|
|
|
|
The Eucharist
Not From Jesus!
By Edgar Jones Foreword If you are not prepared for a radical restructuring of your view of the church and the associated religion of Christianity, you may not want to read this paper. It has the potential to offend you -- as only the Truth can offend the lie. Introduction Jesus
of Nazareth did not institute the Christian sacrament (or memorial,
ordinance or whatever) of the Eucharist (or Mass, Holy Communion,
Lord's Supper, or whatever).
The
text of the New Testament is the basis for this statement. We
do
not need to go further to invalidate this ritual, so precious
to churchmen. I will
set forth
the textual evidence here and follow with a brief summation and
conclusion.
This evidence arises from the presence of this "sacrament" in the
synoptic
gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), from it's absence from the fourth
gospel (John), from its presence in Paul's epistles and its absence
from the Acts of the Apostles.
The Last Supper -- It's Presence in the Synoptics The four canonical gospels all record this supper, during which Jesus, the Apostles and at least one other person -- the Beloved Disciple of the fourth gospel -- were present. This supper did occur according to the gospels, but it was not what the churchmen have made it. We will examine it here in parallel columns, by segments. We begin with the preparation for the supper. The Last Supper -- The Preparation
(Quotations from the Faithful New Testament)
|
This is enough to definitely and conclusively identify this meal. Look at it in the text above: Matt. 26:17,18 & 19, Mark 14:12,14 & 16, Luke 22:7,8,11 & 13 and John 13:1. The gospels flatly state that it was the Passover they were eating, both by the utterances of the Lord and the commentary of the evangelists -- not once, but 11 different times! Mark 14:12 informs us that it was on the Day of Unleavened Bread, when they were sacrificing the Passover. Mark does not specifically state that Jesus and his disciples were sacrificing the Passover, but the implication is there. If they had not been the ones sacrificing, this would have called for some explanation. Furthermore, if what most Christians believe were true, that Jesus was the Passover lamb, the Evangelists and Jesus would have been obligated to make a clear distinction, which they did not do. (The apparent differences in timing of the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics are not relevant to this paper, and will not be discussed.) I seek to avoid speculation and find it sufficient to state that Jesus, who utters the Word of God that he heard from his Father, stated positively that it was the Passover supper for which they prepared and which they ate. So it was with the assertions of Matt. 26:18, Mark 14:14 and Luke 22:9,11. This does not preclude that the Lord may have changed it into the Christian ritual. Being Lord of the Sabbath, as he stated elsewhere, we can believe he is also Lord of the Passover. The narrative continues.
Many commentators label the next segment "The Lord's Supper," but this would be misleading for reasons that you should shortly understand as I proceed to confirm the identification of this event as the Passover feast and nothing but the Passover feast, as indicated in all references in the introductory segment above. Verses 22:24-30 belong parallel to the lesson of the feet washing, both being a teaching on humility. Matthew and Mark omit this, but it is John's prime focus and Luke did not fail to record it in the Last Supper discourse. The thought that the Lord failed to give this lesson on humility during his last session with his disciples prior to the crucifixion is not reasonable. This is one of the prime doctrines of the Lord, and one he would surely have wanted to emphasize during this final session. John included it with the feet washing, and Luke included it as a separate teaching. Mark failed to include it, and Matthew, who may have had Mark as his source, also omitted it, although both Matthew and Mark earlier include a similar teaching. But this is a distraction from our subject, the Eucharist, to which we now return.
