Institution of the Lord’s Supper and the Upper Room Discourse

Historical Background:

The Gospel of Matthew is attributed to the Apostle Matthew. He is one of Jesus’ twelve disciples. The early church fathers suggested indisputably Matthew as the author of the book. But in recent times, there are many questions raised over the authorship of the book. The author did not imprint his name, and the book does not clearly identify him. Matthew denied being the author. To be precise, the Gospel of Matthew is fundamentally anonymous.

One of the major Greek manuscripts has the title “According to Matthew,” yet it is not sure if the original document bears the same title. J. Knox Chamblin wonders that the title did not belong to the original documents, because modern-day findings of the first-century history reveal that the subscribed title was originated no later than 140 A.D. [1]

The Gospel of Matthew could not have been written earlier than 40 A.D. or after 100 A.D.. Considering first-century historical events and the writings of the early Church Fathers, we can safely date the Gospel of Matthew to around A.D. 70. Since the first of four gospels, “Mark cannot be earlier than A.D. 40, for Caligula’s attempt to profane the temple is reflected in ch. 13; John, the latest of the Gospels, cannot be dated long after the year 100, for a papyrus fragment of it, found in upper Egypt, has been assigned to the second century by a competent papyrologist.” [2] When we attempt to date the gospels between A.D. 40 and 100, the most likely timeframe is around A.D. 65-70. Elwell and Yarbrough affirm that A.D. 70 is most certainly correct. [3]

By scrutinizing the internal evidence within the passages and using some references from the text itself, we establish the authorship of the gospel. The writings reflect so much of the Jewish school of thought. “The fact of his Jewish standpoint is further indicated by his Old Testament quotations.” [4] The author has applied the Scripture from the Old Testament in an orderly way, which suggests he was trained in the Jewish school of thought, so he had a thorough understanding of Jewish methods of writing. A Gentile Christian could not have described the relationship of Jesus to the Jews so deliberately and clearly.

Moreover, we have many references from the early church fathers attesting to Apostle Matthew as the author. Among the Church Fathers, Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome are worth quoting, who attested to and quoted Matthew in their early writings. The gospel that bears the name of Matthew is identified by these Fathers.

According to Papias (circa A.D. 130), Matthew composed the gospel in the Hebrew language, and later he himself interpreted it into Greek. [5] Irenaeus (circa A.D. 180) adds, “Now Matthew among the Hebrews published a writing of the Gospel in their language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the Church.” [6] Origen also confirms in the same tone of Irenaeus that “Matthew, who was once a publican but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ,” a Jewish Christian, composed it in Hebrew. [7] Eusebius (circa A.D. 330) writes that Panaenus (circa A.D. 190) himself found the Gospel of Matthew in the hands of the newly converted Christians in India to whom Bartholomew preached and left behind the copy of Matthew, which was in Hebrew. [8]

All of this external evidence does not only verify the authorship of the gospel but also invites conflict about the language Matthew might have originally used to record the teachings and life of Jesus Christ. Since we do not have an original manuscript to confirm the original language of the book, it has evidently some substantial variations if we presume that the book was written in Hebrew. Nobody has seen it yet. Craig L. Blomberg suggests that the original manuscript is likely in Hebrew, but it is most probable that Matthew himself or some other Greek-speaking Christian scribe later interpreted it into Greek in incorporation with Mark and other hypothetical documents (Q). [9]

The writing styles, the use of a Jewish framework and method, and the treatment of historical issues from a Jewish perspective largely indicate that the primary recipients are Jewish Christians. Blomberg also admits that the external evidence consistently corroborates that Jewish Christians are the main target group of this gospel. [10] It is undeniable that the gospel frequently addresses Gentile Christians. [11] Modern scholars have conjectured the most likely places from which the book originated or to which it was destined. The proposed possible regions of the origin of the books are Syria, especially the center of Antioch, or Sepphoris in Galilee. [12]

Cultural and Grammatical-Literary Background:

We should carefully assess the historical narrative of the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 26:26-29) from a Jewish cultural perspective. Everything Jesus used and shared with his disciples in the upper room has significant meaning and implication. At times, people compare the Lord’s Supper, also known as the Last Supper, to the Feast of Unleavened Bread or the Passover Feast. The Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, indicate that Jesus ate the Passover Meal with his disciples on the day of the Passover Feast (see Matthew 27:17, Mark 14:12, and Luke 22:7-14).

