Thursday, November 06, 2014

The Ministry of Presence

The Ministry of Presence

Presented by J. R. Peyton, D. Min.

The following story is a true story.  Changes have been made to protect the characters, but the story essentially remains unchanged.  It is offered here at the outset of this paper to provide a real example of the ministry of presence in progress.  It was originally written (with some variations) the day of its occurrence during my CPE (Clinical Pastoral Education) training in 2008.
Like many, such encounters are neither planned nor predictable, but rather come as a surprise and provide fodder for reflection and intrinsic rewards for a long time. I met Lewis one cold, wintery Saturday morning when the nurse informed me that she had a man who had been given a poor diagnosis of cancer, and he was not dealing with it very well.  She wanted to know, since I was there visiting another patient, if I could stop in and visit him.  I agreed, and because of the nature of the timing and the quick visit (as you will see), I knew no more about the background of the patient as person and patient than what I have articulated here.
            The following is the scenario as I experienced it:  When I arrive at the client’s room, Lewis is sitting up with his legs crossed on a flat hospital bed, and the hospital table is across the bed in front of him.  On the table are an open briefcase, a cell phone, and miscellaneous papers.  Beside Lewis on the bed are several, obviously already read, local and national newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal.  Lewis looks young for 52 and relatively healthy and alert.  On the end of his nose is perched a pair of reading glasses.  He is wearing designer-type sweats that look out of place in the ICU, his hair is well-groomed, he is clean-shaven, and looks like he is waiting to play the part of a businessman in a movie.  As a matter of fact, Lewis, in general, looks out of place in the ICU and makes me wonder what he is doing there.  Lewis looks like he should be at the gym instead of the ICU.
Lewis looks up as I enter, “Hello, Lewis, my name is Joey, and I am the chaplain this weekend here at…”
“[Profanity], Get the h… out of here!” much to my surprise he again said loudly, “GET OUT!”
This is not what I expected, and the nurse must have had her wires crossed.  As I began backing out, “I’m sorry!  The nurse thought you might like a visit!”
“JUST GET OUT!” he repeats now, hollering and including a few non-repeatable adjectives.
“Goodbye, and have a nice day!”  I walk out the door as I refuse to indulge his narcissistic need to rile me.
When I am about 10 feet from the door and moving fast, another holler is heard from the room, “CHAPLAIN, GET BACK IN HERE!”
As my brain and feet have a tug-of-war about what we are going to do, I turn around and return to the door and just stick my head in.  There is no sense in going in too far just to get thrown out again, “Yes!” I replied rather timidly.
Not as loudly, “Get back in here!”
My timidity is showing when I take one step inside the door, “You told me to get out!”
Now talking in an almost normal voice, but as one who is used to giving orders, “I know, but I want to ask you a question!”
As I walk over to the bed, I am thinking fast and trying to get back in control of the situation, “May I take a seat?”
Lewis seems surprised by my remaining ability to ask if I can be seated, but points to the chair by the bed and says, “Help yourself.”
Sitting down slowly and crossing my legs and leaning back in what I call my counselor position, calmly asking,  “So what would you like to ask me?”
With an exasperated expression, like one would sometimes address a foolish child, Lewis asks, “Just what did you think you were going to do when you came in here?  Just march in here, mumble some holy prayer, and everything would change for the better?”
With a chuckle, “Maybe!  Certainly wouldn’t hurt to try prayer, but probably not what I would have done first.”  I will choose my battle, and this is not the one I want to fight, especially since I am convinced that this is not the basis of his anger; besides, there is some truth and humor in his question/postulation.
He fails to see the humor, “It’s a good thing you chaplains are not paid!  It would be a waste of money!
“I’m sure some would agree with you!”  Again, to fight this battle here would not solve anything or benefit Lewis at all, and I am sure it would be a lost cause.  It would not help my cause here to let him know that I am paid, and paid rather well, considering.
Continuing his questioning above, “Seriously, what would you have liked to accomplish here when you were going to visit me?”  Aha, now we are getting to the question behind the question. His professional curiosity will kill the proverbial cat.
With a little smile on my face, “Oh, I already accomplished what I set out to do!”  I say this before I really have time to think about what I am saying.  I sense a power greater than myself; God’s Holy Spirit is present and filling my mouth in my hour of need.
Surprise is obvious on his face, “Oh, and what is that?”  I too am trying to mask the surprise on my face and figure out what to say next.
“Are you sure you want me to explain this to you?  It might be better if we just let it work on you slowly!”  God’s Spirit has not left me, and by now I think I know where He is leading this conversation.  While this is apropos to what I had been studying, this is the first time it has been quickened to my mind while speaking to a patient. 
The proverbial hook is set in Lewis’ psyche, and he is not about to let me go, “No, I want to know what you think you accomplished in those few seconds!”
“Ok, we will start with the most obvious.  First, you are no longer sitting here alone fretting over your diagnosis.  You have me (foolish, time and money-wasting as I am) to think about and talk to.”  I say this light- heartedly with a chuckle (A spoon full of sugar...).
He too chuckles, “I guess you got me there!  You might be good for something!  What else do you think you accomplished?”
Taking my time, I postulate a second reason, knowing that I am hitting closer to home with each reason, “Another obvious thing is that I am indirectly relieving some of your stress by giving you a place to vent some of your frustration!”
To my surprise, Lewis quickly agrees.  This time he is more serious, “Yeah, you’re right again!  I felt like my head was going to explode when you came in, and now I am feeling that less.  What else?”  While before his bitterness and anger made him blind to help, when offered, he now seems almost eager to know what I am going to say next.
“Well, the other is not as easy to see, but I will try to explain.  First, your records say that you are Christian.  Is that correct?”  It is now time to use what I have learned during my recent studies and hope that I am on target.
He nods, “Yes, I have been a member of [some name like Crestfield Community Church] all my life.  I usually go every week.”
Here goes my best, “You see, Lewis, there is a thing we chaplains call ‘presence’.  As ministers of Christ, we don’t represent the hospital or ourselves, even though what we do reflects on both.  No, we represent Christ!  Even though you did not want me to visit earlier, just the fact that you realized I was a chaplain triggered memories in your mind.  The fact that you go to church weekly tells me there has been lots of meaning attached to church and the things of God throughout your life.  I don’t know what those things are exactly, but let me speculate for a moment.  For some, the chaplain’s presence might trigger the memory of a godly mother who bandaged their skinned knees and said prayers, that reminds you today that God is here, and He does care about your diagnosis.  For others, they memorized the 23rd Psalm, and the chaplain’s presence reminds them that God is their Shepherd and that even though you now walk through the valley of the shadow of death, you don’t have to fear such evil for God is with you…”
By this time a tear rolls down his cheek as Lewis interrupts, “Stop!  Stop!  You win!  I can’t take any more.  Please go now!  You’re right.  Forgive me for earlier.  Just go!”  He wipes his tear away with a tissue.
With a little smile, “Ok, I will go.  I just wanted to answer your question.  Don’t worry about earlier.  Considering what you’re going through, it’s understandable.  Would you like me to say one of those holy prayers before I leave?”
Much subdued, “Yeah, like you said, it couldn’t hurt!”
“Dear Lord, you see the fear and the pain…” I begin a short prayer and then quietly leave the room.  My work is done, but the Master’s has only just begun.
A huge blow hit Lewis, when the doctors told him that he had cancer and was facing the possibility of an early death, which left his faith reeling.  His misguided anger at me as the chaplain actually gave God the loophole through which to minister and provide salve for his fear and pain.  It is always amazing to see God’s Spirit at work in people’s lives and how He uses me to be an instrument of His Spirit, even though I often have no forewarning of the situation.

