Origen and Chrysostom both point out the searing honesty of the Evangelists in admitting that it was one of Twelve who betrayed the Lord. Origen points out the parallel with us, when we prefer the monetary and other rewards of this world in exchange for our souls;all who betray Him for the lures of the world are like Judas. Judas chooses a time when Jesus will not be with the crowds, for he and the Jewish authorities were fearful of the reaction of the people.
Chrysostom reckons that the ‘first day of the feast of the unleavened bread’ was actually the day before it, because it as customary to reckon the day for the evening before. As Jesus had no home, he and the Apostles have to find a place to celebrate the Passover. Origen sees the man ‘carrying the jar of water’ as a type for Moses – the giver of the law who bears the water of the Law and the Prophets. The room, St Jerome tells us, symbolises the spiritual law emerging from the restraints of the written record.
Origen says that the Apostles are sorrowful because they knew, from the teaching of Jesus, that human nature was unstable and liable to be turned toward sin; a man can be besieged by the powers of darkness and fall into despair, and so each, hoping it will not be him, says ‘Is it I, Lord?’ We too should do likewise and be not self-satisfied as though it could not be us – for look at what befell Peter. Chrysostom reminds us that in not naming Judas, the Lord gives him time yet for repentance; but he does not repent. But Judas is only the agent of the devil, who is the real betrayer.
In the Lord’s Supper, Christ’s own presence in the body and blood brings us, St Cyril reminds us, salvation from sin and death; through this new sacrament, Christ becomes the fulfilment of the Law. God did not will the death of Christ, but He allows it. Jesus emphasises that it is in fulfilment of prophecy that the Apostles fall away from him; Jesus, the shepherd is killed in order to bring unity among the scattered sheep.
St Cyril teaches that in saying that he would ‘go before you to Galilee’, Jesus was indicating that he would leave the Jews in order to lead the Gentiles. Peter, who had been audacious enough to say that he would never fall away of deny Jesus, dies both; he made a rash promise, not knowing, Chrysostom reminds us, the depth of the deceitfulness of human nature. Peter was still desirous of being the first, and he would find the truth of the saying that he who would be first, would be last.
To spare the disciples greater sorrow, Jesus prays alone in Gethsemane . St Hilary of Poitiers wonders whether Jesus was not sorrowful because of the fear that his disciples would fall away utterly and blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.
By saying that ‘if it be possible, let it pass from me’, Chrysostom reminds us that Jesus is showing the true humanity of his nature; but he shows an example of true obedience by submitting utterly to God’s will; words are not sufficient – deeds matter. The disciples, for all their words, do not live up to them in action; this is why Jesus tells us to pray in order to avoid temptation. St Jerome reminds us that it is impossible for us to avoid temptation, and that is why we need to pray for strength. As much as we trust, as Peter did, in an ardent spirit, we should remember that our flesh is weak. In his admonition to Peter, Jesus is forewarning him of what is to come.
Jesus’ betrayal comes as prophesied, and though guiltless he does not flee; He is faithful unto death. Let us go and do likewise. Jesus will not allow men to raise swords on his behalf; he tells them his father could send legions of angels – were that His divine will. Jesus submits even though He could have chosen flight or fight; God’s will be done.
Peter, as Chrysostom reminds us, at least follows Jesus rather than fleeing. Jerome teaches us that Caiaphas sees only blasphemy in what is, in fact, Christ’s perfect submission. All he can see is what the man who knows the Law but not the Spirit sees, and he will use even false testimony to do what he thinks is right; but in not swearing, it is Christ is is doing what is right. His enemies are whited sepulchres; Christ alone is righteous, and He fulfils, as St Cyril tells us, the words of the prophet Isaiah.
In that obedience is the pattern for us, although too often we are like the disciples who could not pray even an hour with him.
All Along the Watchtower 
Great post C. You might want to replace the word *sleep* with the word *pray* in the last sentence though; as I am very good at sleeping as were the apostles apparently. 🙂
LikeLike
Will do 🙂
LikeLike
St Bosco reminds us to eat our vegetables and that Jesus stands at the door and knocks.
LikeLike
For which, many thanks.
LikeLike
Thank you for sharing such surveys of the fruits of Christian reflection on scripture. They are fruitful for provoking reflection on what are, for me, familiar passages.
