Passover the first and most important of the three great annual festivals — the other two being pentecost and the Feast of tabernacles — on which the male population appeared before the Lord in Jerusalem. In the present article it is our aim to combine the Scriptural notices of this institution with whatever information ancient or modern authors give, especially the Talmudical regulations for its observance. SEE FESTIVAL.
I. Name and its Signification — The Heb. word פֶּסִח, Pesach (from פָּסִח, pasach, to pass through, to leap, to halt [2Sa 4:4; 1Ki 18:21], then tropically to pass by in the sense of sparing, to save, to show mercy [Ex 12:13,23,27; Isa 31:5]), denotes —
1. An overstepping, passover, and is so rendered by Josephus (Ant. 2:14, 6, ὑπερβασία), Aquila (ὑπέρβασις), and the English version.
2. It signifies the paschal sacrifice, by virtue of which, according to the divine appointment, the passing over, or saving, was effected (Ex 2:1,25,25; 2Ch 30:15).
3. It designates the paschal meal on the evening of the 14th of Nisan; — while the seven following days are called הג הִמִּצוֹת, the feast of unleavened bread — (Le 23:5-6), and hence the expression ממחרת הפסח, the morrow of the Passover, for the 15th of Nisan (Nu 33:3; Jos 5:11). It is used synecdochically for the whole festival of unleavened bread, which commenced with the paschal meal (De 16:1-3; comp. also Eze 45:21, where פסח is explained by חג שבעות ימים), — written fully הִפֶּסִה חִג (Ex 34:25). The whole feast, including the paschal-eve, is also denominated חִג הִמִּצּוֹת, the festival of unleavened bread, ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν ἀζύμων, ἡμέραι τῶν ἀζύμων, festum azymorum (Ex 23:15; Le 23:6: 2Ch 8:13; Ezr 6:22; Lu 22:1,7; Ac 12:3; Ac 20:6; Josephus, War, 2:1, 3); or simply הִמִּצּוֹת, τὰ ἄζυμα (Ex 12:17; Mr 14:1). The simple name Pesach (פֶּסִח = φασέκ; Sept. 2Ch 30:15; 2Ch 35:1,11; Aramaean פִּסחָא = τὸ πάσχα; Mr 14:1), however, is the one commonly used by the Jews to the present day to denote the festival of unleavened bread; and it is for this reason that this appellation is retained untranslated in the Sept. and N.T.
Some have taken the meaning of פָּסִח, the root, of פֶּסִח, to be that of "passing through," and have referred its application here to the passage of the Red Sea. Hence the Vulgate has rendered פֶּסִח by transitus, Philo (De Vit. Mosis, lib. 3, c. 29) by διαβατήρια, and Gregory of Nazianzum by διάβασις. Augustine take's the same view of the word; as do also Von Bohlen and a few other modern critics. Jerome applies transitus both to the passing over of the destroyer and the passing through the Red Sea (in Matthew 26). But the true sense of the Hebrew substantive is plainly indicated in Ex 12:27; and the best authorities are agreed that פָּסִח never expresses "passing through," but that its primary meaning is "leaping over." Hence the verb is regularly used with the preposition עִל. But since, when we jump or step over anything, we do not tread upon it. the word has a secondary meaning "to spare," or "to show mercy" (comp. Isa 31:5 with Ex 12:27). The Sept. has therefore used σκεπάζειν in Ex 12:13; and Onkelos has rendered זֶבִחאּפֶּסִח, "the sacrifice of the Passover," by דּבִח חֲיָס, "the sacrifice of mercy." In the same purport agree Theodotion, Symmachus, several of the fathers, and the best modern critics. Our own translators, by using the word "Passover,"' have made clear Ex 12:12,23 and other passages, which are not intelligible in the Sept. nor in several other versions. (See Bahr, Symbolik, 2:627; Ewald, Alterthumer, p. 390; Gesenius, Thes. s.v.; Drusius, Noce Majores, in Ex 12:27; Carpzov, App. Crit. p. 394.)
Some of the Church fathers, not knowing the Heb. signification, have derived πάσχα from the Greek πάσχω to suffer. Thus Chrysostom tells us, πάσχα λέγεται, ὅτι τότε ἔπαθεν ὁ Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν.(Homil. 5, in 1 Tim.); Irenaeus says: "A Moyse osteniditur Filius Dei, cujus et diem passionis non ignoravit, sed-figuratim pronunciavit eum pascha niominans?(Adv. Fvr .iv. 22); Tertullian affirms, "Hanc solemnitatem-
praecanebat (sc. Moyset) et adjecit, Pascha esse Domini, id est, passionem Christi" (Adv. Judaeos, c. x, s. f.). Chrvsostom appears to avail himself of it for a paronomasia in the above passage, in another place the format states the true meaning: ὑπέρβασίς ἐστι καθ ἑρμηνείαν τὸ πάσχα. Gregory of Nazianzum seems to do the same (Orat. xlii), since he elsewhere (as is stated above) explains πάσχα as διάβασις (see Suicer, s.v.). Augustine, who took this latter view, has a passage which is worth quoting:
"Pascha, fratres, non sicut quidam existimant, Grsecum nomen esth sed Hebranem; opportunissime tamen occurrit in hoc nomine qusedam congrnentia utrarumquie linuutirunm. Quia eniln peati Graece πάσχειν dicitur, idea Pascha passio putata est, velut hoc nomen a passione sit appellatunm; in sna vero lingna, hoc est in Ilebraea, Pascha transi-us dicitur; propterea tune priinum Pascha celeb'ravit populus Dei, quando ex AEgypto fugientes, rubrum mare transierunt. Nunc ergo tigura illa prophetica in veritate completa est, cum sicut ovis ad imnlolandum ducitur Christus, cujus sanguine illitis postibus nostris, id est, cnjus signo crucis signatis frontibus nostris, a perditione hujus saeculi tanquam a captivitate vel iiiterempttone AEgyptia liberamur; et agimus saluberrimum transitum cum a diabolo transimus ad Christum, et ab isto instabili saeculo ad ejus fundatissimum regnum, Col 1:13" (In Joan. Tract. 4).
II. Biblical Institution and Observance of the Passover (from the time of Moses to the Captivity). — The following are the principal passages in the Pentateuch relating to the Passover: Exodus 12:1-51, in which there is a full account of its original institution and first observance in Egypt; Ex 13:3-10, in which the unleavened bread is spoken of in connection with the sanctification of the first-born, but there is no mention of the paschal lamb? Ex 23:14-19, where, under the name of the feast of unleavened bread, it is first connectced with the two other great annual festivals, and also with the Sabbath, and in which the paschal lamb is styled "My sacrifice;" Ex 34:18-26, in which the festival is brought into the same connection, with immediate reference to the redemption of the first-born, aid in which the words of Ex 23:18, regarding the paschal lamb, are repeated; Le 23:4-14, where it is mentioned in the same connection, the days of holy convocation are especially noticed, and the enactment is prospectively given respecting the offering of the first sheaf of harvest, with the offerings which were to accompany it, when the Israelites possessed the Promised Land; Nu 9:1-14, in which the divine word repeats the command for the observance of the Passover at the commencement of the second year after the Exodus, and in which the observance of the Passover in the second month, for those who could not participate in it at the regular time, is instituted; Nu 28:16-25, where directions are given for the offerings which were to be made on each of the seven-days of the festival; De 16:1-6, where the command is prospectively given that the Passover, and the other great festivals, should be observed in the place which the Lord might choose in the Land of Promise, and where there appears to be an allusion to the Chagigah, or voluntary peace-offerings. There are five distinct statutes on the Passover in the 12th and 13th chapters of Exodus (12:2-4, 5-20, 21-28, 42-51; 13:1-10).
1. At the Exode. — In the first institution of the Passover it was ordained that the head of each family was to select, on the 10th of Nisan (i.e. four days beforehand, supposed to represent the four generations which had elapsed since the children of Israel had come to Egypt, Ge 15:16), a male lamb or goat of the first year, and without blemish, to kill it on the eve of the 14th, sprinkle the blood with a sprig of hyssop on the two side- posts and the lintel of the door of the house-being the parts of the house most obvious to passers-by, and to which texts of Scripture were afterwards affixed, SEE MEZUZAH — to roast (and not boil) the whole animal with its head, legs, and entrails, without breaking a bone thereof, and when thoroughly done, he and his family were to eat it on the same evening together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, having their loins girt, their sandals on their feet, and their staves in their hands. If the family, however, were too small in number to consume it, a neighboring family might join them, provided they were circumcised sons of Israel, or household servants and strangers who had been received into the community by the rite of circumcision. The whole of the Pesach was to be consumed on the premises, and if it could not be eaten it was not to be removed from the house, but burned on the spot on the following morning. The festival was to be celebrated seven days, i.e. till the twenty-first of the month, during which. time unleavened bread was to be eaten, built cessation from all work and trade was only to be on the first and seventh day of the festival. Though instituted to dispute them from the general destruction of Egypt's first-born, the Israelites were told to regard the Passover as an ordinance forever, to teach its meaning to their children, and that the transgression of the enactments connected therewith was to be punished with excision (Ex 12:1-28,48-51). The precise meaning of the phrase בין הערבים, between the two evenings, which is used with reference to the time when the paschal animal is to be slain (Ex 12:6; Le 23:5; Nu 9:3,5), as well as in connection with the offering of the evening sacrifice (Ex 29:39,41; Nu 28:4), and elsewhere (Ex 16:12; Ex 30:8), is greatly disputed. The Samaritans, the Karaites, and Aben-Ezra, who are followed by Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Gesenius, Maurer, Kalisch, Knobel, Keil, and most modern commentators, take it to denote the space between the setting of the sun and the moment when the stars become visible, or when darkness sets in, i.e. between six and seven o'clock. Accordingly, Aben-Ezra explains the phrase between the two evenings as follows: "Behold we have two evenings, the first is when the sun sets, and that is at the time when it disappears beneath the horizon; while the second is at the time when the light disappears which is reflected in the clouds, and there is between them an interval of about one hour and twenty minutes" (Comment. on Exodus 12:6). Tradition, however, interprets the phrase between the two evenings to mean from afternoon to the disappearing of the sun, the first evening being from the time when the sun begins to decline from its vertical or noontide point towards the west; and the second from its going down and vanishing out of sight, which is the reason why the daily sacrifice might be killed at 12:30 P.M. on a Friday (Mishna, Pesachim, v, 1; Maimonides, Hilchoth Korban Pesach. 1:4). But as the paschal lamb was slain after the daily sacrifice, it generally took place from 2:30 to 5:50 P.M. (Joseph. War, 6:9, 3). We should have deemed it superfluous to add that such faithful followers of Jewish tradition as Saadia, Rashi, Kimchi, Ralbag, etc., spouse this definition of the ancient Jewish canons, were it not for the assertion which is made in some of the best Christian commentaries that "Jarchi [= Rashi] and Kimchi hold that the two evenings were the time immediately before and immediately after sunset, so that the point of time at which the sun sets divides them." Now Rashi most distinctly declares, "From the sixth hour [= twelve o'clock] and upwards is called between the two evenings (בין הערבים), because the sun begins to set for the evening. Hence it appears to me that the phrase between the two evenings denotes the hours between the evening of the day and the evening of the night. The evening of the day is from the beginning of the seventh hour [= immediately after noontide], when the evening shadows begin to lengthen, while the evening of the night is at the beginning of the night" (Commentary on Exodus 12:6). Kimchi says almost literally the same thing:" בין הערבים is from the time when 'the sun begins to incline towards the west, which is from the sixth hour [=twelve o'clock] and upwards. It is called ערבים because there are two evenings, for from the 'time' that the sun begins to decline is one evening, and the other evening is after the sun has gone down, and it is the space between which is meant by between the two evenings" (Lexicon, s.v. ערב). Eustathius, in a note on the seventeenth book of the Odyssey, shows that the Greeks too held that there were two evenings, one which they called the latter evening (δείλη ὀψία), at the close of the day; and the other the former evening (δείλη πρωϊvα), which commenced immediately after noon (see Bochart. Hieroz. pt. 1, lib. 2, cap. 1; Oper. 2:559, ed. 1712).
2. In the post-exodus legislation on this festival several enactments were introduced at different times, which both supplement and modify the original institution. Thus it is ordained that all the male members of the congregation are to appear in the sanctuary be fore the Lord with the offering of firstlings (Ex 23:14-19; Ex 34:18-26); that the first sheaf of the harvest (עמר) is to be offered on "the morrow after the Sabbath" (Le 23:4-14); that those who, through defilement or absence from home, are prevented from keeping the. Passover on the 14th of Nisan, are in celebrate it on the 14th of the following month (Nu 9:1-14); that special sacrifices are to be offered or each day of the festival (Nu 28:16-25); than the paschal animals are to be slain in the national sanctuary, and that the blood is to be sprinkled on the altar instead of the two door-posts and lintels of the doors in the respective dwellings of the families (De 16:1-8). The ancient Jewish canons, therefore, rightly distinguished between the Egyptian Passover (מצרים פסח) and the Permanent Passover (פסח דורות), and point out. the following differences between them
(a) In the former the paschal animal was to be selected on the tenth of Nisan (Ex 12:3).
(b) It was to be killed by the head of each family in his own dwelling, and its blood sprinkled on the two door-posts and the lintel of every house (Ex 12:6-7,22).
(c) It was to be consumed in haste, and the eaters thereof were to be dressed in their journeying garments (Ex 12:11).
(d) Unleavened bread was to be eaten with the paschal animal only on the first night, and not necessarily during the whole seven days, although the Israelites were almost compelled to eat unleavened bread, because they had no time to prepare leaven (Ex 12:39).
(e) No one who partook of the Pesach was to go out of the house until the morning (Ex 12:22).
(f) The women might partake of the paschal animal.
(g) Those who were Levitically impure were not necessarily precluded from sharing the meal.
(h) No firstlings were required to be offered.
(i) No sacrifices were brought.
(j) The festival lasted only one day, as the Israelites commenced their march on the 15th of Nisan (Mishna. Pesachim, 9:5; Tosiftha, Pesachim, 7; Maimonides, Iad Ha-Che zaka, Hilchoth Korban Pesach. 10:15).
Now these regulations were peculiar to the first Passover, and were afterwards modified and altered in the Permanent Passover. Elias of Byzantium adds that there was no command to burn the fat on the altar, that neither the Hallel nor any other hymn was sung, as was required in later times in accordance with Isa 30:29, and that the lambs were not slain in the consecrated place (quoted by Carpzov, App. Crit. p. 406. For other Jewish authorities, see Otho's Lexicon, s.v. Pascha).
Dr. Davidson, indeed (Introduction to the O.T. 1:84, etc.), insists that the Deuteronomist (De 16:1-7) gives other variations — that he mentions both צאן, small cattle, and בקר, oxen, as the paschal sacrifice, and states that the paschal victim is to be boiled (בשל), while in the original institution in Exodus 12 it is enacted that the paschal sacrifice is to be a שה only, and is to be roasted. But against this is to be urged
(1) That the word פסח in De 15:1-2, as frequently is used for the whole festival of unleavened bread, which commenced with the paschal sacrifice, and which indeed Dr. Davidson a little farther on admits, and that the sacrifices of sheep and oxen in question do not refer to the paschal victim, but to all the sacrifices appointed to be offered during the seven days of this festival. This is evident from ver. 3. where it is distinctly said, "Thou shalt eat no leavened bread therewith. (עליו) [i.e. with the פסה in ver. 2], seven days shalt thou eat therewith (עליו) [i.e. with the פסח] unleavened bread," thus showing that the sacrifice and eating of פסח is to last seven days, and that it is not the paschal victim which had to be slain on the 14th and be consumed on that very night (Ex 12:10).
