Some Key Words (12/17/11-12/18/11)

Covenant (diatheekees [1242]):

A testament or covenant. In standard Greek usage, it refers to a last will. There is an attempt to connect this with the concept of dispensation as it would apply to God’s covenants with man. | from diatithemai [1303]: from dia [1223]: through, and tithemi [5087]: to place, typically in a passive horizontal posture; to put apart, make assignment, compact or bequest. A disposition, a contract, a will. | An arrangement, such as a last will and testament. A compact or covenant. In the present passages, the shedding of His blood to which Jesus refers marks the act sealing and establishing this covenant.

Many (polloon [4183]):

| much, many, largely. | much, many, a large part of.

New (kainon [2537]):

qualitatively new. (Contrasted with neos [3501]: numerically new). | new and fresh, whereas neos would tend to be new as regards age. | recently made, fresh, unused. Of a new kind, unprecedented.

Earnestly desired (epithumia [1939] epethumeesa [1937]):

the active desire that comes from pathos [3806]: passion. / To direct the affections toward, desire, long for. | from epithumeo [1937] [which follows]. A longing, particularly a longing for something forbidden. / from epi [1909]: on, over, upon, and thumos [2372]: from thuo [2380]: to rush, breathe hard, sacrifice by fire; passion. To set the heart upon. To long for, whether rightfully or wrongfully. | desire, craving, longing. / to set one’s heart upon, desire, covet.

Never again (ou-mee [3364]):

| concatenation of ou [3756]: absolutely not, and me [3361]: a qualified negative, lest. Thus, a strengthened negation: absolutely not. No way. Not at all. |

Fulfilled (pleeroothee [4137]):

To fill, as a net fills with fish, or a house with perfumed air. To fulfill or complete. To perfect, or finish. To fully accomplish, particularly that which was foretold. | from pleres [4134]: from pletho [4130]: to fill, imbue, supply, fulfill; replete, complete. To make complete. To cram, level up. To satisfy, finish. To verify or coincide with a prediction. | To fill up. To supply liberally. To make complete, consummate. To satisfy in every particular, make perfect. To fully carry out and accomplish. To bring into effect, execute. To ratify or bring to pass that which has been prophesied. To fulfill.

Poured out (ekchunnomenon [1632]):

| from ek [1537]: from , out of, and cheo: to pour. To pour forth. To bestow. | To bestow, distribute at large. Often used in a phrase referring to bloodshed. Also used in reference to the way the Holy Spirit imparts recognition of God’s love within us.

Paraphrase: (12/18/11)

Lk 22:14-18, Mt 26:29, Mk 14:25 When it was time, Jesus and the Apostles reclined at table. “I have had such great desire to share this Passover with you before I suffer,” He said, “for I shall not eat it again until its fulfillment in the kingdom of God.” He than blessed the first cup, and said, “Take this. Share it amongst yourselves. For my part, I shall not again drink from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes, and I drink it new and different with you in My Father’s kingdom.” Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, Lk 22:19-20 Later, He took the bread, gave thanks to God for it, broke it, and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take and eat. This is My body, given for you. Do this in My memory.” Then, after they had eaten, He took the cup and said, “This cup poured out for you is the new covenant, confirmed in My blood, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Key Verse: (12/22/11)

Mt 26:28 – This is My blood of the covenant, which blood is poured out for the many for forgiveness of sins.

Thematic Relevance: (12/19/11)	In many ways, this passage really is the thematic declaration of the entire matter. Here, His purpose is proclaimed – He sets forth and seals the covenant in His own blood, setting in motion the fulfillment of the Passover which ever pointed to this very moment.
Doctrinal Relevance: (12/19/11)	Jesus is the author of the New Covenant, and its seal. Only in Him, in this Covenant relationship, is there forgiveness for our sins. There remains a greater fulfillment of the Passover. For many, but not for all.
Moral Relevance: (12/19/11)	All drank of that cup, even Judas. Truly, the act of communion is powerful, for it is the seal of covenant. But, a covenant ever has both its benefits and its penalties. To drink is to sign, and like Israel before Mount Sinai, agreeing to the terms is no guarantee of obedience to its terms – not on our part. But, He is faithful. He is faithful to forgive those who are earnest in coming to Him for terms. He is faithful to reject those who come only for show. It well behooves me, then, to look to my own condition, and seek to know more fully that I am earnest in seeking to be His not only in name but in character and deed.
Doxology: (12/19/11)	As it was with Abraham, so it is again: The terms of the covenant are beyond our capacity, but they are not beyond His. He has taken it upon Himself to do what we cannot in the upholding of this covenant. Even to the necessity of His own sacrificial death, there is no cost He has found too high for our rescue. My God, You are wholly awesome! You are gracious beyond all measure, and I love You.
Questions Raised: (12/22/11)	A Nazarite vow?

Symbols: (12/19/11-12/20/11)

