Lord's Supper at Passover

[Ron Amnsn]

Last night we celebrated Passover with a few other believers in our city. Why isn't the "Lord's Supper" celebrated regularly at Passover time? It seems it's mostly celebrated as a pre-lunch snack rather than a supper, and almost never celebrated at Passover time as Jesus instituted it with his disciples.

[Tom Wetmore]

I am increasingly of the opinion that when Jesus said, "As oft as you do this, do it in remembrance of me" he was referring to the act of breaking bread (eating) together. How "oft" do we share a meal? Do we remember him as the bread of life when we do so? That he is the water of life? That just as certainly as we need daily bread, we need him more?

Do we survive by eating and drinking but once a year? or even quarterly? Can we find spiritual satisfaction for our hunger and thirst with a brief nibble and tiny sip?

Give us this day our daily bread...

[Kevin H]

In Israel we had a first centurary passover meal closing with a communion service, then when I was in the Army a church the two years I was at Fort Lewis WA had me put on the first centurary passover meal and then the pastor closed with communion. It was very touching. Working evenings I have not had the chance to do this in about 23 years I'd like to do it again (I've sometimes preached on it). It is good to have either an ancient or modern passover meal and think about passover.

[phkrause]

I have no problem with the communion being every quarter. The thing I see is why not celebrate the Lords Supper at the correct time of year as opposed to Easter?

[FLO]

Last night we celebrated Passover with a few other believers in our city. Why isn't the "Lord's Supper" celebrated regularly at Passover time? It seems it's mostly celebrated as a pre-lunch snack rather than a supper, and almost never celebrated at Passover time as Jesus instituted it with his disciples.

Preach it brother! That's exactly when it's supposed to be celebrated.

[FLO]

I am increasingly of the opinion that when Jesus said, "As oft as you do this, do it in remembrance of me" he was referring to the act of breaking bread (eating) together.

Jesus did not do this every day. He washed the disciples feet during Passover. He even said "I desire to eat this Passover with you." It was clear that this was a Passover event. And Passover happens once a year. It's a memorial. Originally it was a memorial of how God saved Israel from Egypt. However, at Jesus' last Passover meal, he told His disciples "As oft as you do this, do it in remembrance of me". Meaning, that as often as you celebrate this event, the Passover (i.e. once a year), do it in remembrance of Me! Why? Because all these years the focus of Passover was on Israel coming out of Egypt, but Jesus' death (on Passover) now shifted the focus to be on Him and His sacrifice. So, as often as we celebrate the Passover we should do it in remembrance of Him.

[Dr. Rich]

Jesus was the Passover Lamb wasn't He? Wasn't He killed at the same time the Passover lamb was to be killed? If so (as He agreed with) then Jesus could not have eaten the real Passover meal with the disciples because He was in the grave at this same time.

When Jesus was before Pilate the Jews couldn't go into the court building because of the up coming Passover and they would have been declared unclean. This proves that Jesus didn't eath the Passover with His disciples.

Besides, the Passover meal did not include wine and bread and they were not allowed to recline as they did in the 'Last Supper'.

It therefore appears that the words of Matthew Mark and Luke were edited to fit what the Catholic church wanted people to believe. John's version is what really happened and the cup of wine was NOT the "NEW Covenant", but it was the symbol of the old covenant.

[Ron Amnsn]

Jesus was the Passover Lamb wasn't He? Wasn't He killed at the same time the Passover lamb was to be killed? If so (as He agreed with) then Jesus could not have eaten the real Passover meal with the disciples because He was in the grave at this same time.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

I am increasingly of the opinion that when Jesus said, "As oft as you do this, do it in remembrance of me" he was referring to the act of breaking bread (eating) together.

Jesus did not do this every day. He washed the disciples feet during Passover. He even said "I desire to eat this Passover with you." It was clear that this was a Passover event. And Passover happens once a year. It's a memorial...

The evidence about the early church suggests they ate an agape feast regularly together, calling it the Lord's supper. It appears to have been more on the order of a potluck meal. It is that meal which Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 11. The context of Paul's comments and counsel suggests whenever fellowshipping as the body of Christ over a meal it should be done in remembrance of Christ.