A Ministry of Presence

            In the following space and time this writer/presenter will provide a brief review of how the subject of presence is viewed, approached, and defined by both scientific and theological worldviews.  Secondly, we will see how this benefits and hinders Apostolics[1] with an Apostolic hermeneutic[2] as their theological worldview.  Finally, how does/can an Apostolic worldview change, improve, and benefit the definition and understanding of the ministry of presence?
            To avoid and/or not include a discussion of presence from the perspective of the psychosocial field would not only limit one’s understanding of the ministry of presence, but also not fully appreciate the breadth and complexity of the issue.  Simply put, the effect of presence, from a purely psychosocial perspective, is the effect that a police or military uniform has upon a crowd of people in an open market; the effect that the entrance of the known president of a super power has when he walks upon the stage; or the expectation placed upon a doctor by the family of a very sick/injured patient when she enters a cubical in an emergency room.
Looking specifically or literally, as the psychosocial perspective tends to do, the “…etymology of the word ‘present’ expresses very well the deep meaning here.  ‘Pre’ means ‘in front of,’ or ‘in the presence of’; and ‘ens’ from ‘esse’ means ‘to be,’ ‘to be by,’ or ‘to be in front of someone or something.’ …Presence, therefore, implies spatial nearness, …a spatial nearness which can have a very pregnant meaning.”[3]  Such presence becomes “pregnant” when wielded like a sword in the hands of people of position and authority.  For example, when former President Clinton felt the “pain” of the underprivileged masses, he came alongside them and won the hearts of the common people.
            Further, the definition of a ‘Ministry of Presence,’ found in the Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counseling, reflects the etymology of the words ‘minister’ (servant) and ‘presence’ (see above): “Ministry of Presence – A form of servanthood characterized by suffering, alongside of and with the hurt and oppressed.  Ministry of presence in the pastoral office means vulnerability to and participation in the life-world of those served.”[4]
Such a ‘coming alongside of’ by the ‘servants of society’ is beneficial and necessary to the role of many professions and to society at large.  The respect (for the most part) given to a police officer as he walks up to a car on a dark moonless night provides the very fiber, security, and stability for our society.  This same effect and/or benefit cannot be dismissed or denied by the chaplain.  Respect for the clergy by the majority of society has been part of our societal norms for thousands of years and benefited those who have ministered throughout the ages and continues to benefit chaplains today. 
Unfortunately, some writers/theologians attempt to limit the definition to a non-spiritual understanding of the ministry of presence.  Biocca tries to make this case by stating (limiting) that a ministry of presence must be quantifiable, reproducible, and tangible.  He therefore concludes that any “…philosophy of presence might be most fruitfully approached via the philosophy of mind.”  By doing so, researchers would build on “…rich, solid ground and avoid building on quicksand.”[5]  As we will see, this is an untenable position for Apostolics.
Attempts to solidify a manageable definition of the ministry of presence that would appease psychosocial researchers have led theologians like the Whiteheads (foremost researchers in reflective pastoral education) to practically define presence as a set of skills such as attending, assertion, and decision.[6]  Taylor (who writes on pastoral skill building) further buys such a limitation and modifies the Whiteheads’ position slightly, “The presence skills are attending, responding, and assessing.”[7]  It is again the position of this writer that both the Whiteheads and Taylor postulations are valuable and useable for the Apostolic chaplain, but like the psychosocial postulation, any effort to limit the ministry of presence to such definitions is both untenable for Apostolics and a disservice and/or limiting to the working of God’s Spirit.
Another important position to consider is that of the Lutheran theologians, “Presence does not precede communication, but presence itself is brought into existence through the communication.”[8]  By communication, Schoonenburg is referring to the priority given by Lutherans to the communicating of the written Word, symbolized to many by Luther’s cry “Sola Scriptor”.  The Lutheran dedication to the written Word of God, while admirable (and should be emulated by Apostolics), prevents an independent working of the Spirit.  For Apostolics this independence is not in the sense that it has nothing to do with the written Word of God, but that the Spirit can work prior to one’s hearing the written Word.  It is imperative to understand that for Apostolics the Spirit can work prior to the hearing of the Word, but when the Spirit works it must be in agreement with the Word.
Before considering an Apostolic definition, there is one final position, taken in an effort to define a ministry of presence that limits the working of God’s Spirit, that one needs to consider.  This position was solidified in a study done by Stokes that emphatically showed that there is a direct connection between the perception (ability to be aware of presence at work) of presence and the prior experience of the patient.[9]  Stoke believed that she proved that for the Spirit to be at work in the ministry of presence the patient had to have prior experience with the working of the Spirit.  Duffy, a Roman Catholic priest, also postulated, “Presence is shaped in symbol and enhanced by conflict and crisis. Symbols alone are capable of dealing with the complexity of experience that forms the core of presence.”[10]  As Apostolics, we cannot deny the benefit of such prior experience laden by the symbols associated, but at the same time have by similar experience seen the Spirit work/move upon those that have never before been exposed to the Spirit and therefore are barren of any symbolic reference.
So far we have shown that a definition of the ministry of presence could include, but is not limited to: a psychosocial expectation in response to positional power and authority; an etymological understanding of the servant coming alongside the patient; a praxis of skills set to enhance the success of coming alongside; the imperativeness of God’s written Word and Promises being in agreement with the working of the Spirit but not limiting the Spirit until the Word is read; and the value of prior experience that is often represented by symbols and rituals.  For many this is enough, but for Apostolics we cannot leave the definition of the ministry of presence in such a limited human fashion. 
No example, for this writer, better illustrates a ministry of presence better than the story of Elizabeth’s receiving Mary’s visit in Luke chapter 1.  The babe in Elizabeth leaped, being filled with the Holy Spirit in the presence of Mary, who was literally pregnant with the presence of God.  Mary herself was the recipient of the Spirit as she was moved on and impregnated by and with that same Spirit.  Mary’s response to the laudations of Elizabeth was, “My being proclaims the greatness [or presence] of the Lord.”[11]  “Real presence is measured by God’s presence, which we continue to encounter in our lives.”[12] And who will be so bold as to attempt to measure God’s presence?  Exactly how would one quantify, reproduce, and make tangible God’s very presence?  If God is always good, trustable, and beneficial, who would want to limit the working of his Spirit with human definitions and a finite understanding?
Why not let God be God?  Jesus promised the disciples that He would go before them into Galilee,[13] and it would be the position of this writer to continue to let God go before, with, and after the chaplain to do the work that He desires.  While the prior delineated listing of definitions of the ministry of presence cannot be ignored, it is certainly only a partial human understanding of what God is doing every time the chaplain walks into a hospital room.  The chaplain must learn to walk by faith and not by sight[14] and leave both the “successes” and “failures” in the hands of God.
Oneness Apostolics hold at least two very poignant theological doctrines that are pertinent to our conversation.  First, Apostolics believe in the inevitability of the infilling of God’s Spirit in the hearts and lives of all believers.[15]  This infilling is not a tailored form of God made to fit into man, but in the same sense as Christ’s incarnation with the Spirit, believers are also filled with the entirety of God when they are ‘born again’.  The second point further enhances this, Apostolics believe in the absolute Oneness of God.  The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are manifestations of that One God and not separate beings working together in one purpose or one relationship.[16]  Therefore, when the Spirit-filled Apostolic chaplain walks through a hospital, the very Father of creation and Son of redemption live inside of his heart as God’s Spirit.  However, the very omnipresence of this same God allows that same Spirit to both proceed and to follow the chaplain on his rounds.  “As admittedly finite creatures, we [chaplains] can incarnate God’s love in a powerful way (especially with the above understanding)[17] to those in crisis… so can the presence of the chaplain become a window through which the infinite Source of hope can be glimpse.”[18]
In 1954 Wayne Oates wrote in an effort to define the pastoral encounter of the Chaplain, “The pastoral task is the participation in the divine human encounter.  The sovereignty of God, the principle of incarnation whereby the Word was made flesh, the activity of the Holy Spirit in contemporary living, and the function of the church as the body of Christ – these are the realities that the pastor symbolizes and represents in pastoral care and personal counseling they become functional realities rather than theoretical topics of discussion.”[19]  This definition, if one can define something as unknowable as the working of God’s Spirit, seems to be much more in keeping with an Apostolic understanding that the chaplain is a mere ‘participant’ in such an encounter and seems to embrace the incarnational aspects of the “divine human encounter” between a patient, the chaplain, and God’s Spirit.
            This writer is convinced that resting our ‘performance’ in the hands of God, who is an active participant in such encounters, nullifies the biggest challenge of the Apostolic chaplain.  Chaplaincy requires (mandates), that “the ministry to the ill is to be ready to give what the patients need – this is not necessarily what the [chaplain] or the hospital staff think he or she may have to offer.”[20]  The Apostolic believer who is programmed from his/her spiritual conception to be evangelical in every encounter must learn to trust the working of God’s Spirit to whet the appetite of the patient, causing them to cry out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”[21]  Any deviation from this will only get the chaplain kicked out of the field, but even more important, identifies their inability to trust the working of God’s Spirit to do His part of the job.  “Someone who believes that our work and careers belong to a larger process of change and redemption, that we are not solely responsible for the future of the world, need be less frenetic and compulsive.”[22]
Considering that the chaplain is only a vessel for God’s Spirit, in which to live and to work, “…the ultimate goal of the pastoral visitation of the sick should [then] be the increase of the presence of the Spirit…”[23]  For the Spirit-filled Apostolic chaplain this should come naturally, especially if he is relying upon the Spirit and not upon his own ability, talents, and education.  From personal experience I can assure the reader that “… signs shall follow them that believe…”[24] and do not need to be sought after.  The Spirit of the Lord will work, but the question is, Who will let Him?[25]  At the beginning of my third unit of CPE, a Catholic Sister introduced me to the class in this manner, “This is Joey, and things happen to him that don’t happen to other chaplains.”  After only a short year of training, other chaplains had already recognized a difference, things happened when I walked into certain rooms that some of them had never heard of before.  “In a complex and changing world we are challenged to discern the continuing presence and action of God and to respond, faithfully and effectively, to this presence.”[26]



