Jump to content

Passover


Recommended Posts

Egypt’s Passover

 

PHARAOH

 

Thou foolish, vain and flinty hearted man,

to think the majesty divine

is less than thine,

to hurl defiance at the heavenly throne

and count it lower than thine own,

to steel thy heart against the King of kings,

thou puny thing!

 

O creature of the dust

learn that thou must

prostrate thyself before the Lord of lords

or, at his word,

proclaim thy worth

forever voiceless

from thy mouldering earth.

 

 

THE SHADOW OF DEATH

 

Heavy falls the Angel’s hand

upon that self-indulgent land;

the haughty pride that once defied

the God of heaven, silent lies,

its heart as lead,

its firstborn dead.

 

Darkly stark that fateful night

of swiftly sure Angelic might;

nor does the morning’s dawning light

dispel the dreadful deadly cloud

that like a shroud

enwraps the land

with clammy hand.

 

With broken-hearted, flowing tears,

the anguished cries, in flaming fear,

reach out to gods that are so near

yet do not care,

nor even hear.

 

They are alone,

each grieving home.

(Philip Jones)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9. The Passovers of Jesus

 

The ministry of Jesus lasted rather more than three years – “a time, times, and an half”? – thus including four Passovers. The indications about the first, third, and fourth of these are indisputable. There is some argument about the second (Jn. 5:1), but that there was another Passover about that time (whether Jn. 5 is about one or not) seems to be required by the cornfield controversy described by the other gospels (Mk. 2:13 etc.).

 

The brief notes included in this chapter will be restricted to details of special Passover interest. To write a complete study of all the incidents involved would call for a separate volume.

 

The First Passover: Jn. 2:13ff.
 

a. John always calls it “The Passover of the Jews” (2:13, 5:1; 6:4; 11:55). And since by “Jews” he always means the rulers of the people, this phrase betrays a marked lack of sympathy with men who exploited the feasts of the Lord for their own advantage, and who also, in spite of their original worldly-wise decision, used the Passover to ensure the slaying of the Lamb (Lk. 22:1,2).

 

b. “Jesus found in the temple …” suggests the idea of search. But no search was necessary, for the trafficking was open and blatant. But at Passover, in every Jewish home there was a search in order to find and exclude every form of “leaven” (Ex. 12:19 etc.) By his word “found” John seems to be hinting at a like procedure by Jesus in his Father’s house.

 

c. Hitherto Jesus had sought no publicity at all. It is remarkable that it was mighty indignation at religious abuses by those who should have known better which goaded him into action. “The Lord whom ye seek (irony!) shall suddenly come to his temple” (Mal. 3:1). One moment Jesus was utterly unknown. The next he was the most exciting individual in Jewry. The word for “poured out” (v.15) is the same as in Mal. 3:3 LXX. All the first seven verses in that chapter have marked relevance.

 

d. “He drove them all out of the temple” (v.15) echoes Hosea 9:15. In the same chapter, verse 5 has this: “And what will ye do in the solemn day (mo’ed once again), and in the day of the feast of the Lord?” Note also v.7: e. “The days of visitation are come . . . the prophet (is reckoned) a fool, the man of the Spirit (is accounted) mad.” Amongst the animals driven out, there is no mention of Passover lambs! Did Jesus let them stay?

 

e. “For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up” (v. 17) has already been shown to have a special Passover connection (Ex. 12:9, 10). But in Ps. 69:9 the conjunction “for” makes a link with the previous verse: “I am become a stranger to my brethren, and an alien to my mother’s children.” Here, then, is an indication that this first cleansing of the temple was what caused estrangement between Jesus and the rest of the family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Second Passover: Jn. 5

 

By calling this unnamed feast “the feast of the Jews” (RVm) John puts it with the other Passovers, also called “the feast of the Jews.” The final proof that it was Passover lies in the sequence of Passover allusions in the discourse of Jesus to the Jewish leaders.

 

Moses commanded: “Ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever” (Ex. 12:24). When children asked: “What mean ye by this service?” there was to be full and careful explanation. Here is the source of the Lord’s allusion: “The Son can do nothing but what he seeth the Father do: for what thing soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise” (v.19). And the next verse makes explicit reference to the Haggada, the shewing forth: “The Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that he himself doeth” – according to Ex. 13:8: “Thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying...”

 

“For as the Father raiseth the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will” (v.21). Both halves of this verse are to be taken in some figurative sense, for Israel had had no experience of the Father literally raising the dead, or of the Son doing so during the first year of his ministry. The reference is to the way in which God raised up His dead nation of Israel, buried in an Egyptian grave (cp. Ez. 37:12). Now Israel was in need of a new resurrection from their present spiritual inanition.

 

The figure is continued: “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead (Israel) shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live” (v.25). For some it would mean “life” and for others “damnation,” just as the testing discipline of Passover obedience and wilderness journey meant inheritance of the Land for some and shameful death in the wilderness for others.

 

All this development of ideas was a sequence appropriate to Passover.

 

But, more than this, the minds of these leaders listening to Jesus should have been prepared for such claims as Jesus made by the sign to which the Bethesda invalid had borne witness. So many details in the miracle are recorded because John had a symbolic mind, and would fain teach his readers the same outlook:

 

A pool with five porches (v.31-37,46,47), approached from the way of the Passover lambs.
 

It is called ‘the place of God’s loving-kindness.’

 

An angel of blessing is at work (Ex. 12:23; 14:19), so that the water is disturbed (Ex. 14:21, 22).

 

Those first through the water are saved, but those who come after are lost (Ex. 14:28).

 

This man continues, however, to be like faithless Israel, wandering in a wilderness for 38 years.

 

But Jesus gives him the blessed alternative of going forth free and healthy, with his bed on his shoulder, like Israel with their kneading troughs (Ex. 12:34).

 

It was a wasted Passover. The Lord’s visual aid was lost on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Third Passover: Jn. 6:4ff.

 

On this occasion Jesus miraculously fed the multitude in the wilderness. Next day in the synagogue at Capernaum discussion inevitably centred on comparison with Moses’ provision of manna in the wilderness soon after the Passover in Egypt. A large part of John 6 is taken up with this.

 

But there is one section of the Lord’s discourse which palpably comes away from that idea. In verses 53-56 there is repetitious emphasis on “eating my flesh and drinking my blood.” Except for this, “ye have no life in you.”

 

Clearly the Lord’s language is intensely figurative in meaning. But it may be taken as fairly certain that here Jesus was bidding his hearers see him as the Passover Lamb, the God-appointed means of lasting deliverance. Just as he wanted them to rise above their present clamour for more God-given meals in the wilderness and to see him and his teaching as the true Food of God, so also he would wean them from slavish adherence to a traditional Passover ritual and persuade them that the deliverance, which they had not yet got, was to be found in partaking of him as the true means of salvation.

