Last Supper/Institution of Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tommyc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tommyc

Guest
Must we believe that the Last Supper instituted the Eucharist? It seems that it might have been a regular practice for Jesus and the twelve apostles…and perhaps others. The fact that two “disciples” reognized Him in the breaking of the bread hint at that…was the breaking of the bread a regular practice for Jews?
 
The Last supper occured during the Passover Meal, so in the fact that it was a Passover Meal, it was something that the Jews did once a year. However, the evangelists are clear that this Passover Meal was different than the others. To gain some understanding, do some research of the Passover Meal and how it is conducted.

The term “the breaking of the bread” was a phrase that meant the Eucharistic Sacrifice and Meal. Whoever the two disciples were, they must have either been present at the Passover Meal, or it was something they recognized from sharing with the Apostles.

It should also be noted that while the Evangelists place the first Eucharist at the Passover Meal before Christ’s death, He had talked about it and alluded to it for some time before (e.g. see, John 6). It wasn’t as if this simply came out of nowhere. He gave plenty of lead before the Meal.
 
I agree, it seems likely that a previous Passover was celebrated this way (John 6). This would help explain how a disciple (not apostle) could recognize the Lord.
I was thinking the Jews may have had a custom of the leader breaking the bread before dinner…
 
It doesn’t seem likely that anyone else would have picked up the practice within days of the LS…Do we have any idea who the two wwere on the Road to Emmaus?
 
40.png
tommyc:
It doesn’t seem likely that anyone else would have picked up the practice within days of the LS…Do we have any idea who the two wwere on the Road to Emmaus?
Click to expand...
Luke’s Gospel identifies one of the disciples as Cleopas, who was not one of the Twelve. However, simply because they may not have picked up the custom immediately of the “Breaking of the Bread” does not mean they would not have been able to recognize the Risen Lord. Remember that they were “prevented” from recognizing Him, which means that God could have easily lifted their spiritual blindness during the breaking of bread.
 
The Emmaus story occurs after the resurrection. The two disciples are prevented from recognizing Jesus, although it seems likely that they knew him during his public ministry. (Otherwise they would not need to have been “prevented” from recognizing him.)

I think the significance of the story lies in the fact that they “recognized him in the breaking of the bread.” To me, that seems to point to the future: For it is in “the breaking of the bread” that his followers from then until now have continued to recognize him.
 
Dr. C makes a good point…God (of course) could have worked through various ways to “open” the eyes of the two disciples (like Saul/Paul)…however I guess I’m thinking that “They recognized him BY the breaking of the bread”. In other words …how he broke the bread…Does the Hebrew/Greek word support this understanding?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top