Last Supper
ERB:
“The
TRADITIONALIST:
You
are reading things into parables––obviously. Read the Bible.
“Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees”
(corrupt or false doctrine).
1
Corinthians 5:6–8 “Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven
leaveneth the whole lump? (Was Paul referring to the Parable of the Kingdom
here?) 7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye
are unleavened.”
“Purge
out the old yeast”, (WEB)
Leaven
or yeast is a symbol of sin and corruption.
8 “For
even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast,
not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with
the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” –– a direct reference to the
Passover or inference to the Lord's Table. This would explicitly condemn any
form of yeast which would include fermented wine. Yeast or leaven is symbolic
of sin and corruption. Is that the kind of Christ you serve––one who is full of
sin and corruption?
CALVINIST:
The
assumed reference to the Lord’s Table in 1Cor5 is without grounds – the
inference is to the new life received by grace through faith – a spiritual
‘drinking’/‘feasting’ – by the working of the Holy Spirit, with bearing on the
whole life and every aspect of it under the New Covenant.
Also
there is no allusion to the bread or wine of the Lord’s Supper or its
composition, but to the constitution of the new man.
ERB:
This
one example of the parable of the Kingdom disproves the generalization, leaven
represents evil. Since “leaven” is symbolic here, it would fall under the same
principle as any parable. You are the one, TRADITIONALIST, building a doctrine
off of symbolism. Remember, the yeast is DEAD in completely fermented wine
anyway.
TRADITIONALIST:
You
are doing what the cults do. Leaven or yeast is consistently used throughout
the entire Bible to symbolize corruption, sin and false doctrine. You say: “This
one example disproves this generalization.” No, it shows that you cannot teach
doctrine out of a parable. Parables illustrate truth already taught in the
Bible. You are not doing that. You are coming up with a new and contradictory
doctrine not taught in the Bible. And you are doing so through the use of a parable.
That is bad hermeneutics and it is not rightly dividing the word of truth. You
cannot teach doctrine out of parables. Parables serve only to illustrate
existing truth. They cannot teach new truth. You do err in doing this.
Inasmuch
as Luke 15:8 speaks of unleavened wine, it speaks of unleavened grapes. The
inference is there. Where do you think alcoholic beverages come from? They are
a form of corruption, that is all.
ERB:
That
is not true, that is overgeneralizing. You can say it “infers” it, but that is
up for debate; yet it does not SPEAK of it as it does of unleavened bread.
TRADITIONALIST:
It
hasn't been shown that there is yeast in grapes. It was a futile attempt that
failed. I will demonstrate it for you.
Grapes
left long enough will go bad. They will ferment (as Prov.23 describes) and
become a corrupted but alcoholic beverage.
Bread,
even unleavened bread if left alone over a period of time and under the right
conditions will grow moldy. A tortillia (unleavened) has had mold on it. They do
become moldy sometimes even though they be unleavened.
I once
left a glass of water for a couple of weeks in a dark corner of the church
where no one found it. After two weeks, instead of evaporating, it had a layer
of mold on it. Where did that come from?? The chlorine perhaps? I think not?
Now if
you are up to drinking moldy water, eating moldy bread, moldy oranges and
apples, in general having moldy food for your meals, then you must admit that
yeast throughout the Bible is a form of corruption.
ERB:
You
are using MOLD as a substitute for YEAST on other foods? Sorry, but that is
another species of fungus, and not what the Bible ever calls “Leaven”. Grapes
will ferment, but are not then necessarily “bad”. They will also later mold,
and that is when they are bad! Two separate types of fungus, no other
relationship. Mushroom is yet another fungus, associated with decay (like
growing on old tree stumps, etc) but they themselves are food.
TRADITIONALIST:
You
have made a gross error in your hermeneutics. You have taken a parable and
drawn doctrine out of a parable. Parables don't teach doctrine. They illustrate
truth that is already taught in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible is your premise
taught that yeast is good. It is always taught that yeast is a symbol of
corruption, sin, and false doctrine. Yet you are trying to pull doctrine out of
a parable and teach it as new doctrine. This is what the cults do.
ERB:
I have
not made a “doctrine” out of it. Your side has made a doctrine out of leaven
ALWAYS representing “corruption” meaning fermented beverages are always
completely off limits. Yet this one parable disproves that generalization. If
it is so universally bad, then why was it used in the parable as part of
something good? (i.e. the bread should have grown using something else)
TRADITIONALIST:
I
believe the Bible to be scientifically correct. I know that to many I step out
on a limb here. But that is the stand that I take. Having said that however,
the Bible is not a book of science. It does not differentiate between different
species of molds. Prov.23 describes how Solomon could tell when the fermentation
process took place––when the wine “turned itself aright.” Then he said don't
even look at it. It biteth like an adder. It has serious consequences. It has
become fermented––corrupted. It has gone through the process of fermentation,
otherwise known as corruption in the Bible.
Proverbs
23:31–32, “Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his
colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a
serpent, and stingeth like an adder.”
––Solomon
was a wise man––the wisest. I think he knew what he was talking about. It is
not a book of science but it describes a scientific process––the process of
fermentation.
Yes,
there are many kinds of molds. They are all basically the same thing, in the
same basic category. They all are forms of leaven or yeast. They are all
forbidden in unleavened bread and juice, especially when celebrating the Lord's
Table.
ERB:
You're
still doing it (confusing the different things). They are not “different TYPES
OF MOLD”. Mold is ONE type of fungus, and yeast is another. (Mushroom is still
another). ONLY yeast is associated with the fermentation process, in both Bible
and scientific usage. Spoiling from MOLD is never called “fermentation” in
either area, and Soloman was not speaking of a molding process in that verse
either!
Solomon
was not differentiating between different kinds of molds. Our method of
taxonomy didn't come into play until centuries later. How can you impose modern
science into an age 1000 years before Christ. You are being ridiculous.
CALVINIST:
TRADITIONALIST
says leaven is used in the Bible throughout consistently representing sin. It
is dangerous generalisation, and I'm surprised by his use of it. In the parable
leaven MEANS good – no one can come by the fact. ERB, I appreciate your stand
for simple correctness here!
Even
in 1Cor5 “dzumeh” represents BOTH the bad AND the good. Bad leaven is said to
be “old”. “Purge out the old leaven”, says Paul of THIS – bad leaven – “as
(hohsper) you are unleavened (adzumos)”, obviously of it, those sinful “old”
things. “For indeed Christ was our Passover sacrificed”, 7d. “That ye may be a new
lump (of bread-‘neon phurama', 7c)” –– 'leavened' of course, with the new
leaven of the Holy Spirit. Then in 8 Paul recommends us to “feast not with the
leaven of malice and wickedness, but with/in/unto the unfermentedness-‘adzumos’
of sincerity and truth”. (‘Unto...’ – cf. Ro6:2, “Ye died unto sin-‘apethanomen
tehi hamartiai’). The “unfermentedness of sincerity and truth” of course
implies 'fermentedness' by the leaven of Christ and the Holy Spirit instead.
The words
'dzumeh'/'adzumos' in themselves are a parable –a metaphor– of a spiritual or
invisible and inner agitation – whether by a bad or by a good agent.
TRADITIONALIST:
Outside
of parable you cannot show that yeast has a positive meaning; that is, that as
you say it does not represent sin. Prove this assertion from Scripture without
the use of a parable. If you can't do this then your assertion may be
classified as heresy. You cannot develop new doctrine from a parable.
That
is the mark of a cult.
ENQUIRER:
What
does 2 Timothy 3:16 say? ”ALL, Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for DOCTRINE …”.
CALVINIST:
You
said, “You cannot develop new doctrine from a parable; That is the mark of a
cult.” So the Reformed Church sorts under 'cult'!?
By
saying, “outside of parable you cannot show that yeast has a positive meaning”,
you concede that ‘in parable’, ‘yeast does have a positive meaning’. Question
now is, is ‘parable’, ‘Scripture’, or not? It is; so ‘the use of parable’ ‘can
prove’ ‘the assertion’, ‘yeast has a positive meaning’. It’s no ‘new doctrine’,
nor ‘the mark of a cult’, that it does.
'Phurama'
– “that which is mixed” – with leaven naturally! Such are the reborn (Christians).
Question is, “mixed” with what? Dough for bread is mixed with leaven – and
leaven in this case therefore is 'good'. Another 'exception' that makes ERB's
'exception' no longer the only.
Christian
language – the expression of Faith – is an a priori impossibility without
metaphor –– or parable. So one could go further and insist Christianity is
cultish for using for doctrine, parable upon parable. In fact TRADITIONALIST:,
your conclusion does not befit you, for it makes of you legalist in the worst
sense.
TRADITIONALIST:
It
doesn't matter to me what you believe, nor your denomination believes, nor
anyone else. I have stated some sound principles of hermeneutics above. I have
challenged you with the same. Demonstrate through the Bible that leaven means
any thing else but corruption, sin or false doctrine. Other than taking new
doctrine out of a parable you cannot. This is bad hermeneutics and something
that the cults do frequently. If that is who you want to associate yourself
with then so be it.
CALVINIST:
No TRADITIONALIST,
you disappoint! You don't care this and you don't care that. Then you dare the
same thing over and over, without even looking at the replies I have given! And
saddest is you don’t care about the associations you force upon people –
despite their being old fashioned Calvinist Protestant! You know TRADITIONALIST,
I used to be of your opinion much earlier in life as far as this question is
concerned. S–i–m–p–l–e Bible–understanding has made me change my o so strong
own convictions ––– no cult.
ERB:
This
one example disproves this generalization that leaven or yeast is consistently
used throughout the entire Bible to symbolize corruption, sin and false
doctrine.
TRADITIONALIST:
No, it
shows that you cannot teach doctrine out of a parable. Parables illustrate
truth already taught in the Bible. You are not doing that. You are coming up
with a new and contradictory doctrine not taught in the Bible. And you are
doing so through the use of a parable. That is bad hermeneutics and it is not
rightly dividing the word of truth. You cannot teach doctrine out of parables.
Parables serve only to illustrate existing truth. They cannot teach new truth.
You do err in doing this.
ERB:
I do
not see how you can make this insistence on “you cannot teach doctrine from a
parable” when you are teaching doctrine from symbolism (leaven is used for
sin). Parable; symbolism––its the same basic principle. One you have the
symbolism woven into a whole story using symbolism, and the other case, you
have the symbolism used as a single metaphor by itself. It's the same thing!
So it
stands that the symbolism is not consistent, as it has symbolized both negative
and positive things.
TRADITIONALIST:
There
is a lot of symbolism in the Bible. There is symbolism every time a person is
baptized, every time one partakes of the Lord's Table, every time a sacrifice
was made in the OT, every time the Passover was celebrated. Symbolism runs
throughout the Bible. That fact is recognized by all. In the Book of John Jesus
symbolically calls himself seven different things: the door, the shepherd, the
light of the world, the way, the truth and the light, etc. Yet he isn't
literally a door for example.
When
Jesus specifically said: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees what was he
talking about? When Paul said Purge out the old leaven what was speaking about?
When
Moses said, Thou shalt not use leavened bread in the Passover, what was he
talking about?
Said
you, ERB, “Solomon was not differentiating between different kinds of molds.
Our method of taxonomy didn't come into play until centuries later. How can you
impose modern science into an age 1000 years before Christ.” ––– precisely the
point I forgot to add last time; you're the one using modern taxonomy by
speaking of “different KINDS of mold”, not me! Yeast is not a “kind of mold”,
and molding is not a kind of fermentation either! They are two separate
organisms with two separate processes. The only connection between them is the
modern taxonomological classification of both in the “fungus” family. You're
the one using this system, only substituting the word “[kinds of] mold” for “fungus”
(which is then incorrect). But that is not the Biblical use or understanding.
They are two totally different creatures. So forget about mold; it has NOTHING
to do with leaven!
ERB:
When
Jesus said that leaven made the lump of bread that represented the Kingdom
grow, what was He talking about? Once again, if you're going to actually
condemn all leaven like that, then regular soft bread is then forbidden!
TRADITIONALIST:
Yes,
all leavened bread was condemned in the Passover feasts, in many of the OT
sacrifices and in the celebration of the Lord's Table. These are religious
feasts where symbolism has great meaning. All throughout the Bible leaven is
condemned in religious feasts. It is symbolic of sin, corruption, and false
doctrine.
ERB:
Leaven
was condemned in religious feasts where it takes on a symbolic meaning, but
remember, you've been trying to extend this symbolism to literal leaven in the
Christian life in general, and if that were true, then leavened bread would be
wrong for us today, all the time.
Leaven
represents corruption in that symbolism; this does not represent literal
leaven, for then it would no longer be a symbol.
TRADITIONALIST:
Now we
are getting somewhere. This is the point that I have been making all along. Yes
I agree that there were times that the Israelites were permitted to eat
leavened bread. But when it came to religious ceremonies and feasts, as a
general rule, they could not, for leaven symbolized corruption.
However,
what you say, “... but remember, you've been trying to extend this symbolism to
literal leaven in the Christian life in general, and if that were true, then
leavened bread would be wrong for us today, all the time” is not true. The
Christian also has religious ceremonies such as baptism and the Lord's Supper ––
the two ordinances that the Lord gave to the local church. In the Lord's Supper
we are commanded to eat of unleavened bread and thus unleavened juice. If
either one is leavened or fermented they symbolize a corrupted and sinful
Christ. This also has been my point all along. It has been very specific to the
Lord's Supper.
Also
you are wrong in saying, “... Leaven represents corruption in that symbolism;
this does not represent literal leaven, for then it would no longer be a symbol”.
Your point does not make sense. Depending on its context it may represent
leaven or it may represent corruption, as it does most of the time.
ERB:
Still,
the Bible never makes the correlation of un/leavened bread—>“un/leavened”
grapes. It never says that anywhere.
TRADITIONALIST:
If
leaven is a symbol of corruption in bread, and you can admit that much for ceremonial
feasts such as the Passover and the Lord's Supper, then it is only reasonable
to conclude that the leaven in the (fermented) wine is also a symbol of
corruption which would render the symbolism in the Lord's Supper blasphemous.
ERB:
I
think you're overgeneralizing there. If the Bible wanted to make that exact
correlation, it would specify “unfermented grape juice”. The whole “leavened/unleavened”
distinction always concerned bread. While you can make bread without adding
leaven, the leaven is naturally present in the grapes, so it is not a matter of
them being “unleavened”, but only a matter of drinking the juice (with the
leaven present) before the process is complete.
CALVINIST:
Quoting
ERB, “... only a matter of drinking the juice (with the leaven present) before
the process is complete...” – That time of year – beginning of spring?
Quoting
TRADITIONALIST, “... when it came to religious ceremonies and feasts ... leaven
symbolized corruption ...”
That
was in the OT and with the Jews; and it showed the religious WANT of what then
still was to come, even the Antitype of its symbolism, Jesus Christ. The
ABSENCE of ‘dzumos’ typified the PRESENCE of Christ, and so ‘dzumeh’, actually
represented the undefiled and pure and good – the Antidote for sin.
Jesus
introduced the NEW symbolism of fulfilment, of a finished and perfected
salvation – and therefore the bread and wine was bread and wine, and no longer
matsach (unleavened bread).
More
in detail, ‘wine’ – 'unfermented', received NO place in the ORIGINAL Passover
Feast Meal; it only was added much later and through Jewish tradition.
VOICE 1:
If I
am to be branded a legalist because I stand on the truth written in God's Holy
Word that the Christian is to abstain from alcoholic beverage, then so be it.
CALVINIST:
Doesn't
matter what you see yourself for; only show where you find this said in God's
Holy Word?
VOICE 2:
Leviticus
23:17, “Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth
deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are
the firstfruits unto the LORD.
Is
this a corrupt offering?
VOICE 3:
Where
in the NT is it stated about the elements of the Lords' Supper in regard to
leaven?
LEGALIST:
Luke
22:7, “7 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be
killed. 8 And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover,
that we may eat. 9 And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare?”
I
don't think Jesus ate leavened bread on that night. There can be some questions
about this because Jesus was killed on the eve of Passover, and when he was
dead, it was approaching the Passover.
Messianic
Jews interpret this way. Usually 2 days before they start to eliminate leavens
out of house. Passover–eve was called Days of Unleavened Bread as well.
As for
the days and dates, there can be some questions to think about still. But I am
quite convinced that Unleavened Bread was used at the Last Supper.
