PASSOVER | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The timing of events surrounding the Passover, both Old Testament and New Testament, have aroused much speculation, argument, and interpretation. Much of the controversy, particularly regarding the Old Testament Passover, arises from differences of opinion on the meaning of a particular Hebrew phrase. People have written long, exhaustive (and sometimes exhausting) books trying to explain how it all fits. Must explanations be so long and complicated? Does the "depth" and delving into minute details assist in understanding? Or does it get in the way of a proper understanding of the flow of events? God wrote His Word so that the simple could understand, so that the wise could be confused. The plain simple truths of the Bible do not require tedious treatises to explain and understand. This applies to the Passover. All scripture references are quoted from the NKJ except where otherwise indicated. The Passover was first commanded in Exod 12:1-12:
In this passage we see that the lamb was selected on the tenth day of the month (v. 3), it was kept until the fourteenth day of the month (v. 6), it was to be killed "at twilight" (beyn ha'arbayim, literally "between the two evenings") (v. 6), it was to be roasted (v. 9), the leftovers were to be burned up (v. 10), and it was to be eaten in haste, with all dressed and ready to travel on short notice (v. 11). Therefore, the lamb is to be killed on the fourteenth; it cannot be killed on the thirteenth in order to fulfill the command in v. 6. Also, the time of day must fall within the parameters of the phrase "between the two evenings", the meaning of which is not clearly given in this passage. It also poses a question: If the lamb was to be killed at the beginning of the fourteenth and the exit from Egypt was not to begin until sometime on the fifteenth, why be prepared for a speedy departure as described in v. 11? This question receives an answer when other things receive due consideration. The first indication of the beginning and ending points of a day is found in Gen 1:5,8,13,19,23,31:
Each of the first six days of the week are described as beginning in the evening. In looking at the command for the keeping of the Days of Unleavened Bread, we find in Lev 23:6-8:
From this passage we learn that the Feast of Unleavened Bread begins on the fifteenth day of the month (v. 6), unleavened bread must be eaten during this period (v. 6), and there are holy days on the first day and on the seventh day (vv. 7-8). Notice that the command concerning unleavened bread does not affect the fourteenth day of the month. The Holy Days fall on the first and seventh days of this feast. Therefore the dates for these Holy Days are:
Returning to the introduction of the Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread we find in Exod 12:18-20:
This passage shows that the Feast begins on the fourteenth day of the month "at evening" (v. 18) and concludes on the twenty-first day of the month "at evening" (v. 18). The way this account is worded, the Holy Days can only be:
To reconcile these two accounts, the phrase "fourteenth day of the month at evening" can only be interpreted as being "at the evening which closes the fourteenth day of the month" not "at the evening which begins the fourteenth day of the month." Why? If the "evening" were referring to the beginning of the day (i.e., from the beginning of the fourteenth day to the beginning of the twenty-first day) the Days of Unleavened Bread would become:
This interpretation results in a conflict with the other account and therefore must be rejected. To use different meanings for the two instances causes similar problems. If one reads "the fourteenth day of the month at evening" to mean "at the evening which begins the fourteenth day of the month" and then reads "the twenty-first day of the month at evening" to mean "at the evening which ends the twenty-first day of the month" the result is an eight-day feast which also contradicts the plain scriptures. If that is turned around to make it from the evening ending the fourteenth to the evening beginning the twenty-first, then a six-day feast results. Therefore, the only possible way to make it all fit is to have "at evening" in both occurrences mean "the evening which ends the day." The primary purpose here, though, is to prove that the scriptural day begins at evening. Further proof of this is found in two of the commands regarding the Day of Atonement. We find in Lev 16:29-31:
This passage states that the Day of Atonement occurs on the tenth day of the seventh month (v. 29), is a day in which no work is to be done (v. 29), and is a day of fasting ("affliction") (vv. 29,31). A few chapters later we find not only a reiteration of the above command, but some further explanatory information. The command as given in Lev. 23:27-32 reads:
