PASSOVER (פֶּ֫סַח, H7175; Aram. פֶּ֫סַח, H7175; Gr. πάσχα, G4247). This ancient spring festival was associated with the historical episode of Israel’s departure from Egypt. Exodus 12:13 explains פֶּ֫סַח, H7175, etymologically: “passing over” the Heb. houses that showed the sign of blood when the Lord smote the land of Egypt. The blood of the lamb to be killed on the fourteenth day of the first month was to be put upon the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses to protect the firstborn of the Hebrews (Exod 12:15ff.).

Some scholars have questioned the etymological meaning of פֶּ֫סַח, H7175, and point to Assyrian where the word means to soothe or placate (i.e., the gods; cf. BDB s.v.). In Heb. the verb can also mean to “limp,” “skip,” or “halt” (1 Kings 18:21). It has been therefore suggested that originally the festival was of different origin and had something to do with the pagan custom of “hopping” performed by professional mourners. Such a limping dance would be performed in token of mourning for the dying god in connection with the annual cycle (cf. T. H. Gaster, Passover [1949], 23ff.). This however, is mere speculation.

Another complication is the fact that Passover appears to be a conflation of two separate rites, one connected with the paschal lamb, and the other with unleavened bread. This becomes apparent from the OT texts that treat these two rites in the order of sequence but as separate (cf. Lev 23:5f.; Num 28:16f.; 2 Chron 35:1, 17; Ezra 6:19ff.; Ezek 45:21). It is therefore suggested that originally these were two distinct festivals (cf. J. Jeremias KNTW s.v.). Occasionally, the OT uses two different phrases—חַ֥ג הַפָּֽסַח (Exod 34:25; Ezek 45:21) and חַ֥ג הַמַּצֹּ֖ות (Num 28:16; 2 Chron 30:13, 21; Ezra 6:22), to describe the same feast. This twofold designation survived into NT times: τὰ̀ ἄζυμα and πάσχα, G4247, (cf. Matt 26:2, 17; Luke 2:41; 22:1: ἡ ἑορτὴ̀ τῶν ἀζύμων; in John, only πάσχα, G4247, occurs; cf. 2:13, 23; 6:4; 11:55; etc. On the other hand Josephus uses both terms: “the feast of unleavened bread...which we call the Passover” (Jos. Antiq. XIV. ii. 1; cf. Jos. War VI. ix. 3; V. iii. 1).

Some speculative scholars suggest that the original rite was connected with the superstitious fear of evil spirits, pointing to the phrase לַ֤יְלָה שִׁמֻּרִ֛ים “a night of watching” (Exod 12:42) against the “destroyer” (12:23, מַשְׁחִ֔ית). It is therefore suggested that the festival was taken over by the Israelites from a pre-Yahwist cult of Kadesh and was originally a rite performed for protection from a night demon (cf. C. A. Simpson, The Early Traditions of Israel [1948], 437f.). That some superstitions have attached themselves to the midnight ritual can be seen from the remark by Rab Naḥman who calls it “a night of the preserved one, i.e. from malignant spirits” (cf. Pes 109b). Nonetheless in the OT the significance of Passover, whatever its prehistory, is entirely associated with a historic event in the life of the Heb. people.

There is reason to suspect that the sacrifice of the lamb and the festival of unleavened bread were also of agricultural origin and were meant as annual offerings of flock and field. The Feast of Unleavened Bread coincides with the spring harvest of barley and the ordinance of waving “the sheaf before the Lord” on the day after the Sabbath (the day after Nisan 15 ?) confirms the agricultural connection with Passover (cf. Lev 23:11). This connection has been preserved in the synagogue liturgy to this day. On the first day of Passover, in the afternoon liturgy, a lengthy prayer for dew is inserted (cf. D. A. Sola, Passover Service [1860], 153ff.; also L. N. Dembitz, Jewish Services in Synagogue and Home [1898], 124; cf. also Pes 2:5).

