Passover feast and The Last Supper.

JimiTime

The time of year thats in it, I have some questions on the lords evening meal.

Why do we celebrate the Lords evening meal so frequently, rather than the once a year passover style it replaced? Is there evidence that the early Christians did so? I'm thinking of the feasts set up by God in the OT were yearly, and the Passover pointed to Christ etc.

I find that having something at an appointed time in the year gives it more reverence, and importance in peoples minds. Think birthdays, anniversaries etc. As a kid, Christmas was always what I thought was the most revered of Christian feasts. I'd love to get your opinions on it.

hivizman

Not really an answer to your question, but many of the older members of the congregation where I worship (Anglican) prefer to take communion only three times a year (always at Easter, and usually also at Pentecost and Christmas), because they believe that taking communion more frequently diminishes the significance of the sacrament.

My understanding is that eucharist/communion/mass/the Lord's supper is a remembrance of Christ's passion, death and resurrection that acts to symbolise the unity of all Christians in one Church (we, being many, are one body, because we all partake in the one bread).

There is some inconsistency in the gospels about whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal - John (19:31) suggests that the crucifixion took place on the day of preparation (so the Last Supper would not have been a Passover seder), whereas the synoptic gospels suggest that the crucifixion, and the Last Supper, on the previous evening, took place on the Passover itself.

santing

JimiTime wrote: »

The time of year thats in it, I have some questions on the lords evening meal.

Why do we celebrate the Lords evening meal so frequently, rather than the once a year passover style it replaced? Is there evidence that the early Christians did so? I'm thinking of the feasts set up by God in the OT were yearly, and the Passover pointed to Christ etc.

I find that having something at an appointed time in the year gives it more reverence, and importance in peoples minds. Think birthdays, anniversaries etc. As a kid, Christmas was always what I thought was the most revered of Christian feasts. I'd love to get your opinions on it.

The Passover points to Christ, and so the the feast of firstfruits, the day of atonemen, the offering service, the temple etc.
The Lord's meal doesn't really replace the Passover, it was only instituted during the Passover meal. A few verses may give light of why it was celebrated frequently:

1Co 11:20-26 ESV When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. ... Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." (26) For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

The word "often" doesn't prescribe weekly, but certainly is at odds with "annually"

Act 20:7 ESV On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.

"The first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread" seems to be a custom we find in the early church.
It might give it more "reverence" if we celebrate it yearly, but the celebration is intended to bring us Christ in remembrance, it is an integral part of our worship.

homer911

In the Presbyterian Church I currently attend we celebrate the Lord's Supper only 4 times a year - the first Sunday of each quarter - I couldn't say if this is normal for the Presbyterian Church or not. There have been some calls recently for a monthly service. In the Evangelical Church I used to attend it was celebrated every Sunday.

PDN

In our church we celebrate communion once every 6 weeks on a weeknight.

Then we also celebrate it three times a year on Sundays.

Fanny Cradock

hivizman wrote: »

There is some inconsistency in the gospels about whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal - John (19:31) suggests that the crucifixion took place on the day of preparation (so the Last Supper would not have been a Passover seder), whereas the synoptic gospels suggest that the crucifixion, and the Last Supper, on the previous evening, took place on the Passover itself.

Is that inconsistency or a different way of describing the same event?

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

Why do we celebrate the Lords evening meal so frequently, rather than the once a year passover style it replaced? Is there evidence that the early Christians did so?

Hello Jimi, does Acts 20:7 fit the bill?

Acts 20:7 And on the first day of the week [Sunday], when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow: and he continued his speech until midnight].

hivizman

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Is that inconsistency or a different way of describing the same event?

Remember that, in the Jewish calendar, the day begins at sunset and runs through to the following sunset. The synoptic gospels appear to imply that the Last Supper was a Passover meal, for example, Matthew 26:17-19: "On the first day of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus, saying, 'Where do you want us to make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?' He said, 'Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, "The Teacher says, My time is near; I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples".' So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the Passover meal."