This account shows that the Day of Atonement occurs on the tenth day of the seventh month (v. 27), begins on the ninth day of the month at evening and continues until the next evening (v. 32), is a Holy Day of fasting (vv. 27,29,32), and no work is to be done on that day (vv. 30-31). From this information we may conclude that the day is specifically described as being from "evening to evening," not "morning to morning" or "morning to evening;" and that the phrase "ninth day of the month at evening" in context can only mean "the evening that ends the ninth day of the month" and cannot possibly mean "the evening that begins the ninth day of the month." The account in Genesis shows that the word can refer to the beginning of the day. The commands regarding Passover, the Days of Unleavened Bread, and the Day of Atonement show that the word can refer to the end of the day. How can one tell which meaning belongs where? In one word: context. This can be illustrated in the English language very easily and effectively. In reference to driving down a street and coming upon an intersection, one could say, "I have the right to turn right, right?" In the space of a mere eight words, the word "right" was used three times, each one with totally unrelated meanings, yet through the context of this short sentence it is a simple matter to determine which meaning of the word was to be applied at each of the instances. On a larger scale, if one were reading a treatise on the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, given the context, when one encountered the word "right" one would presume it to mean "a legal entitlement" unless that definition could not possibly fit a particular instance. There is no scriptural definition as to exactly when "evening" begins and ends; likewise, there is no scriptural definition of when the exact moment occurs when one day ends and the next begins. Generally it is held to mean the point in time when the sun disappears over the horizon, given "normal" circumstances. (For example, if one is in a canyon and from that location the sun disappears some hours prior to its actual setting from the area in general and the advent of dark, this definition cannot be used. Also, one at or near the north pole or south pole experiences "days" and "nights" lasting several months. Strictly applying this position would result in "days" that are a year in length and "weeks" that are seven years long. Reason, of course, must prevail.) In this context, does "sunset" begin a day? Yes. Does "sunset" end a day? Yes. "Sunset" both ends a day and begins a day, so the use of "sunset" has a double function and therefore a double meaning, so only context can determine which to apply. Some do not consider it "evening" until it is dark enough to see three bright stars. Even this can be subjective since atmospheric conditions and keenness of eyesight will vary. When one considers the use of the word in other places, it becomes apparent that the word "evening" in fact has several meanings. Since there is no single scriptural definition, only context and the comparing of various scriptures and phrases can lead us to at least an approximate understanding of the time period being referred to in a given situation or a given purpose. The Hebrew phrase beyn ha'arbayim has been given three different meanings by various scholars: <
Each of these definitions makes sense of and by itself and "scholars" debate endlessly about the various possible meanings of each word and what the ramifications are in the uses of the phrase. To properly determine the proper scriptural application of this phrase, however, one must locate each instance of it and see what, if any, determinations can be honestly and scripturally supported. This phrase appears a mere eleven times in the scriptures, so investigating it is not a particularly difficult or complicated matter. One of these eleven instances refers to the complaints of the Israelites in the wilderness and their demands for meat:
With two exceptions, this phrase is translated "at twilight" in the NKJ. In the KJV the first is translated "in the evening" and the rest "at even." None of them provides a specific definition of the meaning of the phrase. The usage in Ex 29:31,41 and Num 28:4,8 shows it as contrasted to the morning and as following the morning (the offering "between the two evenings" was to be handled in the same manner as the morning one was). Again, the Passover lamb was to be killed during this period of time. Therefore we may conclude that the phrase cannot mean a twenty-four hour period since it is contrasted with "morning" and follows it (Ex 29:39,41; Num 28:4,8), but the two remaining definitions of the phrase remain viable possibilities. If it refers to the period from sunset to dark ("dusk" or "twilight"), then the new day cannot begin until dark, otherwise the "evening" offering would occur before the morning offering. Since the Passover lamb was to be killed "between the two evenings" and it was to be killed "between the two evenings" on the fourteenth of the month, then it had to have been killed after noon on the fourteenth. Using the "afternoon" definition it would be killed anytime between noon and sunset (or whenever the day was determined to officially end); using the "twilight" definition it would be killed just as the fourteenth closed. Neither definition allows it to be killed at or near the beginning of the fourteenth. Some point to the occurrence of beyn ha'arbayim in Exod 16:12 to demonstrate that it confirms the "between sunset and dark" definition. It is therefore important to include this passage to completely cover the subject. At first glance it indeed appears to point to the beginning part of the night, but a look at what the context says and doesn't say makes it clear that it does not prove that interpretation of the phrase. Exod 16:11-14 says,