Passover

I am primarily interested in the mechanics of the meal as it would have been observed at this point. However, as I read, if there are other points of particular interest to me, I shall be noting them down as well. [M&S] There is much discussion of the meaning of a phrase ‘between the two evenings’ which comes up in the several passages describing the slaying of the paschal lamb. While some have tried to narrow this to the period between when the sun’s final limb drops below the horizon and the time when its light is no longer reflected from the clouds, the more common viewpoint appears to measure this as beginning just after the noon hour, when the sun begins its descent. It is noted that even with this lengthier window, the paschal sacrifice would wait until after the daily, so that this would fall into a period approximated as 2:30 to 5:30 PM. It is also pointed out that the Greeks had a similar concept of the two evenings of the day, and that this also was measured with the first being shortly after the noon hour. Several distinctions are made between the first Passover in Egypt, and that which was established as the permanent Passover observation. For the period we are concerned with, there is a good deal of detailed information to be had from Rabbinical sources. So, then: The observance actually begins on the Sabbath prior to Passover, known as the Great Sabbath. On this day, special prayers would be offered up, the people generally recalled to the duties of this festival, and Malachi 3:1-4:6 would constitute the day’s reading. This passage opens with the promise of God’s messenger come to clear His way, and of the Lord returning to His temple. “The messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, is coming,” says the Lord of hosts (Mal 3:1). This also constitutes the close of Scripture as it was at that time, with the promise of that one like Elijah who would come and restore the hearts of God’s people (Mal 4:5-6). Throughout the period from the evening of the 13th of Nisan to that of the 14th, the head of the family would perform a candlelight search for any leaven about the house. Note that the leavening process is akin to fermentation, such that unleavened bread was bread which had not been given a chance to ferment. This covered mixtures of water together with any of the grains, wheat, barley, spelt, oats or rye. These grains, kneaded together with something other than water, such as fruit juices, would not be counted as fermented. Even wine was acceptable for this purpose [!]. On the 14th most commerce ceased by noon at the latest, in some places by morning. Some very few professions (tailors, barbers and launderers) were excluded. This was the day of offering. Any able male within fifteen miles of Jerusalem was to be present with offering in hand. Accommodations for the many visitors were given gratis by locals, but the guests would typically pay for the privilege by giving the hosts the skin of their sacrificed lamb, as well as such vessels as were used for the paschal ceremony. The population could not but overflow Jerusalem’s bounds, resulting in a vast tent city beyond the city walls. Such volatile conditions caused Rome’s governing forces to use every art to maintain order. To accommodate the paschal sacrifice, the evening sacrifice began an hour early on the 14th, two hours if the 14th was a Friday. Those come for the sacrifice would be serviced in three divisions. The Hallel was recited throughout. When the 14th was a Sabbath day, the first division would remain on the temple mount, and the second would occupy the spaces in the ramparts. Then all three divisions would roast their lambs together, as it became dark. Coming to the meal itself, those gathered (at least ten) would recline at table on their left side and in whatever might be the ‘proper order’. Each received a first cup of wine, upon which was pronounced benediction. This benediction blesses God both for His creating the grapes from whence wine is made, and for choosing and preserving His people. This is followed by hand washing with its blessing spoken. The bitter herbs, unleavened bread, the lamb, and the feast offering would be brought in on a side table. Next comes the eating of the herb, dipped in Charoseth, whatever that is, each one given a piece olive-like in size. Then comes a second cup, followed by the instructional questions from Exodus 12:26. Here, the son asks the father the significance, and the father explains, following with an exposition of Deuteronomy 26:5-12, and covering the point of the sacrifice and its accompanying activities. Now, the first portion of the Hallel (Ps 113-Ps 114) is recited followed by another blessing. A third cup is drunk, with the typical post-meal grace spoken. Then, a fourth cup, followed by the remainder of the Hallel (Ps 115-Ps 118), and a sung blessing. Dessert on this occasion is unlawful. [I note that nowhere in this discussion is it mentioned when the actual meat is eaten.] Concerning the bitter herbs, they may have been endive, chicory, wild lettuce or nettles, and the sauce used was a mixture of vinegar and water, possibly containing also figs, dates, almonds and spice. On a normal day, this sauce might have been thickened with flour, but not on Passover. As to the wine, four cups was a minimum requirement. It would usually be a red wine, watered down as it was drunk. A brief note here would suggest that the third cup, the cup of the Hallel, was the postprandial cup. If there were to be more than four cups, none might be drunk between those listed here as third and fourth. It is thought by some that the Hallel of this service, the recitation or singing of Psalms 113-Ps 118 is that singing referred to in Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26. Typically, only a ceremonially clean and circumcised male was allowed at this meal, although women were later admitted as well. For them, it was optional. The minimum attendance was to be ten people. A typical maximum would have been twenty, although the ceiling could be as high as one hundred if each could obtain an olive-sized piece of the lamb. The matter of reclining at table was intended to reflect the nobility and freedom of the Israelite, for whom standing at meal in Egypt had been a mark of slavery. The 15th of Nisan, being a day of holy convocation, was to be treated like a Sabbath as regards work, with the exception that food preparation for the day's needs was allowable. There follows some discussion as to the apparent discrepancy between the Synoptic Gospels and John’s account. The Synoptic accounts seem to clearly demark this as the Paschal meal, setting the Crucifixion as being Friday the 15th, with Christ in the tomb on the Sabbath of the 16th and being resurrected on Sunday the 17th. Following John’s account, it seems the meal was on the 13th, with the Crucifixion taking place on the 14th, when the lamb would be slain. He would have been entombed thru the 15th, a double Sabbath whereupon the regular Sabbath coincided with a holy convocation, and the 16th, on which He is risen, is the Sunday. Several details of the Synoptic accounts are brought out as supporting John’s timeline, noting that many actions by many players in this final scene would have been in violation of the Law and Tradition applicable at the Passover. A number of theories have been put forth to attempt reconciling the accounts. The first accepts that the meal described by Matthew et al was indeed not the Paschal meal, probably coming the previous night. However, all four accounts speak of Jesus identifying Judas at this meal, as well as Peter’s braggadocio. Overall, this first theory of reconciliation falls short on the evidence provided. Attempts to explain the odd timing as being due to the day of preparation falling on a Sabbath, and thus requiring an earlier sacrificing of the Paschal lamb are denied by the assurance in Mishna that the sacrifice could indeed be handled along with the normal sacrifice, simply by scheduling the normal sacrifice an hour or two earlier. A second view peremptorily accepts John’s timetable, and rather glosses over the issues with the Synoptic accounts. While the view insists on the meal being on the 13th, they generally continue to hold that it was observed as a true Paschal meal. Several slight variations exist as to the resolution of this. First, there is the suggestion that the Sadducees and those of like mind were inclined to observe the Passover a day early. However, there seems no historical support for this supposition. Another thought is that the Jews had simply miscalculated the calendar by a day and Jesus ate on the correct day. Again, no historical evidence to back this. [I would also note that it would be mighty odd that the priests had a schedule of sacrifice to accommodate His correction. Surely such a blatant shifting of schedule would have caused some comment amongst His biographers.] Calvin suggested that the Jews ate a late Passover on the 15th due to the two consecutive Sabbaths otherwise imposed, but this is deemed to be thoroughly disproved. A more commonly accepted view suggests that Jesus quite purposefully shifted the schedule so as to properly align the timing of His own death, i.e. with the full intention of amplifying the significance of this final meal in their minds. The suggestion is that, so long as the meal fell somewhere within an approximately 24 hour period, it would still fit as having been eaten on the 14th, further taking the ‘between the two evenings’ issue as marking out the time from evening of the 13th to that of the 14th. Here, our author notes the problem I pointed out earlier: If this was being done as a true Paschal meal, it’s hardly likely that the priests were available to properly perform the necessary acts of the sacrifice a day early. As such, the suggestion is that it would be better to view it as an entirely new institution which happens to share many characteristics with the Passover. OK. Third theory: Accept the Synoptic accounts and show how John fits, without leaving Jesus or His disciples in violation of the Law. One attempt simply accepts that John 13:1 is a complete point unto itself [which I would have to say is not unreasonable, even ignoring this issue.] An attempt to resolve the supposition by the Apostles that Jesus had sent Judas to get what was needed for the feast (Jn 13:29), takes the view that they were thinking, perhaps, of the Chagigah which was offered on the 15th, or maybe for the whole of the week ahead. Yet, none of the activities envisioned by the Apostles would have been legal or possible on the 15th, it being a day of holy convocation. The same would then apply to those purchases made in order to prepare Jesus’ body for burial. It is granted that no firm proof exists as to the Law being enforced strictly on this matter, and it may well be that certain relaxations of the matter existed for cases of burial preparations and the like, particularly given the Levitical distinction between the regular Sabbath and the day of holy convocation. Since food preparation was acceptable on the latter, it may be that procuring the needs of the Chagigah might have been deemed as falling under that head. “It also appears that the school of Hillel allowed more liberty in certain particulars on festivals and fasts in the night than in the day time”, although exactly what liberties is not clear. And, even the Mishna offers some provisions for obtaining necessities such as wine, oil and bread on the Sabbath. When the 14th of Nisan fell on a Sabbath, even procurement of the paschal lamb on that day was permitted, and there were occasions where almsgiving at this time would be permitted. As to the concerns for defilement noted in John 18:28, the theory goes that this referred not to the paschal meal itself, but to the Chagigah of the following day. This is supported, in some degree, by the phrasing of Luke 22:1, which speaks of the Feast of Unleavened Bread in terms that would cover the entire week, and the sacrifices being spoken of there would be both for the Passover and the Chagigah. It is further noted that a degree of impurity was permitted the Passover celebrant which was not permissible for the Chagigah. A slightly variant view suggests that those with their concerns for the Passover meal were so incensed in their hatred of Jesus that they willingly put off their observation of it to the latest possible time if it would allow them to see Him finished. Some counterpoints: Mishna permits the eating of the voluntary offerings within a period of two days and one night from the sacrifice, so there would be no necessary pressure on them for having been in a Gentile house. The timing of the 14th being on a working day allows that the Chagigah and Passover sacrifices would have been made simultaneously, so no further concern for uncleanliness would remain. For the priest to serve in his role in the sacrifice, which would be from first to fifth hour, he needed to be clean, and would surely do nothing to threaten that cleanliness and thus disrupt the festival. Now, a fourth attempt. It is just barely possible that the preparations referred to by the Gospels was that for the Sabbath itself. It is noted that on occasion Scripture refers to these days of holy convocation as Sabbaths, and Josephus does mention such preparations. Thus, the theory goes, John 19:14 might possibly be understood as indicating preparations for the Sabbath that fell during Passover week, and not the Passover itself. If that is accepted, then the day of preparation may have been the 15th, the day of holy convocation. This does, however, seem a particularly forced reading, and not what the reader would be expected to understand from John’s words. Why was the Sabbath noted in John 19:31 a high day? One standard view is that it was because the day of holy convocation hit on a Sabbath. Another associates the coincident timing with that offering of the omer from which the fifty days to Pentecost were measured. As to the issues raised concerning the Sanhedrin et al acting outside their own Law in this whole matter, much of that argument would apply whether the meal in question was the Passover or that on the high holy day following. It’s also entirely possible that much of their activity was considered as being a legal exception due to circumstance. Note, for instance that the Sanhedrin were not allowed to eat any food on the same day that they condemned a criminal, and yet John says they intended to eat the Passover (Jn 18:28). If one were to suppose that the Sanhedrin still retained the right to pronounce death sentence at this stage, one could construe their turning Jesus over to the Romans as a means of slipping out from under that particular issue. Several other provisions of Mishna and Gemara are noted which could have covered the acts of the Sanhedrin on this occasion. However, Scripture itself already lends support for the fact that police actions on high holy days were not seen as an issue. Note, for example, the attempt to apprehend Jesus on the great day of the Feast of Tabernacles (Jn 7:32-45), and Peter seized on a subsequent Passover (Ac 12:3-4). Note that in their deliberations it was not the sanctity of the day that concerned the leaders, but the possible uproar caused in the crowd (Mt 26:5). Overall, it is clear that greater freedom was accorded on these days of holy convocation than on the regular Sabbaths. A last point offered is that it is much easier to accept John’s temporal references as being subject to interpretation than it is that of the other three, particularly given Luke’s identification of it being “this Passover” by Jesus Himself. Whether any of the proffered explanations are satisfactory is another question altogether. [And that is more than sufficient for now.]

