Previously, we saw how our Easter celebrations should be more
significant than our Christmas parties. How, then are we to memorialise the
pinnacle event of History? What does Scripture have to say?
Today we have Easter with chocolate eggs, the Easter
Bunny, a Sunday morning service and a long weekend. But this wasn’t how the
crucifixion was originally remembered, nor is it quite what scripture
envisaged, especially with the adding of a mythical creature. Where did Easter
come from? It’s interesting to note that the term Easter comes from the Germanic
name of the month when the memorial of Christ’s death and resurrection took
place Eosturmonath (Eostur month). But this name for the celebration is
relatively new. We see this in the work by the 8th Century monk, A Reckoning of Time:
Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated
"Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs
named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they
designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by
the time-honoured name of the old observance (in Wallis 1999, p54).
So even by the 8th century, the remembrance of
the death and resurrection of Jesus was still referred to as ‘Passover’. In
fact, the word Easter seems to have only come into usage around the time of the
Reformation in the 16th Century. One of the oldest examples seems to
be in Martin Luther’s German translation of the Bible when he translated the
Greek pascha (Passover) into Osterfest in verses such as Luke 2:41. And
shortly after, Tyndale used the English variant Easter in his translation. However,
the English and German speaking world seems to be the only ones who use ‘Easter’,
while many others continued to use variations of the Greek Pascha. For example, in Spanish: Pascua, Dutch: Pasen, and
in Afrikaans: Paasfees.
It appears, therefore, that at least etymologically, Passover
is closer to how the early church memorialised the death and resurrection of
our Messiah than chocolate eggs and a mythical rabbit. I intend to cover the
historical journey from Passover to Easter in a future post, however for now, I
want to focus on what the Apostolic writers and Jesus had to say about Easter.
How does Scripture tell us to memorialise the death and resurrection of Jesus? Of course, remembering and celebrating the
resurrection of Jesus should be a daily occurrence, just as celebrating and
honouring one’s marriage should be a regular occurrence. But is there a sense
in which it should be memorialised more significantly like a birthday or
anniversary?
We find two significant passages of scripture that tells
us to remember the death and resurrection of Jesus, and how, which are tied to
the one event: The Lord’s Supper. One passage is from 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, and
is a retelling of what Jesus said to His disciples at His last supper.
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to
you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when
he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you.
Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after
supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as
you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and
drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. (cf Matt26:26-28,
Mk 14:22-24, Lk 22:19-20).
We have here in the words of Paul, a retelling of a
tradition and practice that began with Jesus on the night that he was betrayed.
That night, He told His disciples to eat bread and drink wine ‘in remembrance
of [Him].’ But note the wording in verse 26: This bread and the cup.
These are written in what is known as the ‘accusative’ case, which can be best
understood as a limiting case (Webb and Kysar, 119-120). For example, in John
8:46, Jesus said: “Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth,
why do you not believe me?” Here truth
is in the accusative case, thus limiting Jesus’ words to truth. So, according
to Scripture, we ‘proclaim’ or celebrate ‘the Lord’s death’ not with any old
bread, but with this bread. And not just
with a cup, but the cup (Biblically
speaking, cup doesn’t necessarily refer to the vessel, but more often a
reference to its contents). To
understand what these are, we need to consider the context in which Jesus gave
this instruction. What was Jesus doing on ‘the night He was betrayed’?
Luke’s Gospel explains most clearly the context for that
meal:
Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John,
saying, “Go and prepare the Passover
for us, that we may eat it.” They
said to him, “Where will you have us prepare it?” He said to them, “Behold, when you have
entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him into
the house that he enters and tell the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says to
you, Where is the guest room, where I may
eat the Passover with my disciples?’ And he will show you a large upper
room furnished; prepare it there.” And they went and found it just as he had
told them, and they prepared the Passover.
And when the hour came, he reclined
at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you
before I suffer (Lk 22:7-15) [emphasis added].
Now, the chronology of the Last Supper and the
Crucifixion is a debated one, and not one I intend to resolve completely in
this post, but Jesus’ words seem to make it quite clear that they were eating a
Passover meal. And I believe He does so in three ways.
Firstly, the day ‘the
Passover lamb had to be sacrificed’ was the 14th of Nisan (Lev 23:5, Ex 12:6-8,
2Chro 35:1), which by the First Century became known as both Passover and
Unleavened Bread (Josephus, Ant. 18.2.2).
Secondly, Jesus sent his disciples to prepare the Passover that he may eat it
with them. In Matthew, the disciples relay to the man that Jesus had said ‘I will keep the Passover at your house
with my disciples’ (Mat 26:18).
And thirdly, just before he broke the bread he
calls what they are about to eat, 'Passover.' This could be referring to the
whole meal itself, but more likely as a shorthand name for the sacrificed lamb (Ex
12:21,43; Deut 16:1-6).