 

But there was a significant difference between the Passover language used by Jesus and the instructions bequeathed to the nation by Moses. Whereas they were to roast and eat the flesh of the lamb, after first putting its blood on the door or, in later days, pouring it out at the base of the altar, Jesus now required that they “eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood.” Why the difference? – a horrifying difference to Jews raised on the prohibitions of the Law.

 

To make sense of this, the idiomatic use of “flesh and blood” in Holy Scripture needs to be recognized. Two examples are sufficient to illustrate.

 

When Peter made his great confession about the Messianic status of his Master, Jesus commented with approval: “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (Mt. 16:17).

 

And Paul, after his Damascus conversion, “conferred not with flesh and blood ... but went into Arabia” (Gal 1:16, 17).

 

In these places there is no reference to literal flesh and literal blood. Clearly the expression stands for human nature in its weakness and waywardness.

 

But concerning Jesus “my flesh and my blood” means the kind of human nature they experienced in him – weakness, limitation, temptability, all of these certainly; but not the wilfulness and sin which are a normal characteristic of all other “flesh and blood” people.

 

Not only was Jesus a son of man, born of a woman, but he was also Son of God, ever emerging victorious over his lower nature, though not without “sweat as it were great drops of blood,” not without “strong crying and tears.”

 

At this Passover Jesus would fain teach his materialistic people to learn the idealism of “eating his flesh and drinking his blood,” that, by a special intimacy with himself sharing his human nature which, for all its inheritance of propensity to sin, rose above that to a complete fulfilment of the will of his Father. In him it was a veritable fact, the greatest of all marvels in a ministry of marvels. In them, and in all other disciples, it remains an ideal only, and one towards which there is minuscule progress except a man eat and drink Christ.

 

There is here, also, for sure, a preparatory appointment of the New Passover, the sacrament of Bread and Wine which is the outward symbol of all the idealism Jesus was then trying to inculcate. Here is the explanation of the lack of mention of Bread and Wine in John’s account of the Last Supper. To have inserted it there would have been repetitious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Last Passover

 

A fair number of the Passover allusions in the last few chapters of the Gospels have already been touched on. But for completeness sake (if such be possible!), others are added here briefly.

 

a. In spite of much bungling from commentators, there can be no doubt that at the Lord’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem, two animals were involved. “The Lord hath need of them ... and they set him thereon (epano autōn: upon them; Mt. 21:3,7). Yet certainly it was the “foal of an ass” which Jesus rode into the city. Thus the complete picture requires that first he mounted the older animal, but it rejected him, so instead he took to the unbroken colt “whereon never man sat.” This animal bore him passively through an excited crowd which was shouting Hosannas and waving garments and branches of trees. It is one of the unrecognized miracles of the ministry.

 

Fairly evidently in this incident there is prefigured the rejection of Jesus by Jewry (in spite of this flash-in-the-pan enthusiasm), to be followed by a ready acceptance of him by Gentiles. There is much else in this context demanding such an interpretation.

 

Why is this item catalogued here? Because with seeming irrelevance the Passover Scripture in Exodus 13 includes this: “Every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a Lamb”! (v.13).

 

b. At the Last Supper the disciples invited Jesus to make a searching examination for the traitor. One after another they asked: “Lord, is it I?” (Mt. 26:22). According to long-established Jewish custom, at this New Passover there must be careful scrutiny to exclude all “leaven” (see chapter 3). Here is its counterpart.

 

By and by Judas “went out, and it was night” (Jn. 13:30). But Moses had commanded: “None of you shall go out at the door of his house” (Ex. 12:22). But Judas did, in order to join the “Egyptians”, and he became their firstborn.

 

c. “This is my body.” When Jesus used these words the disciples could hardly fail to recall that the familiar rabbinic phrase to describe the lamb was "the body of the Passover.”

 

d. Moses commanded: “Ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations ... an ordinance for ever” (Ex. 12:14). The Jews have not done this; they have not been able to do it because deprived of their temple, for the sacrifice of the Passover was to be “at the place which the Lord thy God shall choose” (Dt. 16:5,6). True, a Passover of sorts has continued, but with various other modifications from what was prescribed. Today there is no lamb. Instead, a leg of lamb or even a shank bone, and a roasted egg. It is not a Passover.

 

Instead Jesus has instituted a New Passover, concerning which he said: “Do this in remembrance of me.” This Passover has gone on ceaselessly. The principle of Moses’ commandment has been followed.

 

And so it will be, always. For Jesus spoke of “drinking it (the symbolic cup) new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Mt. 26:29). “I will not any more eat thereof until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (Lk. 22:16).

 

Since the crucifixion the Jewish Passover has been nugatory, but the New Passover goes on for ever.

 

e. “It shall be unto you for a memorial,” said Moses (Ex. 12:14). “In remembrance of me,” said Jesus. Israel remembered their coming out of Egypt, an experience once and for all behind them. Disciples remember Jesus, a suffering Saviour who lives for ever.

 

The normal association of ideas of the word “memorial” is with the Covenant Name of God – the Old Testament has scores of examples of this. The New Passover is a memorial of “the New Covenant in my blood.”

 

f. In Gethsemane Jesus bade his disciples “watch with me.” For them it was to be “a night of watching” (Ex. 12:42). But they didn’t watch. So it was only by the gracious mediation of their Lord (Jn. 18:8) that they were not given over to “the power of darkness.”

 

For Jesus there was “an angel from heaven strengthening him,” one of those angels who passed to and fro over the houses of the people of Israel. Without that ministry would “the destroyer” (Ex. 12:23) have utterly destroyed him?

 

g. How many times did Pilate say: “I find no fault in him”? Some say three times, some say five. But whichever it was, the Lord’s enemies were being bluntly reminded that there stood before them “a Lamb without blemish and without spot.”

 

h. The custom of releasing a notable prisoner at Passover shouts for a Passover interpretation. The Greek text of Mk. 15:6 seems to imply that this was Pilate’s custom. There are clear indications that he had “done his homework” about Jewish religious practice. He had taken the trouble to find out why Passover was kept, and this release of a prisoner was his tactful gesture, allowing the Jews to see re-enacted the deliverance of Israel from their Egyptian prison. And the one released was as undeserving of his freedom as Israel proved themselves to be by their rebellious spirit in the wilderness.

 

i. “We have a law, and by our law he ought to die” was the bitter shout of the Lord’s enemies (Jn. 19:7). There was a poignant dramatic irony about these words. They meant one thing, but John, faithfully recording all such details, meant something different. Did not their Law say that at Passover a Lamb must be slain?