I also take note of Jesus frequent teaching method of taking a common everyday object or event to draw a spiritual lesson. That meant that whenever they encountered it again they would remember what he had said. So by saying as he broke bread and passed the cup at the meal he made his point for them to remember every time they encountered that act/object.

[Kevin H]

Jesus was the Passover Lamb wasn't He? Wasn't He killed at the same time the Passover lamb was to be killed? If so (as He agreed with) then Jesus could not have eaten the real Passover meal with the disciples because He was in the grave at this same time.

When Jesus was before Pilate the Jews couldn't go into the court building because of the up coming Passover and they would have been declared unclean. This proves that Jesus didn't eath the Passover with His disciples.

Besides, the Passover meal did not include wine and bread and they were not allowed to recline as they did in the 'Last Supper'.

It therefore appears that the words of Matthew Mark and Luke were edited to fit what the Catholic church wanted people to believe. John's version is what really happened and the cup of wine was NOT the "NEW Covenant", but it was the symbol of the old covenant.

Depends on if you are reading John or the other gospels. John had Jesus died at Passover and the last supper was not Passover. However Matthew, Mark and Luke have the last supper Passover. The Jewish subgroups did not agree on the day of Passover. At a time the Temple had Passover on Friday, the Essences and some other groups celebrated on Tuesday. modern tradition has the last supper Thursday night but early tradition had it Tuesday night, Making the last supper being the one night that some of the Jews celebrated Passover (also they followed a man with a water pot, men did not carry water pots unless they were Essences.) prisoners were to spend a day in jail before the trial, Wednesday, Thursday all the different trials, and on the cross by 9:00 AM Friday dyeing when the rest of the Jews celebrated Passover

[John317]

John had Jesus died at Passover and the last supper was not Passover. However Matthew, Mark and Luke have the last supper Passover. The Jewish subgroups did not agree on the day of Passover. At a time the Temple had Passover on Friday, the Essences and some other groups celebrated on Tuesday. modern tradition has the last supper Thursday night but early tradition had it Tuesday night, Making the last supper being the one night that some of the Jews celebrated Passover (also they followed a man with a water pot, men did not carry water pots unless they were Essences.) prisoners were to spend a day in jail before the trial, Wednesday, Thursday all the different trials, and on the cross by 9:00 AM Friday dyeing when the rest of the Jews celebrated Passover

Very interesting, Kevin. Good points. Thanks for that.

There's another reason Jesus ate the Passover "early." He had to institute the Lord's Supper before He died, not afterwards. If He had instituted it AFTER his death and resurrection, it wouldn't have been a part of the New Covenant. It had to be instituted before the New Covenant was ratified, since once ratified, it couldn't be changed or added to. (This is one reason we know Sunday is not a part of the New Covenant and the Sabbath is.)

Of course, the New Covneant was ratified by the shedding of Christ's blood on Friday. He knew he wouldn't have time to celebrate it on Friday.

[John317]

...Jesus said something that may explain why Jesus could have celebrated Passover a day early. "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." (Luke 22:15-16) Jesus knew it was time for him to die, yet he earnestly desired to eat Passover with his disciples. Why? So he could tell his disciples that the Passover was abolished? No! The words of Jesus indicate that he expected to celebrate Passover again in the kingdom of God. At this "Last Supper" Jesus took the Passover elements that the Jews had been using for many centuries and taught his disciples that those elements represented himself and should be celebrated in remembrance of Jesus.

Excellent!

[Val]

That is an excellent observation Ron and maybe you can explain a couple of things to me.

1) Why does the Scripture say, "When Passover was fully come ..." they ate the final supper? If Passover was fully come was this not the actual Passover Dinner?

2) What kind of bread did they eat, leavened or unleavened?

3) If this is an OT celebration why would I celebrate it today? I know you gave a partial answer in your explanation above ... but surely there are more details to this if I am going to change my life and do this OT thing ...