The
stance of TRADITIONALIST seems to be very clear and correct. Leaven
meant
corruption and puffing up. “7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may
be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed
for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with
the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity
and truth.” (1Cor5)
Calvinist:
Quoting
TRADITIONALIST, “...all leavened bread was condemned in the Passover feasts, in
many of the OT sacrifices and in the celebration of the Lord's Table. ...” ––– Untrue,
incorrect and reckless! Show where with regard to Lord's Supper!
Besides,
what about wave bread loaves for shavuot? It is instructed they must be
leavened ––– symbolising the Holy Spirit and the Old and
You
have set a rule all by yourself to suit your own idea.
Quoting
TRADITIONALIST, “... In the Lord's Supper we are commanded to eat of unleavened
bread and thus unleavened juice. ...”
Again,
unfounded! Quote ?? In fact, “bread” is the word used – not ‘unleavened bread’;
and “wine” –– not ‘unfermented grape juice’.
Quoting
LEGALIST, “I don't think Jesus ate leavened bread on that night. There can be
some questions about this because Jesus was killed on the eve of Passover, and
when he was dead, it was approaching the Passover. Messianic Jews interpret
this way. Usually 2 days before they start to eliminate leavens out of house.
Passover–eve was called Days of Unleavened Bread as well.”
You
are referring to the Passover meal which was eaten in the night after the day
the passover lamb had been slain; that was not the Lord's Supper –– which was
on the evening–beginning of the day on which the Passover Lamb was to be slain.
The
day after the lamb was slain – the day upon which the passover lamb was EATEN,
was the first day of unleavened bread–feast – that would last seven days.
(Hence Josephus speaks of the “eight–days feast” of passover.
Passover
Season – overall – had THREE, 'first' days:
1. Day
one of the season: Nisan 14, called “the Preparation of Passover” – upon which
the lamb was slain;
2. Day
two of passover season, Nisan 15: called the “sabbath” of the Passover: its
second 'first' day: the FIRST day of Unleavened Bread Feast – upon which ALSO
the lamb was EATEN –– during its night or first part;
3. “the
day after the sabbath (of passover)” –– THIRD 'first' day of Passover Season;
first namely of the fifty days counted to Shavuot/Pentecost.
The
14th day of Nisan still was NOT 'unleavened time' – the Jews had their last
traditional meal on its evening–beginning; they called it the Bedikat Chamets”
or ‘Search Feast’ – the ceremonial hiding away of the leaven BEFORE Feast of
Unleavened Bread would begin. The Bible says every Jew who did not hide away
leaven on this day (14 Nisan) had to be killed.
Quoting
LEGALIST, “... I don't think Jesus ate leavened bread on that night. There can
be some questions about this because Jesus was killed on the eve of Passover,
and when he was dead, it was approaching the Passover...”
An
observant question indeed! Factually 100%
Quoting
LEGALIST, “...Passover–eve was called Days of Unleavened Bread as well...” Contradiction!
'Passover–eve' is not Passover yet, like the eve of the twenty first century
still was the twentieth century! In fact, Passover–proper was Feast of Unleavened
Bread; so much so its first day was observed “the Sabbath”, and “the Feast
(day)”.
Quoting
TRADITIONALIST, “... It is not a book of science but it describes a scientific
process––the process of fermentation...” ––– You take the parable of
fermentation, and build the doctrine of tea–totalling on it.
TRADITIONALIST:
And so
you can. You can build any doctrine you want on a parable. That is why parables
don't teach doctrine. They simply illustrated the doctrine that is already
firmly established in the Bible. What some are trying to eisigete from that
parable is not truth previously taught in the Bible. Therefore it is wrong
doctrine. They are trying to make the parable illustrate something that it
wasn't intended to illustrate.
LEGALIST:
Luke
22:15, “And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover
with you before I suffer.”
I
believe Jesus ate the Passover meal before His sufferings.
Now
the question is the calculation of the dates, which is quite difficult to
understand, without knowing the customs at that time. I don't have any further
evidence to support, but my reasoning is that Jesus ate the Unleavened Bread
before His sufferings, but the lamb was killed next day while He hang on the
tree.
Realistically
we can hardly imagine that the leaven was removed just before the Passover as
it takes sometime to do so, and we can reasonably believe that Yeast was
removed one or two days earlier than Passover.
Also,
please note that Messianic Jews believe Apostle John was Essene and Essene
celebrated Days of ULB 2 days earlier.
CALVINIST:
Luke
22:15, “And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover
with you before I suffer...”
The
verse implies unambiguously Jesus would NOT eat of that Passover. It is NOWHERE
stated Jesus ate of the Passover, nor implied. In every instance of reference
to the Passover Meal either a subjunctive or future with conditional meaning is
used – thus alluding to a meal of preparation FOR the pending Feast/Eat Day of
Passover. There is no difficulty to understand it, and it fully agrees with OT
Passover chronology as well as typology. Things happened EXACTLY as prophesied
and promised – yea, as covenanted by the Almighty.
Jesus
was crucified, “on the day that they always slaughtered the passover lamb” ...
this very same day, is described as “the day of adzumos–unleavening / the
removal of leaven” ... in three Gospels. John precisely says “it was the
Preparation Day of Passover”. There is no difficulty; tradition has confused
us, that's all.
VOICE:
Said
TRADITIONALIST, “Leaven or yeast is consistently used throughout the entire
Bible to symbolize corruption, sin and false doctrine”. Please address
Leviticus 23:17, where God requires a firstfruits offering of leavened loaves.
TRADITIONALIST:
Leviticus
23:17, “Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth
deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are
the firstfruits unto the LORD.” Here is what Scofield says on the matter:
Quote:
“The wave–loaves were offered fifty days after the wave–sheaf. This is
precisely the period between the resurrection of Christ and the formation of
the church at Pentecost by the baptism of the Holy Spirit Ac 2:1–4; 1Co 12:12–13.
ERB:
Since
the rituals all point to Christ covering our sin (evil) and declaring us
righteous; I wonder why that would be figured into the symbolism.
LEGALIST:
Questions:
1)
Didn't the day of ULB come ? It came already!
2)
Didn't Jesus eat Passover before He suffered? He had supped!
1Cor11:24–25,
“24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body,
which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner
also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament
in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as
often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death
till he come.”
Leviticus
23:17 requires two loaves of Bread baken with leaven to brought to the LORD. I
believe it shows the sinners ( Jews and Gentiles) come to the LORD with the
seven lambs without blemish which symbolize Jesus Christ, the sinless person. Leaven
itself meant the corruption and sinful nature, and they didn't go to the LORD
alone but with lambs without blemish.
The
above shows Unambiguously that Jesus ate the ULB and ULB was used for Lord
Supper as all Yeast must have been removed once Days of ULB is to be observed. The
only question is how we can understand that Passover was yet to come
CALVINIST:
“...when
he had supped ...” ––– Marshall: “The Lord Jesus in the night in which He was
betrayed, took bread, and having given thanks, broke (it) and said, this is my
body on your behalf; this do ye for my remembrance. Similarly also the cup
after the to sup (‘after the bread–to–eat’–‘deipnehsai’), saying, This cup is
the New Covenant in my blood; this do ye ...”. It does not say Jesus ate or
drank; His command was: “Do ye …”. Jesus did not eat, nor drank ––– first
point; Second point: It was not the Passover Meal but the New Covenant
Institution of the Lord’s Supper; Third point: It happened “in the night in
which He was betrayed”, the night of the day upon which He was to be killed “the
Lamb of God”, “our Passover” : “before the Feast” – “not on the Feast” – clear
Scriptures.
Again,
the word “bread” is not in the original, nor is the idea of “bread” anyhow
suggested. “The day of unleaven(ing) had come”, is more correct. This verse
itself delineates the day : “the day the passover MUST be killed” –– according
to the Law. That Law you will find in Lv23 et al: It was Nisan 14, and in Ex12f
it is instructed to have leaven taken away, on Nisan 14.
Verse
15 says Jesus very much wanted to eat that specific Passover with His
disciples, thus implying He would NOT eat it together with them. Reason? very
simple: He would be crucified that day –– when the Passover lamb was supposed
to be slaughtered ––– He then would be dead, when the lamb would be eaten –––
after sunset between 14 and 15 Nisan; in other words, on Nisan 15.
But
here is the important thing about Jesus' statement: That He – on the right time
– would that Passover be doing the will of His Father – “My food is to do the
will of My Father” ... Jesus' suffering would be His eating of that Passover;
His being killed God's Passover Lamb would provide the lamb for the table of
that holy and solemn feast.
No
possibility the meal of the night before could have been the Passover's meal ––
especially not that Passover's, meal!
TRADITIONALIST:
JESUS
OBSERVED THE PASSOVER
Here
is the order of the passover with the applicable Scriptures, as well as with
Jewish custom and tradition incorporated:
A. He
washed the feet of the disciples (John 13:2–20). Details:
Jesus
substituted in the place of the washing of hands, the symbolic act of the foot–
washing, in order to teach a special lesson.
a. Peter
refused, but the Lord replied, If I wash you not, you have no part with me.
Then, Peter answered, Lord wash not only my feet but my hands and head also.
Christ answered, He who has bathed needs only to have his feet washed; he is
clean all over.
1. a benediction.
2. cup
of wine.
3. the
hands of the company washed, the master of the feast passing the basin while
reciting a prayer.
4.
bitter herbs dipped in sauce and eaten.
5. the
lamb brought in with other portions of the meal.
6. a
benediction and second eating of bitter herbs.
7. a
second cup of wine with questions and answers as to the origin of the feast.
8.
singing of the first part of the Hallel (Psa. 113, 114)
9. the
master of the feast washes his hands and makes a sop by wrapping a bit of lamb
with unleavened bread in bitter herbs and dipping it in the sauce, for each one
present in turn.
10.
each eats as much as he likes, finishing with a piece of lamb.
11. a
third cup of wine after washing hands.
12.
singing of the second part of the Hallel (Psa.115–118).
13. a
fourth cup of wine.
B. He
gave the sop to Judas who then departed (John 13:26).
1. The
bitter herbs were a symbol of the bitterness of bondage in
2. By
Oriental custom it was a special honor for the host to offer anyone a tid–bit and
indicate that he was considered a favoured guest. Jesus showed kindness to
Judas to the end, even in the hour of betrayal.
3. At
that same moment Satan took complete possession of Judas.
4.
Judas departs, and Jesus initiates His final discourses and warns the disciples
against desertion, while they protest their loyalty to Him.
Note:
Would they have drunk so much wine if it had been fermented? I would say that
more than one of them would have been a slight more than “tipsy” if this wine
would have been fermented. It was not “wine”, but grape juice.
Secondly,
how could such a feast be observed with Jesus standing by as an observer? In
fact it would have been rude for Jesus to do so. He partook with them, had
fellowship with them. This was the last time that he would have been with them.
He continued some time after this meal fellowshipping with them, instructing
and warning them of what should be done and what should happen afterward. There
was no leaven in this feast.
CALVINIST:
Wine
was drunk only once –– see my explanation in 'The Lord's Day in the Covenant of
Grace' – volume 2, ‘Burial’, http://www.biblestudents.co.za
The
Last Supper was not the Passover Meal, for MANY reasons. How could it have been
the Passover meal when the Lamb of God's Passover had not yet been slain?
TRADITIONALIST:
It is
well known (despite your objections, CALVINIST) that the Lord Jesus Christ
instituted what we now call the “Lord's Supper” during the Passover meal. Of
that there is no doubt. Christ is our passover lamb. Because He hadn't been led
to the cross yet is irrelevant. You are reading too much into the Scripture.
The meal was symbolic, as was every animal sacrifice in the Old Testament.
Every animal sacrifice in the Old Testament looked forward to Christ. The blood
that was spilt looked forward to the blood that Christ would spill on the
cross. Thus John came on the scene and in John 1:29, seeing Jesus, he declared:
John
1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb
of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
CALVINIST:
Jesus
said He is the Bread of Life – of life–usual too – implying the use of ORDINARY
bread for the representation of Him during the Lord's Supper.
TRADITIONALIST:
This
is a ludicrous argument. The feast was always with unleavened bread. The Lord's
Supper is historically eaten with unleavened bread. History, commentaries of
all denominational backgrounds attest to the same fact. Nothing but unleavened
bread has ever been used in the elements of the Lord's Table in almost any
denomination. The inconsistency comes when that same denomination holds to an
unbiblical “tradition” and drinks “leavened” wined, thus symbolizing corruption
in the blood of Christ. What kind of logic you find in that I will never know.
CALVINIST:
It is
pure assumption – in fact presumption, “...the Lord Jesus Christ instituted
what we now call the “Lord's Supper” during the Passover meal. Of that there is
no doubt.
“The
Feast” was not yet; its 'Preparation–day' – 14 Nisan – had only begun (with its
evening–part) “BEFORE the Feast” Jh13,1–2. “The Feast” would only follow the
night AFTER –– on Nisan 15.
I have
peace with the strength of the 'historical' argument; to me; it, is 'ludicrous'
and powerless.
The
Passover chronology because it was of prophetic and messianic force, is the
only valid.
SCOFFER:
And
the reason we should care is...?
LEGALIST:
Interesting
subject to discuss.
I
personally believe that Lord’s Supper used the unleavened bread, even though
the official Passover didn't start yet, because of the following reasons:
1)
Leavens meant the sin, contamination, defiling as we read 1 Cor 5:7–
7
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are
unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let
us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and
wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
Leavened
bread cannot express the sinless nature of Jesus Christ, who knew no sin, the
only sinless person.
2)
Even though the official Days of Unleavened Bread started from next day, it is
often found that Jews eliminate the leavens 1–2 days before the start of Days
of ULB, even today. Therefore it is not too difficult for us to believe that
Jesus used Unleavened Bread for the Last Supper.
3)
Bible clearly says this:
Luke
22:7, “Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.”
Luke
22:15, “15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this
passover with you before I suffer.”
4) How
can we understand that Jesus died at the Cross just before the Passover. This
is the very difficult part to understand. But my understanding is this – the Apostle
John was Essene and Essene people celebrated Passover 1 day earlier, without
the lambs, but with Unleavened Bread, and ate the Passover Lamb next day. This
is what I learned from Messianic Jews.
CALVINIST:
“And
the reason we should care is...?”
That
the Passover is the Bible's biggest and most meaningful prophetic sign of Jesus
Christ, “our Passover Lamb”. It shows the entire OT economy – of the Scriptures
– was one of faith in Messiah; i.e.,
OT faith was 'Christian'. Salvation is by Christ only under our Christian
dispensation as it ever before had been. “There is no other Name given under
the sun ...” “Then opened He their understanding (of the Law of Moses, and the
prophets, and the Psalms) that they might understand the Scriptures ... Thus it
(was) written, and thus it behoved Messiah to suffer, and to rise from the dead
the third day ...”
That “third
day” was intrinsic part and essence of prophecy, of psalm and of Law. That “third
day” determined on which day Jesus would be crucified, buried, and resurrected.
Faith is strengthened by understanding – faith in its Fulfiller, even our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ.
That's
the reason why we should care ... “man shall live by every word that proceedeth
from the mouth (Word) of God”.
SDA:
Quoting
TRADITIONALIST, “It is well known (despite your objections) that the Lord Jesus
Christ instituted what we now call the “Lord's Supper” during the Passover
meal. Of that there is no doubt. Christ is our passover lamb. Because He hadn't
been led to the cross yet is irrelevant. You are reading too much into the
Scripture. The meal was symbolic, as was every animal sacrifice in the Old
Testament. Every animal sacrifice in the Old Testament looked forward to
Christ. The blood that was spilt looked forward to the blood that Christ would
spill on the cross. ...”
TRADITIONALIST
is right – Christ was slain ON Passover as the Passover lamb “Christ our
Passover HAS been sacrificed”, 1 Cor 5. But at the same time Christ WAS
celebrating the Passover meal JUST as scripture states – one day early SINCE HE
would be slain ON Passover! But I do not agree that “it was his custom to
celebrate Passover BEFORE the actual day of passover” as some have suggested.
VOICE 4:
Christ
was slain on the day the passover lamb would be slain in preperation for the
feast. Remember, they did no “work” on the sabbath which was Saturday.
Don't
forget about the blood. The passover was, “And the blood shall be to you for a
token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over
you...”
VOICE 5:
The
words of our Lord should put an end to this debate, Luke 22:15, “And he said
unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I
suffer…”
In
answer to some of the other points, if I remember correctly, the Jews did not
eat yeast for a week before Passover, so the bread would have been unleavened.
i don't know that they would have made unleavened bread for the Supper when it
was not Passover season.
Also,
from what I have read, the Jewish scholars interpreted 'between the evenings'
in such a way in the Torah so as to allow for two nights of Passover for travellers.
