After a second Avashing of hands, one of the tAvo unleavened cakes Avas broken, and pieces contain- ing betAveen them bitter herbs Avere, after dipping in t\\e haroseth, lianded toeach one in the company. This Avas probably the sop Avhich Judas Iscariot received (Jn 13^^). After this the Paschal lamb Avas eaten, the hands Avere again washed, a third cup of Avine filled, a blessing said, and the cup drunk. This Avas known as ' the cup of blessing,' and Avas probably that in Avhich our Lord instituted the cup of the Eucliarist, Avhich is called by St. Paul 'the cup of blessing' (1 Co 10^6). There re- mained another cup to be drunk, for the number four Avas insisted upon, and became tlie subject of various interpretations ; the .second part of the Hallel (Pss 115-118) Avas sung — probably the ' hymn ' after Avhich ' tliey Avent out unto the mount of Olives ' (Mk 14-'^)— and the feast ended Avith a benediction, 'tho blessing of the song.'
On the next day, the 15th Nisan, sacrifices addi- tional to those offered ordinarily Avere brought (Nu 28^"), and peace-otlerings, the haglgah — Avhich on this day Avas compulsory, but on the 14th needed not to be offered except Avhere the lamb Avould not suffice for the feast — Avere presented. On the 16th day the barley for the onier (Lv 23^^) that Avas to be presented Avas cut ; tliis Avas threshed in the Court of the Priests, parched, and then ground line. When sufficiently fine, one omer by measure Avas taken and mixed Avith oil ; frankincense Avas placed upon it, and it Avas ' AvaA-ed ' — moved to and fro — before the Lord. The 17th to the 20th days Avere the Mo (id Kdton, or ' lesser festival,' Avhen no ncAV Avork might be commenced. With the 21st Nisan the feast ended, the day being kept ,as a Sabbatli.
In the case of persons Levitically unclean or living at a distance, it Avas permitted to celebrate the Passover on the corresponding day of the fol- loAving month (lyyar), according to tlie legislation of Nu 99-12, 2 Ch 302 . but in this case there Avas no search for and removal of leaven, no Hallel Avas sung at the supper, and no hagigah offered and eaten.
LiTERATtTRB. — Comm. on Pentateuch, esp. Driver's Deut. ; Bibl. Archaeol. of Keil, Nowack, and Benzinger ; Buxtorf, Syn. Jud. ; Reland, Ant. ; the Mishnic tractate Pesachirn, with comm. ; Maimonides, Yad Hachazakah ; artt. in Hastings' DB, Smith's DB, Kitto's Cyclopcedia, the EBi, Hamburger's RE, the ,TE ; Edersheim, The Temple, etc. ; Chwolson, Das letztc Paxsamahl Christi; J. P. Lilley, The Lord's Supper (1891),
35 ff- J. T. L. Maggs.
PASSOVER (II. : in relation to Lord's Supper)
1. The historical relation. — The chronological diffi- culty raised by this topic having been adequately discussed in previous articles (see Dates, vol. i. p. 413 ff.. Last Supper, and Lord's Supper (I.)), it is unnecessary to reopen it here. It may be assumed as certain that the Last Supper of Jesus took place not on the night of the general JeAvish
PASSOYEK
PASSOVER
327
Passover, but on the evening preceding. It does not folIoAv, however, that the Last Supper was not a Paschal meal. To the present writer it seems impossible to set aside the distinct evidence of the first three Gospels on this point, reinforced as that is bv the language of St. Paul (Mt 26i'a-, Mk Ui^f-, Lk 22^ff- 1* ; cf. 1 Co 5^- » and ll^s-^*).
(1) It has been objected by Spitta (see the essay, ' Die urchristl. Traditionen liber UrspruTig u. Sinn des Abendmahls ' in his Zur Gesch. u. Litt. des Urchristentums ; cf. G. H. Box, JThSt, A\)V. 1902), tlie most prominent representative of the view that the Last Supper bore no resemblance to the Pass- over, that the descriptions of it given in ]\It. and Mk. do not suggest a Paschal meal, and in parti- cular that the lamb is never mentioned. This has been called a ' significant omission ' ; a remark which assumes that, if Jesus had been observing the Passover, the Evangelists would naturally have given some account of the proceedings at the Jewish meal. But, since they h<ad already stated with the utmost plainness that the meal to which He sat down with His disciples was an eating of the Pass- over, it was quite unnecessary for them to describe it in detail, since all Passover suppers were exactlj' similar. What they were concerned with were tliose novel and significant acts and words of their Master by which, while sitting at the table of the OT feast. He instituted the sacrament of the New Covenant.
(2) A similar objection is that at the Passover supper each participant had his own cup to drink from, while in the celebration of the sacrament there was only one cup. But this is to confound two things that are perfectly distinct. The fact that at the Jewish meal there was a cup for each person present is surely no reason why Jesus, in appointing the new rite of the Christian brother- hood, should not have taken one cup and passed it round to His disciples, saying, ' Drink ye all of it.'
(3) A further ground of objection is found in the fact that Jesus draws no parallels between the Paschal meal and the Christian sacrament, and in particular that, when He is choosing a symbol to represent His body. He takes a loaf of bread for the purpose, and not a portion of the roasted lamb. To speak in tliis way suggests a poor conception of our Lord's insight into the nature and destiny of His own religion. For, un- less Jesus was altogether lacking in this respect, He must have foreseen, as clearly as we can see to- day, that the broken loaf of bread was infinitely better suited than a piece of the JewLsh Paschal lamb to serve to the Church of the future as the symbol of His sacrifice of love.