Another area of contention is the order Jesus' Last Supper seems to have taken. The following some may recognize comes from our write-up on the Seder however as this also fits this topic we have this here as well though if your already familiar and want to go on you can go onto the Church Fathers instead:
Matthew places the betrayal first, then the Last Supper and then the denial after the Seder. He shows that two events happened "as they were eating" Matt.26.20, 26. Mark's Gospel agrees with Matthew in every point, however Luke diverged greatly from the other two writers for he has Jesus beginning the Passover saying that He has earnestly desired to eat this Passover and He takes the cup first, says the blessing, but not the words of initiation found in Matthew and Luke. Then He blesses the bread like the other two Gospels. Finally, after supper He finishes the blessings found in the other two Gospels. Then Luke connects the exposure of the betrayer to the words Jesus spoke over the wine. John makes things more confusing because he places a foot washing during the feast and the exposure of the betrayer follows this. When Judas is exposed, Yeshua is making the Hillel sandwich (in Matthew and Luke, Judas makes his own), and then Judas leaves the feast prematurely.
So to sort out the confusion we went through the different passages one by one and correlated them to the Haggahdah of Jesus' time. We don't actually have that Haggahdah but with the help of our modern one (an Orthodox one, ironically) and what Scripture has to say we tried to deduce it. Here is our best guess as to what might have happened:
The denial we feel is the easiest puzzle to clear up because in our eyes it seems obvious that this issue came twice, once during the feast and again after they had left the feast. This is what we perceive: from Luke we know Jesus' words to Peter cut deeply, Lk.22.31-34 and then the others may have moved off to talk of other things and the conversation change focus. After they left the feast and started walking the feeling of "I never deny Him!" resurfaced in some of the twelve. This is when Jesus drew them to the Scripture in Zechariah 13.7 saying "this is prophetic guys, you have no control over this" and reiterated to Peter who was the most defensive (we see this from Mark) that yes even he (Peter) will deny Him those three times! Thus as this fits so well we took this as our assumption and this cleared things up greatly so that all we need of the denial is to place it between the L-rd's Supper and the Betrayal.
Unfortunately Matthew and Mark really don't give an order, just the events so we'll go to Luke and John for the order. Luke has: Kiddush (blessing of wine), HaMotzi (Blessing on bread) and "This is My body", then "this is My blood" followed by Judas. The denial isn't ordered. In John we have everything ordered: First foot washing, then the Betrayal during the "Hillel sandwich", then Judas leaves, then Peter's denial. Thus Peter's denial happened after Judas left. Also the altercation with Judas happens while eating in John and after eating with Luke. Might this be like the case of Peter's denial that this dispute occurred throughout the feast but Judas left at the feast's end?
John's writing seems as if it has no breaks, but we suspect there were because the way we put in the denial of Peter, things began to fit nicely (John probably didn't fit these words in because others books already had them plus John knew the order, even if we don't). Also note at Yeshua's time the Seder plate was far simpler. It probably held only the Pascal sacrifice and the maror (bitter) in a sauce. We know the maror was sauce because they "dipped" both matzah and "a morsel" in this. In fact, the Passover supper probably had just these three items and the wine (although it may have had the parsley and salt water because we have no evidence against this). We say this because both the Beitzah (egg) and the Kharoset (sweet mixture of wine, fruit and nuts) came after the Temple's destruction.
The next evening had the feast that we now eat in combination with Passover. Thus some thought Judas was leaving to buy food for "the Feast", Jn.13.29, that is Feast of Unleavened Bread and not the feast they were now eating, Chag HaPesach (feast of Passover). Therefore, they also seemed as confused as we are (though for different reasons), for how could Yeshua share the feast of Chag HaMotzi with them if He was laid in tomb before that evening commenced (we are not sure they ate it that evening either given the events of the day).
So let's try to recreate the Passover of long ago. We feel firmly that outside of the Maggid (telling of the exodus) existed during His day but details like "The four Questions", "The Four Sons", "The Five Rabbis", "The Sages" and "Rabbi Gamliel" most likely came later (in fact, we can date a few later). Thus all these things are actually optional to the feast although we do see a value in most of them and they end with the Maggid and before any eating is done. One point however, the Maggid ends with the Kiddush, might this be the one described in Lk.22.171-19. If so the words that precede the Kiddush were said at the end of the Maggid but before the Kiddush was said. This makes sense because saying the Maggid precedes eating, and when it is completed one eats.
Using these above facts, we have compiled our best guess (so far) to format the Haggadah ("to tell"). Now at the beginning of Luke the Maggid is ending when Yeshua said "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you" Lk.22.15, and then Yeshua said the Kiddush (blessing of the wine). Then He followed this with the Barukh HaMotzi (blessing of the bread) and here Yeshua clearly connects this to John 6 and His sacrifice. Now we suspect it was here that Yeshua, instead of washing their hands, washed their feet much to their shock. This leads the conversation about Judas's soon act, but most of this is limited to those closest to Yeshua (Peter and John).