(2) בשל simply denotes to cook, dress, or fit for eating in any manner, and here unquestionably stands for בשל באש, to roast in fire,(as in 2Ch 35:13). This sense is not only given in the ancient versions (Sept., Vulg., Chaldee paraphrase of Jonathan ben-Uzziel, etc.), and by the best commentators and lexicographers (Rashi-Rashbam, Aben-Ezra, Ibn- Saruk, Kimchi, Furst, Keil, etc.), but is supported by Knobel (Comment. on Exodus and Leviticus p. 98), who is quite as anxious as Dr. Davidson to establish the discrepancy between the two accounts.
(3) We know from the non-canonical records that it has been the undeviating practice of the Jews during the second Temple to offer שה only as a pas'chal sacrifice, and to roast it, but not to boil it. Now the Deuteronomist, who, as we are assured by Dr. Davidson and others, lived at a very late period, would surely not contradict this prevailing practice of a later time. Besides, if the supposed variations recorded by the Deuteronomist describe practices which obtained in later times, how is it that the non-canonical records of the Jewish practices at a later period agree with the older description, and not with the supposed variations in Deuteronomy?
That the Israelites kept the Passover on the evening before they left Egypt is distinctly declared in Ex 12:28. Bishop Colenso, however, argues against the Mosaic institution of the Passover, and against the possibility of its having been celebrated, because —
(1) Moses having received the command about the Passover on the very day at the close of which the paschal lambs were to be killed, could not possibly have communicated to every head of a family throughout the entire country the special and strict directions how to keep it;
(2) The notice to start at once in hurried flight in the middle of the night could not suddenly and completely be circulated; and
(3) As the people were 2,000,000 in number, and, if we take fifteen persons for each lamb, there must have been slain 150,000 paschal lambs, all males, one year old; this premises that 200,000 male lambs and 200,000 ewe-lambs were annually produced, "and that there existed a flock of 2,000,000 (The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua critically examined, pt. 1, chap. 10).
(1) from Ex 12:2-3 it is evident that, so far from receiving the command on the 14th of Nisan, Moses received it at the very beginning of the month, and that there was therefore sufficient time for the elders (comp. Ex 12:1-2 with ver. 21) to communicate the necessary instruction to the people, who were a well-organized body, presided over by the heads of families and leaders (Ex 5:6-23; Nu 1:1, etc.; Jos 7:14, etc.). The expressions בלילה הזה (12:12) and הלילה כחצות (11:4), on which Dr. Colenso lays so much stress, do not refer to the night following the day of the command, but to the night following the day when the command was to be executed הזה here, as frequently elsewhere, denotes the same, and expresses simultaneousness, whether past, present, or future, inasmuch as in historical narrative not only that which one can see, or, as it were, point his finger at, is regarded as present, but that which has just been mentioned (Ge 7:11,13; Ex 19:1; Le 23:6,21; Job 10:13), and that which is immediately to follow (Ge 5:1; Ge 6:15; Ge 45:19; Isa 66:2; Jer 5:7; Ps 74:18).
(2) The notice to quit was not momentary, but was indicated by Moses long before the celebration of the Passover (Ex 11:1-8), and was most unmistakably given in the order to eat the paschal meal in traveling attire, so as to be ready to start (Ex 12:11).
(3) The average of fifteen or twenty persons for each lamb, based upon the remark of Josephus (War li, vi, 9, 3), is inapplicable to the case in question, inasmuch as those who, according to later legislation, went up in after-
times to Jerusalem to offer the paschal sacrifice were all full-grown and able-bodied men, and every company of twenty such persons, when the Jews were in their own land, where there was every facility for obtaining the requisite flocks, might easily get and consume a .sheep in one night. But among the several millions of Israelites in Egypt and in the wilderness there were myriads of women, children, invalids, uncircumcised and unclean, who did not partake of the Passover, and those who did eat thereof would fully obey the divine command if one or two hundred of them simply ate a morsel of one and the same animal when they found any difficulty in obtaining flocks, inasmuch as the paschal sacrifice was only to be commemorative; just as one loaf suffices for hundreds of persons at the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Instead, therefore, of 150,000 being required for this purpose, 15,000 animals would suffice. Moreover, Dr. Colenso, misled by the A.V., which renders שה by lamb, makes a mistake in restricting the paschal sacrifice of Egypt to a lamb. Any Hebrew lexicon will show that it denotes one of the flock, i.e. either a sheep or a goat, and it is so used in De 14:4, שה כבשים ושה עזים, one of the sheep and one of the goats (comp. Gesenius's and Furst's Lexicons. s.v. שה). This mistake is all the more to be deplored, since at the institution of the Passover it is expressly declared that it is to be מן הכבשים ומן העזֹים ... שה, one of the sheep or of the goats (Ex 12:5). It is well known to scholars that the Jewish canons fixed a lamb for this purpose long after the Babylonian captivity. Hence the Targumist's rendering of שה by אמר or אמרא, which is followed by the A.V. It is well known also that goats have always formed a large admixture in Oriental flocks, and in the present which Jacob sent to Esau the proportion of sheep and goats is the same (Ge 32:14). Now the fifteen thousand paschal-sacrifices divided between the lambs and the goats would not be such an impossible demand upon the flocks.
3. Subsequent Notices before the Exile. — After the celebration of the Passover at its institution (Ex 12:28,50). we are told that the Israelites kept it again in the wilderness of Sinai in the second year after the exodus (Numbers 9). Between this and their arrival at Gilgal under Joshua, about thirty-nine years, the ordinance was entirely neglected, not because the people did not practice the rite of circumcision, and were therefore legally precluded from partaking of the paschal meal (Jos 5:10, with Ex 12:44-48), as many Christian expositors will have it, since there were many thousands of young people that had left Egypt who were circumcised, and these were not legally disqualified from celebrating the festival; but because, as Kashi, Aben-Ezra, and other Jewish commentators rightly remark, Ex 12:25; Ex 13:5-10 plainly show that after the first Passover in the wilderness, the Israelites were not to keep it again till they entered the land of Canaan. Only three instances, however, are recorded in which the Passover was celebrated between the entrance into the Promised Land and the Babylonian captivity, viz. under Solomon (2Ch 8:13), under Hezekiah, when he restored the national worship (2Ch 30:15), and under Josiah (2Ki 23:21; 2Ch 35:1-19). Later Biblical instances are the one celebrated by Ezra after the return from Babylon (Ezra 6), and those occurring in the life of our Lord.
III. Rabbinical Regulations. — After the return of the Jews from the captivity, where they had been weaned from idolatry, the spiritual guides of Israel reorganized the whole religious and political life of the nation, and defined, modified, and expanded every law and precept of the Mosaic code, so as to adapt them to the altered condition of the people. The celebration of the Passover, therefore, like that of all other institutions, became more: regular and systematic during this period,. while the different colleges which were now established and which were attended by numerous disciples, SEE EDUCATION, have faithfully transmitted to us all the sundry laws, rites, manners, and customs connected with this and all other festivals, which it was both impracticable and impossible to record in the limited space of the canonical books of the O.T. Hence it is that the manners and customs of this period, which were those of our Savior and his apostles, and which are therefore of the utmost importance and interest to Christians, and to the understanding of the N.T., can be more easily ascertained and more minutely described. Hence, also, the simple summary notice of the fact that the Israelites kept the Passover after their return from Babylon, contained in the canonical Scriptures (Ezr 6:19-22), may be supplemented by the detailed descriptions of the manner in which this festival was celebrated during the second Temple, given in the noncanonical documents. The various practices will be better understood and more easily followed if given in connection with the days of the festival on which they were respectively observed.
1. The Great Sabbath (שִׁבִּת הִגָּדוֹל, Shabbdth Hag-Gadol) is the Sabbath immediately preceding the Passover. It is so called in the calendar because, according to tradition, the tenth of the month on which the Lord commanded every head of a family to select the paschal sacrifice (Ex 12:3) originally happened to fall on the Sabbath; and though in later legislation the animal was not required to be set aside four days beforehand, yet the Jewish canons determined that the Sabbath should be used to instruct the people in the duties of this great festival. Hence special prayers (יוצרות) bearing on the redemption from Egypt, the love of God to Israel, and Israel's obligations to keep the Passover, have been ordained for this Sabbath, in addition to the ordinary ritual. Mal 3; Mal 4, was read as Maphtir (מפטיר) = the lesson for the day, SEE HAPHTARAH, and discourses were delivered by the spiritual guides of the community explanatory of the laws and domestic duties connected with the festival (Tur Orach Chajim, sec. 430). Though the present synagogal ritual for this day is of a later date, yet there can be no doubt that this Sabbath was already distinguished as the great Sabbath (μεγάλη ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ σαββάτου, Joh 19:31) in the time of the second Temple, and was used for preparing the people for the ensuing festival. SEE SABBATH.
2. The 13th of Nisan. — On the evening of the 13th, which, until that of the 14th, was called the preparation for the Passover (עֶרֶב פֶסִח, παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα, Joh 19:14), every head of the family searched for and collected by the light of a candle all the leaven (Mishna, Pesachim, 1:1). Before beginning the search he pronounced the following benediction: "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast sanctified us with thy commandments, and hast enjoined us to remove the leaven" (Talmud, Pesachim, 7 a; Maimonides, Yad Ha-Chezaka, Hilchoth Chamez U-Maza, 3:6). After the search he said "Whatever leaven remains in my possession which I cannot see, behold it is null, and accounted as the dust of the earth" (Maimonides, ibid.). What constituted leaven will be understood when the ancient definition of unleavened bread is known. According to the Jewish canons, the command to eat unleavened bread (Ex 13:6; Ex 23:15; Ex 34:18; Le 23:6; Nu 28:17; De 16:3) is executed by making the cakes (מצוע) which are to be eaten during the seven days of this festival of wheat, barley, spelt, oats, or rye (Mishna, Pesachim, 2:5). They appear to have been usually made of the finest wheat flour (Buxtorf, Sysn. Jud. c. 18, p.
397). It was probably formed into dry, thin biscuits, not unlike those used by the modern Jews. From these five kinds of grain (מיני דגן חמשת), which can be used for actual fermentation, the cakes are to be prepared before the dough begins to ferment; anything else made from one of these five kinds of corn with water constitutes leaven, and must be removed from the house and destroyed. Other kinds of produce and preparations made therefrom do not constitute leaven, and may be eaten. Thus we are told, "Nothing is prohibited on the Feast of Passover because of leaven except the five kinds of corn, viz. wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye. Leguminous plants, such as rice, millet, beans, lentils, and the like, in these there is no leaven; and although the meal of rice or the like is kneaded with hot water and covered with cloths till it rises like leavened dough, yet it may be eaten, for this is not leaven, but putrefaction. Even the five kinds of corn, if simply kneaded with the liquor of fruit, without water, are not accounted leaven. Though the dough thus made stands a whole day and rises, yet it may be eaten, because the liquor of fruit does not engender fermentation but acidity. The fruit-liquor, oil, wine, milk, honey, olive-oil, the juice of apples, of pomegranates, and the like, but no water, is to be in it, because any admixture of water, however small, produces fermentation" (Maimonides, Yad Ha-Chezaka, Hilchoth Chamnez U-Maza, v. 1; 2).
3. The 14th of Nisan. — On this day, which, as we have seen, was till the evening called the preparation for the Passover, and which was also called the first day of Passover or of unleavened bread (Le 23:5-6; Nu 9:3; Nu 28:16; Jos 5:10; Eze 45:21; 2Ch 30:15; 2Ch 35:l; Joseph. War, v. 3, 1), for the reason stated under the 13th of Nisan, handicraftsmen, with the exception of tailors, barbers, and laundresses, were obliged to relinquish their work either from morning or from noon, according to the custom of the different places in Palestine (Mishna, Pesachim, 4:1-8). Leaven was only allowed to be eaten till mid- day, when all leaven collected on the previous evening and discovered on this day had to be burned. The time for desisting from eating and burning the leaven was thus indicated: "Two desecrated cakes of thanksgiving- offering were placed on a bench in the Temple: as long as they were thus exposed all the people ate leaven; when one of them was removed they abstained from eating, but did not burn it; and when the other was removed all the people began burning the leaven" (ib. 1:5). It was on this day that every Israelite who was not infirm, ceremonially impure, uncircumcised, or who was on this day fifteen miles without the walls of Jerusalem (Mishna,
Pesachim, 9:2; Maimonides, Hilchoth Korban Pesach. v. 89), appeared before the Lord in Jerusalem with an offering in proportion to his means (Ex 23:15; De 16:16-17). Though women were not legally obliged to appear in the sanctuary, yet they were not excluded from it (1Sa 1:7; Lu 2:41-42). The Israelites who came from the country to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover were gratuitously accommodated by the inhabitants with the necessary apartments (Lu 22:10-12; Mt 26:18); and the guests left in return to their hosts the skins of the paschal lambs, and the vessels which they had used in their religious ceremonies (Joma, 12 a). It was, however, impossible to house all the pilgrims in Jerusalem itself, since the circumference of the city was little more than one league, and the number of the visitors was exceedingly great. Josephus tells us that there were 3,000,000 Jews at the Passover A.D. 65 (Wars 2:14, 3), and that at the Passover in the reign of Nero there were 2,700,000, when 256,500 lambs were slain (ib. 6:9, 3), and most of them must therefore have encamped in tents without the walls of the town, as the Mohammedan pilgrims now do at Mecca. It is therefore not surprising that seditions broke out on these occasions, and that the Romans, fearing lest these myriads of pilgrims should create a disturbance, and try to shake off the foreign yoke when thus massed together, took all the precautionary measures of both force and conciliation during the festival (Joseph. Ant. 17:9, 3; War, 1:3, etc.; Mt 16:5; Lu 13:1). — In confirmation of Josephus's statement, which has been impugned by sundry writers, it is to be remarked that ancient Baraitha, preserved in Tosiftha Pesachim, cap. 4. (s.f.), and the Babylon Pesachim, 64 b, relate as follows: Agrippa was anxious to ascertain the number of the Jewish population. He therefore ordered the priests to put down the number of the paschal lambs, which were found to be 1,200,000; and as there was to every lamb a company of no less than ten persons, the number of Jews must have been tenfold.