 

j. The law of the feasts of the Lord (Lev. 23:12) commanded that on the morning after the Passover sabbath there must be offered “an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the Lord.” It was as though the Passover lamb was come to life again (cp. Ex. 12:5) and was being re-consecrated to God.

 

The counterpart to this was enacted on the Passover Sabbath when Jesus rose from the dead. Hence his words to Mary: “Touch me not (do not keep on holding me), for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God” (Jn. 20:17).

 

That present tense “ascend” is a strange way of referring to what was to take place six weeks later. Both the language here and the type in Leviticus seem to require that the token of the Lord’s sacrifice be presented that day in the very presence of God. It is surely not an error to infer that immediately after this encounter with Mary, Jesus did ascend to heaven, there to display the evidence in pierced hands and feet and side that he was “the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world.” Angels and archangels saw it and adored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10. THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS

 

Traditionally Jesus was crucified on Good Friday and rose from the dead early on the morning of Easter Sunday, the intervening sabbath being also a Passover sabbath and therefore spoken of as “a high day” (Jn. 19:31). With this view all the chronological references agree, except one: “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Mt. 12:40).

 

These words appear to be explicit and to require that Jesus lay in the tomb a full seventy-two hours, a period which cannot possibly be found between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning.

 

For this reason, and for this reason only, some have not hesitated to declare false the tradition that Jesus died on a Friday. Instead they insist that his crucifixion was on a Wednesday, that Thursday was a Passover sabbath and Saturday an ordinary sabbath. Thus, if Jesus rose any time after sunset on Saturday, he lay in the tomb three full days and three full nights.

 

The idea is an attractive one, especially to those dominated by the wholesome principle that “the Bible means what it says.” Of course, the Bible does mean what it says, usually, normally. But there are occasions when what appears to be intended as starkly literal must actually be interpreted in a figurative or idiomatic fashion. The instance now under consideration can be shown to be such.

 

A Basic Argument

 

At the outset the idea of a period of three full days and nights is ruled out completely by the words of one of the two disciples who talked with Jesus on the road to Emmaus on the afternoon of the day of resurrection: “And besides all this, today is the third day since these things were done” (Lk. 24:21). This is decisive. If Jesus had lain in the tomb for at least seventy-two hours, that disciple ought surely to have been saying “the fourth day” or even “the fifth day,” since Bible times are normally reckoned inclusively (e.g. Jn. 20:26).

 

For this reason alone, the literal interpretation of Matthew 12:40 must go, though there are also the additional problems created by such passages as “raised the third day” (Matthew 16:21) – the phrase comes no less than ten times; and of course the knotty question as to why the women left their attempt to attend to the body of Jesus until the Sunday when they could have done what they deemed to be needful on an intervening Friday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Bible Idiom

 

This “seventy-two hours in the grave” theory would never have arisen, based on one verse only, if there had been proper recognition of the common Bible idiom that “three days and three nights” is another way of saying “the third day.” There is no lack of evidence to support this conclusion:

 

a. The chief priests came to Pilate saying: “Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, whilst he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepul¬chre be made sure until the third day ...” (Mt. 27:63,64). Here they interpreted the first phrase by the second, unless indeed their mathematics was so lamentably weak that they were unable to see that the guard should extend to the fourth day.

 

b. Esther bade the Jews fast with her “three days, night and day”; yet it was “on the third day” that she went in to the king (Esther 4:16; 5:1). Again the second phrase interprets the first.

 

c. “They continued three years without war between Syria and Israel,” and yet war broke out again “in. the third year” (1 Kgs. 18:1,2).

 

d. Shalmanezer began the siege of Samaria in the fourth year of Hezekiah, and took it “at the end of three years” in the sixth year of Hezekiah (2 Kgs. 18:9,10). This example is particularly useful as demonstrating that a period which included part of the fourth year, the whole of the fifth year, and part of the sixth year is reckoned as “at the end of three years.”

 

e. Rehoboam said to the deputation: “Come again unto me after three days.” But this is also reported as: “Come again to me on the third day (2 Chr. 10:5,12).

 

f. It was “after six days” that Jesus took the three disciples to the mount of transfiguration (Mt. 17:1). But in Luke 9:28 it is “about an eight days after.” The one period is reckoned exclusively and the other inclusively.

 

g. “After three days” (Mark 8:31) becomes “the third day” in what is unquestionably the parallel passage (Mt. 16:21).

 

h. Joseph put his brothers in prison “three days,” yet he brought them out “the third day” (Gen. 42:17,18).

 

i. The Jubilee blessing promised to Israel “for three years” covers part of the sixth year, the whole of the seventh, and part of the eighth (Lev. 25:21).

 

j. Release of bondservants “at the end of every seven years” (Jer. 34:14) was actually after “he hath served thee six years.”

 

k. “Enoch, the seventh from Adam” is another example of inclusive reckoning (Jude 14).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Passover Type

 

There is also a further argument on this question which to some may be of no consequence at all, but to others will be utterly decisive. If the Passover details in Leviticus 23:5-12 do not settle fully and clearly when it was that Jesus died and when he rose from the dead, then they present a very awkward incongruity.

 

 

 

N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14th

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lambs slain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N

 

Passover meal,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15th

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16th

 

 

 

Passover Sabbath.

Sheaf of first fruits and Lamb without blemish offered.

 

 

The slaying of the lambs began in the temple court at 3 p.m. and continued until 5 p.m. approximately – the times of the death and burial of Jesus. The lamb offered on the morning of the 16th Nisan was, in effect, a replica of the Passover lamb (compare Ex. 12:5 and Lev. 23 v18) – as though it were the Passover lamb come to life again and re-consecrated to God! Thus it was a clear type of the risen Jesus, as also was the sheaf of the first fruits.

 

With the tabulation just given the following representation of the conventional view of Easter may now be compared:

 

14th

 

9 p.m.

 

The Last Supper

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 p.m.

 

Arrest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 a.m.

 

Crucifixion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 p.m.

 

Death and Burial.

(Passover lambs slain).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15th

 

9 p.m.

 

Israel’s Passover meal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16th

 

6 p.m.

 

Passover Sabbath ends.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 a.m.(?)

 

The Resurrection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 a.m.

 

The women at the tomb.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 p.m.

 

The walk to Emmaus.

 

 

The correspondence thus established disallows any theory of Jesus lying in the grave three full days and three full nights, and indeed any chronological scheme other than that which has been the traditional interpretation of the gospel account – Friday to Sunday morning.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11. DID JESUS EAT THE PASSOVER?
 
It is a question on which the highest experts and cleverest scholars differ. Some are emphatic that the Last Supper was a true Passover meal. Others are just as confident that it was an ordinary supper, taken twenty-fours before the Passover celebrations. One of these two must be correct.
 
