Eucharist, Passover, and Chaburah

From time to time, and again recently, I am asked this question:
can you address the relationship between the Last Supper and the Passover meal?

"Hmmmm," I say, "Do you want the short answer? Or a more complete answer?"

"Ummm," they answer, nervously, "How about the the short answer?"

"There is no relationship."

"WHAT???"

"There is no relationship. That's the short answer."

They sigh. They groan. They say, "Ok (grumble, grumble), how about a more complete answer?"

Alrighty then.

The first thing to observe is that it is fairly common, almost even standard, for people to think there is a conflict between the Gospel of John and the synoptics about when the Last Supper took place. Most people recognize that John places the crucifixion of Jesus on the Day of Preparation, so that at the very moment that Jesus was hung on the cross, the priests in the temple were engaged in the massive ritual slaughter of lambs for the coming Passover feast that night after sundown. For example, examine these references in St John:

Jn 13.1: “Now before the feast of the Passover…”
Jn 18.28: “…But they themselves did not go into the Praetoruim, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.”
Jn 19.14: “Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover…”
Jn 20.42: “because of the Jew’s Preparation Day…”

Thus, in St John, the Last Supper clearly takes place 24 hours prior to the Passover meal, the crucifixion precedes the Passover meal, and Jesus, rather than eating the Passover meal with his friends -- which he had both eagerly longed to do, and apparently expected to do until the events of that evening began to solidify -- instead and in fact becomes our Passover. As St Paul would write, "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us." (1 Cor 5.7)

Meanwhile, most Western Christians continue to assume that the synoptics equate the Last Supper with the Passover meal. They conclude this because in the synoptics, Jesus sends some disciples to prepare a room for the Passover, and Jesus says to his disciples during the meal itself that he had long desired to eat this Passover with them. It is very easy, even natural, to assume that he was referring to the very meal they were consuming at the moment as the Passover meal.

But...!

Aside from the fact that most of the essential elements of the Passover appear to be missing from the Last Supper -- and aside from the fact that it is impossible to imagine that the Sanhedrin would be engaged in capturing and trying Jesus on Passover itself -- the synoptics themselves, in complete agreement with St John, definitely place the Last Supper and crucifixion on the Day of Preparation -- prior to the Passover meal.

St. Matthew describes the crucifixion and burial of Jesus in Matthew 27. Then we read, "On the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate..." (Matthew 27.62)

If the day after the crucifixion is the day which follows the Day of Preparation, then the crucifixion was on the Day of Preparation, and the Passover meal would follow, after sunset on the night following the death of Jesus, not preceding it. So St Matthew agrees with St John.

So what about Mark? On the day after the Last Supper, Pilate stands before the crowd and offers the choice: Jesus or Barabbas. One would be released at the feast; which would it be. But note: If one would be released at the feast, then obviously, the feast had not yet been eaten the night before; it was to follow. Thus, the Last Supper was clearly not the Passover feast, but some other meal eaten the day before the Passover. (Mark 15.6) Moreover, just as St John and St Matthew, St Mark also identifies the day of the crucifixion as the Day of Preparation for the Passover: "Now when evening had come, because it was the Preparation Day..." (John 15.42)

So what about Luke? Luke describes the crucifixion and burial of Jesus in Luke 23. Then we read, "That was the Preparation..." (Luke 23.54) So St Luke agrees with St Matthew, St Mark, and St John as well.

Admittedly there are sentences in the synoptics that make the the gathering for the Last Supper appear to be the gathering for the Passover Meal. As a result, most readers believe that the synoptics disagree with the Gospel of John. In fact, some literalists have even argued that there must have been two Passover feasts for different groups of Jews, just as Eastern Orthodox and Western Christians have different dates for Christmas and Easter. But the problem is not that the synoptics have a different day for the Last Supper than does John. The problem is that these interpreters have not noticed that the synoptics, just like John, clearly believed that the crucifixion happened not on the afternoon following the Passover meal, but on the afternoon preceding the Passover meal: the Day of Preparation.

Which means, no matter which Gospel you're reading, the Last Supper was some other meal, preceding the Passover meal by 24 hours.