4. The Offering of the Paschal Lamb. — Having selected the lamb, which was neither to be one day above a year nor less than eight days old (Maimonides, Hilchoth Korban, 1:12, 13) — being an extension of the law about firstlings and burnt-offerings (Ex 22:30; Le 22:27) — and agreed as to the exact number of those who were to join for one lamb, the representatives of each company went to the Temple. The daily evening sacrifice (Ex 29:38-39), which was usually. killed at the eighth hour and a half (= 2:30 P.M.), and offered up at the ninth hour and a half (3:30 P.M.), was on this day killed at 1:30, and offered at 2:30 P.M., an hour earlier; and if the 14th of Nisan happened on a Friday, it was killed at 12:30 and offered at 1:30 P.M., two hours earlier than usual (Mishna, Pesachim, v. 1; Maimonides, Hilchoth Korban Pesach. 1:4). All the representatives of the respective companies were divided into three bands or divisions. — "The first division then entered with the paschal sacrifices, until the court of the Temple was filled, when the doors of the court were closed, and the trumpets were sounded three times, differing in the notes (תקעו והריעו ותקעו). The priests immediately placed themselves in two rows, holding bowls of silver and gold in their hands, i.e. one row holding silver bowls and the other gold ones. These bowls were not mixed up, nor had they stands underneath, in order that they might not be put down and. the blood become coagulated. The Israelites themselves killed their own paschal sacrifices, the nearest priest caught the blood, handed it to his fellow-priest, and he again passed it on to his fellow-priest, each receiving a full bowl and returning an empty one, while the priest nearest to the altar sprinkled it in one jet towards the base of the altar. Thereupon the first division went out, and the second division entered; and when the second again went out, the third entered; the second and third divisions acting in exactly the same way as the first. The Hallel was recited, SEE HALLEL, the whole time, and if it was finished before all the paschal animals were slain, it might be repeated a second and even a third time.... The paschal sacrifice was then suspended on iron hooks, which were affixed to the walls and pillars, and its skin taken off. Those who could not find a place for suspending and skinning it had pieces of wood provided for them, which they put on their own shoulders and on the shoulders of their neighbor, and on these they suspended the paschal sacrifice, and thus took off its skin. When the 14th of Nisan happened on a Sabbath, on which it was not lawful to use these sticks, one of the offerers put his left hand on the right shoulder of his fellow-offerer, while the latter put his right hand on the shoulder of the former, whereon they suspended the paschal sacrifice, and took off its skin." As soon as it was opened, the viscera were taken out with the internal fat. The fat was carefully separated and collected in the large dish, and the viscera were washed and replaced in the body of the lamb, like those of the burnt sacrifices (Le 1:9; Le 3:3-5; comp. Pesachim, 6:1). Maimonides says that the tail was put with the fat (Not. in Pesach. v. 10). The fat was burned on the altar, with incense, that same evening. On the Sabbath, the first division, after leaving the court, remained on the Temple Mountain, the second between the ramparts (i.e.
the open space between the walls of the court of the women and the trellis- work in the Temple, comp. Mishna, Middoth, 2:3), while the third remained in its place. When it became dark, they all went out to roast their paschal sacrifices (Mishna, Pesachim, v. 5-10). A spit, made of the wood of the pomegranate-tree, was put in at the mouth of the paschal lamb, and brought out again at its vent; it was then carefully placed in the oven so as not to touch its sides, lest the cooking should be affected (comp. Ex 12:9; 2Ch 35:13), and if any part of it happened to touch the earthenware oven, it had to be pared off; or if the fat which dripped from it had fallen on the oven, and then again fallen back on the lamb, the part so. touched had also to be cut out (Pesachim, 7:1, 2). If any one broke a bone of the paschal lamb, so as to infringe the command in Ex 12:46, he incurred the penalty of forty stripes (Pesachimn, 7:11). The bone, however, for the breaking of which the offender was to receive the stripes, must either have some flesh on it or some marrow in it, and he incurred the penalty even if some one had broken the same bone before him (Maimonides, Hilcloth Korban Pesach. 10:1, 3). The oven was of earthenware, and appears to have been in shape something like a bee- hive, with an opening in the side to admit fuel. According to Justin Martyr, a second spit, or skewer, was put transversely through the shoulders, so as to form the figure of a cross. As Justin was a native of Flavia Neapolis, it is a striking fact that the modern Samaritans roast their paschal lambs in nearly the same manner at this day. "The lambs (they require six for the community now) are roasted all together by stuffing them vertically, head downwards, into an oven which is like a small well, about three feet in diameter, and four or five feet deep, roughly stoned, in which a fire has been kept up for several hours. After the lambs are thrust in, the top of the hole is covered with-bushes and earth, to confine the heat till they are done. Each lamb has a stake or spit run through him to draw him up by; and, to prevent the spit from tearing away through the roast meat with the weight, a cross piece is put through the lower end of it" (Miss Rogers's Domestic Life in Palestine). Vitringa, Bochart, and Hottinger have taken the statement of Justin as representing the ancient Jewish usage; and, with him, regard the crossed spits as a prophetic type of the cross of our Lord. But it would seem more probable that the transverse spit was a mere matter of convenience, and was perhaps never in use among the Jews. The Rabbinical traditions relate that the lamb was called Galeatus, "qui quum totus assabatur, cum capite, cruribus, et intestinis, pedes autem et intestina ad latera ligabantur inter assandum, agnus ita quasi armatum repraesentaverit, qui galea in capite et ense in latere est munitus" (Otho, Leax. Rab. p. 503).
5. The Paschal Supper. — The paschal sacrifices, having been taken to the respective abodes of the companies, and the meals prepared, the parties arranged themselves in proper order, reclining at ease on the left side, round the table. A cup of wine was filled for everyone, over which the following benediction was pronounced: "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast created the fruit of the vine! Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast chosen us above all nations, and exalted us above all peoples, and hast sanctified us with thy commandments. Thou hast given us, O Lord our God, appointed seasons for joy, festivals and holy days for rejoicing, such as the feast of unleavened bread, the time of our liberation, for holy convocation, to commemorate our exodus from Egypt. Yea, thou hast chosen us, and hast sanctified us above all nations, and hast given us thy holy festivals with joy and rejoicing as an inheritance. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who hast sanctified Israel and the festivals! Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast preserved us and kept us, and hast safely brought us to this period!" The cup of wine was then drunk, and a basin of water and a towel were handed round, or the celebrators got up to wash their hands; (Joh 13:4-5,12), after which thebles sing belonging thereto was pronounced. A table was then brought in, upon which were bitter herbs and unleavened bread, the Charseth (see below), the body of the paschal lamb, and the flesh of the Chagigah, or feast offering. The president of the meal then took the herb, dipped it in the Charoseth, and, after thanking God for creating the fruits of the earth, he ate a piece of the size of an olive, and gave a similar portion to each one reclining with him at the table (Mt 26:23; Joh 13:26). A second cup of wine was then poured out, and the son, in accordance with Ex 12:26, asked his father as follows: "Wherefore is this night distinguished from all other nights? On all other nights we may eat either leavened or unleavened bread, but on this night unleavened bread only; on all other nights we may eat every kind of herbs, but on this night bitter herbs only; on all other nights we may eat meat either roasted, boiled, or cooked in different ways, but on this night we must eat roasted meat only; on all other nights we may dip once what we eat, but on this night twice. On all other nights we may eat either sitting or reclining, but on this night reclining only." To this the father replied: "Once we were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, but the Lord our God delivered us there-from with a strong hand and outstretched arm. If the Holy One — blessed be he — had not delivered our fathers from Egypt, we and our children, and our children's children, might still be in Egyptian bondage; and although we may all be sages, philosophers, elders, and skilled in the law, it is incumbent upon us to speak of the exodus from Egypt, and whoso dwells much on the exodus from Egypt is all the more to be praised." The father then expounded De 26:5-12, as well as the import of the paschal sacrifice, the unleavened bread, and the bitter herbs; saying with regard to the latter, "The paschal sacrifice is offered because the Lord passed over the houses of our, ancestors in Egypt, in accordance with Ex 12:27; the unleavened bread is eaten because our ancestors were redeemed from Egypt before they had time to leaven their dough, and the bitter herbs, are eaten because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our ancestors. It is therefore initimbent on everyone, in all ages, to consider as if he had personally gone forth from Egypt, as it is said in Ex 12:27. We are therefore in duty bound to thank, praise, adore, glorify, extol, honor, bless, exalt, and reverence him who wrought all these miracles for our forefathers and for us; for he brought us forth from bondage to freedom. He changed our sorrow into joy, our mourning into a feast; he led us from darkness into a great light, and from servitude to redemption. Let us therefore sing in his presence Hallelujah!" The first part of the Hallel was then recited (see below), i.e. Ps 113; Ps 114, and the following blessing pronounced: "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast redeemed us, and redeemed our forefathers from Egypt," etc. A third cup of wine was then pounred out, and the grace after meals was recited. After pouring out the fourth cup the Hallel was finished (i.e. Psalm 115-118), and the blessing of the song (i.e. נשמת and!יהללו) was said. The meal being ended, it was unlawful for anything to be introduced in the way of dessert (Mishna, Pesachim, 10:1-8; Maimonides, Yad Ha-Chezaka Hilchoth Chonmez U-Maza, 8:1-3).
In this connection it is proper to notice more in detail several points relating to the meal under consideration.
(a) The Bitter Herbs and the Sauce. — According to Pesachim (2:6), the bitter herbs (מרֹרַים;. Sept. πικρίδες; Vulg. lactucae agrestes, Ex 12:8) might be endive, chicory, wild lettuce, or nettles. These plants were important articles of food to the ancient Egyptians (as is noticed by Pliny), and they are said to constitute nearly half that of the modern Egyptians. According to Niebuhr they are still eaten at the Passover by the Jews in the East. They were used in former times either fresh or dried, and' a portion of them is said to have been eaten before the unleavened bread (Pesach. 10:3).
The sauce into which the herbs, the bread, and the meat were dipped as they were eaten (Joh 13:26; Mt 26:23), is not mentioned in the Pentateuch. It is called in the Mishna חֲרַוֹסֶת, charoseth. According to Bartenora it consisted of only vinegar and water; but others describe it as a mixture of vinegar, figs, dates, almonds, and spice. The same sauce was used on ordinary occasions thickened with a little flour; but the Rabbinists forbade this at the Passover, lest the flour should occasion a slight degree of fermentation. Some say that it was beaten up to the consistence of mortar or clay, in order to commemorate the toils of the Israelites in Egypt in laying bricks (Buxtorf, Lex. Tal. col. 831; Pesachimn 2:8; 10:3, with the notes of Bartenora, Maimonides, and Surenhusius).
(b) The Four Cups of Wine. — There is no mention of wine in connection with the Passover in the Pentateuch; but the Mishna strictly enjoins that there should never be less than four cups of it provided at the paschal meal even of the poorest Israelite (Pesach. 10:1). The wine was usually red, and it was mixed with water as it was drunk (Pesach. 7:13, with Bartenora's note; and Otho's Lex. p. 507). The cups were handed round in succession at specified intervals in the meal (see above). Two of them appear to be distinctly mentioned in Lu 22:17,20. "The cup of blessing" (1Co 10:16) was probably the latter one of these, and is generally considered to have been the third of the series, after which a grace was said; though a comparison of Lu 22:20 (where it is called "the cup after supper") with Pesach. 10:7, and the designation כּוֹס הִלֵּל, "cup of the Hallel," might rather suggest that it was the fourth and last cup. Schottgen, however, is inclined to doubt whether there is any reference in either of the passages of the N.T. to the formal ordering of the cups of the Passover, and proves that the name "cup of blessing" (כּוֹס שֵׁל בּרָכָה) was applied in a general way to any cup which was drunk with thanksgiving, and that the expression was often used metaphorically, e.g. Ps 116:13 (Hor. Heb. in 1Co 10:16; see also Carpzov, App. rit. p. 380).
The wine drunk at the meal was not restricted to the four cups, but none could be taken during the interval between the third and fourth cups (Pesach. 10:7).
(c) The Hallel. — The service of praise sung at the Passover is not mentioned in the law. The name is contracted from הִללוּאּיָהּ (Hallelujah). It consisted of the series of Psalms from 113 to 118. The first portion, comprising Ps 113; Ps 114, was sung in the early part of the meal, and the second part after the fourth cup of wine. This is supposed to have been the "hymn" sung by our Lord and his apostles (Mt 26:30; Mr 14:26; Buxtorf, Lex. Tal. s.v. hה, and Syn. Jud. p. 48; Otho, Lex. p. 271; Garpzov. App. Crit. p. 374. SEE HALLEL.
(d) Persons Partaking. — No male was admitted to the table unless he was circumcised, even if he was of the seed of Israel (Ex 12:48). Neither, according to the letter of the law, was any one of either sex admitted who was ceremonially unclean (Nu 9:6; Joseph. War, 6:9, 3). But this rule was on special occasions liberally applied. In the case of Hezekiah's Passover (2 Chronicles 30), we find that a greater degree of legal purity was required to slaughter the lambs than to eat them, and that numbers partook "otherwise than it was written," who were not "cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary." The Rabbinists expressly state that women were permitted, though not commanded, to partake (Pesach. 8:1; Chargigqah, 1:1; comp. Joseph. War, 6:9, 3), in accordance with the instances in Scripture which have been mentioned of Hannah and Mary. But the Karaites, in more recent times, excluded all but full grown men. It was customary for the number of a party to be not less than ten (Joseph. War, 6:9, 3). It was perhaps generally under twenty, but it might be as many as a hundred, if each one could have a piece of the lamb as large as an olive (Pesach. 8:7).
(e) Position at the Table. — When the meal was prepared, the family was placed round the table, the paterfamilias taking a place of honor, probably somewhat raised above the rest. There is no reason to doubt that the ancient Hebrews sat, as they were accustomed to do at their ordinary meals (see Otho, Lex. p. 7). But when the custom of reclining at table had become general, that posture appears to have been enjoined, on the ground of its supposed significance. The Mishna says that the meanest Israelite should recline at the Passover "like a king, with the ease becoming a free man" (Pesach. 10:1, with Maimonides's note). He was to keep in mind that when his ancestors stood at the feast in Egypt they took the posture of slaves (R. Levi, quoted by Otho, p. 504). Our Lord and his apostles conformed to the usual custom of their time, and reclined (Lu 22:14, etc.).
6. The 15th of Nisan. — On this day there was a holy convocation, and it was one of the six days on which, as on the Sabbath, no manner of work was allowed to be done; with this exception, however, that while on the Sabbath the preparation of the necessary articles of food was not allowed (Ex 16:5,23,29; Ex 35:2-3), on holy convocation it was permitted (Ex 12:16; Le 23:7; Nu 28:18). The other five days on which the Bible prohibits servile work are the seventh day of this festival, the day of Pentecost, New-Year's day, and the first and last days of the feast of Tabernarcles. The needful work which was lawful to be done on these days is defined by the Jewish canons to be such as killing beasts, kneading dough, baking bread, boiling, roasting, etc.; but not such work as may be done in the evening of a fast-day, as, for instance, reaping, threshing, winnowing, or grinding; while servile work is building, pulling down edifices, weaving, etc. If any one engaged in servile work he was not to be stoned to death, as in the case of violating the Sabbath (Nu 15:32,35), but received forty stripes save one (Maimonides, Yad Ha- Chezaka, Hilchoth Yom Tob. 1:1, etc.). In addition to the daily ordinary sacrifices, there were offered on this day and on the following six days two young bullocks, a ram, and seven lambs of the first year, with meat- offerings for a burnt-offering, and a goat for a sin-offering (Nu 28:19-23).
Besides these public sacrifices, there were the voluntary offerings which were made by every private individual who appeared before the Lord in Jerusalem, in accordance with the injunction in Ex 23:15; De 16:16. The Jewish canons ordained that this freewill- offering from every attendant at the sanctuary (ראייה) was to be a threefold one: 1, A burnt-offering of not less value than one meah silver =16 grains of corn; 2, a festive offering, called Chagigah (see below), of not less value than two meahs =32 grains of corn; and 3; a peace or joyful offering (De 27:7), the value of which was entirely left to be determined by the good-will of the offerer, according to De 16:16. The last two were alike denominated peace-offerings. They were generally offered on the first day of the festival, and if any one failed to bring them on this day, they might be brought on any other day of the festival; but if they were neglected during the festival, they could not be offered afterwards (Chagigah, 1, 6; Maimonides, Hilchoth Chagigah, 1:4, 5). Those who contracted any legal impurity were not allowed to offer the Chagigdh (Mishna, Pesachim, 6:3).