Two points struck me in this survey. One was your citation of Chrysostom regarding the start of passover: “Chrysostom reckons that the ‘first day of the feast of the unleavened bread’ was actually the day before it, because it as customary to reckon the day for the evening before.” I think this is a longstanding exegetical disagreement between churches who use unleavened bread (whether Latin (Catholic/Protestant) or Armenian) and those who use leavened bread (e.g. Greek and Syriac; I don’t know where the Copts come down on this one). Most pre-modern (and many modern) Christians would say the type of bread matters and should be modeled on the bread used at the Last Supper. If the Last Supper was a Passover meal, then unleavened bread was used, whereas if it was before the Passover, the bread was leavened. Could I ask you to reflect on how we might use the reflections of the early Christian authors on this issue, in light of the ongoing schisms in which this is a factor?
Secondly, your statement, “God did not will the death of Christ, but He allows it.” Is this also from Cyril of Alexandria? I’m a little uncomfortable relegating the death of Christ to God’s permissive will, in light of the reference in Rev 13:8 to “the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world” (St. Bosco isn’t the only one who reads the book, after all), as well as the apostles’ prayer in Acts 4:27-28. On the other hand, of course, assigning the death of Christ to God’s causative will risks making God the author of evil, and liberal allegations of divine child abuse make themselves heard. I suspect that we need more nuanced reflection on the possibilities of willing, but how do you address this issue?
Thanks!
LikeLike
Both are good points to raise; I am less sure I have good comments to make.
Since 1439 the Catholic Church has stated that, depending on tradition, it is licit to use either sort: so the East can use leavened bread with yeast a sign of the soul , whilst the Latin Rite sticks to the view that it was a Passover meal and allows only unleavened bread. The Copts use leavened bread.
The second issue brings up the issue of the Atonement, and for me, there is no question but that Christ is the sacrifice which secures our redemption. The question of why He had to die in this fashion is a complex one, of course, and would be a good subject for a post.
LikeLike
To me it has everything to do with sacrificial worship; the vicarious offering for sin, the Lamb of God sacrifice without blemish. It was something that was taught throughout the OT Church and now was culmination and conclusion to the ‘clean oblation’ that would be offered everywhere and for all time for the forgiveness of sin. And it did seem to answer all earlier prophecy: especially Isaiah. A sign that would and should have been recognized by all of the Jewish faith; but alas many refused to make the connection.
LikeLike
I wonder if the ecclesiology of uniatism strongly limits our ability to invoke lex orandi, lex credendi in order to make normative theological pronouncements on the basis of a particular rite, be it Latin or another.
But I’m not sure I understand your answer to my second point. I’m sure all the authors you have cited would agree that “Christ is the sacrifice which secures our redemption.” But I’m not sure what implications that has for the question of whether God will Christ’s death or only allowed it. Could you clarify?
Thanks again for a thoroughly thought-provoking post!
LikeLike
I think there is much in that comment about Uniatism. I respect both traditions, and regret that the question has become a cause of contention.
The issue of God’s will is one I think needs a longer reflection – a good topic for Holy Week.
LikeLike
Good boy…you caught them in an inaccuracy. A bad inaccuracy. Stick around, youll find more.
As far as passover bread, ill take Raisin Cinnamon bread
LikeLike
Poor Bosco, you think like a Pharisee.
The Catholics hold it was a Passover feast – what do you think?
LikeLike
Indeed, did Christ not say how He had longed desired to eat the Pasch with His with His disciples? And did they not follow the sequence of the Pasch in the Last Supper save for the drinking of the 4th cup which Christ drank upon the Holy Cross?
LikeLike
The hebrews ate unleavend bread and bitter herbs as their last quick meal in Egypt. Its not a ritual we are supposed to perform. They did it once. Anyway, the hebrews turned it into a holiday or something. Jesus last supper wasnt unleavend bread and nasty herbs. They ate a nice meal. We are not under any obligations to do these rituals. Religions saddle men with these things to do, then they bring it to the land of the absurd by coming up with things like, which hand to hold it, yeast or no yeast, stand on one leg and rub your head with left hand.
Dont look now, but Jesus said….”It is Finished.”
All rituals and jive things to do are over. We can now enter into His Rest.
LikeLike
The inaccuracy i meant was god allowd Jesus to die, not passover stuff. I dont care about passover. Its harmless
LikeLike
Technically, the Bible presents the repetition of the Passover Meal not as a human invention, but as commanded by God in Exodus 12:14. The language of the Passover being a “memorial” is picked up by our Lord in Luke 22:19 (and Paul’s account of it in 1 Cor 11:25). So if one believes what the Bible says, as you claim, St. Bosco, then some rituals were established by God and not only by mere humans.
