 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
by Suzanne Tunc
Chapter IV from Des Femmes aussi Suivant
Jésus, Desclée de Brouwer, Paris 1998, pp 69-77. Translated
by John Wijngaards and here republished with permission of the author.
The
Gospels do not say anything explicitly about the participation of Jesus in the
meals which he had with the twelve Apostles. However let us read certain texts
carefully ....
Jesus’ meals with the people he preached to
Eminent theologians are convinced that one can deduce from quite a few events
in the Gospels that other disciples were present at Jesus’ meals apart
from the twelve.
This
is what Jeremias wrote in 1972:
“According to Mark 14 and Mt.26,20, Jesus was surrounded by his twelve
disciples at the Last Supper. But we may not without further ado conclude from
this that the women mentioned in Mark 15,40 and Luke 23,49-55 had been
excluded. An Oriental text does not allow this kind of argument from silence.
Neither may we attach too much importance to the fact that this composition of
attendance at the meal (Jesus and the Twelve) reported in Mark 14,17 is nowhere
else expressly mentioned in the Gospels: it is certainly a pure coincidence. On
the contrary, it is almost certain that during his ministry of preaching, Jesus
had the habit of taking his meals with the great circle of those listening to
him. That follows from the warning given to hypocrites that it would serve them
no purpose to be able to state that they had eaten at the same table as Jesus
during his preachings in their country (Luke 13, 26ff). Mark reports that quite
often Jesus was so pressed by the crowd around him that is was impossible for
him to take his food (Mk.3,20; 6,31). Often, and especially on sabbaths
(Mk.1,29-31; Lk.14,1), Jesus was invited to meals with other participants
(Mk.14,3; Lk.7,36;11,37; John 2,1-11). Occasionally he himself entertained
invited guests (Lk.15,1f; compare Jn.1,39). On one occasion he even had a great
number of invited guests (Mk.2,15). The characterisation of Jesus as ‘a
glutton and drunkard, friend of Publicans and sinners’ (Mt. 11,19)
confirms the fact that meals in large assemblies happened frequently. Often
during his travelling around, it was quite natural for Jesus to take his meals
surrounded by his disciples and fans.... (Mk.6,32-44; 8,14; Jn.4,8.31;
21,12).
Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, London
1966, pp. 46-47.
LAST
SUPPER by Bohdan Piasecki.
Click
here or on the image for enlargement.
I have
quoted these texts at length because it gives an insight in Jesus’ life
style in Galilee and during his travels, whether he journeyed across
neighbouring provinces or was on his way to Jerusalem. Jeremias speaks of meals
with his ‘disciples’ and his ‘fans’. Also the women who
followed Jesus were his disciples, they will thus have taken part in his meals.
It is true that in general during Jesus’ time, the women did not eat
together with the men: they served the men standing up, while at the same time,
according to other Jewish customs, the men would not have simply eaten while
the women stayed in the kitchen . . . if there was a kitchen! But could such
rules have been observed during the travels of Jesus?
We
must imagine what such a journey implied. The Jews travelled frequently and
often in family groups, or with friends. For pilgrimages, for instance, when
they walked as a group, men and women together, such as we see Mary and Joseph
did when they went to Jerusalem with the twelve years old Jesus (Lk.2,45-52).
The travelled with family, neighbours and friends, It would not surprise us if
Jesus occasionally blocked the routes of Galilee and Palestine when he passed
by -- with his disciples, men and women, and occasionally a crowd. The presence
of women will not have been more unusual than we would think it to be today.
Quite
a few texts show Jesus taking his meals in the open air, as Jeremias indicates.
This happened not only during the multiplication of the bread (Mk.6,32 and
parallels) whether these are symbolical accounts or not, but also on other
occasions. Mark mentions that one day the disciples had forgotten to bring
bread (Mk.8,14). When John reports on the meeting of Jesus with the Samaritan
woman, he indicates that the disciples had gone to the village “to buy
something to eat” (Jn 4,8), after which he describes the meal itself (Jn
4,31f.). The same evangelist recalls Jesus’ meal with his disciples on the
shore of the Lake of Genesareth after his resurrection (Jn.21,12). Perhaps at
this last meal, which is situated outside ‘the terrestrial life’ of
Jesus, women did not participate but for all the other meals, how should we
imagine things happened? All will have had to sit in a circle, as happened
during the multiplication of the bread.