However, John suggests that the day of the crucifixion, and thus the evening before, was the day before Passover. Hence John 18:28: "Then they took Jesus from Caiaphas to Pilate's headquarters. It was early in the morning. They themselves did not enter the headquarters, so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover" - this implies that the Passover would be on the coming evening. More clearly, John 19:14: "Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover, and it was about noon" - this implies that it was not yet Passover when Jesus appeared before Pilate on the Pavement (Gabbatha).

In his magisterial study The Death of the Messiah, the Roman Catholic theologian Raymond E Brown provides a 30-page appendix reviewing the arguments of those who have attempted to identify the date of the crucifixion. He reviews the various attempts to reconcile the synoptic gospels and John over the issue of whether the Last Supper and the crucifixion were on the day of Passover or the day before Passover, but concludes (page 1369) that "the various attempts to reconcile the chronological discrepancies between the Synoptics and John are implausible, unnecessary, and misleading." Brown leans towards John's dating on theological grounds, drawing a parallel between Jesus Christ as the paschal lamb who is sacrificed and the real lambs who would be slaughtered on the day of preparation in getting ready for the paschal meal of the Passover.

Whatever view we take on this, the really important point is that the Last Supper provides the model for the sacrament by which we particularly remember the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, something to which I hope our minds are turning especially during the current week.

Fanny Cradock

I remember reading (maybe from Don Carson) about 3 possible explanations for the inconsistencies. For the life of me I can't remember one of them, which I sadly have to admit is not atypical of me

JimiTime

Thanks for all your contributions, and sharing your particular denominational experiences.

In relation to the John versus the synoptics issue on the date of the crucifixion, can we call this a biblical error? If not, how is it explained?

Again, thanks for all the contributions. Also FYI, tonight at sundown is Nisan 14 on the Jewish Calender, the anniversary of Jesus' crucificxion.

hivizman

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I remember reading (maybe from Don Carson) about 3 possible explanations for the inconsistencies. For the life of me I can't remember one of them, which I sadly have to admit is not atypical of me

These are the attempted reconciliations that Brown discusses (there may be more):

(a) John's "last supper" was a meal on the evening of Nisan 14, which was Wednesday. The synoptic gospels were describing a Passover meal on the evening of Nisan 15, which was Thursday. The crucifixion took place during the day of Nisan 15, which was Friday, but the Jewish authorities decided to delay the celebration of the Passover until the evening of Friday (Nisan 16) because they wanted to wait until their archenemy Jesus had been disposed of. Brown dismisses this as implausible behaviour on the part of the Jewish authorities, and suggests that this explanation is driven by an excessive need to harmonise the gospels.

(b) The synoptic gospels and John are both correct, because the Passover was actually celebrated on different days. There are various versions of this explanation:

1. Jewish months were dated from the new moon, but if some people sighted the new moon a day before others, they would have begun the month of Nisan on different days (this is a bit like what currently happens for Muslims with the start of Ramadan, where there can be differences of opinion as to whether the new moon has been validly sighted).

2. Galileans celebrated Passover a day before the normal date in Jerusalem. Jesus and his disciples, as Galileans, celebrated Passover on Thursday evening (so the synoptics were correct), while the official celebration in Jerusalem would have been on Friday evening (so John was correct by reference to a different calendar). Brown observes that there is some vague supporting evidence for this from the 2nd century AD but won't accept that this can be carried back to the 1st century.

3. The Pharisees followed one calculation for determining Passover while the Sadducees followed another calculation.

4. Diaspora Jews determined the date of Passover using astronomical calculations while Jerusalem Jews used observation of the moon - to ensure that Passover was celebrated on the "correct" date, there would be two Passover meals on consecutive evenings.

As Brown points out, there is no evidence for any of these "solutions" from earlier, contemporary or later Jewish practice.

(c) The meal described by the synoptic gospels as the last supper was not actually a meal on the evening of the Passover, though it echoed such a meal (and hence could be described by the synoptics as a "paschal" meal). Jesus knew that he wouldn't be around to celebrate the actual Passover on Friday evening, so brought forward the celebration to Thursday evening.

