. Admittedly, this is a less scholarly source as the author is not named and references are not stated. 8 Thurston, p. 210 and Maurice Casey, “No Cannibals at Passover!”, p. 201 9 Maurice Casey, “No Cannibals at Passover!”

Israelites’ redemption from slavery were always part of the celebration. It is Jesus’ interpretation of these symbols that is new and shocking. The traditional interpretation of the matzah (bread) can be found in the modern Haggadah: “This is the bread of affliction which our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt.”10 It is also understood (and explained today in the Seder) that by eating this bread, we not only remember the slavery and redemption, but participate in it—it is as though we were personally freed from slavery. The disciples certainly would have known this meaning, making it a backdrop for Jesus’ redefinition. Casey explains that by distributing the bread in this way, the disciples would share in the benefit of Jesus’ atoning death.11 This may be a premature interpretation as Jesus makes no eschatological statement in connection with the bread. But the symbolism does connect Jesus with affliction and suffering, foreshadowing his crucifixion. A more mystical interpretation would be that by identifying himself with the bread, Jesus is indicating that he has already found liberation, and is presenting a more immediate (than the Exodus) way for others to understand it. What makes this shocking to the disciples is the idea of eating the body of a human, even if only symbolically. This issue is intensified in Jesus’ next statements about the wine. But even before the wine/blood issue arises in the narrative, two peculiarities are evident: first, Jesus has everyone drink from the same cup rather than each person having his/her own cup, as is traditional; and second, Jesus gives the interpretation after they have drunk rather than before, again as per Jewish tradition. What makes this especially shocking is that while Judaism allows the consumption of animal flesh, drinking any blood is expressly forbidden. Van Cangh insists that the disciples would have found this so abhorrent that it could not have possibly come from Jesus. She argues that the eucharistic statement of the second part of verse 24 (“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many”) was a 10 Rabbi Nathan Goldberg, Passover Haggadah, p. 8 11 Casey, “No Cannibals at Passover!”, p. 201

later insertion to the text from the tradition of Luke and Paul.12 As evidence that this did not come from Jesus, she says that Jesus never before used the language of covenant in Mark, and that the phrase cannot be rendered in Aramaic.13 Casey, however, in response to the work of Dalman14 that Van Cangh and others have cited, shows that the phrase can in fact be rendered in grammatically correct Aramaic in a way that would lead a translator to produce the Greek version we have today.15 This of course does not prove that Jesus made this statement, but that he could have. Casey also argues that by placing the interpretation after the drinking, Jesus makes the symbolism dramatic rather than revolting.16 Casey’s case is the more compelling one, in part because of Van Cangh’s error about the Aramaic and her reliance on several dated sources for her research. Firm evidence for her insertion theory is lacking, and the idea that Jesus could not have said something so shocking is rather absurd; Jesus said shocking and surprising things all the time.17 Casey says that the imagery Jesus used in this statement is sacrificial,18 and asserts that his death would be significant for the redemption of Israel19. This interpretation is heightened by looking at the Aramaic, which literally translates as, “This [is] my blood, it [is] of the covenant, shed20 for many.”21 This form places additional emphasis on the covenant than does the English (or Greek) versions. How the disciples would have understood this is not entirely clear. There was a great diversity in understandings of the term “covenant” in ancient Israel; but it was frequently associated with the sacrifice of an animal.22 What is clear is that Jesus is

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Van Cangh, p. 281 Ibid, p. 280 G. Dalman, “Jesus-Jeschua”, Leipzig, 1922; Dalman’s article was not surveyed for this paper Maurice Casey, “The Original Aramaic Form of Jesus’ Interpretation of the Cup” Ibid, p. 8 See, for example, Mark 2:13-17, 4:30-32, 7:1-15, 10:17-22, 12:1-12, 12:18-27 Casey, “No Cannibals at Passover!”, p. 201 Casey, “The Original Aramaic Form of Jesus’ Interpretation of the Cup”, p. 8 Or poured out Casey, “The Original Aramaic Form of Jesus’ Interpretation of the Cup”, p. 12; Aramaic “ihthda kg sat,n 'tuv vbhes 'vbs hns” 22 Anchor Bible Dictionary, entry for “covenant”, p. 1179-

