The Lord’s Supper

“The Theology of the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament: A Historical-Theological Appraisal with its problems and relevance to our modern Church”

I. Introduction:

It is quite a daring task and a vast and complicated topic on one of the Theological Issues of the New Testament. Traditions of Churches trace its beginning in the command of Jesus for remembrance of his sacrificial acts for the fallen human beings which was deeply rooted in Old Testament hermeneutics. It was somewhat modified for used in more varied contexts of the times. This important basic foundation of Churches’ doctrine is also one of the foundations of separation of Churches. The paper is an attempt to deal with unearthing theology of the Lord’s Supper found in the Bible tracing its root from the Old Testament and how Jesus made use of it in his ministry and how he left his disciples to carry on. Attempt is made on a Compaq but thorough investigation on the way how the Lord’s Supper have been carried on and interpret since early stages of the history of the Church with a glimpse on major different four views on the Lord’s Supper. I try to make a conclusion with the challenges brought forward by the Lord’s Supper in our present Church’s scenario.

II. Old Testament Background of the Lord’s Supper:

Hospitality and table could not be separated from one another in Jesus’ teaching. The mitzvah (Heb., "commandment") of hospitality (Heb. hakhnasat orekhim, literally "bringing in the guests") date back their origin as early as the time of Abraham and Sarah. Their kindness to strangers which we could find in the bible (Gen 18:1-8) makes it clear that it was the tradition of the chosen people to show their hospitality by offering meals to strangers. It was through this hospitality table that the Israelites blessed God and were blessed by God in return. Thus the psalms testify how God prepares a table for God’s people (e.g., Ps 23:5 and Ps 78:193-25) and Wisdom literatures also invoke people to follow the ways of God is using the symbolic luxury of a divine table (Prov. 9:1-5).[1]

In searching for a specific and particular ÖT sacral meal from which the Lord’s Supper is derived, most observers point immediately to the Passover meal—and with good reason. It is quite clear from the Synoptic gospels that the Lord’s Supper was inaugurated within the framework of the Jewish Passover meal.

“Joachim Jeremías has convincingly demonstrated the unmistakable evidence of the Passover setting and liturgy in the Synoptic accounts of Jesus' last supper with his disciples. Even in John's Gospel, which does not portray the last-supper as a Passover meal, Jeremías locates elements of Passover liturgy and tradition. Indeed, the Exodus event in the OT and the Passover tradition provide important theological background for the understanding of the salvation event of Christ's death and resurrection.”[2]

It was not only that the Jewish spirit conformed to table and hospitality but was rather in a typical notion of inclusivism. The Old Testament testifies the God of Israelites as a God who cares for the widow, orphan and stranger by providing them food and clothing, and demands the Israelites to do likewise (Deut. 10:17-19). From its initiation, the feast of Purim, commemorating the deliverance of the Persian Jews from Haman was also an invocation to give gifts to one another and to the needy (Esth. 9:22).[3]

III. Origin of the Lord’s Supper in the Synoptic Gospels:

The origin of the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament could be found in two main features in Jesus’ ministry viz.- i) The fellowship meal and ii) the Last Supper. As Edward Foley points out,

“It is in this broader Jewish context that one recognizes both the continuity and discontinuity of Jesus' table ministry. Well versed in law and tradition, Jesus was called to the same table hospitality as his forebears, and is celebrated for his diversity of table companions.”[4]

1) The fellowship meal: We could find that Jesus, during his ministry, was often a guest in the meals up to being called a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners (Cf. Mk. 1:29-31, 14:3; Lk. 7:36, 11:37; 14:1; Jn. 2:1-11). His table fellowship companions are also to be found a large circle of people which shows that he often took part in a fellowship meal (Lk. 8:1-, 24:33; mk. 6:32-44 and 8:14; cf. Jn. 4:8, 31, 21:12).[5]