Verse 12 states that beyn ha'arbayim is when the Israelites will eat meat and that "in the morning" is when they would be filled with bread. Verse 13 provides the time (ba erev - "in the evening") when the quail covered the camp. It also tells us when the manna appeared on the ground (in the morning). Does it say when the Israelites caught and prepared the quail? No. It implies, however, that the quail were at least captured (and probably killed) in the evening and possibly on for a few hours into the night. If the Israelites were to eat the quail "between sunset and dark," that requires they capture, kill, prepare, cook, and eat them in a space of less than an hour! However, if the Israelites spend the evening collecting and killing the quail, they have time to prepare and cook them in time for dinner the following afternoon (beyn ha'arbayim). So why does verse 12 mention the eating of the quail prior to the eating of the bread if the eating of the bread will occur prior to the eating of the quail? Verse 3 provides a viable answer when it states, "And the children of Israel said to them, 'Oh, that we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the pots of meat and when we ate bread to the full! For you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger.'" What did the Israelites complain about? Not having pots of meat and not eating bread to the full. God answered these complaints in the order they were made, not in the order of their satisfaction. If anything, the "afternoon" definition receives additional support through this passage. Just for the record, another "quail incident" appears in Num 11:31-33 which provides a very different scenario:
This time the quail came up and smothered the camp, not for just an evening, but for two days and the intervening night. This event displays a greedier, more lustful attitude among the Israelites than the Exodus account which culminates in an ensuing plague. There is little comparison between this quail event and the one in Exodus and the two must not be confused. Christ's example is always a prime reference source. This serves to clinch the argument, particularly given the fact that the Passover lamb was to be killed during the afternoon of the fourteenth. Christ was the Passover Lamb:
When was Christ killed? When was this ultimate Passover Lamb's life ended and blood spilled? Matt 27:45-50
There was darkness from the sixth hour to the ninth hour (Mt 27:45, Mk 15:33, Lk 23:44). This darkness was not total because the sun was then darkened at the ninth hour, making it darker yet (Lk 45). At the ninth hour the veil of the temple was torn asunder (Lk 23:45) and at the ninth hour Christ died (Mt 27:50, Mk 15:37, Lk 23:46). The "ninth hour" was what we would call 3:00 p.m. -- it was the middle of the afternoon. God would not have the Passover Lamb killed at the wrong time! A 3:00 p.m. killing of the Passover Lamb makes the "dusk/twilight" definition scripturally untenable; therefore, the one remaining viable definition for "between the two evenings" is "afternoon." Passover lambs were being killed throughout the afternoon, and most of the lambs for the Passover were being slaughtered in the households around the country, not at the temple. Given the remaining possible definition for the phrase "between the two evenings" many of them had already been killed and were in the process of being prepared for the evening Passover meal. The darkness over the land would have certainly provided an especially somber atmosphere for this particular day of Passover preparation! At 3:00 p.m. the priests in the temple were beginning to kill the lambs for their families -- perfect timing for the rending of the veil. For what it's worth, in the southeastern part of the United States, it is very common to term the time between noon and dark as "evening." ("How about coming over tomorrow evening?" "What time?" "Oh, about 2:00.") Can this same usage be applied to scripture? There are indications that it can, indeed must. Most who observe the Passover teach that the Passover lamb was killed at the beginning of the fourteenth, the Israelites spread the blood around the doors at that time, the Passover meal was eaten on the night of the fourteenth prior to midnight, God passed over the land killing the firstborn around midnight on the fourteenth, the Israelites spent the day of the fourteenth spoiling the Egyptians, and left the night beginning the fifteenth. It has been demonstrated that the Passover was killed during the afternoon of the fourteenth, not at the beginning of it. How do the rest of these items need to be understood in light of this alteration in the original premise? Since the lamb was obviously killed on the afternoon of the fourteenth, then the blood was spread around the doors around that time as well. This requires that the meal be eaten at the end of the fourteenth/beginning of the fifteenth, with the death of the firstborn occurring around midnight of the fifteenth (Ex 12:29). First a few scriptures need to be examined:
