EXODUS 12:1‑14. In some respects this is the most important passage in the Book of Exodus. It gives details about the celebration of the Passover meal, one of the main festivals of the Jewish tradition. The description we have here, however, comes from the Priestly document dating from the post‑exilic period, not from the time of Moses several hundred years earlier. Accordingly it is considerably coloured by the form of the celebration in the immediate post‑exilic period (after 539 BCE).

PSALM 116:1-2, 12-19. This song of thanksgiving praises God for an apparent recovery from critical illness. It may have been sung by an individual worshiper making a thank-offering in the presence of a congregation gathered in the temple court. The latter segment has frequently been used in a paraphrased hymn during the celebration of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

1 CORINTHIANS 11:23-26. This brief passage is likely the earliest description of the words Jesus may have used when instituting what we now know as the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. It is better known to us in its liturgical use than as an excerpt from a longer section of the letter in which Paul severely castigated the Corinthians for their inappropriate celebration of the supper during congregational gatherings.

JOHN 13:1-17, 31b-35. John’s version of last meal with his disciples is very different from that found in the other gospels. Instead of instituting the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper by sharing bread and wine, symbols of his broken body and shed blood, he performed a ritual of foot washing which some parts of the church still practice as a sacrament. This was done to symbolize both his love for the disciples and the role of servant.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS

EXODUS 12:1‑14. In some respects this is the most important passage in the Book of Exodus. It gives details about the celebration of the Passover meal, one of the main festivals of the Jewish tradition. The description we have here, however, comes from the Priestly document and dates from the post‑exilic period, not from the time of Moses several hundred years earlier. Accordingly it is considerably coloured by the form of the celebration in the immediate post‑exilic period (after 539 BCE).

The standard formula for a cultic observance in style of the Priestly Document opens the passage (vs. 1). Moses and Aaron receive a revelation of Yahweh's will on the way the festival is to be celebrated. The designation of the spring as the time of the festival is significant. Until the time of the exile (6th century BCE), the beginning of the year occurred in the autumn, as it does now in the Jewish calendar. Only during and after the exile did the Israelites conform to the Babylonian custom of marking the turn of the year in springtime. Scholars believe that in all probability in earliest times the Passover festival originally occurred in spring. Before the Exodus it may have been associated with the shepherding culture of patriarchal times. Exodus 5:1 describes a pre‑exodus festival which had an important place in Israelite culture.

A second feature of the narrative identifies it as a creation of the exilic period. The ceremony takes places only in the home as a family feast and has no association with the temple. Although a later interpretation regarded vs. 6 as a gathering for the priestly slaughter of the paschal lamb, the festival was never fully transformed into a temple ritual and so could be celebrated after the temple was lost. By NT times, however, it had become a pilgrim festival, especially for the Jewish Diaspora. The ritual slaughter of the Passover lamb on the specified date, the 14th of the month then called Nisan, became for Christians the central event associated with the crucifixion of Jesus. This almost certainly had something to do with the early church's interpretation of Isaiah 53 as a messianic prophecy.

These instructions for the festival associate it directly with hasty preparations for the Exodus (vss. 10‑11) as the phrase "the passover of the Lord" indicates. The Hebrew word pesach literally means “passing over” or “sparing.” (In pre-exodus pastoral times could this have been related to the sparing of an imperfect lamb as the one to be sacrificed for the feast?) The origin of that word may have been related to a primitive dance in which the participants skipped or limped at certain intervals. That is precisely what Yahweh did in sparing the first‑born Israelites while slaughtering Egyptian children (vs. 12). The sprinkling of the festive victim's blood on the doorpost may also have had a pre‑exilic animist origin in a custom of slaughtering the animal in the dooryard of the family home, then sprinkling its blood to ward off evil spirits.

However the various elements of the festival may have originated, the family ritual associated with its celebration has lasted for thousands of years. It became the memorial of the historical event which shaped the self‑consciousness of Israel as God's chosen people. Thus, it has become not merely a religious rite, mandated by scripture and still practiced by most Jewish families, but a symbol of Jewish identity even more precious after the Holocaust of the 20th century. It is always celebrated on the date of the first full moon after the spring equinox.

PSALM 116:1-2, 12-19. This song of thanksgiving praises God for an apparent recovery from critical illness that brought the psalmist very close to death. It may have been sung by an individual worshiper making a thank-offering in the presence of a congregation gathered in the temple court.