People Mentioned: (12/21/11-12/22/11)

Covenant

While this is neither person or even place, it is a matter that needs to be understood so as to more fully understand the significance of this dinner. [ISBE] The Hebrew term for covenant has a root meaning of ‘to bind’. Its general usage describes contractual agreements made between parties of unequal position or power. It may either reflect solemn, mutual agreements arrived at between the parties, or commands imposed by the superior upon the inferior. Scripture uses the term for such arrangements whether between men and men, or between man and God. It is accepted that the forms of the latter case are fashioned upon those of the former. [I.e. God chose the covenant form as being familiar and understandable to man. In this, an act of grace.] The most basic of covenant forms is that of blood-brotherhood, sealed by the drinking of one another’s blood. This was often a mark of clan adoption, which necessarily involved the god of the adopting clan as well. These early covenants were not for some specific set of issues, but a life-long pledge of fellowship. Later developments would change the practice away from drinking one another’s blood to sharing in the blood of a sacrifice, or having it sprinkled on them, or even eating a sacrificial meal. But, always, there is the involvement of the clan god. The human covenants that are found in the OT record differ from these earliest practices in some details, but are quite recognizable none the less. Such covenants would establish the terms being agreed to, proclaim an oath by each party committing to observing the terms thus agreed and calling upon God as witness to this commitment. So strong is the association of the oath with this process that at times the two terms are used synonymously. Along with the oath of agreement would be a curse invoked by failure to uphold. Finally, there would be some act taken as the ratification of the matter, echoing that earliest drinking of blood in one form or another. This imagery is to be seen in several of the interactions between man and God at critical junctures, particularly the events at Sinai, and with Abraham. In this latter case, we see the preparation of animals severed into two parts between which the parties walked as seal upon the terms. The same imagery is found in Jeremiah’s writing. We also have the furnace and torch, representing God, who walk the path in Abraham’s place. Both parties would be expected to undertake this action, yet in this case we have only God binding Himself to the terms. The image of the split carcasses is often understood as being a graphic representation of the curse attached to failure, i.e. – thus you may do to me should I fail. Others find a more symbolic or mystical significance to the act, as if the parties involved are ‘taken within the mystical life of the victim’. This would more fully link back to the earliest covenant form, with its sense of clan adoption. [Yet, in this case would that not leave God adopted into the clan of man? Would that be a good thing?] It is a fundamental point of any covenant that the terms are deemed immutable. Most typically, the covenants are seen to apply between clans, nations, or such larger groups, as opposed to being matters between individuals. Even where there is the physical aspect of an individual taking on the covenant terms, it is quite often in a representative way, and thus still a matter of the larger clan. Almost exclusively (there are two exceptions noted), the OT refers to the making of a covenant as “cutting covenant”, karath berith. It would be reasonable to think that the cutting refers back to the split carcasses seen with Abraham’s experience. Clearly, when God is a direct party to the covenant, the agreement is not between equals. Thus, God always initiates. With His commands come promises. Men agree to the commands, and the promises are contingent upon compliance. These amount to Divine ordinance, pledges from God to which men promise compliance and accept the curses that apply for noncompliance. We find such covenants made with Noah (Ge 9:9-17), whereupon God promises no repeat of the Flood. We find it with Abraham, encompassing his descendents as well (Ge 15:18). There is covenant made with Israel at Sinai (Ex 19:5), with a very clear delineation of blessings and curses associated therewith. There is at least the suggestion of a covenant establishing Levi as the priestly tribe (Dt 33:9), and also with Phinehas (Nu 25:12-13). Further covenants are seen with Joshua, David, Jehoiada, Hezekiah, Josiah, and Ezra. The prophets often mention a new covenant connected with the Messiah’s arrival. Of note, the prophetic announcements of the new or renewed covenant of necessity see the old as having terminated with the Exile. Whether they saw the new covenant as simply a reinstatement of the old, or as something qualitatively different, the point remains that the old covenant terms were seen as having ceased to be in place due to Israel’s constant breach of terms. Coming into the New Testament, and to Greek translations of the Old, the most common term used for the covenant is diatheke, although there is one occurrence of suntheke. The choice of diatheke emphasizes the inequality of the parties involved. Suntheke, with its implications of equality, was the more normal word for covenant in the Greek world, with diatheke most commonly referring to a last will. But, to the Jew, such a last will was not a familiar concept, so there would be less cause for confusion as to the intended thought. [Then, why does the letter to the Hebrews see to emphasize the connection of will and covenant?] Aha! The author proceeds to challenge that understanding of the text, or at least insists that the sense of covenant must be retained, however difficult the fit. “To do this it is only necessary to hold that the death spoken of is the death of the animal sometimes, if not, indeed, commonly slain in connection with the making of a covenant.” It is maintained that such an understanding keeps the passage in line with the standard usage of the word by Jewish Hellenists of the period.

You Were There (12/22/11)

It’s easy to read through this account with little attention, other than to note the roots of communion in what is happening. Perhaps, we can get caught up in questions about what this all means for drinking wine. But, that is more a matter of pushing our own cultural views back onto the picture. If, however, I stop and look at what Jesus is doing with an attempt to see it from the eyes of one of the Apostles, how does the picture change?

I am mindful that this particular meal is a meal fraught with significance, a significance in which these men have been steeped since their youth. The ritual was ingrained in them. As Jesus stood to start, they would naturally view Him in the fatherly role. Who was to perform the office of son? Had arrangements been made? Maybe this would be assumed by the seating arrangement. The general point is that everybody had a pretty clear idea of what to expect, and what was expected wasn’t this.

First, there is that opening comment we have from Luke’s coverage. “This is the last time I’m eating Passover until it’s fulfilled in heaven.” Wow! Either I’m going to hear that as an announcement that there is less than a year left before He is on the throne, or I’m going to hear Him announcing He’s done with Judaism. Given His militant attitude towards the Pharisees, that last wouldn’t be entirely unthinkable. He’s not abandoning God, here; just the traditions. It depends how much optimism remained, how fully the disciples had begun to lay hold of the warnings Jesus had been giving them. Clearly, Judas did not hear any hint of imminent takeover.

Then, there is the swearing off of wine, pending that same outcome. This would seem to echo the Nazarite vow, and would it be all that unlikely that His hearers took it as such? Added to the previous statement, I should think this heightened expectations. He does mean that things are happening fast. Such a vow: one doesn’t take it for the long haul, but for some near term mission. He’s going to do it! The kingdom is coming, and soon!

Apart from that, it seems the early portion of the Passover meal proceeds more or less along the usual lines, which would explain why little of the detail is given. Nothing unique about what they did. They drank the cups required. Somebody (we are not told who) indeed asked the questions required of the son, and Jesus no doubt answered in His function of the father for this paschal meal. But, then comes the point of divergence. Something’s shifted, and shifted radically. “Take, eat. This is My body.” What is that? That’s not in the script. In fact, it’s just a little bit disturbing, this image. What’s He promoting here? Were it not for that previous occasion that John told us about, when He announced Himself as the Manna, the Bread of Life which all must eat, they might have bolted at this point. But, they would remember. Manna was, after all, there in the shadows of the unleavened bread, wasn’t it? How could one think back to that first Passover without also remembering the desert years that followed, and the miraculous work of God to preserve Israel throughout? And how could one think upon that miraculous period without also thinking upon all the miracles they had witnessed themselves?

Now, then, when that cup got passed, with the pronouncement He made over it, “My blood of the covenant,” the whole history of the people is brought to bear. It’s right back to Abraham, right back to traditions even older than Abraham. Did tribal memory kick in? I mean, the concept of blood brotherhood had not entirely faded, even if the rituals involved had become perhaps more civilized.

