With this framework in our minds (with the order of the cups and the Hallel psalms carefully noted) we are now ready to examine the biblical account of the Passover in the synoptic gospels.

 

​

The Gospel Description of the Last Supper

 

In reading the gospel description of the Last Supper in the upper room, a few things stand out.  As noted earlier, it is the only occasion on record in the gospels in which Jesus uses the word “covenant”.  This is perhaps the most important term in Hebrew religious life, and yet, Jesus reserved that word for one occasion — when he held up the cup, and He spoke of the New Covenant that would be instituted in his own blood.  It would be through his flesh and blood that a New Covenant would be established and applied:

 

And as they were eating, he took some bread, and when he had said the blessing he broke it and gave it to them.  “Take it” he said, "this is my body”.  Then he took a cup, and when he had returned thanks, he gave it to them, and all drank from it, and he said to them, “This is my blood, the blood of the new covenant, which is to be poured out for many” (Mark 14:22-24).

 

Christ’s primary purpose is to establish a new covenant through the shedding of His own body and blood as the eternal Passover Lamb.  In reflecting upon this mission, many have been puzzled by the fact that Jesus, as He hung on the cross, did not say “This is my blood, the blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many”.  It seems eminently logical that this would be the perfect time to draw our full attention to the magnitude and full purpose of His passion and crucifixion.  Instead, scripture records these words coming from the lips of our Lord during the Passover liturgy.  This should make us sit-up and listen — it is undeniable that something of vital importance is going on here in the upper room.

 

In verse 25 Jesus continues by declaring:

 

"Amen, I say unto you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it new in the kingdom of God." (Mark 14:25).

 

This is followed by a phrase that generally does not stand out as being very significant, however it is most definitely a key verse for Catholics:

 

And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives (Mark 14:26).

 

Why is Mark 14:26 so important?  It doesn’t appear to be saying very much at all.  That might be true—unless you are a Jew who is steeped in the methodology of the Passover.  For centuries Jewish scholars have ardently pointed out that Mark 14:26 reveals (in their opinion) that Jesus mangled the ancient Jewish liturgy.  Why do these scholars believe they have found the Achilles heel that exposes Jesus as being a fraud, or at least incompetent?  For the reason that scripture records that Jesus and the apostles “sung a hymn” and then immediately “went out to the Mount of Olives”.  Both Jewish and Christian scholars are unanimous in acknowledging that the “hymn” is a reference to the great Hallel psalms — the great Passover hymn that leads to the consummation of the Passover feast.  Moreover, the whole point of that hymn is to prepare the participants for the climax of the seder which is expressed by drinking the fourth cup and pronouncing the words of consummation.  Yet here the biblical account of the Passover meal is completely silent — no mention is made of the fourth cup or the consummation.  Instead, we are told that “when they had sung a hymn they went out to the Mount of Olives”.  Jewish apologists have consistently reported that it is an incompetent bungle to leave out the fourth cup and thus skip over the consummation of the entire Passover celebration.  The fact that the New Testament narrates the movements of the apostles as moving from the Hallel psalm directly to the mount of olives has been problematic in the dialogue between Jews and Christians to say the least.  

 

Did Jesus just forget about the Passover Liturgy?  Did He just forget about the fourth cup?  Jewish theologians might think so; however, many Catholic scholars believe Jesus did it deliberately — Jesus’ early departure prior to drinking the fourth cup effectively leaves the Passover celebration incomplete.  This is very significant.

 

As we follow Jesus to the garden of Gethsemane, we soon see Him praying to the Father with great sorrow.  His prayer is very noteworthy:

 

"Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me: but not what I will, but what thou wilt” (Mark 14:36).

 

Why does Jesus refer to his suffering and death as a cup?  Careful Catholic scholars see a connection here between the interrupted Passover liturgy and this anguished prayer of our Lord in the garden.  The possibility of Jesus deliberately leaving the Passover meal before receiving the fourth cup has just gained some credibility.  Although there are still more pieces to this puzzle, still more to uncover.  This cup that Jesus refers to is still yet to be administered.  

 

As we follow Christ through the various steps of His passion, we see him tried, flogged, beaten for hours, crushed by the cross, stripped of His clothes and crucified.  The apostle John who has always depicted Jesus as the “Passover Lamb” (John 1:29) records the seven last sayings of Christ.  It is extremely difficult to breath and agonizing to speak, yet despite this Jesus utters seven important phrases from the cross — two of which weigh heavily on all that we are studying.  The first is John 19:28:   Afterwards Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said: “I thirst” (John 19:28).