4) What about the NT? We dont have to keep those awful laws from the OT do we? After all, arent we under Grace and not Law?

Thanks Ron for your answers. I am also on FB under Val G Timberlake if you want to contact me.

[Val]

Whoops, sorry guys. I did not realize I was on page two of this discussion when I listed my questions above.

At this moment, and someone probably alredy answered this, someone asked how often are we to keep the Lords Supper. My response to that is once a year, the day before the Passover meal. Communion is pagan tradition that the Catholic Church brought into Christianity. There is much written on this subject. But, the commandment by God was that we are not to add or take away anything from God's Word. Now, Yeshua can add things to it since He was the one on Mt Sinai delivering the commandment not to add anything to the Word. And how often is it to be done? Remember, Yeshua said, I have wanted to eat this Passover with you.... And, in another place, it says When the Passover was fully come ... then the Lord's Supper was observed ... The Commandment to keep the Lords Supper was tied closely to the Passover itself and it is celebrated ONLY once a year. There are many other issues to support this conclusion but this is really enouth. Yeshua, ate the Lords Supper during the Passover Season a day before the actual Passover meal.

And as a side light to this we do have a NT Commandment to observe the Passover in 1 Cor 5:6-8 .... therefore let us keep the (Passover) Feast ...

So, it only makes sense tthat Yeshua wanted us to observe the Lords Supper once a year at Passover. If we do it anymore than that we may be guilty of disobeying Gods coommandment nnot to add to the Word of God ...

[Ron Amnsn]

That is an excellent observation Ron and maybe you can explain a couple of things to me.

1) Why does the Scripture say, "When Passover was fully come ..." they ate the final supper? If Passover was fully come was this not the actual Passover Dinner?

[Dr. Rich]

One of the things that had to be done prior to the Passover was to get rid of the items that were not allowed for the Passover such as yeast, wine and other foods that were not allowed. They did this the day before the real Passover meal so they ate these things that were not allowed at that time. This was the Last Supper that Jesus had with His disciples to tell them what was recorded in John 13-17.

If you will check to see the difference between what John wrote about what happened after the baptism of Jesus you will also notice a big difference between John and the other gospels. But then you will not notice where John said anything about the end time events in John's gospel because he had previously written the book of Revelation.

It is important to remember the Luke and Mark were not witnesses to the Last supper, nor to the baptism of Jesus and the events after words. Neither was Matthew an eyewitness to Jesus' baptism as he had yet to be chosen to be a disciple. John was an eyewitness, not only to the baptism but to the last supper and the events of the death of Christ.

John was very specific in the events and what was said at the Last Supper where the others were only general in their writings which may be why later editors and interperters changed the words to say what they now say--them being a mistake. Remember that John wrote his Gospel last so that any correction should be according to what he wrote.

Why did they edit Matthew, Mark and Luke? Because the Catholic church wanted Jesus to be raised on Easter so that both Christians and Pagans had a day to celebrate. However, a simple check on the net for the correct date of the Passover for the year Jesus was killed will show everyone that Jesus died on Wed. evening just at the same time the Passover lamb was to be killed. This places Jesus in the grave 72 hours--three days AND three nights just as Jesus said--and Jesus did not lie! Jesus rose from the grave before Saturday at sun down since the women went to the grave at this time and found the grave already empty. Therefore celebrating Easter sunday as the date that Jesus rose from the grave is practing a lie, something that Jesus warned us about in Rev. 21:8 and 22:15.

As for Jesus keeping a different time and date for Passover??? That is pure hogwash! Jesus would NEVER have done such a thing. The time had to be perfect for everything that God does. Interestingly, the Spring equinox and Passover were both on the same day in that year. Check it out yourself!

[Kevin H]

Jesus rose at the feast of first fruits, which was early Sunday morning. The Old Testament predicted the Resurection. Archaeology does not support the Wednesday night crucifiction. Besides if you look at the days between the feast as Simon's house and Passover in the Gospels, Mark 14 says that Passover was 2 days after Palm Sunday, John has it 5 days later from Monday's feast at Simon's.

