Questions about Last Supper...

[Bushmaster78FS]

I am confused about something, I am trying to harmonize the Synoptic accounts and St. John's Gospel on my own, and I need to understand a few things. I know there is no contradiction and the accounts are reconcilable, but I have a few "why"s

St.Mark says "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? "
(Mar 14:12 KJVR)

St.Luke says "Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. "
(Luke 22:7 KJVR)

So this is the day where they killed the passover lamb, which starts at 6PM - 14 Nisan Friday for them and it is Thursday evening by our understanding. The next day, after midday, the lamb is slain, and it is still the same day. Christ is the passover lamb that is slain (St. John the Forerunner, "Behold the Lamb of God") and as prophesied He is slain at the exact same timeline... My first "why" is, well Gospels indicate that He wanted to eat a last paschal meal with His disciples, but the lamb that was slain for the Last Supper must not be the one Jews slaughtered on Passover for the nation of Israel as indicated in Exodus.

Verses from 4 gospels strongly indicate that it is a Friday, because they hurry Lord's body to the tomb before Sabbath starts Saturday, which is Friday 6 PM our time.

Everything falls in place, even St. John 19:14 and 18:28 if we take the "passover" St. John mentions not as the Passover day but the weekly feast, and 19:31, 42 indicates that it is the Friday before Sabbath. We have Judas and Joseph or Arimathea buying stuff something I keep in mind.

But then you guys say Church teaches that Passover and Sabbath was on the same day, which is that Saturday, confused the heck out of me.

My understanding is that at this point that Lord ate an early meal, it is Thursday evening, but day just started for them, so it is Friday already, this is the night (day) where Lord will be arrested, tried and sentenced, and it is the Passover.

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/4449/capturenv6.jpg

[Bushmaster78FS]

Well, come to think of it, if the lambs are slain after the midday on a particular day then the Passover meal is actually eaten the next day, so that clears the confusion I had, that makes it Saturday, same day, Passover meal and Sabbath, but then Last Supper is NOT Passover meal. If Last Supper is not the passover meal then all the Gospel accounts are harmonized.

[MariaRegina]

It appears that Jewish communities also have different ways of calculating the Passover ... so Orthodox Christians who struggle with Old vs New Calendar issues are not alone.

There is an apparent discrepancy in the Evangelists' accounts, between John's Gospel on the one hand, and what on the other Mathew, Mark and Luke tell us.

According to John, Jesus died on the Cross at the very moment when the Passover lambs were being sacrificed in the temple. The death of Jesus and the sacrifice of the lambs coincided.However, this means that he must have died the day before Easter and could not, therefore, have celebrated the Passover meal in person - this, at any rate, is how it appears.

According to the three Synoptic Gospels, the Last Supper of Jesus was instead a Passover meal into whose traditional form he integrated the innovation of the gift of his Body and Blood.

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

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

Jesus truly shed his blood on the eve of Easter at the time of the immolation of the lambs. In all likelihood, however, he celebrated the Passover with his disciples in accordance with the Qumran calendar, hence, at least one day earlier; he celebrated it without a lamb, like the Qumran community which did not recognize Herod's temple and was waiting for the new temple.http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=285855#Post285855

[Bushmaster78FS]

Qumran calendar? Is this the argument where it is suggested that He was following a revised calendar observed by the Essenes at Qumran? I have a doubt about that...

[MariaRegina]

I gather that Qumran is the only current plausible explanation. It is better than saying that he goofed.

[Philothei]

Is it okay if I get back to you after this weekend? I want to show your post to my husband and he can direct you... I think he would be most interested in that issue. I am no expert on this...

[Jacob4707]

I am confused about something, I am trying to harmonize the Synoptic accounts and St. John's Gospel on my own, and I need to understand a few things. I know there is no contradiction and the accounts are reconciliable, but I have a few "why"s

Actually, the accounts are NOT reconcilable. Many have tried to make them so. Some have gone crazy in the process. :)

(I think some of the Church Fathers early on recognized the difficulties of reconciling the Synoptics with St. John's Gospel when it comes to this.)

It's also difficult to reconcile the Synoptic accounts of the events surrounding Jesus cursing the fig tree, and that involves simply the Synoptic Gospels, not John.

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The meal in question is not the seder meal but the chaburoth meal. This was being used as the last opportunity to clear away any food items that were not to be present during passover. Hence the levened bread vs. unleavened. The seder meal is eaten standing with staff in hand... unleavened bread dipped in bitters. That is not the meal of the last supper.


Forgive me...

[Bushmaster78FS]

Actually, the accounts are NOT reconcilable. Many have tried to make them so. Some have gone crazy in the process. :)

How could this be?

