Thus Jesus’ sign-action is a prophecy of his death, which he proclaims in the sign of the broken bread. But at the same time this sign-action is more than a death prophecy, for Jesus gives the Twelve a share in his existence, in his life that will now be given over to death. Evidently his death has a depth dimension in which the Twelve, and therefore Israel, must share. Mark—in contrast to the Lukan/Pauline line of the Last Supper tradition19—does not yet say at this point what that dimension may be.
The Markan tradition assumes, without saying it explicitly, that the main part of the meal—the eating of the Paschal lamb with bitter herbs, bread, and the fruit mixture called ‘aroseth—followed the table prayer and the word of interpretation over the broken bread. At the end of this central part, the father of the family took the “cup of blessing” and pronounced another prayer of thanksgiving over it. At this point Mark again begins to tell us of another unusual event: Jesus makes the giving and drinking of the cup of blessing a sign-action as well, for after saying the prayer of thanksgiving he interprets the cup as follows: “This is my blood, [the blood] of the covenant, that will be poured out for many.”
The statement is replete with traditional motifs, almost too many for people today. But we should not fault the ancient text for it. Today’s hearers would not know, either, that the background of the Aramaic words of interpretation Jesus cites is Deuteronomy 16:1-8. For Jewish ears at that time a few central words, often just one, were sufficient to evoke a broader biblical context. What is Mark’s text saying?
First of alclass="underline" Jesus again refers to his imminent death. He interprets the cup of red wine as his blood, soon to be shed. “Shedding blood” means “killing.” Jesus will be killed. But here again the saying does not remain merely a prophecy of death. The text does not simply speak of Jesus’ blood, but of his blood of the covenant, and “blood of the covenant” alludes to the event in Exodus 24:4-11. That is the story of the act of Israel’s founding. Moses builds an altar at the foot of Sinai and sets up twelve pillars, dashes the blood of sacrifices against the altar, and reads the book of the covenant in the hearing of the twelve tribes. Finally, he also sprinkles the people with the blood and says, “See the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Exod 24:8). After that, Moses and the elders of Israel are permitted to eat a meal with God himself on the mountain. At this point we do not need to ask about the original meaning of this sprinkling with blood; probably it was intended to show that Israel had become a nation of priests in the sense of Exodus 19:6: “You shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation.”
Crucial to the later understanding of Exodus 24:8 is that it combines three motifs: the common meal, God’s covenant with Israel, and the blood with which the covenant is sealed. In the Jewish interpretive tradition in Jesus’ time this blood dashed onto the altar at the foot of Sinai was a means of atonement for the sins of Israel.20
Against this background Jesus’ saying about the cup of blessing in Mark 14:24 can only mean that his life is being surrendered to death. But his blood, which flows out as a result, is not shed in vain and without meaning; it is “blood of the covenant,” that is, it renews and perfects the covenant God once made with Israel at Sinai. This eschatological renewal of the covenant, which is simultaneously a new creation and a new founding of Israel, takes place through the blood of Jesus, which frees Israel from its sins and atones for it.
If we take seriously the connection to Exodus 24:8 the “many” of whom the cup saying in Mark speaks can initially refer only to Israel. Jesus interprets his violent death as dying for Israel, as an atoning surrender of his life for the life of the people of God. That reference to Israel was clear from the very fact that Jesus gave the cup of blessing to the Twelve, his chosen representatives of the people of the twelve tribes. But the reference to Israel is equally clear from the background of the Sinai covenant. That covenant was made with Israel, and if it is renewed, then it is renewed with Israel. The “many” are, then, in the first place, the people of the twelve tribes.
We cannot be content to say that, however, because the saying about the “many” comes from Isaiah 52:13-53:12, the so-called Fourth Servant Song. The Servant 21 suffers as representative of the many, and in this song, in which “many” is a leitmotif, they are clearly the Gentile nations.22 So in redacting the Last Supper tradition available to him Mark must have had the nations in view in addition to Israel. That is not a problem, for Israel, in the theology of the Old Testament, is representative of the nations. It was not chosen for its own sake but for that of the world. The salvation that spreads throughout Israel is to become salvation for the whole world. Therefore the many can be Israel first of all, and then beyond Israel the nations as well. This universal statement becomes false only if it passes over the reference to Israel. And that is certainly not the case for Mark, nor is it for the other New Testament authors.
So we can also say that, according to Mark, in the course of the Paschal meal Jesus interprets the loaf of bread torn asunder and the red wine in terms of his approaching death, and by handing the bread and wine to the Twelve he gives them, and so Israel, a share in the power of his death. For this death is at the same time interpreted as atonement for Israel, which has fallen into sin, and as a renewal of the Sinai covenant. And by way of the eschatological Israel this new and ultimate salvation is to reach the many nations.
In Mark’s gospel Jesus concludes this complex of interpretation with an eschatological outlook: “Truly I tell you: I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the [reign] of God” (Mark 14:25). Here again Jesus utters a prophecy of his death: from now on he will drink no more wine, certainly not the wine of the Passover meal, because he will be killed. But the death prophecy is not the whole of the matter. Jesus points toward the great banquet of the end time as described, for example, in Isaiah 25:6-8. When that meal takes place, death will be destroyed forever. The shroud of sorrow that covers all the nations will be torn asunder. All disgrace will be removed from Israel (Isa 25:7-8). But above all, on that day God will finally and forever be shown to be king (Isa 24:23). The reign of God will dawn in its perfection, in all its fullness. With this eschatological outlook Mark concludes Jesus’ last meal.
Since there is no serious reason to regard Mark’s presentation of the Last Supper as a scribal construction by the early communities (who, after all, would have had the chutzpah to make up such a story about Jesus?), and since the tradition about the Last Supper that Paul cites in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 agrees in essential points with Mark 14:22-24, we may say that this is how Jesus celebrated his last meal, and this is how he understood it.
Thus at the end of his life Jesus performs a last and crucial sign-action. He does so in face of his approaching death. It interprets that death, but at the same time it is the sum and climax of earlier sign-actions. It reaches back to the constitution of the Twelve, because Jesus celebrates the Passover meal with the group of the Twelve. But it also refers back to the preceding entry into the city and the action in the temple. Jesus had made himself known as the Messiah of Israel and as the one who was entitled to submit even the temple to the rule of God. He was thinking of the eschatological temple, which would be altogether holy and altogether fitting for God. Now, in his words of interpretation over the cup, he makes his own life and death the place of atonement for Israel (and thus also for the nations). In this way, of course, the concept of the temple is redefined and placed in a new frame of reference. Its innermost center is no longer the many sacrifices, but the one sacrifice of life, Jesus’ surrender of his own life. He himself is the new and final “place” of atonement.