Topic: Do Protestants see any reason not to think that Jesus celebrated Passover?

[Fr. George]

Hi there Cleopas,

Do you have the break down of the actual Sader Dinner and how does it parallel the evening of the Last Supper? Also, as I pointed out... the institution of the Eucharist seems to happen 'after' this supper... do you see this as a continuance of the Sader or as a 'new' institution all together?

If anyone has a dispute with the Wiki article on the Passover Seder, speak now... Otherwise:

Order of the Seder
Table set for the Passover Seder

Ur'chatz (wash hands)

Karpas (appetizer)

Yachatz (breaking of the middle matzah)

Magid (The telling)

Ha Lachma Anya (invitation to the Seder)

Mah Nishtanah (The Four Questions)

The Four Sons

"Go and learn"

Kos Sheini (Second Cup of Wine)

Rohtzah (ritual washing of hands)

Motzi Matzo (blessings over the matzot)

Koreich (sandwich)

Shulchan Orech (the meal)

Tzafun (eating of the afikoman)

Bareich (Grace after Meals)

Kos Shlishi (the Third Cup of Wine)

Note: The Third Cup is customarily poured before the Grace after Meals is recited...

Eliyahu ha-Navi (cup of Elijah the Prophet)

Hallel (songs of praise) - 4th Cup is consumed after the Hallel

Nirtzah

[ignatius]

The simple answer is that this has nothing to do with any desire to limit input from the likes of you, such desire as does not actually exist.  We would just simply like it if ignatius would not openly reject Orthodox input on his questions, that if he's going to ask a question soliciting Protestant feedback, he be a bit more welcoming of the points of view of his Orthodox hosts.

That was never the point. I just didn't want to get bogged down in repeated Orthodox Apologetic and Polemics. I'm really burned of on that in the Catholic section here.

I like Fr. George's advice and input because he's not calling me a heretic or whatnot and actually trying to be helpful. I'm not a cool-aid drinker on this subject. I want to ask questions and probe the subject matter.

[PeterTheAleut]

The simple answer is that this has nothing to do with any desire to limit input from the likes of you, such desire as does not actually exist.  We would just simply like it if ignatius would not openly reject Orthodox input on his questions, that if he's going to ask a question soliciting Protestant feedback, he be a bit more welcoming of the points of view of his Orthodox hosts.

That was never the point. I just didn't want to get bogged down in repeated Orthodox Apologetic and Polemics. I'm really burned of on that in the Catholic section here.

I like Fr. George's advice and input because he's not calling me a heretic or whatnot and actually trying to be helpful. I'm not a cool-aid drinker on this subject. I want to ask questions and probe the subject matter.

You don't think his point of view "scripted"?  Or are you arguing not so much with the substance of so many Orthodox responses here as you are with the manner in which they're presented?

[ignatius]

Order of the Seder
Table set for the Passover Seder

Ur'chatz (wash hands)

Karpas (appetizer)

Yachatz (breaking of the middle matzah)

Magid (The telling)

Ha Lachma Anya (invitation to the Seder)

Mah Nishtanah (The Four Questions)

The Four Sons

"Go and learn"

Kos Sheini (Second Cup of Wine)

Rohtzah (ritual washing of hands)

Motzi Matzo (blessings over the matzot)

Koreich (sandwich)

Shulchan Orech (the meal)

Tzafun (eating of the afikoman)

Bareich (Grace after Meals)

Kos Shlishi (the Third Cup of Wine)

Note: The Third Cup is customarily poured before the Grace after Meals is recited...

Eliyahu ha-Navi (cup of Elijah the Prophet)

Hallel (songs of praise) - 4th Cup is consumed after the Hallel

Nirtzah

Okay, so it does look like to me that Our Lord is continuing the Seder... Do some look at Our Lord's Cup as being 'added' to the whole cup count? Are there four cups or just three?

[ignatius]

You don't think his point of view "scripted"?  Or are you arguing not so much with the substance of so many Orthodox responses here as you are with the manner in which they're presented?

No, he clearly appears to draw from a deep well. He is not posting 'canned' responses and they brow beating everyone to simply accept it or you are a heretic. That is just not compelling, you know?

I mean, I hear to 'learn' something even if I'm not Orthodox yet. Kinda the way St. Basil handles things.

[Fr. George]

Okay, so it does look like to me that Our Lord is continuing the Seder...

Actually, I don't see that at all.  There are too many parts omitted from the Seder in the gospels, and the breaking of bread followed by a cup of wine don't exist in the order, and certainly not after the meal. 

Do some look at Our Lord's Cup as being 'added' to the whole cup count? Are there four cups or just three?

There are 4 - the 4th is consumed after the Hallel (see the note in the post above).