Would you agree with OrthodoxyUSA's reply though, I have seen something similar in this link...

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Cross/crucifixion-day.html

Note that in 1 Corinthians 5:7 Jesus is referred to as the Passover Lamb for believers: "Purge out the old leaven, so that you may be a new lump, just as you were unleavened. For Christ, our Lamb was sacrificed for us." The statement of E. C. Hoskyns on John 19:14 is very appropriate here: "The hour of the double sacrifice is drawing near. It is midday. The Passover lambs are being prepared for sacrifice, and the Lamb of God is likewise sentenced to death" (The Fourth Gospel [London: Farber and Farber, 1940], ad. loc.). It simply needs to be pointed out that the lambs referred to here are not those that were slaughtered and eaten in private homes-a rite Jesus had already observed with His disciples the night before ("Maundy Thursday")- but the lambs to be offered on the altar of the Lord on behalf of the whole nation of Israel. (For the household observance on the evening of the fourteenth of Abib, cf. Exod. 12:6; for the public sacrifice on the altar, cf. Exod. 12:16-17; Lev. 23:4-8; 2 Chron. 30:15-19; 35:11-16. These were all known as Passover sacrifices, since they were presented during Passover week.)

[Bushmaster78FS]

Also, another issue is that this connects why RCC uses unleavened bread for Eucharist, they follow the Synoptics, but then do you ditch St. John's gospel? Why use leavened bread for 800 some years and then switch? If we take Synoptics and place the passover earlier then there are all kinds of problems, Christ was buried before this meal...

[Jacob4707]

The meal in question is not the seder meal but the chaburoth meal. This was being used as the last opportunity to clear away any food items that were not to be present during passover. Hence the levened bread vs. unleavened. The seder meal is eaten standing with staff in hand... unleavened bread dipped in bitters. That is not the meal of the last supper.


Forgive me...

Only the Samaritans continued the "standing with staff in hand" tradition (as witnessed by a traveler to their lands sometime in the 18th century, I believe). Jews have traditionally eaten the Seder meal reclining at table after that first meal preceding their Exodus from Egypt. During the first century they reclined because that was the custom at festival meals, and then later on (when reclining was no longer customary), the rabbis said it was to recall that they were no longer slaves in Egypt and thus could "relax" and enjoy the meal.

There are enough similarities to the Passover meal in the Synoptic accounts (including Jesus telling His disciples to prepare the place for Him to eat the Passover with them) to support it being a Passover Seder, and there are enough differences to make one wonder if it was indeed a Passover meal. Joachim Jeremias in THE EUCHARISTIC WORDS OF JESUS argues that it was a Passover meal, but other scholars present counter arguments - e.g., Jesus followed a different calendar; it was a "pre-Passover" meal that Jesus had especially for His disciples, knowing He would be arrested before Passover began; etc.

Bushmaster: Perfectly reconciling the crucifixion and resurrection accounts as given in the 4 Gospels/Acts/1 Corinthians 15 is also a tough task.

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Only the Samaritans continued the "standing with staff in hand" tradition (as witnessed by a traveler to their lands sometime in the 18th century, I believe). Jews have traditionally eaten the Seder meal reclining at table after that first meal preceding their Exodus from Egypt. During the first century they reclined because that was the custom at festival meals, and then later on (when reclining was no longer customary), the rabbis said it was to recall that they were no longer slaves in Egypt and thus could "relax" and enjoy the meal.

There are enough similarities to the Passover meal in the Synoptic accounts (including Jesus telling His disciples to prepare the place for Him to eat the Passover with them) to support it being a Passover Seder, and there are enough differences to make one wonder if it was indeed a Passover meal. Joachim Jeremias in THE EUCHARISTIC WORDS OF JESUS argues that it was a Passover meal, but other scholars present counter arguments - e.g., Jesus followed a different calendar; it was a "pre-Passover" meal that Jesus had especially for His disciples, knowing He would be arrested before Passover began; etc.

Bushmaster: Perfectly reconciling the crucifixion and resurrection accounts as given in the 4 Gospels/Acts/1 Corinthians 15 is also a tough task.

Good work.

What is the greek word for "bread", used in the Gospels, that tells us that it was levened bread that was used at the last supper.

Would you agree that Christ and his Apostles did celebrate chaburoth meals? Along with most all other Jewish customs.

Forgive me...

[Jacob4707]

Good work.

What is the greek word for "bread", used in the Gospels, that tells us that it was levened bread that was used at the last supper.