On the other hand, John plainly disagrees with the Synoptic Gospels on account of the Last Supper. He writes that the Last Supper took place before the Passover Feast (see John 13:1-4, 21-30). Some scholars argue that the Last Supper was an ordinary or special meal. However, the Gospel writers mistakenly associated this supper with the Paschal meal due to its characteristics. [13] The Synoptic Gospels do not make any reference to the bitter herb, dipping bowl, roasted lamb, and the cup of Elijah. The Synoptic writers record Jesus and the disciples drinking from a common cup when they should supposedly be drinking from an individual cup in the Paschal meal. Thus, the scholarly debate is still ongoing on the issue of whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal.

Likewise, some scholars argue that John was more concerned about the theology than recording historical events accurately. John asserts that when Pilate brought Jesus for the trial, they had not yet celebrated the Passover feast. Apparently, the Jews stayed outside of Pretoria so that they would not defile themselves but could eat Passover the same night (see John 18:28; cf. 19:14).

Because of the nature and sensitivity of the Last Supper, scholars from both partisan have made serious attempts to reconcile the Synoptic accounts with John’s account without losing the former’s theological significance and historical accuracy at the same time. The grammatical-literary discrepancies of these two accounts are resolved without invalidating one or the other by applying two possible dates for celebrating the Passover meal in Jesus’ days. Therefore, Jesus and his disciples could have eaten the Last Supper on Tuesday night following the unofficial calendar, while the High Priest and other Pharisees followed the official calendar and ate the Passover on Friday evening, the day Jesus died. [14]

This supper was an atypical meal because Jesus himself instituted the Lord’s Supper. On that day, when Jesus was having the Last Supper with the disciples in the upper room, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it, he broke it and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take, eat; this is my body” (Matthew 26:26; cf. Mark 14:22; Luke 22:15-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-25). As Jesus was a leader hosting the feast, the responsibilities typically held by a father during such an event fell upon him. Subsequently, he would lead the disciples through different stages of rituals, singing hymns, reading the scripture, and raising the cups and songs. [15]

Jesus takes the bread and blesses it and breaks it. He gave thanks and “by that thanksgiving made the Holy Communion to be a Eucharist—a service of thanksgiving.” [16] We offer thanks to God for Jesus’ work on the cross. When the “breaking bread” passage occurs in the Bible, each “breaking bread” passage is followed by miracles, whether it was of feeding several thousand people or in the house of Cleopas on the way to Emmaus. Luke writes that after breaking the bread, their eyes opened and they recognized him (Luke 24:30-31). “The breaking of bread constantly has its saving effects, both spiritual and temporal.” [17] Bread stands as the main source of life. Jesus claims, “I am the bread of life” (John 6:48). He is not simply feeding people bread to keep them alive temporarily. He is clearly emphasizing that he is the source of the bread that provides life. “He spoke of himself as the food for his people.” [18] Jesus is guiding people to embrace a life of abundance.

Here, Jesus demands his disciples eat the body. The Greek word used for eating here is φάγω, which means “to eat” in certain alternative tenses. However, the Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries suggest that it also literally and figuratively means “eat meat.” [19] In this case, the word “φάγω” is indicating eating Jesus’ meat. This imperative command to the disciples is consistent with his prior teaching that a man must eat the flesh of the Son of Man to inherit eternal life (see John 6:53-56).

Verse 27-29: “And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” When Jesus said the “blood of the covenant,” he was referring to the covenant relationship of the Father and the Israelites in Exodus 24:8. Moses takes the blood and sprinkles it upon the Israelites to remind them of the covenant that cannot be restored unless blood is shed. “There the sacrificial blood was dashed on the altar, the book of the covenant, and the people, to confirm the solemn agreement that the people had made to observe God’s law.” [20] That blood of Jesus is shed on the cross to redeem us.

Most Bible scholars believe that Jesus took the third cup out of four. In the Passover feast, Jews put four main cups on the table besides other cups for individuals. Each one holds profound meaning, and every Jew is aware of the significance of the cups. They stand for four promises that God made to his people in Exodus 6:6-7. “They became known as The Cup of Sanctification, The Cup of Deliverance, The Cup of Redemption (Blessing), and The Cup of Acceptance (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:16).” [21] Furthermore, Blomberg writes that “Jesus might have skipped the fourth cup of wine; in any case, he knows he will not celebrate this festival again until his second coming.” [22] It reminds us of his promise that he will not drink until that day we drink together with him in the kingdom of the Father.