I thought there was a post (or a link to an article) that made a good case for it being the Pre-Passover meal (i.e. not the Seder) based on the structure.  I just can't seem to find it (yet).

[PeterTheAleut]

You don't think his point of view "scripted"?  Or are you arguing not so much with the substance of so many Orthodox responses here as you are with the manner in which they're presented?

No, he clearly appears to draw from a deep well. He is not posting 'canned' responses and they brow beating everyone to simply accept it or you are a heretic. That is just not compelling, you know?

So, your objection is not so much to Orthodox responses in general as it is to the responses of specific Orthodox posters on this forum  (other than Fr. George)?

I mean, I hear to 'learn' something even if I'm not Orthodox yet. Kinda the way St. Basil handles things.

Just curious...  How do you see St. Basil handling things, or is that the subject of another concurrent thread?

[Fr. George]

Okay, so it does look like to me that Our Lord is continuing the Seder...

Actually, I don't see that at all.  There are too many parts omitted from the Seder in the gospels, and the breaking of bread followed by a cup of wine don't exist in the order, and certainly not after the meal.   

It should be noted that, although Christ was a "contrarian" when it came to many standards (like not doing merciful acts on the Sabbath, and whatnot), He also followed religious ritual closely (going to the Temple at appointed times, synagogue participation, etc.) - and few days were as strict about ritual as the Passover (Yom Kippur among them), which insists on a particular order & practice even if one is alone.

[AWR]

Are you saying that He is 'closing the Old Law' (i.e. Sedar) to fulfill it with the Eucharist?

Are you saying that He is 'closing the Old Law' (i.e. Sedar) to fulfill it with the Eucharist?

That is very close to what I’m saying. The Law was the center of Old Covenant life, and the Eucharist is the center of the Church's life. Everything in the Church leads it, and all things in the Church flow from it. It is the completion of all of the Church's sacraments. It is the foundation and the purpose of all of the Church's institutions and doctrines.

In the Old Covenant, as you know, Passover celebrated their deliverance by God from Egyptian slavery. It included the sacrifice of a lamb, and the partaking of the Seder that included part of the sacrificed lamb. This lamb brought to remembrance the lambs back in Egypt; their blood brushed on the doors to stay the destroying angel. Not symbolic, this sacrificed lamb accomplished the deliverance of the people of God for yet another year, and the Seder, established the reality of communion with God. Back then every Jew made it a point to be in Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover at least once.

Because they were in Jerusalem, it seems that the disciples expected to celebrate the actual Passover meal with their Lord. But they did not expect Jesus Christ, at a supper, offering Himself as the Lamb of the world. Some think that this was a meal called “the berakoth”.  I don’t know, it was not the Seder, but it was connected to Passover as an early Passover pre-meal of some kind.

Nonetheless the Passover meal was transformed by Christ into an act done in remembrance of him: of his life, death and resurrection as the new and eternal Passover Lamb who frees men from the slavery of evil, ignorance and death and transfers them into the everlasting life of the Kingdom of God. Even if it was not the actual Passover meal.

[Cleopas]

My apologies, I inadvertently referred to the cup we bless as the 4th cup. It is not. It the 3rd cup -- the after supper cup.

This is indicated in the basic Passover hagaddah Fr. George cited (which btw, I see nothing to contest on a cursory reading, not that I would otherwise,).

Order of the Seder

...

Shulchan Orech (the meal)

Tzafun (eating of the afikoman)

Bareich (Grace after Meals)

Kos Shlishi (the Third Cup of Wine)

Note: The Third Cup is customarily poured before the Grace after Meals is recited...

Consider that the eating of the afikoman (unleavened bread) at the end of the meal, is followed by the cup of blessing.

[Fr. George]

^Yes, but:

a) The afikoman's ritual breaking (what seems to be indicated by Jesus' actions in the breaking - with the special blessing and all) actually takes place before the meal; the only breaking at the point of consumption is for distribution.
b) There is a prayer of grace separating the afikoman (dessert) from the 3rd cup, which is not present in the Biblical account of the Mystical Supper.
c) It seems odd to make a major statement/change using the dessert matzoh rather than at the Motzi Matzoh or during the meal itself.

I don't know - there is too much missing from the biblical account IMO to use it (the Gospels) as proof that Jesus was indeed eating the Seder with His Apostles.

[Rafa999]

Aramaic shows the apostles and Jesus ate LEAVENED bread. Unleavened bread (or worse...crackers which  have seen protestants use!) is a Western fiction, much like grape juice instead of wine.

[ialmisry]

I'm not trying to push anyone away from the discussion but I'm familiar with Orthodox Commentary on this. It seems to revolve around 'leavened' bread which I find 'weird'.

Obviously not that familiar, or you wouldn't resort to cheap caricatures.