The special sort of sacrifice named above as connected with the Passover, as well as with the other great festivals, is called in the Talmud חֲגַיגָה (Chagigah, i.e. "festivity"). It was a voluntary peace-offering made by private individuals. The victim might be taken either from the flock or the herd. It might be either male or female, but it must be without blemish. The offerer laid his hand upon its head and slew it at the door of the sanctuary. The blood was sprinkled on the altar, and the fat of the inside, with the kidneys, was burned by the priest. The breast was given to the priest as a wave offering, and the right shoulder as a heave-offering (Le 3:1-5; Le 7:29-34). What remained of the victim might be eaten by the offerer and his guests on the day on which it was slain, and on the day following; but if any portion was left till the third day, it was burned (Le 7:16-18; Pesach. 6:4). The connection of these free-will peace-offerings with the festivals appears to be indicated in Nu 10:10; De 14:26; 2Ch 30:22, and they are included under the term Passover in De 16:2: "Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the Passover unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and of the herd." Onkelos here understands the command to sacrifice from the flock to refer to the paschal lamb, and that to sacrifice from the herd to the Chagigah. But it seems more probable that both the flock and the herd refer to the Chagigah, as there is a specific command respecting the paschal lamb in ver. 5-7 (see De Muis's note in the Crit. Sac.; and Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on John, 18:28). There are evidently similar references in 2Ch 30:22-24; 2Ch 35:7. Hezekiah and his princes gave away at the great Passover which he celebrated two thousand bullocks and seventeen thousand sheep; and Josiah, on a similar occasion, is said to pave supplied the people at his own cost with lambs "for the Passover offerings," besides three thousand oxen. From these passages and others, it may be seen that the eating of the Chagigah was an occasion of social festivity connected with the festivals, and especially with the Passover. The principal day for sacrificing the passover Chagigah was the 15th of Nisan, the first day of holy convocation, unless it happened to be the weekly Sabbath. The paschal lamb might be slain on the Sabbath, but not the Chagigah. With this exception, the Chagigah might be offered on any day of the festival, and on some occasions a Chagigah victim was slain on the 14th, especially when the paschal lamb was likely to prove too small to serve as meat for the party (Pesach. 4:4; 10:3; Lightfoot, Temple Service, c. 12; Reland, Ant. 4, c. ii, § 2).
That the Chagigah might be boiled, as well as roasted, is proved by 2Ch 35:13, "And they roasted the passover with fire according to the ordinance; but the other holy offerings sod they in pots, and in caldrons, and in pans, and divided them speedily among all the people."
7. The 16th of Nisan. — On the 16th, or the day after the holy convocation, called "the morrow after the Sabbath", SEE PENTECOST, the omer (עמר, τὰ δράγματα, munipulus epicarum) of the first produce of the harvest was brought to the priest, to be waved before the Lord in accordance with the injunction in Le 23:10-14 which was of barley, being the grain which ripened before the wheat (Ex 9:31-32; 2Sa 21:9; Ru 2:23; 2Ki 4:42; Manachoth, 84 a). The omer had to be from the best and ripest standing corn of a field near Jerusalem. The measure of an omer had to be of the meal obtained from the barley offering. Hence three seahs =one ephah, or ten omers, were at first gathered in the following manner: "Delegates from the Sanhedrim went [into the field nearest to Jerusalem] a day before the festival, and tied together the ears in bundles, while still fastened to the ground, so that they might easily be cut. [On the afternoon of the 16th the inhabitants of the neighboring towns assembled together, that the reaping might take place amid great tumult. As soon as it became dark, each of the reapers asked, Has the sun gone down? To this the people replied, Yes. He asked again, Has the sun gone down? To this the people again replied, Yes. Each reaper then asked, Is this the scythe? To this the people replied, Yes. Is it the scythe? Yes, was again the reply. Is this the box? Yes, they replied. Is it the box.? Yes, was again the reply. Is this the Sabbath? Yes, his the Sabbath they replied. Is it the Sabbath? Yes, this is the Sabbath, was again the reply. Shall I cut? Yes, cut, they replied. Shall I cut? Do cut, they again replied. Every question was asked three times, and the people replied to it each time. This was done because of the Boethuseans (ביתוסים), who maintained that the reaping of the omer was not to be at the exit of the festival. When cut it was laid in boxes, brought into the court of the Temple, threshed with canes and. stalks, that the grains might not be crushed, and laid on a roast with holes, that the fire might touch each grain;
it was then spread in the court of the Temple for the wind to pass over it, and ground in a barley-mill [which left the hulls unground]. The flour thus obtained was sifted through thirteen different sieves Each one finer than its predecessor], and in this manner was the prescribed omer, or tenth part, got from the seah. The residue was redeemed, and could be used by every one. They mixed the omer of meal with a log [=half a pint] of oil, put on it a handful of frankincense (Le 2:15), as on other meat-offerings, waved it, took a handful of it, and caused it to ascend in smoke (Le 2:16), and the residue was eaten by the priests." Immediately after the ceremony, bread, parched corn, green ears, etc., of the new crop were exposed for sale in the streets of Jerusalem, as prior to the offering of the omer no use whatever was allowed to be made of the new corn (Mishna, Menachoth, 10:2-5; Maimonides, Yad Ha-Chezakl, Hilchoth Tamidin U-Mosaphin, 7:4-21; comp. also Josephus, Ant. 3:10, 5). From this day the fifty days began to be counted to the day of Pentecost (Le 23:15).
8. The 17th to the 20th of Nisan. — This period was half-holy day (חול חמועד), called the middle days of the festival, or the lesser festival (מועד קטן), which had already commenced with the 16th. The people either left Jerusalem and returned to their respective homes, or remained and indulged in public amusements, as dances, songs, games, etc., to fill up the time in harmony with the joyful and solemn character of the festival. The work allowed to be done during the middle days of the festival was restricted to irrigating dry land, digging watercourses, repairing conduits, reservoirs, roads, market-places, baths, whitewashing tombs, etc. Dealers in fruit, garments, or in utensils were allowed to sell privately what was required for immediate use. Whatever the emergencies of the public service required, or was necessary for the festival, or any occupation the omission of which might cause loss or injury, was permitted. Hence no new graves were allowed to be dug, nor wives espoused, nor houses, slaves, or cattle purchased, except for the use of the festival. Mourning women, though allowed to wail, were not permitted to clap their hands together. The work allowed to be done during these days of the festival is strictly regulated by the Jewish canons contained in the Mishna, Moed Katon. In the Temple, however, the additional sacrifices appointed for the festival were offered up, except that the lesser Hallel was now recited, and not the Great Hallel.
9. The 21st of Nisan. — On the last day of the festival, as on the first, there was again a holy convocation. It was in all respects celebrated like the first day, except that it did not commence with the paschal meal. As at all the festivals, cheerfulness was to prevail during the whole week, and all care was to be laid aside (De 27:7; comp. Joseph. Ant. 11:5; Michaelis, Laws of Moses, art. 197).
10. The Second or Little Passover. — According to the injunction in Nu 9:9-12, any one who was prevented by legal impurity, or by being at too great a distance from Jerusalem, from celebrating the regular Passover on the eve of the 14th of Nisan, was obliged to keep it on the 14th of the following month. This is called by the ancient Jewish tradition the Second or the Little Passover (פֶּסִח קָטוֹן, פֶּסח שֵׁנַי), and the Jewish canons also add, most justly, that those-who have been prevented from observing the first or ordinary Passover through error or compulsory force, are absolutely bound to keep the second Passover. The difference between the two Passovers is thus summed up in these canons: "In the case of the first Passover no leaven was to be seen or found in the house, the paschal sacrifice could not be offered with leaven, no piece thereof was allowed to be removed from the house in which the company ate it, the Hallel had to be recited at the eating thereof, the Chagigah had to be brought with it and it might be offered in uncleanness in case the majority of the congregation contracted it by contact with a corpse; while in the case of the second Passover both leavened and unleavened bread might be kept with it in the house, the Hallel had not to be recited at the eating of it, portions thereof might be removed from the house in which the company ate it, no Chagigah was brought with it, and it could not be offered under the above- named legal impurity" (Mishna, Pesachim, 9:3; Maimonides, Hilchoth Korban Pesach. 10:15).
11. Release of Prisoners. — It is a question whether the release of a prisoner at the Passover (Mt 27:15; Mr 15:6; Lu 23:17; Joh 18:39) was a custom of Roman origin, resembling what took place at the lectisternium (Livy, v. 13), and in later times on the birthday of an emperor; or whether it was an old Hebrew usage belonging to the festival, which Pilate allowed the Jews to retain. Grotius argues in favor of the former notion (on Mt 27:15). But others (Hottinger, Schottgen, Winer) consider that the words of St. John — ἔστι δὲ συνήθεια ὑμῖν — render it most probable that the custom was essentially Hebrew. Schottgen thinks that there is an allusion to it in Pesachinz (8:6), where it is permitted that a lamb should be slain on the 14th of Nisan for the special use of one in prison to whom a release had been promised. The subject is discussed at length by Hottinger, in his tract De Ritu dimittendi Reun in Festo Paschatis, in the Thesaurus Novus Theologico-Philologicus.
IV. The Manner in which the Passover is Celebrated at the Present Day. — With the exception of those ordinances which were legal, and belonged to the Temple, and the extension and more rigid explanation of some of the rites, the Jews to the present day continue to celebrate the feast of Passover as in the days of the second Temple. Several days before the festival all the utensils are cleansed (הגהת כלים); on the eve of the 13th of Nisan the master of the family, with a wax candle or lamp in his hand, searches most diligently into every hole and crevice throughout the house, lest any crumb of leavened bread should remain in the premises (בדיקת חמוֹ). Before the search commences he pronounces the benediction, and after this he recites the formal renunciation of all leaven given in the former part of this article. On the 14th of Nisan, the Preparation Day (ערב פסח), all the first-born males above thirteen years of age fast in commemoration of the sparing of the Jewish first-born at the time when all Egypt's first-born were destroyed. On this evening the Jews put on their festive garments, resort to the synagogue, and offer up the prayers appointed for the occasion, after which they return to their respective homes, where they find the houses illuminated and the tables spread. Three of the thin, round, and perforated unleavened cakes, which are made of wheaten flour, resembling the oatmeal bread made in Scotland, and which are eaten during the whole of the Passover week, are put on a plate, wrapped up in a napkin in such a manner as to be separated from each other, though lying one above the other. These three cakes represent the division of the Jews into the three orders, viz. Priests, Levites, and Israelites. SEE HAPHTARAH. A shank-bone of a shoulder of lamb, having a small bit of meat thereon roasted on the coals to commemorate the paschal lamb, and an egg roasted hard in hot ashes, to signify that it was to be roasted whole, are put on another dish; the bitter herbs are on a third dish, while the Charoseth (חרוסת), in remembrance of the bricks and mortar which the Israelites made in Egypt, and some salt water or vinegar in memory of their passage through the Red Sea, are put into two cups. When all the family have sat round the table, including the servants, to remind them that they were all alike in bondage, and should equally celebrate their redemption; and when the paterfamilias, arrayed in his death-garments, has reclined at the. head of the table to indicate the freedom of Israel, the following order is gone through:
1. (קדש) Each one has a cup of wine, over which they all, standing up and holding their respective cups in their hand, pronounce the blessing for the juice of the grape, welcome the festival, and drink the first cup leaning on the left side;
2. (רחוֹ) Thereupon the head of the family washes his hands;
3. (כרפס) Takes the parsley or shervil, dips it into the salt water, and hands it round to every one at the table, pronouncing the following benediction: "Blessed art thou, O Lord-our God, King of the universe, who hast created the fruit of the earth;"
4. (יחוֹ) He then breaks in two the middle of the. three unleavened cakes on the dish, conceals one half for an after-dish (אפיקומן = ἐπίγενμα), and leaves the other half on the dish;
5. (מגיד) He then uncovers the unleavened cake, takes the egg and the bone of the lamb from the dish, holds them up and says, "Lo! this is the bread of affliction which our forefathers ate in the land of Egypt. Whosoever is an hungered let him come and eat with us; whosoever is needy let him come and celebrate with us the Passover. This year we are here, next year we shall be in the land of Israel; this year we are servants, next year we shall be free children." The second cup is then filled, and the son asks the father the meaning of this festival, who replies to him in the manner described above. Having given a summary of the Egyptian bondage, and the deliverance therefrom, they all, lifting up the cup, exclaim, "Therefore it is our duty to give thanks," etc. The cup is then put down, the unleavened cakes covered, and the first part of the Hallel is recited. The unleavened cakes are again uncovered, the cups of wine taken up, and the following benedictions are pronounced: "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast redeemed us and redeemed our forefathers from Egypt, and preserved us this evening to eat thereon unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Let us thus, O Lord our God, and our fathers' God, also peacefully reach other festivals and holy days, to which we look forward. Cause us to rejoice in the rebuilding of thy city, and to be joyful in thy service, so that we may there eat of the thanksgiving offering and the paschal sacrifices, whose blood was sprinkled on the sides of thine altar as an acceptance. Then shall we sing unto thee a new song for our redemption and deliverance. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who redeemeth Israel!" The blessing over, the second cup is then filled, a blessing pronounced, and the wine drunk, whereupon each one washes his hands, and says, 'Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast sanctified us with thy commandments, and enjoined us to wash the hands." The master of the family takes up all the three unleavened cakes together in the order in which they are arranged, pronounces the following blessing over the uppermost cake: Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who bringest forth food from the earth!" and then pronounces the blessing for eating unleavened bread over the middle broken cake, which is as follow's: "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast sanctified us with thy commandments, and enjoined us to eat unleavened cakes!" He next breaks off a piece from the upper whole cake, and a piece from the half central cake, dips them in salt, and eats the two pieces in a reclining position. He then takes some of the bitter herbs, dips them in the Chardseth, pronounces the blessing over them. distributes them all round, and they eat them, not reclining. The master then takes a piece from the undermost cake and some of the bitter herbs, and eats them in a reclining position, saving, "In remembrance of the Temple according to Hillel. Thus Hillel did at the time when the Temple still existed. He wrapped up unleavened cakes with bitter herbs and ate them together, in order to perform what is said, It shall be eaten with unleavened cakes and bitter herbs." This concludes the first part of the ceremony, and the supper (שלחן עור) is now served. After the supper the master takes the half cake, which has been concealed (צפון) for the after- dish (אפיקומן), eats thereof the size of an olive, and gives each one of the household a similar piece; whereupon (בר) the third cup is filled, the usual grace after meals is said, the blessing over the fruit' of the vine is pronounced, and the third cup drunk in a reclining position. A cup of wine is now poured out for the prophet Elijah, when profound silence ensues for a few seconds; then the door is opened for this harbinger of the Messiah to enter, and the following passages of Scripture are recited at the moment when he is expected to make his appearance: "Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name, for they have devoured Jacob and laid waste his dwelling-place (Ps 79:6-7). Pour out thine indignation upon them, and cause thy fierce anger to overtake them; pursue them in wrath, and destroy them from under the heavens of the Lord" (La 3:66). The fourth cup is then filled and the Hallel is finished, pieces are recited which recobine the power and goodness of God, the wonderful things which he wrought at midnight in Egypt, and in connection with the Passover; the blessing is pronounced over the fourth cup, which is drunk, and after which the following last blessing is said: "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, for the vine and for the fruit of the vine, and for the increase of the field, and for that desirable good and broad land wherein thou hast pleasure, and which thou hast given to our forefathers as an inheritance, to eat of its fruit and be satisfied with its goodness. Have mercy, O Lord our God, on Israel thy people, on Jerusalem thy city, on Zion the habitation of thy glory on thine altar. Rebuild Jerusalem, the holy city, speedily in our days; bring us back to it; cause us to rejoice in it, that we may eat its fruit, be satisfied with its goodness, and we shall bless thee for it in holiness and purity. Cause us to rejoice on this day, the feast of unleavened bread, for thou, O Lord, art good and gracious to all. We will therefore praise thee for the land and the fruit of the vine. Blessed art thou, O Lord, for the land and for the fruit of the vine!" The whole is concluded with the singing of the soul-stirring Paschal Hymn:
"He is mighty, He will rebuild his house speedily; Quickly, quickly in our days, speedily, God build, God build, O build thy house speedily,"
etc. The same service is gone through the following evening, as the Jews have doubled the days of holy convocation. In the morning and evening of the festive week the Jews resort to the synagogue and recite the prayers appointed for the feasts. The lessons from the law and prophets read on the days of holy convocations, as well as on the middle days of the festival, are given in the article HAPHTARAH SEE HAPHTARAH . It must be remarked that, in accordance with the injunction in Le 23:10-11,15-16, the Jews to the present day begin to count the forty-nine days until Pentecost at the conclusion of the second evening's service, when they pronounce the following benediction: "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast sanctified us with thy commandments, and has enjoined us to count the omer! This day is the first day of the omer. May it please thee, O Lord our God, and the God of our fathers, to rebuild the sanctuary speedily in our days, and give us our portion in thy law!" There are many curious particulars in the mode in which the modern Jews observe this festival to be found in Buxtorf, Syn. Jud. c. 18, 19; Picart, Cerem. Religieuses, vol. I; Mill, The British Jews (Lond. 1853); Stauben, Scenes de la vie Juive en Alsace (Paris, 1860).