presenting himself as the sacrifice that seals this covenant. Casey concludes that Jesus interpreted the bread and wine symbolically to explain the atoning value of his death23, but this is as far as he or any of the other scholars surveyed delve into the difficulties of this passage. The symbolism itself is still disturbing in a Jewish context, even for disciples who believe Jesus’ sacrificial message of atonement. This belief is itself problematic since the disciples repeatedly refuse to believe Jesus’ predictions of his death. It does make sense, however, that Jesus needed to give his reinterpretation of the wine after the drinking because otherwise the disciples probably would have balked at the idea. It may be that his interpretation of the bread was less revolting and served to prepare the disciples for a more shocking image. Providing the shared cup may have emphasized the communal aspect of the covenant, of the kingdom of God, or simply of the Passover celebration. There is considerable disagreement about what this meant to the disciples, and what it should mean to us today. Thurston says that Jesus did this to institute the Eucharist, emphasizing the sacrificial act. She stresses that the act is the key point—the Lord’s Supper is something that we should do.24 Routledge also concludes that Jesus is giving us the means to recall and participate in the redemption that Jesus’ death made possible.25 Casey disagrees, continuing his view of the symbolic nature of Jesus’ interpretation. He explains that it was Paul, not Jesus, who instituted the Eucharist; Jesus instituted nothing, performing a never-tobe-repeated event that symbolized his forthcoming sacrificial death.26 Casey goes as far as to say, “I follows that the Christian Eucharist originated in falsehood.”27 The truth is probably somewhere in-between. In Mark’s narrative, Jesus clearly does not start a new practice (the

23 24 25 26 27

Casey, “No Cannibals at Passover!”, p. 202 Thurston, “Do This”, p. 213 Routledge, “Passover and Last Supper”, p. 221 Casey, “No Cannibals at Passover!”, p. 203 Casey, “No Cannibals at Passover!”, p. 204

Eucharist), but he redefines the symbols of Passover, an annual event. It makes sense to assume that these new definitions were meant to replace the old ones permanently, so that all successive Passovers would celebrate and participate in this covenant rather than the one at Sinai. How we interpret Jesus’ meaning depends on how we believe the disciples saw Jesus —or perhaps how we see Jesus. I will admit my bias: I want Jesus to be a Jewish mystic, inviting the disciples into intimate communion with the divine by symbolically taking in his body and blood. But there is a clear eschatological message in the passage, as Jesus presents himself as the sacrifice that cuts a covenant and will soon usher in the kingdom of God, implied to be a physical place. The two views are difficult to reconcile. The uncertainty of the text keeps the question open: Tolbert describes Mark’s intended audience as povertystricken Mediterranean urbanites facing social isolation, disease, and famine. She explains that Mark’s depiction of Jesus as one who heals the sick, feeds the hungry, and calls for a family based on doing the will of God would be very appealing to these people.28 Jesus’ message of redemption through his sacrifice and the ease of receiving it through participation in his Passover is very much in keeping with this view. An honest reader of the text must wonder which words come from Jesus and which come from Mark. This question may unfortunately remain forever answerable. But what this study shows is that Jesus could have said and done these things. In Mark’s narrative, Jesus’ reinterpretation of the Passover symbols was shocking, possibly revolting; and this may have been the point. By bringing new meaning to the bread and wine, Jesus defines a new covenant between his disciples and God, and he presents himself as the sacrifice that will usher in the kingdom of God for this covenant community.

28 Mary Ann Tolbert, “Mark”, in Women’s Bible Commentary, Expanded Ed., p. 351

Checklist Chosen Passage Mark 14:22-25 Form of the Passage Narrative/Teaching for disciples Chapter Length Discussions Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament, Third Ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. chapter 5: Jesus, the Suffering Son of God: The Gospel According to Mark Tolbert, Mary Ann. “Mark”, in Women’s Bible Commentary, Expanded Ed., eds. Carol A. Newsom, Carol A. and Ringe, Sharon H, 350-362. Louisville: Westminster Knox Press, 1998 Three versions of the English Bible Consulted NRSV, NIV, KJV Parallels to this Passage in Other Texts Matthew 26:26-29, Luke 22:15-20, 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 Bible Dictionaries Ronald F. Youngblood, ed. Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995 John B. Shopp, ed. Harper Collins Bible Dictionary. New York: HarperCollins, 1996 David Noel Freedman, ed. in chief. Anchor Bible Dictionary, USA: Bantam Doubleday Dell, 1992 Terms Looked Up Covenant, Kingdom of God Locations Consulted on a Map Jerusalem Commentaries and Articles Consulted Thurston, Bonnie Bowman, “Do This.” Restoration Quarterly 30, no. 4 (1988): 207-217. Van Cangh, Jean-Marie, “L’Evolution de la Tradition de la Cene.” Lectures et Relectures de la Bible (1999): 257-285 Routledge, Robin, “Passover and Last Supper.” Tyndale Bulletin 53 no. 2 (2002): 203-221. Neusner, Jacob. A History of the Mishnaic Law of Appointed Times. Part Two. Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1981 Elimelech David Ha-Levi Web, Inc. http://www.angelfire.com/pa2/passover/ passoverhaggadah.html#originofthepassoverhaggadah Casey, Maurice, “No Cannibals at Passover!” Theology 96 (May-June 1993): 199-205. Goldberg, Rabbi Nathan. Passover Haggadah, Revised Ed. Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House, 1993 Casey, Maurice, “The Original Aramaic Form of Jesus’ Interpretation of the Cup.” Journal of Theological Studies ns 41 (April 1990): 1-12.