Wine and Bread - Scholarly Article

It was likely a sincere theological question.
Jews debated which commandment was most important.
Jesus answers by summarizing the whole Law in love.

This question reflects a real debate in Jewish thought. The Law contained hundreds of commandments. Some were seen as more important than others. Different groups emphasized different things. Sacrifices, circumcision, purity laws, etc. So asking for the “greatest” commandment was normal.

Jesus gives a clear and structured answer. First: Love God fully. This comes from Deuteronomy 6:5. It emphasizes total loyalty. Heart, soul, and mind. Second: Love your neighbor as yourself. From Leviticus 19:18.

Then Jesus does something important. He says everything else depends on these two. So he’s not picking one rule. He’s summarizing the entire Law.

This reframes the discussion. Instead of ranking rules, he gives the foundation behind all rules.

Unlike the question put to Jesus about paying tax to the Roman Emperor, this appears to have been a genuine question, rather than an attempt to trick Jesus.

Matthew 22:36-39 records the following exchange with Jesus:

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (ESV)

According to theologian Albert Barnes (1798-1870):

The Jews are said to have divided the law into “greater and smaller” commandments. Which was of the greatest importance they had not determined. Some held that it was the law respecting sacrifice; others, that respecting circumcision; others, that pertaining to washings and purifying, etc.[682]

Jesus says that the greatest commandment is the commandment to love God with a whole, undivided loyalty.

With respect to Jesus’s comment about the second greatest commandment, theologian Albert Barnes (1798–1870) comments:

The second is like unto it - Leviticus 19:18. That is, it resembles it in importance, dignity, purity, and usefulness. This had not been asked by the lawyer, but Jesus took occasion to acquaint him with the substance of the whole law. . . . Compare Romans 13:9. Mark [in his Gospel’s account of this incident] adds, “there is none other commandment greater than these.” None respecting circumcision or sacrifice is greater. They are the fountain of all.[683]

God’s kingdom means God’s rule becoming reality.
It begins now through Jesus and his followers.
It will be fully completed in the future.

The “kingdom of God” is not mainly a place. It’s about rule and authority. It means God’s will being done. Jesus presents it as both present and future.

Present: The kingdom is “near” and “among you.” This is seen in his actions. Healing, casting out demons, teaching. These are signs of God’s rule breaking in. It also happens internally. In changed hearts and lives. But it’s not political. Not a rival empire to Rome. Jesus makes that clear. No armies, no revolt. His kingdom operates differently. Through transformation, not force.

Future: The kingdom will come fully. This includes restoration of creation. Justice, peace, and complete alignment with God.

So there’s a tension. Already here, but not yet complete.

The kingdom of God is a phrase that describes the world flourishing in obedience to God, whether in part here and now in and through the faithful community of his followers, or in fullness due to Jesus’s prophesied second-coming.

Jesus tells that man who had asked him about the greatest commandment “You are not far from God’s kingdom!,” but what is “the kingdom of God”? Christian philosopher Richard Shumack explains that “The idea of the Kingdom of God (or Kingdom of Heaven) is central to the Christian Gospels. It describes the ideal situation where the universe flourishes obediently under God’s rule.”[684] The kingdom of God is described as coming “near” in the ministry of Jesus (Luke 10:9). Jesus described the kingdom of God as existing “in the midst of” the Jewish Pharisees (Luke 17:21):

Jesus was telling the Pharisees that He brought the kingdom of God to earth. Jesus’ presence in their midst gave them a taste of the kingdom life, as attested by the miracles that Jesus performed. Elsewhere, Jesus mentions His miracles as definitive proof of the kingdom: “If I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Luke 11:20). . . . Jesus was inaugurating the kingdom as He changed the hearts of men, one at a time.[685]

For the time being, Christ’s kingdom is “not of this world” (John 18:36), that is, not a political power alongside and in competition with human kingdoms. As theologian Albert Barnes (1798–1870) comments:

The charge on which Jesus was arraigned was that of laying claim to the office of a king. He here substantially admits that he did claim to be a king, but not in the sense in which the Jews understood it. They charged him with attempting to set up an earthly kingdom, and of exciting sedition against Caesar. In reply to this, Jesus says that his kingdom is not of this world - that is, it is not of the same nature as earthly kingdoms. It was not originated for the same purpose, or conducted on the same plan. He immediately adds a circumstance in which they differ. The kingdoms of the world are defended by arms; they maintain armies and engage in wars. If the kingdom of Jesus had been of this kind, he would have excited the multitudes that followed him to prepare for battle. He would have armed the hosts that attended him to Jerusalem. He would not have been alone and unarmed in the garden of Gethsemane. But though he was a king, yet his dominion was over the heart, subduing evil passions and corrupt desires, and bringing the soul to the love of peace and unity.[686]