We did not any longer expect to drink one another’s actual blood in such an event, but the significance remained, whatever the emblem. So, this wine was His blood of the covenant, for us to drink. That was a most powerful image in itself, binding us into His own clan, making us family. But, wasn’t it customary that there would be an exchange of cups, that He would also drink our blood? Yet no such cup was on offer, nor, given His previous swearing off of wine, was it likely He would have drunk it if it were.

Once again, a one-sided covenant, just like with Abraham! Once again, God had taken the whole responsibility upon Himself. And, that particular thing He said of His blood (for the cup was not poured out – it couldn’t have been the wine He meant): For the forgiveness of the sins of many. One wonders when exactly the power of those words started to register. One wonders when the power of the whole event began to register. It’s not too hard to envision that these men were just a little bit hesitant, and just a little bit giddy as the symbols were put in their hands. Clearly, this was a Passover meal unlike any other they had ever known, and quite likely unlike any they ever would again.

Some Parallel Verses (12/22/11-12/23/11)

Mt 26:26

1Co 11:23-25 – What I have taught you is what I received from the Lord; that on the night He was betrayed, Jesus took bread, gave thanks, and broke it, saying, “This is My body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise, He took the cup after supper, saying, “This is the cup of the new covenant in My blood. So often as you drink it, do so in remembrance of Me.” 1Co 10:16 – Isn’t that shared cup of blessing a sharing in the blood of Christ? Isn’t the shared bread a sharing in His body? Mt 14:19 – After telling the people to recline there on the grass, Jesus took the five loaves and two fishes, blessed them, broke them, and gave them to the disciples to give in turn to the multitudes. Jn 6:53 – Truly, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

27

Mt 15:36 – He took seven loaves and a fish, gave thanks, broke them and gave them to the disciples. They in turn distributed to the people.

28

Ex 24:8 – Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people. “Witness the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you according to all these words.” Heb 9:20 – Moses said, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” Mt 20:28 – The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as ransom for many. Zech 9:11 – Because of the blood of My covenant with you, I have set your prisoners free from the waterless pit. Heb 13:20-21 – The God of peace, who resurrected the great Shepherd of those who are His sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, Jesus our Lord, equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen. Mk 1:4 – John the Baptist was in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Lk 1:77 – You will be called prophet of the Most High. For you go before the Lord to prepare His ways, to give His people knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins.

29

Mt 13:43 – The righteous will shine as the sun in the Father’s kingdom. Hear this if you have understanding.

Mk 14:22

Mk 10:16 – He took the children in His arms and blessed them.

23
24

Jer 31:31-34 – The days are coming when I will make a new covenant with Israel and Judah. It shall not be like the former one which they broke, though I was a husband to them. This covenant which I will make with Israel will set My law within them, written on their hearts. I will be their God, and they My people. They shall no longer teach one another the knowledge of the Lord, for they shall all know Me, from the least to the greatest. For I will forgive their iniquity and no longer remember their sin.

25
Lk 22:14

Mt 26:20, Mk 14:17 – They were at table together when evening had come. Mk 6:30 – The apostles gathered to Jesus to report all that they had done and taught.

15
16

Lk 14:15 – Blessed is everyone who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God. Lk 22:30 – It has been granted that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom. There you shall sit enthroned to judge the tribes of Israel. Rev 19:9 – Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb. These are true words of God.

17
18
19
20

2Co 3:6 – He has made us to suffice as servants of a new covenant. This covenant is of the Spirit, not of letters, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Heb 8:8 – Finding fault with them, God says, “Days are coming when I will establish a new covenant with Israel and Judah.” Heb 8:13 – When He spoke of a new covenant, He has rendered the first obsolete. Whatever is becoming obsolete, growing old, is ready to disappear. Heb 9:15 – Thus, He is the mediator of a new covenant. Since death has taken place to redeem those sins committed under the first covenant, the called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

New Thoughts (12/24/11-12/27/11)

This has the looks of being a long one. There is so much to be considered in this exceedingly brief narrative of the Last Supper; much that would be familiar background information to the disciples, but which will take some effort for us to see that way. My inclination is to begin by reading through those two passages of Scripture most fully associated with the rituals of Passover. There are the closing chapters of Malachi, which would have been read the preceding Sabbath day, and there are the 6 Psalms of the Hallel, which were being recited throughout the hours of the sacrifice for this feast, and which would be recited again as part of the meal.

The reading from Malachi is a typical prophetic message with its mix of great promise and dire warning. From the opening verses that dual stress is evident. “I am sending My messenger to clear My way. The Lord, the One you seek, will come suddenly to His temple. The messenger of covenant in whom you delight: He is coming! But, who can endure the day He comes? Who can stand in His presence? For He is like a refining fire, a fuller’s soap” (Mal 3:1-2). You look for His coming, yet His arrival would be the death of you. It continues. He will smelt. He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them so that they are presentable as righteous offerings to the Lord. Then the offering of Judah will be pleasing as of old (Mal 3:3-4). That sound alright, then. Oh, but it goes on. “I draw near for judgment, a witness against sorcerer, adulterer, and those who lie under oath, those who abuse the undefended, and in general, demonstrate no fear of Me. You see, I do not change. It is only because of this that you are not utterly destroyed. You have constantly walked away from the terms of our covenant, but even so: return to Me and I will return to you” (Mal 3:5-7).

You ask how? I will ask in return how you can conscience your robbing of Me. Yes! You are thieves in My temple, stealing from Me by shorting your tithes and offerings. Is it any wonder you are cursed with the curse of the covenant? The whole nation of you is stealing from Me! Even so, bring the whole tithe and test Me in this, if I will not pour out such blessings upon you as overflow. Yes! Let there be food in My house. Oh, return! I will rebuke the devourer and kept it from destroying the fruits of your land. Nations will call you blessed because your land is so delightful (Mal 3:8-12).

You have been so arrogant towards Me, yet you don’t even recognize it. You complain of serving Me, that it is in vain, that there is no profit in obedience, that your obedience has brought only sorrow. Yes! You call the arrogant blessed, build up the wicked as those who have opposed God and escaped. But, those who feared the Lord spoke together and God heard. A book of remembrance was written under His supervision, in which is recorded the names of those who esteem His name. They will be His when He takes up His own possession. He will spare them as if they were His own sons. You see, once again you will discern the righteous and the wicked, those who serve God and those who oppose Him (Mal 3:13-18).

The day is coming! It is like a furnace, and the arrogant evil-doers are the chaff. That day will indeed set them ablaze, and leave nothing behind. But, for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness shall rise. There shall be healing in its light, and you shall know joy like that of a young calf released from its stall. The wicked will be like ashes under your feet on that day I have prepared. Recall the law of Moses to mind. And look for Elijah, whom I shall send before that great and terrible day. He will restore fathers to their children, children to their fathers, lest I come with a curse to smite the land (Mal 4:1-6).

So, then, there is hope, yet there is also greatest danger. There is promise, yet there is clear recognition of a people gone severely off course. There is spiritual blindness that seems a perpetual plague upon God’s people. And don’t think that ended with the Advent! No, we remain just as capable of blinding ourselves to our real situation, our real need. We need constantly to be reminded that we, like Paul, like every other saint of God, have not yet arrived. We have not attained to our perfection, nor even to any righteousness at all outside of that which Christ Jesus has provided. Whatever meager works we may have done for Christ, and even the heroes of the faith have achieved only the most meager of works, they count for nothing as concerns our worth. They are but the proper duties of the servant, what is expected. Indeed, what is expected continues to far outstrip what has been done. We have nothing to boast of and much to be ashamed of.

But, the Promise is ever and again greater than our failure. “I shall send Elijah.” Why? He is sent for the express purpose of averting disaster for the people of God. Indeed, the heart of the Father is restored towards His children, and the hearts of His children shall be restored towards the Father. He remembers. He does not change. He holds to the covenant in spite of our utter faithlessness.

This is the message of the Great Sabbath. This is the message that informs the Passover. This is what we are to remain mindful of, what has just been spoken afresh into the lives of God’s people as they come to the Passover meal. It’s what God was doing on that first Passover, and it’s what He is continuing to uphold in the lives of His people, whether they recognize it or not. Circumstances may shift with time, but lo! It is the people who have changed, not God. God remains firm to His commitments. The One you are looking for will come, and He will come swiftly and all but unannounced. Be ready!