(d) Jesus followed a solar calendar (as apparently did the Essenes), and this put Nisan 15 earlier than the lunar calendar followed by the Jewish authorities (and John).

(e) The synoptic gospels are correct in a historical sense, but John is correct in a spiritual sense. Thursday was indeed the evening of Nisan 15 and the Last Supper was a Passover meal. However, John wanted to emphasise the parallel between the lambs being slaughtered in preparation for the Passover and Jesus being slaughtered as the Paschal Lamb that represents the full and final sacrifice for the sins of humanity.

As it is now already the eve of Good Friday, let's reflect on what all the gospels agree to have taken place, rather than either searching for discrepancies or trying to come up with contorted harmonisations. May our reflections on Good Friday be profound and our celebrations on Easter Sunday be joyful.

Fanny Cradock

Jimi, you might be interested in this talk from Colin Humphereys entitled Science and the dating of the Easter week events.

Soul Winner

I partake of the elements twice a day. Well I try to at least. Two (2) being the number of adequate witness in the scripture. The thing to remember when partaking though is to keep what Jesus actually did in focus at all times. The wine represents His blood which atones for sins. And the bread represent His body which was broken for our infirmities, "By His stripes we were healed". Isaiah 53:5 and 1 Peter 2:24. If all we needed was atonement then partaking of the wine would be enough. But it was God's will to incorporate healing into meal along with the atonement. That's why we have bread with the wine. In the first Passover in Egypt they ate the roasted lamb for strength. And Psalm 105 verse 38 specifically points out that went the came forth out of Egypt and there wasn't a feeble one among their tribes.

I believe it can be partaken of in any setting as long as the focus is right, but there are some who think that it can only be taken in a building where the church (people of God) can partake together. It is worth pointing out that the Passover meal was transposed into this communion meal, and that the very first passover meal was kept in the home, and the very first communion meal was also kept in the home.

The reason I partake at home twice a day is to daily keep my focus on Him and what He did and nothing else, including my surroundings. You could do it ten times a day if you wanted to. For people who are sick there is no better place to act on God's promise to heal you than this communion table, so when you partake of the bread you are claiming that healing promise in faith.

It is also worht pointing out that there is a warning in the New Testament to partake worthily, and this is defined as discerning the Lord's body. For to partake un-worthily is to bring damnation (temporary) on ourselves, and Paul states that there had been some who were sick and who even died as a result of this partaking un-worthily. The same is true today.

"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." 1 Corinthians 11:29

Which simply means that the idea of making sure that you are worthy to partake before partaking is actually partaking un-worthily, because your focus is not on discerning the Lord's body, it's on you. He has already made you worthy to partake, and the focus should be on that and not on how to make yourself worthy.. Tiz a bit confusing but that's what Paul is actually saying to the Corinthians. We are to keep Him (Jesus) and what He alone did in focus when we partake, and when we do that only then are we partaking worthily. The word worthily is an adverb, and adverbs modfiy actions not the actors. So when soneone tells you that you have to partake worthy, they are simpy misreading what Paul is saying. This has caused a lot of confusion over the centuries and caused many people to actually partake un-worhtily due to their focus being on them and not what Jesus actaully did to make them worthy in the first place.

But it is only a temporary damnation as the word damnation in the Greek is Krima (κρίμα). If it had been ultimate damnation the word would be Katakrima (κατάκριμα). So although you might actually die for partaking unworthily that doesn't mean that you are damned forever or anything. It's just something to keep in mind because God is serious about where our focus is when we partake of His cup and His bread - on Jesus and Jesus alone. Because He alone died on that cross to purchase our redemption and He alone gets the glory. There is nothing that we can do to make ourselves worthy and to try is to rubbish His already perfect sacrifice. So be careful when you partake of these elements even if it is only once a year.

Enjoy the 4 day weekend all the same