Corresponding to the unleavened bread is the male lamb, without blemish, one year old (Exod 12:5). This agricultural festival is pre-Mosaic and belongs to the earliest Israelite tradition. When Moses appeared before Pharaoh in the name of YHWH (5:1) requesting: “Let my people go that they may hold a feast” (וְיָחֹ֥גּוּ), the חַג, H2504, was not an invention but the traditional spring festival (12:3).

1. The festival of freedom. Passover offers a wide field for speculation by reason of the great variety of its features: smearing of blood, hopping, “a night of watching,” the sacrificial lamb, the firstfruits of barley, the sacred meal, etc. These features are suggestive of similar rites outside Israel. No wonder that scholars find the festival puzzling. Some regard Exodus 1-14 not as a record of events but as a cultic legend attempting to glorify the flight from Egypt (Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture, III-IV, 726ff.). The assumption rests upon a misunderstanding: the real purpose of Passover was to glorify the God of Israel. It would be futile to expect historical data except on the writer’s own terms. In the center of Exodus 1-14 is the God of Israel who performs mighty deeds on behalf of His people (cf. G. von Rad, The Problem of the Hexateuch [1965], 52). Biblical history is written with a purpose, and the purpose is to attest God’s gracious acts. Israel understands his freedom as a miracle wrought by YHWH who with “a mighty hand and an outstretched arm” brought His people out of Egypt (Deut 26:8). To understand the meaning of Passover one must therefore ask for the Biblical interpretation; it is futile to inquire what the Festival was in pre-Mosaic times.

It is possible that Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were agricultural feasts (cf. Exod 23:15f.). Some evidence of the cultic connection between passover and the firstfruits is preserved (Josh 5:10-12; cf. C. W. Atkinson, AThR [Jan 1962], 82). But the Festival underwent a radical reinterpretation as a result of the great event in Israel’s history, namely deliverance from the Egyp. house of bondage. Scholars have no answer to the puzzle how a primitive rite rooted in superstition became the festival of freedom. It is in keeping with OT practice to reinterpret ancient traditions in the light of Israel’s own history. Thus the Sabbath law is associated with the story of creation (Gen 2:3) and appears also (Deut 5:15) as the sign of Israel’s liberation from slavery (cf. P. R. Ackroyd, The People of the OT [1959], 48). The same may have happened with the original spring festival: in the light of the Exodus it acquired a new dimension, namely the dimension of freedom linked to a historic event.

2. Ordinances regarding Pesah. The OT refers to a set of statutes (חֻקַּ֣ת הַפָּ֑סַח) that are obligatory for the keeping of the feast (Exod 12:43; Num 9:12, 14; 2 Chron 35:13). These statutes define in detail the date, the time, the duration of the festival, and the manner of eating the paschal lamb, etc.

Preparations for the festival were to begin on the tenth day of the first month (i.e., Abib, cf. Deut 16:1; later the Babylonian name of Nisan was substituted, cf. Neh 2:1; Esth 3:7). A paschal lamb was selected according to the number in the household. The lamb was to be without blemish, a yearling and male. The animal was to be kept under special care until the fourteenth day of the month when it was to be killed “between the evenings” (בֵּ֥ין הָעַרְבָּֽיִם, Exod 12:6mg.; Lev 23:5mg.). This is understood to mean “in the evening at the going down of the sun” (Deut 16:6). The blood of the animal was to be smeared upon the two doorposts and the lintel of the house. A later development was to have the blood sprinkled on the altar or poured at its base (cf. 2 Chron 35:11; Jub 49:20; Pes 5:6). The flesh was to be roasted by fire with its head, legs, and inner parts, and no bone was to be broken (Exod 12:46; Num 9:12). It was not to be eaten raw or boiled with water (Exod 12:9; Deut 16:7 seems to contradict this rule; but cf. 2 Chron 35:13; the verb bissel can mean “bake” as well as “boil”). The roasted meat was to be eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs and was to be consumed so that nothing was left over until the morning; any remains were to be burned (Exod 12:10; 34:25). The meal was to be eaten in haste, with loins girded, shoes on, and staff in hand. The festival of Passover was a day of memorial and therefore to be observed by all generations as an ordinance forever (Exod 12:14). The Festival of Unleavened Bread, as distinct from the paschal lamb, was to be observed for seven days (Exod 12:15; 13:6; 34:18; Lev 23:6; Num 28:17; Deut 16:3; the one exception is Deut 16:8, but the difference derives from the mode of reckoning the days, cf. S. B. Hoenig, JQR [April 1959], 271ff.).

