The Last Supper was not the Passover Meal

DHK:
"Why would John lean on Jesus breast at this time?"

GE:
I wouldn't know - would you? Does it prove at all it was the Passover meal? I suppose you have in mind the idea everybody ate while lying down - the way the Jews ate their passover.

Well, I disagree, for more than one reason - very simple in fact:
The Record states they "sat", "at the table", singular - not they lied down each at his own tray(tablet).

The very words involved imply very nearby each other position - not the case with the Passover meal during which space between participants symbolised freedom from Egyptian bondage.

The very words also, more accurately describe, how John by Jesus' suggestion of a traitor amongst them, was physically shaken u"p against Jesus" by surprise or / and offence. It seems John almost dared Jesus to say openly who the traitor was. The text has nothing of the popular view of 'leaning down against', as portrayed in da Vinci's painting.

 

It is interesting still, that the 'bitter sauce' came into use also as a result of tradition. For the original night of Passover in Egypt, the lamb was to be eaten "only / without" anything. ("That night", not even the unleavened bread was yet to be eaten - it was only baked and eaten after the Israelites have left the Egyptian capital -- at Succot.) Later the Hebrew for "only / nothing with", got to mean "bitter"; and still later, to represent "bitter herbs". Rabinical influence made it "gravy" ... with much embellishment. There are today millions of web-sites just for Passover foods. The Kingdom of God for the Jews have truly become "food and drink" (already in Paul's day).

 

DHK:
"The time spent in that room was not idle room. Bread eaten was not eaten without purpose. ..."

GE:
Not to be denied! What was that purpose? Not to remember the exodus from Egypt any longer; but to "prepare for passover" of the Christ Himself! It says so! Then Jesus instituted His own Feast of Memory for His New People ... to prepare for receiving the passover of the Christ ... as a spiritual means in the strengthening of faith and hope. Until He - "our Passover" comes, and we shall sit in the Kingdom and feast with Him and He with us in person.

DHK:
"Surely it was the unleavened bread of the Passover Meal that he celebrated with his disciples. There is no reason not to believe otherwise."

GE:
There are the above and many more reason to believe otherwise. Why should it be the Jews' passover?

 

DHK quoted:
"From Vincent Word Studies
From Vincent Word Studies

Quote:
Dipped the sop
Compare Mat_26:23; Mar_14:20. The regular sop of the Paschal supper consisted of the following things wrapped together: flesh of the Paschal lamb, a piece of unleavened bread, and bitter herbs. The sauce into which it was dipped does not belong to the original institution, but had been introduced before the days of Christ. According to one authority it consisted of only vinegar and water (compare Rth_2:14); others describe it as a mixture of vinegar, figs, dates, almonds, and spice. The flour which was used to thicken the sauce on ordinary occasions was forbidden at the Passover by the Rabbins, lest it might occasion a slight fermentation. According to some, the sauce was beaten up to the consistence of mortar, in order to commemorate the toils of the Israelites in laying bricks in Egypt.


GE:
True, but pointless for our discussion.

 

Eliyahu:
"Even though the official Days of Unleavened Bread started from next day,"

GE:
The "official Days of Unleavened Bread", yes; they would indeed start "from the next day"; but the 'official' days of Passover-Season had already begun WITH this very day upon which the Last Supper mark the beginning of the Gospel-era -- with its evening-part after sunset. It was the day namely of "The Preparation of Passover" - John - defined in the Gospels of Luke, Mark and Matthew, as "the day upon which they always killed the Passover"; "the day they HAD TO slay the passover" --- "the FIRST day, of 'adzumos' - removal of leaven". This was the last day leavened bread was still eaten - only with its first meal - the evening meal. Afterwards all leaven had to be "put away". In the morning a bon-fire was made of the removed leaven. In the middle of the following night the Passover was eaten --- the night of Nisan 15.

 

Eliyahu:
"Apostle John was Essene"

GE:
John wasn't an Essene; he was Jesus' own beloved disciple, and Jesus followed no sect, but was the Author and Finisher of our Faith" - the Christian faith. I really take personal offence at this hackneyed presumption. People think they ar very clever and look well informed if they show their preferences for this trite, but they only parade their ignorance, base disbelief and low esteem of Jesus the Son of God.

 

Eliyahu:
"people celebrated Passover 1 day earlier, without the lambs, but with Unleavened Bread, and ate the Passover Lamb next day."