The compromise suggested by some, that Jesus and the disciples ate the Passover twenty-four hours earlier than normal simply will not do. The lambs must be slain at the temple (Dt. 16:5,6), and it would have been an outrage against all Jewish sentiment to have asked for the slaying of the lamb before the proper time or to have killed it privately elsewhere. And, anyway, Luke’s record says the Last Supper was on “the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed” (22:7). That settles! So this desperate expedient of an explanation must be disallowed.
 
There are lots of indications that the Last Supper took place on the night before the Passover.
 
At first sight, there appears to be strong evidence in the gospels for both points of view. Here is a summary.
 
Evidence that the Last Supper was a Passover meal: 
 
(Here, for convenience, the words of Luke’s Gospel are used, but most of the points have parallels in Matthew and Mark):
 
A. Luke 22:7,8: “Then came the day of unleavened bread when the passover must be killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go prepare us the passover that we may eat.”
 
B. v.13: “and they made ready the passover.”
 
C. v.15: “with desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.” 
 
D. Mention of two cups by Luke (v. 17,20) suggests the ritual Passover, which actually included four.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence that the Last Supper took place on the night before Passover:

 

a. John introduces his account with the words: “Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come ... (ch. 13:1); and v.2 continues: “and supper being ready” (not “ended”, as in AV; the Greek participle, and also v.26, both prove AV to be in error here).

 

John 13:29: “For some of them thought ... that Jesus had said unto him (Judas), Buy those things that we have need of against the feast: or that he should give something to the poor.” But immediately after the slaying of the lambs in the temple court, the Passover sabbath began (Lev. 23:6,7); so if this was the Passover celebration, no shops would be open at that time. And the needs of the poor, for the feast, would have been dealt with long before then.

 

b. Joseph of Arimathea “bought fine linen” for the interment of Jesus (Mk. 15:46). This goes along with (a), and is a useful corrective to the assertion sometimes made that the synoptic gospels say one thing, and John says another.

 

c. “For that sabbath (the day after the crucifixion) was an high day” can only mean that it was the Passover sabbath (Jn. 19:31).

 

d. The chief priests “went not into the judgement hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover” (Jn. 18:28), that is, in the evening after the crucifixion.

 

e. “And it (the day of crucifixion) was the Preparation of the Passover” (Jn. 19:14). The word “Preparation” was normally used for Friday, as the day on which preparation was made for the sabbath. Edersheim (“The Temple” p. 188) makes the point that the rabbinic writings never use the name “Preparation” for the day preceding the Passover sabbath, but commonly use it for Friday. This “Preparation”, then, was the Friday preceding an ordinary sabbath which in this year coincided with the Passover sabbath (the 15th Nisan, in the earliest hours of which, just after sunset the Passover was eaten).

 

Mark 15:42 and Matthew 27:62 say the same thing.

 

f. The citation of the foregoing details is hardly necessary, since if Jesus did actually partake of the Passover, then all the irreligious and blasphemous transactions associated with his arrest and interrogation, the convening of the Sanhedrin and his trial, the rousing of the mob and the release of Barabbas, the crucifixion and the subsequent deriding of Jesus by the priests and elders – all of these took place on the Passover sabbath which should have been given over to holiness and special religious observance. Is such a conclusion credible?

 

g. A different kind of fact which will carry special weight with those who are impressed with the accuracy of Old Testament prophecy. If Jesus did not keep the Passover, then his death on the cross at the ninth hour coincided precisely with the time when the Passover lambs began to be slain in the temple court. Thus he became “The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” And, as already indicated in the previous study, his resurrection would then coincide in point of time with the special offering in the temple of another identical lamb along with the wave-sheaf of first fruits barley on the morning after the Passover sabbath (Lev. 23:11,12).

 

h. For the first three hundred years after the apostles all the early Christian writers who comment on this point say that the Last Supper was not a Jewish Passover. Chrysostom (350-400) was the first to teach that it was. And until the 9th century the church uniformly used leavened bread at the Eucharist. 

 

i. Jewish tradition, preserved in the Talmud, says that Jesus died on the 14th Nisan.

 

j. If Jesus had actually eaten the Jewish Passover, would not this have provided a powerful argument for the Judaisers in the first-century church that Christians should do the same?

 

k. The walk of Jesus and the eleven to Gethsemane was an infringement of Exodus 12:22. It may be argued, of course, that this commandment was regarded as being in abeyance at that time. But would not the Law of Moses be more mandatory upon Jesus than current tradition?

 

l. In the gospel accounts of the Last Supper there is no mention, not even the slightest hint, of the lamb which was the main feature of the Passover meal. Jeremias, the chief modern advocate that the Last Supper was a Passover, dismisses this with the observation that “this silence is no longer surprising, when we reflect that Mark 14:22-24 is a cultic formula, not purporting to give a description of the Last Supper, but recording the constituent elements of the celebrations of the primitive church.” A typically modernist way of evading uncomfortable evidence! (And what about the other three records?).

 

m. It is very clear from John 13:5 that the group betook themselves to the supper table without any foot-washing taking place first. Because of the high-festival character of the Passover it is very difficult to believe that the disciples would contemplate beginning their Passover meal without prior attention to this detail.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus, the evidence for dissociating the Last Supper from the Jewish Passover is fairly considerable and of solid quality.

 

But there remain difficulties which demand explanation. And until such explanation is available it can hardly be said that the case is completely made out.

 

The most obvious objection springs from the familiar words of the Lord when at the table with the twelve:

 

“With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer. For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (Lk. 22:15,16).

 

How could he use such language except at a Passover celebration?

 

For answer it is only necessary to read the words again with somewhat different emphasis: “With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer,” that is, this new and better Passover, the Breaking of Bread which he was about to share with his disciples.” This reading, it must be agreed, sounds right. On the other hand, two difficulties make the alternative, superficial, reading unacceptable.

 

The Lord’s Hebraism is an idiomatic way of saying: “I have intensely desired to eat this Passover with you ...” But can any reason be assigned why Jesus should so specially wish to share a Jewish Passover with the twelve? This is a real difficulty. But on the other hand his eagerness to hold this unique Breaking of Bread “this Passover” – with them calls for no explanation at all. More than this, he made this Passover specially his own by a most telling play on words: “With desire I have desired to eat this Passover (pascha) before I suffer (the Greek word for ‘suffer’ is paschō),"

 

Also, the questions are not to be evaded: What is it which Jesus will partake of anew in the kingdom? – of the roasted Passover lamb, or the Bread and Wine symbolic of his own sacrifice? Which is it that will be “fulfilled in the kingdom of God?” – the Jewish Passover, or this new Passover, the Breaking of Bread. Not possibly the former, for it was not a fulfilment, nor ever can be. In essence every detail of the Jewish Passover looked back to the great deliverance from Egypt. On the other hand, the Breaking of Bread is just as much forward looking as it is a “remembrance,” a “shewing forth of the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26). And fulfilment in the kingdom of God is explicitly promised: “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Mt. 26:29).