Israelites who were prevented from keeping the Feast for reasons of Levitical uncleanness or travel were to celebrate a month later (Num 9:10f.; cf. Pes 9:3).

The obligation to explain the meaning of Passover rested upon the pater familias: “And you shall tell your son on that day, ‘it is because of what the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt’” (Exod 13:8; cf. 12:26). Only Israelites and those who by circumcision were joined to the community were allowed to eat the paschal lamb. Foreigners and sojourners, i.e., resident strangers, were normally excluded (Exod 12:45), but the rule was relaxed for those circumcised strangers and sojourners who showed a real desire to identify with Israel. They were permitted to share in the passover celebration (Num 9:14). The lamb was to be eaten inside the house and was not to be carried outside.

3. The Exodus theme in the OT. With the change of circumstances, ancient rules had to be modified. The centralized cultus in Jerusalem made some practices difficult. The smearing of blood on the doorpost had to be supplemented by the requirement of sprinkling on the altar (cf. 2 Chron 30:16; 35:11). The rule requiring that the lamb be eaten in the home was, according to the Talmud, changed to homes in Jerusalem only (cf. Pes 9:12; but cf. Jub. 49:20). The originally agricultural features of the festival gave way to more cultic aspects. One characteristic feature survives to this day: it was and remains a communal rite. The rabbis laid down the rule that the paschal lamb may not be slaughtered for one single person (though Rabbi Jose permits it; cf. Pes 8:7). Another feature coming down from ancient times was that the slaughter of the lamb was performed by ordinary Israelites acting on behalf of their households and not by priests as in the case of the other sacrifices (cf. Pes 5:6). All that the priests had to do was to collect the blood and toss it against the base of the altar. Passover was the only occasion when an Israelite performed a priestly function (from 2 Chron 30 and 35 it is not clear whether the “lay people” or the priests killed the passover). Other features remain obscure, e.g., the burning of the remains: Exodus 12:10 directs that it be done the following morning, whereas Exodus 23:18; 34:25 and Deuteronomy 16:4 specify that it be done before daybreak. There may have been no uniform tradition in some matters; some “ate the passover otherwise than as prescribed” (2 Chron 30:18). A uniform tradition evolved gradually, but the main facts regarding the Exodus never varied.

The OT abounds in references to the miracle of redemption from Egypt. Especially the Psalms delight to dwell on the theme of the Exodus with its attending miracles. Psalm 78 rehearses Israel’s history with the Exodus as the central theme. God’s redemptive act consisted in bringing a vine out of Egypt and planting it in the Promised Land (Ps 80:8). Some Psalms contrast God’s faithfulness toward His people with Israel’s rebellious behavior in the wilderness (cf. Pss 95; 106). The main purpose of retelling the story of redemption was to praise God for His mighty acts (cf. Pss 135; 136). The ancient singers exulted in the privilege of Israel’s calling as God’s people and connected it with the flight from Egypt (Ps 114:1).