These passages show that the Israelites were instructed not to leave their homes until morning (Ex 12:22) but that Pharaoh instructed Moses and Aaron to leave at night (Ex 12:31). They describe the Exodus occurring on the fifteenth day of the first month (Ex 12:17) after having "spoiled" the Egyptians (Ex 12:35). They left on the "night of solemn observance" or, as the KJV words it, "a night to be much observed." The RSV terms it "a night of watching" and Young's Literal Translation adds an "s" and renders it "A night of watchings." A more accurate rendition of the popular KJV would be "a night of much observing" (Ex 12:42). Finally, we see that they left by night (Deut 16:1). It has been demonstrated that the Passover meal was taken on the evening of the fifteenth and therefore the death plague hit around midnight on the fifteenth. The Israelites were prepared to move on a moment's notice. This would not be unnecessary if they were to remain in Egypt for several hours before the Exodus. They were instructed to remain in their homes "until morning" yet they left Egypt on the fifteenth "by night." At first this seems to destroy the premise, but one more point remains to be considered in this light. Is 2:00 a.m. night? Yes. Is 2:00 a.m. morning? Yes. Is it dark that time of the morning? Yes. If one left one's house at "two o'clock in the morning" one would be leaving the house "at night" as well. The period between midnight and dawn is considered both night and morning, therefore an exodus beginning during that span of time would qualify as fulfilling both requirements. Are there any other scriptureswhich confirm this overlap? Yes. Exod 14:20 explains that the pillar of fire provided light at night for the Israelites and by moving the cloud between the Israelites and Egyptian army, it blocked the light and kept the Egyptians in the dark. In v. 24 it states, "Now it came to pass, in the morning watch, that the LORD looked down upon the army of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and cloud, and He troubled the army of the Egyptians." God looked through the pillar of fire upon the Egyptians in the morning, yet the stated purpose of that pillar of fire was to provide light by night; therefore, when the "morning" began it was still dark. Pharaoh instructed Moses and Aaron to leave at night (Ex 12:31). Another alternative would be that they were waiting and watching for the first sign of pre-dawn light and had been told to begin their exit from Egypt then. Since there is no scriptural evidence of this, it can only be speculation. Another element helps demonstrate that the Passover took place on the fifteenth occurs in Num 33:3 which states, "They departed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the day after the Passover the children of Israel went out with boldness in the sight of all the Egyptians." In the KJV it says, "on the morrow after the Passover." The clear statement is that the Israelites departed Egypt on the fifteenth and that it was the morrow (or morning) after the Passover. If the Passover occurred around midnight on the fourteenth, then to leave on the fifteenth it would have to be on the morrow after the morrow after the Passover. The Hebrew word can be translated as "day" thereby possibly allowing a stretch from the night of the fourteenth to the night/early morning of the fifteenth, but in the context can this approach be applied? A look at another passage which uses the exact same term answers the question. Gen 19:33-35 states:
This account makes it obvious that "the next day" (the same Hebrew word translated in the Exodus passage as "on the day after" or "on the morrow") is the morning following the night of the event, not the morning of the day following the morning following the event as those who claim the Passover took place on the night of the fourteenth would have us believe. The KJV states: Exod 12:35-36
Based upon the verb tenses as rendered into English in this popular translation, it would appear that this "spoiling" was done after the final plague hit and before the Israelites left Egypt. The NKJ, however, rendered it much more accurately as quoted above ("they had asked from the Egyptians articles of silver," etc.). Along this line, two other passages should be included: Exod 3:21-22
God told Moses before the whole plague process began that much of the Egyptians' wealth would be given to the Israelites (Ex 3:21-22). Moses was told to instruct the Israelites to ask for these things before the last plague came about and Moses passed along the orders which were then obeyed prior to the Passover (Ex 11:2-3). Therefore, the coming "spoiling" of the Egyptians was revealed well in advance, so it wasn't unexpected. The "spoiling" occurred before the Passover lambs were killed, the meal eaten, and the death plague. This demonstrates that the verb tenses as given in the NKJ (and seconded in several other translations) are correct and the process was a "done deal" when the word came early in the morning of the fifteenth (while it was yet still dark) to move out. Given all of the scriptures and allowing the Bible to interpret itself, by considering numerous passages which complement and explain each other, it is possible to "rightly divide the word of truth" and understand accurately when the Passover was observed, when the lambs were slaughtered, and the rest of the sequence of events surrounding the first Passover. This provides guidance on how to properly observe it today. The order of major events is as follows: 10th
