Did the Lord Jesus Christ celebrate the Passover of the Jews at His last Supper with His disciples?

One of the main difficulties in resolving the proposed question lies in the agreement of the narrative of the Evangelist John with the testimony of other evangelists. Whereas, according to the depiction of the evangelists Matthew (Matthew 26:17), Mark (Mark 14:12) and Luke (Luke 22:7), our Lord Jesus Christ ate the last Supper with his disciples, before suffering, apparently on the very evening when the Jews, according to the law, had to eat the Passover lamb (Exodus 12:6,18). From the narrative of the Evangelist John (John 18:28) we see that the Jews, during the suffering of the Lord, were only still preparing to celebrate Passover. For a solution to this question and an explanation of the various circumstances surrounding it, we turn to the writings of the fathers and teachers of the Catholic Church. At first we find a negative opinion among the writers of the Eastern Church. It appears not in the form of church tradition, but in the form of an idea that they wanted to base primarily on the words of the Gospel of John and which was caused by disputes with the fourteeners. Since the time of Origen, when considering the narrative and other evangelists, the conviction, supported by the book of the apostolic decrees, or commandments, has become more general, that the Lord, in the last year of His sojourn on earth, celebrated the legal Passover in the same way as He did before. Whether this question was raised at the First Ecumenical Council when approving the simultaneous celebration of Christian Easter for all Churches and how it was resolved, there is no contemporary news. But several decades after this Council, the interpretation of St. John Chrysostom affirmed a positive solution to the issue in the Gospel, and it became a church conviction in the East. Subsequently, defenders of the opposite opinion appeared from time to time. Disputes about unleavened bread with the Armenians and Latins gave it particular strength, but did not change the church’s convictions, which were again expressed in the interpretations of the Gospel by Theophylact of Bulgaria and Euthymius Zigaben and remained forever in the liturgical books of the Eastern Church. In the history of the Church, the question of the Lord’s celebration of the lawful Passover at the Last Supper appears for the first time in the dispute about the celebration of Easter in the second half of the 2nd century. Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, “close to the times of the apostles,” writes in the word “On Easter”: “There are those who want to argue, who out of ignorance say that the Lord, together with the disciples, ate the lamb on the 14th day, and suffered on the Great Day of Unleavened Bread, and they claim that, in their understanding, Matthew says so. But this understanding of theirs, notes Apollinaris, is inconsistent with the law and, apparently, introduces disagreement between the Gospels” 1 . From the above words it is clear that the opponents with whom Apollinaris dealt, thinking to rely on the Gospel of Matthew, admitted that the Lord celebrated the legal Passover, and, moreover, at the legal time, i.e. on the 14th day of Nisan, and His death was attributed to the 15th day. Apollinaris attributes this opinion to ignorance and says that attributing the supper to the 14th day, and the death to the 15th of Nisan, firstly, does not agree with the law, and secondly, means allowing for discrepancies between the Gospel narratives. Disagreement with the law here is assumed in the fact that the slaughter of the Paschal lamb, meaning the very death of the Redeemer of the World, should coincide in time with it; By attributing the death of the Lord to the 15th day, the correspondence of the representative law with the typified event is violated. The discrepancy between the Gospels would be revealed by considering the words of the Gospel of Matthew, understood in this sense, with the narrative of the Evangelist John, according to which the Lord suffered when the Jews were just preparing to celebrate the Easter supper. But although it is not directly clear from the above words whether Apollinaris allowed the Lord to eat the Paschal lamb at the Last Supper, nevertheless, from his remark about the disagreement of the understanding of Matthew’s Gospel with the law that he denied, it follows that he did not recognize the Savior’s Last Supper as the Paschal Supper, for it preceded the legal time for its celebration. In this sense, an excerpt from the words of Apollinarius is given in the Chronicle of Alexandria with the following inscription: “Apollinarius, Bishop of Hierapolis, that the Lord did not partake of the educational Passover when he suffered” 2 . In a similar way, Clement of Alexandria and Hippolytus of Rome, contemporary to Apollinaris, did not allow the thought of the Lord celebrating the Easter supper according to the Jewish rite. Clement in his essay “On Easter” says: “In previous years, the Lord celebrated Easter and ate what was slaughtered among the Jews, but when He announced (Matthew 26:2) that He himself was the Passover, the Lamb of God, led like a sheep to the slaughter, then he taught the disciples the sacrament of the image (i.e., the representative Passover). It was on the 13th day, when his disciples asked: where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover? On this day, the consecration of unleavened bread and preparation for the holiday took place. In accordance with this, John narrates that on the same day the Lord, as if in preparation, washed the feet of the disciples. And our Savior suffered the next day, being sacrificed by the Jews.” Attributing the death of the Savior to the 13th day of Nisan, Clement of Alexandria refers to the circumstance mentioned by the Evangelist John: “On the 14th day, when the Lord suffered, early in the morning the bishops and scribes came to Pilate, but did not enter the praetor: let them not be defiled, but let them eat the Passover in the evening without hindrance. “With this definition of the day,” adds Clement, “all the scriptures agree, the Gospels also agree, and it is confirmed by the resurrection. The Lord rose on the third day, which was the first day of the harvest week, on which, according to the Law, the priest had to bring a sheaf” 3. In this correspondence between the order of the Gospel events and the plans of the law, Clement finds confirmation of what was said by the Evangelist John. The consecration of unleavened bread corresponds to the establishment of the sacrament of the Eucharist; preparation for the holiday - washing the feet; the slaughter of the Paschal lamb - the modern slaughter of the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world; bringing the firstfruits of the harvest - the rising of the firstfruits of the dead. But, thus comparing the foreshadowings with their fulfillment, Clement does not give a place in the order of the Gospel events to the eating of the Passover lamb. St. Hippolytus of Rome, having cited the thought of his opponent: “Christ celebrated Easter and suffered, why should I do the same as the Lord did,” notes: “My opponent is mistaken, not knowing that when Christ suffered, then He did not eat the lawful Pascha. He Himself was the Passover, foretold and fulfilled on the appointed day.” And further Hippolytus says: “As before, so in the last days the Lord did not speak untruth. So, it is clear that when He said in advance: “No one will eat the Passover” (Luke 22:15,16), then he ate the supper before the Passover, but did not eat the Passover, but suffered. And it was not yet time to eat Easter” 4. It is obvious that St. Hippolytus dates the Last Supper to the 13th day of Nisan, and since on this day it was not yet time for the slaughter of the Paschal lamb, he believed that the Lord did not taste the lawful Passover at the Last Supper. All the words of church teachers we cited were directed against the defenders of the celebration of Easter in Christianity according to Jewish custom, on the 14th day of Nisan. The question of this was the reason for the establishment of many Councils and relations between bishops in the East and West in the 2nd century 5 . Without going into the history of these disputes, we note that the stubborn defenders of Jewish custom from other Christians, who celebrated Easter in accordance with the significance of the days of the week, received the name Quadrants 6 . Some of them, in addition to the desire to correspond in their celebration to the order of the Gospel events, in their understanding, were supported in their stubbornness by the Ebionite principles, drawn from Judaism 7 . Origen tried to eliminate the idea of ​​Ebionite subordination to the Law in his discussion of the celebration of Easter, deviating from his mentor Clement in determining the time of the Savior’s last Supper. In his interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew, citing the words of this evangelist (Matthew 26:17,18) and another evangelist, Mark (Mark 14:12–15), which speaks of the preparation for the celebration of Passover on the first day of unleavened bread, Origen says: “So, it is obvious that the day of Passover, in which it was proper to eat the Passover, and the day of unleavened bread, when it was proper destroying old kvass and eating unleavened bread with lamb meat was one and the same day. And the day of Passover was one, and the days of unleavened bread were seven, counting the day of Passover with the others as six. Therefore, - Origen continues, - perhaps one of the unreasonable ones, on the basis that Jesus celebrated the Passover according to the custom of the Jews physically, following the Ebionites, will demand both the first day of unleavened bread and the Passover and will say: it is fitting for us, imitators of Christ, to do the same. But he will not judge that Jesus, who was sent at the end of the year, born of a woman, was under the law (Gal. 4:4,5) not in order to leave those under the law under the law, but to redeem them from the law. So, if He came to redeem those who were under the law, it is all the more indecent for those who were previously outside the law to turn into a state of law. Therefore, we proceed from the letter of the law and, entering into its power, into the spiritual law, through spiritual celebration we fulfill everything that was prescribed there to be done physically. We reject the old leaven of malice and wickedness and celebrate with unleavened bread of purity and truth (1 Cor. 5:8). Christ also shines with us, having become the Lamb by will and saying: unless you eat My flesh and drink My blood, you will not have life in you. ( John 6:53 ) 8 How Origen agreed with the account of the first three evangelists about the last Supper with the Gospel of John is not visible. In the books that have come down to us, his interpretation of this Gospel also does not contain this question. But from that time on, church writers more often came across the idea that the Lord celebrated the legal Easter than the idea that was contrary to that. Of course, this was greatly facilitated by what was said in the book of commandments, or decrees, apostolic on behalf of St. Apostles 9: “On Thursday, when we were eating Passover with Him, and Judas, putting his hand into the salt and taking a piece, went out at night, the Lord said to us: the hour has come, let you be wasted and leave Me alone (John 16:32, Matt. 26:31). Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, who wrote about Easter shortly after the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea abolished the disagreeable celebration of Easter in some Churches in the East (in Syria) as being based on Jewish customs, expresses with some caution the Savior’s celebration of the legal Easter. “The example of the Savior, who celebrated the Passover on the first day of unleavened bread, has for us,” he says, “historical significance, and is not a commandment.” “But the Savior,” continues Eusebius, “in the year of His suffering did not celebrate Passover with the Jews. It was not when they slaughtered the sheep that He celebrated His Passover with His disciples. They did this on Friday, when the Savior suffered, which is why they did not enter the praetorium, but Pilate came out to them; The Lord himself, a whole day earlier, on Thursday, reclined with the disciples and, eating with them, said: I have desired to eat this Passover with you. Do you see that He did not eat the Passover with the Jews? since this Passover was new and different from the usual among the Jews, it was not without reason that He said with some emphasis: I have desired to eat this Passover with you, but first I will not even accept torment (Luke 22:15). The ancient, decayed customs of the Jews - what He ate together with the Jews - were not desired, but the new sacrament of His New Testament, which He taught to His disciples, of course, was desired for Him." 10 Explaining how it happened that the Jews celebrated Easter after the Savior, Eusebius attributes this to their incorrect order. “The Jews have sinned against the truth,” he says, “since they rebelled against the Truth itself, expelling the Word of truth from themselves. This is clear from the sacred Gospels. Scripture testifies that the Lord ate the Passover on the first day of unleavened bread (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12), and on the day on which it was proper to eat the Passover, they did not eat their usual Passover, but on the next, second day of unleavened bread, and the 15th of the moon, when, at the judgment of our Savior by Pilate, they did not enter the praetor. So, they did not eat Easter on the first day of Easter, but on the same day it was more appropriate to eat Easter. Otherwise, they would have committed it together with Him, but in their machinations against our Savior, blinded by malice, they retreated from Him and from the truth” 11. With the spread and establishment in the Christian Church of the celebration of Easter, independent of Jewish definitions, the idea of ​​the fallibility of the Jewish calendar intensified more and more. Some limited