‘Western Logic’
Part Two:
Did Jesus Eat the Passover Lamb?
by
Damien F. Mackey
Josef Ratzinger
believes the Last Supper of Jesus Christ to be so wholly new a sacred
institution as to divorce itself from the essence of the Jewish tradition of
the Passover.
Introduction
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I am praying for them; I am not praying for the
world” ....
The present “world” has to disappear; it must be
changed into God’s world. That is precisely what Jesus’ mission is, into which
the disciples are taken up: leading “the world” away from the condition of
man’s alienation from God ....
Josef Ratzinger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this volume by Josef Ratzinger, who became pope Benedict XVI, the
discussion centres upon:
Holy
Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem
To the
Resurrection
The then Pope’s
general intention was to provide a better rounded than usual approach to
biblical hermeneutics in line with Vatican II’s Dei Verbum. For instance, he had embarked upon a
thorough account of the Suffering Servant type of Messiahship as embraced by
Jesus Christ, and how this challenged the pre-conceived notions of his
disciples. In this regard he lingered notably on the wrong attitude to
Messiahship of Saint Peter himself, as best exemplified by his reaction to the
episode of the Washing of the Feet. Peter’s subsequent fall was there
contrasted with the ‘dark destructiveness’ of Judas.
That took
the reader to about a third of the way through the nine chapter book, to
Chapter 3 (“The Washing of the Feet”).
The
remainder of the book contains, amongst its various themes, certain arguments
that have aroused a fair amount of controversy. We refer especially to Pope
Benedict’s treatment of the Last Supper (Chapter 5) - and “whether or not it was
a Passover meal” (p. 145) - and of the Resurrection (Chapter 9), which some
think to be completely inadequate, or worse.
A Few Early Impressions
I, like
others, did tend to wince, at least initially, when reading Pope Benedict’s
bald statements as follows regarding the Last Supper and the Resurrection:
P. 103: “…
the accounts of the Last Supper and the institution of the Eucharist are caught
up in a dense undergrowth of mutually contradictory hypotheses, which seem to
make access to the real event virtually impossible”,
but more especially:
P. 106: “The
problem of dating Jesus’ Last Supper arises from the contradictions on this
point between the Synoptic Gospels [the name given to the collective
Matthew, Mark and Luke], on the one hand, and Saint John’s Gospel, on the
other”.
Then
there was this one:
P. 269: “…
the Resurrection. … Luke ends up contradicting his own narrative …”.
Did Jesus Eat the Passover Lamb?
At the
centre of the controversy, apart from the matter of any perceived contradiction
between Saint John and the Synoptics, is the important consideration of whether
or not a lamb was involved in the Last Supper. In other words, was it
based upon a traditional Jewish Passover meal but then transformed into
something far higher by Jesus, or - which seems to be the Pope’s view - was the
whole thing entirely new?
The more
traditional view has recently been defended by Fr. Brian Harrison of the
Oblates of Wisdom and by Dr. Brant Pitre of the St. Paul Center for Biblical
Theology.
Fr.
Harrison wrote firmly on this issue in an e-mail of 16 July 2011:
... Prof. Ratzinger's scholarship seems sloppy even by his own
standards here, because when you read past the subtitle and first sentence (p.
106), which talk of a contradiction between the Gospels in "the
dating of the Last Supper", you find that the
"contradiction" he thinks he finds is over the character,
not the date, of the Last Supper. (Ratzinger spends two or
three pages discussing - and finally disagreeing with - a scholar who argued
some decades ago that it took place on the Tuesday night, not the
Thursday, of the original Holy Week. He himself doesn't deny that all the
Gospels place the Last Supper on the Thursday night, and that he was
crucified the next day.)
The alleged contradiction is, rather, about whether the Last Supper was
the Passover supper or not. The Synoptics make it clear that
it was, while John 18:8 says that the Passover meal was to be celebrated
by the Jews on the Friday night, not the Thursday night. And indeed, Ratzinger
claims that John really wants to tell us that the Last Supper
was not a Passover meal. Well, I don't think he does that
at all. Have a look for yourself at the relevant passage, John ch. 13 to
ch. 18, which contains all that John says about the Last Supper. The only
reference to the Passover is right at the beginning, where John says the
supper took place "before the festival of the Passover" (13:1).