GE:
Yes, some believe like this if one may call it believe. Some Churches of God - or thereabouts - also believe so. They pride themselves of being well-informed, but know nothing. They know nothing because they obtained no knowledge of this from the Bible, for sure! I deal with these suppositions in my page; but shall not here - it will be too useless.

 

GE

I can now (at this stage) return to your post, BobRyan; and if you have any intelligence, you must see how fruitless any further elaboration will be.

 

LeBuick:
"Christ was slain on the day the passover lamb would be slain in preperation for the feast. Remember, they did no "work" on the sabbath which was Saturday."

GE:
Christ was slain on the day the passover lamb would be slain in preperation for the feast -- Correct!

LeBuick:
"Remember, they did no "work" on the sabbath which was Saturday."

GE:
Two wrong premises:
One, "they did no "work" on the sabbath"
Truth is - or was - 'they' - the OT believers - only were forbidden "menial work" - hard, physical labour, or secular, planned, profit-gaining enterprize on 'religious', festival-'sabbaths'. In fact they were commanded the execution of definite religious tasks and commitments on these 'sabbath'-days -- like offerings, and then also things like caring for the sick, a burial that could not be postponed for certain reasons, like climate, or a Sabbath pending.

In this Passover's case, Jesus was buried upon the Passover-Sabbath -- which happened to be (by God's determination) "the Before-Sabbath", or "the Preparation (day)" for the weekly Sabbath --- which was a Friday. All the Gospels leave no doubt about it.

Two, It was NOT, "Saturday".

 

John 18:28 and John 13:29 --- The Last Supper was not the Passover meal!

Discussion of the above and other objections to follow; herewith some extracts for the subject of this thread


Sequence and Number

Mark 14:18 and Matthew 26:21 state that Jesus handed “the (one) cup” to the disciples after the Meal had started, while the kiddush over the first cup of wine, introduced the Passover Meal. No suggestion, in any case, exists in any of the Gospel records of the Supper of the Lord, to conclude that the cup was filled more than once. The supposition of more than one time’s use of wine at the Last Supper is untenable. The significance the wine receives from the death of Christ once for all means that it should be taken only once. According to Luke 22:17 Jesus first handed the flask over to the disciples for them to divide it among themselves. He meanwhile continued with breaking the bread, and after eating of the bread, returned to the wine. Mark and Matthew don’t mention the distribution of the wine, but refer to the drinking of it, once only, after the bread.
An interval between the filling and the drinking as with the Jewish Passover Seder is also not to be found in the Last Supper. Paul says that the participants in the Lord’s Supper should wait on each other, meaning they should all drink together and once only. Paul has no interval between filling of the cups and drinking it in mind.

“These verses (of John 13) show us what glory the crucifixion brought both to God the Father and to God the Son. It seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that this was what our Lord had in mind … An event is about to take place to-morrow, which, however painful … is in reality most glorifying …”. JC Ryle


the ‘Apostolic Constitutions’. (Book 7 Chapter 23, “on the fourth day (Wednesday) the condemnation went out against the Lord, Judas then promising to betray him for money.”) (This reference came to my knowledge at least a decade after having finished LD.) Using “lanterns”, indicates that “it was night” Jn.13:30 still, when Judas returned to have Jesus arrested. It was not any other night. Because this is the night of Jesus’ arrest, John must have had the same meal in mind as the Synoptists who also record about the evening of the night Jesus was arrested.


5.1.1.7.1.2.

Synoptists Don’t Speak of Passover Meal

The meal of John 13:1 is taken for the meal at Simon’s house “two days before Passover Feast” and a full day before the Sacrifice would be slaughtered. Scholars try to explain that the “supper” of John 13:1 could not have been the same meal mentioned by the Synoptists for no reason but that they, assume, the Synoptists speak of the Passover Meal! The Last Supper mentioned by the Synoptists occurred before the Passover sacrifice was offered – which could not have been eaten yet. ​

​

​

​

​

 