To argue from the weakest Gospel to be authoritative seems to contradict the other three, I've never been taught to do that.

"From the weakest Gospel?"  Is that really necessary?  How about "from the least detailed about the meal" or "from the most ambiguous account IMO?"  You're not going to encourage meaningful discussion on the topic with comments like "the weakest Gospel."

Also, my wife, my father and my brother are all Baptists. I get in Scriptural discussions often. I'm not unfamiliar with their point of view.

Right.

Why does John's Gospel trump the other three in your exegesis? I don't understand that...

I suppose John's Gospel gets a lot of respect from the Orthodox because:

1. It starts the earliest ("In the beginning") and ends the latest ("If it is my will that he remain until I come...") of the Gospels (heck, it starts earlier than Genesis).
2. It's the Gospel of Love
3. It seems to be written to supplement the other accounts, adding in words and actions that were left out by the other Gospels.
4. It is well used by the early Church writers and Fathers.
5. It focuses on our relationship with God (very ethereal, no? it's why he gets the eagle symbol)

6. It presupposes the other three, and caps them (another way of saying no. 3).
7. It is the only one which insists on being written by an eyewitness (St. Matthew doesn't so state, St. Luke explicitely denies it, and St. Mark neither states nor does Tradition teach it was written by an eyewitness).

[ozgeorge]

Our Lord Jesus Christ was a first born son. As such, he would have had to observe the Firstborn Fast on the eve of Pesach (14 Nissan). But if Pesach falls on Shabbat (Saturday- ie, Friday evening), the Firstborn Fast is not observed on the Thursday before (12th Nissan) but on the Thursday before that (5th Nissan), and then the Firstboorn was obligated to hold a "siyyum massekhet" (obligatory festive meal) on Thursday 12th Nissan to break the fast (remember, the day begins at sunset). This may be what Christ was doing at the Last Supper.

[Mivac]

I would say that based on the Gospel of John, starting in Chapter 13, that the passover had not yet started when that meal was served. The lack of a mention of a lamb being served at the meal would also not be passover.

Yes, this appears to be the default Eastern position but John 13 seems to mirror passages in the other three Gospels (Mt. 26:1; Mk. 14:1; Lk. 22:1). The other three Gospels continues later in their chapters to show the arrival of passover and the preparation of the meal (i.e. lamb) by the Apostles.

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? And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover. (Mat 26:17-19)

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? (Mar 14:12)

And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And 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. (Luk 22:13-19)


When I first encountered this position, I was pretty shocked because it the first time that I thought I found a 'tradition' that might suggest to me that Orthodoxy is using a pious filter to pretext a greater distinction between Judaism and Christianity by reinterpreting the Sacred Text in this way...

I've read Orthodox Commentary. I just don't see 'any' reason to honestly interpret it that way.

When I was a protestant I did not see Jesus eating the passover meal.  The passover preperation took a long time, not a one day event.  Part of the preperation is a meal the night before to do a "dress rehersal" and to educate.  This may very well be the reason the term preparing for the passover meal is spoken the way it is in the other 3 accounts.  When Jesus set down they were still preparing for the meal.

[ignatius]

Okay, so it does look like to me that Our Lord is continuing the Seder...

Actually, I don't see that at all.  There are too many parts omitted from the Seder in the gospels, and the breaking of bread followed by a cup of wine don't exist in the order, and certainly not after the meal.

Hmmm... I was reading study note in several Bibles seem to argue that this is the Seder dinner... sure there are a lot of 'details missing' but I'm wondering if the authors are simply 'assuming' we know the Seder and only illuminating what Christ instituted 'new'... 

Do some look at Our Lord's Cup as being 'added' to the whole cup count? Are there four cups or just three?

There are 4 - the 4th is consumed after the Hallel (see the note in the post above).

I thought there was a post (or a link to an article) that made a good case for it being the Pre-Passover meal (i.e. not the Seder) based on the structure.  I just can't seem to find it (yet).

I don't know anything about Jewish tradition Father. If you, or anyone, can illuminate me about this I would appreciate it.

[Al Lipscomb]

I did a Google search on "Did Jesus celebrate passover" and found dozens of positions on the subject. Many Protestants hold that Jesus did not celebrate the Passover. At least one even claimed that Jesus celebrated the Passover a day early because of his knowledge of what was about to happen. So to answer the original question: Yes.

Of course you then get into the problem that there is no one Protestant position on just about anything.

[ignatius]

I did a Google search on "Did Jesus celebrate passover" and found dozens of positions on the subject. Many Protestants hold that Jesus did not celebrate the Passover. At least one even claimed that Jesus celebrated the Passover a day early because of his knowledge of what was about to happen. So to answer the original question: Yes.

Of course you then get into the problem that there is no one Protestant position on just about anything.