The rest of Ratzinger's argument seems to be pretty much from silence;
i.e., John says nothing in these chapters that would indicate they were celebrating
a Passover meal. But on that sort of 'logic', you'd have to say John also
"denies" the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, because
he also says nothing about it. (Rather, he gives an account of the
foot-washing, which the Synoptics don't mention.) .....
[End of quote]
And
Dr. Pitre writes in his article, “Was There a Passover Lamb at the Last Supper?”:
…. As anyone who has read Pope Benedict’s new book, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week will know, the Pope
devotes a substantial portion of his chapter on the Last Supper to the question
of the date of the meal—specifically, whether or not the Last Supper coincided
with the ordinary Jewish Passover meal (see pp. 106-115). And as anyone
familiar with this extremely complex and age-old question knows, there is
simply no way I can address it here adequately.
Thankfully, I am currently working on finishing a full-length scholarly
book on the Last Supper (to be published by Eerdmans), in which I will offer a
detailed solution to the date of the Last Supper. In that study, I will draw on
the massive amount of contemporary research done in this area and add to it
some important Jewish evidence that been neglected. (For some suggested
readings on the question of the date, see pp. 214-215 in my book, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the
Eucharist).
[End of quote]
Before I
consider further these areas of controversy, though, and read more of what Fr.
Brian and Dr. Pitre have to say, I might continue with a brief sweep through
the book, here just gathering a handful of interesting - and, I think,
inspiring - points that I have picked up along the way.
Pope
Benedict XVI has written:
P. 78:
“According to the rabbinic theology, the idea of the covenant – the idea of
establishing a holy people to be an interlocutor for God in union with him – is
prior to the idea of the creation of the world and supplies its inner motive.
The cosmos was created, not that there might be manifold things in heaven and
earth, but that there might be a space for the “covenant”, for the loving “yes”
between God and his human respondent”.
P. 80:
“In [John 17: Jesus’ high-priestly prayer] the words addressed by Jesus to the
Father, the ritual of the Day of Atonement is transformed into prayer. Here we
find a concrete example of that cultic renewal toward which the cleansing of
the Temple and Jesus’ interpretation of it were pointing. Sacrificial animals
are a thing of the past. In their place are what the Greek Fathers called thysía
logikê – spiritual sacrifices [literally: sacrifices after the manner of
the word] – and what Paul described in similar terms as logikê latreía, that
is, worship shaped by the word, structured on reason (Rom 12:1)”.
Pp.
89-90: “Between [John 17] verses 17 and 19, which speak of the consecration of
the disciples, there is a small but important difference. Verse 19 says that
they are to be consecrated “in truth”: not just ritually, but truly, in their
whole being – that is doubtless how it should be translated. Verse 17, on the
other hand, reads: “sanctify them in the truth”. Here the truth is
designated as the force of sanctification, as “their consecration”.
According to the Book of Exodus, the priestly consecration of the sons of Aaron
is accomplished when they are vested in sacred robes and anointed (29:1-9); the
ritual of the Day of Atonement also speaks of a complete bath before the
investiture with sacred robes (Lev. 16:4). The disciples of Jesus are
sanctified, consecrated “in the truth”. The truth is the bath that purifies
them; the truth is the robe and the anointing they need.
This purifying and sanctifying “truth” is ultimately Christ himself. They must
be immersed in him; they must, so to speak, be “newly robed” in him, and thus
they come to share in his consecration, in his priestly commission, in his
sacrifice”.
Pp.
100-101: “The universal horizon of Jesus’ mission can also be seen in two other
important texts from the Fourth Gospel: first, in Jesus’ nocturnal conversation
with Nicodemus: “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son”
(3:16), and then – with the emphasis here on the sacrifice of his life – in the
bread of life discourse at Capernaum “The bread which I shall give for the life
of the world is my flesh” (6:51).”
But how
do we reconcile this universalism with the harsh words found in verse 9 of the
high-priestly prayer: “I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world”?
In order to grasp the inner unity of the apparently contradictory prayers, we
must remember that John uses the word “cosmos” – world – in two different senses.
