The New Covenant in the
Eucharistic Tradition
We can omit some other
Pauline passages (such as Rom 2:15) and turn to the motif of the new covenant,
which is presented by Paul in two very different contexts, namely in the
Eucharist tradition in 1 Cor 11:25 and then—quite differently—in 2 Cor 3:6. The
crucial question is: To what extent is Paul indebted specifically to Jeremiah
here, or to what extent did he simply adopt the motif from his eucharistic
tradition?
As is well known, the
words from the institution of the Eucharist are transmitted in a fourfold
testimony in the Synoptics and in Paul (1 Cor 11:23–25), with Mark and Matthew
representing one tradition and Paul and Luke the other. Among the most
important differences between the two lines of tradition are the following:
Both Paul and Luke feature the remembrance formula (τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν),
which is included twice in Paul and only once in Luke. Furthermore, the motif
of the covenant is phrased differently and draws on different scriptural
contexts: Mark and Matthew (“this is my blood of the covenant”) adopt Exod
24:8, whereas Paul and Luke (“this the new covenant in my blood”) adopt Jer 31
(LXX 38):31. The Pauline text is the earliest literary testimony to the words
of institution, and since Paul explicitly
states that he has taught
the tradition as he received it (1 Cor 11:23; cf. 15:3) we can confidently
consider it a pre-Pauline tradition, developed somewhere “between Damascus,
Jerusalem and Antioch” and then adopted and transmitted by the apostle to “his”
communities.
The reference to the
night of Jesus’ deliverance points to a more comprehensive oral account of the
passion narrative, and the pre-Pauline text is clearly shaped by liturgical
usage, most noticeably in the anamnesis formula that calls for repetition. The
scholarly search for the original words of Jesus thus faces severe
difficulties, especially as the versions in Mark and Paul cannot be reduced to
a single basic form. However, if we compare the saying about the cup in Mark
and Paul, Mark’s wording τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης (Mk 14:24) appears to be
shaped more according to Hebrew or Aramaic style than the Pauline wording ἡ καινὴ
διαθήκη . . . ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι (1Cor 11:25). Consequently, the pre-Pauline
version might already be a further development in which the more original idea
of the blood of the covenant was already interpreted in light of the
eschatological expectation of the new covenant as promised in Jeremiah. It is
disputed whether the reference to some kind of covenant was an original part of
Jesus’ words, but it is quite probable that the early community already interpreted
Jesus’ death in connection with the new covenant as promised in Jeremiah (and
also somewhat similarly in other prophetic passages). When adopting the
tradition, Paul was certainly aware of the scriptural background, but it is
remarkable that he does not elaborate any further on the positive implications
of the ‘new covenant’ in his letters.
The covenantal theme is
only mentioned in polemical contexts in which Paul feels the need to argue
against the soteriological function of the law. Should we conclude from this
evidence that the theme of the covenant—perhaps in connection with circumcision
and law—was introduced by his opponents in Galatia or elsewhere? Or was Paul
himself so cautious and relatively silent about the covenant because the motif
could easily work as an argument for his opponents who insisted on the
circumcision of Gentile believers and their integration into the covenant? We
cannot discuss these issues in more detail here, but the relatively scarce use
of the covenant motif as well as Paul’s use of it in polemical and apologetic
contexts deserves further consideration in the debate about Paul and his
alleged “covenantal nomism.” (Jörg
Frey, “The Reception of Jeremiah and the Impact of Jeremianic Traditions in the
New Testament: A Survey,” in Jeremiah’s Scriptures: Production, Reception, Interaction,
and Transformation, ed. Hindy Najman and Konrad Schmid [Supplements to the
Journal for the Study of Judaism 171; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2017], 514-16)
