The Nature and Design of the Holy Eucharist: Introduction

CoNTAlNlNa an examination of the question,” Did our Lord eat the Passover with his disciples on the last year of his public ministry V

As I shall have occasion frequently to refer to this subject in the ensuing discourse — a subject on which the Christian world has been divided for at least 1500 years — the reader will naturally expect to find some notice taken of the controversy concerning it; and although a decision on the case cannot be expected, yet a fair statement of the principal opinions which at diflferent times have been held and defended by learned men, should undoubtedly be given.

With no show of propriety could such a controversy be introduced into the body of a discourse on the Nature and Design of the Lord’s Supper; and yet the view I have taken of this ordinance is

SO intimately connected with the passover in general, that to pass by the controversy in silence, would by many be deemed inexcusable. I shall therefore briefly state the principal opinions on this question, the reasonings by which they are supported, and take the liberty to notice that one especially, which I judge to come nearest to the truth. The chief opinions are the four following: —

I. Christ did not eat the passover in the last year of his ministry.

II. He did eat it that year, and at the same time with the Jews.

III. He did eat it that year, but not at the same time with the Jews.

rV. He did eat a passover of his own instituting, but widely different from that eaten by the Jews.

I. The first opinion, that our Lord did not eat the passover, is thus maintained by Dr. Wall, in his critical notes on Matt. xxvi. 17.

“Here occurs a question, and a difference between the words of St. John and the other three evangelists, concerning the day of the week on which the Jews kept the passover that year, 4037, A.D. 33. It is plain by all the four gospels, that the day on which Christ did, at night, eat the passover (or what some call the passover), was Thursday. And one would think, by reading the three, that that was the night on which the Jews did eat their passover lamb; but all the texts of St. John are clear that they did not eat it till the next night, Friday night, before which night Christ was crucified and dead, having given up the ghost about the ninth hour, viz., three of the clock in the afternoon. St. John does speak of a supper which Christ did eat on the Thursday night with his apostles, chap. xiii. 12; but he does not call it a passover supper, but, on the contrary, says it was before the feast of the plissover, o rrigy eonjc rou ^atray by which I think he means the “day before the passover,” or the “passover eve,” as we should say. Now this was the same night and same supper which the three do call the passover, and Christ’s eating the passover; I mean, it was the night on which Christ was, a few hours after supper, apprehended; as is plain by the last verse of that thirteenth chapter. But the next day, Friday, on which Christ was crucified, St. John makes to be the passover day. He says, chap, xviii. 28, the Jews would not go into the judgment-hall on Friday morning, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover, viz., that evening.

And chap. xix. 14, speaking of Friday noon, he says it was “the preparation 6f the passover.** Upon the whole, John speaks not of eating the passover at all; nor indeed do the three speak of his eating any lamb. Among all the expressions which they use, of” making ready the passover; prepare for me to eat the passover; with desire have I desired to eat this passover with you,” &c., there is no mention of any lamb carried to the temple to be slain by the Levites, and then brought to the house and roasted; there is no mention of any food at the supper besides bread and wine; perhaps there might be some bitter herbs. So that this seems to have been a commemorative supper, used by our Saviour, instead of the proper paschal supper — the eating 6f a lamb — which should have been the next night, but that he himself was to be sacrificed before that time would come. And the difference between St. John and the others is only a difference in words, and in the names of things. They call that the passover, which Christ used instead of it. If you say, why then does Mark (xiv. 12) call Thursday the “first day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed,” we must note, their day (or vvxhfJi*Hov) was from evening to evening. This Thursday evening was the beginning of that natural day of twenty-four hours, towards the end of which the lamb was to be killed; so it is proper, in the Jews’ way of calling days, to call it that day.”

II. He did eat the passover that year, and at the same time with the Jews.

The late Dr. Newcome, archbishop of Armagh, is of a very different opinion from Dr. Wall; and from a careful collation of the passages in the evangelists, concludes, “That our Lord did not anticipate this feast, but partook of it with the Jews, on the usual and national day.”

