Jesus at the Last Supper

[hansard]

I can’t find any evidence in the synoptic Gospels that Jesus ate the bread or drank the wine himself. It seems like he might have handed it around, but not consumed it himself.

After all, what would be the point? It’s generally understood that the Last supper was the first occasion of transubstantiation. Why would Jesus eat and drink his own soul, body, divinity and humanity? He was there, in person. The real deal. There’s no need for God to consume himself. There’s a need for us to do that, but not Him.

The closest I can see is “I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine…” and “From now on, I will never drink…”

I mean, it strongly *suggests *that he took a drink on that occasion, but it could also be taken the other way. “I will never again (and not even now) drink…”
A bit like an alcoholic who says “I will never drink again.” He means now AND at all times in the future.

Any thoughts?

 

[z_0101]

Personally, I don’t know if there is such a passage, IMHO Our Lord ate and drank just the same as he was Baptized, there was no need for him to be Baptized and yet, he did so… I say yes, he Ate and Drank.

I base this in that the act should be taken within the context of the times, our Lord as the presiding over the Passover Meal (we know this from with my disciples. **I make the pasch ** Therefor, as the presider over the pasch, he would have been expected to perform and partake of the meal and final blessings.

We can go further in the implication with the following passage from Matthew26:29 - once again the Duay Rheims translation:
of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. ** henceforth **

our Lord uses the word “Henceforth” which implies that or Lord had drank from the cup. I’ve opted to go with the DR translation because St. Jerome was very careful with the choice of words to the vulgate (so much so that he took a lot of grief and hatred from people about it as he was “a slave to the word” and wouldn’t use their interpretations) and the translation from the Latin to the English was fairly meticulous.

I’m with you… would be very interesting to have this known one way or the other if possible.

 

[kkollwitz]

I think Jesus did not drink his own blood or eat his own body. I also think he did not drink the wine made from water at Cana. Nor eat of the multiplied loaves and fishes. OTOH, there was nothing miraculous about John’s symbolic baptism of repentance at the Jordan River.

 

[z_0101]

I think Jesus did not drink his own blood or eat his own body. I also think he did not drink the wine made from water at Cana. Nor eat of the multiplied loaves and fishes. OTOH, there was nothing miraculous about John’s symbolic baptism of repentance at the Jordan River.

:shrug:and why would he not do these things?
Our Lord was fully human in all ways except sin.
It would have been expected for him to partake of the final bread and cup at the passover meal, the wine at Cana, and the food at the feeding of the multitude least he cause offense and scandal.

I have no proof one way or the other; however, based on scripture and the traditions of times…
IIRC:
He was at Cana to celebrate the wedding, and watered-wine was a more normative drink in general in that time than it is now due to the high rate of infection from unclean water sources, wine helped to make the water safe to dring (although they may not have understood the reasoning); therefor, especially at a celebration, one would not turn down the wine offered… it would have been a scandal and insult to the host that would have led to a very bloody fight. Christ was in Cana to celebrate a friend’s wedding (John2:2 Christ is invited to the wedding, one would not invite just anybody - friends and relatives; thus, Christ was there to celebrate a friend’s wedding) and I doubt he would have refused to drink least he insult the groom. Does that mean he drank from the converted water… the steward thought the wine was the groom’s; thus, to have not drank from the converted wine would have been most likely to still be perceived as an insult.

Of the multiplied loaves and fishes, once again why wouldn’t he have eaten? His body was flesh, just as ours, and just as the crowd and the disciples were hungry surely he would have been too - certainly, it was the custom to share the meal with friends and family. So when the disciples started to eat, and from what- the fishes and the loaves, then surely he would have shared the meal too - this was the custom of the age and in many places in the middle-east this still is the custom and to have not eaten of the same meal as the others is a grave insult now as it would have been then too.