Would you agree that Christ and his Apostles did celebrate chaburoth meals? Along with most all other Jewish customs.

Forgive me...

The word used is artos, which without the qualifying adjective azumos (unleavened) very well could mean leavened bread. I don't know if the Greek Jews of that time would have referred to the bread of the Passover Seder as artos azumos, or as simply artos, with azumos being understood since that was the only kind of bread one ate at Passover and during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

I don't think that the absence of azumos in conjunction with the mention of artos at the Last Supper (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 1 Corinthians 11) clearly proves that Jesus ate leavened bread at His Last Supper apart from first reading relevant contemporary Greek Jewish literature of the time to see how they described the bread at Passover. If they always referred to it as artos azumos, or simply azumos, then the fact that the NT only calls it artos might be support for it being leavened bread - which would argue against the Last Supper being a Passover Seder.

I have read that the Last Supper was a chavurah (singular?) meal because it doesn't exactly follow the manner of the Passover Seder. On the other hand, the Passover Customs we have in the Talmud volume Pesachim don't necessarily reflect what they did in 30 A.D. Jacob Neusner, the prolific Jewish scholar, has argued that the rabbinic writings cannot provide us with any useful information re: the New Testament because no one can prove that what the Talmud says that so-and-so said was really said by so-and-so. There is way too much putting into the mouths and pens of ancient sages things that actually occurred much later.

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The word used is artos, which without the qualifying adjective azumos (unleavened) very well could mean leavened bread. I don't know if the Greek Jews of that time would have referred to the bread of the Passover Seder as artos azumos, or as simply artos, with azumos being understood since that was the only kind of bread one ate at Passover and during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

I don't think that the absence of azumos in conjunction with the mention of artos at the Last Supper (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 1 Corinthians 11) clearly proves that Jesus ate leavened bread at His Last Supper apart from first reading relevant contemporary Greek Jewish literature of the time to see how they described the bread at Passover. If they always referred to it as artos azumos, or simply azumos, then the fact the the NT only calls it artos might be support for it being leavened bread - which would argue against the Last Supper being a Passover Seder.

I have read that the Last Supper was a chavurah (singular?) meal because it doesn't exactly follow the manner of the Passover Seder. On the other hand, the Passover Customs we have in the Talmud volume Pesachim don't necessarily reflect what they did in 30 A.D. Jacob Neusner, the prolific Jewish scholar, has argued that the rabbinic writings cannot provide us with any useful information re: the New Testament because no one can prove that what the Talmud says that so-and-so said was really said by so-and-so. There is way too much putting into the mouths and pens of ancient sages things that actually occurred much later.

He said, he said...

Are we certain that at the very least the Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch historically have never practiced The Holy Eucharist with unleavened bread? The Bishops of Antioch teach this.

Thanks for the lesson... :thumbsup:

Forgive me...

[Asinner]

The word used is artos, which without the qualifying adjective azumos (unleavened) very well could mean leavened bread. I don't know if the Greek Jews of that time . . .

Forgive me for the derail . . .:P

Two Jewish men, Sid and Al, were sitting in a Greek restaurant Sid
asked Al, "Are there any people of our faith born and raised in Greece?"

Al replied, "I don't know, let's ask our waiter."

When the waiter came by, Al asked him, "Are there any Greek Jews?" And
the waiter said, "Aronno, I ask the cooks."

He returned from the kitchen in a few minutes and said, "No ser, no
Greek Jews."

Al wasn't really satisfied with that and asked, "Are you absolutely
sure?"

The waiter, realizing he was dealing with "xenoi" gave the expected
answer, "I check again," and went back into the kitchen.

While the waiter was away, Sid said, "I find it hard to believe that
there are no Jews in Greece. Our people are scattered everywhere."

The waiter returned and said, "The head cook say there is no Greek
Jews."

"Are you certain?" Al asked once again. "I can't believe there are no
Greek Jews!"

"I ask EVERYONE," replied the exasperated waiter. "All we have is
Orange Jews, Prune Jews, Tomato Jews, and Grape Jews."

[MariaRegina]

:)

Looks like a lot of smilies do not work.

I know a lot of atheists like to point out the discrepancies in the Gospels in hopes of derailing Christians.

Perhaps that would be more relevant. Was this question posed by atheists?
























I could tell a funny ethnic joke based on dialects, but I will not dare to do so here.

Maybe I will post it in another forum and PM you the link. PM me if you want to read it.

