The Last Supper

S. Mark xiv. 12–21

We can hardly understand aright what is written in the Gospels touching the Last Supper, and the Death of our Blessed Lord, without a clear knowledge of the sequence of events and ceremonies of the Jewish Passover.

On the 14th of Nisan two things took place of the greatest importance. At the beginning of the day according to Jewish reckoning, i.e. after sunset, or as soon as it could be conveniently arranged, the ceremony of putting away leaven from the houses was gone through. It began frequently with a fictitious sale to a Gentile of everything liable to fermentation, together with the domestic vessels which had been used in connection with it. Then followed a search by candle-light, conducted by the head of the family and some attendants, through the different rooms, after they had been previously cleared with most scrupulous care. In order, however, to give significance to the act, it was usual to leave a small portion of leavened bread at a spot where it could not possibly escape observation. This, as soon as it was discovered in the ceremonial search, was swept up with considerable formality and carried away.

The second event, of even greater consequence, was the slaying of the Paschal lamb. The limits of time within which this might be done is expressed by the phrase “between the two evenings,” that is, from three o’clock to five, or from the first decline to the setting of the sun. The father or representative of the house repaired to the Temple with a lamb or kid, having a knife attached to its fleece or horns. Exactly at the appointed hour the doors were thrown open, and the priests stood in two lines, the one holding golden bowls, the other silver. The victim was slain by the person who brought it. The front row of priests caught the blood, and gave the bowls to the priests in the row behind, by whom they were passed up in succession, till at last their contents were poured out at the foot of the altar. When this was over the preparation of the lamb immediately followed. The fat was carefully preserved for burning; and two wooden spits were thrust through the body crosswise by the priests. It was then taken away to be roasted, and was eaten after sunset, or as soon as it was dark, on the beginning of the 15 th of Nisan.

After the sun had gone down on Thursday in Holy Week, i.e. when the 14th day began, called by S. Mark “the first day of unleavened bread,” according to later usage, Jesus had made a point of doing it on the day previously. Lightfoot, Exercit. in Mark xiv. 12. sent forth two of the Apostles to prepare a room, where they might eat the Passover. They were preternaturally guided to the house of a man, of whom nothing more is known for certain than that he was a disciple. If he had not sat at our Lord’s feet they would hardly have said that they brought him a message from “the Master.” The room was already furnished with couches and carpets; and thither at a later hour Jesus gathered the Twelve for His last Paschal meal.

Now it is only natural that the deepest interest should have been felt in the site of the guestchamber. It was there, it is believed, that the Apostles assembled together during “Expectation Week” to await the descent of the Comforter, and there that He came to them in the likeness of fiery tongues. It was there also that Jesus appeared to them on two successive Sundays after the Resurrection. This same upper room was set apart as an oratory, in which, while they attended the Temple for public services, the first Christians celebrated the Eucharist; “continuing daily with one accord in the Temple, and breaking bread at home.” Upon this site was afterwards erected a splendid building which became the Mother Church of Jerusalem.

What the meal was, of which our Lord partook on the eve of His Passion, has been a subject of controversy almost from the beginning. The first three Evangelists appear at first sight at variance with the fourth, and those who refuse to see a direct contradiction between them have been accused of a disregard for the simple truth. SS. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all speak of it as a Passover; but S. John says that it was “before the Feast of the Passover; “and he tells us that when Judas left the table some of his brother Apostles thought that he was gone to buy what was necessary “against the Feast.” Yet further, as indicating that the time for the the first day of unleavened bread” means, according to Jewish usage, “on the day preceding” it. Cf. Exod. xii. 15, where Rashi explains “the first day” as “the day before.”

Paschal Feast had not arrived when Jesus sat down with the Twelve, he records that the Jews refused to enter the Praetorium on the following morning, lest they should be debarred by ceremonial uncleanness from eating the Passover; and, once more, the day of the Trial and Crucifixion is called by him “the preparation of the Passover.”

If we are right in saying that Thursday evening was the commencement of the 14th of Nisan, there can be no doubt that the Paschal lamb could not possibly have been eaten at the Last Supper. Under no circumstances might it be killed till the close of that day, “between the two evenings.” Therefore S. John is strictly correct in all that he says.

