”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]
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…
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.
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.
[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.
[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
[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.
[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.