Once again the Tuesday passover was when it was held by the Essences and other sub groups of Judaism and the temple celebrated it as the Sabbath was approaching on Friday afternoon, thus the minority groups' Passover was one day after Simons feast and the Temple Passover was 5 days after Simon's feast just as the Bible says. Monday was day 1, Tuesday day 2 (and Passover for some Jews) Wednesday day 3, Thursday day 4 and Friday day 5.

Jesus took advantage of both Passovers, one to eat the meal with his disciples and one to fulfill the Passover symbols, then Sunday morning was the feasts of the first fruits and the gospels Linguists tell us that Matt 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke Luke 24:1; and John 20:1 are ALL connected to the Old Testament language for the feast of first fruits.

Granted for those who work Monday through Friday Wednesday sees like the 5th day, however we can not use the math to justify the Wednesday crucifixion. The Wednesday crucifixion and Saturday evening resurection does not fit the history for the 2 years that Jesus could have been crucified, nor the timeline in the Bible of the day after Simon's feast being the day before Passover, and it being the Passover for some Jewish subgroups, and the temple passover being 5 days later and Jesus raising of the feast of First fruits. All 4 gospels agree on the resurection on the feast of first fruits which was very early Sunday morning.

[Musicman1228]

John was a Jew and we can fully expect that he would know the timing of the Passover. He was also an eyewitness to these events.

Matthew and Peter (gospel of Mark) were also a Jews, and the same could be said for them.

Luke was not a Jew and was given his information by Paul, who had his own agenda. Luke was also NOT an eyewitness. Therefore his testimony in this must take a back seat to the other gospels.

There is no reason to believe that Matthew and Peter were not as conversant with the timing of the Passover as was John, so why the discrepancy? Why would both Matthew and Peter say anything different that John in this regard. In point of fact they wouldn't. It is my opinion based on significant research and reading of experts in textual criticism that it is highly likely that early translators of the autographs inserted their own bias to support their closely held belief (established by the Roman Catholic Church) that Jesus was resurrected on Sunday. In support of this belief they would have to modify the timing of Passover to include Jesus celebrating the Passover with His disciples, and THEN being killed. Unless a person has an intimate understanding of the timing of Passover then they would never question the Matthew and Peter would say that Jesus ate the Passover with His disciples.

The final point is that Jesus did have intimate knowledge of the timing of Passover, and knew that He would not be alive at the time when the Passover was to be eaten. Therefore, He established another (an alternate) celebration which was eaten the evening before the day of Passover (this would be Tuesday evening), which would in no way resemble the Passover. He washed the disciples feet, having removed their sandals (Passover-sandals and travel clothes on), they reclined at the table (Passover-eaten standing up and in haste), the meal consisting of bread (leavened) and wine, with no mention of roast lamb in any account (Passover-roast lamb, unleavened bread and water only). The "Lord's Supper" in no way resembles the Passover. Jesus did this to mark the end of the Passover and removing for all time it's significance for all time with His death.

The problem is that this concept does not fit with the description of the timing of the Passover in Ex.12 and Lev. 23:4-8.

[Musicman1228]

Kevin said, "Jesus rose at the feast of first fruits, which was early Sunday morning."

This is untrue. The waving of the barley sheaf before the Lord took place right after the Sabbath. A priest would go to a prepared plot of ground just outside of the walls of the Temple, where a crowd would joyfully gather along with him. He would then say "Has the sun set yet?" (or something to that effect.) If the crowd answered 'NO' he would wait a little longer. He would then ask the crowd again if the sun had set, because it was very important to not do any work on the Sabbath. This interchange often went on for some time, depending on when they gathered at the barley plot. When the crowd answered 'YES' the priest would take a sickle and cut the shock of barley (already bound for this purpose) and he would lead the joyous and sometimes rowdy crowd back to the Temple where He would go in alone and wave the sheaf of First Fruits before the Lord of the Harvest, thanking God for his bounty.

This occurred RIGHT AFTER SUNSET, and NOT on Sunday morning - as in first light.