On the one hand, it refers to the whole of God’s good creation, especially to
men: his creatures, whom he loves to the point of the gift of himself in the
Son. On the other hand, the word refers to the human world as it has evolved in
history. Corruption, lies, and violence have, as it were, become “natural” to
it. Blaise Pascal speaks of a second nature that in the course of history has
supplanted the first. Modern philosophers have described this historical state
of mankind in various ways, as for example when Martin Heidegger speaks of
being reduced to the impersonal, of existing in “inauthenticity”. These same
issues are presented in a very different way when Karl Marx expounds man’s
alienation.
Philosophy in these instances is ultimately describing what is known to faith
as “original sin”. The present “world” has to disappear; it must be changed
into God’s world. That is precisely what Jesus’ mission is, into which the
disciples are taken up: leading “the world” away from the condition of man’s
alienation from God and from himself, so that it can become God’s world once
more and so that man can become fully himself again by becoming one with God.
Yet this transformation comes at the price of the Cross; it comes at the price
of readiness for martyrdom on the part of Christ’s witnesses”.
P. 134:
“Now there is one further expression in Jesus’ words of institution that needs
to be explained, one that has been extensively debated in recent times.
According to Mark and Matthew, Jesus said that his blood would be shed “for
many”, echoing Isaiah 53, whereas in Paul and Luke we read of the blood being
given or poured out “for you”.
Recent
theology has rightly underlined the use of the word “for” in all four accounts,
a word that may be considered the key not only to the Last Supper accounts, but
to the figure of Jesus overall. His entire being is expressed by the word
“pro-existence” – he is there, not for himself but for others. This is not
merely a dimension of his existence, but its innermost essence and its
entirety. His very being is “being-for”. If we are able to grasp this, then we
have truly come close to the mystery of Jesus, and we have understood what
discipleship is”.
And,
later (in the Epilogue), now on the episode of the Ascension:
Pp. 281,
283: “The joy of the disciples after the “Ascension” corrects our image of this
event. “Ascension” does not mean departure into a remote region of the cosmos,
but rather, the continuing closeness that the disciples experience so strongly
that it becomes a source of lasting joy.
…. The
departing Jesus does not make his way to some distant star. He enters into
communion of power and life with the living God, into God’s dominion over
space. Hence he has not “gone away”, but now and forever by God’s own power he
is present with us and for us”.
P. 286:
“Christ, at the Father’s right hand, is not far away from us. At most we are
far from him, but the path that joins us to one another is open. And this path
is not a matter of space travel of a cosmic-geographical nature: it is the
“space travel” of the heart, from the dimension of self-enclosed isolation to
the new dimension of world-embracing divine love”.
P.
292-293: “[At his Ascension] Jesus departs in the act of blessing. He goes
while blessing, and he remains in that gesture of blessing. His hands remain
stretched out over this world. The blessing hands of Christ are like a roof
that protects us. But at the same time, they are a gesture of opening up,
tearing the world open so that heaven may enter in, may become “present” within
it”.
Passover Lamb (continued)
The traditional view that the Last Supper was a Passover Meal is fixed
in our minds thanks to the famous eucharistic hymn of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Pange Lingua, “Sing, My Tongue”, with the translated
words: “He the Paschal victim eating, first fufills the Law’s command”. Then
follows the institution of the Eucharist, “[He] ... as Food to His Apostles
gives Himself with His own hand”:
In supremae nocte cenae
recumbens cum fratribus observata lege plene cibis in legalibus, cibum turbae duodenae se dat suis manibus. |
On the
night of that Last Supper,
seated with His chosen band, He the Pascal victim eating, first fulfills the Law's command; then as Food to His Apostles gives Himself with His own hand. |
Correspondingly, there does appear to be a strong case for a paschal
lamb to have been involved at the Last Supper, as argued by Fr. Brian Harrison
and Dr. Brant Pitre. We continue on with their discussions, beginning with
Father Harrison’s e-mail letter:
There are various explanations traditional exegetes have offered as a
solution for this difficulty [i.e., no indication by St. John of a Passover
meal being celebrated]. The majority view seems to have been that both the
Synoptics and John are right, given that there is evidence for some degree of
flexibility at that time among different Jewish groups, as to when the Passover
meal (normally 14th Nisan) was celebrated (just as there is on our liturgical
calendars, when a certain annual Feast can be displaced in a given year by a
higher Feast). Since - as we learn from Jn 18: 28 - the regular
calendar followed in Jerusalem had the Passover on the Friday, that
would have been another good reason why Our Lord would decide to anticipate the
Passover meal with his disciples by one day, on 13th
Nisan. For he knew he was going to dead by the time most
folks there were celebrating their Passover meal; and in any case of course,
the Last Supper wasn't going to be just a regular Passover
meal, but was destined to include, at the end, something new, the
institution of the Eucharist, in which he himself would be offered,
anticipating Calvary, as the new Paschal Lamb. Ratzinger finally gets
round to acknowledging this "paschal" (in a new sense) element in
the Last Supper, but he doesn't retract his initial assertion that there is a
"contradiction" between John and the Synoptics.