“It appears,” says he,” from the gospel history (see Mark xv. 42, xvi. 9), that our Lord was crucified on Friday. But the night before his crucifixion, on which he was betrayed (1 Cor. xi. 23), he kept the passover, and that he kept it at the legal time is thus determined. In Matt. xxvi. 2, and in Mark xiv. 1, it is said that the passover, xat ra au/Aa, were after two days, or on the day following that on which Jesus foretold his sufferings and resurrection to his disciples. Matt. xvi. 21, &c. Mark viii. 31, &c., and Luke ix. 22, &c.

“The evangelists, proceeding regularly in their history. Matt. xxvi. 17, and in the parallel places,

Mask ziv. 12, &c., Luke zziL 7, &c., mention is made of this day, and it is called the first day of unleavened bread, whep they killed the passoyer,” Le., by general custom; and St. Luke says that the day came, which (ver. 1) was approaching, when the passover must be killed; i.e., by the law of Moses. The 14th of Nisan is therefore meant, which is called ^^utti au//b»v, the first of unleavened bread.

“During the week, therefore, of our Lord’s passion, the law of Moses required that the passover should be slain on Thursday afternoon; but our Lord partook of it on the night immediately euoceeding, Matt. xxvi. 19, 20; and the parallel places, Luke xzii. 14, 15; and therefore he partook of it at the legal time.

“Mark adv. 12, Luke xxii. 7, equally prove that the Jews kept the passover at the same time with Jesus.”

To the objection, John xviiL 28, that the Jews avoided defilement that they might eat the passover, the prelate answers, “that they meant the paschal sacrifices ofiered for seven days; and they spoke particularly in reference to the 15th of Nisan which was a day of holy convocation.”

To the objection taken firom John jdx. 14, that the day on which our Lord was crucified is called 9raffx$v9i rou *x(i(i the preparation of the passover, he replies, “that in Mark xv. 42, flragatfxsujj, ’ preparation,’ is the same as crotfajSjSarov, the day before the Sabbath,’ and so in Luke xxiii. 54; therefore by flraairxsoij ra *xa(fa, we may understand the preparation before that Sabbath which happened during the paschal festival,”

This is the substance of what Archbishop New-come says, both in his Harmony and Notes. See the latter, pp. 42 — 45.

To this it is answered, that the opinion, which states that our Lord ate the passover the same day and hour with the Jews, seems scarcely supportable. If he ate it the same hour the Jews ate theirs, he certainly could not have died that day, as they ate the passover on Friday, about six o’clock in the evening; if he did not, he must have been crucified on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, and could not have risen again on the first day of the week, as all the evangelists testify, but on the second, or Monday, which I suppose few will attempt to support. On this and other considerations, I think this point should be given up. But others argue thus —

That Christ intended to eat a passover with his disciples on this occasion, and that he inknsdf desired it too, we have the fullest proof from the three first evangelists. See Matt. xxvi. 1, 2, 3, 17 — 20; Markxiv. 1, 12 — 16; Lukcxxii. 1, 7 — 13. And that he actually did eat one with them, mlist appear most evidently to those who shall carefullycollate the preceding Scriptures, and especially what St. Luke says, chap. xxii. 7 — 18; for when Peter and John had received the Lord’s command to go and prepare the passover, it is said, ver. 13, “they went and found as he had said unto them, and they made ready the passover:” i.e., got a lamb, and prepared it for the purpose, according to the law. Ver. 14, “And when the hour was come (to eat it), he sat down, avsscg, and the twelve apostles with him.” Ver. 15, “And he said unto them, With desire have I desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer;” where it is to be noted, that they had now “sat down to eat that passover,” which before had been prepared, and that every word which is spoken is peculiarly proper to the occasion. “With desire,” says our Lord, “have I desired, rouro to ‘ffatsya ^ayetv, TO EAT THIS VERY PASSOVER;” not £<fditt¥ ro iraffx,

to “eat a passover,” or something commenuyrative of it, but rovTo ro ‘KcKSya, THIS vmj PASSOVER: and it is no mean proof that they were then in the act of eating the flesh of the paschal lamb, from the use of the verb f ayg/v, which is most proper to the eating of flesh; as i(fdntv signifies eating in general, or eating bread, pulse, &c.

