Those who like to keep things according to the written word would argue for a yes. However, it isn't quite so simple or straight forward. There are a number of things NOT said in the Gospel accounts for various reasons, among them the fact that the writers didn't expect anyone to be reading this who didn't "know" certain important cultural things about such a meal. Second, you didn't waste valuable papyrus writing down what they perceived to be unimportant details, so here goes the first little hand grenade.
The Gospel accounts don't tell us who else was at the table, and names only the key figures. We know, from other sources, that the "Upper Room" was in the house of the parents of John Mark, the writer of the shortest Gospel, and he actually directs his readers to other witnesses then alive who could confirm what he wrote. He wasn't one of the twelve either, at the time he was a teenager - the 'youth' who followed the twelve and Jesus to the Garden of Gethsemane wrapped only in his blanket - and ran away naked when the soldiers tried to arrest him. Why doesn't he mention the Supper was in his parents' house? He didn't need to - everyone knew.
The next bit, is equally important. This was either an Eve of Sabbath meal, or an Eve of Passover meal in a Jewish household. You cannot hold either without sharing it with the entire family, and in the second case, your neighbours and their families, the servants and the children! So, I offer MY version of the Last Supper for argument -
Breaking of Bread.
I'm no Leonardo, but I would like to think this version of The Last Supper, with the wives, daughters and children present is closer to the real event than the more literal interpretations by better painters. What we in Christendom ignore, overlook or fail to recognise is that in a Jewish household the Eve of Sabbath meal begins with the women bring lights to the table, the head of the house then give thanks for the food and breaks and shares the bread. Present are all the household, it is unthinkable for it to be 'men only' and the meal ends with the blessing (usually by the eldest son of the household) and sharing of a cup of wine. Recognise the pattern?I post this since there is currently a huge row in many Christian churches over the role of women, usually founded on the argument "they weren't present at the Last Supper" or "they weren't selected, ordained or commissioned by Jesus". I'd suggest you read those passages again very carefully - and try to see what is not there "because you would know that".
The second picture is Medieval. It can be seen in Tewkesbury Abbey and adorns the wall of the Trinity Chapel, possibly more famous for the "Kneeling Knight" (supposedly Edward Despenser) on the roof. The painting survived the Iconoclasts largely because it was hidden from view by a wooden screen, though sadly the lower portion of it didn't survive the whitewash of the later puritan tenants. It depicts the Trinity, that stumbling block for Christians and non-Christians alike, and it shows the answer to Christ's question from the cross. Look closely at this wonderful depiction -
It depicts the figure of the Father holding the crucified Son, with the dove of the Holy Spirit between the two. The answer you seek is this - Christ's question was; Why have you forsaken me? The answer is shown here.
I have not forsaken you, I am holding you in my hands.
It depicts the offering of himself, in the form of Jesus that God the Creator and Father has made, and in the Holy Spirit continues to offer in love and grace to anyone and everyone who wishes to accept it. We don't know who the artist is, no one has recorded his name, but the insight he (or she) gives in this painting is profound.
Slim Jim says: Well, my cup of respect overfloweth with the Monk's sagacity! A very interesting perspective, and I am sure it would be worth trying to look at other areas too. The perspective of first century Judaism is very important in understanding how Christianity developed and flourished in the early years.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of women clergy, it seems some people get hung up about the wrong things. Why complain about women ministers or bishops, yet toast the health of Her Majesty the Queen? Anyhoo, today's sermon at church was about The Important Thing, and have a look at Luke (look at Luke - wayhey!) 10:38 - 42. I don't think Jesus would mind women clergy at all!
I can always rely on the scholarship of Josephus to add weight to some of my arguments. It is a fact that the Orthodox Churches recognised the Celtic English Church as being part of the Orthodox 'family'. I agree that it's continuing may well have avoided many of the issues of the Reformation, the dogmas we are saddled with today and created a church more in touch with people - but belluld not now have to enricrich worship.
ReplyDeleteI am not one of Augustine of Canterbury's fans, the man was arrogant, overbearing and not above using violence to gain his ends. It is recorded that he refused to exchange the 'kiss of peace' or to rise when he met the Celtic Christian bishops at a synod in Wessex, then essentially told them to accept his authority, or face military persecution by his allies. Not exactly a shining example of Christian practice. The Venerable Bede's great treatise is essentially the propaganda of the Roman Church - a case of the victor writing history as they would like it to be.
I'd miss using Cranmer's beautiful prose though, and the wonderful sound of the organ, our choral tradition and a few other things, but I think we might have a better grasp of the Christian message.