Even
when the meal took place inside a house, the evangelists show that the women
took part in it. During the episode of Mary and Martha (Lk.10,38-42), Martha
does not forget to say her piece! The same applies to the dinner in honour of
Lazarus, in which Mary plays the principal part since she comes to anoint Jesus
with perfume (Jn.12,1-11). And although Martha serves at table, Xavier
Léon-Dufour does not hesitate to write that “among the participants
at the meal are Lazarus and his sisters”. According to him they took full
part in this meal. Moreover, how could we suppose that Jesus would have refused
access at his table to the women friends who followed him!?
X. Léon-Dufour, Lecture de l’Évangile selon
Jean, Seuil Paris, vol. II, p.443.
Living ‘with Jesus’ presupposed participation
in his meals.
It
need not surprise us that the Gospels never speak of the presence of women at
Jesus’ meals. This silence, as Jeremias reminds us ,may not be taken as a
proof of their absence, since it was normal not to mention them. Recalling the
multiplication of the loaves, Matthew specifies that there had been “about
5,000 men without counting the women and children” (Mtt.14,21). Should it
surprise us that there is therefore not more question of women in the course of
their ‘life with Jesus’? It is already surprising that Luke does
mention them explicitly at his side!
Our
reflection on ‘life with Jesus’ and the Twelve since his preaching in
Galilee until his going to Jerusalem and his death seems therefore to suggest
that we have to consider the women as normal participants in the meals of the
group.
Jesus’ Last Supper
It is
quite likely that the Last Supper of Jesus was shared by others than just the
Twelve. For that matter, John in his presentation of this supper, does not
mention ‘the Twelve’ but ‘the Disciples’ a wider term which
can include the women. But let us first focus on a more general point.
The
episode of the disciples of Emmaus who recognise Jesus during the breaking of
the bread (Lk.24,12-35) may serve as typical. How would they have been able to
recognise Jesus by this sign if they had not shared the bread with him at his
Last Supper? Even if the episode is symbolical, as certain scholars think, the
fact that it is reported by Luke indicates at least that one believed —
that one knew — that others than the twelve had been present at the Last
Supper.
Moreover, we can ask some questions about the identity of these two disciples.
Luke mentions Clopas or Cleophas. The name of the other disciple is not
mentioned. But it is possible that it was this Cleophas that had a wife called
‘Mary’ — a woman who, according to John, stood next to the cross
with Mary, the mother of Jesus, and whom it is not easy to know who she was.
“Next to the cross stood his mother, the sister of his mother, Mary, the
wife of Cleophas, and Mary of Magdala” (John 19,25). It may well be
therefore that we have to identify the second ‘disciple’ of Emmaus as
Cleophas’ wife. She would therefore have participated equally in
Jesus’ meal with Cleophas, her husband.
And
what to think of the ‘disciples’ who fulfilled the conditions to
replace Judas after his fall, Barsabbas and Matthias (Acts 1,21f.)? Will they
not have taken part at the final meal with Jesus if they had followed him to
the point of being considered as ‘Apostles’, since one of them would
now join the other eleven?
It is
natural for the evangelists not to mention other disciples but the twelve at
the Last Supper, since they symbolised the 12 tribes of the new Israel and
since, in this capacity, their presence was indispensable. But there is nothing
that suggests that we have to suppose that others could not have been present.
The presence of women at the Last Supper.
This
allows us to believe that, in spite of the silence of the texts on this
question, women must also have been present at the Last Supper of Jesus. It is
not only because Jeremias asks himself “where would the women have been
able to eat the Pasch?”, for it is not at all certain that the Last Supper
has been a Pascal meal, although the atmosphere was Pascal. But many elements,
decisive ones in my view, argue in favour of their presence.
Jesus’ women disciples were in Jerusalem at the moment of Jesus’
death, as the four evangelists testify. It would have been altogether
improbable for them to have been absent precisely on the evening of Jesus’
farewell meal. The affection which Jesus bore in their regard, argues in favour
of their presence. Luke makes Jesus say to his friends: “It is you who
have been constantly with me in my trials” (Lk.22,28). Xavier
Léon-Dufour, who seems to think that the twelve must not have been the
only participants at the Last Meal, writes that during the supper, “the
disciples which he has chosen surround him, representing at that last meal
Jesus’ community which he has succeeded to bring together. They are the
ones who, with the exception of a single person have followed him faithfully
until that day . . .” Who, more than the women, deserved this title of
‘faithful’, those who did not leave during the passion, as the eleven
Apostles did after Judas’ treason, and who did not deny Jesus as Peter
would do? Xavier Léon-Dufour, who does not mention women explicitly,
speaks of the ‘community’ gathered for this meal as ‘the little
remnant’, those who have believed in him, ‘his own’. The women
belonged to this small, faithful remnant. We have already observed that Mary of
Magdala could be considered as being part of those whom Jesus called ‘his
own’, by the way in whichs he recognises Jesus by his voice alone during
his apparition.