To know the importance of having a fellowship meal must be a must as it was considered a guarantee of peace, trust, brotherhood; it signifies sharing of one’s own life. It was his way of performing his mission for Jesus to have a fellowship meal with whom the society called sinners and tax-collector which, in turn, provokes the curiosity of his contemporaries (Mk. 2:16; Lk. 15:2) who thought the a righteous person was supposed to dine with the righteous only but Jesus’ table was not a table for only the righteous but an open table for all. So, we can say that the table of Jesus transcends the traditional ritual observation for a limited inner circle by inviting all to join.[6]

The eschatological significance of Jesus Fellowship meals is also to be noted that his practice of the table fellowship was in the context of his proclamation which to him was to anticipate the messianic banquet. (Mk. 2:19, 10:35-40; Mt. 22:1-10/Lk.14:16-24; Mt. 25:10; Lk. 22:30; cf. Isa. 25:6, 65:13; I Enoch 62:14; II Bar. 29:8).[7]

2) The Last Supper: It is the final expression of that communal fellowship that Jesus had with his disciples. It is the central part of the whole mission of Jesus. It made clear the nature of the mission of Jesus and previewed the death of Jesus in a clearer manner; in it the eschatological aspect reaches its highest pitch.[8]

IV. The Lord’s Supper in the Fourth Gospel:

Jesus identifies himself in John 6 as the manna, a motif already found in Paul (1 Corinthians 10:1-4), but now developed to interpret the Eucharist as a mystery in which Jesus, not literally but sacramentally, offers/gives his own personal body and blood in Eucharist. This might not be a totally new idea to Hellenistic Christians who followed synoptic practice. But Johannine teaching now makes this meaning explicit. It was, as is characteristic of the Fourth Gospel, an unambiguous, clear break with Judaism. For with this development, Eucharist has become a "sacrament" understandable only in Hellenistic terms, and involving a conflict of knowledge on the Lord’s Supper with the ordinary understanding of what Judaism might and might not include.[9]

V. The Last Supper in the Early Christianity:

We could see that the first Christians engaged themselves in the fellowship meal (Acts 2:42, 46). These might probably have been the continuation of the fellowship meal of Jesus as an expression of their anticipation of the eschatological banquet.[10] They seemed to usually do it by breaking of bread like at Troas (Acts. 20:7-11). It was usually accompanied by preaching when disciples happened to visit them.[11] Barrett points out that scholars like Lietzmann believe that there were two types of Early Christians’ supper viz.,

i) The continuation of the meal which Jesus had been in the habit of taking with his disciples with the feeling of the presence of Christ himself among them as they gathered in his name. This was an ordinary poor people’s meal.

ii) The other one was introduced by Paul, accompanied by wine, making it symbolize the sacrificial act of Jesus Christ. But the meals we find in the book of acts have nothing to say about the use of wine; its words are, “the breaking of bread”.[12]

James Dunn’s statements upon the Lord’s Supper during the early Christianity seems quite remarkable,

“At the same time the fact remains that the words of interpretation over the bread and wine, which go back to Jesus in some form or other, were preserved by and transmitted through the earliest community. In the absence of any firmer data probably the best explanation is that the Lord’s Supper was initially an annual celebration- the Christian equivalent of the Passover: the first Christians were Jews after all; and the Ebionites[13], whose beliefs closely parallel those of the primitive Jerusalem community at other points, celebrated it in this way, as an annual festival. We should not assume however that there was a clear distinction in the minds of the first Christians between the regular fellowship meals and that (or those) in which they specifically recalled the words of the last supper.[14]

In this stage of Eucharistic development, the berakhah prayer of Judaism seems to have become a principal form of Eucharist. Bread comes prior to wine, and, as Acts 1:12-26, 2:46, and 3:1-4:37 clearly describe, “a double domestication took place”. Instead of seeking the hospitality of others, as the itinerant Jesus seemed to do, the believers, under the leadership of Peter and/or the Twelve, gathered in the homes of colleagues where they "broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people" (Acts 2:46-47). In addition, apparently they also acknowledged the validity of sacrifice in the Temple.[15]

