This week’s readings are all from Mark chapter 14. Click here to see a full listing of each day’s reading and the full chapter of Mark 14. Full readings of each day’s smaller segments of the readings will be posted on this site during the week.
Today's Reading
While they were eating, he took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take it. This is my body.” 23 And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 He said to them, “This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many. 25 I tell you the truth, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” 26 After singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
27 Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away, for it is written,
‘I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered.’
28 But after I am raised, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.” 29 Peter said to him, “Even if they all fall away, I will not!” 30 Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, today—this very night—before a rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.” 31 But Peter insisted emphatically, “Even if I must die with you, I will never deny you.” And all of them said the same thing.
32 Then they went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples, “Sit here while I pray.” 33 He took Peter, James, and John with him, and became very troubled and distressed. 34 He said to them, “My soul is deeply grieved, even to the point of death. Remain here and stay alert.” 35 Going a little farther, he threw himself to the ground and prayed that if it were possible the hour would pass from him. 36 He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Take this cup away from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” 37 Then he came and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, “Simon, are you sleeping? Couldn’t you stay awake for one hour? 38 Stay awake and pray that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 39 He went away again and prayed the same thing. 40 When he came again he found them sleeping; they could not keep their eyes open. And they did not know what to tell him. 41 He came a third time and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough of that! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Get up, let us go. Look! My betrayer is approaching!”
Parallel Passages
Reading this I feel all the emotions! (I am a pretty emotional person myself). Jesus- the desperation for a different plan, the frustration of his friends falling asleep, the hurried and maybe anger he feels at the very end of this section. Peter- so sure he would NOT ever betray Jesus, he’d die for him, this fierceness he talks with and then the struggle to stay awake. (I am always the person who sits down to watch a movie with my husband and try with allllllll my might sometimes, I will fall asleep during it, even in a loud theatre!! I so
get How it can be hard to stay awake, for real)
and all the disciples saying they would not fall away, trying to be so brave and strong in this moment. I would imagine in Jesus humanness he thought “maybe they will stand for me, die with me” but he knew in his Godliness (not sure this is a word), they wouldn’t. ALL the feelings/ emotions!!
This was my response on the podcast. I felt the pain of Jesus' heart and all that he was soon to endure.
I had the same thoughts, Amber. I get how hard it can be to stay awake too BUT… Jesus’s words were “My soul is deeply grieved, even to the point of death. Remain here and stay alert.”
I think (hope) that this would have prompted me to ask more questions and hopefully to have stayed awake. I thinks this continues to show how the disciples still did not fully understand what was about to happen. I think Jesus sees this and is so gracious but I still think it would be hurtful and frustrating for sure.
Because Communion is so much a part of our worship we don’t often give it a second thought but how new would have this idea of sharing Jesus body and blood be to the disciples? This is the new covenant and I feel like the disciples would have not grasped that idea yet which would have led to their “falling away” initially.
@vltaylor1136 Great question and thought! You said:
Because Communion is so much a part of our worship we don’t often give it a second thought but how new would have this idea of sharing Jesus body and blood be to the disciples? This is the new covenant and I feel like the disciples would have not grasped that idea yet ...
The Blood of the Covenant
The phrase "this is the blood of the covenant" occurs in the Hebrew scriptures when God gives the Torah to the people through Moses and they are sprinkled with the blood of a sacrifice:
'Moses came and told the people all the LORD’s words and all the decisions. All the people answered together, “We are willing to do all the words that the LORD has said,” and Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. Early in the morning he built an altar at the foot of the mountain and arranged twelve standing stones —according to the twelve tribes of Israel. He sent young Israelite men, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls for peace offerings to the LORD. Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and half of the blood he splashed on the altar. He took the Book of the Covenant and read it aloud to the people, and they said, “We are willing to do and obey all that the LORD has spoken.” So Moses took the blood and splashed it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.”' (Exodus 24.3–8 NET)
This is the only occurrence of the phrase in scripture outside the New Testament, where it occurs five times: Matt 26.28; Mark 14.24; 1 Corinthians 11:25-27; Heb 9.20; 10.29 (three quoting Jesus at the last supper, including 1 Corinthians 11:25-27, and two in Hebrews referencing the Exodus 24 passage quoted above).
Ancient (pre-first century) covenants sometimes contained an element of blood in them, often represented through sacrifices. The notion in those covenants seems to have been somewhat brutal: you don't get out of the covenant without blood. Or, maybe in other words, the covenant isn't broken until one party dies.
At the time of the first century, this custom was not in as much use, so it may have been less clear to the disciples.
Drinking Blood
The notion of drinking blood would have been far outside of their comprehension, I think. Though it was common in some pagan rituals to drink the blood of sacrificed animals, but drinking blood or eating meat with blood in it was forbidden to Israelites in the Torah (Gen 9.4; Deut 12.23, 27; Ezek 33.25; see also Acts 15.29; 21.25). Notably, in the Gospel of John, prior to the final meal, Jesus says:
Then the Jews who were hostile to Jesus began to argue with one another, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood resides in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so the one who consumes me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven; it is not like the bread your ancestors ate, but then later died. The one who eats this bread will live forever.” (John 6.52–58 NET)
This would have been incredibly shocking, sounding like a bizarre, unclean cannibalism to a Jewish (and non-Jewish!) audience. It is not surprising that in the next verses is says his followers said 'This is a difficult saying. Who can follow it?' and also '...after this many of his disciples quit following him and did not accompany him any longer' (John 6:59, 66 NET).