But are we to conclude that the other Evangelists are wrong? Certainly not. If our Blessed Lord was to be the Antitype of the Paschal lamb, it was absolutely necessary that He should die at the time appointed for the slaying of this; and it is expressly told us that He did expire just at the moment when the lambs were brought into the Temple to be slain. It follows, therefore, of necessity that He could not at one and the same Feast both Himself be, and also partake of, the Paschal lamb. He desired, He has told us, to eat “the Passover” with His disciples, but He has nowhere said, neither have the Evangelists suggested, that He ate “the lamb.” All that was possible was done. All other elements (except perhaps the unleavened cakes J) — the wine, the herbs, “the charoseth” of figs and almonds andvinegarand spice — were probably partaken of; and the song of praise, the second part of the Hallel, closed the meal, as it always closed the Paschal Feast. There was no inconsistency in calling it “the Passover,” as being eaten at the Paschal season, even though the lamb was wanting, just as there was none in giving the name to the Feast which Jews of “the dispersion” kept out of Palestine, or even out of Jerusalem, where that which could only be slain in the Temple was perforce excluded from the table.

When the Twelve assembled in the upper room a dispute arose, probably for the order of precedence in taking their seats. It is supposed that Judas claimed, and it explains some difficulties to conclude that he was allowed, the first place, viz., that on the left hand of the Host; and we know for certainty that S. John took that on His right.

The proximity of the traitor at such a time troubled His spirit, so that He could no longer repress the awful secret, which for Judas’s sake He had kept close to the last. “One of you shall betray Me.” All had been guilty of shortcomings, and it was well that they should have some searchings of heart. But such a prediction as that, prefaced too with a solemn assurance, “Verily I say unto you,” filled them with sorrow, and they asked, each in bewilderment, “Is it I?” Nothing but tenderness even now; Jesus still withholds the traitor’s name, and answers, possibly so that only the nearest could hear, that it is one who had just dipped 2 with Him in the dish. Then, perhaps raising His voice, He pronounced the most awful words that have ever been spoken: “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.” We may search in vain through the pages of history for a more terrible sentence. In every age there have been open and determined sinners, who have perished, like Judas, almost in the very act of sinning — men like Belteshazzar, or the Apostate Julian — and we can hardly bring ourselves to think of them as otherwise than lost, but we cannot tell what unknown and unseen ways of converting the heart, even at the last, God may have, and we dare not set limits to the Divine mercy. In the case of Judas, however, every ray of hope is excluded. He alone of all mankind has received his doom before the Day of Judgment, and as S. Luke tells us, has gone “to his own place” — his own, not because he was predestined to it, but because by a life of constant, sustained deceit, in spite of the drawings of a more than human love, and at last by an act of unparalleled treachery and baseness, he earned it, appropriated it, and made it “his own.”

Note: According to the Mosaic Law, Exod. xii. 15, this was to be done on the first of the seven days of unleavened bread, i.e. 15th of Nisan, but the Jews

Note: Cf. Pieritz, Gospels from a Rabbinic Point of View.

Note: The Feast of Unleavened Bread properly began on the 15th and lasted till the 21st. Probably owing to the importance of “the search for leaven,” the day on which it took place came to be reckoned as the first day, and the Feast was said to last eight days instead of seven. If, however, it could be shown that S. Mark wrote in Aramaic, all would be perfectly clear.” On

Note: Many names have been suggested, — Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathrea, Mark, — but there is no authority for any of them.

Note: The belief that it was a chamber in the Temple is almost impossible. After all that had occurred the Jews could not have granted the followers of Jesus a place of meeting there.

Note: That this refers to the great Christian Feast is shown by the rendering of the Syriac Version, “Breaking the Eucharist.”

Note: We do not feel justified, after a careful examination of the circumstances, in saying that the bread was unleavened. We have set forth at length in “The Divine Liturgy,” ch. xlviii., upon what grounds we conclude that ordinary bread was used at the Last Supper. Suffice it here to repeat that it is the opinion of Jews well versed in the usages of the Passover, and that it seems to us to be the only possible explanation of the fact that the whole Church for nearly a thousand years (and the Eastern Branch all through its history) used none other in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. The Church adhered rigidly to our Lord’s example in using mingled wine; it seems most unreasonable to suppose that she could have entirely disregarded His example, had He used unleavened bread. We should certainly have expected that He would introduce into the Paschal Supper one of its most characteristic elements, but it would seem that for some unexplained cause He did not do so.

Note: It is, in fact, referred in Deut. xvi. 1, 2, 3 to other parts than the Paschal lamb.

Note: There are two accounts, one implying that the act was over, ifi(3d{/as, the other that it was going on, ifxawTo/xevos.