VI. The Lord’s Supper in Paul’s Teaching:

Paul’s formulae were written in the early 50s, are the oldest literary records. In Paul's times the Lord’s Supper was mainly considered a part of a full meal.[16]

“As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1Corinthians 11:26):

We could say it was Paul who properly institutionalized the Lord’s Supper. Paul, making a little modification to the words of the Lord we find in Mark 14:22-25 cf. Mt. 26:26-29, Lk. 22:17-20 to make it appropriate to be used for the Lord’s Supper by making some literary adjustments. Paul made the memorial purpose of the meal is made more explicit by adding, “As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1Cor. 11:26).[17]

C.K. Barrett points out the two stories on the Lord’s Supper on Paul as, 1) The Lord’s Supper account in 1 Corinthians is derived from the question of whether it Is or is not permitted to eat food that has been sacrificed to idols. He comes into a conclusion that it is not the substance more important but the context of eating the food. 2) The behavior of the Corinthians. Paul wants to feature the way they took their fellowship meal and the meal the Lord took part.[18]

As C.K. Barrett makes a very agreeable point in regards to Paul’s institution with a view from the socio-economic perspective of the context of Corinth as,

“One further observation may be made at this stage. It is hard to read Paul’s account of the Supper as practiced at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 11 without drawing the conclusion that he is writing about a real meal, that is, one at which food and drink were used in such a way as to satisfy physical hunger and thirst. It may have had a symbolic element too, but it was not purely symbolic. Had it been working rightly the poor would have benefited when the wealthier shared their supplies with them. Paul gives no indication that he wished to change this arrangement, though naturally he disapproved of its perversion in which the poor went hungry while others got drunk”.[19]

It was on his emphasis on the meal as an occasion of communion (koinonia) and his interpretation of the bread-word, “This is my body”, to include Christ’s body corporate lies the distinctive contribution of Paul to eucharistic doctrine.[20]

VII. The Lord’s Supper in the History of the Church: a brief outlines:

The Lord’s Supper had an important place in the life of the early Christians who had personal knowledge of Jesus. The Early Christians met often for this fellowship feast at some private houses of their fellow Christians. Listening to preaching of the apostles, prayer, sharing of their problems, and I they shared a meal and commemorated the Lord.[21]

The Eucharist was considered to have a close connection with personal and collective lives. In those times to be a Christian was to be a part of the movement which could be called a movement to turn the world upside down (Acts 17:6). It was a socialistic in pattern as they shared their properties and their food to one another. The Lord’s Supper was intimately linked with their ways of living. The account of the Lord’s Supper we find in the first letter of Paul to Corinthians is also a letter to those who partook of the Lord’s Supper but not wanted to share their belongings.[22]

In so far as we can determine from the few prayers of early Eucharist that have been handed down to us, the mandate of the disciples is the same mandate for the Eucharist itself. Elements of bread and wine are shared because Jesus himself is shared. Elements of bread and wine bring unity to those who gather because Jesus himself brings unity to those who gather. Unity is from the beginning the purpose of the sharing of bread and wine.[23]

In the very early days the Church was dominantly Jewish Christians, a kindness was expressed to the Gentiles converts. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-22) was unwilling to lay unnecessary burdens upon them. As the Church became a Gentile establishment, something else took over the bond of relationships. Starting with the councils of Nicaea (325 A.D.), Ephesus (431 A.D.), and Chalcedon (451 A.D.), the kindness of the Council of Jerusalem was replaced by the issue of agreement. After the Council of Chalcedon, only the Church of Rome and the Church of Byzantium held together as one. The others left the unity of the Church. [24]

This same fascination on "saying the same thing" brought about the separation of the Byzantine Church from Rome (usually dated in the 11th century), the separations of the 16th-century Reformation, and the 18th- and 19th-century separations over Modernism. Even today this desire to say or mean the same thing operates when dealing with issues of liberation theology, of feminist theology, and the historical nature of theology. Different theological traditions continue to interpret differently. It is those traditions that will continue to provide reasons for dispute and separation, unless that desire to speak and mean the same thing is challenged.[25]

But what if the separation itself is based on a false understanding of unity and diversity? What if differences in theological traditions, in ritual practice and creedal affirmations, are not only not an obstacle to unity in diversity but a necessary requirement for it? What if the Church has never been divided; we have just stopped talking to each other?

