Sacrifice to Christ
A Radical Reinterpretation of Luke 22:19
A Radical Reinterpretation of Luke 22:19
Several years ago I was listening to a lecture at the Evangelical Theological Society’s annual meeting. I can’t remember what the paper was on, but the speaker made a passing reference to an article by L. Lionel North who argues that Christ is not God because (according to North) He is never worshiped or sacrificed to. When I heard this position I had an immediate thought that Christ does ask His followers to sacrifice to Him in Luke 22:19 when He states, “do this in remembrance of Me.”
The mainstream Christian view is that Jesus was instituting something new that is now celebrated as the Eucharist or Communion. Unlike most Christians I take a different view of this passage. It is my belief that Christ’s words are set in the passover celebration and should therefore be understood within that context. It is for this reason that the majority of this paper will focus on the Last Supper in an attempt to lay out a short argument on why I believe Jesus is referring to the Passover and not instituting something new. If the “Words of Institution” (as they have come to be called1 are set in their proper context, then they can be seen as a declaration of deity since a sacrifice is included and would therefore be done unto Christ.
North argues that the 14 instances in the Apostolic Scriptures (i.e. the New Testament) where Jesus is “worshiped” should simply be seen as people paying homage or great respect to Christ after He has exhibited great power or a miraculous work.2 North sets up this argument and attempts to place at least some question on the Greek word προσκυν- (worshiped). Although I find his argument unconvincing, the author believes he has made his point and moves on.
In the second half of his paper, North takes up the argument that worship involves sacrifice and that sacrifice can only be given to God.3
One step is always missing – the Christian sacrifice is offered through Christ, not to Christ…
If sacrifice to is the most focused of the traditional criteria applied in the determination of divinity, and if divinity is claimed for Christ in early Christianity where sacrifice is not said to be offered to him, then there must be another criterion, and I have argued that it cannot be ‘worship’.4
I agree with North that we do not have a verse that states, “and they sacrificed a bull to Jesus…” But I don’t think the issue of sacrifice to Christ is so cut and dry.
It is at this point that many might argue the Last Supper was not a Passover meal on the night of Nisan 14. For about 1800 years scholarship was split over what seemed like two different accounts of the Passion chronology. One represented in the three synoptic Gospels and the other found in the Gospel of John. Many believed John’s Gospel was written for theological purposes but was not historically accurate. Others contended that there were two different calendars that were being followed in the first-century, and so both John and the Synoptics were correct, but sounded different. Others simply believed one account was wrong. It was not until about 100 years ago that various scholars independent from each other started working on individual parts of the seeming contradiction between the two accounts. In the past 20 years we have seen this issue resolved.
It is far beyond the scope of this paper to lay out what Dr. Brant Pitre has titled “the Passover Hypothesis,” but for those who are interested I have compiled the scholarship that has been produced on this issue from the past 100 years in an article titled, “The Passion Chronology: Do All Four Gospels Tell the Same Story?”5 Since I fully believe modern scholarship has resolved the seeming contradictions and have proved the Last Supper took place on Nisan 14, I will lay out the proceeding argument from the perspective that the Last Supper was a Passover meal that took place on the night of the 14th.
Although we will not go into the details of the chronology, it is important for us to understand the setting of Luke 22:19. The Church has always used this passage as support for the institution of communion, so much so that the phrase, “do this in remembrance of Me” has been titled the “words of institution.” According to Christian doctrine, Christ’s command in this passage took the celebration of the Passover meal that was commanded in Exodus 12 and replaced it with the sacrament of the Eucharist (or what is referred to by modern evangelical Churches as the Lord’s Supper/Communion). Although small, there is a growing number of believers who are beginning to question such an interpretation, and for good reason. If we put Jesus back into the first-century context of Judaisms within Jerusalem during the Passover, it is hard to understand how any of His disciples would think He was speaking of something other than the Passover meal itself. This is backed by evidence that the Church did not establish the bread and wine as the elements of communion until hundreds of years later (more on this below).6
Beyond the historical formation of the Eucharist itself, we can simply look at the context of Luke 22:19. The word Pascha7 (i.e. Passover) is used six times in chapter 22 all prior to verse 19. Brant Pitre believes the word pascha could have four different meanings, they are 1) The Passover Lamb8 2) the Passover meal,9 3) the Passover Peace Offering,10 and 4) the seven day feast of “unleavened bread” (i.e. Nisan 15-21)11 It is important to note that the Passover lamb and the Passover meal could not be separated. For someone to “eat the Passover” meant to take part in eating the sacrificial lamb that was offered on Nisan 14.12 This can be seen within the Greek text of Luke 22 as well. Luke tells us that it was the day when the “pascha” was sacrificed, then in the next verse Christ tells His disciples to go and “prepare the pascha.”
The term “prepare the Passover” has been widely debated among scholars. Does this mean that Jesus wanted His disciples to prepare the Passover sacrifice, or simply to prepare the meal? Some have read verse 9 and 13 and interpreted this as nothing more than a Passover Seder with the lamb absent. Such an understanding comes from the disciples question, “where would you like us to prepare it [i.e. the pascha]?” According to the Torah, any sacrificial offering had to be offered in the temple:
You may not eat within your towns the tithe of your grain or of your wine or of your oil, or the firstborn of your herd or of your flock, or any of your vow offerings that you vow, or your freewill offerings or the contribution that you present, but you shall eat them before the LORD your God in the place that the LORD your God will choose, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant, and the Levite who is within your towns. And you shall rejoice before the LORD your God in all that you undertake.” (Deuteronomy 12:17–18 ESV)
During the festival of Passover, Jerusalem would fill with people. The worshipers would take their offering to the temple and would have it slaughtered. Then the lamb would be taken somewhere within the city walls and roasted for as many as 10 people (War. 6:423־424). It is the only sacrifice that was ever allowed to leave the temple complex. Thus, to “prepare the Passover” would mean to have the sacrifice slaughtered and to prepare the Passover meal. For Christ to eat a Passover meal without the Passover lamb present would be a direct violation of Ex. 12:8.
Christ’s participation in eating the Passover lamb is confirmed in verse 11 when Jesus tells His disciples to go and prepare the upper room so that He “may eat the pascha,” and in verse 15 where He states “I have earnestly desire to eat this pascha with you.” It is only four verses later that our Lord commands us to “do this in remembrance of Me.” So how is it that the Church has interpreted this as something different than the Passover itself? There is no easy way to do this unless one reads Church history from hundreds of years after Christ back into the Last Supper. Lets start with the elements.
The understanding that Christ instituted something new centers around the elements He uses right before he makes this statement. As stated above, the Church did not solidify the bread and wine as the acceptable elements of the Eucharist until much later, but this does not mean that Christ couldn’t have instituted something new. Throughout history we see progressive revelation of truths laid out in Scripture that take hundreds of years before the Church fully understand and accepts them, the Trinity would be a perfect example of this.
Christians have taken verses 1-16 as separate from verses 17-20, yet I contend that these should not be seen as different in nature or seen as two different topics, but should be understood as one full thought. Within the first century, bread represented the entire meal and wine was used to represent the ceremonial aspects of a meal, i.e. the religious nature and ceremony that went along with table fellowship.
The Qumran sect recited a blessing over the first cup and bread before a meal as it represented the entirety of what was going to be eaten:
And [when] they gather at the table of community [or to drink] the new wine, and the table of community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed] for drinking, [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of bread and of the [new wine] before the priest, for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-fruit of bread and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the bread before them. Aferwards, the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand twoards the bread. [And afterwards, shall] bless all the congregation of the community, each [one according to] his dignity. And in accordance with this regulation they shall act at each me[al, when] at least ten m[en are gat]hered.13
This text is similar to 1QS 6.4-6 but differs with the mention of the “Messiah of Israel” and his role within the meal. In reference to this Qumran text Jodi Magness writes:
The reference to bread and wine is symbolic of a meal that included food and drink, since bread was a staple. It also reflects the fact that it was specifically the bread and wine that were blessed. The order of blessing the bread first and then the wine in this passage of 1QS follows Genesis 14:18 (the blessing of Melchizedek) and is the same in the Synoptic Gospels’ account of Jesus’ last supper.14
What is more, there is significant evidence that the Greco-Roman deipnon (banquet or dinner party) had multiple cups of wine that were drank in ceremonial fashion to various gods. When talking about the Greco-Roman order of the deipnon, Dennis Smith references Diodorus Siculus who lived from 90 BCE to 30 CE. Smith states:
The wine ceremonies varied somewhat from place to place, but the description provided by Diodorus Siculus is considered representative: “It is the custom, they say, when unmixed wine is served during a meal to greet it with the words, ‘To the Good Deity! [agathou daimonos]’ but when the cup is passed around after the meal diluted with water, to cry out ‘To Zeus Savior! [Dios Sótéros]’” (4.3). Other sources agree that the first libation was given with unmixed wine and was dedicated to the “Good Deity,” but in some cases this libation was given immediately after the meal rather than during it. The second ceremony connected with Zeus Savior refers to the wine mixing that took place just prior to the drinking party proper. The first cup from the bowl of mixed wine was dedicated to Zeus Savior.15
Within the Greco-Roman tradition, specific cups at the banquet are given significance. One cup has a traditional saying (or liturgy) associated with different deities. Smith goes on to note that three bowls were used. The first ladle from each bowl was dedicated to a specific deity (Olympians, Heroes and Zeus Savior, respectively) as it was ladled into a cup.16
While these customs are associated with pagan deities, the basic structure of the banquet itself was common table practice adopted within multiple cultures in and around the Greco-Roman world. This banquet structure was most likely adopted by Jewish sects, not as a religious custom, but rather as cultural. Jesus gives specific (ceremonial) meaning to the bread by associating it with His body17 and the cup with His blood,18
giving some parallel to the surrounding cultural custom, no matter who instituted it first. The presence of ceremonial wine within first century Jewish meals can also be seen in the Qumran sect, as they placed ceremonial significance on wine at the beginning of a meal by reciting a blessing over the first cup.19
Many within the modern Torah movement take for granted the belief that the Passover Seder that is celebrated today dates back to the first century, and that we see Jesus partaking in the traditions that are still celebrated today. However, the evidence points in a different direction. It seems much more likely that banquets in the first century followed a cultural norm and that Christ was simply eating the Passover meal within the first century culture. We could liken this to a Passover Seder today where those in the U.S. eat with a fork, some within Asian cultures may eat with chop sticks, and some cultures in the middle east may not use utensils at all.
Smith contends that although many scholars have attempted to understand what meal tradition the Eucharist was influenced by, we should more rightly understand that all meals within the first century took on some common form:
Formal meals in the Mediterranean culture of the Hellenistic and Roman periods, the period encompassing the origin and early development of Christianity, took on a homogeneous form. Although there were many minor differences in the meal customs as practiced in different regions and social groups, the evidence suggests that meals took similar forms and shared similar meanings and interpretations across a broad range of the ancient world… Thus I propose that all special usages of meals draw from the same common tradition, the tradition of the banquet.20
The fact that various sections of the Greco-Roman meal were divided by ceremonial cups of wine may be seen within Luke 22. Jesus begins the Passover meal with a cup of wine which He tells the disciples to share (22:17). He then takes bread, blesses it and divides it (22:19), just as was customary among the Qumran sect and the wider Greco-Roman world. This represented the meal that was about to be eaten. What is often passed over is the second cup found in 22:20. This would be the ceremonial cup that separated the meal proper from the sermon portion of the banquet. This is important because the two cups act as book ends to the Passover meal proper.
In other words, Christ places markers at the beginning and the end of the meal to encompass the Passover meal, both the fellowship of eating it with other covenant members and the ceremonial aspects that are done unto God.
Perhaps one of the more interesting elements of the Words of Institution is the fact that they are direct references to the Passover itself. Jesus states “do this…” (τοῦτο ποιεῖτε). The language employed here can be found within the Greek text of the Passover narrative in Exodus 12 where Moses tells Israel they are to “do” (ποιήσει) the Passover.
All the congregation of Israel are to do (ποιήσει) this. “But if a stranger sojourns with you, and does (ποιήσει) the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to do (ποιῆσαι) it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it. (Exodus 12.47–48)
Not only does God command Israel to do the passover, but they are commanded to do so as a “memorial” or “in memory” (ἀνάμνησιν).
