Eucharistie Themes in the Gospels

Eucharistie Themes in the Gospels D a v id p . Sc a e r OME YEARS AGO the student association of Concordia was a physical eating, how was it that eating Christ’s flesh was أم Theological Seminary sponsored two presentations of pro only a spiritual eating. For a moment she was convinced hy ٦ and con lectures on the eucharistie eharaeter of John 6. the argument, but concluded by saying that on these matters In the first series there were four presenters and in the see- disagreement was allowed. Ironically, sermons preached in the ond, two. The issue of whieh biblieal texts are eucharistie euts most conservative Lutheran Church —Missouri $ynod (LCM$) ؛.aeross the usual liberal-eonservative lines. This forum brought churches that same August said hardly anything different a disputed issue to the surfaee. Sola scriptura reeognizes the At the heart of this debate is defining what a Gospel is and $eriptures as the souree of all ehureh doetrine and proelama- whether one definition fits all. Books and courses in biblical tion, but the prineiple itself does not help resolve hermeneuti- hermeneutics set forth principles for interpreting literature, eal disputes, ineluding the eueharistie character of John 6 and including the $criptures. These rules are prolegomena in their other texts. A preaeher’s announeement that he aeeepts the in- own right and both predetermine and place limits on what will spiration and the inerraney of the text for his sermon does not be discovered in the Gospels. In some sense the Gospels, in- guarantee that he understands ft as the Evangelist intended. eluding non-eanonieal ones, presume to be lives of Jesus, but In a reeent serviee of installation, the elergy were asked if they eaeh Evangelist had his own intentions, ^rey have biographieal would interpret the $criptures according to sound principles, data, but apart from the birth and death narratives, their order but this raises the question of what these principles are and may not be ehronologieal, though this was the prevalent view who determines them. Eueharistie issues also eoneern church until reeently. Approaehing them as chronological doeuments life, sinee the Lord’s $upper is something nearly all Christian allowed finding diserepaneies among them. Luke seems fo sug- ehurehes do. In a perfeet world, biblieal interpretation and li- gest that the events recorded in others’ writings — or was it just turgieal praetiee should influenee and be reflected in what the Matthew? —were in need of rearrangement. preaeher says. A comparison of one Gospel with the others and references In support of a non-eueharistie iffierpretation, the one side in the post-apostolic literature shows that the individual liter- had Luther and the elassieal y^fo^th-eentury Lutheran ary and theological character of each was not grasped by those theologians on its side, though their piety perpetuated what who came after. Recognizing Matthew’s Hebrew character did their hermeneutie did not allow. Historieal Lutheran tradition not mean that its difficult passages were understood. A once has not favored a eueharistie interpretation of John 6 and has commonly held view was that, at the end of the apostolic era, been eontent in letting the weight of Eueharist arguments rest the meaning of the $criptures was gradually lost until ft was ehiefly on the words of institution, theverba. Another argu- recovered by the Reformation. This self-serving defense of the ment for the non-eueharistie approaeh was that Jesus did not Rrotestant Reformation carries this grain of truth, that what and eould not have spoken about the Lord’s $upper before its m ade one Gospel unique from another was soon lost. One won- institution on the night of his betrayal. This argument arises ders if even the Gospels’ first hearers caught their intent, or if from seeing the Gospels as ehronologieally arranged biogra- the second and third Evangelists grasped the Gospels they had phies. $ueh an approaeh eliminates potential eueharistie refer- at their disposal. Being inspired does not translate into herme- enees apart from theverba. neutical correctness. Before reading John 6 at First Congregational Chureh in We should consider how a Gospel was written. The Evange- North Conway, New Hampshire, on 27 August 2006, an elder, lists came upon the materials that they incorporated into their Gerry Tilton, gave a brief homily on why John 6 had nothing Gospels from their direct experiences, their own and others’ to do with the Lord’s $upper and dealt with a spiritual mystery recollections, and reflections on these experiences, especially as only. At a light luneh that followed, I asked her if eating manna preached recollections and reflections, and written documents like other Gospels, ^ e y all had the one purpose of creating and D a v i d p . S c a e r is the Chairman of Systematic Theology at Concor- dia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana, and a contributing 1. The Gospel lessons ill August 2006 according to Year B of the editor for L o g ia . Three-Year Lectionary were from John 6. 