The prophets make frequent allusions to the story of redemption from Egypt and the trek through the wilderness. Israel’s alliance with Egypt for political expediency was the more heinous to them as it seemed to contradict God’s original purpose (cf. Jer 2:18f.; Hos 11:5). In times of danger, when Assyria pressed hard upon Israel, the prophet called to memory what God did for His people in Egypt: “be not afraid of the Assyrians” (Isa 10:24, 26f.; cf. 52:4). Jeremiah bewails the fact that Israel fails to ask: “‘Where is the Lord who brought us up from the land of Egypt, who led us in the wilderness’” (2:6ff.). He reminds them that from the day when the fathers came out of Egypt the Lord has persistently sent prophets to His stiff-necked people (7:25, 26), warning them (11:4), but they would not listen (vv. 7, 8).

This reference to YHWH who brought Israel out of Egypt is a frequent refrain in the prophetic writings (cf. Jer 16:14; 23:7; 31:32; 32:21; 34:13; Ezek 20:6, 9f., 36; Dan 9:15; Hos 2:15; 11:1; 12:9, 13; Amos 2:10; 3:1; 9:7). For the prophets the Exodus is a central fact in Israel’s history. Israel knows YHWH chiefly as the One who brought His people out of the Egyp. bondage, led them through the wilderness and gave them statutes and ordinances (Ezek 20:9-11). Ezekiel appears to associate the Sabbath institution with the story of redemption from Egypt (20:12), and Israel’s “lewdness and...harlotry” is a sad heritage brought from the house of bondage (23:27).

The historic books are equally aware of the meaning of the Exodus for Israel’s relation to YHWH. God has made Himself known to His people by freeing them from the house of slavery and by settling them in the land of promise (1 Sam 8:8; 2 Sam 7:23; 1 Kings 8:53; etc.).

The Exodus dominates in a very real sense the OT perspective, and the Passover is the reminder of what God has done for His people. Liberation from Egypt and settlement in the land of Israel is regarded as the seal of YHWH’s loyalty to the Covenantal promises (cf. Mic 6:3ff.). The theme of Passover as the festival of liberation is carried over to the NT.

4. The Passover theme in the NT and the Church. Jesus’ Messianic activity reaches a climax in the events of His last Passover. According to John, the crucifixion took place on the first day of “Passover” (here apparently used as a designation of the Feast of Unleavened Bread). The synoptics make it clear that it was on the first day of the feast. John who appears to be specially concerned with chronological data records two, or even three Passovers (John 2:13; 6:4; 12:1; cf. W. F. Howard, The Fourth Gospel, revised by C. K. Barrett [1955], 122). Contrary to C. H. Dodd (The Interpreter of the Fourth Gospel [1953], 234), there is good reason to believe that John attached special importance to the Passover theme. His gospel, which stresses that the Messiah is the true bread of life, fits remarkably well into the paschal context (cf. John 6:31ff.; cf. V. Ruland, INT [Oct., 1964], 451ff.). The Passover is equally important to the synoptic gospels; so much so that it is possible to view the gospel of Mark as a Christian Passover Haggadah written with the purpose of reinterpreting the paschal theme in Messianic terms as the New Exodus (cf. John Bowman, The Gospel of Mark [1965]). A somewhat similar case is 1 Peter, which makes so many allusions to Passover that some scholars feel justified in regarding it as a paschal liturgy. The suggestion is made that 1 Peter is a liturgy connected with the paschal vigil in preparation for Easter baptism, a custom widely practiced in the Early Church (cf. F. L. Cross, 1 Peter [1954]; Roger Le Déaut, La Nuit Pascale [1963], 297; A. R. C. Leaney, NTS, X [1964], 238ff.). This may prove too restricted a view and has been contradicted by some (C. F. D. Moule; T. C. G. Thornton), but it nevertheless shows how deeply embedded is the paschal theme in the NT. Other NT books make similar allusions to Passover in connection with the Christian message. Paul plainly associates the Messiah with the Passover and equates the Christian life with the symbol of unleavened bread (ἄζυμα) that stands for sincerity and truth (1 Cor 5:7f.).