They had one the night before the crucifixion and one on the day of the
crucifixion if I'm not mistaken.
CALVINIST:
I
could have given the lazy answer to each and every of the arguments thus far,
and have referred everyone to http://www.biblestudents.co.za –– especially the second
volume, 'Burial'. But to have done only that, would only have ensured nobody
would trouble working through those hundreds of pages and paragraphs. But if
you want minute detail and argument, visit my site.
LEGALIST:
“Leavens
meant the sin, contamination, defiling as we read 1 Cor 5:7–”
CALVINIST:
Leaven
can and also does mean or imply good things, such as the operation of the Holy
Spirit, or even the Holy Spirit in fulfilment of prophecy ... exactly with
regard to the Passover–prophecy –– the two loaves of Shavuot–Pentecost!
(Pentecost is still part of Passover–Feast Season.)
TRADITIONALIST:
John
13:26, “Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have
dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the
son of Simon.”
What
is the sop? It was meat. It was part of the slain lamb of the passover. It was
the most special piece of meat given to a chosen guest, one who was honored. In
a sense it demonstrated the love that Jesus still had for Judas even though he
knew that Judas was about to betray him. This was the passover meal that they
were celebrating. The meal was before them. They were eating it at this time.
Why would Judas eat, and the rest not? Why would John lean on Jesus breast at
this time? It was a meal that was slowly taken and enjoyed, especially at this
time since they knew that this would be the last time they would be with
Christ. At this time Jesus spent an extended time with them teaching them many
things even after the passover meal was finished.
CALVINIST:
“Luke
22:7 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.”
… Yes, you quote your Bible correctly ... or rather the translation you have of
its text. It has been the cause of great confusion as to the chronology of the
Passover–Season. “Unleavened bread ...” says it. Well, there's no allusion to
the concept of 'bread' in the Greek word used here, which is 'a–dzumos'. If one
is an 'amellennialist', it means he believes there is not a literal 'thousand
years' in prophecy; if a person is an 'abaptist', it means he doesn't believe
in any form of baptism. But the Gospels explain this word in themselves, by
defining it “the day the passover had to be slain”; “the day they always
slaughtered the passover (lamb).”
That
day was the first day of the passover–season, Nisan 14; on this very SAME day,
the Law prescribed, leaven should be removed from the whole country. A big
occasion came to be made of its observance. The LORD commanded that any who
should not partake in this day's observance of removing leaven, should be
removed from the nation by death.
It is
written ––– not to be mistaken; and no guessing about it! So read your text
again, but read it: Luke 22:7, “Then came the day of removing leaven when the
passover must be killed.” For this day was the day BEFORE unleavened bread
actually was eaten. Unleavened BREAD had to be eaten only after sunset of Nisan
14, when Nisan 15 had begun and then, during the night of this first day of
unleavened bread, the unleavened bread was EATEN WITH the cooked lamb – for
Passover Meal or Passover Feast.
Jesus
or the disciples ate no meat during the Last Supper – not because of any
irregularities, but exactly because of the regularity of the Passover Feast
Season : “WHEN they ALWAYS killed the passover” (use of the Imperfect) –– which
implies 'when they ALWAYS removed leaven'.
Said
LEGALIST, “Leavened bread cannot express the sinless nature of Jesus Christ.” I
suppose nothing physical can. Yet what is it that makes you conclude unleavened
bread must 'express the sinless nature of Jesus Christ'? Why could it not
'express' the entire Old Testament dispensation for its lack of fulfilment
through Jesus Christ, and thereby 'express', that Jesus Christ as the Leaven
and Gist of the New Testament, was still to come?
Now
Jesus Christ has come; and now, on this night of the Last Supper BEFORE He
would be slain the Passover Lamb of God, now, leavened bread shall be eaten,
for to signify that He HAD come, and HAD, 'FULFILLED' all prophecy and promise
of God. Leaven like dough in the hand of God becomes pure and holy. Even the
day receives content, meaning, significance ... Christ being its inaugurator
and institutor; its end through Christ becoming its beginning; its beginning
through Christ, its end.
(That's
the reason why we should care ... for the careless.)
Asked
TRADITIONALIST, “What is the sop?” “It was meat. It was part of the slain lamb
of the passover”, said he.
No, the
'sop' was 'psohmion' – crumb or morsel –– of the BREAD the other Gospels call
'arton' – a loaf of bread. Jesus 'dipped' his hand “with the one He gave it to”
– into the bowl that contained the bread – broken pieces of it, “made ready” or
“prepared”. The Lord's Supper is SIMPLE Christian meal of bread and wine – not
the rather extravagant Passover meal of Judaism.
Said TRADITIONALIST,
“It was the most special piece of meat given to a chosen guest, one who was
honored.” His remark presupposes a long established institution of Jewish
tradition, whereas the Last Supper was the totally NEW institution by Christ
for His followers. It did not entail this 'special' feature.
VOICE 6:
They
were eating it at this time.
CALVINIST:
What
'time'? “The one hour after” ... sunset, according to Luke; the other say only,
“in the evening”. That was not the time of or for the Passover Meal –– which
was just before midnight. So it could not have been the same meal, judging by
the time only.
TRADITIONALIST:
Why
would Judas eat, and the rest not?
CALVINIST:
Who
said only Judas ate? Jesus gave to everyone; just Judas 'dipped into the bowl',
“with him”, Jesus – a sign of disrespect.
TRADITIONALIST:
That
seems to be your opinion only. Give me a source.
It is
a special morsel of meat wrapped in bitter herbs given to a special guest, one
to be honored by the host.
Why
would John lean on Jesus breast at this time?
CALVINIST:
I
wouldn't know – would you? Does it prove at all it was the Passover meal? I
suppose you have in mind the idea everybody ate while lying down – the way the
Jews ate their passover. Well, I disagree, for more than one reason – very
simple in fact:
The
Record states they “sat”, “at the table”, singular – not they lied down each at
his own tray(tablet). The very words involved imply very nearby each other
position – not as in the case with the Passover meal during which wide space
between participants symbolised freedom from Egyptian bondage. (At first they
ate it standing close together round the table.)
The
very words also, more accurately describe, how John by Jesus' suggestion of a
traitor amongst them, was physically shaken “up against Jesus” by surprise or /
and offence. It seems John almost dared Jesus to say openly who the traitor
was. The text has nothing of the popular view of 'leaning down against', as
portrayed in da Vinci's painting.
“A
source”? Any Greek Dictionary will do. But judge from the context only –
without one's life–long imprints of the event. Again, your many sources in this
case 'prove' your view, no doubt. But those are only extra–biblical,
traditional, all be they Christian sources. Why the contingency for semblance
with the Seder ever arose, I couldn't tell.
TRADITIONALIST:
Nevermind,
I'll make the correction myself. You are right. It is a piece of unleavened
bread dipped in a sauce made of bitter herbs. Apparently it had no meat in it
as I previously thought. (DRB) “Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall reach
bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot,
the son of Simon.”
TRADITIONALIST:
Take
it if from the beginning.
From
the beginning of John 13, where Jesus washes their feet (the act of a servant,
they are in the room celebrating the passover. This is evident by all the clues
given in the 13th chapter––the sop, the nature of the discourse, etc. The
conversation continues. After verse 30 when Judas leaves the fellowship becomes
even greater and more spiritual. “Now is the son of man glorified.” He begins
to pour out his heart to them.
At the
end of chapter 14 he says: “Arise, let us go hence.” But the disciples continue
asking questions. They don't leave at that moment. The conversation and
teaching continues throughout chapter 15 and 16, and the in chapter 17 we have
the Great High Priestly prayer by our Lord Jesus Christ recorded by John, still
while he is in the same room where they had celebrated the passover meal.
Then,
in chapter 18:
John
18:1, “When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over
the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his
disciples.”
––Not
until this point in the narrative do they leave the room and go across the
brook into the garden, where Judas comes and betrays the Lord.
The
other gaps are filled in by the other gospel writers. The passover meal was
definitely celebrated. The time spent in that room was not idle room. Bread
eaten was not eaten without purpose. Surely it was the unleavened bread of the
Passover Meal that he celebrated with his disciples. There is no reason not to
believe otherwise.
Calvinist:
It is
interesting still, that the 'bitter sauce' came into use also as a result of
tradition. For the original night of Passover in
TRADITIONALIST:
From
Vincent Word Studies
Quote:
“ ‘Dipped the sop’ Compare Mat_26:23; Mar_14:20. The regular sop of the Paschal
supper consisted of the following things wrapped together: flesh of the Paschal
lamb, a piece of unleavened bread, and bitter herbs. The sauce into which it
was dipped does not belong to the original institution, but had been introduced
before the days of Christ. According to one authority it consisted of only
vinegar and water (compare Ruth2:14); others describe it as a mixture of
vinegar, figs, dates, almonds, and spice. The flour which was used to thicken
the sauce on ordinary occasions was forbidden at the Passover by the Rabbins,
lest it might occasion a slight fermentation. According to some, the sauce was
beaten up to the consistence of mortar, in order to commemorate the toils of
the Israelites in laying bricks in
CALVINIST:
True,
but pointless for our discussion.
TRADITIONALIST:
The
above is not pointless, for it is at least one scholar who believes that the
sop did contain meat, giving credence to the view that it must have been the
Passover. Regardless: According to the Synoptic Gospels, the Passover meal was
celebrated:
Luke
22:39, “And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and
his disciples also followed him.”
Mat
26:17, “Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came
to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the
passover?”
Mark
14:12, “And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover,
his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou
mayest eat the passover?”
Luke
22:7, “Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.”
Luke
22:8, “And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that
we may eat.”
Luke
22:11, “And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto
thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my
disciples?”
Luke
22:13, “And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready
the passover.”
You
can't argue with Scripture.
CALVINIST:
Quoting
TRADITIONALIST, “The time spent in that room was not idle room. Bread eaten was
not eaten without purpose. ...” Not to be denied! What was that purpose? Not to
remember the exodus from
Quoting
TRADITIONALIST, “Surely it was the unleavened bread of the Passover Meal that
he celebrated with his disciples. There is no reason not to believe otherwise.”
There are the above and many more reason to believe otherwise. Why should it be
the Jews' passover?
TRADITIONALIST:
All
times are GMT –6. The time now is 12:19 PM.
Page 3
of 5
<
1
2
3
4
5
>
Show
10 posts from this thread on one page
Powered
by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright
©2000 – 2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page 4
of 5
«
First
<
2
3
4
5
>
Show
10 posts from this thread on one page
BaptistBoard.com
(http://www.baptistboard.com/index.php)
–
Other Christian Denominations
(http://www.baptistboard.com/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
–
– The Last Supper was not the Passover Meal
(http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=32715)
Traditionalist:
08–26–2006
02:41 PM
Eliyahu:
“Even
though the official Days of Unleavened Bread started from next day,”
CALVINIST:
The “official
Days of Unleavened Bread”, yes; they would indeed start “from the next day”;
but the 'official' days of Passover–Season had already begun WITH this very day
upon which the Last Supper mark the beginning of the Gospel–era –– with its
evening–part after sunset. It was the day namely of “The Preparation of
Passover” – John – defined in the Gospels of Luke, Mark and Matthew, as “the
day upon which they always killed the Passover”; “the day they HAD TO slay the
passover” ––– “the FIRST day, of 'adzumos' – removal of leaven”. This was the
last day leavened bread was still eaten – only with its first meal – the
evening meal. Afterwards all leaven had to be “put away”. In the morning a bon–fire
was made of the removed leaven. In the middle of the following night the
Passover was eaten ––– the night of Nisan 15.
Traditionalist:
08–26–2006
02:50 PM
Eliyahu:
“Apostle
John was Essene”
CALVINIST:
John
wasn't an Essene; he was Jesus' own beloved disciple, and Jesus followed no
sect, but was the Author and Finisher of our Faith” – the Christian faith. I
really take personal offence at this hackneyed presumption. People think they
ar very clever and look well informed if they show their preferences for this
trite, but they only parade their ignorance, base disbelief and low esteem of
Jesus the Son of God.
Traditionalist:
08–26–2006
02:56 PM
Eliyahu:
“people
celebrated Passover 1 day earlier, without the lambs, but with Unleavened
Bread, and ate the Passover Lamb next day.”
CALVINIST:
Yes,
some believe like this if one may call it believe. Some Churches of God – or
thereabouts – also believe so. They pride themselves of being well–informed,
but know nothing. They know nothing because they obtained no knowledge of this
from the Bible, for sure! I deal with these suppositions in my page; but shall
not here – it will be too useless.
Traditionalist:
08–26–2006
03:00 PM
Quote:
Originally
Posted by BobRyan
TRADITIONALIST:is
right – Christ was slain ON Passover as the Passover lamb “Christ our Passover
HAS been sacrificed” 1 Cor 5.
But at
the same time Christ WAS celebrating the Passover meal JUST as scripture states
– one day early SINCE HE would be slain ON Passover!
But I
do not agree that “it was his custom to celebrate Passover BEFORE the actual
day of passover” as some have suggested.
In
Christ,
Bob
GE
I can
now (at this stage) return to your post, BobRyan; and if you have any
intelligence, you must see how fruitless any further elaboration will be.
Traditionalist:
08–26–2006
03:23 PM
LeBuick:
“Christ
was slain on the day the passover lamb would be slain in preperation for the
feast. Remember, they did no “work” on the sabbath which was Saturday.”
CALVINIST:
Christ
was slain on the day the passover lamb would be slain in preperation for the
feast –– Correct!
LeBuick:
“Remember,
they did no “work” on the sabbath which was Saturday.”
CALVINIST:
Two
wrong premises:
One, “they
did no “work” on the sabbath”
Truth
is – or was – 'they' – the OT believers – only were forbidden “menial work” –
hard, physical labour, or secular, planned, profit–gaining enterprize on
'religious', festival–'sabbaths'. In fact they were commanded the execution of
definite religious tasks and commitments on these 'sabbath'–days –– like
offerings, and then also things like caring for the sick, a burial that could
not be postponed for certain reasons, like climate, or a Sabbath pending.
In
this Passover's case, Jesus was buried upon the Passover–Sabbath –– which
happened to be (by God's determination) “the Before–Sabbath”, or “the
Preparation (day)” for the weekly Sabbath ––– which was a Friday. All the
Gospels leave no doubt about it.
Two,
It was NOT, “Saturday”.
Traditionalist:
08–27–2006
11:29 AM
John
18:28 and John 13:29 ––– The Last Supper was not the Passover meal!
Discussion
of the above and other objections to follow; herewith some extracts for the
subject of this thread
Sequence
and Number
Mark
14:18 and Matthew 26:21 state that Jesus handed “the (one) cup” to the
disciples after the Meal had started, while the kiddush over the first cup of
wine, introduced the Passover Meal. No suggestion, in any case, exists in any
of the Gospel records of the Supper of the Lord, to conclude that the cup was
filled more than once. The supposition of more than one time’s use of wine at
the Last Supper is untenable. The significance the wine receives from the death
of Christ once for all means that it should be taken only once. According to
Luke 22:17 Jesus first handed the flask over to the disciples for them to
divide it among themselves. He meanwhile continued with breaking the bread, and
after eating of the bread, returned to the wine. Mark and Matthew don’t mention
the distribution of the wine, but refer to the drinking of it, once only, after
the bread.
An
interval between the filling and the drinking as with the Jewish Passover Seder
is also not to be found in the Last Supper. Paul says that the participants in
the Lord’s Supper should wait on each other, meaning they should all drink together
and once only. Paul has no interval between filling of the cups and drinking it
in mind.
“These
verses (of John 13) show us what glory the crucifixion brought both to God the
Father and to God the Son. It seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that
this was what our Lord had in mind … An event is about to take place to–morrow,
which, however painful … is in reality most glorifying …”. JC Ryle
the
‘Apostolic Constitutions’. (Book 7 Chapter 23, “on the fourth day (Wednesday)
the condemnation went out against the Lord, Judas then promising to betray him
for money.”) (This reference came to my knowledge at least a decade after
having finished LD.) Using “lanterns”, indicates that “it was night” Jn.13:30
still, when Judas returned to have Jesus arrested. It was not any other night.
Because this is the night of Jesus’ arrest, John must have had the same meal in
mind as the Synoptists who also record about the evening of the night Jesus was
arrested.
5.1.1.7.1.2.
Synoptists
Don’t Speak of Passover Meal
The
meal of John 13:1 is taken for the meal at Simon’s house “two days before
Passover Feast” and a full day before the Sacrifice would be slaughtered.