 

On the surface it may appear that Jesus just needs a drink, however that surface level interpretation has little to do with fulfilling scripture.  In his presentation on the Passover, Professor Hahn describes the matter this way:

 

Was this the first moment at which Jesus was experiencing thirst?  Seconds before his death, is he just noticing: Boy, I could really use a drink!  No of course not.  That would be to trivialize the matter.  There is no question about the fact that for hours and hours this man was desiring a drink and a whole lot more than just a drink for relief.  His body was racked with pain, it's an agonizing death, but he still has presence of mind.  And, in order to fulfil the scripture, he said: "I thirst."

 

Just by coincidence, there happens to be some sour wine sitting at the foot of the cross.  This vinegar-like substance was the cheap sour wine that was ordinarily consumed by the Roman guards.  A man, hearing Jesus’ request, puts a sponge full of sour wine on a hyssop branch and holds it up to Christ’s mouth.[5]

 

Jesus receives the sour wine and then lifts Himself up to announce one more agonizing word before He dies.  This final word of Jesus is the key that unlocks the reason for Christ’s early departure from the Passover in the upper room:

 

When Jesus, therefore, had received the sour wine, he said; “It is finished”. (John 19:30).

 

Words that were normally spoken over the fourth cup in the Jewish Passover meal are now spoken by Christ as He receives this wine upon the cross.  “It is finished” and bowing his head he gave up his spirit (John 19:30).  Careful Catholic scholars have noted that contextually this important phrase refers us to the completion of the Passover meal.  The FOURTH CUP (the cup of consummation) was not drunk in the upper room, but upon the cross.  As Professor Hahn has indicated:

 

The reason Jesus does this is to show us that the Passover sacrifice of the Lamb of God begins not at the foot of Calvary, but in the upper room with the establishment of the New Covenant when he says: "Take ye and eat: This is my body", “Drink ye all of this: For this is my blood of the new covenant." [6]

 

Christ purposely leaves the Passover meal and thus delays its consummation until He finally drinks the fourth cup upon the cross.  In continuity with the Jewish Passover heritage, the divinely established liturgical rite and the “liberation event” it celebrates are ONE EVENT.  Jesus did not come to do away with the Law and the prophets but to fulfill them.  The Passover liturgy is the bud which He has now transformed into the full flower.  Where the Passover would offer Yahweh an unblemished lamb, Christ has now installed His own Body and Blood as the true and perfect Passover Lamb.  Where the Passover liturgy enabled Jewish people to escape the confines of time and return to Egypt, likewise the celebration of the New Covenant Passover Eucharist (firmly established by Christ in the upper room) now enables God’s people to return to Jerusalem to be direct witnesses of the crucifixion.  The two are ONE EVENT.  Jesus deliberately overlaps the Passover with his death on the cross to make evident that there is a bond of unity between what He is doing in the upper room in instituting the Eucharist and what he is doing upon the cross on Calvary.  Jesus overlaps the Lord’s Supper with the crucifixion in order to confirm that the two are of one piece.

 

All of this validates the Catholic claim that Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross and the sacrifice of the Eucharist in Mass are one single sacrifice.  In conceiving the Eucharist as the actual body and blood of Christ — the New Covenant Passover Lamb — we very quickly begin to understand that the Eucharistic liturgy of the Mass is nothing less than the ongoing continuation of Christ's Passover Sacrifice.

 

Protestant people are quite right to affirm the uniqueness of Christ’s sacrifice; however, it must likewise be affirmed that the Catholic Church also holds to this same Christian doctrine.  The Holy Mass does not compete with Calvary but simply brings it to people in every age.  Thomas Howard puts the matter this way:

 

The ancient Church teaches that in the act of worship we enter into the mystery of Christ’s own self-offering at the cross, which He opened up to His disciples at the Last Supper, and which He inaugurated as the pattern for Christ’s worship for as long as history lasts.

…most Protestants would find it odd to hear someone referring to their Sunday morning activity as “the holy mysteries”. …The term is apt when speaking of Catholic and Orthodox worship, since these ancient and apostolic churches understand that the liturgy is an enactment. …Catholics and Orthodox do not speak of “a beautiful worship experience”.  They understand themselves to be gathering to do something, not primarily to experience something; they are a congregation, not an audience. …Hence, Catholics do not see their coming together for worship as a “meeting”, with the principle feature being the sermon.  Rather, they believe they have come, in a mystery, to the frontier that lies between the seen and the unseen, or between heaven and earth—as we all do when we pray, for example.  No Christian wall balk at the notion that he is, at one and the same time, kneeling beside his bed and also standing before the Throne of Grace.  Faith is full of paradoxes like this, which appear to outsiders to be contradictions and hence nonsense but to believers to be mysteries.[7]

 