it only to the time following the destruction of Jerusalem, others extended it to the time before the appearance of Christ the Savior 12. St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, admitting that the Lord celebrated the legal Passover, claims that the Jews then had confusion in the calculation of time, and hence in the celebration of Easter: they celebrated Easter two days earlier than proper. He says about the Savior that He celebrated His Passover with the disciples the day before everyone else. In confirmation of this opinion, St. Epiphanius does not provide any historical evidence or tradition, but is based only on his astronomical considerations 13. With the understanding of the principles on which the Nicene Ecumenical Council approved the order of celebrating Easter, one should have expected more unity in determining the time of the Savior's Last Supper, and hence more agreement in determining its meaning. In the message of the Patriarch of Alexandria Proterius to the Pope of Rome, Saint Leo, which explains in detail the considerations on the basis of which Easter calculations were drawn up in Alexandria, it is said: “On the 14th day of the first month among the Jews, Jesus tasted the educational Passover, on the next, 15th day, on Friday, like a sheep of the slaughter, He was nailed to the cross, and on the evening of Saturday, on Sunday, the 17th day, he rose from the dead" 14. From this it is clear that in the Alexandrian calculations the memory of the Easter Supper was taken into account on the 14th day, and the death of the Savior was attributed to the 15th day. But since the Easter calculations, published annually by the Alexandrian bishops, showed only the time of the upcoming Lent of Pentecost and holidays, without explanation, it is not surprising that with the same definitions of Christian Easter, the correspondence of the Gospel events to the Jewish time calculation was not always understood in the same way. Explaining the grounds on which the Church determined the time for the celebration of Christian Easter, the unknown writer of the word “On Easter” of the 7th century in Syria does not find it difficult to give a completely different meaning to the 14th day of Nisan. “Christ suffered,” he says, “after the equinox, on Friday, which then coincided with the 14th day of the moon” 15. “The law prescribed that the lamb should be slaughtered on Friday evening, between vespers. The Savior kept both the day and the hour: the day—Friday—on which man was created; the hour was the ninth, at which the Lord gave up the ghost" 16. With this explanation, the Last Supper had to be attributed to the 13th day, and the question of the Savior’s celebration of the Old Testament Passover required special considerations that were left to the interpreters of Scripture. St. had the greatest influence on the solution of this issue. John Chrysostom, who, even in Antioch, dealt with it both in his interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew and in his words against the obdurate adherents of Jewish rites. Everywhere he expresses the idea that the Lord celebrated the Passover Supper earlier than the other Jews, therefore, on the 13th day, and that at this Supper the Passover lamb was first offered, then the establishment of the sacrament followed. In the interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew, explaining the words (Matthew 26:17) on the very first day of unleavened bread, the disciple approached Jesus, saying to Him: “Where do we want to prepare for you to eat the Passover?”, he says: “On the first day of unleavened bread, i.e. on the day before unleavened bread. The Jews always count the day from the evening, and the Evangelist mentions here the day on the evening of which the Passover was to be eaten. The disciples came to Jesus on Thursday. And one evangelist calls this day the day before unleavened bread, speaking about the time when the disciples came, another says this: the day of unleavened bread has come, in which it was fitting to eat the Passover (Luke 22:7). “Priide” here means “approached, was at the door,” and, of course, the same evening, for the days began in the evening. Why does everyone add: “every day the Passover is for the priest” (Mark 14:12) 17. Next, Chrysostom asks: “Why did the Lord celebrate Easter?” - and answers: “In everything He wanted to show that He is not an enemy of the Law.” Then he stops at the expression of the Evangelist, who was reclining with about ten disciples in the evening (Matthew 26:20) and asks: “If they ate the Passover, then how could they not eat according to the law? For it was necessary to eat without reclining.” To this question he gives the following answer: “They reclined after eating the Passover, during the continuation of the Supper.” Another evangelist says that that evening He not only ate the Passover, but also said: I desired to eat this Passover with you (Luke 22:15), i.e. this year 18. Explaining 26:26 to those who eat, Jesus received bread, broke..., Chrysostom asks: “Why did you do this during Easter? So that you understand from everything that He is the lawgiver of the Old Testament and was foreshadowed in the Old Testament Easter. Therefore, where there was an image, there He puts the truth in its place: He abolishes the main of the Jewish holidays, transferring the disciples to another, terrible meal” 19. When explaining 26:50, then Chrysostom approached, laying his hand on Jesus and eating Him, apparently holding on to the idea that other Jews celebrated Passover on the same day. He says: “Yasha on the very night when they ate Easter, they were so irritated and furious” 20. But in the next conversation, speaking about the tireless efforts of the Jews to destroy Jesus, at the words (26, 27) Jesus, leading to Caiaphas apkhiepeov, where the scribes and elders had gathered, makes a contrary remark: “Why did they bring Him to where everyone was gathered? By the way, and in order to fulfill everything according to the wishes of the bishops, for Caiaphas was an axiepe, and everyone was waiting for him. So they stayed awake, did not sleep the night for this, and did not eat Passover then. For John, having said that it was morning, added: And let these not go into the praetor, lest they be defiled, but let them eat the Passover (John 18:28). What can I say to this? They ate it the next day and broke the law just to achieve their desire - to kill Him. It was not Christ who transgressed the time of Easter, but they, who defied everyone and trampled many laws, because they were very seething with anger and repeatedly tried to take Him, but could not. Now, having captured Him unexpectedly, they preferred to leave Easter, just to fulfill their murderous desire” - this is how Chrysostom corrects what was done in the previous conversation. Let us mention one more remark of Chrysostom - about the knife with which Peter stabbed the bishop’s servant. “Where does the knife come from?” - he asks and answers: “The disciples came from the Supper, after the meal. There should also have been knives for cutting the lamb, and