Yet, He is not without announcement, is He? No. Elijah comes first to prepare the way. You have been warned. The question of Passover, the pondering necessary to every heart is, am I written in His book? Have I strayed, and have I repented and returned? It is the perpetual question of faith. The perpetual promise of the Passover is that He has Himself stood guard over you in the weakness of your sin, that He has interposed Himself between you and your rightful destruction. Indeed, our God is a great and marvelously wonderful God!

Turning to those Psalms which were recited throughout the hours of sacrifice, and again at the meal, we begin with Psalm 113. Praise the Lord, you His servants! Bless His name forever. From sunrise to sunset, His name is to be praised. He is above all nations, His glory exceeds the heavens. Who is like our God? Who else is enthroned on high, yet humbles Himself to observe life in heaven and on the earth? He lifts the poor out of the dust and the ash heap. He sets them alongside the princes of His people. He makes the barren woman a joyful mother of children. Praise the Lord!

Ok, stop there for a moment. Here we have both Jesus and John the Baptist set before us in type. Jesus, the embodiment of God humbling Himself to observe earthly life; John, the mother given to barren Elizabeth. And with this we begin the great Hallel, the constant refrain of the Levites as the Lamb is sacrificed. God humbles Himself! Who else is like Him? There is no one.

Then, we move to Psalm 114. When Israel departed Egypt, Judah became God’s sanctuary, Israel His dominion. The very sea looked upon His people and fled, the mountains and hills skipped about like lambs. Why, O sea? Why, O mountains? Tremble, you earth, before the Lord God of Jacob. He turns rock into pools of water. Here, then, is the raising up of the poor from that ash heap mentioned in the previous psalm. Israel, who had been the lowest slaves of Egypt, is raised up and the very elements quake. Hear, also, the echo of Malachi in this, the mountains and hills foreshadowing the people with Messiah come. There may be trembling before the all-powerful God of Jacob, but there is also rejoicing at the redemption in His hands.

But, Psalm 115 returns the focus to its rightful place. It is interesting, then, that this marks the second cup, the closing of the Passover meal. No glory to us, Lord, but all to You. Your steadfast love and Your truth are the rightful objects of glory. Nations may question where our God has gone, but He is right there in heaven, and He does just exactly as He pleases. These other nations have their idols of silver and gold, but what are they? They are merely the work of man’s hands. Their mouths cannot speak. Their eyes cannot see. There is no feeling in their hands, nor can they walk upon the feet depicted. They cannot so much as make a sound with their throat. Those who make them will become like them. Trust in the Lord, Israel! He is your help, your shield. You, too, Aaron! Trust in the Lord. Indeed, all you who fear the Lord, trust in Him. He is our help and shield. He has been mindful of our situation, and He will bless us. Great or small, He will bless those who fear Him. May He give you increase, and your children, too. May you be blessed of the Lord Who made heaven and earth. The heavens are His heavens, but the earth He has given to men The dead don’t praise Him, but we shall! We shall bless the Lord forever! Praise the Lord!

Here, we have echoes of the reason for Egypt’s downfall, and the reason it was needful for Israel to come out of her midst. Here, we see the reason for those commands given Israel as they went into the land of promise, that they must remove the Canaanites with their dumb idols from their midst, lest they become like those idols and like those Canaanites who worshiped them: deaf, dumb and blind to the reality of God. There is also a strong wind of promise in this one. God may not be so evident in present circumstance, but trust Him. He is here, He is still enthroned and in full control, and He is still your help. He will bless you, as you remain constant towards Him. As you seek to bring Him glory, He is glorified in providing for you beyond even what you think to ask.

Then comes Psalm 116. I love God because He hears me. He cares, and I shall call upon Him so long as I live. Though cords of death wrapped around me, and I was in terror of Sheol; when I was deep in distress and sorrow, I called upon the Lord: “O God! Save me!” He is gracious. He is righteous. Indeed, our God is compassionate. He preserves the simple – He saved me! Back to your reset, my soul, for the Lord has been bountiful towards you. You, O God, rescued me from death, ended my tears and my stumbling. I shall walk before the Lord in this life. When I spoke of my afflictions, I believed it. In my alarm, I said, “All men are liars!” What could I give the Lord in repayment of all He has done for me? But, I shall raise the cup of salvation and call upon Him. I shall keep my vows to Him in the presence of His people. Precious in God’s sight is the death of His godly ones. And, surely, I am Your servant, the son of Your handmaiden. And, you have loosed my bonds. I shall offer thanks to You, and call upon Your name. I shall pay my vows in the presence of all, in Your courts, in your midst, O Jerusalem. Praise the Lord!

Now, we may begin to see what demarks these particular Psalms as the Hallel. Each, with the exception of Psalm 114, ends with command to praise the Lord, which is, after all, what hallel means. This particular Psalm rather continues the thoughts of the previous. There is again that note of sorrow to it, the great depths of trouble that have beset. And yet, once again it is found that God has been faithful. He has redeemed the servant. Reading this, it is hard not to have that complaint raised up against Jesus’ teaching come to mind. “We are Abraham’s descendents, and never yet have we been enslaved to anyone” (Jn 8:33). How utterly at odds with the great confession of this Psalm. Until You redeemed me, O God, I was indeed a slave of Your lowly bondwoman. Then there is that note of raising the cup of salvation, and here He is before the Apostles this day, raising the cup of His own blood, poured out for the forgiveness of the sins of many. Indeed, this Scripture is fulfilled before you this day.

Next comes the briefest of Psalms, but two verses. Praise the Lord, every nation and people! His steadfast love for us is great, and His truth eternal. Praise the Lord (Ps 117)! Hear it! Even with this, the promise of the Passover is shown to extend to the nations. It’s more than Israel, just as God is and ever was and ever shall be God of more than Israel. He is God of all creation, King of all kings, and His steadfast love is not restricted to this small family clan called Israel.

Finally comes Psalm 118. Here, the people are called to remember the steadfast love of God. Give thanks to Him, because He is good, His lovingkindness eternal! There is a fourfold call to this. And, then: I called upon the Lord in my distress, and He answered by setting a large place for me. He is for me. What can man do? I will not fear. He is with those who help me, and I shall have satisfaction as concerns those who hate me. Better the Lord my refuge than to trust to men, even to princes. Nations surround me, but in the name of the Lord, I shall cut them off. They were like bees aswarm, but in the name of the Lord, I shall cut them off. You pushed me so that I was falling, but God helped me. He is my strength, my song, my salvation! Joy and salvation are in the tents of the righteous, and God’s right hand is valiant in battle for them. I shall not die. I shall live to tell the works of the Lord. Though He disciplined me severely, He did not slay me outright. He opened the gates of righteousness so that I should enter. I will give thanks to God. Thank You, Lord, for answering me. You are my salvation. This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day He made. Rejoice and be glad in it! Save, O Lord, we beseech thee! [Hosanna!] Send prosperity! Bless the one who comes in Your name. We bless you from Your house. The Lord is God, and He has given light. Bind the sacrifice to the horns of the altar. You are my God, and I thank You, I exalt You. Give thanks to the Lord, for He is good! His lovingkindness is everlasting.

Wow! What a marvelous praise. What a powerful reminder to the soul cast down. What utter confidence in the God Who is with us! I am surrounded, but I shall prevail in the power of God. There is the refrain our thoughts should ever be returned to! There, indeed, is the message of Passover. Surely, the situation for Israel was hopeless as they labored under an angry Pharaoh in Egypt. But, God! Just as surely, the whole of mankind was and is to this day utterly hopeless under the bondage of sin. But, God! But, the Paschal Lamb made His sinless sacrifice to redeem us. We were being knocked down by the father of lies, but God picked us up. He is our shield and our salvation, and His right hand does valiantly on our behalf.

As I look upon this closing Psalm of that feast which found its fulfillment as the Son of God was crucified, how marvelous to be contemplating the beginning of that long purpose of Christ Incarnate, as we celebrate His birth into this world of men. Indeed, God humbled Himself to know and be known to the peoples of the earth, humbled Himself even to become one of His own creation. He suffered Himself to be put to most heinous death by the hands of those He could as easily have swept away without even exerting Himself. The merest blast of His nostrils would have overthrown the Roman Empire that thought itself so impervious, thought its emperor a god in his own right. But, He did not. He humbled Himself unto death on the cross, this one born to such lowly estate. And, by this singular act, an act in which circumstances appearing to the contrary He remained in full and absolute control, He achieved valiantly on behalf of His creation. Born, admittedly, not this Christmas day, He lived to die for us. He was raised up, the perfect Paschal Lamb, to be offered on our behalf, that He Himself might become our Passover. This one who came amongst mankind now stands over His redeemed, interposes Himself between Creator and created, sets His own righteousness as a cloak upon us, that we might be made acceptable in the sight of heaven’s great King.