But what other meal could it have been, one might ask, if it weren't the Passover?

That's easy. It was the weekly Chaburah.

The weekly Chaburah was the weekly fellowship meal of a community. It was normally simple fare, bread and wine. In Greek, rather than Hebrew, the fellowship meal would have been called not Chaburah, but Koinonia. Or in English, Communion. Anytime I've prayed in a synagogue on Friday evening, I've seen the continuation of the weekly fellowship meal practiced by the Jews of today, just as it has been for thousands of years. At the end of the liturgy, they share bread and wine together. And when I've prayed in a Christian church on Sunday morning, I've seen the continuation of the weekly fellowship meal practiced by the Christians of today, just as it has been for two thousand years. At the end of the liturgy, they share bread and wine together.

The weekly offering of bread and wine today came from the weekly offering of bread and wine back then, not from the annual feast of roasted lamb, bitter herbs and unleavened bread. This is why, in our congregation, we would never use unleavened bread for communion, and why the Eastern Orthodox accused the Roman Catholics of heresy when the Romans began eventually to use unleavened bread at the Eucharist.

To confuse the weekly Eucharist with the Passover does violence to both feasts. They have different meanings. Both celebrate different ideas in the life of the community and the history of God among us. To worship God fully requires understanding the nuances of all that we do.

So...

can you address the relationship between the Last Supper and the Passover meal?

"Hmmmm," I say, "Do you want the short answer? Or a more complete answer?"

"Ummm," they answer, nervously, "How about the the short answer?"

"There is no relationship. They're two entirely different things. They both bring Glory to God and blessing to people... but please, don't confuse them as one!

One other piece to remember as you piece all of this together: Don't forget that the Scriptures assume a Jewish calendar. The day begins at sunset, not midnight, as in our secular calendar. In our secular calendar, the Last Supper took place on Thursday night. But in the Jewish calendar that was already the next day. Thus the Last Supper and the crucifixion take place on the same day, the Day of Preparation, which ends at sundown following the crucifixion. That's the first day of Jesus' death. The second day of Jesus' death, theday after/following the Day of Preparation, that is, the Passover feast, begins in the Jewish calendar at sundown Friday night, continuing until sundown Saturday night. The third day begin at sundown Saturday night. Jesus will rise sometime on that third day -- what we now call, the Lord's Day. We don't know when on the third day he arose, except that it was sometime after sundown and before sunrise. We know that only because the women arive at sunrise with the spices... and they discover to their shock and dismay that his body is gone.

"He is not here... he is risen, just as he said!"

Alleluia! Christ is risen!
The Lord is risen, indeed. Alleluia!

We need someone who can heal and unify the Nation

During the interview, the presidential hopeful expressed among other things that what people needed and wanted was someone who could heal and unify our nation. As I thought back over presidential campaigns for as long as I can remember, I seem to remember hearing that in every campaign.

Four years later, we hear it again: we still need someone to heal and unify our nation.

Clint Eastwood's most famous tagline is, “Go ahead, make my day.” But a more useful tagline, one with more wisdom, comes from another of Eastwood's films, in which he continually observes, “a man's got to know his limitations.”

Unfortunately, most of us are uncomfortable with the reality of our own limitations.

Both governments and citizens are uncomfortable with the realistic limitations of government. So governments keep promising and citizens keep demanding more than governments can accomplish. This results in a terrible consequence: By ignoring realistic limitations, realistic goals are ignored – and governments are less effective than they could be. If they accepted realistic limitations, and focused on what governments are best at accomplishing, they could be much better governments. So much better!

The same is true for churches. We are often uncomfortable with own limitations, promise more than we can provide, and step beyond our role. By forgetting the role of the church, by ignoring our own limitations, we are less effective than we could be -- because we lose our focus, and because we do not pour our energy and creativity into accomplishing what God has called and equipped us to do.

The center of the Christian faith, like the center of every major religion, focuses on continuing, never-ending, ever-deepening, personal, spiritual transformation, and is convinced that this focus will lead to the spiritual transformation of the world.