Hi Al,

My only problem with all these 'positions' is that they don't seem in reflect the 'plain' interpretation of the Sacred Text:

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? And 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. And 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? And he will shew you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. And in the evening he cometh with the twelve. And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me. And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I? And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish. The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born. And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily 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. (Mar 14:12-25)

The NIV states it this way...

On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover Lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?"

So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "God into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. Say to the owner of the house he enters, "The teacher asks: 'Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' He will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there."

The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.

When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me one who is eating with me."


So it is the 'first day of of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover Lamb'... What do we expect a devout Jew to do on this day? Why are they asking him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover" if they aren't even going to eat it? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Right after this talk about preparing the Passover, they are eating... on the First Day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread... what are they eating? This seems odd that we are working so hard to avoid the clear possibility that he is actually eating the Passover meail. I agree with Cleopas that if it looks like the Seder on the Feast of Unleavened Bread... I have to think that it is the Seder Dinner.

I don't see any Biblical Commentary by the NIV Study Bible that reaches 'any conclusion' the conclusion Orthodox seem very adamant to reach that this is some 'other' meal that just so happens to be on the 'First Day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread'... Seriously?

I'm going to be looking at some older sources today but it looks pretty plain to me that, at least, Protestant Biblical Scholars seem to present only 'one' conclusion. Could you offer me a link to a commentary that doesn't interpret this as 'the' Passover? So far the NIV Study Bible 'clearly' notes that this 'is' the Passover. The Zondervan Bible Commentary also 'clearly' points this out. John Wesley commentary 'clearly' points this out. Also, Rev. George Leo Haydock's Notes within the Douay-Rheims Holy Bible 'clearly' interpret this as the Passover.

So, it seems that outside of Orthodox Commentary... which seems to rely on the 'absence' of detail in the Gospel of St. John and at the expense of the rest of the Gospels detail that this was 'not' the Passover Meal but some later meal or some earlier meal even though the other three Gospels clear point out that these events happened 'on' the First Day of the Feast. I don't get it...

[Alveus Lacuna]

Is the Orthodox position so insistent because if it was the Passover meal then it would not place the Resurrection on Sunday?

[Cymbyz]

If you follow the Johannine account of the Last Supper, then, liturgically, you use regular bread for the Eucharist.  If you follow the Synoptic accounts, you use unleavened bread.  This arises because of a difference between the two accounts concerning whether the mean was the Passover Seder or a Kiddush eaten before the first day of Passover began.

[Al Lipscomb]

Your question was

Do Protestants see any reason not to think that Jesus celebrated Passover?

When I find you answers that say "yes" you want to tell me why you disagree with them. I am not them and am not debating them or you. I found another forum where this exact subject is being debated (coincidence I am sure). Everyone is sure the Bible clearly supports their position. I was a Protestant for 40+ years of my life so I have some idea of what is believed by them.

If that is not your position on what happened I have no issue with that.

[ignatius]

If you follow the Johannine account of the Last Supper, then, liturgically, you use regular bread for the Eucharist.  If you follow the Synoptic accounts, you use unleavened bread.  This arises because of a difference between the two accounts concerning whether the mean was the Passover Seder or a Kiddush eaten before the first day of Passover began.

I think if we were following the Johannine account we wouldn't be breaking bread at all... just washing feet... 

[ytterbiumanalyst]

Aramaic shows the apostles and Jesus ate LEAVENED bread. Unleavened bread (or worse...crackers which  have seen protestants use!) is a Western fiction, much like grape juice instead of wine.

Ah, but the liturgical use of grape juice made Mr. Welch a very wealthy man.

[ialmisry]

If you follow the Johannine account of the Last Supper, then, liturgically, you use regular bread for the Eucharist.  If you follow the Synoptic accounts, you use unleavened bread.  This arises because of a difference between the two accounts concerning whether the mean was the Passover Seder or a Kiddush eaten before the first day of Passover began.

I think if we were following the Johannine account we wouldn't be breaking bread at all... just washing feet... 

Read Chapter 6.

[John Larocque]

There have been attempts to align the synoptics and the Johannine account so that the actual date of the Last Supper remained a Seder, but on a different calendar (the Essenes), thus stretching out the period in between that and the Crucifiction (which took on place on Passover).