IV. The Four Views on the Lord’s Supper:

Most of the scholars agree with classifying views on the Lord’s Supper into four main views as follows:-

1) The Catholic View:

In 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council established the first official use of the term 'transubstantiation. The greatest of the medieval councils, Lateran IV instituted a series of pastoral reforms and doctrinal clarifications, especially with an eye to combating the radically dualist Cathar heresy. Its declaration of the true faith was incorporated into canon law by 1234, and begins with a brief formulation of Trinitarian doctrine: "Three Persons, but one thoroughly simple essence, substance, or nature."[26] It proceeds to say that, "Jesus Christ himself is both priest and sacrifice, whose body and blood in the sacrament of the altar, under the appearances of the bread and wine are truly contained, having been transubstantiated, the bread into the body and the wine into the blood by divine power.”[27] It has to be kept note of that the term 'substance' can be applied both to the Trinity and to Christ's bodily presence in the Lord’s Supper, so, this seems to preclude any suggestion of tangibility or materialism. It is also important to be noted that at the time of the Council there was not yet any precise definition of transubstantiation. Actually, three theories of real presence existed simultaneously and harmoniously under this one general heading. There was consubstantiation, which asserts that the material substance of the bread remains together with the substance of Christ's body; the annihilation/succession theory, which asserts that the substance of the bread is annihilated and succeeded by the substance of Christ's body; and the conversion theory which maintains that the bread's substance changes into the substance of Christ's body. Deep into the thirteenth century, theologians and canon lawyers alike opined that all the three explanations orthodox, such that none of them could be counted as an article of faith. All one needed to affirm was real presence itself, not a specific manner by which it occurs.

The Council of Trent considered the Eucharist in 1551 insisted upon real presence against any and all Protestant opposition. The Council reaffirmed a substantial conversion and claimed Transubstantiation as most fittingly called by the Church. Thus condemned any apparent reduction of this reality, such as claiming Christ’s present as only by way of a sign, figure or power. The Council further states that our Savior as always sitting at the right hand of the God in heaven as his nature, even as his substance is sacramentally present for us in many other places. “In other words, the communicant receives the real body of Christ, but not in the same way one would have encountered it during his earthly ministry; that mode of his body's existence is unique to his present celestial location. For as Aquinas made clear three hundred years earlier, Christ's body in the Eucharist it is not present as a body would be in a place, but in a special manner unique to this sacrament.”[28]

This view of the Eucharist was defined by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Medieval Catholic theologians had asserted an official explanation of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist by an appeal to a theory called transubstantiation. The doctrine rests on a philosophical distinction between the substance of a thing (what a thing really is) and its accidents (how it appears to our senses). According to this theory, when a priest consecrates the elements of bread and wine, the accidents of bread remain the same but the substance is miraculously changed by the power of God into the body and blood of Christ. The bread and wine still feel, smell, taste, and look like bread and wine; but appearances in this case are deceiving. The reality which is present is Christ himself.[29]

2) Lutheran View:

The book published in the name of the Church of South India puts up the notion of Lutheran Church as follows, “An outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual race given unto us, ordained by Christ Himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and pledge to assure us thereof.”[30]

Herman Bavinck lays down Lutheran teaching on the Lord’s Supper as follows[31]:-

(a) Christ is present physically and locally in the bread and wine.

(b) Jesus' body and blood are received not only spiritually through faith, but also with the physical mouth.

(c) Not only those who eat and drink worthily, but also those who eat unworthily and unbelievingly receive the proper, true body and blood of Christ, even though the latter do so to their destruction.