of course, the disciples, hearing from their Master that some people would come against Him, took knives with them to protect Him, but that was only their business.”21 Thus, Chrysostom constantly maintains the thought that the Lord celebrated the legal Passover at the Last Supper with the disciples. He does not deviate from this idea in his interpretation of the Gospel of John, however, he does not express the celebration of Easter by the Jews with such decisiveness as in the explanation of the Gospel of Matthew. “What does it mean,” he asks, “let them not be defiled, but let them eat the Passover? The Lord Himself has already accomplished it on one of the days of unleavened bread.” Responding to the proposed bewilderment, Chrysostom says: “Either by the name of Easter the evangelist means the whole holiday, or the fact that they then celebrated Easter, and He himself taught it the day before (παpέδωκε), meaning His death on Friday, when the ancient Easter took place” 22. In a word against the defenders of the ancient Jewish order in the celebration of Easter, Chrysostom, after the approval at the Ecumenical Council of uniform rules on this subject and their acceptance everywhere, freely says: “Christ underwent circumcision, observed the Sabbath, celebrated holidays (Jewish), ate unleavened bread, and did all this in Jerusalem, but we are not obliged to anything. On the contrary, Paul says: if you are circumcised, Christ will profit you for nothing (Gal. 5:2). And about unleavened bread: let us celebrate not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with unleavened purity and truth (1 Cor. 5:8). Why did Christ celebrate Easter then? Because the ancient Easter was an image that had to be, and it was necessary for the truth to take the place of the image. So, first He showed the shadow, then He offered the truth at the table. With the appearance of truth, the shadow disappears, now is no longer its time.” And further, showing the impossibility of observing in all strictness the time when Easter was celebrated by the Savior, he notes: “If the Jews had not transgressed and were not ungrateful and insensitive, negligent and contemptuous, if they had not fallen away from the fatherly way of life, but strictly observed it to this day, and then, following them, it would have been impossible for us to keep the very day on which the Lord was crucified and celebrated Easter. Why? I'll tell you. When He was crucified, it was the first day of unleavened bread and Friday. But it is impossible for both to always coincide” 23. Let us also point out the word of Chrysostom “On Maundy Thursday”, where, explaining the gospel history of this day, he cites the question of the disciples: where do you want, shall we prepare for you to eat Easter? and asks himself: “Which Easter? Not ours,” he answers, “but this time the Jewish one.” This one was prepared by the disciples, and this one He himself prepared, and not only did He prepare it Himself, but He Himself also became the Passover. Why are you eating this Passover? Because He fulfilled everything prescribed by the law” 24. The high dignity of the interpretive works of St. John Chrysostom set them as a guide for subsequent times. They made extracts from his interpretations, used his thoughts and words, and compiled abbreviated explanations of certain books he explained. So it was with those passages of the Gospels that serve to resolve the issue of the Savior’s celebration of the legal Easter. We have in mind two consolidated commentaries (cateha) on the Gospel of Matthew, published by Possin (1646, 1648), one on the Gospel of Luke, one on the Gospel of John, published by Corderius (1628, 1630), a consolidated commentary on the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, published by Cramer (1840), ancient scholia on the Gospels of Matthew and John, published by Angelo Mayem (Auctor Classic. T. VI. IX. 1837). In them, with and without the name of Chrysostom, his words are repeated in a more or less abbreviated form in all those places to which attention was drawn above, so there is no need to make new extracts. We will indicate a few additions to other interpretations. In the interpretation of Luke 22:13, the words of Titus, bishop of the city of Bozra in rocky Arabia (IV century) are given: “Jesus ate the legal Passover with his disciples, but left us the heavenly Passover. Truth came and consumed Easter, destroyed the image so that Truth itself would take its place.” Between the explanations from the complete interpretations of St. Cyril of Alexandria in the same summary interpretation contains the following comments on Luke 22:8. “Let us pay attention to the fact that Truth still honors images. When the day came on which the Passover was to be eaten, the Lord sent two of his apostles, by choice, into the city, they were Peter and John... (v. 15) When the disciples prepared the Passover, Christ ate it with them” 26 . Death of the Savior St. Cyril attributed the Easter Supper to the 14th day of the first month 27, therefore, to the 13th day. A certain Asimonius raises an objection: “Preparations for Easter were made, but there was a Supper, and not the consumption of Easter. Those who were having supper did not even look like they were eating, but they reclined. How did they eat Easter contrary to the law? 28 And to this objection the answer is the same as that proposed above from the interpretations of St. Chrysostom. The opinion of Patriarch Eutyxius of Constantinople 29 is noteworthy in its peculiarity. He allows three different suppers in the last week before the Lord’s suffering: one before his solemn entry into Jerusalem, in Gethsemane; This supper, according to Eutyches, also includes the washing of the feet; another in Bethany, on the very day of entry; the third in Jerusalem, in Zion, where the Mystical Supper was established, on Maundy Thursday. But in the distribution of Gospel events between the three suppers, one cannot help but see in Eutyches arbitrary deviations from the sacred text. So, the influence of St. Chrysostom to resolve the issue of the Savior's celebration of the Jewish Passover. From interpretations it passed into other patristic writings. St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, introduced this idea into his poem “At the Mystical Supper.” “At the proper hour,” he says, “the Lord came with his disciples to the well-decorated house to put an end to the law. The Lamb of God ate the sheep according to the law of Moses and gave the sheep of the Old Testament as a sign of all things.”30 St. John of Damascus, compiling his “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” from the testimonies of inspired writers and God-bearing fathers, wrote in his book: “In the upper room of holy and glorious Zion, having tasted the Old Testament Passover with His disciples and fulfilled the Old Testament, He washed the feet of the disciples, showing in it the symbol of St. baptism. Then he broke the bread and gave it to them, saying, “Take” 31. The same was expressed by St. John and in the word “On the Dormition of the Mother of