Now, it could be argued that because a number of the
elements of the Passover meal, or seder, are missing, it couldn’t have been the
Passover. However, many of the things today that are a part of the Passover Seder today that we are familiar with (charoset, egg, four cups etc...) are part
of a tradition that post-dates the first century. What the bible does prescribe
is the lamb, bread, and bitter herbs. Although not mentioned explicitly, the
bitter herbs could be what is referenced in John 13:26, and the lamb, as
mentioned above, was possibly named with the shorthand, Passover. But even if
they’re not, Tim Hegg (2009, 10) explains that:
The fact that the Pesach lamb or meat eaten from it is
not mentioned in the ensuing narrative of the Synoptics should not be
considered significant... It is apparent that the Synoptic authors were
focusing more on the bread (matzah) and wine since it was through these symbols
of the seder that Yeshua emphasize His own death as the Pesach lamb.
Another argument against Jesus eating a Passover meal is
that he was crucified on the 14th, therefore it could not have been
a Passover. Typically, John 18:28 is quoted to support this:
Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the
governor's headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter
the governor's headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat
the Passover.
Here, the priests have accompanied Jesus to Pilot, and out of
fear of being rendered ‘unclean’ and unable to participate in the Passover (Num
9:6-7). However, this need not be necessarily about the lamb sacrificed on the
14th, but rather the festival sacrifices made throughout the week of
Unleavened Bread, which are also called 'Passover.' This is laid out in Deuteronomy
16:1-3
Observe the month of Abib and keep the Passover to the
Lord your God, for in the month of Abib the Lord your God brought you out of
Egypt by night. And you shall offer the Passover sacrifice to the Lord your
God, from the flock or the herd, at the place that the Lord will choose, to
make his name dwell there. You shall eat no leavened bread with it. Seven days
you shall eat it with unleavened bread, the bread of affliction—for you came
out of the land of Egypt in haste—that all the days of your life you may
remember the day when you came out of the land of Egypt.
Here, the people are instructed to eat it, (the Passover sacrifice) for seven
days with Unleavened Bread. Considering that the lamb sacrificed on the 14th
cannot remain after the next day, and that verse 2 talks about sacrificing from
the flock or herd (meaning it isn’t just a lamb), it is apparent that
sacrifices continued throughout Passover week is what the priests
outside of Caiphas’ house were concerned about.
But even apart from these explanations, the fact that
Jesus said on the day the Passover lambs were sacrificed: ‘Go prepare the
Passover’; ‘I will eat the Passover’; and ‘I want to eat this Passover’, it’s
quite clear that
this bread and
the cup that Jesus told us to remember
Him by, was the bread and wine of the Passover.
Consider this scenario. Say I ask my wife to buy and prepare a roast chicken so that I can eat a chicken with her, and that night I say, 'I have eagerly desired to eat this chicken with you', what do you think I'm eating? Chicken. Do think after all that I'd just not eat it? Why would Jesus and the Passover be any different?
I don’t believe Jesus was
abolishing Passover or reinventing it. We don’t find those words from Jesus, nor
any reaction from the disciples that would suggest otherwise; e.g. “You mean we’re
not doing Passover anymore?” Consider how deeply the Passover was engrained in
the disciple’s identity, culture, and history. If Jesus was getting rid of it,
surely there would have been some reaction. Perhaps this is just an argument
from silence, but this silence is quite significant. Rather, I believe Jesus
was helping His disciples to see how the Passover, which celebrated the
redemption of Israel from slavery in Egypt, was pointing to the way Jesus would
redeem humanity from slavery to Satan, sin and death. A symbolism hidden within
the meal that was now coming to light, as reflected in his
‘fulfilling the law’ statement from Matthew 5:17. And now He is telling His disciples, 'do this in remembrance of me.'
But even if I am wrong, and Jesus did not eat a Passover
meal the night he was betrayed, it appears that He is nonetheless making a
strong connection between Passover and the bread and wine. More than that, the New Testament authors made a strong
connection between Passover and the Exodus with the crucifixion event, which is
symbolised by the bread and wine. This strongly suggests that the Passover
still stands as the way in which we were intended to understand and celebrate
the Passion event, even if the days don’t line up exactly (consider the book of
Hebrews connection between the crucifixion and the Day of Atonement, which is 7
months after the Passover). Therefore,
in either case, we could possibly rephrase 1Cor 11:26 as follows:
“For as often
as you eat the Passover bread and
drink the Passover wine, you proclaim
the Lord's death until he comes.”
In our next post we will be considering: does this
paraphrase fit the wider context of 1 Corinthians?
References:
Hegg, Tim. The
Chronology of the Crucifixion. Torah Resource (2009).
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, (Trans. William
Whiston). http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/index.html
Wallis, Faith (Trans.) Bede: The Reckoning of Time. Liverpool University Press. (1999)
Webb, J and Kysar, R. Greek
for Preachers. Chalice Press: St. Louis (2002)