Scholars try to explain that the “supper” of John 13:1 could not have been the
same meal mentioned by the Synoptists for no reason but that they, assume, the
Synoptists speak of the Passover Meal! The Last Supper mentioned by the
Synoptists occurred before the Passover sacrifice was offered – which could not
have been eaten yet.
Traditionalist:
08–27–2006
11:32 AM
Not
Eaten Before Sacrificed on the fourth day(Wednesday)the condemnation went out
against the Lord. Judas then promising to betray him for money
Was
the Passover Meal eaten on the night of “The Last Supper”? Or was it another
meal of Jewish Tradition? Scholars disagree. Their doubt enveloping the
question is noticeable in the circumscription, “Last Supper” (“Last Night Meal”
in Afrikaans). It is not a description from Scripture for this occasion.
Commentators use it to avoid the issue of whether the “Last Supper” was the
Passover Feast Meal.
Commentators
have a problem with the date of the Last Supper: While John places the Last
Supper on the 14th of the month (Nisan), on the “Preparation of Passover”, the
Synoptists allegedly place it on the 15th, translated: “the first day of the
feast of unleavened bread”. They find the same “contradiction” within Mark’s
single reference (14:12) where, as they explain it, “tei protei hemerai ton
adzumon “on the first day of unleavened bread”, naturally indicates the 15th
Nisan, and, hote to pascha ethuon, “when they killed the passover”, clearly
indicates the 14th Nisan”. Bacchiocchi (Emphasis CGE)
With “Passover”
is meant: The Old Testament sacrifice for Passover; the “Preparation of
Passover”: Jn.19:14,or “day–for–removal–of–yeast” – 14 Nisan. The Passover “Feast”–Day.
The Passover Meal: Mk.14:12, Lk.22:7, Mk.14:1, Lk.2:41, Jn.2:23 – 15 Nisan. The
Passover of the “Sheaf of First Fruits Wave Offering” – 16 Nisan (the first day
of fifty to Pentecost). The Seven Days of “Unleavened Bread” Feast: Lk.22:1.
That means, with “Passover” is meant any part of, or, the whole of “Passover”,
and, any part of, or, the whole of the “Feast of Unleavened Bread”. “Passover”
encompasses what is meant when it is said: “Observe the month of Abib and keep
the Passover”, Dt.16:1.
Ryle
could not have thought of these distinctions when he said: “The Lamb of God was
slain at this feast, in spite of the priests, who said, Not on the feast day.”
(Emphasis CGE)
Although
not crucified on the “official” Feast Day, Jesus was in fact crucified during
or on the “official” “Passover Season” or Passover period. He was crucified “on
the day of Passover meant for slaughter”, which was not the 15th but the 14th
of the month Nisan, “the day of removal of yeast”. This confirms Ryle’s remark:
“Let us remember that one of the few dates we know for certain of the events in
our Lord’s life, is the time of his crucifixion. Of the time of his birth and
baptism we know nothing. But that He died at Passover, we may be quite sure.
Let us note that our Lordknew perfectly beforehand when and how He should
suffer. This, whatever we may think, is a great addition to suffering. Our
ignorance of things before us is a great blessing. Our Lord saw the cross
clearly before Him, and walked straight up to it. His death was not a surprise
to Him, but a voluntary, foreknowing thing.” (Emphasis CGE. To understand the
nature and purpose of the Last Supper, these comments should be kept in mind.)
As
Jesus had taken upon himself our flesh and our human nature and had made it his
own so He took upon himself our earthly time and made it his own. (See Part
Three of Part Three, Karl Barth.) Jesus “foreknew” the Passover Season. He,
determined its dates and He, brought its “times” to “fulness”. The 14th Nisan: “Preparation
of Passover” (John). Hote to pascha ethuon, “when they killed the passover”,
tehi prohtehi hehmerai tohn adzumohn, “on the First Day of Removing of Leaven”
(Mark, Luke and Matthew). This “First First Day” / “The Very First Day” / “Already
the First Day” (Old Testament) is distinguished from the 15th Nisan or “The
Passover / Passover Feast / Passover Meal”, and the “Feast Meal / Feast Days of
Unleavened Bread”. This distinction is attributable to the primitive date of
Passover that prescribed removing of leaven and preparing of unleavened dough,
and the preparation for and the slaughter of the sacrifice – before sunset. The
baking of unleavened bread and its eating and the roasting and eating of the
meat came after sunset. All things both before and after sunset,
institutionally, at first happened on the fourteenth Nisan. The day used to be
reckoned from sunrise. This reckoning later changed to a sunset observance. Now
the “Feast”, or, “Eat”–ceremony fell on the evening of the fifteenth Nisan,
that is, during the beginning of the fifteenth of Nisan and no longer during
about its middle. (Thus any distinction between the reckoning of ceremonial
sabbaths and the weekly Sabbath, disappeared, the weekly Sabbath being reckoned
from sunset to sunset from creation.)
“Preparation”,
“Feast (Meal / Day)”, as well as the seven days of Unleavened Bread, are all
considered “Passover”, which explains Josephus’ statement that the Feast of
Unleavened Bread was an eight days feast. Antiquities of the Jews 2, 15, 7, in
TRC p.75c The overall concept of an eight day period must have underlain the
explanation in Deuteronomy 16:8: “Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and
on the seventh day (that thou eatest unleavened bread) shall be a solemn
assembly”. The day of A–dzumos as such when leaven used to be searched out and
removed (by hiding it), in every household and throughout the entire land, is
intentionally left out of reckoning, which, if taken into account, would have
made it an eight day period. That is why Mark and Luke define the “First Day of
Removing of Leaven” as “the day on which the passover (lamb) had to be
sacrificed”. With “First Day of A–dzumos”they mean, “First Day of Passover”.
They see the whole period as one.
In
Mark and Matthew, however, also a contextual association exists between the
ordinal, “First Day”, and the “Two days (before Passover)”. Two days before
Passover, the Jews conspired to kill Jesus, only, “not on the Feast” Day
itself! So this “First Day of De–leaven” was the day after the Jews decided to
kill Jesus; it was the second in time–sequence of the two days before Passover.
Mt.26 and Mk.14 Counting backwards, it will be the first day before Passover
Feast, that is, the first day of the entire paschal period (of eight days), the
day of “Preparation of Passover”.
Traditionalist:
08–27–2006
11:34 AM
Washing
of Feet Before Meal?
The
only reason Ryle mentions for his categorical conclusion that the Last Supper
is not mentioned by John, is that “It seems highly improbable that the washing
of the disciples’ feet would take place after the Lord’s Supper.” Washing of
feet normally came before meal.
But
why associate washing of feet with Passover? Washing of feet (like the use of
unfermented wine) was introduced to the Passover meal long after the Feast had
been institutionalised during “Mosaic” times. The washing of feet is no Old
Testament institutional element of the Passover Feast Meal.
And
why consider washing of feet improbable to come after the meal on the occasion
of the Last Supper? Ryle maintains his own opinion about the meaning of the
washing of feet: “The actions here described (Jesus’, washing the disciples’
feet) would not seem nearly so strange to the disciples as they do to us. They
were simply the courteous actions of a host who desired to show the utmost
degree of hospitable attention to the guests. Thus Abraham washed the feet of
the three angelic messengers.”
The
order of washing after the meal during the Last Supper is out of the ordinary –
which is in line with everything else with regard to this occasion. From its
inception in the mind of the disciples to their finding the room furnished and
the table laid, the Last Supper was inexplicable. That the guest – Jesus –
would wash the feet of the host – the disciples, is extraordinary. (Jesus was
not host as Ryle maintains.) The meal was prepared for Jesus – not for the
disciples. The owner of the room also had everything ready for his Guest –
Jesus. That the “actions” should be so “minutely” recorded (Ryle’s observation)
of a “simply” familiar and no “strange” action, implies more than just
courtesy. “The minuteness with which every action of our Lord is related here
is very striking. No less than seven distinct things are named, – rising,
laying aside garments, taking a towel, girding Himself, pouring water into a
bason, washing and wiping. This very particularity stamps the whole transaction
with reality, and is the natural language of an astonished and admiring eye–witness.”
That
Jesus elaborated on the deeper meaning of what he did, makes the washing of
feet a most peculiar element of the Last Supper. Despite it being served after
meal, the washing of feet should not be seen as something that could impossibly
have occurred at the Last Supper, and that John and the Synoptists who do not
mention the washing of feet must speak of different meals.
5.1.1.7.1.3.
Purpose
of Last Supper
The
purpose of the Last Supper of Jesus and his disciples, was to prepare: “to be
able to”, “to beallowed”, to eat the Passover: “That they might eat the
Passover”:
Mt.26:17:
“That we prepare for thee to eat the passover”, hetoimasohmen soi faghein to
pascha. Mk.14:12: “We may prepare that thou mayest eat”, hetoimasohmen hina
fagheis. Lk.22:9: “That we may prepare”, hetoimasohmen; “that we may eat”, hina
faghohmen. Mt.26:18: “I prepare for Passover”, poioh to pascha. Mk.14:14,
Lk.22:11: “Where I may eat the Passover”, hopou to pascha faghoh. Mk.14:15: “Make
ready for us”, hetoimasate hehmin. Lk.22:8, 12: “Prepare us the Passover”,
hetoimasate hehmin to pascha. “There prepare ye”, ekei hetoimasate. Mk.14:16,
Mt.26:19, Lk.22:13: “They prepared the Passover”, hetoimasan to pascha = “They
prepared for Passover”. This was an event of the “Preparation of Passover” –
John.
Reference
to the Passover is not made in the indicative as if the sacrifice had actually
been eaten, but in the subjunctive: that the Passover might be eaten, or, with
the infinitive: with the resolve to eat the Passover. To “prepare” fulfils the
purpose of intention. Not the Passover as such will be on the “table made ready”,
but this table will make ready “for Passover”. Jesus and his disciples had
their Passover Preparation Meal. It wasn’t any Jewish traditional meal, but
that of the Christ and his disciples. As it at first prepared for the Sacrifice
of Passover it forever afterwards will be the Lord’s Supper to also prepare his
Church in faith and perseverance to the end.
The
accusative, to pascha is used adverbially and with the meaning “for Passover”.
Greek uses the accusative, where, for instance, English, would have used a
dative, and it has the verb transitive while the sense is intransitive: “Prepare
the Passover” = “Prepare for Passover”. The accusative in this case points to
the eventual purpose of the action – to prepare in order to be able to eat
Passover / to prepare toward Passover. In Jesus’ case in order to be able to be
Passover.
The
disciples seemingly initiate the idea to prepare Passover for Jesus. But
Traditionalist:
08–27–2006
11:35 AM
Jesus
does not actually eat the Passover, nor does He eat of whatever ceremonial
meal. “I have greatly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer,
but I tell you, I will by no means eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the
In
Mk.14:18, The phrase, “One of you which eateth with me”, has no connection with
the meal at issue. If applicable to the situation as it was, the plural would
have been used: One of you all who eat with me. But the singular occurs: “One
of you (all) will betray me, the one who eats, with me.” The expression is used
figuratively for: “One in whom I confide” / “The one I trusted”.
Luke
has a variant: “The hand of him that betrayeth me is on the table with me”.
22:21 The betrayer and Christ walked and ate together. The betrayer was trusted
– he was even trusted with the purse.
Similarly
the phrase “One that with me dips in the (one) bowl”, is not meant literally
but figuratively. If used literally, all of the twelve would have been
insinuated to be traitors.
But
being said metaphorically, it means, “The one in your midst who respects me not”.
And there was only the one who did not care for Jesus – in a manner of
speaking, he would “poke his hand in the dish” even while Jesus’ hand went in.
Jesus
used figurative speech not only where he refers to the bread and wine as his
flesh and blood, but in these indications of the inmost thoughts of his
betrayer.
Jesus
knows of Judas’ secret disdain, Jn.13:11 but reacts to it in a most unselfish
way: He takes a morsel and offers it to Judas. Jn.13:26 He still pleads with
him without using words. Jesus didn’t split on Judas. Judas’ question – that of
every one else – : “Is it I perhaps?” Mk.14:19 is answered by Jesus with: “You
said (it – not I)!” Mt.26:25 Even after Judas left, the disciples did not know
who the traitor would be. They thought Judas was going to “buy something before
the Feast”. Jn.13:29 They fostered no ill feelings toward Judas, thinking he
was going to buy the poor something! If the expressions referred to above were
to be interpreted literally the disciples would have interpreted them literally
and would have known about Judas. But they did not know, and therefore the
expressions had figurative meaning that kept the disciples wondering.
Consequently it cannot be adduced from these expressions that Jesus did eat of
the meal, and that it was the Passover Meal which He sent the disciples to
prepare for Him to eat.
According
to Jn.13:26, John asked Jesus who would betray him, and”They found a room as He
had instructed them and performed all preliminaries. All was in readiness …”. “Here,
on the eve of His death, (Jesus) showed them the full meaning and symbolism of
the Passover memorial.”
Had it
been Passover’s “meaning and symbolism” Jesus were to show his disciples, He
would have taken meat and unleavened bread; not leavened bread and wine.
Passover’s “full meaning and symbolism” Jesus showed on the cross, not in the
upper room. He would show the meaning of the symbolism of the Passover “memorial”
by fulfilling it in his own body on the cross. With the Last Supper, Jesus
showed his disciples the meaning of His death, with the New Symbols of the
Christian sacrament. The redemption wrought in Christ was given the new “memorial”
of the Last Supper: “Do this in remembrance of Me”.
Where
Jesus says: “That I may eat the Passover”, his intention is prophetic. He
prospectively offers the sacrifice and empties the cup of suffering in his own
body. That Jesus would be the Passover Sacrifice for which the disciples went
to prepare, explains the greater meaning the “eating” of this Passover would
have had.
Traditionalist:
08–27–2006
11:37 AM
Similarities
or Differences?
5.1.1.7.2.1.
Abstract
Assimilation
“The
Passover Haggadah mentions four traditional questions: Why is this night
different from all other nights? On all other nights we can eat bread or matzo
(unleavened bread). Why, tonight, only matzo?; On all other nights, we can eat
any kind of herbs. Why, tonight, bitter herbs?; On all other nights we don’t
dip herbs we eat into anything, Why, tonight, do we dip twice?; On all other
nights we can eat either sitting up straight or reclining. Why, tonight, do we
all recline?” From Christ in the Passover, C & M Rosen, Moody Press, p.77
(Emphasis CGE)
The
Rosens cite various Gospel passages under different headings of “The Ancient
Seder” “of the Passover service”. Lk.22:17–18 is sorted under the heading of “The
Kiddush”; Jn.13:4–5 under the heading of “The First Washing of Hands”; Jn.13:26–27
under the heading of “Broken Pieces of Bread Dipped in Bitter Herbs and
Charoseth and Handed to All” (“The Paschal meal eaten; hands washed a third
time; third cup poured”); 1 Cor.11:23–24 is sorted under the heading of “Blessing
After Meals”; 1 Cor.11:25 under the heading of “Blessing Over Third Cup” (“Third
cup taken; second part of Hallel recited; fourth cup poured and taken.”);
Mt.26:30 is sorted under the heading of “Closing Song”.
This
arrangement is artificial and incoherent, and meaninglessly fragments the
narration of the Last Supper. The assortment and combination of the various
elements from the Seder and the Supper rather underscore their un–relatedness.
According to these distinctive practices of the Jewish Passover Seder, no
particularity of the Last Supper qualifies it as the Passover Meal.
Nothing
“necessitates the conclusion that the Markan tradition was mistaken in
supposing that the Supper was the Passover Meal”. “In 15:1 f., 12–16, it should
be noted, it is clear that Mark means the Passover Meal” … by no means! V.
5.1.1.7.2.2.
The
Meal and Food
The
meal is described in John and Paul with the term for a normal, ordinary meal:
deipnon – not “Passover” or “Feast”. Here is the meal that eventually was eaten
by the disciples, intended to “prepare for Passover” – not the Passover itself.
This meal equipped and enabled Jesus to take what was in store for him on the
day the Passover was killed. This supplied the reason for Paul to describe the
Last Supper with its true designation: “Lord’s Supper”.
No
indication exists that meat, the flesh of the Passover sacrifice – which was
central to the Passover Meal – formed part of the Last Supper. In the Synoptics
and 1Cor.10:17 the “bread” used with the Lord’s Supper was ordinary, daily,
leavened bread: artos. Mk.14:22 It was not adzumos, unleavened, that is,
Passover bread. In John no hint is given that the “morsel”, psohmion, Jn.13:27
of the “sop”, also psohmion – “food” – was unleavened bread; Definitely it was
not dipped twice as with Passover meal – or, for that matter, “dipped” at all.