A similar association between Messiah and Passover exists in rabbinical Judaism. Nisan 15 is declared a time of rejoicing for all Israelites because God performed a miracle (sign) on that night, but in the age to come (i.e., in Messiah’s time) He will turn the night into day (cf. SBK IV, 55). In the Haggadah shel pesaḥ, the Messianic expectation is linked to the seder both by direct reference to the Messiah and by the part that Elijah plays in the Passover tradition. The custom of opening the door at midnight on the first night of Passover was already practiced in the Temple at Jerusalem (cf. Jos. Antiq. XVIII. ii. 2), and has definite Messianic overtones. Déaut has shown the close association between the paschal ritual and the messianic expectations in rabbinic Judaism of the 1st cent. This applies even to the Samaritans who expected their Taheb (Messiah) to make his appearance on the day of Passover (cf. Déaut, op. cit. 281, 283).

The paschal theme of the NT, and most specially of John (cf. A. Guilding, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship [1960], 58ff.), was taken over by the Gentile church. The liturgy of the paschal vigil and the Quartodeciman tradition of making Easter coincide with Passover persisted in the Church for centuries (cf. B. Lohse, Das Passafest der Quartodecimaner [1953]; Die Passa-Homilie des Bischofs Meliton von Sardes [1958]). The phrase “the Passover of salvation” (τὸ̀ πάσχα τῆς σωτηρίας) entered the church vocabulary and was used widely in the liturgy (cf. Déaut, 296; though contradicted by Lohse). The identification of Christ with the Christian Passover was accepted as a theological premise: “the festival of the Savior’s Pascha,” τοῦ σωτηρίου Πάσχα ἑορτῆς (Euseb. Hist. V. 23:1), means both the Last Passover that Jesus celebrated and the Christian Passover when the Church celebrates Christ’s resurrection. In a play of words, which is only possible in Gr., πάσχα, G4247, is interpreted to mean πάσχω, G4248: “And on the following day our Saviour suffered, He who was the Passover—propitiously sacrificed by the Jews” (Ante-Nicene Christian Library XXIV, 167). Thus Passover and Easter are closely held together so that the paschal theme of the OT continued though centered upon the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

5. The Last Supper. The tradition that Paul received and put down in writing belongs to the earliest accounts of what took place the night when Jesus was betrayed (1 Cor 11:23-26). This account states that it was at night, that there was a meal (δεῖπνον, G1270), that He took bread and broke it and said, “This is my body which is [broken] for you. Do this is remembrance (ἀνάμνησις, G390) of me.” The same with the cup: “This cup is the new covenant (διαθήκη, G1347) in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” There is no mention of Passover in Paul’s account, except in a circumstantial way: the breaking of bread in a solemn manner, the drinking of the cup of wine, the reference to the Covenant, but above all the ἀνάμνησις, G390, (לְזִכָּרֹ֖ן lezikkaron) has paschal overtones. The synoptic account does not differ in essence from the Pauline paradosis, except that it is presented as a Passover meal (cf. Matt 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7).