We all overlook things sometimes, and sometimes what appears as overlooking a detail has a deeper reason behind it. If there is, I like to hear it!
LikeLike
Your rite good brother TAC, we are to remember it, when i say we, i mean the hebrews. Jesus and the apostles didnt make any big deal about it. Just be coverd in the blood of the Lamb and dont worry about it.
LikeLike
You obviously have never seen or been to a Jewish Seder meal Bosco. It is rather ritualized from that moment in history where God combined the Feast of Unleavened Bread with the Passover Lamb. Christ followed this formula, save for the fact that He changed the unleavened bread into His own Body and Blood (God will provided the sacrifice) being the Pascal Lamb of God. But they obviously drank 3 of the 4 chalices of wine and then left singing the Last Hallel (read the scriptural accounts).
Today, at a Seder meal the Jews do everything they used to except eat the lamb. Why? Because they have lost the Temple and the sacrificial lambs that were distributed to the people. So today they place a shank bone of a lamb on the plate to symbolize the great loss. So what was once a bloody sacrifice became an unbloody sacrifice as Malachi once prophesied: for in Judaism a clean oblation was an unbloody sacrifice. It is the sacrifice that is offered perpetually for our sins before God the Father by the Son as seen in Revelation and to which the Catholic Church continues on earth as Malachi foretold until Christ returns.
LikeLike
`Your rite, ive never been to a Jewish Passover meal. Who cares. it dont mean anything anymore. Say, what is this Pashal Lamb stuff? I never heard that one. Well, theres lots of terms for this and that that ive never heard befor. I dont let it bother me. The Lord is my Shepherd. I let him worry about stuff.
LikeLike
You might be interested to know that it everything is not left to God. He tells His people to do certain things it is incumbent upon them (if they have half a brain) to take it seriously and learn about it and do it.
LikeLike
Good brother Servus, I believe Jesus meant he wished to have this meal with the disciples …in heaven.
LikeLike
Jesus spoke of not drinking wine (or even grape juice) again until he would do so anew in the Father’s kingdom (Matt 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18). Just to clarify, is your view that we are in heaven with Jesus when we take communion? Or that communion is irrelevant right now, and we should wait until we are in heaven with the Lord (after death or after his return) to have this meal?
John Calvin held the former view, and it has always seemed inexplicable to me, but if it’s also yours you can perhaps clarify where it comes from. The latter possibility seems to run afoul of Paul’s presumption that this meal is what the Corinthian Christians are doing repeatedly now.
LikeLike
This communion thing has been distorted. jesus said ” as oft as ye do this, remember me” What was he doing? He was eating a meal. I think he meat as oft as you eat, or maybe with other christians. Im not sure.
LikeLike
SERVUS ” sacrificial worship”. Have read scholars that present this notion hangover from paganism and OT Hebrews. When the man does not kill the son as ordered by God in OT doesn’t that end notion of sacrifice ? Does Paul say no more sacrifice animals? Does any of this call for a different word?
LikeLike
If you want, though I have not yet finished this, I have a 7 part series on the Lamb of God Theme in the Bible that was written and abridged by me for a series of posts. He has passed but his insights into the Lamb of God are worth reading. You can find it here: http://servusfidelis.wordpress.com/?s=lamb+of+god+theme&submit=
LikeLike
Carl, perhaps I misunderstand you: are you saying that you do not regard Christ’s death on the Cross as a ‘sacrifice?’ What we see in the OT is a change from the old pagan religions to one of offering that which man cannot create Himself (life represented by the blood of a living creature) to offer back to God. That was but a
‘type’ for the ‘once and for all pleasing Sacrifice’ to God that was fulfilled in Christ. Was not the sparing of Isaac and the sacrifice (which God supplied) another ‘type’ for the Sacrifice of our Lord? Sacrifice and blood was replaced by a clean and unbloody sacrifice as Malachi said: and one which he also stated would be offered by Gentiles: what a strange thing for Jew to come up with, don’t you think?
LikeLike
I was surprised at the language of an “unbloody sacrifice” and attributing it to Malachi. (Which just goes to show how often I’ve been to a Roman Mass, I suppose.) Are you referring to the passage Malachi 1:11?
