The Passion According to St. Matthew Part III

The Last Supper



Read Matthew 26:17-30

The story of the Last Supper is an important one for all Christians.  Each scriptural version has its own unique cadences and no two are exactly alike. This is something we ought to keep in mind as we reflect on what Holy Communion means to us, and remember that different interpretations have existed since the event of the Last Supper, itself.  The question of what the Eucharist means, what it is, and what it does was a cause of deep division at the time of the Reformation. Alongside questions of justification by faith, predestination and election, and ecclesiology, it did not seem like there was much agreement. Not only were there the division between Catholics and Protestants, but amongst the reformers, themselves, there was considerable (and often violent) disagreement.  Was Christ truly present in the sacrament? If so, how? Was he carnally present, mystically present, sacramentally present?  Was the Eucharist only symbolic? Was it simply a memorial? Was Christ actually communicated to us in some way in the sacrament? Did we really eat his body and blood, or was he internalized in us through faith and some mystical working of the Holy Spirit? If Christ really was in some way carnally present in the sacrament, how could his body be on earth if it was now in heaven? And how could it be everywhere in every celebration of the Eucharist? How could there be enough of him to go around?  And what was the point?  Was it all about a change in the elements of bread and wine so that we could see Christ present amongst us? Or was it about the transformation in us as we received the sacrament?  Was it all of the above?

I don't propose to answer all (or perhaps any) of these questions in this post, but it is crucial to understand that communion means many things, and it has done so right from the beginning. The struggles over its meaning during the Reformation is but a taste of the diversity of understanding of the sacrament.

It is clear from St. Matthew (and from the parallel accounts in Mark, Luke, and 1 Corinthians) that there is a connection with the Passover meal. In fact, it is the Passover meal, but radically reinterpreted.  As I mentioned in my last post about the woman who anointed the Lord, Jesus brings new meaning to a well-known ritual act. What is familiar is suddenly unfamiliar and infused with a new significance.  Matthew does not describe in detail the Passover meal.  He probably didn't have to, for his audience would have been familiar with it.  He emphasizes one of the cups and the taking of the bread as particularly significant. The Passover meal is linked to the first covenant with the Hebrew people - God's deliverance from slavery in Egypt into the promised land, and the giving of the Law on Sinai as a sign of the covenant.  Jesus reveals a new covenant, the sign of which is his very body and blood. He holds before them the familiar symbols of bread and wine, and reinterprets them as his own body and blood.  He tells them that his blood will be poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.  Thus the deliverance of the new covenant is from a different kind of slavery. 

At the heart of the story, though, is also the problem of betrayal and unfaithfulness.  The faithfulness of Christ in "going as it is written of him" (more on that when we get to Gethsemane), is contrasted with the betrayal of the one who "dips his hand in the bowl" with Christ. Each of the disciples protests, "surely it is not I?"  We know of course it is Judas, but as we will see in tomorrow's post, it is not only Judas who will betray his master.  Even as Christ offers himself for us, and calls us together into a new covenant, there is always the possibility of faithlessness, there is always the possibility of betrayal.  Is not the exclamation of "surely it is not I, Lord" something that we might all be guilty of proclaiming when asked?  Upon reflection, how many of have been blinded by our faithlessness, betrayal of our master, and our failure to commend the faith that is in us?  Lent is a time to do the kind of self-examination, reflection, and repentance that brings such things into the light. Communion is a fragile thing and it can be broken so easily by betrayal.  Yet, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, we are given the grace to have our Communion mended again and again, until Christ comes.

We are living in an interesting time.  It is near impossible for us in the present moment to partake in this central sacramental celebration of our shared faith.  Jesus said, wherever two or three are gathered, there I am in the midst of you.  But many are isolated in this current crisis. Is Christ still present? There is thoughtful debate amongst clergy taking place about live-streaming celebrations of the Eucharist.  Is it still the Eucharist, still Holy Communion, if we cannot be present for it and receive it?  There is a longstanding tradition that those who are not able to receive the elements of the sacrament, the bread and wine, are still capable of making a spiritual communion. 

I wonder though - and here my Anglo-Catholic friends will likely take great issue with me - if it really is all ritual and about the bread and wine in the end? They were signs that Jesus used to reveal a much deeper, hidden, spiritual reality.  The sign is not, after all, the thing signified. Oh, yes, the sacrament may be efficacious and instrumental in communicating the thing signified, but we must not mistake the sign for the thing itself.  If we never had the opportunity to celebrate the Eucharist again, would we still have the forgiveness of sins? Would the pouring of Christ's blood still be efficacious? Can we still have communion without Holy Communion? Of course, I think the answer is yes.  I may or may not be right, but I think communion is much deeper, larger, more profound thing than a ritual act, or the elements of bread and wine.  The Holy Spirit has not stopped drawing us into Communion. I think that during this challenging time, we should continue to focus on this truth.

Questions for Reflection:

1. What kind of slavery does the pouring of Jesus blood deliver his followers from?

2. Several different understandings of Communion are mentioned in the first paragraph.  Also worthy of note is the idea that Communion is also about our communion with each other, with the saints in heaven, and importantly with God.  Which interpretation of Communion resonates most with you?  Is there an interpretation that you find problematic?

3. What does "Communion" mean to you?

4. What does not being able to receive Holy Communion mean to you?