t ilt 262 and parallels compared with Jn 131- 2 do not suggest any difference of practice as to the date of observing the anniversary. °
X Caspari {Chron. Gconr. EhUeit.), referring to Pesachim x., supposes the Supper to have been a Mazzoth meal, of which the essential element was unleavened cakes (mnzzoth), with or with- out a lamb, eaten everywhere, and bv all -for all were required to eat unleavened bread, though onlv the ceremoniallv clean w-ere permitted to partake of the lamb— such meals being still observed in the present age.
§ ' Jews . . . would consider it a shocking piece of profanation to enact anj-thmg resembling the great Paschal meal the evening before its time.' Peiritz (himself a Jew), op. cii. p 30
against Jesus. On such evidence a most damaging charge could haA^e been founded ; yet not a Avord of such charge is found in the records of the trial.*
(ii.) Seeing then that a literal intei'pretation of irdaxi in oui' Lords Avords to the TAvelve is pre- cluded by the conditions of the occasion, Ave adopt the alternatiA'e, and understand ' passover ' to be here used in a mystical sense, t In such sense undoubtedly He spoke Avhen He called the bread His bod}-, and the Avine His blood. Whatever opinion may be held of the nature of the i^resence in the Eucharist, the bread and the Avine Avere then before His sacrifice, as they are noAv after His resurrection, His body and His blood in a mystical and spiritual sense. His promise to drink Avine Avith them in the Kingdom of God (Mt 26-^, !Mk 14-'', Lk 22'*) Avas conveyed in the same terms of mystery ; for in the kingdom of redemption there is no place for the JeAAish Passover, — that has Avaxed old and vanished, — and still less can a literal fulfilment be conceived as liaA'ing hereafter a jjlace in the kingdom of glory. Yet in that kingdom there Avill be a feast, the mystical and spiritual supper of the Lamb, Avhere the host Avill be the real Passover, of Avhich the annual A'ictims Avere the figures ; He avIio is therefore called by St. Paul, 'Christ our passover. 'J
6. It has been thought that the Last Supper, Avhile not an imitation, Avas celebrated Avitli some outAvard features Avhich connected it Avith the annual Passover, although the chief characteristic, the lamb, A\-as absent. § It may haA"e been so. Perhaps there Avas unleavened bread, and the dish of bitter herbs ; but the narratiA-es contain not a Avord to faA'our such a supposition. Thej- seem to describe an ordinary Eastern meal, [' Avith the one dish in the centre, into Avhich all the guests put their hands. The usual custom of giving the com- plimentaiy sop Avas observed, and Avine Avas passed round. We believe that the Last Suj^per Avas in form only an ordinary repast, but that it Avas attended by the exceptional circumstances of the Avashing of the feet by the host, the mystic acts Avith bread and Avine, and the strange, prophetic, and spiritual utterances of a long discourse. As Ave attempt to portray the scene, the outlines
* The Re\-. G. H. Box has contended with much ability in an article in JThSt, April 1902, that not the Passover, but the weekly Kiddush, which preceded the meal 011 the eve of the Sabbath, is the antecedent of the Eucharist. In this case our Lord must have celebrated it 24 hours earlier ; but Mr. Box supposes that He often celebrated Kiddush ; there was Kiddush of Passover and of Pentecost, and other occasions, besides the weekly Sanctification. In the January number of JTliSt the Rev. Dr. Lambert, repljing to Mr. Box's argument, that the e\idence of the first three Evangelists is self-contradictory, follows Chwolson by supposing an error in the text. AVe make no supposition, but offer an explanation of the traditional evidence.
Dr. J. Armitage Robinson expresses himself in harmony with our view : ' The Eucharist had, in its earliest form, an element in common with the ordinary Jewish meal, which was sanctified by thanksgi\-ings uttered over the bread and over the cup. . . . Our conception of the original institution must not be dominated by the consideration of the elaborate ceremonial of the Passover cele- bration. Such a consideration belongs rather to the subsequent development of the Eucharist as a Christian rite ' (art. ' Eucharist ' in Encyc. Bibl. coll. 1419, 1420).
t Our Lord was pleased to veil the meaning of His words in many ways. Besides prophecies of His death, which were mis- understood (Mk 9^2)^ and parables, which were not exi^lained to all (Mt 13ii), and figures, as sleep for death (Jn 11 H), He sjioke in mystery of His body as a temple (Jn 2^9), of birth by water and the Spirit (35), of eating His flesh and drinking His blood (6-53). So, we believe. He called the Supper 'this Passover,' not in the literal, but in a mystical sense.
{ This title of the Saviour, although of such frequent occur- rence in ecclesiastical and theological language, occurs in the NT onh- at 1 Co 5", the writer being St. Paul, who was intimately associated with the only Evangelist who records (Lk 2215) that our Lord spoke of His Last Supper as toSto to To^trx"-