God”: “I am talking about Zion, in which the lawgiver Christ celebrated the representative Easter, and the God of the Old and New Testaments gave the true Easter” 32. However, even after Chrysostom there were defenders of the opposite opinion. Here, firstly, we must point to Victor of Antioch, who was close to him in time. In his interpretation of Mark 14:12, using Chrysostom’s explanation of what the first day of unleavened bread means, he notes: “One evangelist Matthew quotes the words I will make the Passover for you. But this may mean preparing for Passover rather than eating. For John clearly shows that the representative and true Passover took place on the day and hour of suffering” 33. The compiler of the so-called “Easter Chronicle” (beginning of the 7th century), in the preface to it, strengthens his arguments from Scripture and from the writings of former church writers to prove that the Lord did not celebrate the lawful Easter in the last year of His ministry. We have indicated above the testimonies of Apollinaris, Clement and Hippolytus, which he cites. He himself says: “Our Lord and God Jesus Christ, having appeared on earth and living with people who were consubstantial with Him in humanity, like man, in the years of His life before and during the sermon, celebrated the legal Passover with His people, eating the representative lamb. For He Himself said in the Gospel: I did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). When He finished His sermon, He did not eat the lamb, but He Himself suffered, like a true lamb, on the feast of Easter, as the Theologian and Evangelist John teaches in his Gospel. He says: Jesus learned from Caiaphas. It was morning, and they did not go into the praetor, lest they be defiled, but let them eat the Passover (John 18:28). And a little later: Pilate, having heard this word, took Jesus out, and sat down at the judgment, which was called Liphostroton, in Hebrew Gabbath. It is not the heel of Passover, but it is the sixth hour (John 19:13–14). “This is how it is read in the correct lists,” adds the compiler of the chronicle, “and in the very handwritten list of the evangelist, which is still preserved by the grace of God in the most holy Church of Ephesus and to whom the faithful pay veneration there.” And again the same evangelist says: But the Jews, because they had no heels, let their bodies not remain on the cross on the Sabbath: for that day of the Sabbath was great, praying to Pilate, that their legs might be broken and their legs lifted (John 19:31). So, on that very day, when the Jews were preparing to eat the Passover in the evening, our Lord and Savior Christ was crucified, having become a sacrifice for those who partook of His Sacrament with faith, according to what is written in Blessed Paul: Our Passover, Christ was devoured for us, and not as some out of ignorance (‘αμαθία) claim that He was betrayed after eating the Passover. We do not know this from the Gospel, nor did any of the blessed apostles betray it. Our Lord and God Jesus Christ, in the year of His suffering for us, did not eat Passover for us according to the law, but, as I said, He Himself was devoured for us, like the true Lamb, on the feast of Seniosapna Pascha, on Friday, on the 14th day of the month” 34. The writer proves the same in the chronicle itself. Allowing four Passovers during the ministry of Jesus Christ, he speaks of the fourth: “The blessed disciples asked the Lord: Behold, the Passover will be in two days: where do you want, will we prepare for You? (Luke 22:9) It is clear that they were not asking about the Passover on the same day, but about the one that would take place two days later. And that He did not celebrate Passover on the 14th day, but before that He celebrated the representative Supper (τυπικὸν) 35, when the consecration of unleavened bread and preparation for the holiday took place; this is revealed from the fact that He gave the disciples not the sacrifice, not the unleavened bread, but the bread and the cup” 36 . Patriarch Photius in his library contains two essays “On Easter”, which also deny the idea of ​​the Savior celebrating the legal Easter. The first is given under the title “A Word to the Jews and to the Heretics, Called the Fourteeners.” “An unknown writer,” notes Photius, “says that “Our Lord Jesus Christ did not eat the lawful Passover on Holy Thursday; and it was not the time then: He did not do the lamb, nor the unleavened bread, nor anything else, which is the custom of those who celebrate the legal Passover. But He tasted the Mystical Supper, from which He gave the bread and cup to the disciples” 37. Another work is inscribed by Photius, “The third word on the holy feast of Easter.” Having outlined its contents and approving of many beautiful thoughts, Photius, however, notes: “The writer claims that in other years of His sojourn on earth, our Lord and God Jesus Christ celebrated the legal Passover, but in the year in which He was betrayed, He did not. Notice,” adds Photius, “Chrysostom and the Church say that in this year He celebrated the lawful supper before the Mystical supper” 38. The first of these works, known to Photius without the name of the writer, is recognized by scholars as the work of John Philoponus, an Alexandrian grammarian, nicknamed Tritheitus 39 for his unorthodoxy in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. With the title “On Unleavened Bread” it is also found under the name of John of Damascus, to whom, however, it does not belong at all 40, and when disputes about unleavened bread began, first with the Armenians, and then with the Latins, it served as a reserve of weapons against both. With the renewed relations with the Armenians in the 7th century, 41 differences in their beliefs and worship from the confession and establishment of the Orthodox Church should have been revealed. Among these differences, the celebration of the Eucharist on unleavened bread was also seen 42. In the first polemical work against the Armenians (9th century), where attention was drawn to this difference, it is not yet said that the Lord Jesus Christ performed the Sacrament not on unleavened bread. John of Nicaea, a contemporary of Patriarch Photius and his mediator in relations with the Armenians, only proves that Christians should not be embarrassed by the rules and regulations of the Jews, that the Jews had nothing perfect, and among Christians the perfection of their teaching and the fullness of the age of the Church should correspond to the perfection of all institutions. Then John continues 43: “For this reason they say in disobedience: Like the bread that Christ gave to eat, without leaven, for this reason we offer unleavened bread as a sacrifice. Be like bread, Christ will give it then, it will not be unleavened. Christ, for the sake of time, may such a saving sacrament not remain without tradition, since at that hour I was betrayed to the Jews, whatever bread you found then in that hour, He will betray such, and in no way deprive us of such salvation. But it was not fitting for Him then to receive leavened bread in