The “sop” was the “supper”, just bread, served in a bowl, and that bowl is
indicated with the word “sop”, or, simply, the “food”. The meaning of Jesus, “dipping”
into the “sop”, means no more than that He “took”, “bread”. Jesus handed the
disciples of what the supper in the bowl consisted of, and that only, was in
the bowl into which he stretched out his hand and took of.
“It
was during the ceremony of dipping the second sop into the bitter herbs …”.
There is not even a suggestion of a sauce into which bread was dipped. Nothing
indicates or implies the presence of bitter herbs, or other herbs, on this
table. The traditional impression of the prominence of these substances in the
Last Supper is ascribable to paraphrasing translations of the uncomplicated
word psohmion. The Supper of the Lord of Christianity is extremely simple, and
the pomp of the Jewish Passover Seder is completely foreign to it.
All
times are GMT –6. The time now is 12:21 PM.
Page 4
of 5
«
First
<
2
3
4
5
>
Show
10 posts from this thread on one page
Powered
by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright
©2000 – 2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page 5
of 5
«
First
<
3
4
5
Show
10 posts from this thread on one page
BaptistBoard.com
(http://www.baptistboard.com/index.php)
–
Other Christian Denominations
(http://www.baptistboard.com/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
–
– The Last Supper was not the Passover Meal
(http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=32715)
Traditionalist:
08–27–2006
11:38 AM
Reclined
“Jesus
reclined with the twelve …”. It is stated that Jesus and his disciples “sat”
down – not, “reclined”. Mk.14:18 Lk.22:27 Where it is said that John “leant”,
the meaning is that he leant over against Jesus. (“The Greek words here would
be more literally rendered, “He having fallen upon”. It is so translated in
eleven out of the twelve other places where it occurs in the New Testament. The
idea is evidently of one moving and leaning towards another, so as to get
closer to him …”. Ryle) The passage does not say that John reclined on a bench
or on the floor at a table of his own – which would have been the case had he
reclining. The action was that of sitting down, and not of reclining or lying
down on one’s side. Compare anakeimai: “Sitting down” at ordinary meals;
Mt.9:10, Jn.6:11 John would not “incline” upon Jesus; Jn.13:23 Sitting “at
table” Lk.22:21 Jn.13:28 like Western custom implies, at one, and a higher,
style of furniture; The preposition ana means”(sitting) up(wards)”, in such a
position that feet could be washed hanging down over a bowl; anakeimai is an
equivalent of anaklinoh – compare Mt.8:11, 14:19, Lk.7:36, 13:29, but anaklinoh
is the word more likely to be translated “to lie down”. “To incline” is derived
from anaklinoh, and not from anakeimai. Anaklinoh is notably not used in the
Last Supper passages. Anakeimai constitutes two words, ana and keimai, “to be
situated, placed – besides other meanings. Its meaning of “lying down” is not
exclusive or as strong as in the case of anaklinoh.
The
fact that John is mentioned as having “leant over” or “reclined” implies that
only he so behaved and that the other were sitting upright at the table, not
leant over or reclined.
5.1.1.7.2.4.
The
Table
The
custom of reclining required an own table for each person or small group.
Assuming the Last Supper was Passover Meal it is argued that different tables
were used and not one for all only as implied and stated by the Gospels.
Lk.22:21 Jn.13:28 The argument should reach the opposite conclusion if the
Gospels are accepted as first in authenticity and authority, and should state
that because the Gospels indicate only one table, there could be no possibility
of reclining at the Last Supper; it could not have been the Passover meal – or
Jewish Seder of the Passover Meal, or an Essener ritual. Pixner (The Leonardo
da Vici portrait of the Last Supper is truer to reality than is often accepted.
Da Vinci with his passion for physics must have given closer attention to the
precise language of the Gospels.)
5.1.1.7.2.5.
Wine
“The
Gospel accounts of the Last Supper mention only two of the four seder cups –
the first and the third …”. The Rosens’ mention of the supposed use of wine
four times – of which two are allegedly mentioned in the Gospels – is meant to
indicate that the Last Supper was indeed the Passover Meal. But wine was used
with virtually every meal and was no peculiarity of the Passover meal. Its use
is of no significance as indication that it was the celebration of the Passover
the night before the day of Jesus’ crucifixion. At the Last Supper, Jesus
introduces the wine as the symbol of his own blood to the exclusion and
annulment of blood and sacrifice. No sacrifice could longer represent the blood
of the Lamb of God. Wine instead receives a meaning it never had before, nor
will have, except when used in the Lord’s Supper.
There
is a total absence of the mention of wine in the Mosaic institution of
Passover. Wine was only much later added to the ritual of Passover, and then
not wine in the ordinary sense of fermented wine, called “produce of the vine”
on the occasion of the Last Supper and throughout Scripture, but as unfermented
grape juice – like unleavened bread for Passover. Grape juice with Passover is
Jewish kosher, not Christian or Biblical.
Traditionalist:
08–27–2006
11:39 AM
Sequence
and Number
Mark
14:18 and Matthew 26:21 state that Jesus handed “the (one) cup” to the
disciples after the Meal had started, while the kiddush over the first cup of
wine, introduced the Passover Meal. No suggestion, in any case, exists in any
of the Gospel records of the Supper of the Lord, to conclude that the cup was
filled more than once. The supposition of more than one time’s use of wine at
the Last Supper is untenable. The significance the wine receives from the death
of Christ once for all means that it should be taken only once. According to
Luke 22:17 Jesus first handed the flask over to the disciples for them to
divide it among themselves. He meanwhile continued with breaking the bread, and
after eating of the bread, returned to the wine. Mark and Matthew don’t mention
the distribution of the wine, but refer to the drinking of it, once only, after
the bread.
An
interval between the filling and the drinking as with the Jewish Passover Seder
is also not to be found in the Last Supper. Paul says that the participants in
the Lord’s Supper should wait on each other, meaning they should all drink
together and once only. Paul has no interval between filling of the cups and
drinking it in mind.
5.1.1.7.2.7.
Closing
Song or Hymn
“And
when they had sung an hymn, they went into the mount of Olives.” Mt.26:30 Hymns
were sung at almost every ceremony during the whole paschal period – as with
any other religious holy day. See Nehemiah 12. Singing proves not that the Last
Supper was the Passover Meal. When
5.1.1.7.2.8.
The
Washing of Feet
“The
first hand washing by the host set him apart from the company.” No mention is
made of any washing of hands before the Lord’s Supper. On the contrary, one
might expect the minimum of such paraphernalia with Jesus’ institution when
thinking of his rebuke of the Pharisees over “washings” of pots and pans and
hands. Mk.4:7,8; 7:3,4 Also Paul’s plea that believers should first do whatever
necessary at home before coming to the Lord’s Table suggests that they should
wash their hands at home and not at the Table.
“In
washing the disciples’ feet, Jesus used this part of the regular ritual to
teach His lesson of humility and love …”. This washing of feet had nothing “regular”
about it. It was not regular in order of custom – before meals generally, but
here afterwards. It was not regular in order of status, because Jesus was not
host, but guest. The guest never washed the feet of the host. But Jesus while
being guest of honour, did. And Jesus thereby not only taught the hosts, but prepared
himself for that “humiliation to the end” which he would undergo on the
impending day.
Washing
of feet formed no part of the Mosaic institution of Passover Feast. The washing
of feet in the event of the Lord’s Supper, separates it irrevocably from the
Passover Meal.
The
Passover came before the journey, out. Washing of feet came at the end of the
journey – when Jesus would complete it and arrive in the Kingdom. (
Traditionalist:
08–27–2006
11:41 AM
Time
and Date
On the
Day of Feast everybody had to have found accommodation and had to have settled
in order to partake of the Passover Meal. That Jesus and his disciples came
from
When
the disciples went to “prepare”, they found everything in the room ready. They
could “sit down”, “within an hour”. Lk.22:7,12,13 It was “evening”. Mk.14:17
Mt.26:20 This was an earlier time than the customary for the Passover Meal just
before midnight. The time the Last Supper was eaten makes it impossible to have
been the Passover Feast Meal. Not only can no indication be found that the
offer was already sacrificed, but the Jews the morning after the Last Supper
would not enter Pilate’s house because they still had to eat Passover. When
Jesus and the disciples sat down the evening for this meal, it was only the
start of the day on which the Passover had to be slain. Only after sunset the
following day would the paschal offer be served.
Judas,
while it was night, after the Supper went out to betray Jesus. He needed time.
Jesus was arrested and brought before Annas and Caiaphas before he was brought
before Pilate and Herod and again Pilate, before at daybreak he was “delivered”
to be crucified. All this implies that Judas left from Supper at early night,
in order to have had enough time. Taking all into account, it indisputably
indicates that the Last Supper was not the supper of the Passover Feast. And
that implies just as indisputably that the day of Christ’s crucifixion – which
began with the evening of the Last Supper – had to be the day “before Passover”,
Jn.13:1 – “The Preparation of Passover”. Jn.19:14
The
Last Supper, was not the Old Testament Passover. It is a New Testament
institution, novel and uniquely Christian. Arguments against such an origin and
character of the Lord’s Supper are arbitrary and forced. Jesus introduced every
element of the Last Supper. In no other way but a purely original way, could
the Last Supper, be “The Lord’s Supper” – kuriakos deipnon, 1Cor.11:20, the
Christian “mystery” or “sacrament”, which is neither the last ordinary meal of
Jewish tradition, nor the first of unleavened bread, of the Passover Feast.
None
of the Rosens’ proposed comparisons between Passover and the Last Supper are
tenable. They sterilely reflect the traditional comparisons and are Judaistical
orientated. They lack a purely evangelical approach to the problem of the time
and nature of the Lord’s Supper at its institution the day before Passover
Feast when Jesus He being the Passover Lamb was crucified on the Preparation of
the Passover.
5.1.1.7.2.10.
More
than One Meal
“…He
took that bread after He first gave thanks at the end of the meal; then He
broke it and gave it to them … Jesus here instituted the new memorial …” p.58c
We could not trace such a sequence of actions in any of the Gospels. What we
could find, was the clause “as they sat and did eat” in Mk.14:18 – when Jesus
spoke to his disciples about his betrayal – and, after this, verse 22, “took
bread, and blessed, and gave to them and said, Take, eat, this is my body …”.
Herein lies not even a suggestion that Jesus instituted the Christian Sacrament
of the Lord’s Supper on occasion of some ceremonial meal (allegedly the
Haggigah, “a holy day peace offering”. the Rosens, p.54 The Bedikat Chametz –
the day for search of leaven in order to put it away – had started sunset. That
does not prove that the upper room Supper was Passover Feast Meal or Haggigah.
The
phrase, “as they ate”, esthiontohn, in Mark and Matthew, however, being a
participle, present tense, means “at meal”, “with supper”, “while at table”. It
is the way they used to speak – an “idiomatic expression”. It does not mean
that a first meal was finished before the Last Supper began. Such an inference,
if applicable, is applicable consistently – which will result in three meals on
this night: the one supposedly implied in Mk.14:18: “And as they sat and did
eat …”; and another (consistently) implied, “as they did eat”, in verse 22.
Then, according to the Rosens, “He first gave thanks at the end of the meal” –
before “He took the bread” and “then broke and gave it…” – which would be the
Last Supper and third meal!
The
Rosens’ conclusion that, “Looking to the time when Israel would be left without
an altar and without a sacrifice, He used the “aphikome (The “after dish of the
Passover Meal – the middle, “hidden, or “buried wafer) for the first time to
represent not only the Paschal lamb, but His own body!” is reached over avidly
and arbitrarily. Least of all the Lord’s Supper was the “after dish” of the
Jewish Passover Seder. And their conclusion that “(Judas) left before eating
the Passover (and) had, in effect, excommunicated himself …” is purely
imaginative, and incidentally wrong, for Jn.13:30 confirms that Judas, “Then
having received the sop went immediately out”.
Traditionalist:
08–27–2006
11:42 AM
Christ
the Passover Lamb
The
most important reason why the Last Supper could not have been the Meal of
Passover Feast, is that Jesus on this Passover would Himself be the Lamb. If,
supposedly, Jesus wanted to have Passover Meal with his disciples, but still
were to be sacrificed (at the right time for the Passover lamb to be slain), He
had to have had Passover Meal before the time the lamb could be killed. The
Passover sacrifice could not be eaten before it was even slaughtered. Jesus
also could not have eaten Passover after the sacrifice was offered – for He was
to replace it on this occasion, at the appointed time, which would be the time
of his death the next day.
The
Christian Supper of the Lord is “celebration”, “memorial”, not of Passover, but
of “the death of death in the death of Christ” (John Owen). Through the
providence of God, the Lord’s Supper was instituted before that which it was to
be a memorial of had actually happened. (Even the Passover had been commanded –
“instituted” – before it had actually happened.) The Lord’s Supper commemorates
Jesus’ death on the cross, and He instituted it before He was crucified.
The
Passover of which Christ was to be the Lamb, by the foreordination of God
happened according to the times and dates set for Passover in Scripture. Jesus
would die at the appointed time. The meal of this night could not have been the
meal of the Passover Feast that was only eaten after the Passover lamb had been
slain.
J.C.
Ryle remarks: “One thing at any rate is very plain and noteworthy. The chief
priests and their party made much ado about eating the passover lamb and
keeping the feast, at the very time they were about to slay the true Lamb of
God of whom this passover was a type!” (Emphasis CGE)
5.1.1.8.1.
Day of
De–Leaven – Before Passover On Passover
Professor
Bacchiocchi, in his End–Time Issue No. 73, claims, “… were the Gospels’ writers
alive today, I have reason to believe that they would appreciate help in
correcting some of their inaccuracies. Incidentally, some of the inaccuracies
are very glaring. For example, the Synoptic Gospels place Christ’s crucifixion
on the day after Passover (Nisan 15), while John on the actual Passover day
(Nisan 14). It would be nice if we could ask them to reconcile their
differences and give us the exact date of the Crucifixion.”
Bacchiocchi
says John places Christ’s crucifixion “on the actual Passover day” (that is, on
the actual Feast Day), which is plainly untrue, because John says “it was the
Preparation of Passover”. This day, says Bacchiocchi, “the Synoptic Gospels place
on the day after Passover” – while they say it was the very day “the passover
should be slaughtered”!
The “Meal”
at “The Last Supper” then, was not the Passover Sacrifice “Eaten” – i.e., it
was not “Passover Feast”. This supper was for preparation for Passover’s
Sacrifice – the Death of Jesus the Lamb of God. Herein the Providence of God
was at work. It can be seen in the use of the phrase: “The disciples did as
Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready for Passover”, Mt.26:19. Christ’s
“appointment” was more than a mere command. His all mighty dispensation
overruled the actions of the disciples who first seemingly took the initiative
by approaching Him and asking if they would prepare, verse 17. The Greek for “appoint”
is sunektacsen (suntassoh): “They gave the thirty pieces of silver for the
potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me”, Mt.27:9–10. “As many as were
ordained (tassoh) to eternal life believed”; Acts13:48 “There is no power but
of God: The powers that be are ordained of God”, Ro.13:1.
Sun
plus bainoh in, “These things happened unto them for ensamples”, means, “these
things were destined to happen to them”; 1 Cor.10:11. “To the servants of
corruption … it happened according to the proverb”, that is, “It is determined
that it should happen to them”. 2.Pt.2:19, 22 (God in Christ destines, not
blind fate.)
Objective
reading of John 19:14 in its context, cannot help the perception of Godly
foreordination in every aspect of Jesus’ preparation, anguish, betrayal,
deliverance and crucifixion in perfect fulfilment of Passover, whether or not
some detail to us may seem not important. Faith finds evidence in this of
Christ’s deity and genuine humanity, though for the unbeliever it may mean
nothing. Had God’s overruling not been present in these events, the symbolic
significance of Passover would have been lost.
Jesus
then had himself prepared for taking the place of the Passover lamb and to be
slaughtered in its stead. The meaning of the description of the day and time on
which Christ would experience the fulfilment of Passover can but literally
indicate “the Preparation of Passover”. Jesus attended and served his own
Preparation Meal to be given over to be killed for the sins of his elect – its
significance ever since.
Day
starts with evening. The night of Last Supper and the day of Crucifixion, in
that sequence, are the same day. This day is described as being, “before
passover”; Jn.13:1”not on the Feast (day)”. Mt.26:5 Jesus’ “time”, which was “near”
– not present yet. Mt.26:18 “before I suffer”; Lk.22:15 “before it happens”;
Jn.13:19 “against / for Passover”. Jn.13:29 “The day of un–leaven on which the
Passover had to be slain”; Lk.22:7 “The first day of de–leaven when the
Passover was always slaughtered”. Mk.14:12 No other day in all of Scripture has
ever been so definitely described. Surely one may assume that the intention was
to make it easy for the reader to distinguish this day from any other. And the
reason for such a distinction was to be able to see how
Jesus
would fulfil the meaning of Passover “in his own body” through death, and,
through resurrection. (Not in eating the Passover Feast meal in any other way.)
