 |  |
related to the Haggada, or the Passover tale for the children; the third was connected
with the blessing, and the fourth with the Hallel, or praise song. Between the second and
the third cups was an ordinary meal, which did not belong to the ritual, but was inserted
in it.
The following gives an outline of the feast:--
Pouring in of the first cup.
Dedicating (KIDDUSH).
Drinking of the first cup.
Breaking, blessing and eating of a piece of hard flat unleavened bread
dipped in sauce.
Pouring in of the second cup.
Passover tale (HAGGADA).
Drinking of the second cup.
Breaking, blessing and eating of unleavened bread dipped in sauce.
* * * * *
Meal apart from the ritual. Eating of the Passover lamb.
Eating of unleavened bread and drinking of wine.
* * * * *
Pouring in of the third cup.
Blessing.
Drinking of the third cup.
Pouring in of the fourth cup.
Praise song (HALLEL), Psa. 105:-108:
Drinking of the fourth cup.
Even if there is uncertainty about some details, the existence of a meal between the
second and the third cups is agreed by all. We shall see the importance of this when
examining the texts of the N.T. referring to the Lord's Supper.
The Roman Mass and the Jewish Passover.
We will not write much about this question here. The Roman Church recognizes and
even boasts in the fact that the ritual of their Mass is closely related to that of the Jewish
Passover. A detailed study of this question can be found in a booklet by Dr. G. B. Bickel
entitled "Messe and Pascha" (1872). He compared the various old Christian rituals in use
in the 5th century, the result being that all seem to be derived from the oldest one. When
this oldest ritual is compared with the Jewish Passover, the correspondence is striking,
particularly if one adds the words pronounced by our Lord when He kept it the last time.
There is no other explanation than that the Mass is a copy of a part of the Passover.
This, of course, is also true of the Anglican ceremony. The Roman and Anglican
Churches are in this and many other things the most "apostolic", i.e., they are following
closely the twelve apostles of the circumcision. But they are also the most distant from
Paul's teaching. They assume that they replace Israel, and so prove that they do not
rightly divide the Word of truth, and that their foundation is unscriptural. The
Reformation was not consistent. The Reformers came back in part to Paul, but tried also
to follow the twelve. In this way there was still more confusion, and divisions were
inevitable.