His hands (ἐπὶχεῖρας λαβεῖν), I then marked the days of unleavened bread, so that He would not be guilty of blaspheming Him, for He had broken the law. Who is it that forces the Jews to bring unleavened bread, and not perfect bread?” But during further debates with the Armenians, they did not want to be so compliant, but tried to prove that the Savior did not celebrate the Easter Supper at all according to the Jewish law. We do not provide extracts here because the same thoughts and in the same form are found in polemics with the Latins 44. The dispute with the Latins about unleavened bread gave rise to the strengthening of the opinion that the Lord did not eat the lamb at the Last Supper. However, in the first letter, in which Patriarch Michael Cerullarius of Constantinople denounced the Latins for eating unleavened bread, the previous church conviction to the contrary was left intact. Michael, together with Leo of Achrid, wrote to Bishop John of Trania: “Moses commanded the Jews to keep unleavened bread and the Sabbath: and our Passover is Christ. In order not to be a breaker of the law, He was circumcised, and first celebrated the legal Passover, and at the end of it, celebrated our new Passover. This is clear from the Gospel of Matthew. Talking about the Mystical Supper, he says among other things: on the very first day of unleavened bread, the disciple came to Jesus, saying: “Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?” He said: go to the city to Onsitsa and cry to him: My time is near; I will do the Passover for you with my disciples (Matthew 26:17–18). And a little later: in the evening I was reclining with both ten disciples. And to those who eat I say, Amen, I say to you, for only one of you will betray Me (Matthew 26:20,21). And a little later: Judas said: I am food? the verb to him: you advertised (Matthew 26:25). Until now, everything refers to the legal Easter. Then the evangelist adds what relates to our Mystical Easter. For he says: And to them that eat, Jesus take the bread, and having blessed, break it (Matthew 26:26, 27). Having said this is My blood of the New (Testament), He showed that what pertained to the Old Testament had ceased” 45. But when the patriarch’s message did not achieve its goal - the correction of an illegal custom, and Michael Cerullarius called Niketas Stifata to his aid, this Studian monk thought to have the best weapon against the Latins in a different opinion about the last Easter of the Savior, found in the learned works of earlier times. In his essay against the Latins, having said that neither the Lord himself, when establishing the Sacrament, nor the apostles anywhere talk about the use of unleavened bread, he continues: “Since it was fitting for Christ to suffer on the day of the legal Passover, when the Jews had to slaughter the lamb, and the Passover for the deicides was supposed to be celebrated on Friday, when it was the 14th day of the first month in the year 5534, circle. solar XVIII, moon V, then the Lord, so that betrayal would not prevent Him from teaching His own Passover to the disciples, having reclined at the Supper on Thursday, after the Supper he took bread, broke it and gave the Sacrament of the New Testament to the apostles... Thursday was then the 13th day of the moon, and there was no unleavened bread, and the use of leavened bread had not yet ceased. Unleavened bread in the law was appointed on the 15th day of the moon, and on the 14th evening the lamb was slain. The 14th day of the law is called Passover, and the 15th is called the first day of unleavened bread and Saturday... If Christ was slain and crucified on the 14th day of the moon, on Friday, and on Saturday was the Feast of Unleavened Bread, then when did He eat unleavened bread? When did he give over to the apostles to do the same in the New Testament? 46 Peter, Patriarch of Antioch, who took part in the relations of Michael Cerullarius with the Westerners, in a letter to Dominic, Archbishop of Aquileia 47, repeats the words of Nicetas Stiphatus literally and tries to support them with considerations from the Gospel of John and to explain the testimony of other evangelists that apparently disagrees with him. Having quoted the words of the Evangelist John (John 13:1-4), the Patriarch writes: “With words before the Easter holiday and the former supper, the beloved disciple of the Lord clearly showed that on Thursday there was no Easter, but there was some prudent order (οἰχονομία) to betray the Divine Sacrament to the disciples, since He Himself was to be betrayed on the night. That is why He said: I longed to eat this Passover with you (Luke 22:15). From this it is clear that unleavened bread was not prepared then, but bread was offered. For the Supper was before the feast of Passover.” Then he cites the words of the same evangelist: and let them not go into the praetor, lest they be defiled, but let them eat the Passover (John 18:28) and the Jews, who have no heels, let them not leave their bodies on the Sabbath, for the day of that Sabbath is great when Pilate prayed (John 19:31) 48. Points to the story set out in the Gospel of John (John 13:21-29), and precisely to the words of some people, because the ark was named Judas, as Jesus said to him, buy what we require at the feast (John 13:29) 49. In explaining the narratives of the other evangelists (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7–8), Patriarch Peter notes: “The words of the three evangelists do not contain any contradiction or disagreement with what was said by John: before the Easter holiday. Because by the first day of unleavened bread, the divine Gospels give us to understand the 10th day of the first month, which, together with the next three days - the 11th, 12th and 13th - was some preparation for Passover, as it is written in the book of Exodus: The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt: This month is the beginning of months for you; the first will be for you in the months of the summer. He spoke to the whole assembly of the children of Israel, saying: in the tenth month of this month let every sheep take home from home, every sheep from home (Ex. 12:1-3). And after a few: and it will be kept for you even until the quarter of the tenth day of this month (Exodus 12:6). What does the so-called Great Week mean for us, which serves as the preparation and pre-celebration of the Holy Passion and the Resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, these were the four days indicated for the Jews, which served as a pre-preparation for the legal Passover” 50. The Patriarch does not show, however, how to reconcile this explanation with the remark of Nikita Stiphatus, repeated by him, that the Lord celebrated the Last Supper not on the 10th day, but on the 13th, and, therefore, not on the first of the unleavened days, according to his understanding, but on the fourth, and also does not pay attention to the fact that, according to the gospel narrative, the Lord ate the Supper in the evening of the same day when he sent to prepare the house for Easter Supper and after the Supper went