The same word, in reference to the same act of eating the passover, not to the bread and wine of the holy supper, is used, ver. 16: “For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof,” ou fiti faybi s auTou, “I will not eat of HIM or IT,” viz., the paschal lamb, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God; i.e., this shall be the last passover I shall celebrate on earth, as I am now about to suffer, and the kingdom of God — the plenitude of the gospel dispensation — shall immediately take place. And then, according to this evangelist, having finished the eating of the paschal lamb, he instituted the BREAD of the Holy Supper, ver. 19, and afterwards the OUP, ver. 20, though he and * they had partaken of the cup of blessing usual on such occasions, with the paschal lamb, immediately before. See ver. 17. Whosoever carefully considers the whole of this account, must be convinced that, whatever may come of the question concerning the time of eating the passover, our Lord did actually eat one with his

12 disciples before he suffered. What this passover most probably was, we shall see under the fourth opinion.

Hr. He did eat the Passover that year, but not at the same time with the Jews.

Dr. Cudworth, who of all others has handled this subject best, has proved from the Talmud, Mishna, and some of the most reputable of the Jewish Rabbins, that the ancient Jews, about our Saviour’s time, often solemnized as well the Passovers as the other feasts upon the ferias next before and after the Sabbaths. And that as the Jews in ancient times reckoned the new moons, not ac- <5ording to astronomical exactness, but according to the f atf/ff, or moon’s appearance, and as this appearance might happen a day later than the real time, consequently there might be a whole day of difference in the time of celebrating one of these feasts, which depended on a particular day of the month; the days of the month being counted from the patf/j, or appearance of the new moon. As he describes the whole manner of doing this, both from the Babylonish Talmud, and from Maimonides, I shall give an extract from this part of his work, that my readers may have the whole argument be fore them.

‘* la the greater or outer court, there was a house called Beth Yazek, where tfie senate sat all tlu thirtieth day of every month, to receive the witnesses of the moon’s appearance, and to examine them. If there came approved witnesses on the* thirtieth day, who could state that they had seen the new moon, the chief man of the senate stood up and cried, unpo mehuddaeh * It is sanctified f and the people standing by, caught the word from him, and cried, mehaddash, mehuddash! But if, when the consistory had sat all the day, and there came no approved witnesses of the phasis, or appearance of the new moon, then they made an intercalation of one day in the former month, and decreed the following one-and-thirtieth day to be the calends* But if, after the fourth or fifth day, or even before the end of the month, respectable witnesses came firom far, and testified they had seen the new moon, in its due time, the senate were bound to alter the beginning of the month, and reckon it a day sooner, viz., from the thirtieth day.

“As the senate were very unwilling to be at the trouble of a second consecration, when they had even fixed on a wrong day, and therefore received very reluctantly the testimony of such witnesses as those last mentioned, they afterwards made a

12 — 2 statute to this effect, * That whatsoever tune the senate should conclude on for the calends of the month, though it were certain they were in the wrong, yet all were bound to order their feasts according to it/” This, Dr. Cudworth supposes, actually took place in ’ the time of our Lord, and “as it is not likely that our Lord would submit to this perversion of the original custom, and that, following the true f atf/g, or appearance of the new moon, confirmed by sufficient witnesses, he and his disciples ate the passover on that day; but the Jews, following the pertinacious decree of the Sanhedrin, did not eat it till the day following.” Dr. C. further shows from Epiphanius, that there was a contention, ^ovog, a tumult, among the Jews, about the passover, that very year. Hence itv is likely, that what was the real paschal day to our Lord, his disciples, and many other pious Jews, who adopted the true 9a<r/g, was only the preparation or antecedent evening, to others, who acted on the decree of the senate. Besides, it is worthy ef note, that not only the Karaites, who do not acknowledge the authority of the Sanhedrin, but also the rabbins themselves, grant, that where the case is doubtful the passover should be celebrated th the sape ceremonies two days together; and iNTRomrcnoN. IST

it was idways donbtfiil when the appearance of the new moon could not be fhlly ascertained.