Bibliography


Biocca, Frank. (2001)  Inserting the Presence of Mind into a Philosophy of Presence: A Response to Sheridan and Mantoviani and Riva. Presence: Volume 10, Number 5, October 2001.

Ciampa, Ralph C. (1994) God-Talk in Pastoral Care: Three Dimensions of the Pastoral Encounter. Downloaded from Atlas in June 2009. A paper presented at the Cumberland, Maryland Memorial Hospital.

Duffy, Regis A. (1982) Real Presence, Worship, Sacraments, and Commitment. San Francisco, California: Harper and Row, Publishers.

Schoonenberg, Piet. (1966) Presence and The Eucharistic Presence.  Appeared in Tijdschrift voor Theologie (1966) and Cross Currents, Winter (1967). Downloaded from Atlas in June 2009.

Stokes, Janet. (1999) Ministry of Presence and Presence of the Spirit in Pastoral Visitation. The Journal of Pastoral Care, Summer 1999, Vol. 53, No. 2. Downloaded from Atlas in June 2009.

Taylor, Charles W. (1991). The Skilled Pastor, Counseling as the Practice of Theology.  Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press.

Whitehead, James D. and Whitehead, Evelyn E. (1983) Method in Ministry, Theological Reflection and Christian Ministry.  New York: New York.



[1] For the purposes of this paper, the term Apostolic or Apostolics will refer to the mainstream mindset of Oneness Pentecostals.  It is also not the intention of the writer to say that other chaplains and/or other faiths may not agree with many of the postulations of this paper (because many of them do).  It is only the intention to tailor this paper to its audience, the Oneness Apostolic Symposium 2009.
[2] For the purposes of this paper, an Apostolic hermeneutic shall be defined as one that gives absolute privilege and priority to the teaching and writings of the Apostles over the teachings and writings of history and/or tradition.
[3] Schoonenberg, Piet. (1966) Presence and The Eucharistic Presence.  Appeared in Tijdschrift voor Theologie (1966) and Cross Currents, Winter (1967). Downloaded from Atlas in June 2009. Page 40-41.
[4] Quoted by Stokes, Janet. Ministry of Presence and Presence of the Spirit in Pastoral Visitation. The Journal of Pastoral Care, Summer 1999, Vol. 53, No. 2. Downloaded from Atlas in June 2009. Page 192.
[5] Biocca, Frank.  Inserting the Presence of Mind into a Philosophy of Presence: A Response to Sheridan and Mantoviani and Riva. Presence: Volume 10, Number 5, October 2001.  Page 546-556.
[6] Whitehead, James D. and Whitehead, Evelyn E. Method in Ministry, Theological Reflection and Christian Ministry.  New York: New York. Page 9.
[7] Taylor, Charles W. (1991). The Skilled Pastor, Counseling as the Practice of Theology.  Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press. Page 15.
[8] Schoonenberg, Piet. Page 43.
[9] Stokes, Janet. Page 197-199.
[10] Duffy, Regis A. (1982) Real Presence, Worship, Sacraments, and Commitment. San Francisco, California: Harper and Row, Publishers. Page 84-85.
[11] Italics mine.  Luke 1:46.
[12] Duffy, Regis A. Page 197.
[13] Mark 26:32.
[14] 2 Corinthians 5:7.
[15] John 3:3-8.
[16] It is not the intention of this paper to prove this point, but will just state it emphatically as a belief of the Apostolic Oneness movement.
[17] Italics mine.
[18] Ciampa, Ralph C. (1994). God-Talk in Pastoral Care: Three Dimensions of the Pastoral Encounter. Downloaded from Atlas in June 2009. A paper presented at the Cumberland, Maryland Memorial Hospital. Page 33.
[19] Wayne Oates quoted by Stokes, Janet. Page 192.
[20] Stokes, Janet. Page 191.
[21] Acts 2:37 .
[22] Whitehead, James D. and Whitehead, Evelyn E. Page 161.
[23] Stokes, Janet. Page 191.
[24] Mark 16:17.
[25] Isaiah 43:13.
[26] Whitehead, James D. and Whitehead, Evelyn E. Page 9.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Was the Last Supper Celebrated on the Passover?