“My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord Almighty.” (NIV)
“Pure” in this sentence is the Hebrew tehora, which is the same word used of the animals sacrificed by Noah in Gen 8:20. I wonder if the notion of “bloodless” here is an accidental legacy of 16th C eisagesis driven by the need for anti-Protestant polemics. (There are of course plenty of such legacies among both Protestants and Catholics.)
LikeLike
It is true that Christ Himself was a Lamb without spot or blemish which what the original understanding was taken to mean. In more recent times the mention of a ‘clean oblation’ to a Jew, refers to an unbloody sacrifice; not that Christ’s Sacrifce was unbloody but that its re-presentation is such. In this way it remains in perpetuity the clean sacrifice of Lamb without spot or blemish. I do not know when this new idea of unbloody was adopted by Jewish scholars: it might be interesting to investigate the writings of many of the later Rabbis.
LikeLike
Actually, a little further checking reveals that the language of “bloodless sacrifices” is pre-16th C, although I don’t know at what point it was tied to the Malachi passage. (The link to the 16th C was suggested, perhaps erroneously, by this link.) The Liturgy of John Chrysostom also refers to the Eucharist as a “liturgical sacrifice without the shedding of blood” (although the first reference to “bloodless sacrifices” is unclear whether it refers to the Eucharistic offering, or to the prayers and supplications).
I checked Rashi’s commentary on Malachi (helpfully online here), and he identifies the “pure sacrifice” as prayer coupled with obedience, which I would guess derives from the tradition of substituting pious and meritorious acts for temple sacrifice which started already after the destruction of the temple in 586 BCE (see Daniel 4:27 = 4:24 in the Hebrew numbering), and became an inescapable coping mechanism after the final destruction of the temple in 70 CE. But I still think “bloodless” is to read too much into Malachi, and later Jewish attempts to make the scripture applicable to their changed circumstances should not be confounded with explanations of what the scriptural text means.
LikeLike
Of course the Catholic Church ties many things together, not least that Christ is a Priest of the Order of Melchizedek who offered bread and wine to God. Another commentary I read said that in the words of Malachi the word for oblation or offering referred to a cereal sacrifice: which make it unbloody by its very nature. But that Christ was the Lamb of God and that His sacrificed was to be repeated is scriptural so the tying of that to the sacrifice of Malachi seems a quite normative thing to come up with.
LikeLike
Aha! Yes, my Hebrew is not as good as I would like, but I just checked a concordance and the term for “offering” here does in fact seem to be used primarily for grain offerings (although a dictionary definition included “gift” as a possible definition). Unfortunately I’m not at home, where I would have more of my research tools to hand. But if we’re talking about a pure grain offering in Malachi 1, then that sounds much closer typologically to the communion bread.
I still think Rashi’s interpretation is more metaphorical and pietistic than it is useful for Christian apologists, and calling the Eucharist an “unbloody sacrifice” has nothing whatever to do with Malachi 1:11: while it is true that a grain offering has no blood, it is not described as either bloodless or a sacrifice (in the sense intended by the Mass) by Malachi.
Thanks for this interchange, and for forcing me to dust off my Hebrew! It comes out all too rarely.
LikeLike
You’re welcome. I too am away from my tools as they are packed up because we are having some renovation work done on the house.
I would only say that the offering of grain sacrifices and animal sacrifices were certainly consistent with the OT ideas of worship. Christ seemed to fulfill both in one single action.
LikeLike
“I would only say that the offering of grain sacrifices and animal sacrifices were certainly consistent with the OT ideas of worship. Christ seemed to fulfill both in one single action.”
With this I entirely agree! =-)
LikeLike
Enjoy your participation here TAC. Looking forward to many more. 🙂
LikeLike
Oh, and I’m not sure “repeated” is the verb you intend in your phrase “that His sacrificed was to be repeated is scriptural.” My understanding of the Catechism was that the Eucharist was not a new instance of the sacrifice of Christ, but rather it “makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior.” Otherwise one runs into trouble with Hebrews 9:26-28 and 10:10,14, which the Roman Catholic Church regards as highly as their Protestant critics who cited these against the notion that the Eucharist was a sacrifice back in the 16th C.
LikeLike
True. ‘Repeated’ in my meaning would be better replaced by our formulation of ‘re-presenting’ the one Sacrifice in obedience to the command of Christ to ‘do this in memory of me.’
LikeLike
Not really concluding anything-just trying to absorb all the nuances of the word-thanks.
LikeLike