It is for this reason that Jesus told Mary not to hold on to Him because He had 'not yet ascended to My Father'. This Jesus did RIGHT AFTER the SABBATH SUNSET, to fulfill the requirement of the law concerning the harvesting of the First Fruits of those who sleep. Jesus appeared before His Father in the Throne room as a Lamb that had been slain, and declared before all (including Satan and his evil angels) that He had returned triumphant from the grave and from the earth. It is at this same time that Jesus Christ (Michael to both Daniel and John) cast Satan and his evil angels from Heaven to earth, Ref. Rev. 12:7-12.

This confirms Sabbath as the Holy Day of the Lord.

[Kevin H]

Musicman, do you have a reference for this since it contradicts what I've read in commentaries (both Christian and Jewish), and in my studies in both Adventist Colleges here in the US and in Hebrew University's Jersualem Center for Biblical Studies in Israel. And why would you believe these sources give different information from yours? Now my studies were like 30 years ago and thus from information that was even older, thus you may have newer information and newer discoveries (One of my professors would say that people ask him if he was going to give the same final exam that he gave last semester and his reply is "The questions don't change much but be careful because the answers may."

I know that the information I read on Paul is a universe appart from what Desmond Ford read on Paul and I believe much more up to date and that Ford and many of these "Former Adventists" are woefully out of date, so I'd be willing to look at new discoveries, but they need to be credible. I may not always remember the sources from my studies (although it would be safe to assume it's what I learned at AUC, Andrews, Jerusalem Center of Biblical Studies, The Anchor Bible, SDA Commentary, Interpeter's Bible and New International Bible Commentary) I strongly Recommend people like Ford and those of that school of thought to look at Fleming's "Acts: New Discoveries of the Early Chirch" and "Lest We forget: A History of AntiJewishness and the Church" and references Fleming uses in his notebooks for those studies. Thus I realize that my education may need updating. However I've had a lot of confidence in the sources that I got my understanding from so for you to contradict all of them I'd need to look at that sourse and the information for me to be convinced.

[Aliensanctuary]

I suspect that a Passover will occur again at the End of Time when the Chosen Ones will be rescued from above while the planet below is destroyed. The Passover Feast in the next life will celebrate this event. We'll all be the guests of honor if we do find ourselves there.

[Ron Amnsn]

The final point is that Jesus did have intimate knowledge of the timing of Passover, and knew that He would not be alive at the time when the Passover was to be eaten. Therefore, He established another (an alternate) celebration which was eaten the evening before the day of Passover (this would be Tuesday evening), which would in no way resemble the Passover. He washed the disciples feet, having removed their sandals (Passover-sandals and travel clothes on), they reclined at the table (Passover-eaten standing up and in haste), the meal consisting of bread (leavened) and wine, with no mention of roast lamb in any account (Passover-roast lamb, unleavened bread and water only). The "Lord's Supper" in no way resembles the Passover.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

The final point is that Jesus did have intimate knowledge of the timing of Passover, and knew that He would not be alive at the time when the Passover was to be eaten. Therefore, He established another (an alternate) celebration which was eaten the evening before the day of Passover (this would be Tuesday evening), which would in no way resemble the Passover. He washed the disciples feet, having removed their sandals (Passover-sandals and travel clothes on), they reclined at the table (Passover-eaten standing up and in haste), the meal consisting of bread (leavened) and wine, with no mention of roast lamb in any account (Passover-roast lamb, unleavened bread and water only). The "Lord's Supper" in no way resembles the Passover.

Musicman, have you actually been to a Jewish Passover celebration?

It's true that the "Lord's Supper" was quite different from the first Passover that occurred in Egypt when the first-born died in any homes where there was no Passover blood on the doorway.

But you'll find that the original "Lord's Supper" was similar to the commemorative Passover celebrations that the Jews celebrate.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Jesus did this to mark the end of the Passover and removing for all time it's significance for all time with His death.