Other
arguments point to the same.
When
the women who had left to embalm a dead person, come back as Messengers of a
Living person, where will they tell what the Lord himself has confided to them?
Although neither Matthew (28,8), nor Mark (16,10), nor Luke (24,9) give further
details, it is probably in the Cenacle, the house which Jesus had chosen
(Mt.26,17-19; Mk.14,12-16; Lk.22,7-13), because the house was vast and could
accommodate all his disciples for his last meal - an indication of the great
number of participants. No other house is mentioned in the Gospels. It is also
not indicated that the disciples had left it, except to follow Jesus to the
Garden of Olives.But they must have come back there immediately after his
arrest and remained there well hidden until after the Passion of Jesus, because
of the fear which they found themselves in. It could not have been but to that
place that the women went directly and without hesitation when they returned
from the tomb, a sign that the place was known to them and that they must have
been there before. For what other purpose, if not for the Last Supper? Since
they ‘followed Jesus’, their presence at the meal was quite natural.
The twelve ‘in the house’ (the Cenacle) do not seem in anyway
surprised to see the women come back.
It is
also clear that the disciples of Emmaus, returning to Jerusalem after having
recognised Jesus at the breaking of the bread, find “the eleven and their
companions” (Lk.24,33). Who are these ‘companions’? According to
all evidence, they were those who followed Jesus with the eleven, therefore the
women, and without any doubt those who had taken part in the Last Supper of
Jesus.
A
fourth century document confirms our interpretation. It is called the
Ecclesiastical Canons of the Apostles. It presents a curious dialogue between
the twelve and Mary and Martha on the position which it is correct to give to
women in the Church, -- which seems to indicate that the question had not been
clearly determined by then. The document makes John say that at the Last Supper
Jesus had not permitted the women to ‘stand up straight’. It was the
position of the person presiding at the Eucharist in the fourth century, but
probably not those of men at the Last Supper. If the Jewish rules of the time
of Jesus had been observed (which is not certain), the men were seated or
possibly stretched out on couches, and the women stood up straight! According
to the document, Martha then replied: “It is because of Mary, because
Jesus has seen her smile”. Mary then said: “It is not because I
laughed. For he has told us on other occasions, when he was teaching, that what
is weak, will be saved by the strong”. This discussion, obviously
imaginary, is concocted because it makes the women themselves recognise their
incapacity to minister because of their supposed lack of seriousness and their
weakness, but it is contrary to the spirit of Jesus who exalts the weak and
dethrones the mighty! However, the dialogue clearly witnesses to a tradition
existing in the fourth century, a tradition which is not contested, according
to which the women were present with Jesus at the Last Supper, a presence that
was supposed to be as normal as their participation in the meals of the
Christian community.
The ‘Meals of the Lord’ of the Early
Communities
It is
precisely what we know about the ‘Lord’s meal’ of the early
communities which provides another argument in favour of the presence of women
at the Last Supper. Could we in fact imagine that, starting from the first
community in Jerusalem which was made up of convert Jews, the early Christians
would have admitted women without any difficulty, if Jesus had not introduced
this custom to his disciples first, by allowing their presence at meals,
including the Last Supper?
All
these arguments therefore speak strongly in favour of the presence of the women
who followed Jesus, both at the meals which he took in the course of his public
ministry and at his farewell meal.
The
significance of the women’s presence at his last meal also introduces the
question of the meaning of the ‘memory’ which should be retained of
Jesus’s words. “Eating Christ’s body and drinking his
blood” has never been refused to women. But does John in his gospel not
show that the words of Jesus on his ‘flesh’ to be given to the world
are addressed to ‘the crowd’, to the whole of humanity, men and women
(Jn.6)? It is the whole of humanity that Jesus invites to his table -
God’s table, even if without any doubt that invitation was not fully
comprehended or understood at the time.
The
fact that women have never been refused participation in ‘the Lord’s
meal’ (Acts 2,47; 1Cor 11,17-18), would seem to indicate that Jesus’
words were addressed to them also, to at all others. Why then separate the
reception of the body of Christ from the re-realisation of his words, thus
substantially reducing the instruction which Jesus had given according to
Lk.22,19 and Paul 1Cor.11,25? “Take this all of you . . . Do this in
memory of me!”
Suzanne Tunc
Read also the article by Marjorie Reiley Maguire:
Bible & liturgy concur: women were
there!
You may also like to refer to the original French: Des Femmes aussi
Suivant Jésus.
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.
Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!