Thank You, indeed, my Lord and King! Praise to You, Lord! Glory in the highest. For, You have done great things indeed. You have redeemed me from the pit, and I am Yours forevermore. Thank You. Thank You! There shall not be enough days in all of eternity to fully express the gratitude that is but Your due. What shall I render? As the Psalmist says, I shall lift the cup of salvation, that cup You have poured out for me, the cup You have placed in my trembling hands. And, I shall be true, for You are True. O! May I be found true in the sight of Your people. You have redeemed me from the grave of sin, and I shall be sacrificial in my thanksgiving for all You have done. Praise Your name, O Lord my God.

Having laid some of the Scriptural background of this meal, I must also cannot but consider the seeming confusion of witnesses we have of the occasion. While most discussion of this issue centers on the apparent deviations of John’s account as contrasted with the three Synoptic Gospels, even amongst those three we find a certain divergence. In particular, Luke seems to add a second round of bread and wine preceding the set Matthew and Mark cover, and he also assigns some of the comments noted by those two to this alternate cup and bread. Thus, we find Matthew and Mark saying that Jesus pronounced the wine to be the blood of the new covenant, and then saying He would no longer drink wine until all was fulfilled in the kingdom. But, Luke splits these two points, the swearing off of wine to one cup, and the sealing of covenant to another, later cup.

Well, there is rather obviously a difference here, is there not? Yet, Scripture cannot contradict itself and be Scripture that is God-breathed. In this case, it strikes me that the explanation is not terribly difficult to arrive at. Both Matthew and Mark write at an earlier time than does Luke, and both write from first person experience (albeit that Mark’s account relays Peter’s experience rather than his own, or so it is generally accepted). Luke had to research the matter. Remember that his exposure to the Gospel came via Paul, who was not in attendance this night.

Depending what authorities one wishes to appeal to, it would seem Matthew was writing somewhere between 10 and 30 years after the event, with Mark writing at about the same remove. There is debate as to whether one began with the other’s work at hand, or whether both worked from some common source material which has not survived, often spoken of as the ‘Q’ document. Whatever the case, Luke was writing, by all appearances, about ten years farther remove from events and without benefit of an immediate witness at hand. He clearly notes this issue at the opening of his account. Many have undertaken such efforts (although only Luke’s efforts come down to us as Scripture) to put together accounts like those of the true eyewitnesses to the events. Thus, Luke saw fit to investigate it all carefully so as to arrive at an accurate account (Lk 1:1-4).

Now, there is much we can read into what Luke is saying. There were the eyewitness accounts, which could be taken as accurate. There were also any number of others writing of the accounts. Thinking on the fact that Luke was Paul’s companion, it would take little imagination to suppose that he had witnessed Paul countering any number of false teachings and false teachers. We know such were rampant amongst the early church, both Paul and John addressing the issue vehemently in their letters. The point is that Luke comes at this as both an educated man, and one who must obtain the details by investigation rather than by recollection. His farther remove from events, along with his general nature as a Greek and as a physician, make him perhaps more detail oriented than the other two. But, I would stress again that by way of that introductory aside, he himself testifies to the accuracy of those first-hand accounts. He does not write with the intent of refuting their testimony, but of filling it out. As to those others who compiled accounts with an eye to being like the true witnesses, it’s less clear just what Luke’s take was, whether he is hinting at the suspect nature of such writings, or merely noting himself as one among many. But, the fact that he follows with that claim of careful investigation so as to arrive at a true accounting suggests to me that there were problematic texts about.

Consider, as well, why and to whom Matthew and Mark wrote. Matthew, in particular, writes primarily for a Jewish audience. He feels no need to lay out details of the Passover meal because those details are common knowledge. Mark, while not so specific in his target audience, is far more interested in the action of the ministry than in laying out convincing arguments or proving points. Thus, Matthew is more inclined to appeal to the Old Testament Scriptures and to set forth in detail what Jesus was teaching. Mark is more interested in the miracles, the action, the power of God on display.

For both of these men, the significance of this meal was clear. That this was a signal event in the ministry, indeed it was the culmination of those three years in many ways, could not be missed. I note that this is one of a very few occasions that all four Evangelists see fit to cover, and to cover in some detail. But, for these two, there is an assumption that their readers already understand the powerful symbolism of the Passover meal, are quite familiar with the way such a meal proceeds, and will quickly add the details that they are leaving out. What matters is precisely the covenantal aspect of the thing. Given the prominence of the love feast in the early church, I could find twofold cause for this detail being noted. Primarily, it lays down the framework for that meal, explains why it has become part of church life and whereupon it is established. Notice, as well, that there is again an assumed knowledge on the reader’s part. All that is said of the bread is that Jesus said, “Take, eat. This is My body.” No further explanation of the statement is offered. It will wait for John’s Gospel to really get the background of that thought written down. Here, it seems that their primary concern is to establish the bona fides of the new ceremony. Jesus commanded. We but do.

Far more important, in their view, is the powerful imagery of the cup. The cup is a very clear marker of covenant, and it is discussed as such. I’ll have more to say on that point later, but for now, it can be noted that Jesus specifically marks the occasion as the sealing of covenant. This cup is My blood of the covenant. There is also the added comment as to what this covenant entails: The forgiveness of sins for many. The other comment Jesus makes about refraining from any further drinking of wine (or perhaps we ought to take it as any form of the grape) is also redolent of ancient covenantal practices, particularly those associated with the Nazarite vow. It should hardly surprise us, then, that the two statements find such affinity in the memories of these men as to become joined.

It is also worthwhile to remember that neither Matthew nor Mark are writing with an eye towards presenting an historical chronology. While they are generally chronological in their presentation, there are certainly other occasions where it seems, particularly in Matthew’s work, that material has been gathered together on topical lines rather than temporal. While such techniques do not fit well with our modern conceptions of how history is to be presented, they are actually quite typical for the time. Even Luke’s writing, with its Grecian flavor, is in the nature of a Greek historical presentation of the period, and allows for interjections of conversations to which the historian was unlikely to be privy, even getting to the thoughts of those involved.

At any rate, Luke writes to a Gentile audience, and as such, the particulars of the Paschal meal would be far less familiar. A detail oriented man, it’s not hard to imagine him pressing his interviewees for more insight into just what transpired. It’s also pretty obvious that in this case his interviewees must have been the Apostles themselves, or some subset of them. Ever the physician, he’s not satisfied with the initial presentation of the situation, but presses for details. Perhaps, hanging around with Paul for so long, he is familiar with the general flow of the Passover proceedings, and therefore thinks to ask which cup was that one at which Jesus said thus and so. Perhaps he asks, having learned that Jesus spoke of His refraining from wine at an earlier point, whether Jesus indeed drank of that cup that sealed the covenant. It’s certainly a question on my mind at this point.

When it comes to folding John’s account together with the three Synoptic Gospels, the problem is much knottier. He keeps noting the Passover that was pressing on the antagonists in this drama, their concern to be clean for the Passover in spite of seeing to Jesus’ destruction. Yet, we have Jesus Himself stating very clearly that the meal they share is “this Passover”, and we cannot take that as a reference to the week ahead, as we might with discussions of the days of Unleavened Bread. All three accounts provide strong evidence that this is a Passover meal. Matthew and Mark introduce the events with the disciples asking Jesus, “Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?” (Mt 26:17, Mk 14:12). Luke, as I said, gives us Jesus saying quite specifically, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you.”

In short, there can be no doubting that this was a Passover meal. Other aspects of the scene presented to us confirm this. There are the multiple cups that Luke notes. There are also the hymns sung following that cup of the covenant (Mt 26:30, Mk 14:26). Whatever solution we might offer to align John’s account, then, it must align John to the clear indication by these other three that the meal in view is the Passover meal.

To that purpose, no end of theories have been proposed, ranging from suggesting that Jesus purposefully moved the date but retained the forms, to suggestions of differing practices between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The issues with some of these theories are immediately evident. For example, if Jesus was shifting the schedule, the priests were not. Given the importance of their role in the sacrifice, and given the greater importance of Jesus fulfilling the whole of the Law, this renders it quite improbable, thoroughly improbable that He ate a day early. Indeed, if such had been the case, it would be that much more likely that those who witnessed it would make a big deal of the matter. That they say nothing of it suggests that there was nothing in the schedule and flow of events to make it stand out from other Passovers, until we arrive at that final note of covenant.

