The Last Supper is not just Resurrection. It seems a challenge to authority, to the haters, to those who kill, and who cannot stand dissent. It is rebirth, not of oneself but of those who stand by you. It is a lesson to face the traitor head-on, but also to keep people guessing about the identity of the one who betrays — in that way, everyone is on their toes.
Jesus was a sharp man. He went through tribulations, yet he also knew he was destined to be much more than one nailed to the Cross. There has been much analysis of the famous eponymous painting of the event by Leonardo da Vinci, including the sort of food displayed. The salt-shaker in repose as bad omen; the plate before Judas being empty; the choice of fish - did Christ get his apostles from among the fishermen?
Bread and wine, of course, mean what has been said:
Would remembrance imply rejuvenation of those who remember? Are they the only chosen ones?
I am not qualified enough to discuss the symbolism in religious terms, or even in detail. Also, I was quite intrigued by this other painting by Jacopo Tintoretto:
It is darker, has more happening, and except for the light near Jesus, the rest is almost mundane. Does it need the routine to show up brilliance or does brilliance put everything and everybody else in the shade?
Was this spiritual barter? Or, is it the submergence of flesh to live in another (off another?)? If the eternal is based on the temporal, then is it really eternal?
PS: It took a Mad takeoff, with cellphones playing an important role, to suggest that, indeed, the temporal is eternal, connecting, staying in 'touch' with others and, therefore oneself.
© Farzana Versey
Jesus was a sharp man. He went through tribulations, yet he also knew he was destined to be much more than one nailed to the Cross. There has been much analysis of the famous eponymous painting of the event by Leonardo da Vinci, including the sort of food displayed. The salt-shaker in repose as bad omen; the plate before Judas being empty; the choice of fish - did Christ get his apostles from among the fishermen?
Bread and wine, of course, mean what has been said:
"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Corinthians 11:23-25)
Would remembrance imply rejuvenation of those who remember? Are they the only chosen ones?
I am not qualified enough to discuss the symbolism in religious terms, or even in detail. Also, I was quite intrigued by this other painting by Jacopo Tintoretto:
It is darker, has more happening, and except for the light near Jesus, the rest is almost mundane. Does it need the routine to show up brilliance or does brilliance put everything and everybody else in the shade?
So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. (John 6:53-58)
Was this spiritual barter? Or, is it the submergence of flesh to live in another (off another?)? If the eternal is based on the temporal, then is it really eternal?
PS: It took a Mad takeoff, with cellphones playing an important role, to suggest that, indeed, the temporal is eternal, connecting, staying in 'touch' with others and, therefore oneself.
© Farzana Versey
"So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, "
ReplyDeleteverses like these from religious texts that make Jesus sound like a cross between Hannibal Lecter and Count Dracula make me wonder why it was written in this manner? I mean, surely there are more straightforward ways of making this point without appealing to eating human flesh and drinking their blood? And since this was written obviously by someone who was either a peer or embellished by some one else down the line, how did they allow such gruesome imagery to be part of an allegedly holy text? what's up with that?
Al:
ReplyDeleteThe flesh and blood symbolism is quite common, and it seems that this would be the ultimate to become part of another. I can think of the process of birth as one such universal and organic process. The mother and foetus have this connection.
Having said this, I was more surprised by the 'me above all else' tone. One rarely hears anybody discuss this, for Jesus' image has been consecrated on the Cross, and only the sacrifice is seen as important enough.
That was pause for thought.
Hi Farzana,
ReplyDeleteSuch "guesome imagery" was perhaps common for the time, but apparently not so common for those among whom Jesus was a familiar figure:
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
(Joh 6:52)
The Jews then would seem to have shared Al's horror. :)
Still, the answer is not an easy one, not least because biblical Israel appears to have now and again become benumbed, insensate, "drunken" (Eze 39:19), "blind" (Mt 15:14) to the ways of their God, then necessitating the oftentimes harsh rhetoric of the prophets, but there's also 2,000 years of theological . . . well, "overgrowth" to navigate. :)
Your comment in the "On caps, Vajpayee and the Modi Trial" piece seemed to me not unrelated:
"Most of them are in a twist. No politician can keep religion out of politics because they themselves are blind worshippers of anything that will get them power."
M.
Hi Mark:
ReplyDelete{The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
(Joh 6:52)}
The Jews were opponents. Even if Jesus had given them grass (in all its manifestations!) it is unlikely they would be delirious :)
{Still, the answer is not an easy one, not least because biblical Israel appears to have now and again become benumbed, insensate, "drunken" (Eze 39:19), "blind" (Mt 15:14) to the ways of their God, then necessitating the oftentimes harsh rhetoric of the prophets, but there's also 2,000 years of theological . . . well, "overgrowth" to navigate. :) }
Would not the insensate and blind, therefore, not be immune to offerings of blood and flesh, and not be revolted?
On another note, there is the flip side to blind belief, and that is being blind to everything else because of it.
{Your comment in the "On caps, Vajpayee and the Modi Trial" piece seemed to me not unrelated:
"Most of them are in a twist. No politician can keep religion out of politics because they themselves are blind worshippers of anything that will get them power."}
Only the blind, it would seem, can lead the blind. Only question is: who becomes sightless first?
" How can this man give us his flesh to eat? "
ReplyDeleteMark, FV,
Here's a question, why didn't anyone offer to explain to the jews the symbolism behind the offer of "flesh and blood"? Was it because they did not care for the answer or ...?