The first step examined the Passover commands and concluded that the Passover lamb was killed "between the two evenings" on the fourteenth of the month. The second step concluded that a scriptural day both begins and ends with an "evening," so "evening" and "at even" can mean either end of the day and that context was necessary (and sometimes other scriptures as well) to determine which meaning the term had in a given situation. The third step examined the phrase "between the two evenings" and concluded that the phrase can only refer to what is called "afternoon" and, confirmed by the example of Jesus Christ, demonstrated that the Passover lamb was killed on the afternoon of the fourteenth. The fourth step put the other events surrounding the first Passover into place using the information provided in the Bible about it. Many of the problems arise from the typical approach of looking at the "Last Supper" in the gospel accounts, making some assumptions, reaching a conclusion, then trying to make everything else (including the Old Testament Passover) fit. This approach turns that process around. The Old Testament Passover serves as a foundation for inquiries into the New Testament observance of Passover. The New Testament Passover builds upon the Old Testament Passover. Given the obvious conclusion that the Passover lamb was killed on the afternoon of Nisan 14 and the Passover meal was eaten that evening, the New Testament accounts of the "Last Supper" should be analyzed in the light of the Old Testament Passover. In the Old Testament Passover, the Passover lamb was killed on the afternoon of Nisan 14 and the first holy day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread began at sundown. John 19:31 discloses that Christ and the thieves were executed on the day prior to the holy day. It states, "Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away." The only other "high day" anywhere near would be the seventh day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and it is obvious that the reference is not to that date. It is therefore inescapable that the crucifixion took place on Nisan 14 with Christ meeting His death at the very time when Passover lambs all over Israel were being killed. All four gospel accounts make mention of this event, the "synoptic gospels" (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) providing more details leading into it, John's gospel providing more details of it. The three synoptics seem to agree on the day with John's account seeming to disagree. Matt 26:17-20
Matthew states that it was the first Day of Unleavened Bread, but that falls on Nisan 15 and is therefore too late. The original Greek looms important here. The word "Day" does not appear. The word "first" is translated from the Greek word protos which can mean "first" but can also mean "beginning" or "before" which allows it to be translated in a similar manner to John's account. Mark and Luke call it the (first - Mark) "Day of Unleavened Bread when the Passover must be killed." That would be Nisan 14. Mark's "first" is also protos thereby allowing it to be "before" the "day of Unleavened Bread when the Passover must be killed." John used the word pro in his account, specifically stating that this was prior to the Passover. This coupled with the statement showing that Christ was killed on the afternoon of Nisan 14 requires that this meal take place at the beginning of Nisan 14. From this information, the obvious conclusion is that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are speaking in terms of the season but not the actual festival. The specific activities of the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread (and common terminology of the time used "Days/Feast of Unleavened Bread" and "Passover" interchangeably) began on Nisan 10 when the lamb to be sacrificed was chosen and brought into the house. By this time people are making preparations for the feast which is coming up shortly and consider themselves to be in the Passover season, but actually prior to the Passover itself. The Passover lambs were killed on the afternoon of Nisan 14, making the preparations for the meal under discussion occurring on Nisan 13. This is the only way to make all of the facts fit together. Matthew, Mark, and Luke further state that the disciples went to prepare and did prepare the Passover. Does this mean they killed a lamb on Nisan 13? This does not fit with the normal schedule of events. That makes this meal, if it is indeed a Passover meal, falling twenty-four hours too early. Some argue that the Jews had changed the Passover date and by killing the lambs on the afternoon of Nisan 14 they did so twenty-four hours too late, that Christ's Passover here was being held at the correct time. This fallacy was easily disproved in the study of the Old Testament Passover and must be discarded. That leaves one of two possibilities remaining:
There are many details of Christ's teachings and actions missing from the record. As John said, "And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" (Jn 21:25). Could there be some details missing here which the gospel writers under the guidance of the Holy Spirit omitted? It is possible. There are historical instances of people observing the Passover early because extenuating circumstances (usually an impending death) were going to prevent the proper observance. While there are no scriptural commands or examples of this, it was an approved Jewish practice. Unfortunately, the biblical record does not supply the information to prove or disprove this possibility. The indication, however, is that since this was not the proper time but is yet called a Passover, it is definitely a viable explanation. Since this was not the proper time for observing the Passover, is it possible that they made preparations for the Passover which was to take place the following day (short of killing the lamb) and that this was not the actual Passover meal? There is no mention of a lamb, just a meal. Without conclusive evidence one way or the other on either possibility, it is impossible to state with certainty whether or not this was an actual Passover meal and, if it was, it has to have been an "early" one for reasons not stated (but understood). Since the "last supper" (Passover meal or not) took place approximately twenty-four hours prior to the proper time for the Passover meal, did Christ institute a new ceremony? Or was He merely explaining the meaning of traditional Passover symbols (the bread and the wine) which would be applied when Passover was celebrated at the proper time? Were this a new ceremony, it would seem logical that there would occur sufficient special mention of it and/or specific examples of its observance at a later date. No such information was recorded. This weighs against the argument that a new ceremony was instituted through this "last supper" with the disciples prior to Christ's execution. In Paul's instructions to the Corinthian congregation regarding the keeping of Passover, he stated, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me'" (1 Cor 11:23-24). "Broken" is past tense, but at the "last supper" His body had not been broken yet. This makes an observance at the beginning of Nisan 14 (a Passover or separate "Lord's Supper" observance as some do) out of synch with the words and sequence of events. In Matt 26:27-28 we find, "Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.'" Again the same problems present themselves with a ceremony held at the beginning of Nisan 14. How can the bread represent the broken body of Christ at the beginning of Nisan 14 when the body will not start getting broken until several hours later? Likewise, how can the wine represent the spilled blood of Christ at the beginning of Nisan 14 when the blood will not start getting spilled until several hours later? Paul gave the full meaning of the New Testament Passover meal in 1 Cor 11:26 when he wrote, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes." And how can a Passover at the beginning of Nisan 14 proclaim a death that will not occur for another eighteen hours? Further, the inclusion of unleavened bread at a Passover service occurring at the beginning of Nisan 14 representing the sinless state of Christ loses its effect when one may leave the service, eat a sandwich or pizza, and then continue to consume leavened products until the following evening. This too fails the logic test. These problems of logic spawned by a Passover (or "Lord's Supper") service at the beginning of Nisan 14 are resolved by holding the ceremony at the beginning of Nisan 15, the time of the Old Testament Passover. The only logical conclusion points to a Passover observance held at the beginning of Nisan 15 with the symbols given at the "last supper" applied to that meal. The sinless (unleavened) body has now been broken and is ready to be eaten, the cleansing blood has now been spilled and is ready to be drunk, the atoning death has now been accomplished and is ready to be proclaimed. Unleavened bread becomes the diet for the remainder of the day and the next six days. Were the New Testament Passover ceremony celebrated at the end of Nisan 14 and these symbols applied to that ceremony, then the verb tenses fit perfectly, the time line fits, and the symbols hold all of their meaning. Another indication that the "bread and wine" aspect of the New Testament Passover was part of a full meal appears in 1 Cor 11:20-22 where Paul criticizes the Corinthian congregation saying,
This "Lord's supper" observance obviously includes more than a small piece of unleavened bread and a small sip of wine for each participant. Some feast sumptuously while others have far less. A major meal is described here, not a small ceremony. Paul basically says, "If you cannot come together and celebrate and share, do your Passover meal at home away from each other." What is the big meal of this season? The Passover meal partaken of on the "night of much observing" which begins Nisan 15. One cannot cull from this account some special ceremony called the "Lord's Supper" or a "Passover" service which includes only a bit of bread and a sip of wine. The Passover occurs at the end of Nisan 14 going into the evening and night of Nisan 15. No scriptural support exists for the institution of a new ceremony called "Passover" or even "Lord's Supper" to be held at the beginning of Nisan 14. When did the Israelites eat their Passover lamb? On the evening beginning Nisan 15. When should we eat our Passover Lamb? At the same time. The time of Sabbath observance was not changed after Christ's death. The times or dates of the annual Holy Days were not changed after Christ's death. It makes no sense to change the time or date of the Passover. It remains where it always was.
|