As to the differences of practice, it seems that within certain bounds that would hit the same problematic wall. If, indeed, the Sadducees were inclined to observe the Passover a day later, this would still not shift the Temple sacrifice schedule. If all of Israel was there on the 14th to sacrifice, then they would have to do it on the 14th. There is, apparently, some leeway as to when the meal was eaten. But, the timing of the sacrifice was a far more fixed matter.

Other theories point to the Chagigah offering of the following day, and suggest that it was the purity required for this offering that John refers to when he notes their concerns for being fit to eat the meal. This presumes a certain flexibility in the Passover reference more like the usage of referring to the days of Unleavened Bread, which might speak of the Passover directly, or of the entirety of the subsequent week. It is also noted that certain schools of Rabbinic thought, Hillel in particular, allowed a greater liberty of action on days of holy convocation, even beyond the clearly Scriptural permission of preparing food on such days. If the 14th of Nisan happened to fall on a Sabbath, even procuring the lamb was acceptable (which would necessitate, one presumes, the acceptance of selling said lamb.) Almsgiving was likewise permitted under some circumstances, which would allow, perhaps, for the suppositions noted on the part of the Apostles when Judas was sent off by Jesus. Personally, I find it just as likely that the legalities were not something that entered the minds of the Apostles, never presented as being the clearest of thinkers in the Gospels.

I may, perhaps, consider this issue of aligning John’s perspectives with the clearer statements of the others at some later point in my studies of this Last Supper. For now, however, I shall be satisfied to say that this is indeed a Passover meal eaten at the expected time for a Passover meal. However it is that the seemingly divergent details align with this fact, it must be assumed until explained that they do so align.

One final thought as to the setting: McClintock and Strong note that the degree to which Jerusalem’s population grew on these three days of holy convocation, the three events at which attendance by every male Jew was mandatory, precluded accommodating all those who came within the walls of Jerusalem proper. As such, there would be a sort of tent city that cropped up beyond those walls. This fact brings two thoughts to mind. First, it provides something of an explanation as to why Jesus and His disciples would be out in the Garden of Gethsemene by night. This was not necessarily a peculiarity on Jesus’ part, or some strange form of discipline He sought to impose upon His disciples. It may not even be reflective of their poor finances as a school. It may simply be that once again there was no room at the inn, no real choice but to do as they did. One could wonder why no mention is made of passing through these tent cities as they traverse from the Mount of Olives into Jerusalem, but again, it may just be that the detail was such a commonplace as deserved no mention. Or, it may be that the authors just found it a matter that added nothing to their intended message. Despite this overpopulated situation, what we do know is that the Garden remained a pretty isolated spot, a place where they could enjoy a degree of privacy, presumably been farther removed from the city than absolutely necessary from conditions.

The second thing that comes to mind is what impact this whole thing must have on the Roman authorities. This is a thought that was striking me yesterday, as well, as I considered the content of the Hallel. Recall that these Psalms were recited continuously throughout the hours of sacrifice during which the entire populace (or its representatives at any rate) made their way to temple. And the courts of the temple were within view of the Antonia Fortress. If they could not see directly what was happening in the courts of the temple, they could certainly hear. The only question is whether any there could understand what was being said. Herod would, presumably. But, the common Roman soldier? It seems unlikely. Given the rather dim view it seems they held of the Jews in general, there would be little cause for learning their language. Let the rabble speak the Greek common to the realm. In particular, I can’t see Pilate being bothered. It would demean his authority to show such consideration. But, perhaps they heard and understood what those Psalms were saying. If they did, it could hardly promote a sense of peace and well-being amongst them. After all, there was a history at this point. Many a rebellion had its roots in these gatherings, and listening to those Psalms with their talk of defeating the surrounding enemy would be enough to promote an edgy wariness in the troops. The additional crowding in and around the city wasn’t helping either. Given the ever-present concern for order, for the pax Romana, you can bet that the power of Rome was poised to squash any sort of uproar on a moment’s notice.

One can hear that concern on the minds of those who plotted against Jesus. It was not so much the sanctity of the Feast that pressed upon their thoughts as the potential backlash from those men up on the walls of the Fortress. One had to tread carefully when under occupation. Yes, Rome allowed them significant liberties. Yes, they retained their positions, if tenuously. But, all knew how fragile their positions were, and how swift and deadly could be the termination of those positions. They may well have been even more concerned to avoid riot than the Romans. After all, for the Romans, it required only a certain brutality on their part to restore order. For the Jews, there was the prospect of being on the receiving end of that brutality, and the unlikelihood of surviving it. All in all, an exceedingly volatile moment into which God steps to bring the ultimate Crisis to pass.

But, just at this moment, that Crisis remains future. It is very near, but it is not yet. For this moment, we are still within the peaceful bounds of relative normality. Indeed, we are sitting as witnesses to an exceedingly solemn occasion, and one of particular intimacy. We are witnessing the making of covenant, the establishing of blood brotherhood, and make no mistake! Those who sit around the table, when they hear what Jesus pronounces over the elements, are fully aware of the power in this moment.

That power really can’t be missed. “This is My blood of the covenant.” Whether one should view the origins of the Passover as a covenant ceremony is debatable, but what Jesus says on this occasion removes all doubt. The form by which He remarks this covenant is redolent of the oldest roots of the covenant ceremony, that of blood-brotherhood. In its earliest forms, this was the significance. An alien to the clan was being accepted into membership in the clan, adopted if you like. And, in this earliest form, the rite by which the adoption was sealed truly involved each party drinking of the other’s blood. “This is My blood of the covenant. Take. Drink. Drink from it all of you.”

Keep that perspective in mind, for I cannot but believe that it was on their minds as that cup came around. But, the covenant rites had softened somewhat in their forms, been civilized. On the other hand, the application of covenant had become a sterner matter, a matter of politics and conquest. The most typically seen applications of covenant were not between equals, were not matters of family. They were binding agreements between the conquering power and the vanquished. It may not always have been something that came about as result of war, but the most well-known examples were made on this basis. The victorious king dictated terms, which might include a certain stipulated list of rights for the vanquished. Those rights were, of course, contingent upon accepting the rule of this king, and the penalties for breaking with the agreement were deadly indeed.

This is the nature of covenant upon which God chooses to model His own arrangements with man. This in itself is an act of grace on His part. He has graciously chosen to interact with us in terms we are familiar with, in ways we can comprehend. In a way, He has used the covenant as a parable – once again taking the familiar and relatively commonplace as a launching pad for understanding the ineffable.

The seriousness of these more political covenants was to be seen in the actions taken to seal the matter. We could note that the agreements were literally carved in stone, which would reduce the likelihood of the terms being lost. More to the point, though, is that business of the cleaved animals that we see in the early covenant with Abraham. One thing had not ceased from the covenant seal: It ever and always required blood. In this case, it was the blood of those cloven animals, the parts laid to either side of what became a trail of blood, down which the parties to the covenant were to walk. One common interpretation of this event is that it provided a visible sense of the curse attached to noncompliance. If I fail to uphold my end, thus may you do to me. Others find a hazier, more ethereal significance in the act, but this perspective has the earthiness one might expect of a people who lived close to the land, whose language was so singularly composed of concretes.

Here, it has been pointed out by many that God alone makes that walk, that Abraham, aware of the impossibility of this covenant was fearful of the need for him to signify his acceding to terms. But, God took the whole. He alone made the oath to uphold His end. He in essence was saying to Abraham, “Thus may you do to Me if I fail to abide by these terms.” Yet, Abraham was not even permitted to take that weight upon himself, never mind requested to do so.

There is this same sort of imbalance to the proceedings at Mount Sinai. For, this, too, was clearly a covenantal matter. Yet, when Moses came down with the contract terms, something most unusual had occurred, or so I have been taught. Typically, each party to the covenant would have had their own tablet recording the terms. But, Moses had both copies. This was a deviation from formula. Once again, the implications of this deviation pointed to God upholding His end of a most uneven bargain, and granting grace on the side of man.