Presumably he
thinks the latter are wrong in depicting the first part of the Last Supper as
being a regular Passover meal. (That would seem to mean
they put false words on the lips of Jesus, who is reported as saying that what
he intended to do that night was "keep Passover" [Mt. 26: 18; Mk 14:
14; Lk 22: 11]. The evangelists then tell us that's exactly what the disciples
understood: for they went and "prepared Passover" [Mt. 26: 19; Mk.
14: 16; Lk 22: 13].) In that case they would of course have made sure they
had an appropriately sacrificed Paschal lamb ready for the meal [cf. Mk 14:
12], even though the Jerusalem Jews in general would have been killing the
lambs in the temple 24 hours later, while Jesus was on the Cross. In view
of the latter fact, John is also right in 13:1 in saying the Last
Supper was "before" the festival of Passover.
The relevant part
of the Jerusalem Bible footnote to Mt. 26: 17 [Father Harrison
had referred to this text in a previous correspondence] ... reads:
"The 'first day' of the week during which unleavened loaves (azymes) were
eaten, cf. Ex 12: 1 +, 23: 14 +, was normally that which followed the Passover
supper, i.e., the 15th of Nisan; the Synoptics however give this title to the
preceding day, thus attesting a wider use of the term, Further, if we take
account of Jn. 18: 28 and of other details connected with the Passion, it seems
fairly certain that in this particular year the Passover supper was celebrated
on the evening of the Friday (or 'Preparation Day', Mt. 27: 62; cf. Jn 19: 14,
31, 42). Christ's Last Supper, which the Synoptics put on the day before, i.e.,
on the Thursday evening, must therefore be explained in one of two ways: either
a whole section of the Jewish people thus anticipated the rite, or (and
this is preferable), Christ anticipated it on his own initiative."
Note the traditionally Catholic outlook of the JB commentator
in lines 1-3 above.
It seems he is starting his exegesis from the premise of faith;
and so rather than leap to the conclusion that the Synoptics are wrong in
what they affirm, he infers that they are "attesting a wider use of
the term". He then goes on to indicate how both John and the
Synoptics are right as regards when the Passover was celebrated. Professor
Ratzinger does not rebut the kind of explanation given by the JB commentator.
He does not even address it. ....
[End of quote]
And,
returning also to Dr. Pitre:
…. Catholics everywhere will celebrate Holy Thursday by attending the
Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper.
At this Mass, we will read the institution of the Passover (Exod 12, OT
reading), sing one of the most famous of the Hallel Psalms (Psalm 118, Responsorial
Psalm), and then read the institution of the Eucharist (1 Cor 11, Epistle) and
Jesus’ act of washing the disciples’ feet at the Last Supper (John 13,
Gospel). This particular Eucharist is a momentous liturgical moment, where
we both recall the institution of the very first Eucharist and enter into the
beginning of the calendrical Holy of Holies—the sacred Triduum, climaxing in
the feast of Easter (in Latin, Pascha).
But how did Jesus and his disciples celebrate the first Holy Thursday?
Specifically, was the Last Supper a Jewish Passover meal?