Jesus established the new covenant through his body and blood. Some translations have “new covenant,” and some do not. Moses’ administration of sacrificial blood ratified the old promise the Lord had made with his people (Exodus 24:8). Now, he is making the new covenant through the administration of his blood, which is the inauguration of the covenant of grace. [23] He made the new covenant with his prophet Jeremiah (see 31:31-34). This covenant was established by Jesus, not through a written law, but by infusing his divine laws into our hearts and minds through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Thus, we must always remember that Jesus Christ himself instituted this essential ordinance of communion. In Luke’s gospel, he stresses the continuation of communion: “Do this in remembrance of me” until he returns to the world with his full glory and power (Luke 22:19). Bread and blood are figurative elements of Jesus Christ. “This held that the elements of bread and wine remained exactly what they had been but that, in the sacramental context, they were signs or reminders of the heavenly Lord with whom the believers communicated spiritually.” [24]

Christ became food for our soul and body. The bread and wine elements should not be blended with the soul of Jesus. It is not like he gave us his soul. He surely disbursed his abundant grace to us and enabled us to receive it through the work of the Holy Spirit. The bread is broken and the blood is poured out for those who are called by their names. In fact, there is a debate whether breaking the bread means literally breaking the body of Jesus. Some argue that breaking bread cannot be applied literally to Jesus, because his single bone was not broken while he was on the Cross (John 19:36). But to me, his body was literally broken apart from bones. His shoulders were dislocated after hanging on the cross. His face was beyond recognition (see Psalm 22:14; Isaiah 52:14).

Jesus seals the new covenant with his blood. The cross is the covenant for the remission of our sins. He is the supreme sacrifice for our sins. He has given himself to us:

He is our life because he gave up his own life. It is not the body of Christ in his earthly ministry; it is the body on the cross that feeds us. It is not the blood in the veins; it is the bloodshed that saves us. The Lord’s Supper was instituted on the night before Jesus was betrayed. It pointed toward the cross. It is now the magnificent memorial of Christ in his sacrifice for us. [25]

The upper room discourse is leading the story toward the cross. He is administering to his disciples as a servant, but at the same time, he is fulfilling the role of priesthood. He himself is the sacrifice for the forgiveness of mankind’s sins.

As we move on with our daily lives, we are faced with many struggles where we feel helpless yet want to do something. Our sinful thoughts and actions still pervade us, and we wish to attack them through our strength. For ministers who aspire to live a continual life of holiness, the struggles are even greater. We all want to be in charge, change what we can, and sometimes pursue that sanctification alone. In the end, the struggle is endless; human nature is just saturated by sin. And once a month or weekly, there is communion taking place. The verses from this passage are repeated. One is asked to meditate on what Jesus said during the Last Supper—it is done.

The struggle exists, yet it has already been conquered. The Last Supper reminds us to come to His Word daily, for His Word has revealed to us that in flesh we may be still struggling, but the battle is already won. For each sin, for each humanly struggle, the blood has already been shed to win us over from the Evil One. For each doubt and for every sinful thought, we rely on God’s Word to empower us to keep living the life of holiness and the life of casting demons. Evil has no more bondage upon us. The bondage has been cut off, and we are victorious.

As we participate in communion weekly or monthly, it is a day of remembrance and encouragement to every Christian of the victory. In our culture of self-sufficiency and self-empowerment, his message is the reminder of our weakness to the core. Overcoming a struggle in one’s flesh is only temporary. The victory that Jesus has freely given us truly overcomes our struggles forever.

Works Cited

1. Blomberg, Craig. Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey. 2nd ed. Nashville, Tenn.: B & H Academic, 2009. Print.

2. Buttrick, George Arthur, ed. “Matthew.” The Interpreter’s Bible: The Holy Scriptures in the King James and Revised Standard Versions with General Articles and Introduction, Exegesis, and Exposition for Each Book of the Bible. Vol. 7. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1951. Print.

3. Chamblin, J. K. “Matthew.” Baker Commentary on the Bible. Ed. Walter A. Elwell. 4th ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2008. 719. Print.

4. Elwell, Walter A., and Robert W. Yarbrough. “The Gospel of Matthew.” Encountering the New Testament: A Historical and Theological Survey. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2005. 79-85. Print.

5. Glo: Experience the Bible Like Never Before. Vers. 1.7.0.0423. Orlando, FL: Immersion Digital, 2009. Computer software.

6. O’Connor, James T. “”This Is a Hard Teaching. Who Can Accept It?”” The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005. 119. Print.

7. “St. Matthew.” The Pulpit Commentary. Ed. H. D. M. Spence-Jones and Joseph S. Exell. 1st ed. Vols. 1 & 2. Chicago: Wilcox & Follett, 1950. XIX. Print. Ser. 33.

Footnotes: