The Lord’s Supper in Luke’s Gospel

Commenting on Luke 22:14-20, Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh write: “The critical importance of table fellowship as both reality and symbol of social cohesion and shared values cannot be overestimated in this passage (Social-Scientific Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 402). Malina and Rohrbaugh say the same of parallel accounts of the Last Supper in Mark 14:17-25 and Matthew 26:20-29, but distinctive features of Luke’s account make the authors’ statement particularly applicable here.

1. Compare Luke’s account of the Last Supper with Mark’s account. In particular, note how Jesus’ words in Luke 22:24-30 have a parallel in Mark 10:42-44. Luke’s account of Jesus’ journey from Galilee to Jerusalem is substantially longer that that recounted in Mark 10:32-52 where Jesus’ discussion of “greatness” occurs in connection with a third passion prediction and a special request from James and John. Luke does not recount James and John’s request nor Jesus’ response to them (see Powell’s discussion of parts of Mark absent from Luke, 155). Note language in Jesus’ response to James and John (Mark 10:38-40) that evokes images of a meal where a ritualistic expression of solidarity occurs. How might this explain Luke’s location of Jesus’ teaching about genuine greatness? Without an account of the request of James and John, which arouses anger among the disciples, what in Luke’s account of the Last Supper indicates actions or behavior that threaten the solidarity between Jesus and his disciples?

2. Some interpreters regard Luke 22:24-30 as a precis of Jesus’ teaching that is, a summary of teachings that captures their essence. Noteworthy is how this precis is part of what might be characterized as Jesus’ “farewell address” (see the interpretative note to this passage in NISB). How is 22:24-30 an effective precis, as defined above, for Jesus’ teachings in Luke’s Gospel, particularly the teaching found in the Travel Narrative? How does Jesus’ institution of what comes to be called the Lord’s Supper provide his disciples with direction and strength to care on in his absence?

3. Consider how what Jesus says to his disciples in Luke’s account of the Last Supper prepares them for their apostolic mission which Luke recounts in the Book of Acts. (Murphy provides a brief overview of Acts at the end of the chapter on Luke.) Contrast the setting of Jesus’ saying about his disciples judging the twelve tribes of Israel in Luke with its setting in Matthew (19:28). How does the inclusion of this Q saying what appears to function as Jesus’ farewell address provides a bridge between the gospel and Acts? Recall the forum in Unit 5 where we discussed how sayings and parables of Jesus in Matthew 24 and 25 intensify the eschatological urgency of Mark’s apocalyptic discourse. Some of these sayings and parables come from the Q source and others are unique to Matthew. Luke records a saying of Jesus that exhorts hearers to be prepared lest the day of judgment come upon them “suddenly like a snare” (21:34). However, it seems that Luke is not as concerned about the nearness of final judgment as are Mark and Matthew? (See the section, “Delay of the Parousia,” in the Murphy textbook, and Powell’s discussion of the present aspects of salvation, pp. 163-165.) Consider how the teachings and parables in Luke’s Travel Narrative focus on manifestations of the kingdom of God in present world that believers encounter daily; note for example: 11:1-8; 13:27-30; 17:20-21. How is “judging the twelve tribes of Israel” related to the disciples’ mission of forming a new type of religious community–a community with Jewish roots where Gentiles experience full inclusion–within the present world order?

4. In our churches today, does the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion function as a ritual of solidarity offering direction and empowerment for mission in the manner that Luke describes the Last Supper functioning for Jesus’ disciples? Explain.

 

Sample Solution

in this paper I will talk about the latter). The evil demon hypothesis claims that all we know for sure is that we exist (I think therefore I am, Cogito ergo sum). All else can conceivably be the result of input from an evil demon being who just wants to mess with us. We may not have a body or access to our senses. However, the one thing that cannot be an illusion or false input is the fact that we have thought, which gives us the capacity for us to think and rationalize about our existence in the world. Descartes, consider this hypothesis because he has reason to doubt the totality of what his senses tell him as well as the visual knowledge (shape, color, taste, form) that it seems he has. Even though Descartes objectifies the existence of an evil demon as a possible cause for our capacity to believe, he refutes this hypothesis by negating the existence of such a being. He puts forth the assumption of a God, who is all merciful and would not allow such a being to play such tricks. Thus, we can be certain that we are as we perceive ourselves, assuming, of course, we believe in a greater power, God. After proposing the evil demon argument in his first Meditation, Descartes concludes of two things being indubitable, the proposition of “I think therefore I am,” and “the contents of one’s mind.” These two things are considered to not only be certain to us and others but are items that can avoid the possibility of any falsity to slip by.

In 1999 the movie The Matrix debuted to the public and took the philosophical world by storm because it gives us an astounding visual glimpse to the basis of skepticism. The concept of the movie, although simple in paper but complex in thought, touches upon the epistemological and metaphysical questions discussed by Descartes in his Meditations I-II. To understand the connection The Matrix has with the philosophical thoughts Descartes brings via the ideas of skepticism, I will explain the basic concepts of how the Matrix works in the movie. In the movie, the Matrix represents the average persons’ view of reality, i.e. day-to-day life events, the 9 to 5 daily schedule, whatever you like to call it. Essentially, it’s a set of “rules,” in the movie, set down by the computers. It is noteworthy, however, that the matrix is not real but within the context of the movie, it can be considered as a massive multiplayer simulation where different subject (people) from different backgrounds interact with each other. Even though the matrix is this emulation that projects to you the daily grind, you can’t know if you are connected to the matrix, right now for instance. You cannot know whether anything outside of your mind is true. That the only thing that you can be 100% sure of is that your mind exists and that it’s thinking the thoughts that you are thinking. Everything else can be, or rather is false.

Descartes’ evil demon being is thoroughly exploited in The Matrix movie as the A.I. (artificial intelligence) that implants a virtual reality on human’s brains, “A.I. – you mean Artificial Intelligence?” (Neo). Just as Descartes realized in his Meditations that the series of sensations in his dreams were vivid enough to end up convincing him the dreams were “real,” the humans who are plugged into the Matrix are not able to tell that their sensations are

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.