Matthew
(26:30) and Mark (14:26) agree that they sing and
go to the Mount of Olives at this point, thus terminating the Upper
Room discourse with the Passover meal. Luke includes additional
material in 22:21-38 and the Fourth Gospel records much more material
spoken in the upper room, from 13:30 to the end of Chapter 14
(14:31). Additionally, the characterization of the Fourth Gospel
as a cobbled document is supported by the fact that the Beloved
Disciple uniquely records the long discourse from 15:1 to the end of
Chapter 17,
and then we read:
Jn.18:1 FNT Having said these [things] Jesus went out with his disciples across the ravine of Kedron where there was [a] garden in which he and his disciples entered. . . . but in order that the world know that I agape-love the father, and just as the father commanded me, thus I do. Be arising, let us be going from here. It appears that the Fourth Gospel has them leaving the Upper Room twice -- John 13:31 and 18:1! But none of the unique material from either Luke or the Fourth Gospel refers to the Eucharist, therefore, for present purposes, we may suspend the text here and examine what the evangelists have told us. The Evidence We come to the point of the principle assertion of this paper, which is that the segments shown above in parallel, Matt. 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24 and Luke 22:19,20 are insertions of words Jesus did not utter. Bear with me, please, as we continue to enumerate the evidence to support this statement. 1. First, examine Luke 22:18 and 22:20: Perhaps you see the problem? In vs. 18, he heavily emphasized the not drink . . . from now until . . .. The underscore, according to the practice of the Faithful New Testament, means that the not is a double negative in the Greek. Therefore the Lord heavily emphasized that he would not again drink of the fruit of the vine until the coming of the kingdom. But then they continued to dine, eating the Passover. It was somewhat later, after dining, as vs. 20 informs us, the Lord took up the cup again. Can we believe he did not drink? Can we believe the kingdom had come while they were eating the Passover? This is hardly reasonable. What I can believe is that verse 20 does not belong there. Remove it and there is no problem! 2. Similarly the parallels, Matthew 26:26-28 and Mark 14:22-24, are insertions that do not belong. Take notice of the fact that neither Matthew nor Mark record parallels to the utterance of Luke 22:15-18, except for verse 18. This one verse seems appended to the inserted verses at the bottom of the above columns as Matthew 26:29 and Mark 14:25. Next, observe that Matthew 26:29 does not necessarily follow verse 28, where he has already explained the reason for sharing the wine -- it is his blood, or so it says in vs. 28. Mat.26:27 FNT And having taken the cup and having given thanks he gave [it] to them saying: Drink all of it. Mat.26:28 FNT For this is my blood of the new contract, being poured out for many to forgiveness of sins. Mat.26:29 FNT For I say to you, I will not drink from now on of this the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my father. Why should vs. 27 lead to, or have any intrinsic connection with, vs. 29? If there is one, it needs to be explained, which the Lord does not do. We encounter a similar objection to the sequence of the parallels in Mark. 3. But note, to the contrary, how Luke 22:18 flows directly from the preceding verse, 22:17 if we perceive that, instead of representing his blood by the wine, the Lord has chosen to make his next drinking of the fruit of the vine the sign of the coming of the kingdom, so that we who are his disciples may know and understand when it came. Lk.22:17 FNT And having welcomed [the] cup, having given thanks he said: Take this and divide [it] among yourselves, Lk.22:18 FNT for I say to you, I may not drink of the product of the vine from now until the kingdom of God come. Verse 18 does not begin a new sentence; it is the continuation of verse 17 for which the latter serves as the introduction. Verse 18 and the "for I say to you" completes the latter. The "for" is a conjunction meaning, "for the reason that." Now, examine Matt. 26:27,28,29 again: Mat.26:27 FNT And having taken the cup and having given thanks he gave [it] to them saying: Drink all of it. Mat.26:28 FNT For this is my blood of the new contract, being poured out for many to forgiveness of sins. Mat.26:29 FNT For I say to you, I will not drink from now on of this the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my father. Verse 29 begins with the same phrase as verse 18, For (for the reason that) I say to you, but the preceding verse does not need or call for this explanation. Verse 28 explains itself. It is introduced by the same conjunction "for." It is the explanation for the preceding verse, vs. 27. As it appears, therefore, verse 29 is an explanation of an explanation (vs. 28) that does not need an explanation! If Vs. 29 were missing, we would not miss it. We can conclude with confidence and with little or no speculation the following: 1. Luke 22:20 does not belong after Luke 22:18 because it requires the kingdom to have come during the Passover meal. 2. Matthew 26:28 need not belong prior to 26:29, the latter being unnecessary. 3. Correspondingly, Mark 14:24 does not belong prior to 14:25. 4. Matthew 26:26 belongs with verses 27 & 28, because of the body-blood association. 5. Also, Mark 14:22 belongs with Mark 14:23&24, due to the body-blood association. This demonstrates that the following parallel verses are insertions into the synoptics:
But this is the Eucharist (see the references to giving thanks. Eucharist in Greek is the giving of thanks). Therefore, the Eucharist does not belong in the Passover discourse. Only Matthew 26:29 and Mark 14:25 remain of this segment, and these are not sensible standing alone. These verses parallel Luke 22:18, that complete the preceding verses, Luke 22:15-17. It follows therefore that we can say, again without speculation, that Matthew and Mark are missing the parallels to Luke 22:15-17 that are genuine words from the Lord on the occasion.. I propose, therefore, that the most complete and accurate record we have of this utterance during the last Passover supper looks like this in parallel, duplicating Luke 22:15,16 & 17 in Matthew and Mark (as the omitted portion of the utterance):