 

In the Luke passage under consideration the double meaning behind the use of “Passover” is more readily appreciated, for it can also be seen to run through the preceding verses:

 

“Then came the day of unleavened bread when the (Jewish) Passover must be killed (i.e. the 14th Nisan), And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the Passover that we may eat.” Jesus certainly meant the new Passover, but of course Peter and John would be thinking in terms of the Jewish feast.

 

Even so, “when the Passover must be killed” appears to introduce a chronological difficulty until it is realised that the 14th Nisan began at sunset of the previous day; so it would be (say) between 6 and 7 p.m. when this was done, and not (as is usually assumed) sometime in the morning. Bullinger was the first to draw attention to this rather important consideration.

 

Thus, Jesus and the other ten would follow an hour or two hours later to share an ordinary meal together in the upper room where, according to the disciples’ expectation, they would all be keeping Passover twenty-four hours later.

 

From this point of view all the details fall readily into place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The results of this part of the investigation can now be set out in summary form thus:

 

 

 

 

6

 

Peter and John go ahead to make passover arrangements

 

 

 

9

 

Jesus and the rest follow to the same room.

 

 

 

 

 

The Last Supper, an ordinary meal, takes place.

14th Nisan

 

Night

12

 

Arrest in Gethsemane

“The

 

 

3

 

Illegal trial during night

Preparation”

 

 

6

 

Formal trial by Sanhedrin, and then by Pilate.

 

 

 

9

 

Crucifixion.

 

 

Day

12

 

 

 

 

(Friday)

3

 

Death of Jesus, Slaying of the passover lambs begins.

 

 

 

 

 

His burial.

 

 

 

6

 

 

 

 

 

9

 

Passover meal eaten by the nation.

 

 

Night

12

 

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

15th Nisan

 

 

6

 

 

Passover

 

 

9

 

 

Sabbath

 

Day

12

 

 

 

 

(Saturday)

3

 

 

 

 

 

6

 

 

 

 

 

9

 

 

 

 

Night

12

 

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

16th

 

 

 

 

Resurrection

 

 

 

6

 

 

 

 

 

9

 

 

 

 

Day

12

 

 

 

 

(Sunday)

3

 

 

 

 

 

6

 

Emmaus.

 

It is now worthwhile to consider why Passover language should be so emphatically associated with the gospel narrative of the Last Supper.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us,” wrote Paul (1 Cor. 5:7). At a very early time the church appropriated to the sacrifice of Jesus the language of the Jewish Passover. When the outstanding instances of this are assembled, they become quite impressive.

 

a. “The cup of blessing which we bless” (1 Cor. 10:16) was the name given by the Jews to one of the four cups of wine at the Passover feast.

 

b. “Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.. Where is the guest chamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples.” To the disciples these words meant one thing, (as already intimated), but in the mind of Jesus they had a different connotation. For him it was to be the memorial feast of a greater deliverance than that of Egypt. And it is this sense, doubtless, that the author of the gospel meant when he wrote significantly: “Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed” – for in retrospect he could see that it not only behoved the Christ to suffer, but to suffer then, on the 14th. No other time was fitting.

 

c. “And when the hour was come” (Lk. 22:14) might seem to refer to the Jewish Passover, yet quite certainly it meant the hour of the Lord’s tribulation and glory: “The hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify Thee.” A superb double entendre!

 

d. Compare also the intensely dramatic force of these words: “The feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him (the Lamb of God)” (Lk. 22 v’s 1 & 2). To the student who reads with his eyes open, the gospels abound in delicate touches of this kind – nuances which so easily lose their flavour when one attempts to explain them.

 

e. “This is my body.” Compare the Mishna's reference to the roasted lamb as “the body of the Passover.”

 

f. “He broke it and gave it to the disciples”; the action was very similar to a certain part of the Passover ritual, on which the Mishna also has this comment: “The poor have not whole cakes, but broken pieces.”

 

g. “Ye do show forth the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26) is a clear allusion to Exodus 13:8: “Thou shalt show thy son in that day ...”, a part of the Passover ritual called the Haggadah, the showing forth. The verbal connection is very marked.

 

h. The sop given to Judas probably came to be compared with the bitter herbs dipped in the sauce and shared by all participants at the passover table.

 

i. It may be possible to go further and see in the searching of the hearts of the disciples a counterpart to the searching of the house for leaven (Ex. 12:19).

 

j. “Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup” (1 Cor. 11:27,28). The warning reads like a direct and more searching counterpart to the responsibility laid upon every Jew to be purified for the Passover (John 11:55).

 

k. Peter’s allusions in his First Epistle appropriate Passover language in quite a systematic fashion:

 

I. “Redeemed ... with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1:19).

 

II. “Obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Christ” (v.2; Ex. 12:22). 

 

III. “Guarded by the power of God through faith unto salvation ...” (v.5; Ex. 12:23). 

 

IV. “Not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold” (handed over by the Egyptians; Ex. 12:35).

 

V. “Gird up the loins of your mind” (v. 13) is obviously Ex. 12:11.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12. OTHER PASSOVERS

 

The Wilderness Passover

 

Apparently the feast was observed only once during the forty years in the wilderness. At least, there is no mention of any other, and circumcision, the prior necessity, was evidently neglected (Josh. 5:5).

 

This wilderness Passover was held at Sinai immediately after the consecration of the Tabernacle (Ex. 40:2; Num 9:1).

 

But there is a large unanswered problem here. If there were about two million in that wilderness multitude, how did they contrive to sacrifice between 50,000 and 100,000 first-year male lambs?

 

Joshua’s Passover

 

This was held after the crossing of Jordan at Gilgal. First, circumcision was insisted on, according to the Passover commandment: “No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof” (Ex. 12:48). With their Passover meal they ate unleavened cakes made of Canaan corn (Josh. 5:11). But apart from the meal itself, the most characteristic feature of Passover belonged to Rahab and her house. In place of blood on lintel and door posts, she had a scarlet line at her window, the sign of protection as a reward for faith. When destruction was carried through the city, she and hers were safe.

 

Josiah’s Passover (2 Chr. 35:1-19)

 

Apart from the declaration that “there was no Passover like to that,” this keeping of the feast seems to have been singularly featureless. The narrative leaves on the mind an impression of exceptionally great care that all the punctilios of the ritual should be scrupulously observed, probably because of the tremendous impact made on the mind of the king by the reading of the newly-discovered copy of the Book of the Law (2 Kgs. 22:8-13).