to free suffering and death. Instead of such an explanation, we read further from him: “The other evangelists, who had previously gone to the Lord, did not take the opportunity to read the gospel sermon of John the Theologian, and John, who lived for a very long time, read their books and towards the end of his life, on the island of Patmos, moved by God, under King Domitian, he wrote his Gospel, and much of what those evangelists said was unclear and omitted (such as, for example, the miraculous resurrection Lazarus, the time of the Supper and some other matters) understood and announced loudly 51. Although the opinion that the Lord did not and could not celebrate the legal Passover at the Last Supper was expressed very clearly in the polemics with the Latins, how with this assumption not all the circumstances of the Gospel history were satisfactorily explained and how the voice of the ecumenical teacher St. served in favor of the opposite opinion. John Chrysostom, it is not surprising that in the interpretations of the Gospels that appeared shortly after the start of disputes with the Latins, learned scholars of Scripture again returned to their former church conviction. We see this in the interpretations of Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, and Euthymius Zigaben. Theophylact, one of the deacons of the great Church of Constantinople, elevated to the archbishopric of Bulgaria shortly after the death of Michael Cerullarius, in his interpretation of the Gospels, using mostly the works of St. John Chrysostom, is guided by them in explaining the circumstances of the Last Supper. Explaining Matthew 26:17, he says: “The first day of unleavened bread the evangelist calls the day before unleavened bread. On Friday evening the Jews were to eat the Passover; This day was called unleavened bread 52. So, the Lord sends the disciples on Thursday, which the evangelist calls the first of unleavened bread, because it precedes Friday, on the evening of which they ate unleavened bread 53. He wanted to celebrate the Passover so as not to appear to be an opponent of the law” 54 (Matthew 26:20). In the evening I was lying down. About reclining at the Supper and Art. 57, Theophylact makes the same remarks about the knife as we saw in Chrysostom 55. (Matthew 26:57) The warriors, eating Jesus, led to Caiaphas. “They take Jesus to Caiaphas, because he was a bishop the year before. The others also spent the night with him, not eating the Passover. They waited to kill the Lord and broke the law. The Lord ate Passover at the legal time, but they, in order only to kill the Lord, despise the law. (Matthew 27:45) From the sixth hour darkness came over all the earth until the ninth hour. “Darkness did not arise from physical causes, such as: from an eclipse of the sun, which occurs according to physical laws, for a solar eclipse does not occur on the 14th day of the moon, and during the crucifixion of the Lord it was on the 14th day, for then the Jewish Passover took place” 56. Explaining John 18:28, let them not be defiled, but let them eat the Passover, repeats the words of Chrysostom. The idea of ​​the Lord’s celebration of the lawful Easter was more independently revealed by Theophylact in his essay entitled “What the Latins are worthy of reproof for.” After a lengthy discussion on the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit, here he speaks of a new controversial subject: “We will not reinterpret the meaning of the words on the first day of unleavened bread, arguing that this is the 10th day on which the sheep were chosen. For we know that the Law calls the 15th day the first day of unleavened bread, preceding the night on which they ate the Passover. Therefore, one of our God-bearing teachers, explaining what was said by the Evangelist, says that the first day of unleavened bread in Matthew is called the day before unleavened bread. He knew what day this name was given in the law, but he noticed what the evangelist said as something new. We will not prove that the Lord did not celebrate the legal Passover, otherwise we would not admit that He partook of unleavened bread, nor that He did it, but before the time of taking away leaven, and therefore leavened bread could be found. Some had too much courage to do so, but I will refrain from saying something like that. It is not permissible to support the sacrament of Truth with lies. If Christ is the Way and the Truth, then I will not agree to either deviate from the path or lie to the Truth. What is my word? At a certain time (ἐνχαιpῷ), when the hour came (Luke 22:14), the Lord ate the Passover prepared by the disciples and the householder, according to custom, and not otherwise. Otherwise, the Gospel would have noticed the innovation, as in other cases when the Lord acted, exceeding the law not only Himself, but also His disciples, for example, when He created clay on the Sabbath, commanded to take a bed, when they ground the ears of corn, and ate bread without washing their hands. The Lord tasted the lawful Passover in advance, then gave the disciples the sacrament of His Passover, obviously from the bread they had, which was then unleavened. But from the fact that, as required by the law, there was unleavened bread, it does not follow that we, who enjoy freedom in Christ, must desire unleavened bread, rejecting leavened bread. Otherwise, it will be possible to say (for it is not bad to argue in this way with people who stand up for the letter in a different sense): since that bread, probably and even more than likely, was some kind of cheap and, perhaps, barley, for neither the Host nor the guests liked luxury, but in other cases they were accustomed to poverty, they also ate barley bread (John 6:9,13), (with which they fed thousands, so that they know the poverty of the miracle workers), what prevents those who now demand such bread from removing grain flour bread from the altar (σεμιδάλεως), as if even now the voice of the Lord could still be heard: if you bring seven miles to Me, it will be in vain (Ps. 1:13)? We could say the same about the cup. Since it was filled with wine, perhaps too liquid or changed (which can be allowed due to the extreme humiliation of the Lord in other cases), and now fragrant wine is often brought, then will we really reject the expensive and prefer that which smells of poverty? Or will we demand that it be Palestinian, from the same place that filled the cup of the Lord? But will you also take communion after eating, reclining? Will you not require the upper room and other things that were allowed then, due to the demands of the time, and which have now taken on a different form due to the demands of reverence and faith? Perhaps someone, hearing that the breaking of bread is often mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, and finding the same in Paul, will conclude from this that the bread broken sacramentally was the same as it was in common use. But unleavened bread was not always used: it was appointed for certain days and for certain sacrifices. Even if this is not necessary - because the scales also tip