As Christians today we hear and understand these things very differently than anyone else would, I think. I had a friend who brought her foster child (a teenager) to a church service, and for the first time the teenager experienced communion. When my friend explained the symbolism, the child was horrified at the terminology.
The only other way that the scripture speaks of 'drinking blood' is the symbolic imagery of battle, where swords 'eat flesh' and 'drink blood' to their fill (Jer 46.9–11). This language is also used at times for those who are victorious over enemies, but, in these cases it is the blood of enemies that are being poured out and consumed, not the victors (see Num 23.23–24; Ezek 39.17–20). And there is one other case of comparing drinking with blood, where some of David's men gave their lives in order to provide him with water, but he refused to drink it, saying, 'God forbid that I should do this! Should I drink the blood of these men who risked their lives?' (1Chronicles 11.19 NET, see also 2 Sam 23.16–17).
I was wondering similar things! What would Jesus's words have sounded like and meant to these guys?
How does our sacrament of communion, feeling so ancient and established, come from these verses?
@travisbruno3 you asked:
How does our sacrament of communion, feeling so ancient and established, come from these verses?
What do you mean?
If you mean 'how did the memory of this meal become something practiced regularly by the church', I think looking at 1 Corinthians 11 may be helpful. This is likely, in terms of writing, the earliest record we have of this meal (the Gospels are generally understood to have been written after Paul):
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 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 the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. (1Corinthians 11.23–32 NRSV emphasis added)
It seems that the earliest believers, including the Gentile church of Corinth, practiced a meal of remembering Jesus by re-enacting this last meal, maybe as a sort of re-participating in a sort of New Passover, maybe similar to how the rabbis said that everyone participating in the Passover meal should do so as if they themselves were rescued from Egypt and participants in the first Passover (not "YHWH rescued them from Egypt" but "YHWH rescued me from Egypt", see Mishnah Pesachim 10.5). Paul calls Jesus 'our Passover lamb' in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 5.7).
It should also probably be noted that, in its larger context about this meal, Paul is still addressing followers who are getting it wrong and missing the point 😀 (see all of 1 Cor 11.17–34). We seem to see the same problems in Mark, in the Corinthians, and in ourselves.
@jimmy Like, when I look at these verses in Mark (and also checked the other Gospels to see, as well), I don't necessarily see instructions for what we do for communion today... Obviously it's related, but how do we go from this supper with Jesus to the way we celebrate communion as a church today?
And a sort of follow-up question, how do other denominations and churches practice and celebrate communion and why? 😜
@travisbruno3 Travis, I'm sorry. I edited my previous comment above. It now addresses a bit of your question.
And you are asking BIG questions. lol.
Acts chapters 2, 4, and 6 make it clear that eating meals was a core practice of the earliest church ('breaking bread daily' and providing meals). This makes sense, as Jesus was also known for sharing meals. The tradition that was handed to Paul concerning the 'Lord's Supper' seems to be an actual meal when believers gathered, and not merely ritualistic. It had bread and wine but also likely other food items (maybe like a potluck), and apparently some in the Corinthian church were eating and drinking their fill while others had no food at all because nothing was left (1 Cor 11.17–34). Over time, this meal eventually became more ritualized, to the point where, like today, it was no longer a full meal but a small portion of bread and wine.
In the Catholic tradition, the bread and wine came to be seen as the actual body and blood of Jesus through the mystical process of Transubstantiation. What this meant was that the bread and wine were not symbolic but the actual body and blood. With this the serving of wine was and is frequently limited to the Priests alone, so that the blood of Jesus would not risk being spilled and defiled. The bread ('the Host') can generally be picked up, cleaned, and consumed; spilled wine cannot. So, in Catholic services, most often it will only be the Host that one receives. Also from this view of the elements, the bread and wine could not be thrown in to the refuse/trash but had to either be consumed, dissolved in water, or returned to the earth in a holy manner. The name for the meal in this tradition is the Eucharist, eucharist coming from the Latinized form of the Greek for 'giving thanks.'
In all of this history, up until the Reformation era, this 'meal' was the center of Christian gatherings both in liturgy and layout, with the table being the center of church sanctuary architecture from the 2nd century forward. When the Reformation era began, the doctrine of Transubstantiation was questioned and eventually rejected by many Protestants (to varying degrees) and was seen as being symbolic, though still mystically a sacrament. This, combined with the Enlightenment era's focus on scripture, teaching, and knowledge, led in many Protestant traditions to a reduced role for Communion/Eucharist, with the altar table often being pushed to the side or being removed completely, and architecture of church sanctuaries centered more on pulpits and stages rather than tables. Congregation members no longer came to partake in the body and blood of Jesus, but to hear a message and learn. Some churches ceased offering communion regularly altogether.
Many Methodist churches celebrate communion only once a month. This practiced developed because pastors often made circuits and communion could not be served until they were present.
@jimmy Next time don't reply until you say all you need to say! 😉
But that is a helpful reminder, thank you!! And informative background...
Gonna say, this is great discussion and I love being able to "listen" and learn from so many of you all. I'm grateful for this format and God bless you all!
Thanks! And I echo Travis Bruno's thoughts: jump in! We would love to hear your thoughts, too.