Though Luther was firm in his belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, he regarded transubstantiation as a metaphysical formulation which was “a figment of the human mind” resting “neither on scripture nor on reason”. “What shall we say when Aristotle and the doctrines of men are made to be the arbiters of such lofty and divine matters?” he asked, rhetorically. “Why do we not put aside such curiosity and cling simply to the words of Christ ... content that the real body of Christ is present by virtue of the words?”[32]

The Augsburg Confession of 1530 also teaches that “The true body and blood of Christ are truly present under the form of bread and wine, and are there communicated to those that eat in the Lord’s Supper and received.”

3) Symbolic Memorial View:

A third view of the Lord’s Supper is the “symbolic memorial view,” also known as “memorialism” or “Zwinglianism.” While there is some debate whether Zwingli actually held to the position identified by his name, the term “Zwinglianism” can be understood in two different senses. First, it is the teaching that “Where Luther understood sacraments in the classic medieval sense of efficacious signs which confer what they signify; Zwingli views them simply as signs of sacred things. Insisting on a strict distinction between the sign and what it signifies, when he speaks of the sacrament of Christ's body this can only mean the bread which is a symbol of that body given for us. The actual body of Christ is seated at God's right hand, while the sign of that body is the bread.”[33]

4) Reformed View:

“John Calvin, the great patriarch of the Reformed tradition, might be said to occupy the middle ground between Luther and Zwingli.”[34]

For Calvin, the bread and wine are effective signs which make it possible for us to eat the sacrificial body of Christ, and so become, partakers of its life-giving power. We must consider the body and blood as present as if Christ was placed before our sight and touched with our hands. By the physical things we are brought into the spiritual; just as bread strengthens our bodies so Christ's body is the only food to nourish the soul. Calvin explicitly says that eating is not simply believing. Rather, we eat Christ's flesh in believing; eating is the effect of faith. Salvation rests not only on faith in Christ's death and resurrection, but in a true partaking of him, as his life passes into us and is made our own. [35]

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements also partake of inwardly by faith, yet not physically and collectively but spiritually, receive, and feed themselves upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ is the present, not collectively or physically, in, with, or under the bread and wine; really but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that sacrament, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

VIII. The Lord’s Supper for the Today’s Indian Church:

In a recent article, David Power describes the central sign of the Eucharist as "the communion of the diverse members of the Church in the elements of bread and wine, around a common table, sharing in the things of earth."[36] “In The Eucharistic Mystery Power suggests that the symbolic act of Eucharist can be considered at four levels of significance: 1) as bread and wine shared at a common table; 2) as related to social, economic and cultural realities; 3) as celebrated by a community of mutual service that overcomes social distinctions; 4) as proclaiming and representing Christ's saving death and abiding presence. He insists that nothing of the meaning of the first level, the innate meaning of food and drink, is abolished in accommodating the deepest meaning of representing Christ.”[37] Is the way our present Indian Churches observe the Lord’s Supper reflects the same ideology? I would like to bring out some of the community aspects of the Lord’s Supper in Indian context today.

1) The Lord’s Supper and Unity of the Church:

According to Xavier Léon-Dufour, for the biblical world, bread stands for basic food, the food for survival, the food without which no one can live. It is used as a metaphor for food in general (Amos 4:6; Mark 3:20; 11:5; 15:17). Bread is ascribed the food given by the creator which has power to sustain and nourish life. It is a sign of God's constant care and abiding presence (Exod 23:25; Ps 78:20; 132:15; 146:7; Matt 6:11). As the gift of God, bread is meant to be shared, above all with the hungry (Isa 58:7; Ezek 18:7).[38] It can also become the sign of God's promise. Bread becomes a symbol of the eschatological banquet (Ps 78:23-25; Rev 2:17). This is why in Luke we find Jesus saying, "Blessed is anyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!" (Luke 14:15) The bread of the Eucharist is always ordinary daily bread, but exactly as such it is the bread of the kingdom of God.[39]