Not Eaten Before Sacrificed on the fourth day(Wednesday)the condemnation went out against the Lord. Judas then promising to betray him for money
Was the Passover Meal eaten on the night of “The Last Supper”? Or was it another meal of Jewish Tradition? Scholars disagree. Their doubt enveloping the question is noticeable in the circumscription, “Last Supper” (“Last Night Meal” in Afrikaans). It is not a description from Scripture for this occasion. Commentators use it to avoid the issue of whether the “Last Supper” was the Passover Feast Meal.
Commentators have a problem with the date of the Last Supper: While John places the Last Supper on the 14th of the month (Nisan), on the “Preparation of Passover”, the Synoptists allegedly place it on the 15th, translated: “the first day of the feast of unleavened bread”. They find the same “contradiction” within Mark’s single reference (14:12) where, as they explain it, “tei protei hemerai ton adzumon “on the first day of unleavened bread”, naturally indicates the 15th Nisan, and, hote to pascha ethuon, “when they killed the passover”, clearly indicates the 14th Nisan”. Bacchiocchi (Emphasis CGE)
With “Passover” is meant: The Old Testament sacrifice for Passover; the “Preparation of Passover”: Jn.19:14,or “day-for-removal-of-yeast” – 14 Nisan. The Passover “Feast”-Day. The Passover Meal: Mk.14:12, Lk.22:7, Mk.14:1, Lk.2:41, Jn.2:23 – 15 Nisan. The Passover of the “Sheaf of First Fruits Wave Offering” – 16 Nisan (the first day of fifty to Pentecost). The Seven Days of “Unleavened Bread” Feast: Lk.22:1. That means, with “Passover” is meant any part of, or, the whole of “Passover”, and, any part of, or, the whole of the “Feast of Unleavened Bread”. “Passover” encompasses what is meant when it is said: “Observe the month of Abib and keep the Passover”, Dt.16:1.
Ryle could not have thought of these distinctions when he said: “The Lamb of God was slain at this feast, in spite of the priests, who said, Not on the feast day.” (Emphasis CGE)
Although not crucified on the “official” Feast Day, Jesus was in fact crucified during or on the “official” “Passover Season” or Passover period. He was crucified “on the day of Passover meant for slaughter”, which was not the 15th but the 14th of the month Nisan, “the day of removal of yeast”. This confirms Ryle’s remark: “Let us remember that one of the few dates we know for certain of the events in our Lord’s life, is the time of his crucifixion. Of the time of his birth and baptism we know nothing. But that He died at Passover, we may be quite sure. Let us note that our Lordknew perfectly beforehand when and how He should suffer. This, whatever we may think, is a great addition to suffering. Our ignorance of things before us is a great blessing. Our Lord saw the cross clearly before Him, and walked straight up to it. His death was not a surprise to Him, but a voluntary, foreknowing thing.” (Emphasis CGE. To understand the nature and purpose of the Last Supper, these comments should be kept in mind.)
As Jesus had taken upon himself our flesh and our human nature and had made it his own so He took upon himself our earthly time and made it his own. (See Part Three of Part Three, Karl Barth.) Jesus “foreknew” the Passover Season. He, determined its dates and He, brought its “times” to “fulness”. The 14th Nisan: “Preparation of Passover” (John). Hote to pascha ethuon, “when they killed the passover”, tehi prohtehi hehmerai tohn adzumohn, “on the First Day of Removing of Leaven” (Mark, Luke and Matthew). This “First First Day” / “The Very First Day” / “Already the First Day” (Old Testament) is distinguished from the 15th Nisan or “The Passover / Passover Feast / Passover Meal”, and the “Feast Meal / Feast Days of Unleavened Bread”. This distinction is attributable to the primitive date of Passover that prescribed removing of leaven and preparing of unleavened dough, and the preparation for and the slaughter of the sacrifice – before sunset. The baking of unleavened bread and its eating and the roasting and eating of the meat came after sunset. All things both before and after sunset, institutionally, at first happened on the fourteenth Nisan. The day used to be reckoned from sunrise. This reckoning later changed to a sunset observance. Now the “Feast”, or, “Eat”-ceremony fell on the evening of the fifteenth Nisan, that is, during the beginning of the fifteenth of Nisan and no longer during about its middle. (Thus any distinction between the reckoning of ceremonial sabbaths and the weekly Sabbath, disappeared, the weekly Sabbath being reckoned from sunset to sunset from creation.)
“Preparation”, “Feast (Meal / Day)”, as well as the seven days of Unleavened Bread, are all considered “Passover”, which explains Josephus’ statement that the Feast of Unleavened Bread was an eight days feast. Antiquities of the Jews 2, 15, 7, in TRC p.75c The overall concept of an eight day period must have underlain the explanation in Deuteronomy 16:8: “Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh day (that thou eatest unleavened bread) shall be a solemn assembly”. The day of A-dzumos as such when leaven used to be searched out and removed (by hiding it), in every household and throughout the entire land, is intentionally left out of reckoning, which, if taken into account, would have made it an eight day period. That is why Mark and Luke define the “First Day of Removing of Leaven” as “the day on which the passover (lamb) had to be sacrificed”. With “First Day of A-dzumos”they mean, “First Day of Passover”. They see the whole period as one.
In Mark and Matthew, however, also a contextual association exists between the ordinal, “First Day”, and the “Two days (before Passover)”. Two days before Passover, the Jews conspired to kill Jesus, only, “not on the Feast” Day itself! So this “First Day of De-leaven” was the day after the Jews decided to kill Jesus; it was the second in time-sequence of the two days before Passover. Mt.26 and Mk.14 Counting backwards, it will be the first day before Passover Feast, that is, the first day of the entire paschal period (of eight days), the day of “Preparation of Passover”.

