The Last Supper, like most meals in our lives, was preceded by many other meals. While it may be useful to think of it in terms of its newness, it’s also helpful to emphasize its continuity with other meals. I’m not sure that it’s helpful to consider the meal in isolation from every other meal that Christ shared with the disciples during his historical ministry.
That being said, we may begin to search for answers to a few basic questions: “What was the significance of eating a meal with others? What was the significance of blessing the food prior to partaking? And what happens when we say amen?”
Joachim Jeremias’ book, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, is helpful in this area. The Last Supper, he writes, should be seen “as one of a long series of daily meals they had shared together. For the oriental, every table fellowship is a guarantee of peace, of trust, of brotherhood. Table fellowship is a fellowship of life. [And] table fellowship with Jesus is more.” —Page 204
The significance of table fellowship as a real offering of peace is revealed by the anger of the Pharisees—they understood, much more than we do, the implications of sharing a meal. There is still a limited, almost unconscious, understanding of the significance of table fellowship in our modern culture; one just has to seek it out with a little imagination. Today, when two parties have a dispute, as they seek to work toward a resolution, we describe this as the act of “coming to the table.” In a conversation—especially a difficult one that may involve potential humiliation—one may suggest that we just “put it all on the table.” The phrase “putting it all on the table” suggests a real openness and connection between the speakers. Finally, our modern culture still knows what it means for something to be “off the table.” No longer is there a possibility of reconciliation or even discussion once something is said to be “off the table.” While this understanding is somewhat buried in our own culture, it wasn’t so for Jesus’ contemporaries. Such understanding regarding the significance of meals served around a table was much closer to firsthand—not something that would’ve needed to be dredged up after hours of contemplation.
“The oriental, to whom symbolic action means more than it does to us, would immediately understand the acceptance of the outcasts into table fellowship with Jesus as an offer of salvation to guilty sinners and as the assurance of forgiveness. Hence the passionate objections of the Pharisees (Luke 15:2: ‘This man receives sinners and eats with them’; Mark 2:15–17; Matt. 11:19) who held that the pious could have table fellowship only with the righteous.” —Page 204
As the daily series of regular meals continued throughout Christ’s life, it may be that it took on an eschatological role of sorts. They began to symbolize something that was coming to be fulfilled in Jesus’ ministry. Joachim Jeremias points to the confession of Peter as being a turning point of sorts.
Here is Peter’s confession, found in Matthew 16:13–19:
“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Peter is blessed, and the promise was made: “I will build my church,” and “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Christ seems to be making a promise that will take place in the future by using the words, “I will.” Another promise is made when Christ declares that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The church is going to be built up, and Peter is central to this promise.
After this, Jeremias suggests:
“The regular table fellowship with Jesus must have assumed an entirely new meaning for the disciples after Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi. From this time onward every meal with Jesus was for his followers a symbol, a pre-presentation, indeed an actual anticipation of the meal of the consummation. … After Peter’s confession, every act of eating and drinking with the master is table fellowship of the redeemed community with the redeemer, a wedding feast, a pledge of the share in the meal of consummation.” —Page 205
Even for common meals, there was an understanding that the breaking of bread and the drinking of wine made one a participant in the prior blessing.
“… a common meal binds the table companions into a table fellowship. This table fellowship is religious, and therein rests its obligations. … Above all, the Passover table fellowship is religious; this is seen most clearly in the fact that the membership of every haburah had to be determined before the lamb was killed and its blood sprinkled on the altar of burnt offerings. At every common meal, the constitution of the table fellowship is accomplished by the rite of the breaking of bread.
The breaking of bread is l’atto di comunione. When at the daily meal the paterfamilias recites the blessing over the bread—which the members of the household make their own by the ‘Amen’—and breaks it and hands a piece to each member to eat, the meaning of the action is that each of the members is made a recipient of the blessing by this eating; the common ‘Amen’ and the common eating of the bread of benediction unite the members into a table fellowship.
The same is true of the ‘cup of blessing,’ which is the cup of wine over which grace has been spoken, when it is in circulation among the members: drinking from it mediates a share in the blessing. This, it must be remembered, is true of every meal and was therefore a familiar and self-evident idea to the disciples.” —Page 233
This familiar understanding of the binding nature of table fellowship is helpful when considering the Last Supper from the disciples’ point of view. The meal was done in such a way that it was implausible that the disciples would have doubted that something was being conveyed and sealed in their eating of the meal. Not only did Jesus bless the bread and the wine, but he added words…
“…which referred the broken bread and the red wine to his atoning death for ‘many.’ When immediately afterwards he gives this same bread and wine to his disciples to eat and drink, the meaning is that by eating and drinking he gives them a share in the atoning power of his death.” —Page 233
“The intention was to make clear to the disciples their participation in the gift. The eating of the bread and the drinking from the cup that had been blessed is meant to give them not only a share in the blessing pronounced by Jesus as the paterfamilias but also, beyond that, a share in the redemptive work of Jesus as the savior. … A greater gift than a share in the redeeming power of his death Jesus could not give.” —Page 236
While the idea that eating actually imparts gifts is somewhat removed from our thinking, Jeremias points out that this understanding runs through the fabric of Scripture. Almost as a side note, he comments that the conversation between Jesus and the Canaanite woman in Mark 7:24–30 is best understood in this light. He writes:
“I am indebted to my colleague Rudolf Hermann for pointing out to me that even the story of the Canaanite woman becomes fully understandable in this connection: Jesus’ saying about the bread which is meant for the children and not for the dogs refers to the eschatological meal, and the great faith of the woman consists in this, that, by her word about the crumbs which are eaten by the dogs, she acknowledges Jesus as the giver of the bread of life.” —Page 234
Basic to the understanding of a covenant meal is real participation. Jeremias writes:
“There is, furthermore, the cultic aspect to be considered: ‘Behold Israel after the flesh: have not they which eat the sacrifices communion with the altar?’ (1 Cor. 10:18), says Paul; and the subsequent verses show that he intends to say that the eating of the sacrificial meat brings the priests and participants in sacrificial meals into a very close relationship to God.
Especially instructive is a passage which positively ascribes an atoning effect to the cultic meal: ‘Where (is it said) that the eating of the sacred sacrifices brings atonement to Israel? The Scripture teaches: “And He (Yahweh) hath given it (the sin-offering) to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord”’ (Lev. 10:17). How so? The priests eat, and for the masters (who provide the sacrifice), atonement is made.”
In closing, the Last Supper had table fellowship in common with the previous meals—a genuine offer of peace was present. However, Christ’s words of institution make it clear that much more than a general peace was being offered. A specific share in the redemptive work was to be given. If Jeremias is correct, there is a ready association between eating and participation. To separate the two requires an unnatural assessment of the contemporary culture. The Last Supper may be viewed as an inheritance meal; participation in the blessing was through the eating.