Traditionalist:
08–27–2006
11:43 AM
“Not
On the Feast”
The
Jews conspired to kill Jesus, only “not on the Feast (Day of Eating the
Passover)”. They had good reason for excluding the 15th Nisan for their
purpose. But, like when they decided to let one man die instead of many,
Jn.11:50 their wisdom was vain, for they only acted in fulfilment of Scripture.
The Gospels would not have mentioned this limit to the Jews’ time, were it not
eventually to have come true because it was divinely ordained to come true. The
reason the Jews gave for not wanting to kill Jesus “on the feast”, “lest there
be an uproar of the people”, Mk.14:2, is said to be a peculiarity of the
Western Text, added by a redactor copyist to elude the supposed problem of date
in this passage when compared with verse 12. No necessity remains for such an
explanation when the two clauses in verse 12 are seen as complementary. The
second phrase defines the first: “The first day of de–leaven (a–dzumos), when
they killed the passover”.
The
phrase “Not on the Feast” doesn’t mean after the Feast, because then everybody
would have left – and logically Jesus as well. The Jews’ conspiring was in
order to get some plan as to how to kill Him before the feast because his
presence at the Feast is what they wanted to prevent. The whole idea of
mentioning, that “after two days was the Feast”, was to show that the Jews had
but little time to act before the Feast Day.
The
expression en tehi heortehi – “on the feast” is explained as meaning “not among
the feasting throng”, for the obvious reason that these interpreters assume
that Jesus was in fact crucified on the Feast as such, 15th Nisan. On the Day
of feast or not, a crowd assembled soon enough, and Jesus was crucified amongst
the feasting regardless.
All
times are GMT –6. The time now is 12:21 PM.
Page 5
of 5
«
First
<
3
4
5
Show
10 posts from this thread on one page
Powered
by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright
©2000 – 2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
TRADITIONALIST:
08–28–2006
02:43 AM
G.E.,
I
posted a short post with just some Scripture in it. The Scripture plainly
stated that Jesus said “I will celebrate the Passover with you.” Was he lying?
He
told them more than once to go and prepare a place “that we may celebrate the
passover”. Was he being deceptive, in milseading the Passover? Don't you
believe the words of Scripture. It is much easier to believe the simple words
of Scripture as recorded in the four gospels then to expain it away with your
tradition and extra–biblical sources. Jesus and his disciples partook of the
passover, if for no other reason than the Bible says they did. Is that not
sufficient enough? If that thought or even theology runs against what you
beleive then put away your pride. One cannot argue with what the Scrpture says.
Go back and read my post again.
TRADITIONALIST:
Eliyahu
08–28–2006
09:27 AM
I
think GE doesn't understand Jewish custom when they eat.
They
often lean on something when they eat.
Also,
I would like to kindly remind GE that:
1) Day
of Unleavened Bread came ( LUke 22:7)
2) The
hour came ( Luke 22:14)
3)
Jesus desired to eat this Passover with desire ( 22:15)
4)
Jesus had supped (1 Cor 11:24–30)
GE,
Do you
still require more evidence?
Traditionalist:
08–28–2006
01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally
Posted by Eliyahu
I
think GE doesn't understand Jewish custom when they eat.
They
often lean on something when they eat.
CALVINIST:
The
Gospels say they sat down at one table for the last Supper
Also,
I would like to kindly remind GE that:
1) Day
of Unleavened Bread came ( LUke 22:7)
CALVINIST:
I told
you the Greek has nothing of bread; It says a–dzumos – de–leaven
2) The
hour came ( Luke 22:14)
CALVINIST:
I told
you this was not the time of the Passover meal – which was just before midnight
– not an hour after sunset
3)
Jesus desired to eat this Passover with desire ( 22:15)
CALVINIST:
Yes,
He desired, it says – it doesn't say He ate; It implies He did not eat.
4)
Jesus had supped (1 Cor 11:24–30)
GE,
Do you
still require more evidence?
CALVINIST:
You
haven't had any; how do you think I might think you have more?
But
you simply ignore anything I have said. and carry on repeating the same things
I have answered in detail.
Traditionalist:
08–28–2006
02:08 PM
TRADITIONALIST::
“I
posted a short post with just some Scripture in it. The Scripture plainly
stated that Jesus said “I will celebrate the Passover with you.” Was he lying?”
It
seems I must be on the rude side to be heard.
No TRADITIONALIST:,
Jesus never lied; I don't want to think you suggest I said He lied. But I tell
you frankly: The 'Version' you quote, lies, and it, makes Jesus say something
He never said. Show me this text in the KJV or in the Greek – any apparatus!
Traditionalist:
08–28–2006
02:24 PM
TRADITIONALIST::
“He
told them more than once to go and prepare a place “that we may celebrate the
passover”.”
CALVINIST:
Show
me ONE verse where it says that: 'He told them more than once ...”to go and
prepare a place”! It does not exist. It says they FOUND the PLACE, prepared. A
place not 'where', they ate the Passover, but a place to PREPARE, SO “THAT we
MAY celebrate the passover”. That is a preparation–meal; no Passover meal itself.
Let me
make myself clear at this staCALVINIST: The time was in fact already 'Passover–Season'
– the 14th of Nisan had already begun with sunset; so in that sense the Last
Supper was a meal during Passover. But is was not THE Passover Meal (Seder) of
lamb and matsag – the first meal of unleavened bread and lamb. It perhaps co–incided
with the Bedikat Chamets of Judaism – although it wasn't it. As I've said
before: This is the NEW Testament Institution of the Lord Jesus' Supper –– not
the Jews' midnightmeal of passover!
All
times are GMT –6. The time now is 11:37 AM.
Page 5
of 7
«
First
<
3
4
5
6
7
>
Show
10 posts from this thread on one page
Powered
by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Page 6
of 7
«
First
<
4
5
6
7
>
Show
10 posts from this thread on one page
BaptistBoard.com
(http://www.baptistboard.com/index.php)
–
Other Christian Denominations
(http://www.baptistboard.com/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
–
– The Last Supper was not the Passover Meal
(http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=32715)
Traditionalist:
08–28–2006
02:35 PM
TRADITIONALIST::
“It is
much easier to believe the simple words of Scripture as recorded in the four
gospels then to expain it away with your tradition and extra–biblical sources.”
CALVINIST:
For me
it is far more difficult to believe the modern versions which are influenced by
tradition and only aim at strengthening traditional errors. They are extra–biblical
sources par excellence!
The
simple words for me –– because of this ––– have become the initially difficult
original, the Greek. I don't trust and I don't believe these clever claims
'from the original languages' a bit any longer, when it comes to ANYTHING that
in any way, may imply or involve Sunday–observance ––– for these specific
efforts at manipulating God's Word under the pretense of scholarship are sun–worship
most audacious.
Traditionalist:
08–28–2006
02:47 PM
TRADITIONALIST::
“
Jesus and his disciples partook of the passover, if for no other reason than
the Bible says they did.”
CALVINIST:
Jesus
and his disciples partook of the Lord's Supper, which till today is kept pure
by the Reformed Church at least, with ordinary bread and ordinary wine ... if
for no other reason than the Bible says so.
During
the evening of Nisan 14 in the year of our Lord's death – its first part of
beginning – Jesus and His disciples ate the NEW Christian–Lord's, meal – the
simple food of bread and wine, because He said, I am the bread of life!
Christians are not Jews; and the disciples ate the Last Supper with their Lord,
not because they were all Jews, but because they followed the Christ and His
unprecedented instructions that led to His introduction and institution of
these elements of as by faith to partake of HIS body and blood ––– not of any
lamb's that pointed to Him, for today, this day of this meal, He has come and
has entered in into His suffering unto the salvation of His Elect!
Traditionalist:
08–28–2006
02:48 PM
These
are my ideas concerning the Lord Jesus' Holy Supper of the Communion of the
saints. “Extra–biblical”? Are they?
Traditionalist:
08–28–2006
02:53 PM
You
obviously havn't noticed – not one of you – my referring to these two
Scriptures: John 18:28 and John 13:29 ––– The Last Supper was not the Passover
meal!
Traditionalist:
08–28–2006
03:05 PM
TRADITIONALIST::
“If
that thought or even theology runs against what you beleive then put away your
pride. One cannot argue with what the Scrpture says.”
CALVINIST:
My
last word for today – tomorrow it is work again ...
If any
thought or theology runs against what I beleive as long as what I believe is to
the honour of Jesus Christ, I won't put away my pride or boasting in Him. One
cannot argue with what the Scrpture says. Solus Christus!
TRADITIONALIST:
08–28–2006
10:55 PM
Quote:
Originally
Posted by Traditionalist:
TRADITIONALIST::
“
Jesus and his disciples partook of the passover, if for no other reason than
the Bible says they did.”
Quote:
CALVINIST:
Jesus
and his disciples partook of the Lord's Supper, which till today is kept pure
by the Reformed Church at least, with ordinary bread and ordinary wine ... if
for no other reason than the Bible says so.
As I
previously said:
“It is
much easier to believe the simple words of Scripture as recorded in the four
gospels then to expain it away with your tradition and extra–biblical sources.”
But
you appeal is not really to the Scriptures; it is apparently to the Scriptures
as seen only through the rose colored glasses of the Reformed Church. You fail
to see clearly or objectilvely the Scriptures.
Quote:
During
the evening of Nisan 14 in the year of our Lord's death – its first part of
beginning – Jesus and His disciples ate the NEW Christian–Lord's, meal – the
simple food of bread and wine, because He said, I am the bread of life.
John
6:48–50 I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness,
and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may
eat thereof, and not die.
John
6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in
––JJesus
was teaching to a Jewish audience, in the synagogue itself. If the bread was
leavened it would have been abhorrent to them; offensive. He compares himself
to the manna which came down from heaven. Manna is unleavened bread. When Jesus
referred to himself as the bread of heaven, the picture is still of unleavened
bread––that which has no corruption.
Quote:
Christians
are not Jews; and the disciples ate the Last Supper with their Lord, not
because they were all Jews, but because they followed the Christ and His
unprecedented instructions that led to His introduction and institution of
these elements of as by faith to partake of HIS body and blood ––– not of any
lamb's that pointed to Him, for today, this day of this meal, He has come and
has entered in into His suffering unto the salvation of His Elect!
The
Christians (the disciples of Jesus) were all Jews. So was Christ. Yes, Jesus
Christ was a Jew. He was born of Mary, of the tribe of David. He will one day
sit on the throne of David. He, humanly speakng is “Jewish.” So were all his
disciples. The church did not start until Pentecost, and yet the last supper
was instituted before then.
TRADITIONALIST:
Traditionalist:
08–30–2006
07:39 PM
Incidentally,
TRADITIONALIST:said,
“the rose colored glasses “, which brings one to the question of what kind of
wine it was .... obviously red, because Jesus associated it with his blood ...
red blood. The colour can only be inferred. Now I don't know about wine–making;
but since when does one get the fresh juice from the grape red? Wine only
becomes red through the fermentation–process if i'm not mistaken.
His
Blood Spoke My Name
08–30–2006
07:44 PM
Just
because Jesus compared the fruit of the vine with His blood, does not mean it
was red wine. The fruit of the vine could have been any color.
Jesus
could have been associating it with His blood because of richness. His blood
certainly was rich.
Traditionalist:
08–30–2006
07:45 PM
TRADITIONALIST::
“As I
previously said:
“It is
much easier to believe the simple words of Scripture as recorded in the four
gospels then to expain it away with your tradition and extra–biblical sources.”
But
you appeal is not really to the Scriptures; it is apparently to the Scriptures
as seen only through the rose colored glasses of the Reformed Church. You fail
to see clearly or objectilvely the Scriptures.”
CALVINIST:
I may return this to answer you –– it applies to you, TRADITIONALIST:,
yourself. You obviously hold some position in your Community. I don't: maybe
because I am the one who lacks the courage to belong because of what I believe.
Traditionalist:
08–30–2006
07:57 PM
TRADITIONALIST::
“John
6:48–50 I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness,
and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may
eat thereof, and not die.
John
6:59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in
––Jesus
was teaching to a Jewish audience, in the synagogue itself. If the bread was
leavened it would have been abhorrent to them; offensive. He compares himself
to the manna which came down from heaven. Manna is unleavened bread. When Jesus
referred to himself as the bread of heaven, the picture is still of unleavened
bread––that which has no corruption.”
GEE
Jesus
didn't necessarily by any means here, taught during Passover–time when by
exception it would have been un–leavened bread time –– Normally they ate
ordinary bread like you and me today.
Manna
was manna – we have no idea what it was like –– you cannot make your
deductions.
Again,
you argue in circles : who says leaven represents corruption ––– always; and
not good things as well?
But
why are you so reluctant to accept the Lord's Supper is just what it says, the
Lord's and not the Jews'? Why do you argue insistently it is the Jews'
Passover? Christianity has gone ahead ––– it has left Judaism behind. (Judaism
also entails the pure but redundent OT institutions clung to in spite of Jesus'
incarnation and resurrection. Judaism basically developed as the result of
nothing but the denial of Christ and the truth of His coming.)
All
times are GMT –6. The time now is 11:39 AM.
Page 6
of 7
«
First
<
4
5
6
7
>
Show
10 posts from this thread on one page
Powered
by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright
©2000 – 2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
5.1.1.7.2.6.
Sequence
and Number
Mark 14:18 and Matthew 26:21 state that
Jesus handed “the (one) cup” to the disciples after the Meal had started, while
the kiddush over the first cup of wine, introduced the Passover Meal. No
suggestion, in any case, exists in any of the Gospel records of the Supper of
the Lord, to conclude that the cup was filled more than once. The supposition
of more than one time’s use of wine at the Last Supper is untenable. The
significance the wine receives from the death of Christ once for all means that
it should be taken only once. According
to Luke 22:17 Jesus first handed the flask over to the disciples for them to
divide it among themselves. He meanwhile continued with breaking the bread, and
after eating of the bread, returned to the wine. Mark and Matthew don’t mention
the distribution of the wine, but refer to the drinking of it, once only, after
the bread.
An interval between the filling and the
drinking as with the Jewish Passover Seder is also not to be found in the Last
Supper. Paul says that the participants in the Lord’s Supper should wait on
each other, meaning they should all drink together and once only. Paul has no
interval between filling of the cups and drinking it in mind.
“These
verses (of John 13) show us what glory the crucifixion brought both to God the
Father and to God the Son. It seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that
this was what our Lord had in mind … An
event is about to take place to–morrow, which, however painful … is in reality
most glorifying …”. JC Ryle
the ‘Apostolic Constitutions’. (Book 7 Chapter 23, “on the
fourth day (Wednesday) the condemnation went out against the Lord, Judas then
promising to betray him for money.”) (This reference came to my knowledge at
least a decade after having finished LD.) Using “lanterns”, indicates that “it
was night” Jn.13:30 still, when Judas returned to have Jesus arrested. It was
not any other night. Because this is the night of Jesus’ arrest, John must have
had the same meal in mind as the Synoptists who also record about the evening
of the night Jesus was arrested.
5.1.1.7.1.2.
Synoptists
Don’t Speak of Passover Meal
The meal of John 13:1 is taken for the
meal at Simon’s house “two days before Passover Feast” and a full day before the
Sacrifice would be slaughtered. Scholars try to explain that the “supper” of
John 13:1 could not have been the same meal mentioned by the Synoptists for no
reason but that they, assume, the Synoptists speak of the Passover Meal! The
Last Supper mentioned by the Synoptists occurred before the Passover sacrifice
was offered – which could not have been eaten yet. See Par. 5.1.1.6.3.5.3,
5.1.1.6.3.6.
5.1.1.7.1.2.1.
Not
Eaten Before Sacrificed on the fourth day (Wednesday) the condemnation went out
against the Lord. Judas then promising to betray him for money
Was the Passover Meal eaten on the night
of “The Last Supper”? Or was it another meal of Jewish Tradition? Scholars
disagree. Their doubt enveloping the question is noticeable in the
circumscription, “Last Supper” (“Last Night Meal” in Afrikaans). It is not a
description from Scripture for this occasion. Commentators use it to avoid the
issue of whether the “Last Supper” was the Passover Feast Meal.