 

Washing of Feet Before Meal?

The only reason Ryle mentions for his categorical conclusion that the Last Supper is not mentioned by John, is that “It seems highly improbable that the washing of the disciples’ feet would take place after the Lord’s Supper.” Washing of feet normally came before meal.
But why associate washing of feet with Passover? Washing of feet (like the use of unfermented wine) was introduced to the Passover meal long after the Feast had been institutionalised during “Mosaic” times. The washing of feet is no Old Testament institutional element of the Passover Feast Meal.
And why consider washing of feet improbable to come after the meal on the occasion of the Last Supper? Ryle maintains his own opinion about the meaning of the washing of feet: “The actions here described (Jesus’, washing the disciples’ feet) would not seem nearly so strange to the disciples as they do to us. They were simply the courteous actions of a host who desired to show the utmost degree of hospitable attention to the guests. Thus Abraham washed the feet of the three angelic messengers.”
The order of washing after the meal during the Last Supper is out of the ordinary – which is in line with everything else with regard to this occasion. From its inception in the mind of the disciples to their finding the room furnished and the table laid, the Last Supper was inexplicable. That the guest – Jesus – would wash the feet of the host – the disciples, is extraordinary. (Jesus was not host as Ryle maintains.) The meal was prepared for Jesus – not for the disciples. The owner of the room also had everything ready for his Guest – Jesus. That the “actions” should be so “minutely” recorded (Ryle’s observation) of a “simply” familiar and no “strange” action, implies more than just courtesy. “The minuteness with which every action of our Lord is related here is very striking. No less than seven distinct things are named, – rising, laying aside garments, taking a towel, girding Himself, pouring water into a bason, washing and wiping. This very particularity stamps the whole transaction with reality, and is the natural language of an astonished and admiring eye-witness.”
That Jesus elaborated on the deeper meaning of what he did, makes the washing of feet a most peculiar element of the Last Supper. Despite it being served after meal, the washing of feet should not be seen as something that could impossibly have occurred at the Last Supper, and that John and the Synoptists who do not mention the washing of feet must speak of different meals.