 

Indeed, the fact that as soon as Josiah died, slain in battle, the entire nation slid into apostasy at breakneck speed seems to suggest that this Passover depended almost entirely on the king’s own personal enthusiasm and that of a mere handful of devout men like Shaphan and Hilkiah, the father of Jeremiah. The immense number of animals given by the king seems also to imply that there was vastly more zeal in the king than in the mass of the nation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ezra’s Passover (Ezra 6:19,20)

 

The new temple was finished in the last month of the 6th year of Darius, and so within weeks it was possible for the first true celebration of Passover to take place since the last few years of Solomon's temple.

 

Even so, the text seems to imply that not all of those who had returned from Babylon took the trouble to participate; the celebrants were “all such as had separated themselves ... from the filthiness of the heathen of the land.” But for those who did participate it was an outstandingly joyful occasion.

 

Peter’s Passover: (Acts 12)

 

Herod was currying favour with the common people by letting loose persecution against the brethren in Judaea. First, James, one of the leading apostles, was beheaded. The next victim on Herod’s list was Peter. But it was Passover. So until the full week of the holy feast was over Peter was a well-guarded prisoner. This delay was Herod’s tactful concession to the people’s religious susceptibilities.

 

The brethren, much distraught at the apostle’s danger, made each night “a night of watching unto the Lord” (Ex. 12:42 RVm). There was prayer without ceasing.

 

Deliverance came. One of those protecting angels of the Lord (Ex. 12:23) came to the sleeping apostle in his cell.

 

“Rise up quickly” – it was a time for Passover haste.

 

“Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals.” Again it was a Passover commandment – “loins girded, shoes on your feet” (Ex. 12; 11). 

 

Then Peter followed the angel, as Israel had followed the same angel in a pillar of cloud and fire (Ex. 14:19). Thus he came out of bondage to safety.

 

On the other hand there was Passover judgment – not on Herod’s firstborn, but on Herod himself. “The angel of the Lord (the ‘destroyer’ this time; Ex. 12:23) smote him,” and he died in great agony.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A.D.70

 

Jesus, about to suffer at Passover, paused to warn those who pitied him concerning the wrath that would inevitably fall on the city: “Then shall they say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.”

 

Jonah, the prototype of death and resurrection, had proclaimed: “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.”

 

Now, in a time of greater death and resurrection: “Yet forty years, and Jerusalem shall be overthrown.”

 

It began at Passover. The army of Titus closed in on the city at a time when it was overcrowded with worshippers confident not only of Passover protection but also of the city’s strong defences and vast stores of food.

 

Nebuchadnezzar’s siege had lasted a full year. But now, for the elect’s sake, the days of misery were shortened. Just five months later, a period clearly traceable in Bible prophecy, the city fell to the Romans, and there was carnage indescribable.

 

Earlier, Jesus had warned: “When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then let them which be in the midst of her depart out.” What must have sounded at the time like lunatic advice turned out to be the best possible.

 

The opportunity for flight came. The advice was heeded. Faithful believers went for their lives to the nearest city in the territory of the Agrippa to whom Paul preached, and thus found safety – not through their own resourcefulness, but through the protecting care of a Passover angel. But all through the siege, and in its end, “the destroyer” treated the chosen race as though they were so many ignorant faithless Egyptians. Such misery, such suffering!

 

“Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me but for your children.”

 

All this was foretold by Amos:

 

“The songs of the temple shall be howlings in that day, saith the Lord God: there shall be many dead bodies in every place ... And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation ... and I will make it as the mourning of an only Son ... I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the word of the Lord: and they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east; they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it” (Am. 8:3; 10-12).

 

What a contrast with that first Passover in Egypt!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13. HEZEKIAH’S PASSOVER

 

(2 Chronicles 30)

 

Seven years before the death of Ahaz the northern kingdom had been completely overrun by the armies of Sargon II. His father, Shalmanezer V, had begun a protracted siege of the capital, Samaria, but had not lived to see the city capitulate. The northern tribes had not been consolidated as an Assyrian province. Sargon was too fully occupied in ceaseless fighting on his other borders, so after the cream of the population had been deported, the territory between Galilee and the Mediterranean was left a disorganized no-man’s-land. The Syrians had had too many batterings from the Assyrians to find the vigour to fill the vacuum by expansion southwards.

 

So when Hezekiah came to power, he immediately saw his opportunity to bring the remaining people of the Ten Tribes back to the God of their fathers. It was evident also that a united Israel would be in a much better position to resist any further Assyrian aggression.

 

Quickly he conceived the plan of getting all the people, from all the tribes, to join in a mighty Passover of thanksgiving and re-dedication. The fact that, at the re-dedication of the temple, sacrifices were offered for “all Israel” shows fairly clearly that this idea of Hezekiah’s was in his mind from the start. He set the scheme going without a moment’s delay. Nevertheless the cleansing of the temple proved to be too big a task, so that when Passover time came, no one was ready.

 

However, certain emergencies preventing participation in the Passover were covered by what has come to be known as “the little Passover,” held a month later, by the permissive ruling of Moses’ Law. (Numbers 9:10). Guided by the prophets in their midst (30:12; 29:25), Hezekiah and his counsellors agreed to make use of this alternative, and decided on a major effort to bring all the twelve tribes to Jerusalem for a Passover, in the second month.

 

“Come to Zion!”

 

So messengers went out from Jerusalem to every corner of the country with appeals and exhortations that with one heart the people “turn again unto the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” The king’s admonition was very forthright in character: “Be not ye like your fathers, and like your brethren which trespassed against the Lord God of their fathers, who therefore gave them up to desolation, as ye see.” The allusion was to the double spoliation of northern Israel which had already taken place. At least twenty years earlier, Tiglath-Pileser had taken off into captivity the tribes of the east bank of Jordan (1 Chronicles 5:26). More recently Shalmanezer and Sargon had meted out similar treatment to their compatriots on the west of Jordan (2 Kings 17:6).

 

The letter from Jerusalem put the issue with the simple logic of faith: Apostasy and captivity were cause and effect; then, conversely, “if ye turn again unto the Lord, your brethren and your children shall find compassion before them that led them captive, so that they shall come again unto this land” (cp. Psalm 106:46).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Response

 

This wholesome appeal met with a very mixed reception. Some “laughed the messengers to scorn, and mocked them.” The lesson of recent bitter experiences was not learned yet. Others, however, “humbled themselves, and came to Jerusalem.” These came from Asher, Manasseh, Zebulun, Issachar and Ephraim. A like enthusiasm swept through Judah (including Benjamin and Simeon, which also belonged to the southern kingdom), carrying with it many who hitherto had gone unaffected by Hezekiah’s reforming zeal so that for the first time since the coronation of David (1 Chron. 12:38) the people were “of one heart.” It was “an exceeding great congregation” which assembled for that Passover – not unduly great compared with what the nation could have mustered, had there been unanimity and no captives in distant lands. But certainly, when the dark and evil days of Ahaz were brought to mind, it was a multitude to marvel at.