As Edwards puts it, “Wine is a sign of blessing, a sign of the abundance of creation and the blessing of God. In the accounts of the last supper, Jesus speaks of the "fruit of the vine" that he will not drink again until he will drink it new with his community in the Reign of God (Mark 14:25; Matt 26:29; Luke 22:18). It is to be noted that the word used to describe what Jesus takes up and prays over is not "wine," but the "cup." In First Corinthians, for example, Paul writes: "In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me! For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1 Cor. 11:25-26). The word "cup" has a special meaning. It resonates communal sharing of the various cups of a Jewish festive meal.”[40]

The above statements provide us a challenge for the unity of the Church. It is a meal where there is no discrimination on the basis of caste, class or economy. It is provided for all for a common table to partake a common meal remembering the death and resurrection of Christ for us. It is a meal which provokes our commitment to proclaim the gospel to the earth anticipating the coming of the Kingdom of God at which we are members.

The part taken by children also needs to be taken into consideration. Why are children excluded from partaking of the wine and the bread? Of course the excuse should be tradition of the Church and their lack of ability of exercising conscience so as to know the real implications of the Lord’s Supper. Is it fair enough to let them forfeit the Lord’s Supper while they are included in the community of the Church as we are anticipating the eschatological table where there will be no distinction by any means?

It is of course the Lord’s Supper which torn the Church asunder. It is mainly due to presuppositions of ideologies on what Jesus might have meant to when he said, “This is my body” and “This is my blood”. I think it is rather a race on ideological principality claimed among the reformers and the Catholic Church which still keeps the Church away from unity regarding this. Why cannot we sacrifice our ideological difference in regards to the Lord’s Supper for the sake of Christ who died accepting everyone with their notions and ideologies into the realms of the table which sounds more reasonable than the causes of theological-ideological war fare?

IX. Conclusion:

From the above studies it is clear that separation of the Church, though crucial and doctrinal it may be, comes out of the perception of human ability. As we are struggling against one another on the ground of our interpretation and misunderstandings, resentment and even war has been brought about due to the fact that our understanding of the Lord’s Supper varied from one another. To me the most important thing is readiness to sacrifice our standpoint for the sake of cleaning the distorted face of the church blurred just only by what we think is all about. Our claim to pledge our allegiance to our Lord does not seem to necessarily need to be fought upon against each other. So, the task is set before us to look for reaffirmation of our faith by sharing a common table irrespective of caste, class, denominational differences. This rather seems to please the one who commands.

Bibliography:

Balasuriya, Tissa. The Eucharist and Human Liberation. Britain: SCM Press LTD, 1979.


Barrett, C.K. Church, Ministry and Sacrament in the New Testament. Australia: Paternoster Press, 1985.


Bruce, F.F. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, Michigan: Paternoster with special arrangement with William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977.


Dunn, James G. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity. London: SCM Press, 1977.


The meeting of the Joint commission of the Church of South India and the Federation of Evangelical Lutheran Churches in India, March 1955. The Sacraments. Madras: The Christian Literature Society, 1956.

Journals:

Bavinck, Herman “Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,” Mid-America Journal of Theology. 11, 2000.

Daly, Robert “Eucharistic Origins: From the New Testament to the Liturgies of the Golden Age” Theological Studies- 66, 2005.

Edwards, Denis. “Eucharist and Ecology: Keeping Memorial of Creation,” Worship, 82(3), 2008.

Foley, Edward. “Which Jesus Table? Reflections on Eucharistic Starting Points,” Worship 82:1, January 2008.

Kervin, William S. “Beyond the Last Supper: The Institution Narrative Revisited,” Touchstone, May, 2009.

Levy, Ian Christopher. “Affirming Real Presence from a Historical Perspective,” Lexington Theological Quarterly.

Lindsay, Dennis R. “Todah and Eucharist: The Celebration of the Lord’s Supper as a ‘Thank Offering’ in the Early Church.” Restoration Quarterly. Vol. 39, no. 2 (1997): 85.

Steinmetz, David C. “Scripture and the Lord’s Supper in Luther's Theology,” Interpretation, 37. July 1983.