Bishop Pearce supposes, that it was lawful for the Jews to eat the paschal lamb at any time between the evening of Thursday and that of Friday, and that this permission was necessary because of the immense number of lambs which were to be killed for that purpose; as in one year there were not fewer than 256,500 lambs offered. See Josephus, War, b. vii., c. 9, sect. 3. In Matt. xxvi. 17, it is said, “Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread (rp ds ‘srurp tuv atv/iuv) the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?”^ As the feast of unleavened bread did not begin till the day after the passover, the fifteenth day of the month (Lev. xxiii. 5, 6; Numb, xxviii. 16, 17), this could not have been properly the first day of that feast; but as the Jews began to eat unleavened bread on the fourteenth day (Exod. xii. 18), this day was often termed the first of unleavened bread. Now, it appears, that the evangelists use it in this sense, and call even the paschal day by this name; see Mark xiv. 12; Luke xxii. 7.

At first view, this third opinion, which states that Christ did eat the passover with his disciples

12 — 3 that year, but not in the same hour with the Jews, and that he expired on the cross the same hour in which the paschal lamb was killed, seems the most probable. For, it follows, from what has already been remarked, that our Lord and his disciples ate the passover some hours before the Jews ate theirs; for they, according to custom, ate theirs at the end of the fourteenth day, but Christ appears to have eaten his the preceding evening, which was the beginning of the same sixth day of the week, or Friday, for the Jews began their day at sun-setting; we, at midnight. Thus Christ ate the passover the same day with the Jews, but not on the same hour. Christ, therefore, kept this passover the beginning of the fourteenth day, the precise day in which the Jews had eaten their first passover in Egypt; see Exod. xii. 6 — 12. And in the same part of the same day in which they had sacrificed their first paschal lamb, viz., between the two evenings, i.e., between the sun’s declining west and his setting about the third hour, Jesus our passover was sacrificed for us. For it was about the third hour (Mark xv. 25), when Christ was nailed to the cross, and about the ninth hour {Matt, xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 34). Jesus knowing that the antitype had accomplished everything

shadowed forth by the type, or Paschal Lamb, he said, It is finished, rsrsXscrrat, completed, perfected; and having thus said, he bowed his head, and dismissed his spirit, ^asdwxe ro ^tvfid. John yiv. 30.

Probably there is but one objection of any force that lies against the opinion, that our Lord ate his passover some hours before the Jews in general ate theirs, which is, that, if our Lord did eat the passover the evening before the Jews in general ate theirs, it could not have been sacrificed according to the law; nor in it at all likely that the blood was sprinkled at the foot of the altar. If, therefore, the blood were not thus sprinkled by one of the priests, that which constituted the very essence of the rite, as ordained by God, was lacking in that celebrated by our Lord.

To this it may be answered: First, We have already seen, that in consequence of the immense number of sacrifices to be offered on the paschal solenmity, it was highly probable the Jews were obliged to employ two days for this work. It is not at all likely that the blood of 256,500 lambs could be shed and sprinkled at one altar, in the course of one day, by all the priests in Jerusalem, or indeed in the Holy Land; since they had but that one altar where they could legally sprinkle the blood of the victims.

Secondly, we have also seen that, in cases of doubt relative to the time of the appearance of the new moon, the Jews were permitted to hold the passover both days; and that it is probable such a dubious case existed at the time in question. In any of these cases the lamb might have been killed and its blood sprinkled according to the rules and ceremonies of the Jewish church.

Thirdly, as our Lord was the true paschal lamb, who was, in a few hours after this time, to bear away the sin of the world, he might dispense with this part of the ceremony, and act as Lord of his own institution, in this, as he had done before in the case of the Sabbath. At any rate, as it seems probable that he ate the passover at this time, and that he died about the time the Jews offered theirs, it may be fully presumed that he left nothing undone towards a due performance of the rite, which the present necessity required, or the law of (Jod could demand.