Now this day will be a memorial (μνημόσυνον) to you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the LORD (Exodus 12.14 NAS95)
Both “remembrance” (ἀνάμνησιν) in Luke 22:19 and “memorial” (μνημόσυνον) in Ex. 12:14 are derived from the same Greek word (μιμνῄσκομαι). Of course there is a significant difference between Jesus’ words in Luke 22:19 and that of Ex. 12, Jesus tells His disciples to do this in remembrance “of Me” (τὴν ἐμὴν), whereas Ex. 12 specifically tells us the Passover celebration is to be done as a memorial “to the LORD” (καὶ ἑορτάσετε αὐτὴν ἑορτὴν κυρίῳ).
The implications of our Lord’s words to “do” the Passover in “remembrance” of Him are huge. Since the Passover was to be done in memory of YHVH and the work that He did in bringing Israel out of Egypt, I will first submit that this statement is a declaration of Christ’s deity. Since Jesus is now taking the glory of salvation during the Passover time and asking His followers to do this celebration in remembrance of Him, it would be a direct violation of Is. 42:8 (among a plethora of other passages) for us to do such a thing if Christ is not YHVH.
The declaration of deity is also confirmed by the fact that there is a sacrifice as the central element of the meal Christ has just told His disciples to do in remembrance of Him. Since the lamb is the central part of the pascha, are we to understand that this sacrifice, when performed, should be done to Jesus? The answer must be “yes” since the celebration of Passover is now to be done unto Christ. As already stated by North, sacrifices can only be offered to God, thus solidifying the statement that these words are a declaration of deity, but implying that Jesus commanded His followers to perform the pascal sacrifice to Him.
While this may seem like a leap to some, the Church quickly incorporated this same belief into the Eucharist. Why is it that the Catholic faith requires a priest to administer the Eucharist? Because it is seen as a sacrifice. Granted, it is the sacrifice of Christ that they believe is being performed, but the point here is simply that the Church realized the sacrificial nature and implication of the Lord’s words from the earliest formation of the Eucharistic tradition.
While this paper has focused on what exactly Christ is referring to when He says “this” within the Words of Institution, it is my belief that Luke 22:19 should remain within the historical and grammatical context of the time. What is more, it is only when a person reads later history back into the text that one can suggest our Lord is commanding His followers to celebrate something other than the passover itself.
With the above said, the argument of deity falls into place. If Jesus is telling his followers to celebrate the Passover in memory of Him then we have two claims of deity. First, the Passover was to be done as a memorial to YHVH. If Jesus is attempting to recenter this celebration as a memorial to Himself and He were not YHVH in the flesh, it would be in direct opposition to Exodus 12:14 and various passages throughout Scripture that tell us that no one is to share YHVH’s glory (i.e. Is. 42:8, 48:11, Ex. 20:2-3, etc). Thus, for Christ to say that the Passover should be done as a memorial to Him is to state that He is YHVH.
The second declaration of deity comes from the fact that there is a sacrificial lamb present at the festival meal. If the bread and wine are representative of the entire festival meal, and Jesus expects His followers to celebrate this meal in remembrance of Him, then certainly the sacrifice that is the central element of said meal is a part of this. The next year when the disciples went to the temple with their Passover sacrifice, took it and roasted it, then ate this sacrifice, were they supposed to do this as a memorial to Christ? According to our Lord, yes. If Christ is actually telling His disciples to do the Passover in remembrance of Him then He is by default commanding the Passover sacrifice be done to Him. This, once again, is a declaration of deity.
Some may contend that the sacrifices were done away with when our Lord died on the cross. This is a debate for another time, but the fact is that the Apostles and Paul continued to celebrate the Passover and continued to appear and participate in the temple throughout the book of Acts (2:46, 3:1, 21:26, 1Cor. 5:8).
It is for this reason that I fully believe Christ’s command to, “do this in remembrance of Me” is a command to recenter the focus of the Passover to Jesus who is YHVH in the flesh. Within these words, Jesus declares Himself to be the living God.
Cover photo by James Coleman
Ibid. p. 196; Evidence from Scripture that sacrifice should only be given to the God of Israel is overwhelming, but North specifically cites 2Kings 17:35-46 among others.
It could be argued that this is not the case when Paul speaks to the Corinthians about celebrating the feast. It is unclear how the Passover was celebrated outside of Israel in the first century but if one was within the borders of Israel, the Passover meal was the sacrificial lamb.
Get notified about new posts, products, and interviews. We never share information and we only send emails we’d like to receive.