With the above information assimilated, one can begin to see how some non-Catholic author’s comments demonstrate clear and profound misconceptions regarding the Catholic Mass.  With the explanatory and biblical background already covered, these misconceptions can now be answered in a pithy fashion:

 

“The simple act which Jesus said to do in remembrance of Him has become the continual crucifixion of Christ. … In fact, the Mass, the 'unbloody sacrifice,' is performed over a hundred thousand times a day around the world!  It is designed to offer up over and over again that same sacrifice of Christ”. [Dr. Ron Carlson & Ed Decker, Fast Facts on False Teachings, Roman Catholicism, p. 229, (1994), Harvest House Publishers]

 

No. The Mass does not offer Christ’s sacrifice “over and over again”, it simply takes God’s people back to the original “once for all” sacrifice of Christ enabling full communion with that event.  Re-sacrificing Jesus is as repugnant to Catholics as it is to Protestants.  We must also remember that the word “remembrance” is the English translation from the original “anamnesis” which signifies not a mere remembering or a past event, but rather a remembering that is a making present.

 

Carlson and Decker continue:

 

“In Catholicism, salvation is claimed through taking the sacrament of the Mass.  This claim denies the all sufficiency of Christ, His atonement and death on the cross as a once-for all, completed act” [Dr. Ron Carlson & Ed Decker, Fast Facts on False Teachings, Roman Catholicism, p. 229, (1994), Harvest House Publishers].

 

No. Catholicism claims that salvation is obtained by grace through a living faith that works in love.  The faith of Catholics is directed to the atoning death of Christ but does not end there.  The atoning death of Christ is also applied and experienced through the Mass, just as Jews would apply and experience the Exodus through the Passover liturgy.  The Mass certainly does not deny the all-sufficiency of the crucifixion as a completed act but simply brings the real cross through to the people and enables them to be one with this act of redemption.

 

More standard pushback includes:

 

“When Christ died once for all time He cried out, ‘It is finished!’  And he stamped ‘Paid in Full’ on our debt. … There is nothing more you can add to your salvation”. [Dr. Ron Carlson & Ed Decker, Fast Facts on False Teachings, Roman Catholicism, p. 230, (1994), Harvest House Publishers]

 

Again, Catholicism has consistently taught that the crucifixion is a completed finished event.  Christ has died “once for all” and has accomplished an objective redemption for every human being.  The Mass does not add anything to Christ’s saving act but simply brings people in every century to that saving act.  Moreover, as we have seen, it can be a very superficial examination of scripture to denote Christ’s words from the cross (“it is finished”) as a reference to the completion of redemption.  With the resurrection still yet to take place this interpretation loses its certainty or at least becomes a rather odd assumption to St. Paul who clearly views the resurrection itself as part of Christ’s redemptive action (see 1 Corinthians 15:17).  

 

​

The Second Part of Sacrifice… the Mass as true communion with Jesus

 

There are still more essential truths to unpack if we are to possess an appreciation for the Catholic Mass.  As already noted, the Bible shows us that there are two distinct parts to sacrifice.  The first part is defined by the slaughter and ceremonial burning of the victim upon the altar, and the second part is where the victim is eaten.  God desires communion with His people, and in the ancient Jewish world this was achieved by eating the victim in a sacrificial family meal.  This theme also bears directly upon the Catholic Mass since — both slaying the victim and eating the victim are directly stipulated by Yahweh for a successful completion of the Jewish Passover.

 

If the Passover is an early anticipation of the Mass—this dimension with reference to the “communion meal” must also be understood.  God institutes the Passover sacrifice in Exodus 12 and by keeping the Passover requirements the Israelite firstborns are protected from the tenth plague in Egypt.  God outlines the Passover to Moses and Aaron in the following way:

 

...each man must take an animal from the flock, one for each family: one animal for each household.  If the household is too small to eat the animal, a man must join with his neighbour, the nearest to his house, as the number of persons requires.  You must take into account what each can eat in deciding the number for the animal.  It must be an animal without blemish, a male one year old; you may take it from either sheep or goats. ...the whole assembly of the community of Israel shall slaughter it. …Some of the blood must be taken and put on the two door posts and the lintel of the houses where it is eaten.  That night, the flesh is to be eaten, roasted over the fire, it must be eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.  ...whatever is left till morning you are to burn. …You shall eat it hastily: it is a Passover in honour of Yahweh (Exodus 12:3-4, 6-8, 10-11).

 

That night, I will go through the land of Egypt and strike down all the first born in the land of Egypt, man and beast alike, and I shall deal out punishment to all the gods of Egypt, I am Yahweh!  The blood shall serve to mark the houses that you live in.  When I see the blood, I will pass over you and you shall escape the destroying plague when I strike the land of Egypt.  And this day shall be a memorial to you; and you shall keep it a feast to the Lord in your generations, with an everlasting observance. (Exodus 12:12-14)

 

We can see clearly that God commanded his people to:

​

(1) Sacrifice an unblemished lamb.