In Hebrew usage the psalm is one of the six Hallel group (Pss. 113-118) with a long established place in the liturgy of Judaism’s great festivals. In Christian usage, the latter segment has frequently been used as a paraphrased hymn during the celebration of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The Scottish Psalter of 1650 included it as the hymn, “I’ll of salvation take the cup.” It can be sung moderately slowly to either of the traditional tunes Tallis’s Ordinal or St. Paul.

Its use in either form in the Maundy Thursday liturgy is particularly appropriate since it sounds many of the same themes as the epistle and the gospel lessons: love, service, sacrifice and commitment.

I CORINTHIANS 11:23-26. This brief passage is likely the earliest description of the words Jesus may have used when instituting what we now know as the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. It is better known to us in its liturgical use than as an excerpt from a longer section of the letter in which Paul severely castigated the Corinthians for their inappropriate celebration of the supper during congregational gatherings.

Paul said without equivocation that he received his liturgical directions “from the Lord.” As a rabbi of the Pharisees he would have been liturgically sensitive. Rituals would have been important from that point of view. Having been baptized shortly after his conversion (Acts 9:18-19) he would have been admitted to the inner fellowship of the Damascus congregation, including their worship services and their fellowship meals. It is certainly possible that in meditating on their celebration of the Lord’s Supper he had very direct inspiration as to the simple liturgical form by which to sanctify the experience of sharing the bread and the cup. Another similar experience could well have occurred during his first visit with the apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 9:26-28).

It is quite credible too that wherever he went on his missionary journeys he made sure that new congregations were well instructed in rituals appropriate to the new messianic interpretation he proclaimed. One cannot justifiably say, however, that either Paul or the congregations he founded had by this time separated from Judaism or thought of “the Way” of Christ as a new religious tradition. Certainly, they made use of the synagogues to preach the gospel in every city they visited. The liturgy of the Lord’s Supper was one more distinctive element that would have contributed to the ultimate breach of the Jewish community. This would have been especially so wherever Gentiles were admitted to the fellowship meals.

It should be noted that Luke’s version of the liturgy comes closest to that of Paul reflected in this passage. Luke had also been a companion of Paul during part of his Gentile mission (Philemon 24; Colossians 4:14), so we can presume that on many occasions he participated in celebrations led by Paul. On the other hand, if Luke was the author of Acts, it seems strange that there is no mention of the cup being shared in the earliest celebrations of the Christian community in Jerusalem (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7; and possibly 27:35). It would appear that in its earliest manifestations, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper was a formal liturgical part of an ordinary meal.

Paul as well all three Synoptic Gospel author place emphasis on the wine being not simply the symbol of Christ’s shed blood, but “the new covenant in the blood.” This refers to the Passover ritual of sacrificing the unblemished lamb for the great festival of the Exodus. It also reflects Jeremiah’s prophecy of a new covenant written on the hearts of God’s people (Jer. 31:31-33). As R.C. Denton pointed out in his article in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (2.549-550), “in biblical psychology the heart was the central unifying organ of personal life…the innermost spring of individual life, the ultimate source of all its physical, intellectual, emotional and volitional energies, and consequently the part of man through which he normally achieved contact with the divine.” Hence the sharing of the cup symbolizing the blood of the new covenant represents the transference of the spiritual life of Jesus and his relationship with God to those who have covenanted to be his disciples and so participate in his ministry. Indeed it was more than that. It was the spiritual strengthening of the faithful for their mission as Christ’s representatives, his “ambassadors” as in 2 Cor. 5:16-21 in the still unredeemed world.

Note also that for Paul, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper was more than a memorial liturgy. It was proclamation of the Lord’s death (vs. 26) in expectation of his return in glory. Throughout the Pauline corpus, these two elements formed the core of his message. He regarded Jesus’ death on the cross as redemptive and reconciliatory beyond anything he had previously experienced in the Jewish tradition (2 Cor. 5:18; Rom. 1:16-17; 1 Cor. 1:17; Gal. 6:14).

In his Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography, (Doubleday, 2000) Bruce Chilton posits the thesis that the words of institution, “This is my body … this is my blood,” had a special emphasis on the possessive pronoun my. Chilton believes that Jesus would have preferred to make his paschal offering of an unblemished lamb himself as provided in the original mandate where every Israelite had the responsibility of presenting his own sacrificial offering (Exodus 12:1-13:6). In the observances of the Second Temple at the time of Jesus, the liturgical system had been dominated and corrupted by the priesthood. This involved a vast racket of selling only approved unblemished lambs paid for by exclusive coinage of temple shekels. When unable to do as he wished in making his paschal offering, Jesus instituted a new liturgy for his followers based on Jeremiah’s new covenant of the heart using the bread and wine of thanksgiving at a normal evening meal symbolizing the flesh and blood of personal sacrifice with the emphasis on my body (flesh) and my blood. (This view is also discussed in a special online exclusive of the Biblical Archeology Review, Twenty-Four Hours That Changed the World Forever: An Easter Discussion.)