”And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. 30And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.”[1]

            In early April, almost 2000 years ago, a travel-weary group of men, mostly Galilean fisherman, approached Jerusalem around the time of the Jewish Passover.   Events that were to transpire over the next week would change the course of the world more than any other single event, before or after, in the history of the world.  Since that time, tens of thousands of books and hundreds of thousands of scholars have examined the writings of that time, and yet there still is no consensus on the dating of the events.  This author will join the ranks of the searching masses to try and discover just a small piece of the puzzle.  Though this is a small piece of the larger puzzle, it is the dating of this piece that pivots the dating of the whole week.  Time and space will be made to examine the question, “Did the drama of the Last Supper unfold on the night of the Passover – specifically on the evening of Nisan 14 which is the 1st day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and, if not, how does this impact the celebration of the Lord’s Supper?”
            The focus of this paper’s methodology will center upon the four possible solutions for the above question.  These solutions will be identified with an emphasis on Biblical evidence, but some space will be allowed for historic and cultural evidence.  Second, an examination will be undertaken of each solution’s major points (as postulated by major scholarly works) and the possible weaknesses and further questions that arise from these solutions.  Furthermore, this author will position himself on one of these solutions.  These solutions will be further examined against an Apostolic hermeneutic.  Third, this author will examine the question, “So what?”  What does this study mean for Apostolics, and how is it important for us today?
            While it is not the focus of this paper, it is important to establish a place for the Lord’s Supper in the scope of the Christian experience.  One should be careful to not take communion to the height that Catholicism has taken it (making it a salvific work), but, on the other hand, it should be considered more than just an optional experience for Christians.   The Bible is not made up of one’s favorite verses that support one’s pet doctrines; rather, it is 66 books with over 1100 chapters, and each is profitable for today’s Christian.  “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”[2]  Many Christians live with a minimalist mentality, “What do I have to do to be saved?”  Rather than, “What more can I do to please my Lord!”   Certainly, remembering the price that He paid will keep the Christian focused on the purpose of life in general,[3] “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.”[4]  Jesus, the greatest example of all times, instituted the Eucharist; the disciples followed and promoted the celebration of the Lord’s Supper; and the canonized Scriptures have preserved this for the modern Christian.  “The Lord’s Supper, along with baptism, is one of the two ordinances or sacraments enjoined by the Lord Himself.”[5]  It would take another paper to examine the exact place the Eucharist takes in a Christian’s life and what it does for his relationship with God and the Church.  However, suffice it to say, the Lord’s Supper is a biblically instituted ritual and should be practiced by all Christians, especially Apostolics who are founded on a primitive impulse.

Possible Solutions
“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? 13And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. 14And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? 15And he will show you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. 16And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover… 22And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. 23And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. 25Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. 26And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.”[6]
           
            There are four possible answers to the question, “Did the drama of the Last Supper unfold on the night of the Passover – specifically on the evening of Nisan 14 which is the 1st day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread?”  Two of these solutions are quickly discarded by scholars, and the other two enjoy extensive support from modern scholars.  This paper will briefly examine the former and then follow the example of the vast majority of scholars and discard them as not having a basis of truth.  The latter two will be examined more extensively, and a favored position will emerge.  Most scholars agree that four possible solutions have been offered, yet there have been many variations of these solutions. The first solution some would postulate is that the foot-washing meal and Last Supper meal were two separate meals, separated by one or more days. [7]  The second solution claims that the Pharisees (non-Hellenistic Jews) and the Sadducees (Hellenistic Jews) lived by two different Calendars and, therefore, celebrated the Passover on two different days. [8]  The third solution states that the Synoptic Gospel emphasis is correct and that scholars have misunderstood John and/or John was mistaken.[9]  Supporters of this position would claim that the Lord’s Supper happened on the Jewish Passover.  Finally, the fourth solution holds that the emphasis should be on the Gospel of John, and that scholars have misunderstood the Synoptics and/or the writers of the Synoptic Gospels were mistaken.[10]  Therefore, supporters of the Gospel of John would claim that the Lord’s Supper did not take place on the Passover meal.
            There are some points on which all seem to agree: all four of the evangelists “…assume that Jesus went up to Jerusalem to keep the Passover,”[11] all are “…abundantly clear that the first three Gospels consider the meal a Passover meal,”[12] and all the evangelists, historians, and theologians are in unanimous agreement with the tradition that the Last Supper took place on Thursday evening before the crucifixion of Jesus on Friday.[13]   A further point on which most conservative scholars agree, regardless of their conclusions, is that “…it seems very unlikely that any of the Evangelists would not have accurate information about the dating of the last few days of Jesus’ life or that he should feel free to alter it for supposedly ‘theological’ reasons.”[14]  For this paper, this author, finding no reason on which to doubt or base an argument, will also allow that these points are points of fact and, therefore, be limited within the walls that these four principles create.
            Conservative scholars hold to only the third and fourth solutions above.  Furthermore, for conservatives, and Apostolics specifically, insist that one must harmonize the Synoptic Gospels with the book of John (and vice versa) to reach a decisive solution.  “Conservative scholars [postulating solution three or four] have at least been able to show that the Gospel accounts can be harmonized and are credible in their chronological references.”[15]  Finally, backers of both solutions three and four claim that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but both, however, present difficulties.[16]  These difficulties will be examined in detail as this paper unfolds.
            An interesting consideration, when examining these solutions, is the subjectivity and presuppositions that each scholar must start with.   Writers of the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, on examining these very solutions, claim, “…it is difficult for any interpreter to approach them without some degree of subjective or ecclesiastical bias.”[17]  They further postulate that scholars have historically started with certain presuppositions and then attempted to prove and support their position, finishing where they began their search.  For this author this has not been true, having been raised to believe that the Lord’s Supper happened on the Passover, as most Apostolics do, I have concluded with many modern scholars,[18] “In this instance John[‘s dating] is almost certainly correct.”[19]

Solution One – Two Different Meals…
            The first solution (solutions are ordered by this author for organizational reasons only) postulates that the foot-washing meal found in John 13:1-5 and the Last Supper meal found in Luke 22, Mark 14, and Matthew 26 were two separate meals, separated by one or more days. [20]  Furthermore, this solution would claim that “John gives no account of the Last Supper…”[21]  Very little credence, if any, is attributed to this solution and is completely rejected by every reference that I will quote throughout this paper, “…any explanation founded on the supposition of two meals appears to be rendered untenable by the context.”[22]  While most scholars recognize that it was once a position of some scholars, none continue to support it in modern times.  Virtually all scholars now accept that “John is clearly also describing the Lord’s Supper, the same meal as the Synoptics.”[23]  Therefore, we can safely conclude that the supper mentioned in John 13 is identified “…by almost all modern authorities with the Last Supper, which took place on Thursday…”[24]

Solution Two – Two Different Calendars…
            The second solution attempts to establish that Pharisees (non-Hellenistic Jews) and Sadducees (Hellenistic Jews) lived by two different calendars and, therefore, celebrated the Passover on two different consecutive days. [25]  There are two variations of this particular theme.  First, “It is possible that there may have been two different calendars in use…,”[26] one by the Hellenistic Jews, who may have held to a Babylonian calendar, and the other by non-Hellenistic Jews, who held to a more traditional calendar.  A second possible variation attempts to demonstrate that the Qumran community had a separate calendar from mainstream Jewry.”[27]  Regardless of the sources, this solution is based on some confusion among factions over the calendar.  
            There are three very good reasons to eliminate this solution from the list of possible candidates.  First “…it seems very unlikely that any of the Evangelists would not have accurate information about the dating of the last few days of Jesus’ life …”[28] and, regardless of the external confusion over the calendar, it is unlikely to have caused confusion and/or factions among the disciples.  Second, “… it is difficult to understand why the priests at the temple would have slain a lamb… before the official time.”[29]  The Hellenistic Sadducees were in control of the temple at this time, and it seems reasonable that Jerusalem Jewry would have been forced to comply with the calendar they endorsed.  Third, “Such a theory [concerning different calendars] lacks incisive evidence in Jewish and rabbinic sources.”[30]  You would certainly think that a division over dating, so significant that it effected the celebrating of the Passover Seder, would have warranted substantial comments in Jewish writ by the prolific Jewish writers.  “The idea of two different calendars for the Passover celebrations has not been accepted by a large number of Bible Scholars.”[31]  There can be little doubt, from a scholarly viewpoint there seems to be none, that this solution, like the first, is not worthy of serious consideration.