a. The date of the Crucifixion. If John’s reference to the sacrificing of the Passover lamb in 18:28 refers to the actual passover meal then the Last Supper itself could not have been a paschal meal. The synoptics are explicit in stating that the Crucifixion took place on the first day of Passover (Nisan 15). There are two possible problems in this connection: the events described in the story of the Passion would have to be compressed within a very short time; the involvement of the Jewish authorities in the sordid business of a crucifixion on the first day of a high festival is difficult to accept. J. Jeremias rejects the difficulties that arise in connection with the Crucifixion on Nisan 15 (The Eucharistic Words of Jesus [1955], 46ff.), but on the Jewish side this is held to be a sheer impossibility (cf. J. B. Segal, The Hebrew Passover [1963], 244 n 8; cf. also D. Daube, The NT and Rabbinical Judaism [1956], 312). D. Chwolson tried to solve the difficulty by presupposing two dates for Passover, one to suit the Pharisaic calendar, and the other the Sadducean (Das letzte Passamahl Christi und der Tag seines Todes [1892, rev. 1908]). From the Qumran lit. we now know that calendaric differences were a cause of dissent (cf. M. Black The Scrolls and Christian Origins [1961], 199ff.). There is no evidence that the Sadducees, who had the oversight of the Temple, ever compromised on so important an issue as to allow two different dates. Mlle. Annie Jaubert has worked on the premise of two different calendars: an old sacerdotal calendar based on the solar system, and the official lunar calendar in force at the time. According to the solar system, Passover would always fall on a Wednesday; the lunar system would make it a movable feast. It is therefore suggested that the discrepancy in the gospels derives from the double system (cf. La Date de la Céne [1957]). According to an ancient church tradition, Jesus was arrested on Wednesday (cf. Epiphanius, de fide XXII, 1), which means that the Last Supper would have taken place on a Tuesday. Mlle. Jaubert’s theory has received wide acceptance (cf. G. R. Driver, The Judaean Scrolls [1965], 330ff.; John Bowman, op. cit. 257ff.; Norman Walker, “Concerning the Jaubertian Chronology of the Passion,” Nov Test II [1959], 317ff.). But the theory stands and falls with the assumption of two paschal celebrations. If the synoptics and John are thinking of the same Passover “the discrepancy cannot be reconciled” (Driver, op. cit. 331). George Ogg has shown why the theory is untenable (cf. Historicity and Chronology in the NT [1965], 82f.). At the same time there is wide consensus of opinion that the Last Supper was a paschal meal: neither the kiddush nor the ḥaburah theory is adequate (cf. Bowman, op. cit. 274f.). Jeremias provides some fourteen features suggestive of a paschal meal (op. cit. pp. 136ff.) yet he admits that from the NT evidence no uniform answer is possible (TWNT, V, 895ff.). One way out of the dilemma would be to assume that the Last Supper was a paschal meal but in anticipation of the festival, which would mean that the paschal lamb was missing; at least the paschal lamb is never mentioned in any of the NT documents (though Bowman assumes its presence, op. cit. 266). Such a simple solution makes it possible to reconcile the two traditions: John was right, for Passover began on Friday night; the synoptics were right, for the Last Supper was a paschal meal though without the lamb (cf. J. Jocz, A Theology of Election [1958], 37; G. Ogg, op. cit. 85f.).

b. The memorial meal. Anamnesis is the keynote of Passover: Israel is to call to memory what God has done for His people (cf. Hans Kosmala, Nov Test, IV [1959], 81ff.). In the paschal context, the words of the institution of the Last Supper fit well with the purpose of the festival. But the call to “remember” is missing in the synoptics, except in the longer VS of Luke (cf. Luke 22:17-19mg.). This raises the question as to which is the original text. The question is complicated by the fact that the longer VS is under suspicion of having assimilated the text from 1 Corinthians 11:24f. Jeremias after careful study decided in favor of the longer VS of Luke and attributes the verbal similarities to the fact that it derives from liturgical formula (op. cit. 91, 102). This coincides with Paul’s own testimony that he received the tradition (cf. Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript [1961], 321ff.). In favor of Luke’s longer VS is the mention of two cups, one before and one after the meal. This is in full agreement with Jewish custom to have the kiddush cup at the beginning of the festival.

Because the anamnesis is not mentioned in Mark does not mean that the institution of the Last Supper was unknown to that gospel as Bowman infers (op. cit. 266). Once the paschal context is granted, anamnesis is already implied as a matter of fact—the whole festival is lezikkaron (Exod 12:14). The interpretative words accompanying the manual acts are in compliance with the obligation to explain the meaning of the “rite” &--;(עֲבֹדָ֥ה Exod 12:26; Pes 10:4). Jesus followed custom but reinterpreted the Passover in terms of the Messianic event: the Messiah took the role of the paschal lamb. It is therefore correct to say that the Last Supper provides Passover with a new content (cf. J. Steinbeck, Nov Test III [1959], 73). From henceforth the bread and the wine of the seder become the signs of the Messiah’s sacrifice upon the cross. The paschal meal becomes a Messianic meal.