The objection, that our Lord and his disciples appear to have sat or reclined at table all the time they ate what is supposed above to have been the passover, contrary to the paschal institution, which required them to eat it standing, with their staves in their hands, their loins girded, and their shoes on, cannot be considered as having any great weight in it; for, though the terms avsTsw, Matt, zxvi. 20, and avixe/ro, Luke xxii. 14, are used in reference to their eating that evening, and these words signify reclining at table, or on a couch, as is the custom of the Orientals, it does not follow that they must necessarily be restrained to that meaning, nor does it appear that this part of the ceremony was much attended to, perhaps not at all, in the latter days of the Jewish Church.

rV”. He did eat a passover of his own instituting, but widely different from that eaten by the Jews.

M. Toinard, in his .Greek Harmony of the Gospels, strongly contends that our Lord did not eat .what is commonly called the passover this year, but another of a mystical kind. His chief arguments are the following:

It is indubitably evident from the text of St. John, that the night on the beginning of which our Lord supped with his disciples, and instituted the holy sacrament, was not that on which the Jews celebrated the passover; but the preceding evening, on which the passover could not be legally offered. The conclusion is evident from the following passages: John xiii. 1, “Now before the feast of the passover, Jesus knowing,” &c.; ver. 2, ^’And supper (not the paschal but an ordinary supper) being ended,” Sec; ver. 27, “That thau doest do quickly,” ver. 28,. “Now no one at the table knew for what intent he spake this;” ver. 29, “For some thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him. Buy what we have need of against the feast,” &c.; chap xviiL 28, “Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas to the hall of judgment, and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover;” chap. xix. 14, “And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour.” Now, as it appears that at this time the disciples thought our Lord had ordered Judas to go and bring what was necessary for the passover, and they were then supping together, it is evident it was not the paschal lamb on which they were supping; and it is as evident, from the unwillingness of the Jews to go into the hall of judgment, that they had not as yet eaten the passover. These words are plain, and can be taken in no other sensei without offering them the greatest violence.

Mr. Toinard having found that our Lord was crucified on the sixth day of 4he week, Friday, during the paschal solemnity, in the thirty-third year of the vulgar era, and that the paschal moon of the year was not in conjunction with the sun till the afternoon of Thursday, the 19th of March, and that the new moon could not be seen in Judea until the following day, Friday, concluded that the intelligence of the al;, or appearance of the new moon, could not be made by the witnesses to the Beth Din, or senate, sooner than Saturday morning, the 21st of March. That the first day of the first Jewish month, Nisan, could not commence that thirty-third year sooner than the setting of the sun on Friday, March 20th; and, consequently, that Friday, April 3rd, on which Christ died, was the .14th of Nisan, not the 15th, the day appointed by the law for the celebration of the passover. All these points he took care to have ascertained by the nicest astronomical calculations, in which he was assisted by a very eminent astronomer and mathematician, Buhaldus (Mr. Bouilleau).

These two last opinions, apparently coqjbradiotory, and which alone, of all those offered on the subject, deserve consideration, may be brought to harmonize. That Jesus ate the passover with his disciples the evening before the Jews ate theirs, seems pretty clearly proved firom the text of St. Luke, and the arguments founded on that text.

All that is assumed there, to make the whole consistent, is, that the Jews that year held the passover both on the 13th and 14th of Nisan, because of the reasons already assigned; and that therefore Peter and John, who were employed on this business, might have got the blood legally sprinkled by the hands of a priest, which was all that was necessary to the legality of the rite.