…. For now, all I would like to do in this post is one brief point about
the first Holy Thursday: contrary to what is often claimed by some exegetes,
the Synoptic Gospels clearly identify the Last Supper as a Jewish Passover
meal—one that included the presence of a passover lamb. Allow me to explain.
A Lambless ‘Passover Meal’?
Anyone familiar with scholarly books on Jesus will be aware that one of
the primary arguments against the Last Supper being a Passover meal is that
“there is not a word about the lamb” in the Gospel accounts of the institution
of the eucharist. In fact, for years, I myself agreed with this view and even
have some recordings where I make just that point!
Alas, upon closer study of the entire context in the Gospels in their
original Greek, I discovered that the idea that there was no lamb at the Last
Supper is just not exegetically sustainable. Although the word “lamb” (Gk
arnion) admittedly does not appear in any account of the words of institution,
both Mark and Luke in particular explicitly testify that there was a Passover
lamb (Gk pascha) at the Last Supper.
This is quite clear in the Gospel accounts—not first and foremost in the
words of institution—but in the accounts of Jesus sending the disciples (Peter
and John) into Jerusalem to prepare the Passover (Mark 14:12-16 parr.)
“When they Sacrificed the Passover Lamb (Pascha)”
So, for example, in the Gospel of Mark, we read: “And on the first day
of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the pascha, his disciples said to
him, “Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the pascha”? And he
sent two of his disciples, and said to them, “Go into the city, and a man
carrying a jar of water will meet you…” (Mark 14:12-13) Though English Bibles
translate these with two different words, there is no way for the first use of
pascha to refer to the Passover lamb that was sacrificed to be eaten and for
the second use of pascha to refer to the now-popular idea of a “lambless
Passover meal.” The only way to make this work would be to wrench the second
occurrence completely out of context.
“Go and Prepare the Pascha, that We May Eat it”
The presence of the Passover lamb at the Last Supper is even more
explicit in the Gospel of Luke. According to his account of Holy Thursday
afternoon, the following took place: “Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on
which the pascha had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying,
“Go and prepare the pascha for us, that we may eat it.” They said to him,
“Where will you have us prepare it?” (Luke 22:7-8)
Same problem: there is no way I can see in which the first use of pascha
in v. 7 refers to the Passover lamb, while in v. 8 pascha refers to a lamb-less
Passover meal (if such a thing were even possible in the 1st century A.D.). The
meal which they are preparing for Jesus and the disciples to eat in the upper
room that evening clearly consists of the passover lamb which had been
sacrificed that day.
“I Have Greatly Desired to Eat this Pascha with You”
To top it all off, in Luke’s account, Jesus even uses the same word in
the context of the words of institution on two more occasions. Just a couple of
verses later, we read: The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where
I am to eat the pascha with my disciples?’ And he will show you a large upper
room furnished; there make ready.” And they went, and found it as he had told
them; and they prepared the pascha….
And when the hour came, he sat at table, and said to them, “I have
earnestly desired to eat this pascha with you before I suffer…” (Luke 22:11-13,
15)
It seems to me that far from the lamb never being mentioned, Luke’s
Gospel refers to the Passover lamb in the context of the Last Supper some three
or four times, both in the account of the preparation and in the account of the
meal itself! ….
[End of quote]
The traditional view, as espoused by Fr. Harrison and Dr.
Pitre, seems also to be well in harmony with Verbum Domini’s notion
of ‘fulfilling
the incarnational paradigm of the Word made flesh’, and of St. Paul’s idea of
the Word emptying Itself to being “born under the Law ... to redeem those who
were under the Law” (Galatians 4:4-5). We think that it may be preferable,
therefore, to Josef Ratzinger’s view of a lamb-less Passover. Given what I
wrote in
Part One
(https://www.academia.edu/18172428/_Western_Logic_and_the_Logos_), it may not be entirely surprising
that Josef Ratzinger, who can sometimes exhibit strong western cultural and
educative tendencies, might sometimes come to a conclusion on biblical matters
that does not do proper justice to the Bible’s non-western, and actually
Jewish, Sitz im Leben.
So
perhaps with this actuality in mind we might raise the query about a supposedly
lamb-less Last Supper with Isaac of old:
‘… but where is the lamb?’ (Genesis
22:7)
No comments:
Post a Comment