Musicman, where is the Scriptural support for this assertion? From the beginning of the Roman church, their leaders have been teaching as you do that God's feasts have been abolished and replaced with other festivals. But that teaching is not founded on Scripture. It is one of the lies we have inherited from our Catholic forefathers.

If what you say were somehow true, how would the apostle Paul have have been able to convince the noble men in the Jewish synagogue at Berea that the Passover which God established had become obsolete? The Bereans searched the Old Testament Scriptures to test whether Paul's teachings were true. (Acts 17:11) I have not been able to locate anything in the OT that would support the idea that the Passover would be abolished by the Messiah.

Even in the New Testament there is nothing that clearly teaches what you are teaching about the end of Passover's significance. Speaking of the Passover, Paul himself wrote, "Therefore let us keep the feast..." (1 Cor 5:8) Those are not the words of a man who believes the Passover no longer has any significance.

Yes, Ron, I was the 'Papa' of a table at a Seder years ago at an SDA church where I was the Minister of Music. A Rabbi who called himself a 'completed Jew' (a Jew that believes that Jesus was the Messiah) led the proceedings and explained in detail the meaning of everything, from the tying of the sandals and the sash to the bitter herbs and how they ate standing up and in haste. It was very revealing to me that this ceremony has been passed down from generation to generation (thousands of years) in the Jewish culture without ANY substantial changes. I remember clearly him saying that because of the death of Jesus Christ as the Passover lamb and His resurrection from the grave that the 'type' had given way the the 'anti-type' and that it was no longer manditory to keep the Passover; although if you want to you can.

I have merely taken this concept one step further by saying that God took the 'trusteeship of the Covenant' away from Israel in 33AD precisely on time and just as He said he would (ref. Dan. 9:24, Matt.21:43), and that all of the statutes, festivals and civil law that pertained specifically to Israel became null and void when this occurred. The only thing that remains is the Covenant of the Kingdom of Heaven which literal Israel never ratified, but is still the hall mark and identifier of those who claim to be in the Kingdom of the Heavens.

Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. Rev.12:17.

[Note that the text says KEEP, and not 'try to keep, hope to keep someday, don't have to keep because Jesus kept them for us' - the text says KEEP. This is what literal Israel as the then prospective Kingdom of Heaven never came to grips with. The Kingdom of the Heavens at the time of the end will understand this concept.]

[Ron Amnsn]

Yes, Ron, I was the 'Papa' of a table at a Seder years ago at an SDA church where I was the Minister of Music. A Rabbi who called himself a 'completed Jew' (a Jew that believes that Jesus was the Messiah) led the proceedings and explained in detail the meaning of everything, from the tying of the sandals and the sash to the bitter herbs and how they ate standing up and in haste. It was very revealing to me that this ceremony has been passed down from generation to generation (thousands of years) in the Jewish culture without ANY substantial changes. I remember clearly him saying that because of the death of Jesus Christ as the Passover lamb and His resurrection from the grave that the 'type' had given way the the 'anti-type' and that it was no longer manditory to keep the Passover; although if you want to you can.

[Dr. Rich]

Ron, Dan.2's prophecy about the stone that crushes the kindoms of the world and lasts forever shows us that Israel/Jews, as a kingdom or nation will not and can not be the same as this NEW Kingdom of the Heavens. Dan. 9:24 gave them a second chance but they refused to become righteous as Jesus prophesied about them in Matthew 21:18-19 about the fig tree (it represennting Israel/Jews) and the Parable of the Landownder, especially verse 43.

And since Jesus was the real Passover Lamb and was killed at the same time the one for the feast was to be killed, then Jesus fullfilled both the Law and the Prophets as He said that He did, and by doing so, gave those who also overcome sin a chance to belong to the NEW Kingdom of the Heavens as found in Matthew 25:1-13.

You mention the words of Paul. One should remember the Paul never knew Jesus and was NOT taught by those who were the disciples. Therefore the gospel that Paul taught was indeed a different gospel than the one Jesus came to give-which is the true Gospel of (about) the Kingdom of Heaven, the real one that must be heard around the world before Jesus comes. (Matthew 24:14.)