Talking of "flesh and blood", these words seem to fit the context -- the song's pretty good too.
"Just look for the message
that comes without a price
Drowning in a sea of religion
The accident you're looking for
Is right before your eyes
So close to the truth
The higher ground is you
We're flesh & blood
Just flesh & blood"
http://www.releaselyrics.com/ca47/george-lynch-flesh-and-blood/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gxBWjwRv2Q
Mark, FV, Don't want to insult any religious people or anything, but other than the obvious fact that Jesus was perceptive and decent person, who encouraged people to be decent in general.
ReplyDeleteHowever, his acolytes who wrote all the stuff quoted in this post seem to have other agendas in mind when they write stuff about transmitting divinity via "feeding the flesh of the son of god". Don't see why this is much different from other ritualistic behaviour encouraged by other religions. That's all I have to say.
Farzana,
ReplyDeleteTintoretto's supper is indeed an interesting take on the event. Here's a larger image:
http://faculty.etsu.edu/kortumr/HUMT2320/northernrenaissance/adobejpgimages/19tintorettolarge.jpg
In that, presumably, the glowing ones are the "saints" (disciples, apostles, acolytes, what-have-you), one is first compelled to count. I get eleven, with the brightest presumably Jesus at center. It would seem, then, according to John at least, that Judas has either made his departure ("That thou doest, do quickly," 13:27) or may be numbered among the non-haloed, possibly the guy kneeling on the opposite side of the table. The soaring cherubs (or cherubim) are an extra embellishment to the story. The comparative darkness (compared to da Vinci) to this "upper room" is more textually accurate and, I suspect, true to the times. As with nativity depictions, the animal kingdom (cat and dog) are represented and, in that I see nothing else but fruits and grains, the vegetal, as well. Nothing immediately recognizeable as Passover lamb . . .
>>The Jews were opponents.<<
Well, some, certainly -- and it likewise seems fairly certain Jesus was pretty much orthodox in his religious observances; save, that is, for such as he apparently saw as completely eviscerated of any spiritual and/or edifying significance.
>>Would not the insensate and blind, therefore, not be immune to offerings of blood and flesh, and not be revolted?<<
Again, not all, imv; though I can appreciate your point. There are indeed the utterly oblivious, which, in certain respects, is not an entirely unattractive state of mind to contemplate, lol.
>>On another note, there is the flip side to blind belief, and that is being blind to everything else because of it.<<
Revolting, to be sure. :)
>>Only the blind, it would seem, can lead the blind. Only question is: who becomes sightless first?<<
Fortune, or so says Shakespeare. :)
M.
Al,
ReplyDeleteBoth the lyrics *and* the album cover art would seem to be relevant contextually. Isn't that Hebrew lettering camouflaging the lower half of Lynch's face?
>>Don't want to insult any religious people or anything<<
Hardly avoidable. Prickly would seem their default setting. :)
>>However, his acolytes who wrote all the stuff quoted in this post seem to have other agendas in mind when they write stuff about transmitting divinity via "feeding the flesh of the son of god".<<
That or, as noted, didn't have the foggiest what the master was on about, just that he was nice -- decent, even. :)
>>Don't see why this is much different from other ritualistic behaviour encouraged by other religions.<<
AFAIK, it's not. Religion and ritual is virtually synonymous. Ritual is -- or, rather, was -- for memory's sake; but it's hardly foolproof . . .
M.
Mark,
ReplyDeletegood point, the characters do seem to be from the hebrew alphabet set.
"Hardly avoidable. Prickly would seem their default setting. "
Being the soul of tact (not!), I have started prefacing conversations related to religion with this -- but then if they are going to be offended anyway, why bother, huh? something to think about.
"That or, as noted, didn't have the foggiest what the master was on about, just that he was nice -- decent, even. :)"
Religions seem to start on a foundation of spirituality and then at some point, given the kind of influence and "faith" a well-designed religious cult encourages, when the numbers get large enough, and the original source of the religion has been dead for centuries, these texts seem to get mangles and modified for political reasons.
I get the distinct impression that the crusades completely destroyed the actual ideas behind islam and christianity in different ways, and became more political. If they were not political, there is no reason for these religions to nowadays proclaim that "unless you believe jesus died for all your sins, you are not a christian" (paraphrasing) or similar "conditions" laid by religions in general upon people as pre-conditions for joining the club of followers of the "one true" faith seem completely unnecessary. It all seems like a underhanded means of gaining political power via religious doctrine.
Al,
ReplyDelete>>...I have started prefacing conversations related to religion with this -- but then if they are going to be offended anyway, why bother, huh? something to think about.<<
Well, my joke was a comment on the apparent "prickly," porcupine-like defensiveness of a number of religionists -- it wasn't meant to discourage you from being nice (taxing as it may be, lol).
>>Religions seem to start on a foundation of spirituality and then at some point, given the kind of influence and "faith" a well-designed religious cult encourages, when the numbers get large enough, and the original source of the religion has been dead for centuries, these texts seem to get mangles and modified for political reasons.<<
Seems a reasonable description of the 'evolution' of many a religious movement -- and, yes, the numbers do tend to act as a magnet for those for whom numbers can be parleyed to an advantage -- however, your statement presupposes that the "original source" must be out of the way before those numbers can be exploited and the message mangled.
Have another look at the "Mad supper" portrayal Farzana provides above . . . :)
M.