5.1.1.7.1.3.​

Purpose of Last Supper

The purpose of the Last Supper of Jesus and his disciples, was to prepare: “to be able to”, “to beallowed”, to eat the Passover: “That they might eat the Passover”:
Mt.26:17: “That we prepare for thee to eat the passover”, hetoimasohmen soi faghein to pascha. Mk.14:12: “We may prepare that thou mayest eat”, hetoimasohmen hina fagheis. Lk.22:9: “That we may prepare”, hetoimasohmen; “that we may eat”, hina faghohmen. Mt.26:18: “I prepare for Passover”, poioh to pascha. Mk.14:14, Lk.22:11: “Where I may eat the Passover”, hopou to pascha faghoh. Mk.14:15: “Make ready for us”, hetoimasate hehmin. Lk.22:8, 12: “Prepare us the Passover”, hetoimasate hehmin to pascha. “There prepare ye”, ekei hetoimasate. Mk.14:16, Mt.26:19, Lk.22:13: “They prepared the Passover”, hetoimasan to pascha = “They prepared for Passover”. This was an event of the “Preparation of Passover” – John.
Reference to the Passover is not made in the indicative as if the sacrifice had actually been eaten, but in the subjunctive: that the Passover might be eaten, or, with the infinitive: with the resolve to eat the Passover. To “prepare” fulfils the purpose of intention. Not the Passover as such will be on the “table made ready”, but this table will make ready “for Passover”. Jesus and his disciples had their Passover Preparation Meal. It wasn’t any Jewish traditional meal, but that of the Christ and his disciples. As it at first prepared for the Sacrifice of Passover it forever afterwards will be the Lord’s Supper to also prepare his Church in faith and perseverance to the end.
The accusative, to pascha is used adverbially and with the meaning “for Passover”. Greek uses the accusative, where, for instance, English, would have used a dative, and it has the verb transitive while the sense is intransitive: “Prepare the Passover” = “Prepare for Passover”. The accusative in this case points to the eventual purpose of the action – to prepare in order to be able to eat Passover / to prepare toward Passover. In Jesus’ case in order to be able to be Passover.
The disciples seemingly initiate the idea to prepare Passover for Jesus. But Providence determines their every action. They act as host for Jesus. Preparation is made for Jesus’ sake. Even where the text says, “Prepare ye for us”, Lk.22:8,12 the meaning implied, is, “for Jesus”. Jesus, as the one of authority, explains to the disciples, his underlings, how He wants things to be done for Himself, using the plural in lieu of the singular. This is a common way to express a command. The disciples then were not sent to cook the meat of sacrifice, and they eventually did not “sit down” to eat the Passover meal that included unleavened bread. They went to prepare what would enable Jesus for the imminent Passover of which He would Himself be the Lamb of Sacrifice – “for us”.

 

Jesus does not actually eat the Passover, nor does He eat of whatever ceremonial meal. “I have greatly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, but I tell you, I will by no means eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves … And He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, this is my body which is given for you: Do this in remembrance of me.” Lk.22:14-20 The reason why Jesus does not eat is obvious: His own body was to be “eaten” as the Passover Sacrifice.
In Mk.14:18, The phrase, “One of you which eateth with me”, has no connection with the meal at issue. If applicable to the situation as it was, the plural would have been used: One of you all who eat with me. But the singular occurs: “One of you (all) will betray me, the one who eats, with me.” The expression is used figuratively for: “One in whom I confide” / “The one I trusted”.
Luke has a variant: “The hand of him that betrayeth me is on the table with me”. 22:21 The betrayer and Christ walked and ate together. The betrayer was trusted – he was even trusted with the purse.
Similarly the phrase “One that with me dips in the (one) bowl”, is not meant literally but figuratively. If used literally, all of the twelve would have been insinuated to be traitors.
But being said metaphorically, it means, “The one in your midst who respects me not”. And there was only the one who did not care for Jesus – in a manner of speaking, he would “poke his hand in the dish” even while Jesus’ hand went in.
Jesus used figurative speech not only where he refers to the bread and wine as his flesh and blood, but in these indications of the inmost thoughts of his betrayer.
Jesus knows of Judas’ secret disdain, Jn.13:11 but reacts to it in a most unselfish way: He takes a morsel and offers it to Judas. Jn.13:26 He still pleads with him without using words. Jesus didn’t split on Judas. Judas’ question – that of every one else – : “Is it I perhaps?” Mk.14:19 is answered by Jesus with: “You said (it – not I)!” Mt.26:25 Even after Judas left, the disciples did not know who the traitor would be. They thought Judas was going to “buy something before the Feast”. Jn.13:29 They fostered no ill feelings toward Judas, thinking he was going to buy the poor something! If the expressions referred to above were to be interpreted literally the disciples would have interpreted them literally and would have known about Judas. But they did not know, and therefore the expressions had figurative meaning that kept the disciples wondering. Consequently it cannot be adduced from these expressions that Jesus did eat of the meal, and that it was the Passover Meal which He sent the disciples to prepare for Him to eat.
According to Jn.13:26, John asked Jesus who would betray him, and“They found a room as He had instructed them and performed all preliminaries. All was in readiness …”. “Here, on the eve of His death, (Jesus) showed them the full meaning and symbolism of the Passover memorial.”
Had it been Passover’s “meaning and symbolism” Jesus were to show his disciples, He would have taken meat and unleavened bread; not leavened bread and wine. Passover’s “full meaning and symbolism” Jesus showed on the cross, not in the upper room. He would show the meaning of the symbolism of the Passover “memorial” by fulfilling it in his own body on the cross. With the Last Supper, Jesus showed his disciples the meaning of His death, with the New Symbols of the Christian sacrament. The redemption wrought in Christ was given the new “memorial” of the Last Supper: “Do this in remembrance of Me”.
Where Jesus says: “That I may eat the Passover”, his intention is prophetic. He prospectively offers the sacrifice and empties the cup of suffering in his own body. That Jesus would be the Passover Sacrifice for which the disciples went to prepare, explains the greater meaning the “eating” of this Passover would have had.