V. Christ's last Passover. — Whether or not the meal at which our Lord instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist was the paschal supper according to the law is a question of great difficulty. No point in the Gospel history has been more disputed. SEE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY.
1. Statement of the Case. —
(1.) If we had nothing to guide us but the first three Gospels, no' doubt of the kind could well be raised, though the narratives may not be free from difficulties in themselves. We find them speaking, in accordance with Jewish usage, of the day of the supper as that on which "the passover must be killed," and as "the first day of unleavened bread" (Mt 26:17; Mr 14:12; Lu 22:7). (Josephus in like manner calls the 14th of Nisan the first day of unleavened bread [War, v. 3, 1]; and he speaks of the festival of the Passover as lasting eight days [ib. 2:15, 1]. But he elsewhere calls the 15th of Nisan "the commencement of the feast of unleavened bread" [Ant. 3:10, 5]. Either mode of speaking was evidently allowable: in one case regarding it as a matter of fact that the eating of unleavened bread began on the 14th, and in the other distinguishing the feast of unleavened bread, lasting from the first day of holy convocation to the concluding one, from the paschal meal.) Each of the three evangelists relates that the use of the guestchamber was secured in the manner usual with those who came from a distance to keep the festival. Each states that "they made ready the Passover," and that, when the evening was come, our Lord, taking the place of the head of the family, sat down with the twelve. He himself distinctly calls the meal "this Passover" (Lu 22:15-16). After a thanksgiving, he passes round the first cup of wine (ver. 17), and, when the supper is ended, the usual "cup of blessing" (comp. ver. 20; 1Co 10:16; 1Co 11:25). A hymn is then sung (Mt 26:30; Mr 14:26), which it is reasonable to suppose was the last part of the Hallel.
If it be granted that the supper was eaten on the evening of the 14th of Nisan, the apprehension, trial, and crucifixion of our Lord must have occurred on Friday the 15th, the day of holy convocation, which was the first of the seven days of the Passover week. The weekly Sabbath on which he lay in the tomb was the 16th, and the Sunday of the resurrection was the 17th.
(2.) But, on the other hand, if we had no information but that which is to be gathered from John's Gospel, we could not hesitate to infer that the evening of the supper was that of the 13th of Nisan, the day preceding that of the paschal meal. It appears to be spoken of as occurring before the feast of the Passover (Joh 13:1-2). Some of the disciples suppose that Christ told Judas, while they were at supper, to buy what they "had need of against the feast" (Joh 13:29). In the night which follows the supper, the Jews will not enter the prmetorium lest they should be defiled, and so not be able to "eat the passover" (Joh 18:28). When our Lord is before Pilate, about to be led out to crucifixion, we are told that it was "the preparation of the Passover" (Joh 19:14). After the crucifixion, the Jews are solicitous, "because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day, for that Sabbath day was a high day" (Joh 19:31).
If we admit, in accordance with the first view of these passages, that the last supper was on the 13th of Nisan, our Lord must have been crucified on the 14th, the day on which the paschal lamb was slain and eaten; he lay in the grave on the 15th (which was a "high day" or double Sabbath, because the weekly Sabbath coincided with the day of holy convocation), and the Sunday of the resurrection was the 16th.
It is alleged that this view of the case is strengthened by certain facts in the narratives of the synoptical Gospels, as well as that of John, compared with the law and with what we know of Jewish customs in later times. If the meal was the paschal supper, the law of Ex 12:22, that none "shall go out of the door of his house until the morning," must have been broken, not only by Judas (Joh 13:30), but by our Lord and the other disciples (Lu 22:39). (It is true that, according to Jewish authorities, this law was disused in later times. But even if this were not the case, it does not seem that there can be much difficulty in adopting the arrangement of Greswell's Harmony, that the party did not leave the house to go over the brook till after midnight.) In like manner it is said that the law for the observance of the 15th, the day of holy convocation with which the paschal week commenced (Ex 12:16; Le 23:35, etc.), and some express enactments in the Talmud regarding legal proceedings and particular details, such as the carrying of spices, must have been infringed by the Jewish rulers in the apprehending of Christ, in his trials before the high-priest and the Sanhedrim, and in his crucifixion; and also by Simon of Cyrene, who was coming out of the country (Mr 15:21; Lu 23:26); by Joseph, who bought fine linen (Mr 15:46); by the women who brought spices (Mr 16:1; Lu 23:56), and by Nicodemus, who brought to the tomb a hundred pounds weight of a mixture of myrrh and aloes (Joh 19:39). The same objection is considered to lie against the supposition that the disciples could have imagined, on the evening of the Passover, that our Lord was giving directions to Judas respecting the purchase of anything or the giving of alms to the poor. The latter act (except under very special conditions) would have been as much opposed to rabbinical maxims as the former (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on Mt 27:1).
It is further urged that the expressions of our Lord, "My time is at hand" (Mt 26:18), and "this Passover" (Lu 22:15), as well as Paul's designating, it as "the same night that he was betrayed," instead of the night of the Passover (1Co 11:23), and his identifying Christ as our slain paschal lamb (v. 7), seem to point to the time of the supper as being peculiar, and to the time of the crucifixion as being the same as that of the killing of the lamb (Neander and Lucke).
(3.) It is not surprising that some modern critics should have given up as hopeless the task of reconciling this difficulty. Several have rejected the narrative of John (Bretschneider, Weisse), but a greater number (especially De Wette, Usteri, Ewald, Meyer, and Thiele) have taken an opposite course, and have been content with the notion that the first three evangelists made a mistake, and confounded the meal with the Passover.
2. The reconciliations which have been attempted fall under the following principal heads:
(1.) Those which regard the supper at which our Lord washed the feet of his disciples (John 13) as having been a distinct meal eaten one or more days before the regular Passover, of which our Lord partook in due course according to the synoptical narratives. This method has the advantage of furnishing the most ready way of accounting for John's silence on the institution of the Holy Communion. It has been adopted by Maldonat (On John 13:1), Lightfoot, and Bengel, and more recently by Kaiser (Chronologie und Harmonie der vier Ev.; mentioned by Tischendorf,
Synop. Evang. p. 45). Lightfoot identifies the supper of John xiii with the one in the house of Simon the leper at Bethany two days before the Passover, when Mary poured the ointment on the head of our Savior (Mt 26:6; Mr 14:3); and quaintly remarks, "While they are grumbling at the anointing of his head, he does not scruple to wash their feet" (Ex. Heb. on Joh 13:2, and Mt 26:6). Bengel supposes that it was eaten only the evening before the Passover (On Matthew 26:17, and John 18:28).
But any explanation founded on the supposition of two meals appears to be rendered untenable by the context. The fact that all four evangelists introduce in the same connection the foretelling of the treachery of Judas with the dipping of the sop, and of the denials of Peter and the going out to the Mount of Olives, can hardly leave a doubt that they are speaking of the same meal. Besides this, the explanation does not touch the greatest difficulties, which are those connected with "the day of preparation." Dernburg (in Juynboll, Roorder, etc., Orientalia, Amsterdam, 1840, i, p. 175 sq.) has endeavored to unite both views, namely, that Jesus slew the passover at the same time with the Jews, but only ate the customary supper, in the following manner: In that year in which the first paschal day fell on a Sunday, the paschal lamb could not be slain on the previous day, the Jewish Sabbath; nor could it conveniently have been slain on Friday, the preparation for the Sabbath. Suppose, then, that it was slain on Thursday, to be eaten on Sunday, the 14th of Nisan; but that Jesus, in view of his own approaching death, chose to anticipate the day. But we are expressly assured by the Mishna (Pesach. 6:1) that the passover could be slain on Sunday, and this authority cannot be overthrown by a passage of the Gemara. Besides, the expression "eat the passover" (see esp. Lu 22:7,11) cannot well be referred to such a customary meal. This reconciliation of the Synoptics with John thus depends upon a makeshift supposition that the former expressed themselves very inaccurately. Under such a view, how is it possible that the day on which Jesus slew and ate the paschal lamb could be called "the first day of unleavened bread?" (Mt 26:17; Mr 14:12; Lu 22:7). (For a careful discussion of this question, see the art. on "The alleged discrepancy," etc., in the Biblioth. Sac. 1845, p. 406 sq.)
(2.) The current of opinion in modern times (Lucke, Ideler, Tittmann, Bleek, De Wette, Neander, Tischendorf, Winer, Ebrard, Alford, Ellicott; of earlier critics, Erasmus, Grotius, Suicer, Carpzov) has set in favor of taking the more obvious interpretation of the passages in John, that the supper was eaten on the 13th, and that our Lord was crucified on the 14th. It must, however, be admitted that most of those who advocate this view in some degree ignore the difficulties which it raises in any respectful interpretation of the synoptical narratives. Tittmann (Meletemata, p. 476) simply remarks that ἡ πρώτη τῶν ἀζύμων (Mt 26:17; Mr 14:12) should be explained as προτέρα τῶν ἀζύμων. Dean Alford, while he believes that the narrative of John "absolutely excludes such a supposition as that our Lord and his disciples ate the usual passover," acknowledges the difficulty and dismisses it (On Matthew 26:17).
Those who thus hold that the supper was eaten on the 13th day of the month have devised various ways of accounting for this circumstance, of which the following are the most important. It will be observed that in the first three the supper is regarded as a true paschal supper, eaten a day before the usual time; and in the other two, as a meal of a peculiar kind.
(a.) It is assumed that a party of the Jews, probably the Sadducees and those who inclined towards them, used to eat the passover one day before the rest, and that our Lord approved of their practice. But there is not a shadow of historical evidence of the existence of any party which might have held such a notion until the controversy between the Rabbinists and the Karaites arose, which was not much before the 8th century. Then (Dissertationes, vol. ii, diss. 10 and 12), forgetting the late date of the Karaite controversy, supposed that our Lord might have followed them in taking the day which, according to their custom, was calculated from the first appearance of the moon. Carpzov (App. Crit. p. 430) advocates the same notion, without naming the Karaites. Ebrard conjectures that some of the poorer Galilaeans may have submitted to eat the passover a day too early to suit the convenience of the priests, who were overdone with the labor of sprinkling the blood and (as he strangely imagines) of slaughtering the lambs.
(b.) It has been conjectured that the great body of the Jews had gone wrong in calculating the true Passover-day, placing it a day too late, and that our Lord ate the passover on what was really the 14th, but what commonly passed as the 13th. This was the opinion of Beza, Bucer, Calovius, and Scaliger. It is favored by Stier. But it is utterly unsupported by historical testimony.
(c.) Calvin supposed that on this occasion, though our Lord thought it right to adhere to the true legal time, the Jews ate the passover on the 15th instead of the 14th, in order to escape from the burden of two days of strict observance (the day of holy convocation and the weekly Sabbath) coming together (Harm. in Mt 26:17; Mt 2:23, edit. Tholuck). But that no practice of this kind could have existed so early as our Lord's time is satisfactorily proved in Cocceius's note to Sanhedrim, vol. i, § 2 (Surenhusius's Mishna, 4:209).
(d.) Grotius (On Matthew 26:19, and John 13:1) thought that the meal was a πάσχα μνημονευτικόν (like the paschal feast of the modern Jews), and such as might have been observed during the Babylonian captivity, not a πάσχα θύσιμον. But there is no reason to believe that such a mere commemorative rite was ever observed till after the destruction of the Temple.
(e.) A view which has been received with favor far more generally than either of the preceding is that the Last Supper was instituted by Christ for the occasion, in order that he might himself suffer on the proper evening on which the paschal lamb was slain. Neander says, "He foresaw that he would have to leave his disciples before the Jewish Passover, and determined to give a peculiar meaning to his last meal with them, and to place it in a peculiar relation to the Passover of the Old Covenant" (Life of Christ, § 265). This view is substantially the same as that held by Clement, Origen, Erasmus, Calmet, Kuinol, Winer, and Alford. Dean Ellicott regards the meal as "a paschal supper" eaten twenty-four hours before that of the other Jews, "within what were popularly considered the limits of the festival," and would understand the expression in Ex 12:6, "between the two evenings," as denoting the time between the evenings of the 13th and 14th of the month. A somewhat similar explanation is given in the Journal of Sacred Literature for October, 1861. Erasmus (Paraphrase on John 13:1; 18:18; Luke 22:7) and others have called it an "anticipatory Passover," with the intention, no doubt, to help on a reconciliation between John and the other 'evangelists. But if this view is to stand, it seems better, in a formal treatment of the subject, not to call it a Passover at all. The difference between it and the Hebrew rite must have been essential. Even if a lamb was eaten in the supper, it can hardly be imagined that the priests would have performed the essential acts of sprinkling the blood and offering the fat on any day besides the legal one (see Maimonides, quoted by Otho, Lex. p. 501). It could not therefore have been a true paschal sacrifice.
(3.) Those who take the facts as they appear to lie on the surface of the synoptical narratives (Lightfoot, Bochart, Reland, Schottgen, Tholuck, Olshausen, Stier, Lange, Hengstenberg, Robinson, and Davidson) start from a simpler point. They have nothing unexpected in the occurrences to account for, but they have to show that the passages in John may fairly be interpreted in such a manner as not to interfere with their own conclusion, and to meet the objections suggested by the laws relating to the observance of the festival. We shall give in succession, as briefly as we can, what appear to be their best explanations of the passages in question.