41 4 2 LOGIA -deal with. Their confessional affir ه:ا confirming faith, and doing what the oral tradition or other Epistles were easier documents had not done. Our discovery of each Evangelist’s mations about Jesus were not encumbered with the historical unique and perhaps previously unrecognized themes serves the details of the Gospels and an attempt to put them in the right homiletical task. We can actually preach something that we or order. Death and resurrection, humiliation and exaltation set someone else has not preached before. the patterns for Christ’s life, ?aul replaced Jesus as the church’s In the earliest church Christianity was challenged as a mor- chief theologian. Jesus is center stage and ?aul provides the li- allyinferior and historically suspect religion. Matthewrespond- bretto, so we really know what Jesus wants to say. The habit of ed to the Jewish accusations about the illegitimacy of Jesus and attributing the history of Jesus to the Gospels and the theology the disciples’ stealing his body. Further fuel for discrediting to ?aul’s Epistles has persisted to this day. Even without any Christianity came about with the church’s allegiance to four awareness of what a Gospel harmony is, we all naturally com- Gospels, which allowed the opponents to poiffl out discrepan- bine the events of Jesus’ life and his words to create our own cies in the accounts. Religions with one authoritative book like harmonies. $hepherds and magi are placed in one Christmas Islam and Mormonism do not have to face the problem of au- tableau. Easter events are not sorted out. The four Gospels are thority that Christianity does with four books. Apologetic con- shuffled like suits — diamonds, hearts, spades, and clubs — into cerns belonged to the oral tradition and were taken over into one deck. the Gospels, especially Matthew; however, Luke’s precise refer- Not that long ago a course on the harmony of the Gospels ence to Roman imperial rulers shows that this was an issue for was offered at the Fort Wayne seminary. William Beck wrote him also. This apologetic was more of a defense ofthe Christian a harmony of the Gospels under the title ofLife of Christ. The message than ff was a frontal attack on secular views. Lutheran Lectionary (1941) provided a harmony of the passion story for Wednesday Lenten services. But Gospel harmonies are not without problems. The cleansing of the temple is placed by John at the beginning and by the $ynoptic Evangelists at the end of Jesus’ ministry, ?ositing two cleansings resolves We are allowed tofollow the this. A three-year ministry may be constructed from the four ?assovers in John, but ff cannot be deduced from the $ynoptic Evangelists’ own clues that they Gospels, which are agreed only on John’s ministry at the begin- arranged what they knew about ning and the death and resurrection at the end. No time frame can be determined for the events that fall between these book- Jesus to suit their purposes. ends. As an introduction to his Gospel, the Apostle Matthew suggests that throughout Jesus’ ministry, he repeated (؟4:23-2) his teachings and performed the same kinds of deeds over and over again. We are allowed to follow the Evangelists’ own clues that they arranged what they knew about Jesus to suit their Most of us became acquainted with apologetics in connec- purposes. $ome events may have been preserved because they tion w ith the fight over inerrancy, which is less of an issue in the were seen as more clearly characteristic ofwho Jesus was. Other ECM$ than ff was in the 1960s and 1970s. In the early church, events like miraculous feedings and those composing the final external assaults on Christianity forced the earliest interpreters week occurred only once. Jesus informs John the Baptist that to begin seeing the Gospels as chronologically ordered and ar- the dead are raised up, but Matthew reports only the raising ranged historical narratives. When this happened, the unique of Jairus’s daughter. There must have been more. Harmonizing theological and literary aspects of each was lost. For example, the Gospels comes from a good motive in answering the oppo- since Mark only duplicated materials found in Matthew and nents’ claims that the Gospels contain historical discrepancies, Euke, ff was ignored, beeing the Gospels as history was nec- but a Gospel harmony provides for a unified account, fitting essary to respond to Gnosticism, which denied that God had for documents received as one inspired word of God. Unstated come in the flesh, but this came at the price of losing each is that the production of Gospel harmonies makes historical Gospel’s unique character.

Load more