Scholars have suspected Paul of Hel. influence in view of the practice of cultic meals in pagan religions. The paschal context of the Last Supper makes such suspicions unfounded (cf. E. Käsemann, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen [1960], 11). Sverre Aalen denies any connection with non-Jewish rites and points to the fact that in the Last Supper there is no hint of sharing a meal between God and man (Nov Test VI, 151).

c. The Last Supper and Passover. At the time of the Temple, the paschal meal consisted not only of the lamb but also of the special festive sacrifice of which everyone partook (cf. 2 Chron 35:13). Such eating of the sacrifice was a joyous occasion and gave cohesion to community life. This is to be distinguished from the sin offering that was totally burned and never consumed. For the Hebrew, eating the sacrifice never meant eating his God. Participation in the ᾶ̔μα and the σῶμα, G5393, of the Messiah creates a problem if the Last Supper is conceived in purely sacrificial terms. For this reason, the emphasis in the Last Supper must be placed as much upon the Covenant as upon the sin offering, if not more so (cf. Aalen, op. cit. 148f.). The blood that sealed the Covenant is not the blood poured upon the altar but the blood sprinkled upon the people. There is a correspondence between the Last Supper and Exodus 24:11; the elders of Israel beheld God and ate and drank.

The Covenant is at the core of the Passover account. On the eve of the Exodus, God revealed Himself as the God of the Fathers who remembered His Covenant (Exod 2:24; 3:15). On the eve of the Crucifixion, this covenant was reaffirmed by the Messiah’s willingness to shed His blood. The paschal lamb is therefore not sufficient to explain the full meaning of the Last Supper; the Covenant intrudes as the over-arching theme.

This raises the problem of the meaning of ἡ καινὴ̀ διαθήκη: in what sense is it a new covenant? The writer of Hebrews and sometimes Paul, give the impression of a radical break: the former commandment is set aside “because of its weakness and uselessness” (Heb 7:18); had the first covenant been faultless there would have been no need for a second (8:7); “in speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete” (8:13); those who are in Christ are new creations; the old has passed away, behold the new has come (2 Cor 5:17).

Since Marcion, there has persisted a tendency to separate the two Testaments and to understand the “new” in the radical sense. From Paul’s exposition of Israel’s destiny (Rom 9-11), such a break becomes impossible. The Church Fathers who spoke of a “change of covenant” (cf. Lactantius, Divinae Institutiones IV, 11) did violence to the continuity of revelation. The Logos doctrine allows no such break; the preexistent Christ spoke already in the OT (cf. 1 Pet 1:11). The writer of Hebrews bases his argument on the premise that the preincarnate Christ was present in Israel’s history (cf. W. Manson, The Epistle to the Hebrews [1951], 79f., 82, 96, 184ff.). The novum therefore must be understood in connection with the Messianic event. The New Covenant brings the Old Covenant to the brink of eschatological fulfillment, but the people of God are one continuum from Abel to this day (cf. Melanchthon, On Christian Doctrine [1965], 232). Christ as the telos of the law (Rom 10:4) brings in the New Age but does not change God’s promises. The New Covenant is called “better” than the old (Heb 8:6) because God in Christ fulfills His promise to write His law upon the believer’s heart (Heb 8:8ff.). The Last Supper therefore continues the Passover theme in the new Messianic context.

(1) It is a memorial feast of the Person and work of the Messiah. The anamnesis goes beyond the historical events and becomes a proclamation and confession of faith (cf. 1 Cor 11:26).

(2) It is an avowal of loyalty between Master and disciples, expressing the cohesion and the mutual interdependence of the Christian brotherhood.