By duplicating from Luke the omitted portions of Matthew and Mark, we have reconstructed (with reasonable accuracy) what the Lord said at this point in the Passover meal, and we have shown, from the text and with little speculation, that the Eucharistic utterance does not belong there. The Fourth Gospel omits it entirely, therefore there is no record in the gospels, accurately presented, by which Jesus established the Eucharist. Do you want more, by way of confirmation? Very well, examine these verses (from above) and notice that in Matthew and Mark, they tell us that what follows was taking place while they ate: Now examine these later verses (just five verses later in Matthew, four in Mark) from the Eucharist context: You see that, in Matthew and Mark, these verses repeat the information given just five verses earlier (in Matthew) and four verses earlier (in Mark), telling us that what follows occurred "while they were eating." The evangelists in each case, having already told us that what follows was while they were eating, is not likely to have duplicated the same information so quickly. Removing the Eucharist removes this duplication, and is a further confirmation that the Eucharist does not belong there. The information, that this was while they were eating, is completely missing from Luke. The context is clear that everything was taking place during the meal, while they were eating the Passover. This being obvious, there surely was no need for Matthew and Mark to report it twice, seeing that Luke found it not necessary to report it once, it being obvious that these things occurred while they were eating. Eliminating the insertions also does something else very positive. There has been much debate and confusion through the centuries growing out of the fact that Luke, in contrast to Matthew and Mark, has two rounds of wine served, one before and one after the breaking of bread. Now we see that there was only one in Luke, which came after the giving of thanks and before the eating of the Passover and without mention of the breaking of bread. The drinking of the wine was to introduce the revelation of the moment for the coming of the kingdom to earth; no need to mention the breaking of the bread. The Eucharist is not from Jesus! Eating the Passover The Lord stated that it was the Passover they were eating, Mt. 26:18, Mk. 14:14, and Luke 22:8, 11 & 15. What does this mean? We find the answer to this question in Exodus 12, (RSV): [5] Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old; you shall take it from the sheep or from the goats; [6] and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs in the evening. [7] Then they shall take some of the blood, and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat them. [8] They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. [9] Do not eat any of it raw or boiled with water, but roasted, its head with its legs and its inner parts. [10] And you shall let none of it remain until the morning, anything that remains until the morning you shall burn. [11] In this manner you shall eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste. It is the LORD's passover. It was not necessary that the evangelists specify it was the meat of the sacrifice that they were eating. That stands without saying, for that is what it means to "eat the Passover." Therefore, none of the evangelists mentioned the meat. Mt.26:18 FNT But he said: Be going into the city to [a] certain man and say to him: The teacher says: My time is at hand, with you would I do the Passover with my disciples. Mk.14:14 FNT And where he goes in, say to the house-master that: The teacher says: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples? Lk. 22:8 FNT Having gone prepare for us the passover in order that we may eat [it]. Lk.22:11 FNT and say to the master of the house: The teacher says to you: Where is the guest room where I may eat the passover with my disciples? Lk.22:15 FNT And he said to them: With desire have I desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer. The Lord said it, Luke and the others reported it; it remains only to believe it! One of the many great errors of Christians is identification of Jesus as the lamb. If that were the case, it makes some sense to think he intends that we eat his flesh and drink his blood symbolically. But the evangelists clearly tell us that what they ate was the Passover -- the lamb that they had prepared as instructed by the Lord. Once again, we see that Jesus did not identify the wine of the evening as his blood, nor the bread as his flesh, nor himself as the lamb. He ate that -- the lamb -- together with the disciples! So, if he had intended in any sense to institute a ritual involving the eating of his flesh, he must have referred it to the flesh of the sacrifice that they were eating rather than the bread! The Eucharist is not from Jesus. Whence Cometh it? -- It's Presence in Paul's Epistle I have demonstrated in previous papers, Eat My Flesh, Part A and Eat My Flesh, Part B, that the flesh and blood utterances in Chapter Six of the Fourth Gospel do not refer to the Eucharist, but constitute a screen to eject those who were not true disciples. This gospel says nothing about it in the record of the Last Supper. Therefore, there is nothing whatsoever concerning the Eucharist in the Fourth Gospel. I have now shown, from the text and with little or no speculation, that there is no Eucharist in the autographs of the Synoptic Gospels. It is not to be found anywhere! These four gospels constitute the full and sufficient record of what Jesus of Nazareth said and did while incarnate on the earth, and in none of them -- that is, in the autographs -- is there a record of the institution of a Eucharist, Holy Communion, Mass, Lord's Supper, or whatever. As the Lord specifically stated, they "ate the Passover." That was nothing new. From whence, then, does it come? Paul! Again, this is not speculation. One need only go to Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians to establish him as the source. Here is the record as written by the man himself. I Cor.11:23 FNT For I received from the Lord what I have also delivered up to you, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread, 24 and having given thanks he broke [it] and said: This is my body being broken in your behalf. Be doing this in my remembrance. 25 Likewise also [he took] the cup after having supped, saying: This cup is the new contract3 in my blood. Be doing this, as often as you be drinking, in my remembrance. 