Now, fold this historical background back into the scene at hand. Jesus is marking a covenant, and He is doing so in a fashion designed to not only recall to mind every covenant God ever made with man, but also those earlier covenants of clan adoption. Now, notice a few things: In following the greater detail of Luke’s account, Jesus had already sworn off wine before this covenantal cup was poured. They had drunk of His blood, as it were, but He had not required theirs in turn. Once again, then, we seem to have a rather one-sided contract. If I am considering the adoptive sense of this thing, I would suppose that by drinking His blood, they had been adopted into His clan. He, on the other hand, had no need to be adopted into ours, for He had been born into it.

Did the Apostles recognize this? What they doubtless did recognize here was the echo of that earlier Passover week, when Jesus had stood and said, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” (Jn 6:53). That is very clearly visible in the formula by which Jesus sets out this new covenant. This is My body given for you. This is My blood poured out for you. Yes, there is the aspect of adoption, but as they think back over His teaching, there is very clearly a life or death issue being set before them. Choose this day.

At this point, I have diverged rather significantly from the outline I had set forth for my comments on this passage. As such, I think I shall be largely ignoring that outline so as to avoid repeating myself on some of these themes. To my mind, what is presently before us for consideration gets at the meat of this event. Let me lay just a bit more groundwork around that image, then, bolster it just that bit more.

One thing we should remain mindful of is that the prophets had often made mention of this new, or renewed covenant to come with Messiah’s arrival. The old was generally perceived as having expired with the Exile. The breach of terms had been too great and too constant for that agreement to remain binding in any way, shape or form. And the Exile provided the curse applicable to that breach of contract. After its fashion, then, the covenant terms had been satisfied, if in the most negative possible way. Recall that there before Sinai, both the blessings and the curses attendant on this covenant had been spelled out in no uncertain terms, and the people had as one voiced their acceptance of both potentials as contingent on their obedience. Yes, we will! We will abide by this Law, and we fully accept the associated penalties as befitting our failure to do so. We are duly bound. The exile was, then, all but inevitable from the outset. Indeed, with that punishment, they had still gotten off lightly. For the true penalty for sin was, is, and ever shall be death.

I remain intrigued, though, by the fact that Jesus more or less removes Himself from the proceedings midway. Those comments that Luke attributes to an earlier point in the meal give us cause to suppose that from His perspective, the meal is left unfinished. “I shall not eat it again. I shall not drink it again, until the kingdom of God comes.” Now, the eating, in this case, would seem to apply to the entirety of the Passover meal, and not to some specific part of it, such as the bread, or the lamb, or even the bitter herbs. But, again: This is stated early on. I note as well that, while the accounts note that He took the cup and blessed it, they do not say that He drank from it. They say He gave it to them. Indeed, look at that first round that Luke reports. “Take this and share it among yourselves, for I shall no longer partake.” The message seems to be that He was not stopping after this cup, but that He was stopping now.

Who cares? Well, let me point out a particular aspect of the Passover meal. There were to be a minimum of four cups of wine drunk during this meal. There could be more, but there could not be less. The last two cups were associated with reciting the Psalms that composed the Hallel, which I looked at earlier. And, there is this point made: However many cups of wine were drunk, none were allowed between the two cups of the Hallel. Now, it has to be said that we cannot fully establish which two cups are in view here, other than that the final cup noted had to have been at least the third, for it is the third which comes after the meal, and Luke specifies that this cup came “after they had eaten.”

I do not know, quite honestly, whether one could reasonably place that breaking of the bread between third and fourth cup. But, my inclination at this point is to consider that the first cup Luke notes was the third cup, the cup with which the first two Psalms of the Hallel were recited. And, it is here that Jesus makes the comments regarding His refraining from both observance of Passover and from drinking wine until when? Until the full significance of the Passover had been realized in the kingdom of God, until that kingdom was fully and truly come.

Then, comes the final cup. As the content of the Hallel turns more fully upon God as Savior and Redeemer, as the full Messianic power of this Passover comes into view, and the promise and assurance that however severe the circumstance, God will prevail; Jesus increases the power. “This is a covenant meal. A new covenant is established. It is established not in the blood of goats and lambs, but in My blood. By My blood, the terms are agreed. By My blood, you are made members of God’s own clan. By My blood, your sins are truly forgiven, at least for most of you.”

I have already noted, I believe, the possibility that Jesus was taking on what appears to have been a Nazarite vow, or at least borrowing heavily from that practice. It strikes me that His apparent refraining from finishing the full rites of the Passover is of a piece with that point. He has noted a future, more complete fulfillment of this event. It would soon become clear to His disciples that in His death, He had truly fulfilled the promise of Passover. He was in Himself that paschal lamb, by whose blood sins were forgiven. This image was etched indelibly upon their thoughts. The author of Hebrews makes this explicitly clear. The Revelation that John penned marvels at visions of this Lamb of God Who was slain and yet lives to remove the seals from God’s book. Yet, even as He fulfills that feast, He establishes it anew. There is yet a Passover to come, such as will make even the Crucifixion but a type and shadow, for all that it was so solid and real a fulfillment.

The significance is at once new and the same. God has once again interposed Himself between Himself and man. The blood on the lintel had marked out those who were under His protection on that night when the firstborn died in Egypt. His blood now marks out those who are His own, who are even now under His protection on the night when all flesh must die. For all have sinned and fallen under the curse of this covenant. And, yes, one must recognize that even this covenant in the blood of Christ has its attached curse for those who will not abide by its terms.

Let me take notice, at this point, of a particular of Matthew’s account. When that cup of covenant is passed to the Apostles, Jesus says, “Drink form it, all of you.” That necessarily includes Judas in its purview. We don’t know whether there was some interlude between command and explanation as that cup passed around. I would presume that the covenantal aspect of the matter was made clear first, for otherwise, how could their drinking that cup amount to accepting the terms? And, there was Judas, still one of them so far as anybody knew, and still trying to keep up appearances. He would have to have drunk that cup; signed onto the terms. Yet, the blessings of that covenant passed right by him. He was not covered by the blood, but covered in His blood. Despite his efforts to redirect responsibility to the Sanhedrin, truly blood-guiltiness was upon him, and nothing about this most marvelous covenant of grace would change that. He had signed, but he hadn’t abided by the terms. Indeed, the terms were faith in Christ, and he’d already let go of that.

Right there in the original meal, then, we have the evidence not only of Jesus’ words, but of the results recorded for history, that salvation is not a universal gift. “My blood of the covenant is for many.” It is not for all, but for many. Even amongst those first twelve participants in this covenant, it was for many, but not for all. Here, it must be said as well that participation in the visible signs and rites of the faith does not in any way guarantee participation in the reality. As powerful as the rite of communion is, by which we retain this Last Supper, the power is not in the ritual, but in the reality behind the ritual.

Paul makes this point to the church in Corinth. Examine yourself. If you partake in a manner unworthy, guilt for His blood and His body is upon you. You are eating and drinking judgment upon yourself, and it is because of this that so many among you are sickening and dieing (1Co 11:27-30). We dare not stretch this point to conclude that any supposed believer who experiences illness is clearly in sin. Jesus swept away such thinking long and long ago, and to read it back into this is to deny His own word on the matter. It is but one cause amongst many, which includes God’s glory. God cannot be glorified by sin, to be sure. But, He can be glorified by our illnesses. We find that difficult to accept and believe, and yet it is His own testimony. It will be argued that His glory is found solely in the healing of those illnesses. I will argue that some of the most marvelous of Christian testimonies are those that come from His children who have not been healed of their illnesses, and have found in that situation that they only draw the more near to Him, only find their faith expanded and strengthened, only exude the power of Christ from their weakness, rather than whining incessantly as to their plight.

For us who are truly adopted into His family, though, the constant reminder of this fact is indeed a most marvelous balm. This is the power of assurance. This is the foundation upon which we arrive at full confidence that He Who began the work will assuredly complete it in us. His covenants with mankind have ever and always been primarily His to uphold. He knows our weaknesses. He has experienced them. He surmounted them, but He experienced them, and He knows full well what we are up against in this life. And, He has purchased our victory! He has redeemed us from our slavery in the prison camps of Satan. In Him, truly we live and move and have being. We have tasted and seen the goodness of the Lord. We have been fed from the Bread of Life, and we have drunk the blood by which we have our membership in the family of God. And, He Who is Faithful, Righteous and True stands by that covenant He has sworn upon His own name. Our God, our Rock! Our Ancient of Days in Whom there is not even the first shadow or hint of change. He has done it, and He has granted that we may enjoy the fullest benefit of all that He has done. Indeed, Who is like unto our Lord? There is no one!