(a.) Joh 13:1-2. Does πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς limit the time oully of the proposition in the first verse, or is the limitation to be -carried on to verse 2, so as to refer to the supper? In the latter case, for which De Wette and others say there is "a logical necessity," εἰς τέλος ἠγάπησεν αὐτούς must refer more directly to the manifestation of his love which he was about to give to his disciples in washing their feet; and the natural conclusion is that the meal was one eaten before the paschal supper. Bochart, however, contends that πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς is equivalent to ἐν τῷ προεορτίῳ, "quod ita prmececedit festum, ut tamen sit pars festi." Stier agrees with him. Others take πάσχα to mean the seven days of unleavened bread as not including the eating of the lamb, and justify the limitation by Lu 22:1 (ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν ἀζύμων ἡ λεγομένη πάσχα). But not a few of those who take this side of the main question (Olshansen, Wieseler, Tholuck, and others) regard the first verse as complete in itself; understanding its purport to be that "Before the Passover, in the prospect of his departure, the Savior's love was actively called forth towards his followers, and he gave proof of his love to the last." Tholuck remarks that the expression δείπνου γενομένου (Tischendorf reads γινομένου), "while supper — was going on" (not as in the A.V., "supper being ended"), is very abrupt if we refer it to anything except the Passover. The evangelist would then rather have used some such expression as καὶ ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ δεῖπνον; and he considers that this view is confirmed by 21:20, where this supper is spoken of as if it were something familiarly known and not peculiar in its character —ὃς καὶ ἀνέπεσεν ἐν τῷ δείπνῳ. On the whole, Neander himself admits that nothing can safely be inferred from Joh 13:1-2 in favor of the supper having taken place on the 13th.
(b.) Joh 13:29. It is purged that the things of which they had "need against the feast" might have been the provisions for the Chagigah, perhaps with what else was required for the seven days of unleavened bread. The usual day for sacrificing the Chagigah was the 15th, which was then commencing. But there is another difficulty, in the disciples thinking it likely either that purchases could be made, or that alms could be given to the poor, on a day of holy convocation. This is of course a difficulty of the same kind as that which meets us in the purchases actually made by the women, by Joseph and Nicodemus. Now it must be admitted that we have no proof that the strict rabbinical maxims which have been appealed to on this point existed in the time of our Savior, and that it is highly probable that the letter of the law in regard to trading was habitually relaxed in the case of what was required for religious rites, or for burials. There was plainly a distinction recognized between a day of holy convocation 'and the Sabbath in the Mosaic law itself, in respect to the obtaining and preparation of food, under which head the Chagigah might come (Ex 12:16); and in the Mishna the same distinction is clearly maintained (Yom Tob, v. 2, and legilla, 1:5). It also appears that the school of Hillel allowed more liberty in certain particulars on festivals and fasts in the night than in the day time (Pesachim, 4:5. The special application of the license is rather obscure. See Bartenora's note. Comp. also Pesachim, 6:2). And it is expressly stated in the Mishna that on the Sabbath itself wine, oil, and bread could be obtained by leaving a cloak (טִלַּית) as a pledge, and when the 14th of Nisan fell on a Sabbath the paschal lamb could be obtained in like manner (Sabbath, 23:1). Alms also could be given to the poor under certain conditions (ib. 1:1).
(c.) Joh 18:28. The Jews refused to enter the praetorium lest they should be defiled, and so disqualified from eating the passover. Neander and others deny that this passage can possibly refer to anything but the paschal supper. But it is alleged that the words ἵνα φάγωσι τὸ πάσχα may either be taken in a general sense, as meaning "that they might go on keeping the Passover," or that τὸ πάσχα may be understood specifically to denote the Chagigah. That it might be so used is rendered probable by Lu 22:1; and the Hebrew word which it represents (פֶּסִח) evidently refers equally to the victims for the Chagigah and the paschal lamb (De 16:2), where it is commanded that the passover should be sacrificed "of the flock and the herd." In the plural it is used in the same manner (2Ch 35:7,9). It is moreover to be kept in view that the passover might be eaten by those who had incurred a degree of legal impurity, and that this was not the case in respect to the Chagigah. (See 2Ch 30:17; also Pesachim, 7:4, with Maimonides's note.) Joseph appears not to have participated in the scruple of the other rulers, as he entered the praetorium to beg the body of Jesus (Mr 15:43). Lightfoot (Ex. Heb. in loc.) goes so far as to draw an argument in favor of the 14th being the day of the supper from the very text in question. He says that the slight defilement incurred by entering a Gentile house, had the Jews merely intended to eat the supper in the evening, might have been done away in good time by mere ablution; but that as the festival had actually commenced, and they were probably just about to eat the Chagigah, they could not resort even to such a simple mode of purification. Dr. Fairbairn takes the expression that they might eat the passover" in its limited sense, and supposes that these Jews, in their determined hatred, were willing to put off the meal to the verge of, or even beyond, the legal time (Herm. Manual, p. 341).
In opposition to this view it may be argued,
(i.) That according to the Mishna (Pesach. 6:4) the flesh of these voluntary offerings might be eaten at any time within two days and one night; and even this. might be postponed for individuals.
(ii.) By the same passage, since the 14th of Nisan fell in that year on a working-day, these sacrifices might have been brought at the same time with the paschal lamb, and the sacrificial meal must already have been eaten by many of the Jews. In this case the expression of the evangelist is too general, and the Sanhedrim would certainly have sent to the heathen procurator such delegates as had no further reason to fear the uncleanness thus contracted.
(iii.) Since the paschal lamb must be slain in the Temple by those who offered it, this, according to the prescribed regulations, was done from the first to the fifth hour, and could be done only by those who were clean; such uncleanness continuing until evening was a hinderance, and would certainly be avoided in the general fear of an impurity, which would disturb this festival (comp. Lucke, Op. cit. 725).
(iv.) Again, the mode of speech in De 16:2, "Thou shalt sacrifice the passover," cannot prove any wider meaning of the words "eat the passover" than the common one, least of all a technical or short use of the term Pascha (πάσχα) itself for the customary thank- offerings alone, to the exclusion of the paschal lamb; and indeed the effect of the loose use of these words in the second verse is completely removed by the strict use of the same. phrase in the sixth.
(v.) In the same manner the argument from. 2Ch 30:22 is without force, since "eating throughout the feast" (ver. 22) is distinguished clearly enough from "eating the passover" (ver. 18).
(d.) Joh 19:14. "The preparation of the Passover" at first sight would seem as if it must be the preparation for the Passover on the 14th, a time set apart for making ready for the paschal week and for the paschal supper in particular. It is naturally so understood by those who advocate the notion that the last supper was eaten on the 13th. But they who take the opposite view affirm that, though there was a regular "preparation" for the Sabbath, there is no mention of any "preparation" for the festivals (Bochart, Reland, Tholuck, Hengstenberg). The word παρασκευή is expressly explained by προσάββατον (Mr 15:42: Lachmann reads πρὸς σάββατον). It seems to be essentially connected with the Sabbath itself (Joh 19:31). It cannot, however, be denied that the days of holy convocation are sometimes designated in the O.T. simply as Sabbaths (Le 16:31; Le 23:11,32). It is therefore not quite impossible that the language of the Gospels considered by itself might refer to them. There is no mention whatever of the preparation for the Sabbath in the O.T., but it is mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 16:6, 2), and it would seem from him that the time of preparation formally commenced at the ninth hour of the sixth day of the week. The προσάββατον is named in Judith 8:6 as one of the times on which devout Jews suspended their fasts. It was called by the rabbins עֲרוּבתָּא; quia est עֶרֶב שִׁבָּת (Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. col. 1659). The phrase in Joh 19:14 may thus be understood as the preparation of the Sabbath which fell in the Passover week. This mode of taking the expression seems to be justified by Ignatius, who calls the Sabbath which occurred in the festival σάββατον τοῦ πάσχα (Ep. ad Philippians 13), and by Socrates, who calls it σάββατον τῆς ἑορτῆς (Hist. Eccles. 5:22). If these arguments are admitted, the day of the preparation mentioned in the Gospels might have fallen on the day of holy convocation, the 15th of Nisan. (Comp. Reland, 4:3, 11; Gabler, Op. cit. 445 sq.; Baur, Gottesd. Verfiss. 2, 227; Tholuck, John, p. 300 sq.; Jahn, Archceol. 3:314; Guericke, in the Neues krit. Journ. der Theol. 3:257 sq.; Olshausen, Bibl.
Corn. 2:417 sq.; Hengstenberg, in the Evazg. Kirchenzeit. 1838, No. 98 sq.; Kern, in the Tubinger Zeitschr. 1836, 3:7 sq.; Crusius, John ii,138, 148; Wieseler, Chroi. Synops. p. 339 sq. Ebrard, on the Evaig. Joh. p. 42 sq.; Von Ammer, Leben Jesu 3:295, 411 sq.)
All this, however, seems forced, and contradicts the usus loquendi (see Thiele, in Neues krit. Journ. v. 129 sq.). The explanation of "the preparation of the Passover," also, by the Sabbath of the Passover (comparing Ignat. ad Philip. c. 13), cannot well be accepted; for Ignatius, a Christian writer, simply calls the Saturday before Easter the preparation for Easter, which is altogether analogous to the preparation of the Passover, in the usual sense; nor indeed is the reference certain (Bleek, Op. cit. p. 119). It would seem that Greek readers would understand this phrase (παρασκευὴ τοῦ π.) only of the preparation for the Passover. It would require good proof to lead even a Jew to understand it as an abridged way of saying "the preparation for the Passover-Sabbath." But suppose this proof discovered, how could John use this mode of speech, intelligible to none but Jews, in his Gospel ?
(e.) Joh 19:31. "That Sabbath-day was an high day" — ἡμέρα μεγάλη. Any Sabbath occurring in the Passover week might have been considered "a high day," as deriving an accession of dignity from the festival. But it is assumed by those who fix the supper on the 13th that the term was applied owing to the 15th being "a double Sabbath," from the coincidence of the day of holy convocation with the weekly festival. Those, on the other hand, who identify the supper with the paschal meal, contend that the special dignity of the day resulted from its being that on which the omer was offered, and from which were reckoned the fifty days to Pentecost. One explanation of the term seems to be as good as the other.
(f.) The difficulty of supposing that our Lord's apprehension, trial, and crucifixion took place on the day of holy convocation has been strongly urged, especially by Greswell (Dissert. 3:156). If many of the rabbinical maxims for the observance of such days which have been handed down to us were then in force, these occurrences certainly could not have taken place. But the statements which refer to Jewish usage in regard to legal proceedings on sacred days are very inconsistent with each other. Some of them make the difficulty equally great whether we suppose the' trial to have taken place on the 14th or the 15th. In others, there are exceptions permitted which seem to go far to meet the case before us. For example, the Mishna forbids that a capital offender should be examined in the night or on the day before the Sabbath or a feast-day (Sanhedrins. 4:1). This law is modified by the glosses of the Gemara (see the notes of Cocceius in Surenhusius, 4:226). But if it had been recognized in its obvious meaning by the Jewish rulers, they would have outraged it in as great a degree on the. preceding day (i.e. the 14th) as on the day of holy convocation before the Sabbath. It was also forbidden to administer justice on a high feast-day, or to carry arms (Yom Tob, v. 2). But these prohibitions are expressly distinguished from unconditional precepts, and are reckoned among those which may be set aside by circumstances. The members of the Sanhedrim were forbidden to eat any food on the same day after condemning a criminal (Bab. Gem. Sanhedrim, quoted by Lightfoot on Mt 27:1). Yet we find them intending to "eat the passover" (Joh 18:28) after pronouncing the sentence (Mt 26:65-66). The application of this prohibition to the point in hand will, however, hinge on the way in which we understand it not to have been lawful for the Jews to put any man to death (Joh 18:31), and therefore to pronounce sentence in the legal sense. If we suppose that the Roman government had not deprived them of the power of life and death, it may have been to avoid breaking their law, as expressed in Sanhedrim, 4:1, that they wished to throw the matter on the procurator. (See Biscoe, Lectures on the Acts, p. 166; Scaliger's note in the Critici Sacri on Joh 18:31; Lightfoot, Ex. Heb. Mt 26:3, and Joh 18:31, where the evidence is given which is in favor of the Jews having resigned the right of capital punishment forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem.) It was, however, expressly permitted that the Sanhedrim might assemble on the Sabbath as well as on feast-days, not indeed in their usual chamber, but in a place near the court of the women (Gemara, Sanhedrim). And there is a remarkable passage in the Mishna in which it is commanded that an elder not submitting to the voice of the Sanhedrim should be kept at Jerusalem till one of the three great festivals, and then executed, in accordance with De 17:12-13 (Sanhedrim, 10:4). Nothing is said to lead us to infer that the execution could not take place on one of the days of holy convocation. It is, however, hardly necessary to refer to this, or any similar authority, in respect to the crucifixion, which was carried out in conformity with the sentence of the Roman procurator, not that of the Sanhedrim.
But we have better proof than either the Mishna or the Gemara can afford that the Jews did not hesitate, in the time of the Roman domination, to carry arms and to apprehend a prisoner on a solemn feast-day. We find them at the feast of Tabernacles, on the "great day of the feast," sending out officers to take our Lord, and rebuking them for not bringing him (Joh 7:535). St. Peter also was seized during the Passover (Ac 12:3-4). And, again, the reason alleged by the rulers for not apprehending Jesus was, not the sanctity of the festival, but the fear of an uproar among the multitude which was assembled (Mt 26:5).
On the whole, then, notwithstanding the express declaration of the law and of the Mishna that the days of holy convocation were to be observed precisely as the Sabbath, except in the preparation of food, it is highly probable that considerable license was allowed in regard to them, as we have already observed. It is very evident that the festival times were characterized by a free and jubilant character which did not belong, in the same degree, to the Sabbath, and which was plainly not restricted to the days that fell between the days of holy convocation (Le 23:40; De 12:7; De 14:26). It should also be observed that while the law of the Sabbath was enforced on strangers dwelling among the' Israelites, such was not the case with the law of the festivals. A greater freedom of action in cases of urgent need would naturally follow, and it is not difficult to suppose that the women who "rested on the Sabbath-day according to the commandment" had prepared the spices and linen for the entombment on the day of holy convocation. To say nothing of the way in which the question might be affected by the much greater license permitted by the school of Hillel than by the school of Shammai, in all matters of this kind, it is remarkable that we find, on the Sabbath-day itself, not only Joseph (Mr 15:43), but the chief priests and Pharisees coming to Pilate, and, as it would seem, entering the praetorium (Mt 27:62).
(g.) Finally, it must be admitted that the narrative of John, so far as the mere succession of events is concerned, bears consistent testimony in favor of the last supper having been eaten on the evening before the Passover. That testimony, however, does not appear to be so distinct, and so incapable of a second interpretation, as that of the synoptical Gospels in favor of the meal having been the paschal supper itself, at the legal time (see especially Mt 26:17; Mr 14:1,12; Lu 22:7). Whether the explanations of the passages in John, and of the difficulties resulting from the nature of the occurrences related, compared with the enactments of the Jewish law, be considered satisfacfory or not, due weight should be given to the antecedent probability that the meal was no nother than the regular Passover, and that the reasonableness of the contrary view cannot be maintained without some artificial theory, having no proper foundation either in Scripture or ancient testimony of any kind.