 

Solution Three - Priority Given to the Synoptic Gospels…

“Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. 8And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat. 9And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare? 10And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in. 11And 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? 12And he shall show you a large upper room furnished: there make ready. 13And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. 14And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. 15And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: 16For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. 17And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: 18For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. 19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”[32]

            The third solution positions itself with an emphasis that the Synoptic Gospels are correct and that scholars have misunderstood statements in the book of John and/or that John himself was mistaken.[33]  Supporters of this position would claim that the Lord’s Supper happened on the Jewish Passover.  First, we can discard the nuance that John could have been mistaken, “…it seems very unlikely that any of the Evangelists would not have accurate information about the dating of the last few days of Jesus’ life …”[34]  Furthermore, the premise would destroy the authority of the Word of God and must be rejected by Apostolics, thus following the lead of most evangelicals.  However, the main premise of this solution cannot be so easily discarded; some scholars still claim that “…the Last Supper… was most likely a Passover seder. ”[35] 
            “While the evidence for this [that the Last Supper was most likely a Passover Seder] is mostly circumstantial, it is nevertheless compelling…”[36]  J. Dwight Pentecost, one of the few modern scholars who support this solution, gives this list supporting the Last Supper occurring on the Passover.[37]  First, Dwight Pentecost points out the obvious; the synoptics Scriptures seem to say that the Last Supper was a Passover.
“Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.”[38]

“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? …say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? …and they made ready the passover…[39]

"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? …the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.[40]  
           
            Second, the meal happened within the city of Jerusalem as prescribed by the Law.  Third, the meal drama unfolds in an upper room, as was the custom.  Fourth, the meal was eaten at night or in the evening, as was every Passover.  Fifth, only the twelve Apostles were present to partake of the meal.  Sixth, the disciples and Jesus ate the meal while reclining.  Seventh, Jesus broke bread during the meal.  Eighth, the disciples drank wine during the meal.  Ninth, the disciples thought that Judas left the meal to purchase items for the feast.  Tenth, the meal ended with a song.  Eleventh, Jesus did not return to Bethany because it was longer than a Sabbath day’s journey.  Twelfth, some of the meal and food items mentioned in Scripture are found in the Old Testament Passover.[41]
            Furthermore, Synoptic supporters, such as William Smith, attempt to explain the Scriptures in John in this manner.  “Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.”[42]  Smith postulates that “before the feast of the Passover” only refers to Christ’s love that existed for the disciples before the Passover and one or two days transpires before verses one and two.  Therefore, “before the feast of the Passover” does not refer to the meal served in John 13:2-5.[43]   “For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.”[44] Smith claims that the disciples thought that Judas was leaving the Passover Feast to purchase provisions needed for the next seven days of unleavened bread.[45]  “Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.”[46]  Smith proclaims that this is used in a general sense and means that the Jews would not be able to continue celebrating the weeklong festival.[47]  “And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King![48]  Finally, Smith would have us to believe that “the preparation of the Passover” is in reference to the upcoming Sabbath on Saturday[49] and one must suppose that John mistakenly used Passover instead of Sabbath.
      Consider now the weaknesses in the above points.  Dwight Pentecost offers a host of Scriptures to prove that the Lord’s Supper happened on the Passover.  What he does not consider is that, in many cases, the word in the King James “day” [½ìÝñá] is not found in the Greek text and in those places that it is found, it is far from conclusive that it is referring to a specific day.  Rather, it could mean part of a day, a 24-hour period, several days, or, in general, just a period of time.[50]  “Luke’s [and the other Synoptics’] account of the ritual emphasizes Passover time (cf. three different expressions announcing the approach of the time of the feast of Passover [Luke 22:1, 7, 14]), not the consumption of the meat.”[51]  In short, each reference to the “Passover day” could be understood to refer to the “Passover time.”  Another possible explanation for the “first day of the Passover” could be concluded by realizing that the evening Thursday and throughout the afternoon Friday would be the same day (Nisan 14) and the day of preparation was often considered the “first day of the Passover,” while the Passover meal was not eaten until the evening of Nisan 14 or the beginning of Nisan 15.[52]  Also, if one is to reach the conclusion that the Last Supper was not held on the Passover, an alternative argument, other than the “obvious” conclusion that one of the evangelists were wrong, is that Jesus and His disciples ate the Passover meal earlier than most Jews and is worth consideration and “…may be the answer to the problem.”[53]  “There is hardly likely to be any better solution than to conclude that Jesus, knowing that He could not observe the Passover at the proper time, kept it a day in advance.”[54]
            Furthermore, stating that “the meal happened within the city of Jerusalem as prescribed by the Law” as evidence would provide Passover evidence for all meals eaten in Jerusalem, that are clearly not the Passover.  This same argument is true for eating “in an upper room,” “at night or in the evening,” “only the twelve Apostles were present,” “they ate the meal while reclining,” “ending with a song,” and “drinking wine.”  None of the above sounds like circumstantial evidence, let alone the kind of factual platform from which to build Bible truth.  Dwight Pentecost also claimed the breaking of bread as evidence of the Passover.  However, ample historic and biblical evidence demonstrates that the separating of bread and meat during the Passover Seder was accomplished by burning, yet Christians have dissolved this ritual (if the Last Supper is the Passover) by simply breaking the bread.[55]
            Another very curious claim by Pentecost is in reference to John 13:28, that “the disciples thought that Judas left the meal to purchase items for the feast.”  During the Passover Judas might have left to “purchase” items for the feast?  On a High Holy Day?  Remember, “…the express declaration of the Law and of the Mishna [is] that the days of holy convocation were to be observed precisely as the Sabbath…”[56]  None of the disciples would have thought that Judas left to purchase anything if it had been during the Passover meal.  That Jesus did not return to Bethany is speculative at best and has many other explanations than that he could not travel on the Passover.  It is interesting that Dwight Pentecost has Judas buying food for tomorrow’s meal on the Passover, but cannot conceive that they would travel beyond a Sabbath day’s journey.  Both are a violation of the Law.  Finally, Pentecost tries to make the claim based upon the fact that some of the meal and food items are found in the Old Testament Passover.  Yet other modern scholars claim that there are “significant differences” between the rabbinical Seder and the Last Supper.[57]  Furthermore, any similarities between the two can be explained thus, “…the Last Supper and Passover Seder are similar because both belong to the same category of religious phenomena: meal ritual. Or to be more precise, the literary sources for the Last Supper and the rabbinic Seder both represent similar religious phenomena: meal rituals.”[58]  Therefore, any reference during the narration of the Last Supper to the Passover can be explained, “The Last supper is here called the ‘Passover’ because in many respects it resembled it.”[59]
            This author feels compelled to state that it has been his intention to utilize the proofs outlined by noted scholars because of the seemingly apparent weaknesses in their arguments, lest some reading might see the lists of proofs as biased suspicion  directed toward this author.  While Smith and Pentecost are not among top scholars, they are certainly recognized for their many books and years of schooling.  This author would have gladly utilized any author’s list of proofs, if I could have found another.  Finally, the weakness in Smith’s arguments will be addressed inadvertently in the next section.