Commentators have a problem with the date
of the Last Supper: While John places the Last Supper on the 14th of the month
(Nisan), on the “Preparation of Passover”, the Synoptists allegedly place it on
the 15th, translated: “the first day of the feast of unleavened bread”. They
find the same “contradiction” within Mark’s single reference (14:12) where, as
they explain it, “tei protei hemerai ton adzumon “on the first day of
unleavened bread”, naturally indicates the 15th Nisan, and, hote to pascha
ethuon, “when they killed the passover”, clearly indicates the 14th Nisan”.
Bacchiocchi (Emphasis CGE)
With “Passover” is meant: The Old
Testament sacrifice for Passover; the “Preparation of Passover”: Jn.19:14, or “day–for–removal–of–yeast”
– 14 Nisan. The Passover “Feast”–Day. The Passover Meal: Mk.14:12, Lk.22:7,
Mk.14:1, Lk.2:41, Jn.2:23 – 15 Nisan. The Passover of the “Sheaf of First
Fruits Wave Offering” – 16 Nisan (the first day of fifty to Pentecost). The
Seven Days of “Unleavened Bread” Feast: Lk.22:1. That means, with “Passover” is
meant any part of, or, the whole of “Passover”, and, any part of, or, the whole
of the “Feast of Unleavened Bread”. “Passover” encompasses what is meant when
it is said: “Observe the month of Abib and keep the Passover”, Dt.16:1.
Ryle could not have thought of these
distinctions when he said: “The Lamb of God was slain at this feast, in spite
of the priests, who said, Not on the feast day.” (Emphasis CGE)
Although not crucified on the “official”
Feast Day, Jesus was in fact crucified during or on the “official” “Passover
Season” or Passover period. He was crucified “on the day of Passover meant for
slaughter”, which was not the 15th but the 14th of the month Nisan, “the day of
removal of yeast”. This confirms Ryle’s remark: “Let us remember that one of the
few dates we know for certain of the events in our Lord’s life, is the time of
his crucifixion. Of the time of his birth and baptism we know nothing. But that
He died at Passover, we may be quite sure. Let us note that our Lord knew
perfectly beforehand when and how He should suffer. This, whatever we may
think, is a great addition to suffering. Our ignorance of things before us is a
great blessing. Our Lord saw the cross clearly before Him, and walked straight
up to it. His death was not a surprise to Him, but a voluntary, foreknowing
thing.” (Emphasis CGE. To understand the nature and purpose of the Last Supper,
these comments should be kept in mind.)
As Jesus had taken upon himself our flesh
and our human nature and had made it his own so He took upon himself our
earthly time and made it his own. (See Part Three of Part Three, Karl Barth.)
Jesus “foreknew” the Passover Season. He, determined its dates and He, brought
its “times” to “fulness”. The 14th Nisan: “Preparation of Passover” (John). Hote
to pascha ethuon, “when they killed the passover”, tehi prohtehi hehmerai tohn
adzumohn, “on the First Day of Removing of Leaven” (Mark, Luke and Matthew).
This “First First Day” / “The Very First Day” / “Already the First Day” (Old
Testament) is distinguished from the 15th Nisan or “The Passover / Passover
Feast / Passover Meal”, and the “Feast Meal / Feast Days of Unleavened Bread”.
This distinction is attributable to the primitive date of Passover that
prescribed removing of leaven and preparing of unleavened dough, and the
preparation for and the slaughter of the sacrifice – before sunset. The baking
of unleavened bread and its eating and the roasting and eating of the meat came
after sunset. All things both before and after sunset, institutionally, at
first happened on the fourteenth Nisan. The day used to be reckoned from
sunrise. This reckoning later changed to a sunset observance. Now the “Feast”,
or, “Eat”–ceremony fell on the evening of the fifteenth Nisan, that is, during
the beginning of the fifteenth of Nisan and no longer during about its middle.
(Thus any distinction between the reckoning of ceremonial sabbaths and the
weekly Sabbath, disappeared, the weekly Sabbath being reckoned from sunset to
sunset from creation.)
“Preparation”, “Feast (Meal / Day)”, as
well as the seven days of Unleavened Bread, are all considered “Passover”,
which explains Josephus’ statement that the Feast of Unleavened Bread was an
eight days feast. Antiquities of the Jews 2, 15, 7, in TRC p.75c The overall
concept of an eight day period must have underlain the explanation in
Deuteronomy 16:8: “Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh
day (that thou eatest unleavened bread) shall be a solemn assembly”. The day of
A–dzumos as such when leaven used to be searched out and removed (by hiding
it), in every household and throughout the entire land, is intentionally left
out of reckoning, which, if taken into account, would have made it an eight day
period. That is why Mark and Luke define the “First Day of Removing of Leaven”
as “the day on which the passover (lamb) had to be sacrificed”. With “First Day
of A–dzumos” they mean, “First Day of Passover”. They see the whole period as
one.
In Mark and Matthew, however, also a
contextual association exists between the ordinal, “First Day”, and the “Two
days (before Passover)”. Two days before Passover, the Jews conspired to kill
Jesus, only, “not on the Feast” Day itself! So this “First Day of De–leaven”
was the day after the Jews decided to kill Jesus; it was the second in time–sequence
of the two days before Passover. Mt.26 and Mk.14 Counting backwards, it will be
the first day before Passover Feast, that is, the first day of the entire
paschal period (of eight days), the day of “Preparation of Passover”.
5.1.1.7.1.2.2.
Washing
of Feet Before Meal?
The only reason Ryle mentions for his
categorical conclusion that the Last Supper is not mentioned by John, is that “It
seems highly improbable that the washing of the disciples’ feet would take
place after the Lord’s Supper.” Washing of feet normally came before meal.
But why associate washing of feet with
Passover? Washing of feet (like the use of unfermented wine) was introduced to
the Passover meal long after the Feast had been institutionalised during “Mosaic”
times. The washing of feet is no Old Testament institutional element of the
Passover Feast Meal.
And why consider washing of feet
improbable to come after the meal on the occasion of the Last Supper? Ryle
maintains his own opinion about the meaning of the washing of feet: “The
actions here described (Jesus’, washing the disciples’ feet) would not seem
nearly so strange to the disciples as they do to us. They were simply the
courteous actions of a host who desired to show the utmost degree of hospitable
attention to the guests. Thus Abraham washed the feet of the three angelic
messengers.”
The order of washing after the meal
during the Last Supper is out of the ordinary – which is in line with
everything else with regard to this occasion. From its inception in the mind of
the disciples to their finding the room furnished and the table laid, the Last
Supper was inexplicable. That the guest – Jesus – would wash the feet of the
host – the disciples, is extraordinary. (Jesus was not host as Ryle maintains.)
The meal was prepared for Jesus – not for the disciples. The owner of the room
also had everything ready for his Guest – Jesus. That the “actions” should be
so “minutely” recorded (Ryle’s observation) of a “simply” familiar and no “strange”
action, implies more than just courtesy. “The minuteness with which every
action of our Lord is related here is very striking. No less than seven
distinct things are named, – rising, laying aside garments, taking a towel,
girding Himself, pouring water into a bason, washing and wiping. This very
particularity stamps the whole transaction with reality, and is the natural
language of an astonished and admiring eye–witness.”
That Jesus elaborated on the deeper
meaning of what he did, makes the washing of feet a most peculiar element of
the Last Supper. Despite it being served after meal, the washing of feet should
not be seen as something that could impossibly have occurred at the Last
Supper, and that John and the Synoptists who do not mention the washing of feet
must speak of different meals.
5.1.1.7.1.3.
Purpose
of Last Supper
The purpose of the Last Supper of Jesus
and his disciples, was to prepare: “to be able to”, “to be allowed”, to eat the
Passover: “That they might eat the Passover”:
Mt.26:17:
“That we prepare for thee to eat the passover”, hetoimasohmen soi faghein to
pascha. Mk.14:12: “We may prepare that thou mayest eat”, hetoimasohmen hina
fagheis. Lk.22:9: “That we may prepare”, hetoimasohmen; “that we may eat”, hina
faghohmen. Mt.26:18: “I prepare for Passover”, poioh to pascha. Mk.14:14,
Lk.22:11: “Where I may eat the Passover”, hopou to pascha faghoh. Mk.14:15: “Make
ready for us”, hetoimasate hehmin. Lk.22:8, 12: “Prepare us the Passover”,
hetoimasate hehmin to pascha. “There prepare ye”, ekei hetoimasate. Mk.14:16,
Mt.26:19, Lk.22:13: “They prepared the Passover”, hetoimasan to pascha = “They
prepared for Passover”. This was an event of the “Preparation of Passover” –
John.
Reference to the Passover is not made in
the indicative as if the sacrifice had actually been eaten, but in the
subjunctive: that the Passover might be eaten, or, with the infinitive: with
the resolve to eat the Passover. To “prepare” fulfils the purpose of intention.
Not the Passover as such will be on the “table made ready”, but this table will
make ready “for Passover”. Jesus and his disciples had their Passover
Preparation Meal. It wasn’t any Jewish traditional meal, but that of the Christ
and his disciples. As it at first prepared for the Sacrifice of Passover it
forever afterwards will be the Lord’s Supper to also prepare his Church in
faith and perseverance to the end.
The accusative, to pascha is used
adverbially and with the meaning “for Passover”. Greek uses the accusative,
where, for instance, English, would have used a dative, and it has the verb
transitive while the sense is intransitive: “Prepare the Passover” = “Prepare
for Passover”. The accusative in this case points to the eventual purpose of
the action – to prepare in order to be able to eat Passover / to prepare toward
Passover. In Jesus’ case in order to be able to be Passover.
The disciples seemingly initiate the idea
to prepare Passover for Jesus. But
Jesus does not actually eat the Passover,
nor does He eat of whatever ceremonial meal. “I have greatly desired to eat
this Passover with you before I suffer, but I tell you, I will by no means eat
thereof, until it be fulfilled in the
In Mk.14:18, The phrase, “One of you
which eateth with me”, has no connection with the meal at issue. If applicable
to the situation as it was, the plural would have been used: One of you all who
eat with me. But the singular occurs: “One of you (all) will betray me, the one
who eats, with me.” The expression is used figuratively for: “One in whom I
confide” / “The one I trusted”.
Luke has a variant: “The hand of him that
betrayeth me is on the table with me”. 22:21 The betrayer and Christ walked and
ate together. The betrayer was trusted – he was even trusted with the purse.
Similarly the phrase “One that with me
dips in the (one) bowl”, is not meant literally but figuratively. If used
literally, all of the twelve would have been insinuated to be traitors.
But
being said metaphorically, it means, “The one in your midst who respects me not”.
And there was only the one who did not care for Jesus – in a manner of
speaking, he would “poke his hand in the dish” even while Jesus’ hand went in.
Jesus used figurative speech not only
where he refers to the bread and wine as his flesh and blood, but in these
indications of the inmost thoughts of his betrayer.
Jesus knows of Judas’ secret disdain,
Jn.13:11 but reacts to it in a most unselfish way: He takes a morsel and offers
it to Judas. Jn.13:26 He still pleads with him without using words. Jesus
didn’t split on Judas. Judas’ question – that of every one else – : “Is it I
perhaps?” Mk.14:19 is answered by Jesus with: “You said (it – not I)!”
Mt.26:25 Even after Judas left, the
disciples did not know who the traitor would be. They thought Judas was going
to “buy something before the Feast”. Jn.13:29
They fostered no ill feelings toward Judas, thinking he was going to buy
the poor something! If the expressions referred to above were to be interpreted
literally the disciples would have interpreted them literally and would have
known about Judas. But they did not know, and therefore the expressions had
figurative meaning that kept the disciples wondering. Consequently it cannot be
adduced from these expressions that Jesus did eat of the meal, and that it was
the Passover Meal which He sent the disciples to prepare for Him to eat.
According to Jn.13:26, John asked Jesus
who would betray him, and”They found a room as He had instructed them and
performed all preliminaries. All was in readiness …”. “Here, on the eve of His
death, (Jesus) showed them the full meaning and symbolism of the Passover
memorial.”
Had it been Passover’s “meaning and
symbolism” Jesus were to show his disciples, He would have taken meat and
unleavened bread; not leavened bread and wine. Passover’s “full meaning and
symbolism” Jesus showed on the cross, not in the upper room. He would show the
meaning of the symbolism of the Passover “memorial” by fulfilling it in his own
body on the cross. With the Last Supper, Jesus showed his disciples the meaning
of His death, with the New Symbols of the Christian sacrament. The redemption
wrought in Christ was given the new “memorial” of the Last Supper: “Do this in
remembrance of Me”.
Where Jesus says: “That I may eat the
Passover”, his intention is prophetic. He prospectively offers the sacrifice
and empties the cup of suffering in his own body. That Jesus would be the
Passover Sacrifice for which the disciples went to prepare, explains the
greater meaning the “eating” of this Passover would have had.
5.1.1.7.2.
Similarities
or Differences?
5.1.1.7.2.1.
Abstract
Assimilation
“The Passover Haggadah mentions four
traditional questions: Why is this night different from all other nights? On
all other nights we can eat bread or matzo (unleavened bread). Why, tonight,
only matzo?; On all other nights, we can eat any kind of herbs. Why, tonight,
bitter herbs?; On all other nights we don’t dip herbs we eat into anything,
Why, tonight, do we dip twice?; On all other nights we can eat either sitting
up straight or reclining. Why, tonight, do we all recline?” From Christ in the
Passover, C & M Rosen, Moody Press,
p.77 (Emphasis CGE)
The Rosens cite various Gospel passages
under different headings of “The Ancient Seder” “of the Passover service”.
Lk.22:17–18 is sorted under the heading of “The Kiddush”; Jn.13:4–5 under the
heading of “The First Washing of Hands”; Jn.13:26–27 under the heading of “Broken
Pieces of Bread Dipped in Bitter Herbs and Charoseth and Handed to All” (“The
Paschal meal eaten; hands washed a third time; third cup poured”); 1 Cor.11:23–24
is sorted under the heading of “Blessing After Meals”; 1 Cor.11:25 under the
heading of “Blessing Over Third Cup” (“Third cup taken; second part of Hallel
recited; fourth cup poured and taken.”); Mt.26:30 is sorted under the heading
of “Closing Song”.
This arrangement is artificial and
incoherent, and meaninglessly fragments the narration of the Last Supper. The
assortment and combination of the various elements from the Seder and the
Supper rather underscore their un–relatedness. According to these distinctive
practices of the Jewish Passover Seder, no particularity of the Last Supper
qualifies it as the Passover Meal.
Nothing “necessitates the conclusion
that the Markan tradition was mistaken in supposing that the Supper was the
Passover Meal”. “In 15:1 f., 12–16, it should be noted, it is clear that Mark
means the Passover Meal” … by no means! V.
5.1.1.7.2.2.
The
Meal and Food
The meal is described in John and Paul
with the term for a normal, ordinary meal: deipnon – not “Passover” or “Feast”.
Here is the meal that eventually was eaten by the disciples, intended to “prepare
for Passover” – not the Passover itself. This meal equipped and enabled Jesus
to take what was in store for him on the day the Passover was killed. This
supplied the reason for Paul to describe the Last Supper with its true designation:
“Lord’s Supper”.
No indication exists that meat, the
flesh of the Passover sacrifice – which was central to the Passover Meal –
formed part of the Last Supper. In the Synoptics and 1Cor.10:17 the “bread”
used with the Lord’s Supper was ordinary, daily, leavened bread: artos.
Mk.14:22 It was not adzumos, unleavened, that is, Passover bread. In John no
hint is given that the “morsel”, psohmion, Jn.13:27 of the “sop”, also psohmion
– “food” – was unleavened bread; Definitely it was not dipped twice as with
Passover meal – or, for that matter, “dipped” at all. The “sop” was the “supper”,
just bread, served in a bowl, and that bowl is indicated with the word “sop”,
or, simply, the “food”. The meaning of Jesus, “dipping” into the “sop”, means
no more than that He “took”, “bread”. Jesus handed the disciples of what the
supper in the bowl consisted of, and that only, was in the bowl into which he
stretched out his hand and took of.
“It was during the ceremony of dipping
the second sop into the bitter herbs …”. There is not even a suggestion of a
sauce into which bread was dipped. Nothing indicates or implies the presence of
bitter herbs, or other herbs, on this table. The traditional impression of the
prominence of these substances in the Last Supper is ascribable to paraphrasing
translations of the uncomplicated word psohmion. The Supper of the Lord of
Christianity is extremely simple, and the pomp of the Jewish Passover Seder is
completely foreign to it.
5.1.1.7.2.3.