Our presidential hopefuls are absolutely correct: we do need someone who can heal and unify our nation. But the best hope for healing and unifying our nation is not the right candidate – but the right approach to faith. Our best hope is for religious institutions to focus on the continuing, never-ending, ever-deepening, personal spiritual transformation of every person we can touch -- beginning with ourselves, but not ending there. As the song says, let there be peace on Earth, and let it begin with me.

To focus on continuing, never-ending, ever-deepening, personal spiritual transformation of every person is not to be critical or negative about how far we have come. Rather, it is to be wildly optimistic of how far we can go! This is why we so often conclude Daily Morning Prayer with these words:

Glory to God whose power, working in us, can do infinitely more than we can ask or imagine: Glory to him from generation to generation in the Church, and in Christ Jesus for ever and ever. Amen. Ephesians 3:20, 21

May the Peace of the Lord continue to be with you!

CORRECTION: Lent and Counting: 40 Days, Saturdays, Sundays, Fasts, Feasts, Sunsets, and Reconcilation of the Penitent

One careless sentence, darn it, leads to writing out not only a correction, but an explanation of the material. On the other hand, it's such exciting material! So here goes!

--------------------------------------------

So, if Lent begins on Ash Wednesday, when exactly does it end?

Well, one would assume it would be Easter, of course. Except if one begins on Ash Wednesday and starts counting the days, day number 40 would turn out to be Palm Sunday, not Easter. SO, one might assume that the reason we read the Passion on Palm Sunday is because we've reached the end of Lent, and have now entered the Passion.

If that were the case, then Lent, Holy Week, and Easter would follow one another as separate seasons.

Except....

Lent is a fast. And Sundays are NEVER fast days... ever. Sundays represent Easter, the Lord's Day, the Day of Resurrection. The reason why Roman Catholics traditionally fasted every Friday is that EVERY Friday was a reminder of Good Friday, fitting with the remembrance that EVERY Sunday is a reminder of Easter. The traditional day of Christian worship became Sunday, not because Christians moved the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, but because they broke bread together on the day of resurrection ("the Lord's Day") from the very beginning.

(In the early years of Christianity, when all Christians were Jewish, as good Jews they kept the Sabbath AND also celebrated the day of resurrection ("the Lord's Day"). Later, as non-Jews ("gentiles") poured into the Christian community without first converting to Judaism, the practice of keeping the Sabbath proportionally disappeared in importance, as the gentile proportion of the Christian community increasingly overwhelmed the Jewish proportion. Eventually the Jewish proportion would be s0 overwhelmed by gentiles that it was unfortunately rendered essentially invisible, as would the Sabbath. All that remained visible was the the day of resurrection ("the Lord's Day"), and most gentile Christians would simply assume that the Sabbath was moved from Saturday to Sunday. It did not move. The Sabbath -- the most important day of the week from a Jewish perspective (because it is the sign of the Mosaic Covenant) always was and still is Saturday. Sunday is the most important day of the week from a Christian perspective because is the the day of resurrection ("the Lord's Day"). Those Jews who are also Christians get both; Jews who are not Christians get only Saturday, gentiles who are Christians get only Sunday, and gentiles who are not Christians get neither the Sabbath nor the Lord's Day!)

SO... because Sunday is the day of resurrection ("the Lord's Day"), it is never a Fast day... it's always a Feast day. Even in Lent.

SO if one begins counting on Ash Wednesday, and does NOT count Sundays, one arrives on Day #40 on the Saturday before Easter.

It works!

Then there is the whole "Triduum" thing -- the three days of the Passion, begininng with Maundy Thursday, the first day of the passion, including Good Friday, the second day of the Passion, and concluding with Holy Saturday, the third day of the Passion. This concludes at sunset of Holy Saturday, for in Jewish and Christian/liturgical tradition, days begin and end not at midnight (as our secular calendar does), nor at sunrise, but at sunset. Lent would begin on Wednesday at 12:01 am, if we were secularists (but then why keep Lent????), or at sunrise if the day began at sunrise. But since we are Christian liturgists we begin and the end the day as we always have in Jewish and Christian tradition, at sunset. So Lent begins just after sunset on what we call, secularly, Tuesday. And Lent ends at sunset of Holy Saturday, and the Day of Resurrection (the Lord's Day, Easter) begins just after sunset.

