During my reading for this week, I was struck by this passage from Frank Thielman:
“[Jesus’] reference to covenantal blood in Matthew and Mark takes the form ‘this is my covenant blood’ (Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24) and in Luke, ‘this cup is the new covenant in my blood’ (Lk 22:20). Paul’s version of the statement in [1 Cor.] 11:25 is so close to Luke’s that the slight differences cannot be detected in translation. The version in Luke and Paul make explicit what the one in Mark and Matthew imply: Jesus interpreted his death as the establishment of the new covenant predicted in Jeremiah 31:31 and understood the blood shed in his death as analogous to the blood that, according to Exodus 24:8, Moses sprinkled on the people at the establishment of the Sinaitic covenant.”[1]
For one thing, I had never thought of Jesus’ “covenant blood” as mimicking or relating to Moses’ sprinkling of blood as a mark of the covenant. I think I tend to focus too much on the vampire-like aspect of drinking blood for communion.
For another thing, I haven’t studied the similarities between Luke and Paul before and I found Thielman’s insight interesting. I have heard before that, according to tradition and a mention in one of Paul’s letters (I forget which one), Luke was a traveling companion to Paul (at least at one point). What I’m wondering, though, is why, as Thielman says, Mark and Matthew would imply this analogy of Jesus?
Ever since college, I’ve been fascinated by the subtle, yet significant differences between the Gospels. Or, rather, the Synoptic Problem (so similar, yet so different). Any time the first three gospels (and occasionally John) flow stride-for-stride and then one deviates slightly, I’m compelled to wonder what might be implied. Yet at the same time, I know that not every difference within the Synoptics is for a specific, significant reason – an underlying message, if you will.
So that’s why I’m posing the question to you all: Do you think something’s intended by Luke’s subtle deviation from Mark and Matthew or is it the other way around; are Mark and Matthew intentionally distinguishing their account of the Lord’s Supper from that of Luke? If either of those is the case, what might be the reason? And do you think Paul had a strong influence on Luke’s account?
[1] Frank Thielman, Paul & the Law: A Contextual Approach (InterVarsity Press, 1994), 105
the archives near Emmaus 
It is a common theme in the most ancient traditions I am aware of, both Catholic and Orthodox, that the Gospels are not merely history, but also evangelism and catechism. And that Matthew and Mark were writing for a predominently Jewish audience, Luke for a new convert Gentile audience, and John for a well established Christian audience. It is also a part of Holy Tradition that Luke did indeed travel with Paul, and that he was more of a research historian than eyewitness himself- coming into the story, like Paul, AFTER the resurrection.
Easy to figure out, Jeremy. Contact a few high school friends and have them write an account of y’all’s graduation. Then compare. Then have one or more tell the story to people who didn’t graduate with you and have them write it down. Then compare. Then have different people translate these stories into another language. Then compare.
🙂
Rick