Without doubt this passage provides us with endless opportunities to unwrap the mystery of the sacrament.

JOHN 13:1-17, 31b-35. John’s version of Jesus’ last meal with his disciples is very different from that found in the other gospels. Instead of instituting the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper by sharing bread and wine, symbols of his broken body and shed blood, he performed a ritual of foot washing which some parts of the church still practice as a sacrament. This was done to symbolize both his love for the disciples and the role of servant. The passage provides the opening to the last of the five discourses so characteristic of John’s Gospel (chs. 13-17).

In an article in Bible Review (20:04, August 2004) “The Social Role of Meals in the Greco-Roman World,” Dennis E. Smith wrote: “According to the Gospels, Jesus often engaged in “table talk” or teaching at the dinner table, and, more often than not, made reference to the meal itself and its inherent symbolism as the focus of his lesson.”

Smith made special mention of this passage as a prime example of how Jesus used footwashing as a symbol for servanthood.

A number of years ago I recall a conversation with an elderly parishioner who had been raised in a small congregation of the Brethren in Christ. She told me of having participated as a youth in the rite of foot washing. Many years later she was still deeply impressed by the quiet humility of her elders as they carried out this ancient custom reminiscent of Jesus’ own action.

We should look more deeply into this reading than the simple act of service and Jesus’ words after he had done it. The interplay between Peter and Judas Iscariot also stand out, although the interaction with Judas is not included in this reading. Of course, we are seeing the incident through the eyes of John some 60 years after the event. By that time, Peter has been dead for 30 years and Judas had long since been regarded with disrespect and hatred throughout the church.

As John tells of it, Peter’s reaction to Jesus’ act of humble service was nothing short of soaring pride. He instantly reacted with horror that the master would do such a thing and abruptly refused to have his own feet washed. When Jesus quietly rebuked him by saying that if he did not accept this menial service, he would “have no share with me.” The implication is that to be with Christ in the ministry of service, his disciples must accept the role of servant. At once Peter totally reversed his attitude, asking for his hands and head to be washed as well. To which Jesus returned that all Peter and the other disciples needed was to have their feet washed.

Behind this gentle reply was there another implication? Did John have in mind the baptismal rite which by the end of the 1^st century had become the normal means of entry into the fellowship of the church? All of his audience would have been baptized probably by total immersion, a symbolic washing to mark the new life in Christ into which they had entered. But their baptism was just the beginning of the new life, as if figuratively they had merely put their feet into the water.

After Jesus had returned to the table, as John reported it, Jesus told the disciples what his action meant and set it before them as the example for the ministry to which he was thereby appointing them. This simple act was not mere custom to be followed, but their ordination for their missionary apostolate (vs. 16).

The intervening segment of vss. 18-30 gives the details about Judas’ pending betrayal.

Presumably John, “the one whom Jesus loved,” at Peter’s instigation shared in this dénouément of the one destined to do the foul deed. The passage reflects John’s own point of view which gave rise to much of the hatred and slander toward Judas that in subsequent centuries became synonymous with his name. It should be noted, however, that Jesus both knew what Judas was about to do and actually sent him out to do it (vs. 27). Some modern scholars (Weatherhead, Chilton, etc.) regard this as a form of absolution for Judas who had misunderstood the kind of Messiah Jesus had chosen to be. Attempting to force Jesus’ hand as a traditional Messiah, he had arranged the betrayal so that Jesus would suddenly fulfill Judas’s own messianic vision. John, however, did not see Judas in this light. Rather, he had already identified Judas not only as the treasurer of the little company, but a thief who stole from the common purse (12:4-6).

The conclusion of this reading (vss. 31b-35) form the beginning of the discourse noted above. The “new commandment” (vs. 34) is quoted more frequently than any other part of the reading because it epitomizes so much of what the Christian life is intended to be. This is the means by which the ordinary disciple may glorify God and be glorified – i.e. demonstrating in their daily witness that they actually share in the reconciling and redemptive mission of God in Christ - by loving one another as we have been loved.

-30-