(3) It reaffirms the Covenant of old and seals it in the blood of the Messiah.

(4) It expresses the joy of salvation and the eschatological hope of the Messiah’s ultimate triumph (cf. J. Steinbeck, op. cit. 71ff.).

d. The Christian Exodus. The keynote of the NT message is Messianic fulfillment; Jesus is the One of whom Moses and the prophets have written (John 1:45). The Messiah, by His life, work, death, and resurrection has accomplished “eternal salvation” (Heb 5:9). This the law was unable to do, for the law made nothing perfect (7:19); it only served as a παιδαγωγός, G4080, until Christ came (Gal 3:24). The salvation of YHWH as demonstrated in the story of the Exodus (cf. Exod 14:13) is thus only a foreshadowing of what was to come. All God’s acts in the OT point to an ultimate future. A day will come when the Lord will reveal Himself as “a warrior who gives victory” (Zeph 3:17). The difference between the redemption from Egypt and Messianic salvation (σωτηρία αἰώνιος) is not that the one is in time and the other beyond it. Biblical salvation is always rooted in time and in history; this is its most peculiar feature (cf. Daube, op. cit. 271). Also, the distinction is not that the one is physical (or political) and the other spiritual. The distinction rather lies in the area of eschatology; Messianic salvation is ultimate. The rabbis regarded redemption from Egypt as foreshadowing final redemption (Daube, ibid. 191), the NT claims it an accomplished fact. Passover is the beginning of the journey that the Messiah completes by reaching the goal.

“Eternal salvation” means that there can be no other salvation after the Messianic event, which is the ultimate. The eternal Covenant (בְּרִ֣ית עﯴלָ֔ם) that God promised to the fathers (Jer 32:40; 50:5; cf. Isa 55:3; Ezek 16:60) has now been established and sealed in the blood of the Messiah (Heb 13:20). In Hebrews the dissolution of the cult, the change of the priesthood, and the removal of the law, is the consequence of the Messianic event. Christ has become the living way (10:20) to the inner sanctuary (6:19), the new High Priest who by His sacrifice has made it possible for man to draw near into the presence of God Himself (10:20ff.).

Bowman detects a parallel drawn in Mark between Moses and Jesus (op. cit. 157). But the resemblance is not, as he suspects, artificially created. It rather derives from the paschal theme; the Exodus spells salvation (גְּאֻלָּה, H1460). Jesus completes what Moses began but could never accomplish in the ultimate sense. True freedom is freedom from sin. No one is truly free who is a slave to sin. Only the one whom the Son makes free, is free indeed (John 8:34f.). Paul arrives at a similar conclusion: the fathers were all under the cloud, passed through the sea, were baptized into Moses, ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink, yet perished in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:1-5). The Exodus had a limited goal, which was not reached until a new generation grew up. It is therefore only a parable of man’s journey to his ultimate destiny—the Promised Land. This journey he cannot make in his own strength. The slave has to become the freedman of the Lord (1 Cor 7:22) and the manumission takes place at the cross of Jesus Christ. In Him men become sons of God (Gal 4:4-6) and enjoy the freedom of the children of God (Rom 8:2ff.). The Exodus from Egypt to the land of Canaan leads beyond history to the “City” that has foundations “whose builder and maker is God” (Heb 11:10). Whereas the historic Exodus was limited to the experience of one people, the Christian Exodus is open to the nations of the world. Man’s ultimate destiny is the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the freed (Gal 4:26).

Bibliography Haggadah of Passover, tr. by M. Sumnel (1942); T. H. Gaster, Passover (1949); B. Lohse, Das Passafest der Quartodecimaner (1953); J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (1955); A. Jaubert, La Date de la Céne (1957); P. Goodman, The Passover Anthology (1961); R. Le Déaut, La Nuit Pascale (1963); J. B. Segal, The Hebrew Passover (1963); J. Bowman, The Gospel of Mark (1965).