If there’s any consensus in the Messianic movement on the Eucharist, it is generally thought that whenever Scripture speaks of the Lord’s Supper, it is referring to Passover. So when Yeshua said, “Do this in remembrance of me,” he was referring to the Passover seder, not instituting a new ceremony. If this premise is accepted, an alternate explanation is required to explain the Christian Church’s later “rejection” of Passover, and the development of what is known today as the Eucharist.
A couple of different approaches have been taken within the Messianic movement.
First, one that is less frequent, but one that I’d like to dismiss out of hand, is the idea that the Church adopted the bread and wine ritual from paganism. This argument rests upon a logical fallacy, namely that correlation proves causation. Pagans had ritual ceremonies which included bread and wine, and Christians had ritual ceremonies which contained bread and wine, therefore, Christians were influenced by pagans in their rituals. If the same logic is applied to other areas of faith, resurrection, animal sacrifice, and even circumcision must then be rejected as “pagan.” Needless to say, no serious scholar or historian endorses such a view.
Second, another view frequently heard in Messianic circles is the idea that the church adopted the practice of Eucharist as a way to replace Passover. Allegedly, the Church thought Passover was “too Jewish,” and sought to replace it. First of all, in making an assertion such as this, the burden of proof rests on the one making it. Certainly, Church History contains plenty of anti-Jewish sentiment. Yet, that in and of itself does not prove the Church held an aversion to everything Jewish. Church Fathers certainly had some harsh criticisms of the Jewish people, but they weren’t Nazis.
Actually, one of the first controversies within the Church was precisely over the question of when to properly celebrate Pascha [1] or, Passover. The churches of Asia Minor, who claimed apostolic tradition from John, Philip, and Mary the mother of Yeshua, insisted upon celebrating the Resurrection in conjunction with the Jewish dating of Passover (which, at this point in history, would have still relied on the visual sighting of the New Moon by Jewish authorities in Israel). Other churches, such as the Church of Rome, claiming apostolic tradition from Peter and Paul, sought an alternate date independent of the Jewish calendar. This controversy, known as the Quartodeciman (14-ers, for 14 Nisan) controversy, continued for over a hundred years, up until the Council of Nicea (and perhaps even beyond).
All of that is to say, the Church was highly aware of Passover, and held it in great respect. Differences in dating it remained (gee, never seen that in the Messianic movement), but everyone still desired to celebrate Pascha. Therefore, the idea that the Eucharist was introduced as a replacement for the Passover seder is an absurdity. The same can be said for the idea that the Church Fathers later read the Gospels, all the while being completely ignorant of the Old Testament feast of Passover, and came up with the regular observance of the Eucharist instead. No honest reading of Church History would lead you to such a conclusion.
Where does this leave us? From looking at Church History, we have the early Church highly aware of the Passover, even engaged in heated debate over the proper timing of its observance, all the while partaking of the Eucharist on a weekly, and perhaps daily basis. No one in Church History, it seems, ever understood Yeshua’s words of institution as “words of reinforcement,” that is as referring to the already commanded observance of the Passover. Almost universally, the words of the Master during his Last Supper were understood as instituting a new sacrament, certainly taken from previous symbols and observances within Judaism, but given entirely new meaning and content. (The same could be said for immersion or baptism as well).
Given this, I believe it is necessary for the Messianic movement to reexamine those Scriptures where we have presumed “Lord’s Supper” just means “Passover.” In part 3, I will examine two types of Scriptural passages. First, passages that certainly refer to the Eucharist. For example, this would include the Last Supper narratives of the Synoptic Gospels, as well as 1 Corinthians 11:17ff. And second, those passages where is it contested whether or not they refer to the Eucharist, such as John 6 and the Bread of Life discourse, “breaking bread” in Luke-Acts, 1 Corinthians 10:14-22, and the agape feast of Jude 12.
————————
[1] On a related note, another factual fallacy within the Messianic movement is that the Church changed Passover to “Easter,” complete with bunnies and dyed eggs. The problem is, Easter is only called “Easter” in English and German speaking cultures. The majority of Christian linguistic traditions (Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Russian, Syrian, Arabic, Ethiopian, Egyptian, Iranian, the Scandinavian languages, etc.) all derive their name from Pascha. “Easter” may come from the old Germanic pagan name for the month of April, which Pascha usually fell in. It is no more pagan to call Pascha “Easter,” than to call the sixth month of the Gregorian calendar “June,” the name of the Roman goddess Juno.