Solution Four – Priority Given to John’s Gospel…
 “Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.”[60]

“For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.”[61]

“Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.”[62] 

“And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King![63]


            There is a multitude of lists available to support this solution, that the Last Supper was celebrated the day before the Passover.  Most Scholars that support this postulate that,  “There is hardly likely to be any better solution than to conclude that Jesus, knowing that He could not observe the Passover at the proper time, kept it a day in advance.”[64]  This author will use parts of several lists to be able to exhaustively present the evidence available.  First, it will be fitting to return to Pentecost and Smith and consider what the book of John seems to say about Last Supper.[65]  Richard Niswonger reaches an entirely different conclusion when considering the same texts in John, “John is equally clear in stating that the Passover would be celebrated the next day and not at the time of the Last Supper.”[66]  Other scholars agree with Niswonger,  “More telling is the explicit dating of [John] 13:1 ‘before the feast of the Passover’… and there is no reason to suppose the evangelist did not mean what he says.”[67]  While some may try to see confusion and doubt in the narration of the Last Supper, many conservative scholars reach the conclusion that there is no suggestion that John 13:1 is chronologically incorrect or that the text is somehow in disorder.[68]  “Now before the feast of the Passover; [is] a phrase far more applicable to the 13th – 14th of Nisan than to the 14th – 15th…”[69]  The clear and obvious understanding of John 13:1 would be that the Lord’s Supper did not take place on the Passover.
            As previously postulated, when considering John 13:29, it would be ludicrous to think that Judas could have been perceived by anyone to leave the Passover Seder to purchase supplies of any kind.  Pentecost himself admits that John 18:28 is the Achilles’ heel of the “Passover” position.[70]  Why Pentecost, who holds the “Passover” position, would consider this verse, above all other evidence, to be a major problem for his position is difficult to conclude, unless it is because he cannot find a rebuttal for that particular text.  However, it seems conclusive that the Jews had not yet eaten the Passover, which took place at the beginning of Nisan 15 (nightfall on the 14th began the Jewish day Nisan 15), at the time of the trial and Crucifixion.  John 19:14 clearly confirms what already seems obvious, that Jesus was crucified as the priest made preparation for the Passover.  “In the present passage the ‘preparation for the Passover’ may simply be interpreted as ‘Friday of the passion week,’”[71] and may be in reference specifically to when they began to sacrifice that Paschal lamb on the afternoon before the beginning of the Passover at nightfall.  As well, the Feast day, itself, would not be called the day of preparation.[72]  “If Jesus died on the Cross some hours before the beginning of Nisan 15, it is clear that the Last Supper was not Jesus’ Passover meal.  Therefore, it should not be interpreted in the light of Passover symbolism.”[73]  Considering the evidence in John alone, one can conclude that, “The date of the Last Supper is definitely fixed as Nisan 13 (John 13:1), by the words, ‘Before the feast of the Passover,’ whereas Jesus died on Nisan 14 (John 18:28).”[74]
            The book of John is certainly conclusive; however, the evidence is not isolated to the book of John.  “Contrary to the indications of the dates in Mark 1-2, 12… there are a number of indicators – in addition to the chronology [of John] – that the meal was not the Passover, unless by a kind of anticipation…”[75] and “Even in the Synoptic Gospels, which at first sight give an opposite impression, there are sufficiently clear indications that this [the Lord’s Supper was not a Passover seder] was not the case.”[76]  Each of the Synoptics has Jesus sending two of the disciples ahead to prepare for the meal and to confirm the use of the upper room.  However, to wait until the day of the Passover would be considered rather late to be thinking about preparing for an actual Passover meal, because extensive preparation for the Passover meal was required, and provisions must be acquired by strict observance to religious law.[77]  In Mark 14:2 we are told that the chief priests and the scribes were anxious to bring about Jesus’ death “before the beginning of the Passover and “…there is no reason to believe that they changed their plans.”[78] Furthermore, “…it is almost inconceivable that Jesus could have been arrested, examined before the Sanhedrin, tried before Pilate, crucified, and buried during the course of [the Passover].”[79]  .   In Matthew 26:5 and Mark 14:2 the authorities did not want trouble during the feast and wanted Jesus taken care of before the feast began, and there is no reason to believe that they changed their mind on this.[80]  Finally, “…even Paul’s account does not refer to Passover, but to the ‘night He was betrayed.’”[81]  Evidence, both in and outside John, supports the conclusion that the Last Supper did not take place on the Passover.
            Now that we have considered the biblical evidence, let us examine other peripheral evidence.  There is a multitude of “peripheral” arguments against the traditional understanding of the Synoptic dating.  The Jewish Talmud contains a tradition that says Jesus suffered on the eve of the Passover. [82]  The Passover was a family tradition, and only the men in a particular family were usually present.  This creates two problems; the disciples for the most part were not of one family, and one cannot eliminate the possibility that women were there.[83]  Another consideration is that too many things happened that would have been forbidden on the Passover (going to Gethsemane, carrying of arms, the Sanhedrin meeting, Jesus’ trial and court session, Simon of Cyrene compelled to carry the cross of Christ as he came in from the fields, the purchase of linen by Joseph of Arimathaea in which to bury Christ, nor could the Jews have touched or buried the body of Jesus).[84]
            The very point that pricked this author’s curiosity originally and provided the motivation for this extensive study is that “most of the special features of the Passover are not mentioned in the synoptic account.”[85]  The most glaring of those missing features is the absence of unleavened bread. [86]  This is obvious when our texts are examined in their original languages. In every Gospel and in the writings of the Apostle Paul’s rendition of the Last Supper, the Greek word Tñôïò is used for the communion bread (Matthew 2:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:18, John 13:18, 1 Corinthians 11:23).  This Greek word, Tñôïò , is the word for “risen bread”, as opposed to the word Tæõìïò, the word for “unrisen or unleavened bread”.[87]  The only scholar that made a serious attempt to claim that unleavened bread was used at the Last Supper was Gundry, and it is clear that he is postulating tradition and not exegeted biblical fact.[88]  To claim that the evangelists or Paul utilized this word for both unleavened and leavened bread must be denied on the basis that each of them repeatedly used the word Tæõìïò, the word for “unrisen or unleavened bread” in other passages and in other contexts.[89]  Certainly they would have used the proper word in its most important, and certainly its original, setting.  The unity of the Synoptics, John, and the Apostle Paul on this point should speak volumes to one honestly searching for a conclusive answer to this dating issue.  Together, Jesus with the disciples broke the risen bread to symbolize the raising of his sacrificed body.  “[Jesus] gave the bread with these significant words to pledge that He would be with them in His risen power…”[90]
            Another missing element from the Last Supper was the Paschal Lamb, which is the chief article at the Passover meal.[91] It is crucial to the comparison that the rabbinical seder always included the paschal lamb and unleavened bread, while the Last Supper was meatless and the bread is, at the very least, unspecified.[92]  No Gospel, no epistle, nor does Acts even once mention the use of the Paschal Lamb in conjunction with the Last Supper. [93]  Also missing from the narration is the absence of proper attire that should be worn at the Passover meal as prescribed in Exodus 12.[94]  Neither does the narration mention the prescribed four cups of wine that are required at each Passover meal.[95]
            Another important point for Apostolics to consider is, How did the early church view and understand the Lord’s Supper?  It is well established above that in no place does the Apostle Paul associate the Last Supper with the Passover.  One must also consider the book of Acts, “…there is no difference in the New Testament between references to the ‘breaking of bread’ and the ‘Lord’s Supper.’”[96]  Again one finds that the “breaking of bread” was a daily occurrence in some places in the book of Acts and not a once-a-year ritual, as was the Passover.[97]  Furthermore, the “breaking of bread” was a real dinner and not simply a religious ritual as was the Passover.[98]  “Further objection is made to the Synoptic dating on the grounds that the Lord’s Supper as observed in the early church betrays none of the distinctive features of the Passover; and that, if the Passover meal had been the occasion of the institution of the Eucharist, one would have expected the rite to have been an annual rather than a weekly, or even daily, observance in the church.”[99]  Finally, evidence shows that second century Quartodecimans, in one of the earliest recorded records of the death of Christ, clearly celebrated the death of Christ on the 14th day of Nisan.[100]  This record clearly indicates that the first church celebrated the Last Supper on the evening of the 13th day of Nisan at the beginning of the 14th, and Jesus was crucified the next day shortly before the Passover Meal at the beginning of the 15th day of Nisan.