 

At the appropriate time, “between the two evenings” (Exodus 12:6) – that is, between the time of the evening sacrifice and sunset (Matthew 14:15,23) – an immense number of lambs were slain, and that night the feast was observed with great rejoicing.

 

The seven days of the feast of unleavened bread were also kept with undiminished enthusiasm, although observance of it was not obligatory. The people took great delight in the splendour of the fine musical service Hezekiah had re-instituted. Besides this, the “Levites, that taught the good knowledge of the Lord,” were encouraged to use their opportunity to the full.

 

Enthusiasm

 

The holy week ended, people were loath to go home. This Passover had stirred them beyond all they had thought possible. So the suggestion came up spontaneously that their re-dedication to God should be signified by continuing their Bible School for another week, precisely as in the reign of Solomon when the temple was first dedicated (1 Kings 8:65). This idea was adopted with enthusiasm.

 

There was no puritanical hairshirt austerity about this extended service of God. For all, it meant not only holiness and thanksgiving for the memory of God’s providence in the past, but also an intensely joyful acceptance of present benefits. To help this spirit of godly festival, the king and his princes donated immense numbers of oxen and sheep for peace-offerings. These, sanctified by dedication at the altar, meant rich feeding for these worshippers in addition to the fine spiritual fare they enjoyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irregularities

 

This extension of the feast for a second week was by no means the only irregularity at this Passover. Strictly, “the little Passover” was for those defiled by contact with the dead or for those who had been away from home on a journey at the normal feast time (Nu. 9:10). It could hardly be said that these two special exemptions covered more than a very small proportion of that great multitude. Nevertheless the spirit of that rule was invoked to cover the other unusual circumstances of this great occasion.

 

Then, too, the Law prescribed that the people themselves were to be responsible for the actual slaying of their Passover lambs (Ex. 12:6). But since many of them were not ceremonially purified for the feast – “for the thing was done suddenly” – the slaying of the lambs was taken over for such people by the Levites.

 

Yet more seriously, “a greater part (Heb.) of the multitude of the people ... did eat the passover otherwise than it was written” – that is, because of their uncleaness. Aware of this, Hezekiah foresaw the possibility of plague breaking out among the people in the same way that retribution had come on Israel in the wilderness (Ex. 30:12; Num. 14:37; 16:46; 11:33). So he took on himself the priestly responsibility of intercession on their behalf. In the Holy Place of the temple was a gallery over its east door which was used as the royal oratory. By ascending to it, without actually entering the Holy Place, the king could look down on the priest burning incense before the Lord, could contemplate all the awe-inspiring detail of the Cherubim of Glory inwrought in the tapestry of the veil, and could plead more directly for divine help and blessing than in any other way.

 

This Hezekiah did: “The good Lord pardon every one (Heb: especially) that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary.” That simple expressive prayer was heard, and thus the people were saved from the stroke of God.

 

There is something quite marvellous about the spirit which actuated both king and people in this extraordinary Passover. What a contrast between their repeated unpenalised infringements of the letter of the Law now and the frightening retribution meted out on other occasions. Nadab and Abihu – the nameless sabbath-breaker – Korah, Dathan and Abiram – Achan – Uzzah – the young men at Bethel: such a dire, though incomplete, catalogue rams home the needful lesson: “I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fine Religious Spirit

 

Yet at this time Hezekiah and his people “had faith in God and did as they pleased” (Luther’s paradox). Nowhere could the lesson be better taught or learned that motive is all-important. Where circumstances are difficult, let a man express the spirit of God’s commandment as well as he is able, and the Almighty will graciously take the rest as read.

 

Thus “there was great joy in Jerusalem.” The people were aware that in several respects they had not kept the commandment as strictly as they ought, yet they knew themselves to be accepted by God and forgiven for their pious monarch’s sake. “Since the time of Solomon, the son of David the king of Israel (the time when the temple was first dedicated), there was not the like in Jerusalem.”

 

Even Gentiles shared the intense religious fervour of the occasion. Not only strangers living in Judah but also others belonging to outlandish tribes who had been brought in by the Assyrians to replace the thousands deported from Israel – these too were given a warm welcome to all the religious celebration except the actual eating of the Passover (for that they had to be circumcised; Ex. 12:48,49). So although Israel was not fully gathered, the royal Servant of the Lord was glorious in the eyes of God, becoming a light to the Gentiles (Is. 49:5,6).

 

The great commemoration of past deliverance came to an end. Faith was restored. Once again the people truly believed that the God of their fathers was with them – Immanuel! The priests pronounced a solemn blessing from God, and sent them happy to their homes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14. THE SECOND COMING AT PASSOVER?

 

Before settling down to detail in this chapter, it is perhaps desirable to remind the reader of a feature of Bible prophecy which rarely receives the careful attention it deserves.

 

It is this:

 

Practically all Bible prophecy has a discernible relevance to the times and events when it was first written. Thus, for example, it is possible to expound all the diverse and profound chapters of Isaiah’s prophecy with reference to the exciting events of his day, especially regarding the reign of king Hezekiah. Similarly a big proportion of the psalms light up most impressively when the historical circumstances which led to their composition are taken into account.

 

But that is only half the story – and the lesser half, at that! For detailed study and the authority of the New Testament combine to require a further reference of these prophetic Scriptures to the purpose of God in Christ, either in his first or second advent, or maybe both. So it is imperative also to study those chapters of Isaiah afresh seeking the more important Messianic meaning. And Psalms of David and Hezekiah must also be studied as Psalms about Messiah.

 

In this two-fold approach to prophecy the twin interpretations are found to be consistent. They lean on each other. Very often the latter-day fulfilment can be helped out considerably by the earlier contemporary reference about which there is often more clear-cut knowledge.

 

It is to be expected, then, that just as such outstanding events as Sennacherib's invasion and Hezekiah’s grievous sickness and the great Jubilee of his reign loom large in both history and prophecy of the time, so also such an important feature as Passover observance (see the previous chapter, and 2 Chr. 30) is almost sure to find copious mention also.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sennacherib and Passover

 

So tremendously successful was Hezekiah’s great Passover that it is impossible to believe that it was not followed by others, even though they are not specifically mentioned in the history. Indeed it can be inferred, with a high degree of probability, that Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem took place at Passover time, so that those among the nation whose piety took them from all parts of the country to the sanctuary of the Lord found themselves provided with safety and salvation in the only city which the ruthless Assyrian was unable to capture. The destruction of Sennacherib’s army was another Passover deliverance, a mighty angelic stroke on behalf of the desperate oppressed people of God.