 

Similarities or Differences?

5.1.1.7.2.1.​

Abstract Assimilation

“The Passover Haggadah mentions four traditional questions: Why is this night different from all other nights? On all other nights we can eat bread or matzo (unleavened bread). Why, tonight, only matzo?; On all other nights, we can eat any kind of herbs. Why, tonight, bitter herbs?; On all other nights we don’t dip herbs we eat into anything, Why, tonight, do we dip twice?; On all other nights we can eat either sitting up straight or reclining. Why, tonight, do we all recline?” From Christ in the Passover, C & M Rosen, Moody Press, p.77 (Emphasis CGE)
The Rosens cite various Gospel passages under different headings of “The Ancient Seder” “of the Passover service”. Lk.22:17-18 is sorted under the heading of “The Kiddush”; Jn.13:4-5 under the heading of “The First Washing of Hands”; Jn.13:26-27 under the heading of “Broken Pieces of Bread Dipped in Bitter Herbs and Charoseth and Handed to All” (“The Paschal meal eaten; hands washed a third time; third cup poured”); 1 Cor.11:23-24 is sorted under the heading of “Blessing After Meals”; 1 Cor.11:25 under the heading of “Blessing Over Third Cup” (“Third cup taken; second part of Hallel recited; fourth cup poured and taken.”); Mt.26:30 is sorted under the heading of “Closing Song”.
This arrangement is artificial and incoherent, and meaninglessly fragments the narration of the Last Supper. The assortment and combination of the various elements from the Seder and the Supper rather underscore their un-relatedness. According to these distinctive practices of the Jewish Passover Seder, no particularity of the Last Supper qualifies it as the Passover Meal.
Nothing “necessitates the conclusion that the Markan tradition was mistaken in supposing that the Supper was the Passover Meal”. “In 15:1 f., 12-16, it should be noted, it is clear that Mark means the Passover Meal” … by no means! V. Taylor Mk.14:16 See Par.5.2.2.

5.1.1.7.2.2.​

The Meal and Food

The meal is described in John and Paul with the term for a normal, ordinary meal: deipnon – not “Passover” or “Feast”. Here is the meal that eventually was eaten by the disciples, intended to “prepare for Passover” – not the Passover itself. This meal equipped and enabled Jesus to take what was in store for him on the day the Passover was killed. This supplied the reason for Paul to describe the Last Supper with its true designation: “Lord’s Supper”.
No indication exists that meat, the flesh of the Passover sacrifice – which was central to the Passover Meal – formed part of the Last Supper. In the Synoptics and 1Cor.10:17 the “bread” used with the Lord’s Supper was ordinary, daily, leavened bread: artos. Mk.14:22 It was not adzumos, unleavened, that is, Passover bread. In John no hint is given that the “morsel”, fohmion, Jn.13:27 of the “sop”, also fohmion – “food” – was unleavened bread; Definitely it was not dipped twice as with Passover meal – or, for that matter, “dipped” at all. The “sop” was the “supper”, just bread, served in a bowl, and that bowl is indicated with the word “sop”, or, simply, the “food”. The meaning of Jesus, “dipping” into the “sop”, means no more than that He “took”, “bread”. Jesus handed the disciples of what the supper in the bowl consisted of, and that only, was in the bowl into which he stretched out his hand and took of.
“It was during the ceremony of dipping the second sop into the bitter herbs …”. There is not even a suggestion of a sauce into which bread was dipped. Nothing indicates or implies the presence of bitter herbs, or other herbs, on this table. The traditional impression of the prominence of these substances in the Last Supper is ascribable to paraphrasing translations of the uncomplicated word fohmion. The Supper of the Lord of Christianity is extremely simple, and the pomp of the Jewish Passover Seder is completely foreign to it.