Somewhere here we feel Yeshua said the blessing for the Pascal sacrifice and then the Maror. We know this because John tells us that He then cut the Lamb and dipped this into the maror, passing to each of His disciples, He said towards Judas "It is he to whom I shall give this morsel when I have dipped it" Jn.13.26. Only John heard this but Yeshua would tell the rest soon enough. This however did not satisfy the others and they continued to bubble inside as the Pascal sacrifice was consumed (no one can speak during the time the Passover is eaten, thus Yeshua spoke and then they had to remain quiet). Now after this "Hillel sandwich" (the explanation for this sandwich is further down) was eaten Yeshua takes the cup, the second cup of deliverance which He blessed before He washed their feet and again says, "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in My blood." Lk.22.20. But doesn't Luke say this was after supper? Here they have just started eating. Actually no, Luke says it was after "sup". The word for supper is "deipnon" (1173) but in Luke we read "deipneo" (1172) which is a potion of the main meal or "sup". This doesn't mean the potatoes were on the plate but rather it's more like an appetizer!
So Yeshua mentions the betrayer then distracts them with the fulfillment of Mitzvoth, and Yeshua knew until the Hillel sandwich was eaten no one would talk, and then He finished His blessing on the wine after He passed this meat by tying it also back to John 6. We say this because in John 6, Yeshua promises us that if we eat His flesh and drink His blood we shall have eternal life (Jn.7.53-54). Thus by instituting His Eucharist at the Last Supper, He was delivering all those who take Him at His word and this is why we believe this came on the second cup (deliverance). Since Catholics accept His Eucharist by His Word on faith as well as recognize Yeshua's sacrifice upon Mount Calvary we know even if we die we shall be saved! Yet the second cup is blessed before we say the Barukh HaMotzi (a different order from Matt. and Mk.) and we feel that when Yeshua said the words we would one day use in the Consecration (according to Luke's Gospel) He did so over the cup we use to drink down the H illel sandwich full of maror and bitter lamb. Thus we see this cup as referencing His sacrifice on Calvary.
Now that this is finished, Yeshua draws back to Judas but He does this while He lifts the cup, Lk.22.20, yet the others had already begun the feast. Remember it was only to John that the betrayer had been revealed at this time thus while they are eating Yeshua brings back up the betrayer but He does this in the light of shedding His blood for us. And as He speaks these words and the words of His betrayer to all, including Judas, all are forcing down the Hillel sandwich. Now from all that we read in Matt.26.20-25 and Mk.14.17-21, we see this event as occurring on the heels of Luke verse 22-23, which connects directly to Matt.26.24-25, and Mk.14.21. Now we fit in Jn.13.29-31.
You can see this clearer in the seder and how these passages do seem to fit together this way without any contradiction, but they are based on one assumption and that is that neither Matthew nor Mark put the Last Supper in it's exact order and that Luke's order is the most correct. One complaint we have received on this thinking is that Saint Luke was a Gentile, so how could a Gentile get things correct and the Jews get them wrong? We agree that Saint Luke was probably a Gentile who embraced the Messiah through the ministry of Saint Paul, yet tradition also asserts that he was a close companion of Saint Paul and it was from this relationship we suspect that Luke gained access to the information he would later write down in the two books credited to him.
Would upholding the versions for Luke and 1Corinthians be weakening the meaning found in Matthew and Mark? We feel only if we left things there because when we read Matt.26.26-29 and Mk.14.22-25 the order is not outright, but implied from our Catholic version of our Bible. That is, we find no "then" or "after", just an "and" (although we do not have access to a Greek version with grammar) between the saying of the Kiddush and the Barukh HaMotzi. And if we are correct, then these differences aren't an inaccuracy but a "remez" or hint of a meaning that is greater beneath the text. Thus Luke's order is right on from our understanding because it matches the Seder, however it would still be impractical using this order in Mass because to recreate the events as they happened accurately we need to have the Hillel sandwich first, like the disciples did. However, for the last two thousand years Peter has been in charge and He chose the other way and it must have been for a reason (prophecy?). Thus we believe the Spirit called Matthew and Mark to write it this way to set the stage for the Sacrifice of the Mass. Besides Malachi confirms the truth of our Church's sacrifice in our eyes even as it foretells its advent, Mal.1.11-12.
Yet this change in the order that foretold our mass carries a deeper rich meaning when fitted into the meanings of the four cups. For there is another place where the Kiddush is said after the Barukh HaMotzi at supper and this comes after the supper/Hillel sandwich and before we give thanks. It is this cup that is the true cup of redemption (the other one just helped us swallow that sacrifice) and isn't it true that we see our redemption in Him only after we swallow down the truth that our sins that crucified Him? And giving thanks follows this third cup, which also makes sense because our Eucharist is the Sacrifice of Thanksgiving, which the Talmud states is the only eternal sacrifice! And this also links back to the second cup through the Bread of His sacrifice that He blessed for the Hillel sandwich.
To go onto the Church Fathers follow this link or you can return to the Contents.