I am neutral on whether or not the Last Supper was an Essene Passover (or more likely, a pre-Passover meal) - but the New Testament clearly does NOT use the word for unleaevend bread. So the NT is agnostic as well on the issue of leaven in the bread. I do believe that it is Jewish tradition to remove leaven from the household several days before Passover, so I don't think you can hold up the NT as proof of either leavened or unleavened bread, only that they used the word for ordinary bread to describe what was consumed. "I am the bread from heaven", not "I am the unleavened bread from heaven."

http://www.fathersofthechurch.com/2007/05/14/the-date-of-the-last-supper/

To those who belong to the Syrian traditions, could you elaborate on this:

My friend Scott Hahn agrees with the pope on this question. Scott touched on the Jaubert solution in his essay The Fourth Cup, which I heartily recommend:

I find the supposed conflict between the synoptics and John is resolved to my satisfaction by Annie Jaubert, The Date of the Last Supper (Staten Island: Alba House, 1965). She argues two calendars were operative in Christ’s time and accepts the ancient Syriac testimony of a “Holy Tuesday” institution of the Eucharist. Granted, there are difficulties in that, but her work helps harmonize the five trials of Jesus (Annas, Caiaphas, Pilate, Herod, and Pilate), which fit much easier into a Tuesday to-Friday time frame than in a Thursday-midnight-to-morning frame.

Interesting Pope Benedict quote:

The majority of exegetes were of the opinion that John was reluctant to tell us the true historical date of Jesus’ death, but rather chose a symbolic date to highlight the deeper truth: Jesus is the new, true Lamb who poured out his Blood for us all.

In the meantime, the discovery of the [Dead Sea] Scrolls at Qumran has led us to a possible and convincing solution which, although it is not yet accepted by everyone, is a highly plausible hypothesis. We can now say that John’s account is historically precise.

Jesus truly shed his blood on the eve of Easter at the time of the immolation of the lambs.
In all likelihood, however, he celebrated the Passover with his disciples in accordance with the Qumran calendar, hence, at least one day earlier; he celebrated it without a lamb, like the Qumran community which did not recognize Herod’s temple and was waiting for the new temple.

Consequently, Jesus celebrated the Passover without a lamb – no, not without a lamb: instead of the lamb he gave himself, his Body and his Blood. Thus, he anticipated his death in a manner consistent with his words: “No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (Jn 10: 18).

At the time when he offered his Body and his Blood to the disciples, he was truly fulfilling this affirmation. He himself offered his own life. Only in this way did the ancient Passover acquire its true meaning.

In his Eucharistic catecheses, St John Chrysostom once wrote: Moses, what are you saying? Does the blood of a lamb purify men and women? Does it save them from death? How can the blood of an animal purify people, save people or have power over death? In fact, Chrysostom continues, the immolation of the lamb could be a merely symbolic act, hence, the expression of expectation and hope in One who could accomplish what the sacrifice of an animal was incapable of accomplishing.

[ignatius]

If you follow the Johannine account of the Last Supper, then, liturgically, you use regular bread for the Eucharist.  If you follow the Synoptic accounts, you use unleavened bread.  This arises because of a difference between the two accounts concerning whether the mean was the Passover Seder or a Kiddush eaten before the first day of Passover began.

I think if we were following the Johannine account we wouldn't be breaking bread at all... just washing feet... 

Read Chapter 6.

Yeah, I know but was talking about the specific Last Supper... err.. Last Feet Washing... 

[ignatius]

Interesting Pope Benedict quote:

The majority of exegetes were of the opinion that John was reluctant to tell us the true historical date of Jesus’ death, but rather chose a symbolic date to highlight the deeper truth: Jesus is the new, true Lamb who poured out his Blood for us all.

In the meantime, the discovery of the [Dead Sea] Scrolls at Qumran has led us to a possible and convincing solution which, although it is not yet accepted by everyone, is a highly plausible hypothesis. We can now say that John’s account is historically precise.

Jesus truly shed his blood on the eve of Easter at the time of the immolation of the lambs.
In all likelihood, however, he celebrated the Passover with his disciples in accordance with the Qumran calendar, hence, at least one day earlier; he celebrated it without a lamb, like the Qumran community which did not recognize Herod’s temple and was waiting for the new temple.

Consequently, Jesus celebrated the Passover without a lamb – no, not without a lamb: instead of the lamb he gave himself, his Body and his Blood. Thus, he anticipated his death in a manner consistent with his words: “No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (Jn 10: 18).

At the time when he offered his Body and his Blood to the disciples, he was truly fulfilling this affirmation. He himself offered his own life. Only in this way did the ancient Passover acquire its true meaning.

In his Eucharistic catecheses, St John Chrysostom once wrote: Moses, what are you saying? Does the blood of a lamb purify men and women? Does it save them from death? How can the blood of an animal purify people, save people or have power over death? In fact, Chrysostom continues, the immolation of the lamb could be a merely symbolic act, hence, the expression of expectation and hope in One who could accomplish what the sacrifice of an animal was incapable of accomplishing.

Where is this taken from? Which book?