[Asinner]

lol, Aria, my Greek st sent me that joke.:D

[OrthoCanuck]

I remember hearing Fr. Tom Hopko mentioning that it is impossible to reconcile the 4 gospels. Not just the Mystical Supper accounts, but the ressurection accounts, crucifixion accounts, etc. It has never really bothered me though. (The only thing that bothers me is that I cannot find the link to the podcast where Fr. Tom discussed this point. It's probably on Ancient Faith Radio or something.) After all I'm not a fundamentalist Christian trying to defend the inerrancy of the scriptures. I'm sure the Fathers must have said something about attempting to harmonize the texts. After all, the gospels have been around for over 1900 yrs., someone had to notice the apparent "contradictions."


Peace.

[Bushmaster78FS]

The point was brought up long ago by a muslim, but then I didn't really care, however, I believe these accounts are in harmony. Didn't Church fathers believe that also?

[Bushmaster78FS]

St. Augustine talks about the harmony of the Gospels, when he mentions the difficulty of the St. John's "sixth hour"... He says , regardless the solution you come up with, the gospels are in harmony.

[Bushmaster78FS]

Is it okay if I get back to you after this weekend? I want to show your post to my husband and he can direct you... I think he would be most interested in that issue. I am no expert on this...

:confused:

[Philothei]

I wil pm to you when I have an answer....

[buzuxi02]

The Gospel of John is the gospel which gives a historical account of the chronology of events.

The Synoptics are not 3 different sources which unanimously attest to a different sequence of events meant to contradict the gospel of John, instead the 3 synoptic accounts present the Tradition taken from the same common source.

This same common tradition, is that which the early church debated with the Johanine communities of Asia Minor -that the Lord's ressurection should always be celebrated on a Sunday regardless of what day Passover fell on. The churches of Asia Minor on the other hand, following the tradition of John, celebrated the Ressurection on the day after Nisan 14 regardless if it fell on a sunday.

The Synoptics are concerned with judaizers who want to hold onto the passover sedar .. The synoptics places the Last Supper on passover not because this was historically accurate, but with the admonition that Christ did not eat the passover lamb because He is the Passover lamb:

"...With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before i suffer, for i say unto you i will not eat of it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God. Then He took the cup and gave thanks...."(Lk 22.15-17).
Another words there was no leg of lamb offered at the Last Supper because it was not Passover yet and none was available, instead Christ offers himself, the true paschal lamb in the form of the Eucharist.

In the gospel of John, Jesus is the symbolic Lamb of God being sacrificed at the same time that the Passover was ritualistically killed. In the Synoptics the ritualistic killings of the lamb, takes place at the same time Christ institutues His own bloodless sacrifice; the Eucharist, thus the disciples did not eat the lamb of the jewish passover, but ate the consecrated bread and wine which replaces it; the flesh and blood of Christ our Paschal Lamb.

The synoptic account instead implores fasting on "Holy Week" much to the chagrin of judaizers, by emphasizing that Christ said he will not eat of the passover or drink of the vine, until he does so in the Kingdom of God, thus the jewish passover with its sedar is obselete and renders the assertions of the judaizers void, The passover ceases to be a day of celebration but a day to fast until the second coming.

The synoptics are not ignorant of the jewish customs, and their authors knew perfectly well that jewish authorites and jewish people would not partake in activities forbidden during this feast. Which would make themselves violate the Law, defiling themselves on Passover- by holding the trial and execution of Jesus.

That the Last Supper was not on Passover nor during the trial and crucifixion of Jesus is verified with the incident involving Barabas.

"For of neccesity he must release one unto them at the feast".(Lk 23.17, Matt 27.15) Anotherwords the feast had not yet begun. All the synoptics recall this event, the multitiude of people did not come out on Passover to ask for the death penalty, these events from the Last Supper to the burial preceded the Passover as the above verse makes clear.

St Paul is the earliest christian writer we have equating the Passover Lamb with Jesus Christ in 55a.d., "Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you maybe a new lump since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ our passover was sacrificed for us.

[Bushmaster78FS]

Why in the world RCC turned to unleavened bread after 8 centuries?

[buzuxi02]

The west always had variations in their practises. The Church in the west was spread thru a vast area under only one Apostolic church which is the patriarchate of Rome. For instance the filioque was added in the 6th century in Spain but didnt make its way to Rome till the 11th century. Likewise thru the liturgical variations found in the west, some eventually influenced Rome and they adapted the practise of unleavened bread. The armenians also use unleavened bread but they teach they borrowed the custom from the romans.

A scholar pointed out how Melito of Sardis in the 2nd century writing on Pascha compares the Exodus account which the jewish Passover is based on, as a foreshadowing of the christian Pascha. The scholar sees this as a kind of "passoverization", likewise a switch to unleavened bread is the same, it could also be considered judaizing.