 

So What? – Jesus is the Paschal Lamb

            As was postulated earlier, another possible method of reconciling John and the Synoptics suggests that the Lord’s Supper was a meal eaten early in anticipation of Christ being offered as the Paschal lamb before the Passover.[101]  “It is attractive to believers… that Christ, our paschal lamb, was sacrificed for us at the very hour when the Passover lambs were slain in the Temple.”[102]  To claim the Last Supper was held on the Passover is to deny that Christ fulfilled what was before ordained, “But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.  Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.”[103]  The position presented, giving priority to John’s dating, solidly establishes that, “’Before the Passover…’ [John 13:1] leaves Jesus’ death to be itself the Passover [lamb].”[104]  To pay the price for our sins Christ offered Himself as the sinless Lamb, purging once and for all the sins of the world.
            There is no doubt that John’s patently theological purpose in writing the book of John was to identify Christ as “the true Passover sacrifice,” but for some to claim that he had no great fidelity to historical fact and was thus motivated to depict the Last Supper before the Passover began, so that Christ’s crucifixion can occur on the same day that the paschal lamb was slaughtered, is scary, at the very least.[105]  On what basis would one claim that John could not both demonstrate the true Paschal Lamb and hold true to historic fact?  Only those bound to the traditional grid of history would attempt to deny the obvious biblical record.  Apostolics must reconsider the implications of denying Christ as the Paschal Lamb, as claiming that the Last Supper occurred on the Passover does.
            Let there be no doubt in this matter.  John does not stand alone in his defense of Jesus as the Paschal Lamb.  Moses, writing four thousand years before, prophetically wrote[106] that the bones of the Paschal Lamb must not be broken, and John acknowledges this fulfillment[107] when the legs of Christ Jesus were not broken.[108]  Furthermore, Paul also clearly identifies Christ as the Paschal Lamb, “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ’s our passover is sacrificed for us.”[109]  Again, John the Baptist understood this from the beginning of Christ earthly ministry, “…John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”[110]
            Regardless of the questions that such a “coincidence” raises, “Most scholars now hold that John’s dating is correct, even though the fact that it fits so well with the theological idea that ‘Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us’ (1 Corinthians 5:7) is bound to raise a question.”[111]  Jesus was, and is, the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world.  Therefore, he must have been sacrificed according to the Law on the afternoon of the 14th day of Nisan.  This leaves the Last Supper to have been eaten on the eve of this great event. 

Summary

            The nearness of the Passover gave a tone, set the emphasis, and provided meaning for the Last Supper, which led to an identification of the supper with the paschal meal.[112]  However, the evidence is clear, “…whether or not the Last Supper was a regular Passover meal, “the atmosphere of the Passover pervaded the whole thought and feeling of the upper room,”[113] because Jesus was the Paschal Lamb and He was to be sacrificed as other lambs on the morrow after the Last Supper.  The reader has seen the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Moses, ancient scholars, and more than a dozen modern scholars.  The vast majority of all of them support the position that Jesus celebrated the Last Supper on the eve before the Passover.  These leave no doubt with this author that Jesus, in accordance with the Scriptures, was crucified in conjunction with other Paschal Lambs.  As the Paschal Lamb for the whole world, Jesus paid the price for the sins of the world.  Doing what no other Lamb had ever done, “Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.[114]




Works Cited

Ball, R. M. “Saint John and the Institution of the Eucharist,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 23, 1985.  Downloaded from ATLA May 2004, ATLA0000945488.

Bromiley, Geoffrey W. ed. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986.

Brumberg-Kraus, Jonathan. “Not by bread alone…: the Ritualization of Food and Table Talk in the Passover Seder and in the Last Supper,” Semaia 86. 1999.  Downloaded from ATLA May 2004, ATLS 0000009612.

Buttrick, George Arthur, ed. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 3. New York: Abingdon = Cokesbury Press,  1962.

________. The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 7. New York: Abingdon = Cokesbury Press, 1951.

________. The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 8.(New York: Abingdon = Cokesbury Press,  1951.

Davis, R. M., ed. The Christian Man. Hazelwood: Word Aflame Press, 1990.

Dummelow, J. R. ed. A Commentary on the Holy Bible by Various Writers. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951.

Gundry, Robert H. A Survey of the New Testament, 3rd Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Guthrie, D. and J. A. Motyer, ed. The New Bible Commentary: Revised. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,1970.

Niswonder, Richard L. New Testament History. Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1988.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. A Study in the Life of Christ: The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Pfeiffer, Charles F., Howard F. Vos, and John Rea ed. Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 2.  Chicago: Moody Press, 1975.

Smith, William. Smith’s Bible Dictionary. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1970.

Spence, H. D. M. and Joseph S. Exell, ed. The Pulpit Commentary: The Gospel of St. John, Book 17, Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950.

Strong, James. Strong’s Comprehensive Concordance of the Bible. Iowa Falls: Riverside Book and Bible House.

Theiss, Norman. “The Passover Feast of the New Covenant,” Interpretation 48, 1994. Downloaded from ATLA May 2004, ATLA0000876756.