3. Evidence of Later Writers. There is a strange story preserved in the Gemara (Sanhedrin, 6:2) that our Lord, having vainly endeavored during forty days to find an advocate. was sentenced and, on the 14th of Nisan, stoned, and afterwards hanged. As we know that the difficulty of the Gospel narratives had been perceived long before this statement could have been written, and as the two opposite opinions on the chief question were both current, the writer might easily have taken up one or the other. The statement cannot be regarded as worth anything in the way of evidence. Other rabbinical authorities countenance the statement that Christ was executed on the 14th of the month (see Jost, Judenth. 1:404). But this seems to be a case in which, for the reason stated above, numbers do not add to the weight of the testimony.
Not much use can be made in the controversy of the testimonies of the fathers. But few of them attempted to consider the question critically. Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 5:23, 24) has recorded the traditions which were in favor of John having kept Easter on the 14th of the month. It has been thought that those traditions rather help the conclusion that the supper was on the 14th. But the question on which Eusebius brings them to bear is simply whether the Christian festival should be observed on the 14th, the day ἐν ῃ θύειν τὸ πρόβατον Ι᾿ουδαίοις προηγόρευτο, on whatever day of the week it might fall, or on the Sunday of the resurrection. It seems that nothing whatever can be safely inferred from them respecting the day of the month of the supper or the crucifixion. Clement of Alexandria and Origen appeal to the Gospel of John as deciding in favor of the 13th. Chrysostom expresses himself doubtfully between the two. St. Augustine was in favor of the 14th. Numerous patristic authorities are stated by Maldonat On Matthew 26.
On this question respecting the Lord's Supper, see, in addition to the works cited above, Robinson, Harmony of the Gospels, and Bibliotheca Sacra for Aug. 1845; Tholuck, On John 13; Stier, On John 12i; Kuinol, On Matthew 26; Neander, Life of Christ, § 265; Greswell, Harm. of the Evang. and Dissertations; Wieseler, Chronol. Synopsis der vier Evang.; Tischendorf, Syn. Evang. p. 45; Bleek, Dissert. fiber den Monatstag des Todes Christi (Beitirge zur Evangelien-Kritik, 1846); Frisch. muth,
Dissertatio, etc. (Thes. Theol. Philolog.); Haren. berg, Demonstratio, etc. (Thes. Novus Theol. Philippians vol 2); Eude, Demonstratio quod Chr. in Caon. σταυρωσίμῳ agnum paschalem non comedeorit (Lips. 1742); Ellicott, Lectures on the Life of our Lord, p. 320; Fairbairn, Hermeneutical Manual, 2:9; Davidson, Introduction to the N.T. 1:102; Andrews, Life of our Lord, p. 425 sq.; Lewin, Fasti Sacri, p. 31 sq.; Ebrard, Kritik d, evang. Gesch. p. 615 sq.; Caspari, Chronol. — geogr. Einleit. p. 164 sq.; Westcott, Introd. to the Gosp. p. 335 sq.; Stud. und Krit. 1832, 3:537; Isenberg, Der Todestag des Herrn (Hannov. 1868; maintains that Jesus died on the 14th of Nisan according to the Roman reckoning). SEE LORDS SUPPER.
VI. Origin and Import of the Feast of Passover. —
1. Naturalistic Interpretation. — Each of the three great festivals contained a reference to the annual course of nature. Two, at least, of them — the first and the last — also commemorated events in the history of the chosen people. The coincidence of the times of their observance with the most marked periods in the process of gathering in the fruits of the earth has not unnaturally suggested the notion that their agricultural significance is the more ancient; that, in fact, they were originally harvest feasts observed by the patriarchs, and that their historical meaning was superadded in later times (Ewald).
Hupfeld has devised an arrangement of the passages in the Pentateuch bearing on the Passover so as to show, according to this theory, their relative antiquity. The order is as follows:
(1) Ex 23:14-17; (2) Ex 34:18-26; (3) Ex 13:3-10; (4) Ex 12:15-20; (5) Ex 12:1-14; (6) Ex 12:43-50; Nu 9:10-14.
It may seem at first sight as if some countenance were given to the notion that the feast of unleavened bread was originally a distinct festival from the Passover, by such passages as Le 23:5-6: "In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord's Passover; and on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread" (see also Nu 28:16-17).
Josephus, in like manner, speaks of the feast of unleavened bread as "following the Passover" (Ant. 3:10, 5). But such language may mean no more than the distinction between the paschal supper and the seven days of unleavened bread, which is so obviously implied in the fact that the eating of unleavened bread was observed by the country Jews who were at home, though they could not partake of the paschal lamb without going to Jerusalem. Every member of the household had to abstain from leavened bread, but some only went up to the paschal meal (see Maimonides, De Fernentato et Azymo, 6:1). It is evident that the common usage, in later times at least, was to employ, as equivalent terms, the feast of the Passover, and the feast of unleavened bread (Mt 26:17; Mr 14:12; Lu 22:1; Josephus, Ant. 14:2, 1; War, 2:1, 3).
That the feast of Passover, as such, was instituted to commemorate the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt will be admitted by all who give credence to the historical veracity of the Pentateuch. Its institution, however, to commemorate this great historical fact has been thought by some by no means to preclude the idea that a festival, of somewhat similar rites, was celebrated by the Jews at this season, in common with other nations of antiquity, containing a reference to the annual course of nature. The following circumstances are adduced to sustain this view. When the first appeal was made to Pharaoh to let the Israelites go, it was that they might celebrate an approaching festival (Ex 3:19; Ex 5:1). Moreover, it is a well-known fact that all the Eastern nations, who were dependent upon the course of the sun, celebrated two principal annual festivals referring to the seasons: viz. the spring festival, at the time when the sun passes over (פָּסִח) into the sign of Aries, and when the corn began to ripen; and the other, the autumn festival, when the last fruits were gathered in, which is identical with the feast of Tabernacles (סֻכּוֹת). We are told that, since the time of this spring festival was both an occasion of gratitude and anxiety-inasmuch as not only was the barley gathered, but it decided the fertility or the barrenness of the year-the spring festival was celebrated in a double manner: (a) As a token of gratitude, the fresh grains of barley were quickly ground into flour, bread was made of the dough at once, before it had time to leaven, and thus offered; and (b) as an expression of anxiety, and of a desire to conciliate the divine favor, an, expiatory sacrifice was offered for the transgressions of the past year. Indeed Epiphanius declares (Adv. Haer. cap. 19:3) that the Egyptians on this occasion marked their sheep with red, because of the general conflagration which once raged at the time when the sun passed over into the sign of Aries, thereby to symbolize the fiery death of those animals which were not actually offered up; while Von Bohlen assures us that the ancient Peruvians marked with blood the doors of the temples, royal residences, and private dwellings, to symbolize the triumph of the sun over the winter (Ates Indien, 1:140; also General Introduction to the Pentateuch, p. 140; comp. Kalisch, Commentary on Exodus, p. 184; Ewald, Alterthumer, p. 390). Now it is admitted that two of the three great Jewish festivals — viz. Pentecost and Tabernacles — refer to the annual course of nature, SEE FESTIVAL, and that the festival of New Moon, which existed prior to the Mosaic legislation, was introduced by the inspired legislator into the cycle of Jewish festivals. SEE NEW MOON, FEAST OF THE. There can therefore be no difficulty in admitting that the third festival was also celebrated in the patriarchal age as a barley-harvest festival, which is indicated by the very name, Abib (אביב), of this month, and that God in his infinite wisdom and goodness chose to redeem Israel at the time of this festival, and thus connected with the celebration of the regeneration of nature the celebration of the birth of the nation (Isa 43:1,15-17; Eze 16:4; Ho 2:5), super-adding thereto rites and ceremonies commemorative of the historical event, as well as assigning to some already existing ceremonies a spiritual and original significance. This explains the fact why the unleavened bread, which was undoubtedly connected with sacrifices before the institution of the Passover, and which was enjoined to be eaten with the paschal sacrifices, without giving to it any significance in the original ordinance (Ex 12:1-20), was afterwards made to symbolize the haste in which the children of Israel had to leave Egypt (Ex 12:34; De 16:3). That the unleavened bread could not from the first have been the symbol of the fact that there was no time for the dough to leaven (Ex 12:33-34,39) is evident from Ex 12:8,15, where the Israelites were commanded to eat unleavened bread before their departure, and when there was plenty of time for the dough to leaven. Moreover, the fact that this primeval festival has been divested of many old superstitions, and invested with new ideas of a most exalting tendency, in being made to commemorate the exodus as well as the barley harvest, sets aside the arguments brought against the possibility of its having been celebrated at the exodus, inasmuch as the people were quite prepared for the celebration, so far as arrangements and cattle were concerned.
On the other hand, the above view of Baur, that the Passover was an astronomical festival and the lamb a symbol of the sign Aries, and that of Von Bohlen, that it resembled the sun-feast of the Peruvians, are well exposed by Bahr (Symbolik). Spencer has endeavored in his usual manner to show that many details of the festival were derived from heathen sources, though he admits the originality of the whole. It must be admitted that the relation to the natural year expressed in the Passover was less marked than that in Pentecost or Tabernacles, while its historical import was deeper and more pointed. It seems hardly possible to study the history of the Passover with candor and attention, as it stands in the Scriptures, without being driven to the conclusion that it was, at the very first, essentially the commemoration of a great historical fact. That part of its ceremonies which has a direct agricultural reference — the offering of the omer — holds a very subordinate place. But as regards the whole of the feasts, it is not very easy to imagine that the rites which belonged to them connected with the harvest were of patriarchal origin. Such rites were adapted for the religion of an agricultural people, not for that of shepherds like the patriarchs. It would seem, therefore, that we gain but little by speculating on the simple impression conveyed in the Pentateuch, that the feasts were ordained by Moses in their integrity, and that they were arranged with a view to the religious wants of the people when they were to be settled in the Land of Promise.
2. Historical Significance of the Festival as a Whole. — The deliverance from Egypt was regarded as the starting- point of the Hebrew nation. The Israelites were then raised from the condition of bondmen under a foreign tyrant to that of a free people owing allegiance to no one but Jehovah. "Ye have seen," said the Lord, "what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings and brought you unto myself" (Ex 19:4). The prophet in a later age spoke of the event as a creation and a redemption of the nation. God declares himself to be "the creator of Israel," in immediate connection with evident allusions to his having brought them out of Egypt; such as his having made "a way in the sea, and a path in the mighty waters," and his having overthrown "the chariot and horse, the army and the power" (Isa 43:1,15-17). The exodus was thus looked upon as the birth of the nation; the Passover was its annual birthday feast. Nearly all the rites of the festival, if explained in the most natural manner, appear to point to this as its primary meaning. It was the yearly memorial of the dedication of the people to him who had saved their first-born from the destroyer, in order that they might be made holy to himself. This was the lesson which they were to teach to their children throughout all generations. When the young Hebrew asked his father regarding the paschal lamb," "What is this?" the answer prescribed was, "By strength of hand the Lord brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage: and it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the Lord slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the first-born of man and the first-born of beast; therefore I sacrifice to the Lord all that openeth the womb, being males; but all the first-born of my children I redeem" (Ex 13:14-15). Hence, in the periods of great national restoration in the times of Joshua, Hezekiah, Josiah, and Ezra, the Passover was observed in a special manner, to remind the people of their true position, and to mark their renewal of the covenant which their fathers had made.
3. Import of the Details. —
(1.) The paschal lamb must of course be regarded as the leading feature in the ceremonial of the festival. Some Protestant divines during the last two centuries (Calov, Carpzov), laying great stress on the fact that nothing is said in the law respecting either the imposition of the hands of the priest on the head of the lamb, or the bestowing of any portion of the flesh on the priest, have denied that it was a sacrifice in the proper sense of the word. They appear to have been tempted to take this view, in order to deprive the Romanists of an analogical argument bearing on the Romish doctrine of the Lord's Supper. They affirmed that the lamb was a sacramentum, not a sacrificium. But most of their contemporaries (Cudworth, Bochart, Vitringa), — and nearly all modern critics, have held that it was in the strictest sense a sacrifice. The chief characteristics of a sacrifice are, all distinctly ascribed to it. It was offered in the holy place (De 16:5-6); the blood was sprinkledon the altar, and the fat was burned (2Ch 30:16; 2Ch 35:11). Philo and Josephus commonly call it θῦμα or θυσία. The language of Ex 12:27; Ex 23:18; Nu 9:7; De 16:2,5, together with 1Co 5:7, would seem to decide the question beyond the reach of doubt.
As the original institution of the Passover in Egypt preceded the establishment of the priesthood and the regulation of the service of the tabernacle, it necessarily fell short in several particulars of the observance of the festival according to the fully developed ceremonial law (see II, 1). The head of the family slew the lamb in his own house, not in the holy place; the blood was sprinkled on the doorway, not on the altar. But when the: law was perfected, certain particulars were altered in order to assimilate the Passover to the accustomed order of religious service. It has been conjectured that the imposition of the hands of the priest was one of these particulars, though it is not recorded (Kurtz). But whether this was the case or not, the other changes which have been stated seem to be abundantly sufficient for the argument. It can hardly be doubted that the paschal lamb was regarded as the great annual peace-offering of the family, a thank-offering for the existence and preservation of the nation (Ex 13:14-16), the typical sacrifice of the elected and reconciled children of the promise. It was peculiarly the Lord's own sacrifice (Ex 23:18; Ex 34:25). It was more ancient than the written law, and called to mind that covenant on which the law was based. It retained in a special manner the expression of the sacredness of the whole people, and of the divine mission of the head of every family, according to the spirit of the old patriarchal priesthood. No part of the victim was given to the priest as in other peace-offerings, because the father was the priest himself. The custom, handed on from age to age, thus guarded from superstition the idea of a priesthood placed in the members of a single tribe, while it visibly set forth the promise which was connected with the deliverance of the people from Egypt, "Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Ex 19:6). In this way it became a testimony in favor of domestic worship. In the historical fact that the blood in later times sprinkled on the altar had at first had its divinely appointed place on the lintels and door-posts, it was declared that the national altar itself represented the sanctity which belonged to the house of every Israelite, not that only which belonged to the nation as a whole. As regards the mere place of sprinkling in the first Passover, on the reason of which there has been some speculation, Bahr reasonably supposes that the lintels and door- posts were selected as the parts of the house most obvious to passers-by, and to which inscriptions of different kinds were often attached (comp. De 6:9).
A question, perhaps not a wise one, has been raised regarding the purpose of the sprinkling of the blood on the lintels and door-posts. Some have considered that it was meant as a mark to guide the destroying angel. Others (especially Bochart and Bahr) suppose that it was merely a sign to confirm the faith of the Israelites in their safety and deliverance. Surely neither of these views can stand alone. The sprinkling must have been an act of faith and obedience which God accepted with favor. "Through faith (we are told) Moses kept the Passover and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the first-born should touch them" (Heb 11:28). Whatever else it may have been, it was certainly an essential part of a sacrament, of an "effectual sign of grace and of God's good-will," expressing the mutual relation into which the covenant had brought the Creator and the creature. That it also denoted the purification of the children of Israel from the abominations of the Egyptians, and so had the accustomed significance of the sprinkling of blood under the law (Heb 9:22), is evidently in entire consistency with this view.
No satisfactory reason has been assigned for the command to choose the lamb four days before the paschal supper. Kurtz (following Hofmann) fancies that the four days signified the four centuries of Egyptian bondage. As in later times the rule appears not to have been observed, the reason of it was probably of a temporary nature.
