The Last Supper: What is the significance of Jesus' last meal with his disciples?

The descriptions of the last supper in the four gospels gives rise to the question of whether this was a Passover meal. In the Synoptic gospels, the meal is represented as a Passover meal (Mark 14:12; Matt 26:17; Luke 22:7-8, 15), but in John, the meal takes place immediately before Passover (John 13:1). Most scholars believe that John alters the chronology to make Jesus the Passover lamb. N. T. Wright offers the following data that points to the supper being a Passover meal:

1. eaten in Jerusalem rather than in Bethany where they returned for the night in the preceding week
2. meal ended with a hymn presumably the Hallel (Jesus and the Victory of God, p.555)

While the supper may not have been on the actual night, Jesus seems to be drawing from the meaning of the Passover:

According to N.T Wright
"First, like all Jewish Passover meals, the event spoke of leaving Egypt. To the first-century Jew, it pointed to the return from exile, the new exodus, the great covenant renewal spoken of by the prophets. The meal symbolized 'forgiveness of sins', YHWH's return to redeem his people, his victory over Pharaohs both literal and metaphorical; it took place 'in accordance with the scripture', locating itself within the ongoing story of YHWH's strange saving purposes for Israel as they reached its climax. This was the meal, in other words, which said that Israel's god was about to become king. This, indeed, is not especially controversial. Second, however, the meal brought Jesus' own kingdom-movement to its climax. It indicated that the new exodus, and all that it meant, was happening in and through Jesus himself. This is extremely controversial, and needs to be spelled out in more detail" (Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 557)
"1. Jesus' words about the bread identified it with his own body, as Ezekiel identified his brick with Jerusalem. Jesus' action thus indicated prophetically that he was to die, and that his death would be the source of life for his followers."..
"2. Jesus' words about the cup identify it, in similar prophetic fashion, with his blood. Behind the four versions there is a common meaning, with some of the accounts making more explicit what is implicit in the Passover setting anyway. The common meaning is that Jesus' coming death will effect the renewal of the covenant, that is , the great return form exile for which Israel had longed. The phrase 'the blood of the covenant', which occurs in some form in all the accounts, echoes Exodus 24.8, in which Moses established the first covenant with the people at Mount Sinai. It also evokes, perhaps equally significantly, Zechariah 9:9-11. There is no reason to doubt that he intended, in speaking of the final cup of the meal in terms of his own death, to allude to this theme of covenant renewal." (Jesus and the Victory of God, p.p. 560-561)

Paula Fredrickson looks at the traditions in which a banquet was anticipated to celebrate the coming of the Kingdom of God:

"The idea of a communal banquet celebrating the arrival of the Kingdom of God existed in contemporary Judaism among the Essenes, who anticipated such a meal presided over by the Priest and the messiah (1 QSa 2:17-22), and who regularly observed a communal meal in anticipation of the "messianic banquet at the End (I QS 6:4-6). Later apocalyptic texts (Baruch, Enoch, Apocalypse of Elijah) speak both of an abundance of food at the End and of dining with the messiah. Other passages in the gospels depict the coming Kingdom in terms of a banquet (for example, Mt 8:11). If Jesus himself also anticipated the arrival of the Kingdom, perhaps that very night near or on the Passover before he was arrested, he might well have celebrated a special meal with twelve of his disciples, so numbered to symbolize the restored, eschatological Israel. We cannot of curse be certain, but his much is not antecedently impossible." (From Jesus to Christ, p. 115)

The question of what Jesus meant by the words that he uttered at the last supper have generated some of the fiercest doctrinal debates in the history of the Church. The different answers to that question provide the basis for very different understandings of the sacrament of the Eucharist or the Communion of many Protestant denominations. The Roman Catholic traditions sees the language as sacrificial and argues that when a priest consecrates the bread and wine these elements become the body and blood of Christ. In the Mennonite tradition, Jesus' words are understood symbolically. When one partakes of the Lord's supper, one commemorates the meal that happened on the last night of Jesus' life.

One of the most heated contemporary debates is whether Jesus' words signify that his death is an atoning sacrifice. J. Denny Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement (2001), contributes the following to that discussion:

"At first glance it might seem that Jesus' words at the last supper support satisfaction atonement. He gave the cup to the disciples, saying, "For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins: (Matt 26:28). These words, however, need not be read as a statement of the compensatory death featured in satisfaction atonement; in fact, a careful reading supports the interpretation that in Jesus the reign of God confronted evil and conquered it. Since Jesus' message of the reign of God was inseparable form his person, his deed ­ including his nonviolent submission to death ­ have theological significance. Understanding the covenant sayings at the last supper involve understanding them in light of the mission of Jesus and the nature of his proclamation of grace and judgment under the reign of God.

 

Jesus' mission was to make present and visible the reign of God. That mission meant

witnessing to and presenting God's unmerited forgiveness and the reconciliation of sinners to God. Because this forgiveness was available outside the temple practices, conflict with temple authorities was inevitable. In his preaching about judgment Jesus did not teach that goodness and the justice of God were two consecutive stages, as though at a point in time the goodness and mercy of God end and then the judgment of God begins. Rather, Jesus made it clear that statements about the retribution of God were really a declaration of what those who reject the rule of God bring on themselves. Their sin turns upon them, and in effect, they judge themselves. Declarations of judgment make clear the consequences of rejecting God. But God remains a God of love and grace, whose offer of forgiveness always remains open. [See Schwager, Jesus in the Drama, p. 93-114].


When Jesus took the bread and the cup and gave them to his disciples as his body and

blood, he was making the disciples a gift. Since his person was identified with the reign of God, the gift of bread and wine as his body was a gift fully identified with the reign of God, and presented in the form that people can fully consume and become one with. As the disciples eat, they make the kingdom of God fully their own, and are identified with the reign of God. Jesus giving himself for them was a carrying out of his mission to present the reign of God on their behalf. In this giving of himself for the reign of God, the nonviolent confrontation of his enemies has theological significance. It displays the love of God for enemies, a making visible of the reign of God that is even willing to suffer rejection at the hands of its enemies." (pp. 41-42)