 

The Passover passage in Isaiah 31:5. already discussed in chapter 8. has an immediate Assyrian context:

 

“As birds flying, so will the Lord of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also he will deliver it; and passing over he will preserve it... Then shall the Assyrian fall with the sword, not of a mighty man; and the sword, not of a mean man, shall devour him; But he shall flee from the sword, and his young men shall be discomfited ... saith the Lord, whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem” (31:5,8,9).

 

There is no lack of passages of this sort.

 

“Ye shall have a song, as in the night when a holy solemnity is kept (the only feast of the Lord observed at night-time is Passover) ... And the Lord shall cause his glorious voice to be heard, and shall show the lighting down of his arm, with the indignation of his anger, and with the flame of a devouring fire, with scattering, and tempest, and hailstones. For through the voice of the Lord shall the Assyrian be beaten down, which smote with a rod.” (30:29-31).

 

“Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be over past (all of this is Passover language). For, behold, the Lord cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain” (26:20,21).

 

“Look upon Zion, the city of our set feasts: (Passover?): thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down” (33:20) – Jerusalem, the only city Sennacherib could not capture.

 

“Woe to Ariel, to Ariel (the hearth of God), the city where David dwelt! add ye year to year (Passover is in the first month); let the feasts come round" (29:1). The next seven verses all have obvious relevance to the siege of Jerusalem and the decimation of the Assyrian army.

 

And when the history (37:37) says that “Sennacherib departed ... and dwelt at Nineveh,” there seems to be a play on “Nisan” in the Hebrew text.

 

This is by no means all the evidence available to suggest that the great deliverance from the brutal Assyrian enemy took place at Passover time, but there is surely enough here to be going on with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Further Fulfilment

 

The next important step is to observe that the first five passages out of those just quoted all seem to have definite reference to a greater deliverance of Jerusalem in the Last Days. In each case the context seems to require this; and indeed it is expected that most readers of these words will need little persuading that such is the case. It looks very much as though the entire complex of thrilling events in Hezekiah’s time was divinely designed to foreshadow a yet more exciting fulfilment in the time of the Lord’s coming.

 

If that is the case, then may it also be tentatively inferred that since the crucial time was a Passover when the great enemy railed against Jehovah and His anointed, and judgement was meted out against his impiety, so also will be the main shape of events yet to come? And if that be so, would it not seem to follow that the future crisis to which the prophecies look forward will also take place at a Passover?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other Scriptures

 

Researching elsewhere in Scripture, one encounters other indications suggesting the same conclusion.

 

First, Joel: “Be glad then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in the Lord your God: for he hath given you the former rain (or, a teacher of righteousness – a remarkable but possible alternative; see AVm), and he will cause to come down for you the rain, the latter rain in the first month" (2:23) – and there follows an impressive picture of Messianic blessing after Israel’s final tribulation.

 

Jesus was born, very probably, at about the time of the early rains just after the Feast of Tabernacles. And this prophecy seems to indicate that he will come again at the time of the latter rains just before Passover. This conclusion finds support in the references in the next verse to Pentecost (“floors full of wheat”) and to Tabernacles (“wine and oil”).

 

When Hezekiah persuaded many from the northern tribes to come to Jerusalem for Passover, because the cleansing of the people was not completed in time the feast was held a month later (2 Chr. 30:13, 15).

 

So very many things in Hezekiah’s reign are given a Messianic meaning by Isaiah that it becomes legitimate to consider whether his important late Passover will not also have a corresponding fulfilment in the Last Days. (See “Hezekiah the Great,” HAW, ch. 22).

 

Psalm 75 is a pointedly Messianic prophecy with a vivid picture of the cup of judgment in the hand of the Lord (v.8; cp. Rev. 14:10). There is also this: “When I shall find the set time (RV), I will judge uprightly” (v.2). Here “set time” is the word mo’ed which (about 150 times) refers to one of the feasts of the Lord.

 

So also in Ps. 102:13: “Thou shalt arise, and have mercy upon Zion: for the time to favour her, yea, the set time (mo’ed again), is come.” Thus, judgment on the great enemy of God’s Israel and blessing on Zion are both to fall on a feast of the Lord – the same feast? a Passover like that so strongly implied in Isaiah? “At midnight (cp. Ex. 12:29) I will rise to give thanks unto thee because of thy righteous judgments” (Ps. 119:62).

 

Daniel and Habakkuk appropriate the same terminology in their prophecies of the end time:

 

“Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed (mo’ed) the end shall be” (Dan. 8:19).

 

“For the vision is yet for an appointed time (mo’ed), but at the end it shall speak, and not lie” (Hab. 2:3).

 

Is it not remarkable that so many prophecies use such specific nomenclature about the Last Day? Even if they didn’t, one could surely expect that the divine time-table would be geared to the holy occasions which saints in Israel set such store by? And this instinct is reinforced by the pointed Passover references made by Isaiah time after time.

 

The last witness on this matter shall be the apostle Peter:

 

“Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent, that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot and blameless" (2 Pet. 3:14). Here are two Passover phrases (from Ex. 12:5,11 LXX) which in his Greek text Peter is careful to put side by side in order to reinforce the Passover idea. It looks as though he too was guided to expect the Lord’s coming at Passover.

 

There remains, however, one other consideration which could slightly affect the conclusions reached in this chapter.

 

Jesus referred to himself as “a noble-man going into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom.” But the law of Moses took account of such circumstances. It laid down that a man “in a journey afar off yet shall keep the passover unto the Lord on the fourteenth day of the second month at even” (Num. 9:10,11).

 

Thus there is the possibility of the Lord’s return coinciding with the “little Passover” one month later than normal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE LAMB OF GOD
 
Great God of the wind, 
of the earthquake and fire, 
who flashes the lightning 
or bids it retire, 
who crashes the thunder 
or quiets its ire, 
who speaks in the storm 
or the still, small voice 
or the gentle Lamb, 
the man of thy choice.
 
O Lord, when thine anger 
is seen in the plagues, 
when the mountains surge 
and the wild waves rage,
 when defiant actors 
on the worldly stage 
are destroying themselves 
in the wars they wage, 
let thine angels grant us 
a peaceful calm,
 preserved from evil 
and kept from harm,
that we may then 
hear thy still, small voice 
through that Paschal Lamb, 
and with him rejoice.
 
Philip Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...