One day, however, the kingdom of God will be manifest in “the new heavens and earth” (Isaiah 65:17; Isaiah 66:22 ; Romans 8:21; 2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1):

For Jesus, while the kingdom of God was happening in the present, it was also yet to come in all its fullness in the future. Through Jesus, God had inaugurated the kingdom on earth, but he would consummate it one day in the future.[687]

Jesus reinterprets the Passover meal around himself.
Bread and wine point to his coming death.
It marks the start of a new covenant.

The Last Supper happens during Passover.  Passover remembers Israel’s rescue from Egypt. It centers on sacrifice and deliverance. Jesus takes this existing framework. And redefines it.

He uses bread and wine as symbols. Bread represents his body. Wine represents his blood. This points forward to his death.

So the meaning shifts. From past rescue (Egypt) to a new kind of rescue. He introduces a new covenant.

The old covenant involved: laws and repeated sacrifices.

The new covenant centers on: his own self-offering. This is a one-time act.

The language is symbolic. Rooted in covenant traditions. It expresses total commitment.

For the disciples, this is confusing. They expected victory, not sacrifice.

Jesus takes the key symbols of the Jewish Passover feast that celebrates how God rescued Israel from slavery in Egypt, and imbues them with new meaning to reflect how his sacrificial death will inaugurate the new covenant prophesied by the Jewish scriptures.

Surah 5 of the Qur’an contains a passage that most scholars believe refers to Jesus’s so-called “last supper,” his celebration of the traditional Jewish Passover meal with his followers shortly before his arrest and crucifixion:

When the disciples said, “O Jesus, son of Mary, is thy Lord able to send down to us a table spread with food from heaven?” he said, “Fear Allah, if you are believers.” They said, “We desire that we may eat of it, and that our hearts be at rest and that we may know that thou hast spoken truth to us, and that we may be witnesses thereto.” Said Jesus, son of Mary, “O Allah, our Lord, send down to us a table from heaven spread with food that it may be to us a festival, to the first of us and to the last of us, and a Sign from Thee; and provide sustenance for us, for Thou art the Best of sustainers.” Allah said, “Surely, I will send it down to you, but whosoever of you disbelieves afterwards — I will surely punish them with a punishment wherewith I will not punish any other of the peoples.” (Surah 5:113-116.)[688]

As philosopher Richard Shumack comments:

Virtually all scholars understand the Qur’an here to be describing Jesus’ last supper with his disciples. Moreover, the festival (Eid) referred to in the prayer is almost certainly the Christian communion/eucharist – a ritual meal that operates as a remembrance of that original supper. If this is correct, we are left with a conundrum: How does such a festival fit within Islam? This is a conundrum because in Christianity the last supper (and the eucharist) is not simply a sign of God’s provision of food, but of salvation. It refers both backward to the Jewish Passover salvation festival, and forward to Jesus’ saving death. In fact, the biblical last supper describes Jesus reimagining, or reinterpreting, the original Passover meal in light of his own ministry.[689]

Legacy of Adam producer Roger Gihlemoen explains that

The Passover meal remembered how God rescued Israel from slavery in Egypt. By using bread and wine, Jesus connects the old story to what is about to happen. The episode shows that Jesus is giving new meaning to an ancient meal, pointing to a greater rescue that is coming.

After God rescued Israel from Egypt, he established a covenantal relationship with them. As Gihlemoen explains,

A covenant is a binding promise. The old covenant was built around laws and repeated sacrifices. Jesus explains that a new covenant is coming, one that will be sealed not with animal sacrifice, but through what he himself is about to do. This marks a turning point in the story.

This is the symbolic meaning behind Jesus’s description of the bread and wine as his “body” and “blood”:

this language is symbolic, not literal. It comes from ancient covenant traditions, where a promise was sealed with sacrifice. Jesus uses strong language to show that he is offering his life completely. The phrase does not teach violence or cannibalism, but self-giving love and commitment.

Even Jesus’s own disciples find this confusing at first. As Gihlemoen observes,

Following Jesus is not what they expected. The disciples hoped for victory and change, not suffering and loss. When Jesus speaks about sacrifice, their understanding of what it means to follow him begins to fall apart.