Reclined
“Jesus reclined with the twelve …”. It
is stated that Jesus and his disciples “sat” down – not, “reclined”. Mk.14:18
Lk.22:27 Where it is said that John “leant”, the meaning is that he leant over
against Jesus. (“The Greek words here would be more literally rendered, “He having
fallen upon”. It is so translated in eleven out of the twelve other places
where it occurs in the New Testament. The idea is evidently of one moving and
leaning towards another, so as to get closer to him …”. Ryle) The passage does
not say that John reclined on a bench or on the floor at a table of his own –
which would have been the case had he reclining. The action was that of sitting
down, and not of reclining or lying down on one’s side. Compare anakeimai: “Sitting
down” at ordinary meals; Mt.9:10, Jn.6:11 John would not “incline” upon Jesus;
Jn.13:23 Sitting “at table” Lk.22:21
Jn.13:28 like Western custom implies, at one, and a higher, style of furniture;
The preposition ana means “(sitting) up(wards)”, in such a position that feet
could be washed hanging down over a bowl; anakeimai is an equivalent of
anaklinoh – compare Mt.8:11, 14:19, Lk.7:36, 13:29, but anaklinoh is the word
more likely to be translated “to lie down”. “To incline” is derived from
anaklinoh, and not from anakeimai. Anaklinoh is notably not used in the Last
Supper passages. Anakeimai constitutes two words, ana and keimai, “to be
situated, placed – besides other meanings. Its meaning of “lying down” is not
exclusive or as strong as in the case of anaklinoh.
The fact that John is mentioned as
having “leant over” or “reclined” implies that only he so behaved and that the
other were sitting upright at the table, not leant over or reclined.
5.1.1.7.2.4.
The
Table
The custom of reclining required an own
table for each person or small group. Assuming the Last Supper was Passover
Meal it is argued that different tables were used and not one for all only as
implied and stated by the Gospels. Lk.22:21 Jn.13:28 The argument should reach
the opposite conclusion if the Gospels are accepted as first in authenticity
and authority, and should state that because the Gospels indicate only one
table, there could be no possibility of reclining at the Last Supper; it could
not have been the Passover meal – or Jewish Seder of the Passover Meal, or an Essener
ritual. Pixner (The Leonardo da Vici portrait of the Last Supper is truer to
reality than is often accepted. Da Vinci with his passion for physics must have
given closer attention to the precise language of the Gospels.)
5.1.1.7.2.5.
Wine
“The Gospel accounts of the Last Supper
mention only two of the four seder cups – the first and the third …”. The
Rosens’ mention of the supposed use of wine four times – of which two are
allegedly mentioned in the Gospels – is meant to indicate that the Last Supper
was indeed the Passover Meal. But wine was used with virtually every meal and
was no peculiarity of the Passover meal. Its use is of no significance as
indication that it was the celebration of the Passover the night before the day
of Jesus’ crucifixion. At the Last Supper, Jesus introduces the wine as the
symbol of his own blood to the exclusion and annulment of blood and sacrifice.
No sacrifice could longer represent the blood of the Lamb of God. Wine instead
receives a meaning it never had before, nor will have, except when used in the
Lord’s Supper.
There is a total absence of the mention
of wine in the Mosaic institution of Passover. Wine was only much later added
to the ritual of Passover, and then not wine in the ordinary sense of fermented
wine, called “produce of the vine” on the occasion of the Last Supper and
throughout Scripture, but as unfermented grape juice – like unleavened bread
for Passover. Grape juice with Passover is Jewish kosher, not Christian or
Biblical.
5.1.1.7.2.6.
Sequence
and Number
Mark 14:18 and Matthew 26:21 state that
Jesus handed “the (one) cup” to the disciples after the Meal had started, while
the kiddush over the first cup of wine, introduced the Passover Meal. No
suggestion, in any case, exists in any of the Gospel records of the Supper of
the Lord, to conclude that the cup was filled more than once. The supposition
of more than one time’s use of wine at the Last Supper is untenable. The
significance the wine receives from the death of Christ once for all means that
it should be taken only once. According
to Luke 22:17 Jesus first handed the flask over to the disciples for them to
divide it among themselves. He meanwhile continued with breaking the bread, and
after eating of the bread, returned to the wine. Mark and Matthew don’t mention
the distribution of the wine, but refer to the drinking of it, once only, after
the bread.
An interval between the filling and the
drinking as with the Jewish Passover Seder is also not to be found in the Last
Supper. Paul says that the participants in the Lord’s Supper should wait on
each other, meaning they should all drink together and once only. Paul has no
interval between filling of the cups and drinking it in mind.
5.1.1.7.2.7.
Closing
Song or Hymn
“And when they had sung an hymn, they
went into the mount of Olives.” Mt.26:30 Hymns were sung at almost every
ceremony during the whole paschal period – as with any other religious holy
day. See Nehemiah 12. Singing proves not that the Last Supper was the Passover
Meal. When
5.1.1.7.2.8.
The
Washing of Feet
“The first hand washing by the host set
him apart from the company.” No mention is made of any washing of hands before
the Lord’s Supper. On the contrary, one might expect the minimum of such
paraphernalia with Jesus’ institution when thinking of his rebuke of the
Pharisees over “washings” of pots and pans and hands. Mk.4:7,8; 7:3,4 Also
Paul’s plea that believers should first do whatever necessary at home before
coming to the Lord’s Table suggests that they should wash their hands at home
and not at the Table.
“In washing the disciples’ feet, Jesus
used this part of the regular ritual to teach His lesson of humility and love …”.
This washing of feet had nothing “regular” about it. It was not regular in
order of custom – before meals generally, but here afterwards. It was not
regular in order of status, because Jesus was not host, but guest. The guest
never washed the feet of the host. But Jesus while being guest of honour, did.
And Jesus thereby not only taught the hosts, but prepared himself for that “humiliation
to the end” which he would undergo on the impending day.
Washing of feet formed no part of the
Mosaic institution of Passover Feast. The washing of feet in the event of the
Lord’s Supper, separates it irrevocably from the Passover Meal.
The Passover came before the journey,
out. Washing of feet came at the end of the journey – when Jesus would complete
it and arrive in the Kingdom. (
5.1.1.7.2.9.
Time
and Date
On the Day of Feast everybody had to
have found accommodation and had to have settled in order to partake of the
Passover Meal. That Jesus and his disciples came from
When the disciples went to “prepare”,
they found everything in the room ready. They could “sit down”, “within an hour”.
Lk.22:7,12,13 It was “evening”. Mk.14:17
Mt.26:20 This was an earlier time than the customary for the Passover Meal just
before midnight. The time the Last Supper was eaten makes it impossible to have
been the Passover Feast Meal. Not only can no indication be found that the
offer was already sacrificed, but the Jews the morning after the Last Supper
would not enter Pilate’s house because they still had to eat Passover. When
Jesus and the disciples sat down the evening for this meal, it was only the
start of the day on which the Passover had to be slain. Only after sunset the
following day would the paschal offer be served.
Judas, while it was night, after the
Supper went out to betray Jesus. He needed time. Jesus was arrested and brought
before Annas and Caiaphas before he was brought before Pilate and Herod and
again Pilate, before at daybreak he was “delivered” to be crucified. All this
implies that Judas left from Supper at early night, in order to have had enough
time. Taking all into account, it indisputably indicates that the Last Supper
was not the supper of the Passover Feast. And that implies just as indisputably
that the day of Christ’s crucifixion – which began with the evening of the Last
Supper – had to be the day “before Passover”, Jn.13:1 – “The Preparation of
Passover”. Jn.19:14
The Last Supper, was not the Old
Testament Passover. It is a New Testament institution, novel and uniquely
Christian. Arguments against such an origin and character of the Lord’s Supper
are arbitrary and forced. Jesus introduced every element of the Last Supper. In
no other way but a purely original way, could the Last Supper, be “The Lord’s
Supper” – kuriakos deipnon, 1Cor.11:20, the Christian “mystery” or “sacrament”,
which is neither the last ordinary meal of Jewish tradition, nor the first of
unleavened bread, of the Passover Feast.
None of the Rosens’ proposed comparisons
between Passover and the Last Supper are tenable. They sterilely reflect the
traditional comparisons and are Judaistical orientated. They lack a purely
evangelical approach to the problem of the time and nature of the Lord’s Supper
at its institution the day before Passover Feast when Jesus He being the
Passover Lamb was crucified on the Preparation of the Passover.
5.1.1.7.2.10.
More
than One Meal
“…He took that bread after He first gave
thanks at the end of the meal; then He broke it and gave it to them … Jesus
here instituted the new memorial …” p.58c
We could not trace such a sequence of actions in any of the Gospels.
What we could find, was the clause “as they sat and did eat” in Mk.14:18 – when
Jesus spoke to his disciples about his betrayal – and, after this, verse 22, “took
bread, and blessed, and gave to them and said, Take, eat, this is my body …”.
Herein lies not even a suggestion that Jesus instituted the Christian Sacrament
of the Lord’s Supper on occasion of some ceremonial meal (allegedly the
Haggigah, “a holy day peace offering”. the Rosens, p.54 The Bedikat Chametz – the day for search of
leaven in order to put it away – had started sunset. That does not prove that
the upper room Supper was Passover Feast Meal or Haggigah.
The phrase, “as they ate”, esthiontohn,
in Mark and Matthew, however, being a participle, present tense, means “at meal”,
“with supper”, “while at table”. It is the way they used to speak – an “idiomatic
expression”. It does not mean that a first meal was finished before the Last
Supper began. Such an inference, if applicable, is applicable consistently –
which will result in three meals on this night: the one supposedly implied in
Mk.14:18: “And as they sat and did eat …”; and another (consistently) implied, “as
they did eat”, in verse 22. Then, according to the Rosens, “He first gave
thanks at the end of the meal” – before “He took the bread” and “then broke and
gave it…” – which would be the Last Supper and third meal!
The Rosens’ conclusion that, “Looking to
the time when
5.1.1.7.2.11.
Christ
the Passover Lamb
The most important reason why the Last
Supper could not have been the Meal of Passover Feast, is that Jesus on this
Passover would Himself be the Lamb. If, supposedly, Jesus wanted to have
Passover Meal with his disciples, but still were to be sacrificed (at the right
time for the Passover lamb to be slain), He had to have had Passover Meal
before the time the lamb could be killed. The Passover sacrifice could not be
eaten before it was even slaughtered. Jesus also could not have eaten Passover
after the sacrifice was offered – for He was to replace it on this occasion, at
the appointed time, which would be the time of his death the next day.
The Christian Supper of the Lord is “celebration”,
“memorial”, not of Passover, but of “the death of death in the death of Christ”
(John Owen). Through the providence of God, the Lord’s Supper was instituted
before that which it was to be a memorial of had actually happened. (Even the
Passover had been commanded – “instituted” – before it had actually happened.)
The Lord’s Supper commemorates Jesus’ death on the cross, and He instituted it
before He was crucified.
The Passover of which Christ was to be
the Lamb, by the foreordination of God happened according to the times and
dates set for Passover in Scripture. Jesus would die at the appointed time. The
meal of this night could not have been the meal of the Passover Feast that was
only eaten after the Passover lamb had been slain.
J.C. Ryle remarks: “One thing at any rate
is very plain and noteworthy. The chief priests and their party made much ado
about eating the passover lamb and keeping the feast, at the very time they
were about to slay the true Lamb of God of whom this passover was a type!”
(Emphasis CGE)
5.1.1.8.1.
Day of De–Leaven – Before Passover On Passover
Professor Bacchiocchi, in his End–Time
Issue No. 73, claims, “… were the Gospels’ writers alive today, I have reason
to believe that they would appreciate help in correcting some of their
inaccuracies. Incidentally, some of the inaccuracies are very glaring. For
example, the Synoptic Gospels place Christ’s crucifixion on the day after
Passover (Nisan 15), while John on the actual Passover day (Nisan 14). It would
be nice if we could ask them to reconcile their differences and give us the
exact date of the Crucifixion.”
Bacchiocchi says John places Christ’s
crucifixion “on the actual Passover day” (that is, on the actual Feast Day),
which is plainly untrue, because John says “it was the Preparation of Passover”.
This day, says Bacchiocchi, “the Synoptic Gospels place on the day after
Passover” – while they say it was the very day “the passover should be
slaughtered”!
The “Meal” at “The Last Supper” then, was
not the Passover Sacrifice “Eaten” – i.e., it was not “Passover Feast”. This
supper was for preparation for Passover’s Sacrifice – the Death of Jesus the
Lamb of God. Herein the Providence of God was at work. It can be seen in the
use of the phrase: “The disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they
made ready for Passover”, Mt.26:19. Christ’s “appointment” was more than a mere
command. His all mighty dispensation overruled the actions of the disciples who
first seemingly took the initiative by approaching Him and asking if they would
prepare, verse 17. The Greek for “appoint” is sunektacsen (suntassoh): “They
gave the thirty pieces of silver for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed
me”, Mt.27:9–10. “As many as were ordained (tassoh) to eternal life believed”;
Acts13:48 “There is no power but of God: The powers that be are ordained of God”,
Ro.13:1.
Sun plus bainoh in, “These things
happened unto them for ensamples”, means, “these things were destined to happen
to them”; 1 Cor.10:11. “To the servants of corruption … it happened according
to the proverb”, that is, “It is determined that it should happen to them”.
2.Pt.2:19, 22 (God in Christ destines, not blind fate.)
Objective reading of John 19:14 in its
context, cannot help the perception of Godly foreordination in every aspect of
Jesus’ preparation, anguish, betrayal, deliverance and crucifixion in perfect
fulfilment of Passover, whether or not some detail to us may seem not
important. Faith finds evidence in this of Christ’s deity and genuine humanity,
though for the unbeliever it may mean nothing. Had God’s overruling not been
present in these events, the symbolic significance of Passover would have been
lost.
Jesus then had himself prepared for
taking the place of the Passover lamb and to be slaughtered in its stead. The
meaning of the description of the day and time on which Christ would experience
the fulfilment of Passover can but literally indicate “the Preparation of
Passover”. Jesus attended and served his own Preparation Meal to be given over
to be killed for the sins of his elect – its significance ever since.
Day starts with evening. The night of
Last Supper and the day of Crucifixion, in that sequence, are the same day.
This day is described as being, “before passover”; Jn.13:1 “not on the Feast
(day)”. Mt.26:5 Jesus’ “time”, which was “near” – not present yet. Mt.26:18 “before
I suffer”; Lk.22:15 “before it happens”; Jn.13:19 “against / for Passover”.
Jn.13:29 “The day of un–leaven on which the Passover had to be slain”; Lk.22:7 “The
first day of de–leaven when the Passover was always slaughtered”. Mk.14:12 No
other day in all of Scripture has ever been so definitely described. Surely one
may assume that the intention was to make it easy for the reader to distinguish
this day from any other. And the reason for such a distinction was to be able
to see how
Jesus
would fulfil the meaning of Passover “in his own body” through death, and,
through resurrection. (Not in eating the Passover Feast meal in any other way.)
5.1.1.8.1.2.
“Not
On the Feast”
The Jews conspired to kill Jesus, only “not
on the Feast (Day of Eating the Passover)”. They had good reason for excluding
the 15th Nisan for their purpose. But, like when they decided to let one man
die instead of many, Jn.11:50 their wisdom was vain, for they only acted in
fulfilment of Scripture. The Gospels would not have mentioned this limit to the
Jews’ time, were it not eventually to have come true because it was divinely
ordained to come true. The reason the Jews gave for not wanting to kill Jesus “on
the feast”, “lest there be an uproar of the people”, Mk.14:2, is said to be a
peculiarity of the Western Text, added by a redactor copyist to elude the
supposed problem of date in this passage when compared with verse 12. No
necessity remains for such an explanation when the two clauses in verse 12 are
seen as complementary. The second phrase defines the first: “The first day of
de–leaven (a–dzumos), when they killed the passover”.
The phrase “Not on the Feast” doesn’t
mean after the Feast, because then everybody would have left – and logically
Jesus as well. The Jews’ conspiring was in order to get some plan as to how to
kill Him before the feast because his presence at the Feast is what they wanted
to prevent. The whole idea of mentioning, that “after two days was the Feast”,
was to show that the Jews had but little time to act before the Feast Day.
The expression en tehi heortehi – “on the
feast” is explained as meaning “not among the feasting throng”, for the obvious
reason that these interpreters assume that Jesus was in fact crucified on the
Feast as such, 15th Nisan. On the Day of feast or not, a crowd assembled soon
enough, and Jesus was crucified amongst the feasting regardless.
??
??
??
??
1