[John Larocque]

Google, I guess, is your friend. Hahn's book is metnioned above. But here's another Jaubert reference:

http://bible.org/question/was-last-supper-passover-seder

4. In the light of recent researches into the influence of separate calendars which were used for calculating feast-days, it is now possible to consider again the older submissions of P. Billerbeck and J. Pickl that the two strata of Gospel evidence may be harmonized on the assumption that both are understandable, with each reflecting a different tradition. Billerbeck and Pickl distinguished between the Pharisaic date of the Passover which Jesus used and the Sadducean dating a day earlier which lies behind the Fourth Gospel. This was dismissed by critics as lacking in supporting evidence, but the Dead Sea Scrolls show that there were divergent calendars in use in heterodox Jewry, and it is possible that separate traditions were, in fact, in vogue at the time of the passion. Mlle A. Jaubert has recently reconstructed the events on this basis so as to harmonize the data of the Gospels and early liturgical witnesses (in her book The Date of the Last Supper, E.T. 1965. See for an acceptance of her thesis, E. E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke2, NCB, 1974, pp. 249f. and Mlle Jaubert’s later contribution in NTS 14, 1967-8, pp. 145-164.

Again, the Syrian Holy Tuesday tradition interests me.

The Pope Benedect speech, noted on the blog, dates from a 4/5/2007 homily:
http://www.zenit.org/article-19341?l=english
http://compassionate-planet.blogspot.com/2009/10/jesus-did-not-eat-lamb-at-passover.html

I love this section:

Jesus celebrated the Passover without a lamb and without a temple; yet, not without a lamb and not without a temple. He himself was the awaited Lamb, the true Lamb, just as John the Baptist had foretold at the beginning of Jesus' public ministry: "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (Jn 1: 29).

And he himself was the true Temple, the living Temple where God dwells and where we can encounter God and worship him. His Blood, the love of the One who is both Son of God and true man, one of us, is the Blood that can save. His love, that love in which he gave himself freely for us, is what saves us. The nostalgic, in a certain sense, ineffectual gesture which was the sacrifice of an innocent and perfect lamb, found a response in the One who for our sake became at the same time Lamb and Temple.

Thus, the Cross was at the centre of the new Passover of Jesus. From it came the new gift brought by him, and so it lives on for ever in the Blessed Eucharist in which, down the ages, we can celebrate the new Passover with the Apostles.

[John Larocque]

If you follow the Johannine account of the Last Supper, then, liturgically, you use regular bread for the Eucharist.  If you follow the Synoptic accounts, you use unleavened bread.  This arises because of a difference between the two accounts concerning whether the mean was the Passover Seder or a Kiddush eaten before the first day of Passover began.

The Church of Rome used leavened bread for hundreds of years. What, I suspect, happened, is that the "Passover seder" arguments in favour of unleavened bread took place AFTER they had introduced the practice. But who knows for sure. What we do know is that all the polemics that Constantinople hurled against the Armenians were dusted off and reused against the Latins. The Western practice, I believe, began in Germany.

[Cleopas]

I am neutral on whether or not the Last Supper was an Essene Passover (or more likely, a pre-Passover meal) - but the New Testament clearly does NOT use the word for unleaevend bread. So the NT is agnostic as well on the issue of leaven in the bread. I do believe that it is Jewish tradition to remove leaven from the household several days before Passover, so I don't think you can hold up the NT as proof of either leavened or unleavened bread, only that they used the word for ordinary bread to describe what was consumed. "I am the bread from heaven", not "I am the unleavened bread from heaven."

I understand what you are saying, however, since Scripture "cannot be broken" (John 10:35) any view thereof that causes the gospels (or any other book of Scripture) to disagree, rather than to harmonize, must be a false view or understanding. Besides, Paul is quite clear on the nature of the bread we are to use at the Lords table, and why (1 Corinthians 5:8).

"Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." 1 Corinthians 5:8

[ignatius]

I am neutral on whether or not the Last Supper was an Essene Passover (or more likely, a pre-Passover meal) - but the New Testament clearly does NOT use the word for unleaevend bread. So the NT is agnostic as well on the issue of leaven in the bread. I do believe that it is Jewish tradition to remove leaven from the household several days before Passover, so I don't think you can hold up the NT as proof of either leavened or unleavened bread, only that they used the word for ordinary bread to describe what was consumed. "I am the bread from heaven", not "I am the unleavened bread from heaven."

I understand what you are saying, however, since Scripture "cannot be broken" (John 10:35) any view thereof that causes the gospels (or any other book of Scripture) to disagree, rather than to harmonize, must be a false view or understanding. Besides, Paul is quite clear on the nature of the bread we are to use at the Lords table, and why (1 Corinthians 5:8).

"Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." 1 Corinthians 5:8

I'm with you regarding making Scripture disagree but the text you use to 'prove' unleavened bread seems to me to be very symbolic language. How are we sure that we need to they the 'unleavened bread' literally here. I'm just asking because I kinda agree that we should be observing an fulfilled Seder but I'm not sure this particular text is the key to the problem.