Thurston, Bonnie Bowman "Do This": A Study on The Institution Of The Lord’s Supper” Restoration Quarterly. 30, 1988.

    Endnotes

[1] Edward Foley, “Which Jesus Table? Reflections on Eucharistic Starting Points,” Worship, 82:1 (January 2008), 42.
[2] Dennis R. Lindsay, “Todah and Eucharist: The Celebration of the Lord’s Supper as a ‘Thank Offering’ in the Early Church.” Restoration Quarterly. Vol. 39, no. 2 (1997): 85.
[3] Edward Foley, Op. Cit., 44.
[4] Ibid.
[5] James G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1977) 162.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid. 162.
[8] Ibid. Here, James Dunn deals with the problem of whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal. Stating that there are contrasting answers to this, one of which says that as the meal was eaten in Jerusalem (not Bethany), and at night, that wine was drunk that it was a Passover meal. On the other hand there is another ideology which denies the same by asserting that as the execution of Jesus did not seem to happen on the Passover day, and the oldest traditions do not speak of the meal as a Passover. But the author comes into conclusion that Jesus viewed the supper as a special Passover meal, or that he deliberately heightened the significance of what was otherwise an ordinary meal.
[9] Robert Daly “Eucharistic Origins: From the New Testament to the Liturgies of the Golden Age” Theological Studies- 66, 2005. 13.
[10] James G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity, Op. cit. 163.
[11] C.K. Barrett, Church, Ministry and Sacrament in the New Testament (Australia: Paternoster Press, 1985) 60-61.
[12] Ibid. 61.
[13] “Ebionites”- a member of an early Christian group that rejected the teachings of St. Paul and emphasized the Jewish roots of Christianity.
[14] James G. Dunn, Op. cit. 163.
[15] Robert Daly, Op. Cit., 11.
[16] Although some have suggested that the Gospel of Mark with its Aramaisms may contain the more primitive account. Bonnie Bowman Thurston, "Do This": A Study on The Institution Of The Lord’s Supper” Restoration Quarterly. 208.
[17] C.K. Barrett, Op cit. 66.
[18] Ibid.
[19] C.K. Barrett, Church, Ministry and Sacrament in the New Testament, Op cit. 66.
[20] F.F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Michigan: Paternoster with special arrangement with William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977) 284.
[21] Tissa Balasuriya, The Eucharist and Human Liberation (Britain: SCM Press LTD, 1979). 23.
[22] Ibid. 24.
[23] Peter E. Fink, “Eucharist as a Call to Unity” Liturgical Ministry 17 (Summer 2008). 105.
[24] Ibid. 108.
[25] Ibid. 108.
[26] As quoted in Ian Christopher Levy, “Affirming Real Presence from a Historical Perspective,” Lexington Theological Quarterly. 30.
[27] Ibid. 30-31.
[28] As quoted in Ian Christopher Levy, “Affirming Real Presence from a Historical Perspective,” Lexington Theological Quarterly. 32.
[29] David C. Steinmetz, “Scripture and the Lord’s Supper in Luther's Theology,” Interpretation, 37. July 1983. 254.
[30] The meeting of the Joint commission of the Church of South India and the Federation of Evangelical Lutheran Churches in India, March 1955. The Sacraments (Madras: The Christian Literature Society, 1956) 5.
[31] Herman Bavinck, “Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,” Mid-America Journal of Theology, 11. 2000. 128.
[32] William S. Kervin, “Beyond the Last Supper: The Institution Narrative Revisited,” Touchstone, May, 2009. 23.
[33] Ian Christopher Levy, “Affirming Real Presence from a Historical Perspective,” Lexington Theological Quarterly. 35.
[34] Ibid. 36.
[35] Ibid. 37.
[36] As quoted in Denis Edwards, “Eucharist and Ecology: Keeping Memorial of Creation,” Worship, 82(3), 2008. 195.
[37] Cf. Denis Edwards, Op cit., 197 &198
[38]. Ibid
[39] Ibid.
[40] Ibid.