[1] Matthew 26:26-30
[2] 2 Timothy 3:16.
[3] The Christian Man, ed. R. M. Davis (Hazelwood: Word Aflame Press, 1990), 128.
[4] 1 Corinthians 11:26.
[5] Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, ed. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard F. Vos, and John Rea (Chicago: Moody Press, 1975), 1050.
[6] Mark 14:12-26.
[7] William Smith, Smith’s Bible Dictionary (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1970), page 492.
[8] The New Bible Commentary: Revised, ed. D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), page 847.
[9] William Smith, Smith’s Bible Dictionary (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1970), page 492.
[10] Ibid, page 492.
[11] Norman Theiss, “The Passover Feast of the New Covenant,” Interpretation 48, 1994): 17.
[12] Richard L. Niswonder, New Testament History, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1988), 166.
[13] The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 3, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon = Cokesbury Press, 1962), page 73.
[14] The New Bible Commentary: Revised, ed. D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), page 847.
[15] Richard L. Niswonder, New Testament History, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1988), 167.
[16] R. M. Ball, “Saint John and the Institution of the Eucharist,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 23, 1985): 59.
[17] The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 3, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon = Cokesbury Press, 1962), page 73.
[18] The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 7, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon = Cokesbury Press, 1951), page 572.
[19] The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 8, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon = Cokesbury Press, 1951), page 378.
[20] William Smith, Smith’s Bible Dictionary (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1970), page 492.
[21] Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, ed. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard F. Vos, and John Rea (Chicago: Moody Press, 1975), 1050.
[22] William Smith, Smith’s Bible Dictionary (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1970), page 492.
[23] Richard L. Niswonder, New Testament History, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1988), 166.
[24] A Commentary on the Holy Bible by Various Writers, ed. J. R. Dummelow (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), page 797.
[25] The New Bible Commentary: Revised, ed. D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), page 847.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, ed. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard F. Vos, and John Rea (Chicago: Moody Press, 1975), 1052.
[28] The New Bible Commentary: Revised, ed. D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), page 847.
[29] Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, ed. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard F. Vos, and John Rea (Chicago: Moody Press, 1975), 1052.
[30] The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 3, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon = Cokesbury Press, 1962), page 73.
[31] Richard L. Niswonder, New Testament History, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1988), 167.
[32] Luke 22:7-21.
[33] William Smith, Smith’s Bible Dictionary (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1970), page 492.
[34] The New Bible Commentary: Revised, ed. D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), page 847.
[35] Jonathan Brumberg-Kraus, “Not by bread alone…: the Ritualization of Food and Table Talk in the Passover Seder and in the Last Supper,” Semaia 86, 1999), 166.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Ibid, 167.
[38] Luke 22:7-21.
[39] Mark 14:12-26.
[40] Matthew 26:17-31.
[41] J. Dwight Pentecost, A Study in the Life of Christ: The Words and Works of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), page 416.
[42] John 13:1.
[43] William Smith, Smith’s Bible Dictionary (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1970), page 493.
[44] John 13:29. 
[45] William Smith, Smith’s Bible Dictionary (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1970), page 493.
[46] John 18:28.
[47] William Smith, Smith’s Bible Dictionary (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1970), page 493.
[48] John 19:14.
[49] William Smith, Smith’s Bible Dictionary (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1970), page 493.
[50] James Strong, Strong’s Comprehensive Concordance of the Bible (Iowa Falls: Riverside Book and Bible House), G2250.
[51] Jonathan Brumberg-Kraus, “Not by bread alone…: the Ritualization of Food and Table Talk in the Passover Seder and in the Last Supper,” Semaia 86, 1999), 186.
[52] A Commentary on the Holy Bible by Various Writers, ed. J. R. Dummelow (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), page 709.
[53] Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, ed. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard F. Vos, and John Rea (Chicago: Moody Press, 1975), 1052.
[54] The New Bible Commentary: Revised, ed. D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), page 881.
[55] Jonathan Brumberg-Kraus, “Not by bread alone…: the Ritualization of Food and Table Talk in the Passover Seder and in the Last Supper,” Semaia 86, 1999), 187.
[56] William Smith, Smith’s Bible Dictionary (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1970), page 492.
[57] Jonathan Brumberg-Kraus, “Not by bread alone…: the Ritualization of Food and Table Talk in the Passover Seder and in the Last Supper,” Semaia 86, 1999), 184.
[58] Ibid, 167.
[59] A Commentary on the Holy Bible by Various Writers, ed. J. R. Dummelow (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), page 709.
[60] John 13:1
[61] John 13:29 
[62] John 18:28
[63] John 19:14
[64] The New Bible Commentary: Revised, ed. D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), page 881.
[65] J. Dwight Pentecost, A Study in the Life of Christ: The Words and Works of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), page 417.
[66] Richard L. Niswonger, New Testament History, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1988), 166.
[67] R. M. Ball, “Saint John and the Institution of the Eucharist,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 23 (1985): 60.
[68] R. M. Ball, “Saint John and the Institution of the Eucharist,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 23, 1985): 67. Taken from footnote 30.
[69] The Pulpit Commentary: The Gospel of St. John, Book 17, Vol. 2, ed. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), pg 184.
[70] J. Dwight Pentecost, A Study in the Life of Christ: The Words and Works of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), page 419.
[71] Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, ed. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard F. Vos, and John Rea (Chicago: Moody Press, 1975), 1051.
[72] A Commentary on the Holy Bible by Various Writers, ed. J. R. Dummelow (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), page 709.
[73] The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 8, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon = Cokesbury Press, 1951), page 378.
[74] Ibid, page 679.
[75] The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 7, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon = Cokesbury Press, 1951), page 876.
[76] A Commentary on the Holy Bible by Various Writers, ed. J. R. Dummelow (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), page 709.
[77] The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Vol. 7, George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon = Cokesbury Press, 1951), page 872.
[78] The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 8, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon = Cokesbury Press, 1951), page 378.
[79] Ibid.
[80] The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 7, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon = Cokesbury Press, 1951), page 572.
[81] Ibid, page 876.
[82] Ibid, page 572.
[83] J. Dwight Pentecost, A Study in the Life of Christ: The Words and Works of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), page 417.
[84] Ibid, page 417. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), page 165.
[85] The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 7, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon = Cokesbury Press, 1951), page 572.
[86] Ibid, page 876. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), page 165.
[87] James Strong, Strong’s Comprehensive Concordance of the Bible (Iowa Falls: Riverside Book and Bible House), G740.
[88] Robert H. Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 3rd Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 116.
[89] Mark 8.15, Matt 16.6, 11, 12, Luke 12.1, 1 Corinthian 5:7, 8.
[90] The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), page 169. John 13:3, 28.
[91] The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 7, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon = Cokesbury Press,  1951), page 876.
[92] Jonathan Brumberg-Kraus, “Not by bread alone…: the Ritualization of Food and Table Talk in the Passover Seder and in the Last Supper,” Semaia 86, 1999), 184.
[93] The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 3, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon = Cokesbury Press, 1962), page 73.
[94] The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 7, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon = Cokesbury Press, 1951), page 876.
[95] The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 3, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon = Cokesbury Press, 1962), page 73.
[96] Richard L. Niswonder, New Testament History, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1988), 188.
[97] Acts 2:42.
[98] Richard L. Niswonder, New Testament History, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1988), 188.
[99] The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 3, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon = Cokesbury Press,  1962), page 73.
[100] The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 7, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon = Cokesbury Press, 1951), page 876.
[101] Richard L. Niswonder, New Testament History, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1988), 167.
[102] The New Bible Commentary: Revised, ed. D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), page 881.
[103] 1 Peter 1:19-20. 
[104] Robert H. Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 3rd Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 280.
[105] Jonathan Brumberg-Kraus, “Not by bread alone…: the Ritualization of Food and Table Talk in the Passover Seder and in the Last Supper,” Semaia 86, 1999), 166.
[106] Exodus 12:46.
[107] John 19:36.
[108] A Commentary on the Holy Bible by Various Writers, ed. J. R. Dummelow (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951), page 808.
[109] 1 Corinthians 5:7.
[110] John 1:29.
[111] The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 7, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon = Cokesbury Press, 1951), page 572.
[112] The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 7, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (New York: Abingdon = Cokesbury Press,  1951), page 876.
[113] The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), page 166.
[114] Hebrews 10:9-10.