[Cleopas]

I'm with you regarding making Scripture disagree but the text you use to 'prove' unleavened bread seems to me to be very symbolic language. How are we sure that we need to they the 'unleavened bread' literally here. I'm just asking because I kinda agree that we should be observing an fulfilled Seder but I'm not sure this particular text is the key to the problem.

I understand your hesitancy, but it just makes sense if you meditate on the passage a bit. Paul is not trying to be confusing or misleading. Furthermore, he frames his obvious metaphorical application (concerning Christian living on the whole) with the observance of the passover fulfilled, what you goof folk call the eucharist. So, what he says about the Lord's table here must be literally true for the application to make sense, else there is no basis for the comparison or extension he is making. I mean,really, if we eat leavened bread then Paul's words here are difficult to understand at best, and are totally incoherent and non-applicable at worst. The clear meaning and intention is that the unleavened bread we eat speaks to the purity of life Christ lived in the flesh, and our partaking in that same purity of heart and life, both positionally and experientially.

To state the sasme more briefly and rhetorically...

If Christ our passover is identified in Scripture with unleavened bread, and the bread is his body, what then does it say about Christ to use leavened bread in praxis? Such is a contradiction.

[John Larocque]

You guys might want to look up some of the early Armenian defenses of the practice of unleavened bread, but I believe they were treading on some of the same New Testament ground. I think, of all the ancient churches, they were one of the few that adhered to the practice.

[ozgeorge]

You guys might want to look up some of the early Armenian defenses of the practice of unleavened bread, but I believe they were treading on some of the same New Testament ground. I think, of all the ancient churches, they were one of the few that adhered to the practice.

I'm not sure that the Armenians used unleaven bread because they thought it was a Seder. The only reason I've read was because they considered leaven to represent sin and Christ is sinless.

[Cleopas]

I hesitate to point it out, as it may not be readily obvious, but in the event it should be taken offensively...

I made a typo in my last reply above. I meant to say "you good folk" and accidentally typed "you goof folk".    

My sincere apologies. 

[ozgeorge]

I hesitate to point it out, as it may not be readily obvious, but in the event it should be taken offensively...

I made a typo in my last reply above. I meant to say "you good folk" and accidentally typed "you goof folk".    

My sincere apologies. 

I hope that's not your Freudian slip showing!

[ialmisry]

I'm with you regarding making Scripture disagree but the text you use to 'prove' unleavened bread seems to me to be very symbolic language. How are we sure that we need to they the 'unleavened bread' literally here. I'm just asking because I kinda agree that we should be observing an fulfilled Seder but I'm not sure this particular text is the key to the problem.

I understand your hesitancy, but it just makes sense if you meditate on the passage a bit. Paul is not trying to be confusing or misleading. Furthermore, he frames his obvious metaphorical application (concerning Christian living on the whole) with the observance of the passover fulfilled, what you goof folk call the eucharist. So, what he says about the Lord's table here must be literally true for the application to make sense, else there is no basis for the comparison or extension he is making. I mean,really, if we eat leavened bread then Paul's words here are difficult to understand at best, and are totally incoherent and non-applicable at worst. The clear meaning and intention is that the unleavened bread we eat speaks to the purity of life Christ lived in the flesh, and our partaking in that same purity of heart and life, both positionally and experientially.

To state the sasme more briefly and rhetorically...

If Christ our passover is identified in Scripture with unleavened bread, and the bread is his body, what then does it say about Christ to use leavened bread in praxis? Such is a contradiction.

He is the Paschal lamb, not the paschal bread.

And even if St. Paul meant unleavened bread, he can be pre-empted:
Matthew 13:33 He proposed another parable to them. "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that a person took and sowed in a field. It is the smallest of all the seeds, yet when full-grown it is the largest of plants. It becomes a large bush, and the 'birds of the sky come and dwell in its branches.'" He spoke to them another parable. "The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed with three measures of wheat flour until the whole batch was leavened."

Luke 13:20-21Then he said, "What is the kingdom of God like? To what can I compare it? It is like a mustard seed that a person took and planted in the garden. When it was fully grown, it became a large bush and 'the birds of the sky dwelt in its branches.'" Again he said, "To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed (in) with three measures of wheat flour until the whole batch of dough was leavened."

Luke 14:15 When one of those who were reclining at the table with Him heard this, he said to Him, "Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!"

Luke 22:14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”

Luke 22:30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel

[ialmisry]

I hesitate to point it out, as it may not be readily obvious, but in the event it should be taken offensively...

I made a typo in my last reply above. I meant to say "you good folk" and accidentally typed "you goof folk".    