​

(2) Sprinkle the blood upon their door posts.

​

(3) Eat the lamb; and

​

(4) Burn what was left over.

 

Only when these requirements had been fulfilled could the Israelites go to sleep that night with the assurance that they could wake up the following morning with their first-born still alive.  If the Jews had taken the Passover lamb, slain it, sprinkled its blood on the doorpost, drunk the wine, and gone to bed — their first-born son would be dead!  They had to eat the lamb.  What if they decided to symbolically eat the lamb?  Maybe they could make some lamb-shaped matza.  Their first-born sons would be dead.  They had to eat the lamb.  We are inclined to ask why Yahweh has made this so important.  Why does the entire escape from the tenth plague and thus the escape from Egypt depend upon eating the lamb as one of the mandatory parts of the Passover meal?  The key that explains this is the significance of sacrifice in the Old Testament.  As already mentioned, Jewish Old Covenant sacrifice is not defined by simply taking a life and shedding blood and killing the victim.  This is only the first half of sacrifice and by itself does not achieve the end goal of sacrifice.  The second half of sacrifice is where the victim is eaten in a communion meal which is the chosen environment where communion with God is formally achieved.  Real families always restore communion with each other by sharing in a common meal around a common table.  God’s family is no different.

 

The Catholic Church views the crucifixion as the Old Testament Passover transformed and completed by Christ in His own Body and Blood.  In addition, the Catholic Mass is viewed as the transformed Passover liturgy that draws God’s people into this mystery.  Moreover, in continuity with the Passover requirements, the Church also recognizes that the New Covenant Passover Sacrifice (the Mass) is not complete until we eat the lamb — the Body and Blood of Christ — the Lamb of God “slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev 13:8).  It makes perfect sense to hear Jesus urging us:

 

“Amen, amen, I say to you: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.  He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.  For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.  He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him” (John 6:53-56).  

 

When we abide in God and He abides in us — we have established communion.  And that, dear reader, is what the New Covenant is all about.  To Catholics it’s not unexpected to see St. Paul continuing this concept by exhorting the Corinthians to “keep the feast” in connection with Christ’s Passover Sacrifice:

 

“Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast” (1 Corinthians 5:7).

 

St Paul urges us to keep the feast not with malice and wickedness but with sincerity and truth and all of this he depicts using the emblem of unleavened bread.  What feast is he talking about?  He speaks here of the New Covenant Passover Sacrifice where we achieve the whole goal of sacrifice — that of communion with God in a family feast.  It is here that God’s people eat the lamb by partaking of the actual Body and Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist.  As I mentioned earlier, in conceiving the Eucharist as the New Covenant Passover, we very quickly begin to understand that the Eucharistic liturgy of the Mass is nothing less than the ongoing continuation of Christ’s Passover Sacrifice — the application of the cross through family communion.

 

As published by Dr. Ron Carlson & Ed Decker:

 

“Salvation is what Christ did for us.  It is not given through the Mass, nor given through the sacraments, nor given through the priests.  It is not given by the wafer or by the Eucharist, but only by faith in Jesus Christ” [Dr. Ron Carlson & Ed Decker, Fast Facts on False Teachings, Roman Catholicism, p. 229, (1994), Harvest House Publishers].

 

Catholicism agrees that salvation is what Christ did for us — it is a misconception to promote that Catholics are taught to believe otherwise.  However, there is a different grasp regarding how salvation is applied.  The Mass (as the new covenant Passover sacrifice) takes God’s people into the heart of Christ’s atoning death.  The Eucharist (as the body and blood of Christ) enables God’s people to receive the Lamb of God in communion.  It is this communion that brings us around the table of the Lord and (as a true family) prepares us for our final feast in eternity.  All is cloaked by faith in Christ.  Participating in Mass is not an obstacle to faith but simply a concrete means of applying it.  Unfortunately, when non-Catholic authors attempt to depict the Mass as a Catholic alternative to “faith in Jesus Christ” or even as an alternative to “what Christ did for us” upon the cross — they set their readers up for a lifetime of misconception and mistaken beliefs regarding the Catholic religion.  What is desperately needed in controversial matters is clarity of doctrine — accurately presented.  I say this here due to the thorough lack of clarity that continues to pervade the ongoing discussion regarding the nature of the Catholic Mass.

 

Footnotes:

 

[5] Scott Hahn, The Fourth Cup, St Joseph Communications, audio tape, 1995.

 

[6] Ibid.

 

[7] Thomas Howard, On Being Catholic, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 1997, p.27, 29-30).