But, secondly, should it appear improbable that such double celebration took place at this time, and that our Lord could not have eten the passover that year with his disciples, as he died on the very hour on which the paschal lamb was slain, and consequently before he could legally eat the passover; how then can the text of St. Luke be reconciled with this fact? I answer, with the utmost ease, by substituting a passover for the passover; and simply assuming that our Lord at this time instituted the Holy Eucharist m place of the Paschal Lamb and thus it will appear he ate a passover with Ws disciples the evening before his death, viz., the mystical passover, or sacrament of his body and blood; and that this was the passover which he so ardently longed to eat with his disciples before he suffered. This is the opinion of Mr. Toinard, and, if granted, solves every difficulty. Thus the whole controversy is brought into a very narrow compass; our Lord did eat a passover with his disciples some short time before he died, the question is, whai pasaover did he eat; the regular le passover, or a mysHcaJ onel That he ate a passover is, I think, demonstrated; but whether the literal or mystical one, is a matter of doubt. On this point good and learned men may innocently hesitate and differ; but, on either hypothesis, the text of the evangelists is unimpeachable, and all shadow of contradiction done away; for the question then rests on the peculiar meaning of names and words. On this hypothesis the preparation of the passover must be considered as implying no more than, — 1. Providing a convenient room; 2. Bringing water for the baking on the following day, because on that day the bringing of water would have been unlawful; 3. Making inquisition for the leaven, that everything of this kind might be removed from the house where the passover was to be eaten, according to the very strict and awful command of Grod; Ezod. idi. 15 — 20, xxiii. 15, and xxxiv. 25. These, it is probable, were the acts of “preparation” which tW disciples were commanded to perform, Matt, xzvi. 18; Mark xir. 13, 14; Luke xxii. 3, 11; and which, on their airival at the city, they ptmctnally executed; see MaLtt. xxvi. 19; Mark xiv. 16; Luke xxii. 13. Thus everything was pr>ared, and the holy sacrament instituted, which should, in the Christian church; take the place of the Jewish passover; and continue to he a memorial of the sacrifice which Clriist was about to me by his death on the cross; for, asi the pasclml lamb had showed forth his death till he came, this death fulfilled the design of the rite, and sealed up the vision and prophecy; and eating bread and drinking wine in the manner recommended by our Lord, must be considered as complete a symbolical representation of his passion and death, as the slaying and eating of the paschal lamb.

All preparations for the true paschal sacrifice being now made, Jesus was immediately betrayed, shortly after apprehended, and in a few hours expired upon the cross. It is therefore very likely that he did not literally eat the passover this year; and may I not add, that it is more than probable that the passover was not eaten in the whole land of Judea on this occasion. The rending of the veil of the temple (Matt, xxvii. 51; Mark xv. 38; Luke 45); the terrible earthquake (Matt. zxviL £1 — 54); the dismal and lumatmal darkneaa which iras over the whole land of Judea from the sixth tout (twelve o’clock) to the ninth hour (Le. three o’clock in the afternoon); with all the other prodigies which took place on this awful occasion, we may naturally conclude were more than suflident to terrify and appal this guilty nation, and totally to prevent the celebration of the paschal ceremonies. Indeed the time in which killing the sacrifices and sprinkling the blood of the lambs should have been performed, was wholly occupied with these most dreadful portents; and it would be absurd to suppose that, under such terrible evidences of the divine indignation, any religious ordinances or festive preparations could possibly have taken phuce.

My readers will probably be surprised to see the preceding opinions so dissentient among themselves, and the plausible reasons by which they are respectively supported, where each seems by turns to prevail. When I took up the question, I had no suspicion that it was encumbered with so many difficulties. These I now feel and acknowledge; nevertheless, I think the plan of reconciling the texts of the evangelists, particularly St. Luke and

13 — 2

St. John, which I have adopted above, is natural, and I am in hopes will not appear altogether ansatisfactoiy to my readers. On the subject, circumstanced as it is, hypothesis alone can prevail; for indubitable evidence and certainty cannot be obtained. The morning of the resurrection is, probably, the nearest period in which accurate information on this point can be expected. “Je suis tromp6,” says Bouilleau, “si cette question pent etre jamais bien eclaircie.” — ^If I be not mistaken, this question will never be thoroughly understood. To conclude: It would be presumptuous to say, Christ did eat the passover this last year of his ministry: it would be as hazardous to say, he did not eat it: the middle way is the safest; and it is that which is adopted above. One thing is sufficiently evident, that Christ, our paschal Lamb, has been sacrificed for us; and that he has “instituted the Holy Eucharist to be a perpetual memorial of that his precious death, until his coining again:” and “they who with a sincere heart and true faith in his passion and death, partake of it, shall be made partakers of his most blessed body and blood.” Reader, praise God for the atonement; and rest not without an application of it to thy own soul.