That the lamb was to be roasted and not boiled has been supposed to commemorate the haste of the departure of the Israelites (so Bahr and most of the Jewish authorities). Spencer observes on the other had that, as they had their cooking-vessels with them, one mode would have been as expeditious as the other. Some think that, like the dress and the posture in which the first Passover was to be eaten, it was intended to remind the people that they were now no longer to regard themselves as settled down in a home, but as a host upon the march, roasting being the proper military mode of dressing meat. Kurtz conjectures that the Iamb was to be roasted with fire, the purifying element, because the meat was thus left pure, without the mixture even of the water, which would have entered into it in boiling. The meat in its purity would thus correspond in signification with the unleavened bread.
It is not difficult to determine the reason of the command, "not a bone of him shall be broken." The lamb was to be a symbol of unity; the unity of the family, the unity of the nation, the unity of God with his people whom he had taken into covenant with himself. While the flesh was divided into portions, so that each member of the family could partake, the skeleton was left one and entire to remind them of the bonds which united them. Thus the words of the law are applied to the body of our Savior, as the type of that still higher unity of which he was himself to be the author and center (Joh 19:36).
The same significance may evidently be attached to the prohibition that no part of the meat should be kept for another meal, or carried to another house. The paschal meal in each house was to be one, whole and entire.
(2.) The unleavened bread ranks next in importance to the paschal lamb. The notion has been very generally held, or taken for granted, both by Christian and Jewish writers of all ages, that it was intended to remind the Israelites of the unleavened cakes which they were obliged to eat in their hasty flight (Ex 12:34,39). But there is not the least intimation to this effect in the sacred narrative. On the contrary, the command was given to Moses and Aaron that unleavened bread should be eaten with the lamb before the circumstance occurred upon which this explanation is based (comp. Ex 12:8 with 12:39).
It has been considered by some (Ewald, Winer, and the modern Jews) that the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs alike owe their meaning to their being regarded as unpalatable food. The expression "bread of affliction," לֶחֶם עֹנַי (De 16:3), is regarded as equivalent to fasting- bread, and on this ground Ewald ascribes something of the character of a fast to the Passover. But this seems to be wholly inconsistent with the pervading joyous nature of the festival. The bread of affliction may mean bread which, in present gladness, commemorated, either in itself, or in common with the other elements of the feast, the past affliction of the people (Bahr, Kurtz, Hofmann). It should not be forgotten that unleavened bread was not peculiar to the Passover. The ordinary "meat - offering" was unleavened (Le 2:4-5; Le 7:12; Le 10:12, etc.), and so was the shewbread (Le 24:5-9). The use of unleavened bread in the consecration of the priests (Ex 29:23), and in the offering of the Nazarite (Nu 6:19), is interesting in relation to the Passover, as being apparently connected with the consecration of the person, On the whole, we are warranted in concluding that unleavened bread had a peculiar sacrificial character, according to. the law, and it call hardly be supposed that a particular kind of food should have been offered to the Lord because it was insipid or unpalatable. Hupfeld imagines that bread without leaven, being the simplest' result of cooked grain, characterized the old agricultural festival which existed before the sacrifice of the lamb was instituted.
It seems more reasonable to accept Paul's reference to the subject (1Co 5:6-8) as furnishing the true meaning of the symbol.
Fermentation is decomposition, a dissolution of unity. This must be more obvious to ordinary eyes where the leaven in common use is a piece of sourdough, instead of the expedients at present employed in this country to make bread light. The pure dry biscuit, as distinguished from bread thus leavened, would be an apt emblem of unchanged duration, and, in its freedom from foreign mixture, of purity also. The root מָצִוֹ signifies "to make dry." Kurtz thinks that dryness rather than sweetness is the idea מִצּוֹת. But sweet in this connection has the sense of uncorrupted, or incorruptible, and hence is easily connected with dryness. Perhaps our authorized version has lost. something in expressiveness by substituting the term "unleavened bread" for the "sweet bread" of the older versions, which still holds its place in 1 Esdras 1:19. If this was the accepted meaning among the Jews, "the unleavened bread of sincerity and, truth" must have been a clear and familiar expression to Paul's Jewish readers. Bahr conceives that as the blood of the lamb figured the act of purifying, the getting rid of the corruptions of Egypt, the unleavened bread signified the abiding state of consecrated holiness.
(3.) The bitter herbs are generally understood by the Jewish writers (Maimonides in Pesach. 8:4) to signify the bitter sufferings which the Israelites had endured (Ex 1:14). But it has been remarked by Aben-Ezra that these herbs are a good and wholesome accompaniment for meat, and are now, and appear to have been in ancient times, commonly so eaten.
(4.) The offering of the omer, though it is obviously that part of the festival which is immediately connected with the course of the seasons, bore- a- distinct analogy to its historical significance. It may have denoted a deliverance from winter, as the lamb signified deliverance from the bondage of Egypt, which might well be considered as a winter in the history of the nation. This application of the rite perhaps derives some support from the form in which the ordinary first-fruit offering was presented in the Temple. SEE FIRST-FRUITS. The call of Jacob ( a Syrian ready to perish"), and the deliverance of his children from Egypt, with their settlement in the land that flowed with milk and honey, were then related (De 26:5-10). It is worthy of notice that, according to Pesachim, an exposition of this passage was an important part of the reply which the father gave to his son's inquiry during the paschal supper. The account of the procession in offering the first-fruits in the Mishna (Bikurin). with the probable reference to the subject in Isa 30:29, can hardly have anything to do with the Passover. The connection appears to have been suggested by the tradition mentioned by Aben-Ezra that the army of Sennacherib was smitten on the night of the Passover. Regarding this tradition, Vitringa says, "Non recipio, nec sperno" (In Isaiam 30:29).
Again, the consecration of the first-fruits, the firstborn of the soil, is an easy type of the consecration of the first-born of the Israelites. This seems to be countenanced by Ex 13:2-4, where the sanctification of the first-born, and the unleavened bread which figured it, seem to be emphatically connected with the time of year, Abib, the month of green ears (see Gesenius, Thesaur. In the Sept. it is called μὴν τῶν νέων, sc. καρπῶν). If Nisan is a Shemitic word, Gesenius thinks that it means the month of flowers, in agreement with a passage in Macarius (Hom. 17), in which it is called μὴν τῶν ἀνθῶν. But he seems inclined to favor an explanlation of the word suggested by a Zend root, according to which it would signify the month of New-year's day.
4. Typical Import of the Festival. — No other shadow of good things to come contained in the law can vie with the festival of the Passover in expressiveness and completeness. Hence we are so often reminded of it, more or less distinctly, in the ritual and language of the Church. Its outline, considered in reference to the great deliverance of the Israelites which it commemorated, and many of its minute details, have been appropriated as current expressions of the truths which God has revealed to us in the fullness of times in sending his Son upon earth.
It is not surprising that ecclesiastical writers should have pushed the comparison too far, and exercised their fancy in the application of trifling or accidental particulars either to the facts of our Lord's life or to truths connected with it. The crossed spits on which Justin Martyr laid stress are noticed above. The subject is expanded by Vitringa (Observat. Sac. 2:10). The time of the new moon, at which the festival was held, has been taken as a type of the brightness of the appearing of the Messiah; the lengthening of the days at that season of the year as figuring the ever-increasing light and warmth of the Redeemer's kingdom; the advanced hour of the day at which the supper was eaten, as a representation of the fullness of times; the roasting of the lamb, as the effect of God's wrath against sin; the thorough cooking of the lamb, as a lesson that Christian doctrine should be well arranged and digested; the prohibition that any part of the flesh should remain till the morning, as a foreshowing of the haste in Which the body of Christ was removed from the cross; the unfermented bread, as the emblem of an humble spirit, while fermented bread was the figure of a heart puffed up with pride and vanity (see Suicer, sub πάσχα). In the like spirit Justin Martyr and Lactantius take up the charge against the Jews of corrupting the O.T., with a view to deprive the Passover of its clearness as a witness for Christ. They specifically allege that the following passage has been omitted in the copies of the book of Ezra: "Et dixit Esdras ad populum: Hoc pascha salvator noster est, et refugium nostrum. Cogitate et ascendat in cor vestrum, quoniam habemus humiliare eum in signo; et: post haec sperabimus in eum, ne deseratur hic locus in: aeternum tempus" (Just. Mart. Dialog. cun Tryp.; Lact. Inst. 4:18). It has been conjectured that the words may have been inserted between vers. 20 and 21 in Ezra 6. But they have been all but universally regarded as spurious.
But, keeping within the limits of sober interpretation indicated by Scripture itself, the application is singularly full and edifying. The deliverance of Israel according to the flesh from the bondage of Egypt was always so regarded and described by the prophets as to render it a most apt type of the deliverance of the spiritual Israel from the bondage of sin into the glorious liberty with which Christ has made us free. The blood of the first paschal lambs sprinkled on the doorways of the houses has ever been regarded as the best defined foreshadowing of that blood which has redeemed, saved, and sanctified us (Heb 11:28). The lamb itself, sacrificed by the worshipper without the intervention of a priest, and its flesh being eaten without reserve as a meal, exhibits the most perfect of peace-offerings, the closest type of the atoning Sacrifice who died for us and has made our peace with God (Isa 53:7; Joh 1:29; comp. the expression "my sacrifice," Ex 34:25, also Ex 12:27; Ac 8:32; 1Co 5:7; 1Pe 1:18-19). The ceremonial law, and the functions of the priest in later times, were indeed recognized in the sacrificial rite of the Passover; but the previous existence of the rite showed that they were not essential for the personal approach of the worshipper to God (Isa 61:6; 1Pe 2:5,9). The unleavened bread is recognized as the figure of the state of sanctification which is the true element of the believer in Christ (1Co 5:8). The haste with which the meal was eaten, and the girt-up loins, the staffs and the sandals, are fit emblems of the life of the Christian pilgrim, ever hastening away from the world towards his heavenly destination (Lu 12:35; 1Pe 1:13; 1Pe 2:11; Eph 5:15; Heb 11:13).
It has been well observed by Kurtz (on Ex 12:38), that at the very crisis when the distinction between Israel and the nations of the world was most clearly brought out (Ex 11:7), a "mixed multitude" went out from Egypt with them (Ex 12:38), and that provision was then made for all who were willing to join the chosen seed and participate with them in their spiritual advantages (Ex 12:44). Thus, at the very starting-point of national separation, was foreshadowed the calling in of the Gentiles to that covenant in which all' nations of the earth were to be blessed.
The offering of the omer, in its higher signification as a symbol of the first- born, has already been noticed. But its meaning found full expression only in that Firstborn of all creation, who, having died and risen again, became the first-fruits of them that slept" (1Co 15:20). As. the first of the first-fruits, no other offering of the sort seems so likely as the omer to have immediately suggested the expressions used in Ro 8:23; Ro 11:16; Jas 1:18; Re 14:4.
The crowning application of the paschal rites to the truths of which they were the shadowy promises appears to be that which is afforded by the fact that our Lord's death occurred during the festival. According to the divine purpose, the true Lamb of God was slain at nearly the same time as "the Lord's Passover," in obedience to the letter of the law. It does not seem needful that, in order to give point to this coincidence, we should (as some have done) draw from it an a priori argument in favor of our Lord's crucifixion having taken place on the 14th of Nisan. It is enough to know that our own Holy Week and Easter stand as the anniversary of the same great facts as were foreshown in those events of which the yearly Passover was a commemoration.
As compared with the other festivals, the Passover was remarkably distinguished by a single victim essentially its own, sacrificed in a very peculiar manner. (The only parallel case to this, in the whole range of the public religious observances of the law, seems to be that of the scapegoat of the day of atonement.) In this respect, as well as in the place it held in the ecclesiastical year, it had a formal dignity and character of its own. It was the representative festival of the year, and in this unique position it stood in a certain relation to circumcision as the second sacrament of the Hebrew Church (Ex 12:44). We may see this in what occurred at Gilgal, when Joshua, in renewing the divine covenant, celebrated the Passover immediately after the circumcision of the people. But the nature of the relation in which these two rites stood to each other did not become fully developed until its types were fulfilled, and the Lord's Supper took its place as the sacramental feast of the elect people of God. (It is worthy of remark that the modern Jews distinguish these two rites above all others, as being immediately connected with the grand fulfillment of the promises made to their fathers. Though they refer to the coming of Elijah in their ordinary grace at meals, it is only on these occasions that their expectation of the harbinger of the Messiah is expressed by formal observances. When a child is circumcised, an empty chair is placed at hand for the prophet to occupy. At the paschal meal a cup of wine is poured out for him; and at an appointed moment the door of the room is solemnly set open for him to enter.) Hupfeld well observes: "En pulcherrima mysteriorum nostrorum exempla: circumcisio quidem baptismatis, scilicet signum gratiae divinae et feederis cum Deo pacti, quo ad sanctitatem populi sacri vocamur; Paschalis vero agnus et ritus, continuate quippe gratis divinae et servati feederis cum Deo signum et pignuts, quo sacra et cum Deo et cum caeteris populi sacri membris communio usque renovatur et alitur, ccene Christi sacrae typus aptissimus!"
VII. Literature. — The Mishna, Pesachim (with the notes by Surenhusius),. Chagiga, and Moed Katon; and the Talmud or Gemara on these Tractates; Maimonides, Iad Ha-Chezaka, Hilchoth Chamez U-Maza; Hilchoth Korban Pesach., and Hilchoth Chagiga; Lightfoot, The Temple Service, cap. xii-xiv, p. 951, 961, vol. i, fol. ed.; Hupfeld, De Fest. Hebr.; Bochart, De Aqno Paschali (vol. i of the Hierozoicon); Ugolini, De Ritibus in Cmn. Dom. ex Pasch. illustr. (vol. 17 of the Thesaurus); Maimonides, De Fermentato et A zyno; Rosenmüller, Scholia in Exodus xii, etc.; Otho, Lex. Rab. s.v. Pascha; Carpzov, App. Crit.; Vitringa, Obs. Sac. lib. 2:3, 10; Reland, Antiq. 4:3; Spencer, De Leg. Hebr. 2:4; Kurtz, Hist. of the Old Covenant, 2:288 sq. (Clark's ed.); Hottinger, De Ritu dimittendi Reum in Fest. Pasch. (Thes. Nov. Theologico-Philolog. vol. ii); Buxtorf, Syzag. Jud. xviii; Cudworth, True Notion of the Lord's Supper; Meyer, De tempp. sacris Hebrceorum, p. 278 sq.; Bahr. Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultzs, 2:613 sq., 627 sq.; Saalschitz, Das Mosaische Recht (Berlin, 1853), p. 406 sq.; Ewald, Die Alterthumer des Volkes Israel (Gbttingen, 1854), p. 390 sq.; Kalisch, Historical and Critical
Commentary on Exodus, p. 178, etc.; Keil, Handbuch der biblischen Archaologie, p. 380 sq.; Knobel, Die Buicher Exodus und Leviticus, p. 91 sq., 532 sq.; The Jewish Ritual, entitled Derech. Ha-Caojim (Vienna, 1859), p. 233 sq.; Landshuth, Hagada, Vortrag fur die beiden Pessachabende, which contains a masterly dissertation on the respective ages of the different portions constituting the Passover service, written in Hebrew by the editor, and a valuable treatise on the bibliography of the Passover service, written in German bv the erudite Steinschneider; also the monographs cited byVolbeding, Index Programmatum, p. 50, 52, 59, 60, 62, 121, and by Hase, Leben Jesu, p. 138, 174. SEE EASTER.