26 For as often as you be eating this bread and be drinking this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 So whoever be eating the bread or drinking the cup unworthily, he will be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. Paul was not present at the Last Supper. His obvious source of information about what took place there is one or more of the Twelve, of whom all were present. We know that he could not have received it from any of them because the record of the Eucharist is an insertion into the Synoptics that does not appear in the Fourth Gospel. He knew this also, which accounts for his ascription of the Eucharist to the Lord himself (vs. 23). That the man makes this further assertion confirms this: Gal.2:6 FNT But of those seeming to be something - of what sort they were formerly does not differ to me, [for] God accepts no man's appearance - for those seeming contributed nothing to me, Who were these "seeming to be something" persons? Gal.2:9 FNT and having known the grace given to me, James and Cephas and John those seeming to be pillars, they gave to me and Barabbas [the] right [hand] of fellowship, in order that we [be] to the nations, but they to the circumcision . . .. James (the Lord's sibling), Peter (Cephas) and John (the apostle), at least two of which (Peter and John) were in attendance at the Last Supper, "contributed nothing to me." So, from Paul's own account, we have doubly confirmed that he did not get the Eucharist from those who were in attendance at the Last Supper, the Apostles Peter and John (who added nothing to me), together with the positive assertion that he received it directly "from the Lord." There can be no doubt, however, as to the identification of the event, for Paul states that it was "in the night in which he was delivered up (I Cor. 11:23)." But we have already confirmed (according to the text) that there was no such happening on that night! So we are confronted with a choice that is most difficult for Christians: Paul lied when he said he received the Eucharist from the Lord, or the Lord lied when he told Paul that he instituted it "on the night in which he was delivered up." It is not a hard choice for a genuine disciple who believes that the Lord is the Truth. The Lord does not lie -- Paul does! This demonstrates, from the accepted texts, that Paul was a liar and that the Eucharist was and is his invention. I have emphasized that this conclusion comes with little or no speculation. We could arrive at the same conclusion by following other paths that are more speculative. One could, for example, speculate on the dates of authorship of the gospels and I Corinthians, the latter having been written long before the gospels according to the view of many scholars. This speculation is wholly unnecessary to the correct conclusion. One might also speculate that the early disciples were motivated to provide a ritual to compete with those of the Greek mysteries, and so came up with the Eucharist. None of this is necessary. The Eucharist -- It's Absence From Acts "Breaking bread" was a prominent feature of the common experience of early believers in Jerusalem, soon after the ascension and the events on the day of Pentecost. We read: Acts 2:41 FNT On the one hand therefore having received his word, they were baptized, and added in that day [about] three thousand psyche-lives. 42 But on the other hand they were adhering to the teaching of the apostles and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayers. 43 Now fear came to pass to every psyche-life, for many wonders and signs came to pass through the disciples. 44 Now all those having believed were together, having everything in common. 45 And [their] possessions and property they were selling and were distributing to all, according as anyone was having need. 46 [day] by day persisting with one mind in the temple, breaking bread [house] by house, they were sharing nourishment in exultation and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having joy towards all the people. And the Lord added [day] by day [to] all those being saved. But the text explains that they were sharing everything in common. Therefore, this "breaking of bread" was the community meal according to which they were sharing nourishment. If these meals had been the "Lord's Supper," they would not have been sharing nourishment. They would have been partaking of the body and blood of the Lord. We do not speculate, therefore, when we state that this "breaking bread," mentioned elsewhere in Acts 20:7 and 27:35, was not the Eucharist. However, if the Lord had established the Eucharist (according to the churchmen), Acts should surely have shown it to have been conducted by the Apostles and earliest disciples. Acts does not do this, which further confirms that the Lord did not institute the Eucharist at the Last Supper. The only speculation, even here, is the strong assumption that such a Eucharist, if it existed, would have been observed by the earliest disciples. Summation and Conclusion We learned first that the Fourth Gospel evangelist wrote nothing about the Eucharist. Now we also know that the Synoptic evangelists wrote nothing about the Eucharist. Paul is the only source one finds in the New Testament, and the case is strong that he lied to institute it, claiming that it came from the Lord. In any case, it is not from the Lord. After so many years of grappling with the Eucharist during and following my long captivity to the church, the recent realization of the truth of the matter -- that our Lord never instituted it -- has added a new level of freedom that I had not anticipated. It will do the same for you if you are able to receive it. It will be a special liberation if you are or have been a Roman Catholic, because it is by this one doctrine, more than any other bond, that the Roman church has held billions captive through hundreds of years, as it continues to do. The bondage is near inescapable for those who have been born into Catholic families, reared in Catholic homes and educated in Catholic schools and churches. They grow up knowing two simple things: 1. One must partake of the sacrament of the literal flesh and blood of Jesus to have eternal life. 2. The only persons qualified to dispense the elements are the Catholic priests. "The
Church draws her life from the Eucharist."
This statement
taken from the Encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia,
By Pope John Paul II, April 17, 2003. |