Jesus rose from the dead sometime after sunset and before sunrise. We can't pin it down any more than that. We know for sure that he remained dead from Friday afternoon until sometime before sunrise on Sunday. Sometime on the first day of the week, after sunset Saturday and before sunrise, he broke the bonds of death, arose, and departed the grave. We know this because the women arrived at the tomb at sunrise -- to discover that he had already gone. The Passion begins with the Maundy Thursday last supper and arrest in the garden. But he dies Friday afternoon. Thus, Good Friday is the first day (of his death). Holy Saturday (the Sabbath) is the second day, which began just after Friday's sunset and ends at Saturday's sunset. On the third day, the first day of the week, which begins at Saturday's sunset, he arose, which is why we say that he arose on the third day rather than after the third day.

There are two other pieces in in which it is easy to become confused. One of those is the relationship between the Last Supper and the Passover meal, which I will postpone for another time, because that one is REALLY tricky. But the other one I'll mention now, because my brain slipped last night on this one (and an alert parishioner who counts was paying attention and caught me!) And that is the relationship between Lent and the reconciliation of those who had fallen into "notorious sin."

During the Ash Wednesday service, on page 265 of our Prayerbook, we read, "This season of Lent provided a time in which converts to the faith were prepared for Holy Baptism. It was also a time when those who, because of notorious sins, had been separated from the body of the faithful were reconciled by penitence and forgiveness, and restored to the fellowship of the Church."

From Ash Wednesday until the Maundy Thursday service, those caught in "notorious sins" were "separated from the body of the faithful." That is, they were not allowed communion. This excommunication from the table was intended as a penance for notorious sin -- intended to produce a deep regret about notorious sin, repentance to faithful living, and amendment of life. Following this Lenten penance, these excommunicants were "reconciled and restored to the fellowship of the Church." Their restoration was on Maundy Thursday -- and they were joyfully and ritually welcomed back into full participation expressed through the footwashing and Holy Communion rituals.

So in a very real and very powerful way, the experience of Lenten fasting, separation, and penance ended on Maundy Thursday. From that perspective, Lent came to it's climatic ended on Maundy Thursday, and the entire reconciled body of the faithful went hand in hand together into the full mystery of the Triduum -- the three days of the Passion, culminating in the Resurrection.

So it's very easy for certain priests ("Ahem," he said, somewhat red-faced), to become so excited about the "very real and powerful way" in which "the experience of Lenten fasting, separation, and penance" comes to its conclusion on Maundy Thursday -- and totally forget that Lent isn't technically over until sunset Saturday. In fact, it's even possible (oh say it isn't so!) for certain priests ("I'm STILL not mentioning any names," he said, whistling innocently and not making eye contact) to even express his joy about the Maundy Thursday celebration of reconciliation by even SAYING that the 40 days of fasting had come to their end.

Technically of course, such a priest (I'm STILL not mentioning any names) would be wrong. The 40 Days were not over. The three days of the Passion (Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday), do not stand between Lent and Easter, but are the last three days of Lent. But even as I write this, it strikes me that the Church is so focused and excited about reconciliation and restoration, that we can't wait for the Resurrection itself for the reconciliation and restoration of those caught up "in notorious sins." Such a waiting would have it's own symbolic meaning and could make sense. But we don't want even notorious sinners to miss going through the Passion with us. We want them fully with us as we go through the three days of darkness. We want them fully with us, fully participant, and fully restored when that moment arrives during the Easter vigil -- when the Light suddenly returns and we all begin to shout, "Alleluia!"

The Lord be with you,

Coming to Grips with One's Identity

One of the St Marks' parishioners sent me to one of those online "character surveys." It may not have the empirical verification or the depth of the MMPI, but it's free and quick. What more could you ask?

http://www.tk421.net/character/

It turns out that I'm apparalently a Galadriel. Well, shoot. I would have aspired to be a Gandalf, of course. But at least I'm not an Inigo Montoya!