My sincere apologies. 

LOL. Didn't even notice.

[John Larocque]

I'm not sure that the Armenians used unleaven bread because they thought it was a Seder. The only reason I've read was because they considered leaven to represent sin and Christ is sinless.

I was thinking of the above quote in reference to them:

"Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." 1 Corinthians 5:8

[Cleopas]

He is the Paschal lamb, not the paschal bread.

Per Paul, He is both.

1 Corinthians 5:7-8
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

What feast are we keeping? Passover. Who is our lamb? Christ. Who is our bread? Christ. What is the bread? Christ's body, which He sacrificed for us. How then since Christ lived a sinless life in the body, and Paul says we are to keep the feast with unleavened bread, can one partake of Christ as the Passover and do so in the form of leavened bread?

Indeed, the unleavened passover bread holds special symbolism that further drives home this apostolic comparison and injunction. The bread is striped, as Christ was for our healing. The bread is pierced, as Christ was when he shed forth the fount of eternal life. The bread is broken as our Lord explained when he gave it to His disciples at the last supper. Beautiful!

And even if St. Paul meant unleavened bread, he can be pre-empted:

Not without "breaking" Scripture (which is an impossibility, proving the absurdity of any position staked on such a handling of the word).

[ialmisry]

What feast are we keeping? Passover. Who is our lamb? Christ. Who is our bread? Christ. What is the bread? Christ's body, which He sacrificed for us. How then since Christ lived a sinless life in the body, and Paul says we are to keep the feast with unleavened bread, can one partake of Christ as the Passover and do so in the form of leavened bread?

Because He is Living Bread Who comes down from Heaven, not lifeless bread.

Indeed, the unleavened passover bread holds special symbolism that further drives home this apostolic comparison and injunction. The bread is striped, as Christ was for our healing. The bread is pierced, as Christ was when he shed forth the fount of eternal life. The bread is broken as our Lord explained when he gave it to His disciples at the last supper. Beautiful!

I came across a video of the Proskonesis on the site of a Greek Church that I haven't been able to come across again.  Anyone know where it might be?

I'll answer the rest, Lord willing, after DL for the Presentation.

[Melodist]

What feast are we keeping? Passover. Who is our lamb? Christ. Who is our bread? Christ. What is the bread? Christ's body, which He sacrificed for us. How then since Christ lived a sinless life in the body, and Paul says we are to keep the feast with unleavened bread, can one partake of Christ as the Passover and do so in the form of leavened bread?

Christ, who is the true bread which came down from heaven, is risen.

1 Cor 11:26

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

1 Cor 15:14

And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

The Divine Liturgy

Remembering, therefore, this command of the Savior, and all that came to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father, and the second, glorious coming.

http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/liturgical_texts/liturgy_hchc.asp

[Pravoslavbob]

He is the Paschal lamb, not the paschal bread.

Per Paul, He is both.

1 Corinthians 5:7-8
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

What feast are we keeping? Passover. Who is our lamb? Christ. Who is our bread? Christ. What is the bread? Christ's body, which He sacrificed for us. How then since Christ lived a sinless life in the body, and Paul says we are to keep the feast with unleavened bread, can one partake of Christ as the Passover and do so in the form of leavened bread?

Can you honestly not see that Paul is speaking metaphorically here?  How can you possibly cite this Scripture as absolute "proof" that unleavened bread should be used?   Plus there are the arguments by other posters concerning Christ as being the Living bread etc.   Moreover, John is widely regarded by Scripture scholars as being more concerned with historical accuracy than the other Gospels.  

[augustin717]

What feast are we keeping? Passover. Who is our lamb? Christ. Who is our bread? Christ. What is the bread? Christ's body, which He sacrificed for us. How then since Christ lived a sinless life in the body, and Paul says we are to keep the feast with unleavened bread, can one partake of Christ as the Passover and do so in the form of leavened bread?

Because He is Living Bread Who comes down from Heaven, not lifeless bread.

Indeed, the unleavened passover bread holds special symbolism that further drives home this apostolic comparison and injunction. The bread is striped, as Christ was for our healing. The bread is pierced, as Christ was when he shed forth the fount of eternal life. The bread is broken as our Lord explained when he gave it to His disciples at the last supper. Beautiful!

I came across a video of the Proskonesis on the site of a Greek Church that I haven't been able to come across again.  Anyone know where it might be?

I'll answer the rest, Lord willing, after DL for the Presentation.

Did you mean "proskomede"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmTKjNmEG9s

[Riddikulus]

I hesitate to point it out, as it may not be readily obvious, but in the event it should be taken offensively...

I made a typo in my last reply above. I meant to say "you good folk" and accidentally typed "you goof folk".    

My sincere apologies.  

I saw it and had a goof, I mean good laugh!