to the other side - but the advantage is more in my favor, and this gives me victory. He who is in disgrace receives a crown and one step forward.” Following this, Theophylact speaks about the general use of leavened bread in the Eucharist, in the East, from the times of the apostles 57. Another interpreter of the Gospels, contemporary to Theophylact, who with great care used the comments of his predecessors and paid more attention to the reconciliation of apparent discrepancies between the Gospel narratives, Euthymius Zigaben, like Theophylact, admits that the Lord celebrated the legal Easter. Let us imagine extracting from his interpretations everything that relates to the solution of this question, because no one seems to have it revealed in such completeness. Matthew 26:17: On the first day unleavened bread. “The evangelists Matthew and Mark here call the Passover unleavened bread, because during Passover they ate unleavened bread along with the meat of the lamb. From these unleavened breads the Passover is called unleavened bread. This is confirmed by Luke, saying: the Feast of Unleavened Bread is approaching, called Passover (Luke 22:1), and the first day of Unleavened Bread is called the day preceding Passover, the 13th month, Thursday. They called it the first unleavened bread as preceding the Passover unleavened bread. We find clear evidence of this in John, who said: Before the feast of the Passover, Jesus knew that His hour had come (John 13:1). The day that Matthew and Mark called the first of unleavened bread, John designated as follows: before the feast of Passover. But since Mark speaks about this day, the 13th of the month, Thursday, on the first day of unleavened bread, when the Passover was eaten (Mark 14:12), and Luke came, the day of unleavened bread, in the proper place to eat the Passover, then the expressions when the Passover was eaten and in the proper place to eat the Passover should refer not to the first unleavened bread, but to the day itself unleavened bread. For the lamb was slain not on the 13th day, but on the 14th day. The Law says: in the first month, on the fourth and tenth day of the month, between the vespers there is a passover to the Lord (Lev. 23:5). If the Passover lamb was slain “between the vespers,” then why is the same day called both Passover and unleavened bread? Because the Jews have the custom of connecting evening with the day that precedes it. Thus, from the evening of the Passover and unleavened bread and the day ending with this evening is called unleavened bread. How did Luke, speaking about the 13th day of the month, express the coming of the day of unleavened bread? The word “arrived” also has the meaning “approached” (ἐπλησίασε), and he used this meaning. You should know that although eating unleavened bread began on the 14th day, the holiday was celebrated on the 15th day. For the Law says: on the fifth and tenth day of the first month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the Lord (Lev.23:6). This day was called the first of unleavened bread (v. 7), because it was considered the first of certain seven days. For the law says: seven days unleavened bread and eating (v. 6). But it is not this feast of unleavened bread, nor this first unleavened bread, that the evangelists speak of, as shown, for it fell on the 15th day of the month, and the evangelists wrote about the 13th” 58 . By this distinction between the ancient (in the book of Leviticus) and the later (in the Gospel) word usage, the interpreter clarifies the matter a lot. Art. 18. “There,” says the Lord, “prepare for us what we need for the Easter holiday,” i.e. lamb, unleavened bread, bitter herbs, rods. Art. 19. “I have prepared the Passover,” i.e. needed for Easter. From this it is clear that Christ then ate the lawful Passover, for they did not prepare the necessary things in vain 59 . Art. 20. In the evening I was reclining with ten disciples. “Some argue that Christ did not eat the lawful Passover at that time and cite as proof that the day then was the 13th month, and the Passover was supposed to be eaten on the 14th, that the Law commanded that the Passover should be eaten standing, and Christ reclined, that before the slaughter of the lamb, all leavened bread was taken out and burned with fire, but now both bread is presented and divided, that it was allowed to eat only baked, but here boiled is also offered.” It is necessary to give an answer to each piece of evidence. The Lord anticipated a certain time by providence, because He knew that on the 14th day there would be y6yen, and it was fitting on the day of the slaughter of the representative lamb to be sacrificed to the true Lamb, so that the image and the truth would mutually point to themselves. Therefore, the Lord tasted Passover on the 13th day and thus fulfilled the legal Passover and betrayed the spiritual one. And that same night He was taken by the Jews. As for how they ate, they probably first ate the Passover standing up according to the law, then they reclined and dined. Bread and cooked food were offered after eating the Passover, when they reclined at the Supper. The 14th day, when all leaven was destroyed, has not yet come. Nothing also prevented us from eating boiled food. Why did the evangelists remain silent about the postponement of Easter? Because there was no need to talk about it. How would such a narrative benefit Christians? Everywhere they observe the rule that they should not talk about unnecessary things or mention them in passing, and use all their precision and thoroughness for useful things. Since Christ celebrated His Passover earlier than others, why did the Jews, leaving such a clear reason for denunciation, seek false testimony against Jesus? They knew that there was no law that condemned anyone who preceded the Passover holiday. God, foreseeing the future, did not decree any law about it. And isn’t it surprising that the law says about those who celebrate Easter later, if they present a good reason: “but no punishment is imposed on those who precede the holiday” 60? Matthew 26:26. Those who eat them... “After eating the lawful Passover, they lay down and supped. Then Jesus, rising, washed the disciples’ feet, as John says, and lay down again and ate. At this time, as they were eating, the Lord taught the Mystical Supper to the disciples” 61. It is also worthy of note how Euthymius explains the two bowls mentioned in the Evangelist Luke. “The Evangelist says that Christ accepted the first cup and, giving thanks, said: take this and share for yourself. Then he took the bread, thanked him and divided it. Also the cup (χαὶ τὸ ποτήpιον). It may seem that the evangelist is talking about two cups. No! This is wrong. But the Lord first took the cup, made thanksgiving and said: take this and share for yourself. Then he added: the imam shall not drink from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes (v. 18). These words confused the disciples with the fear of His death, and, as is likely, a dispute and confusion arose between them. The Lord put down the cup. After some time, all subsequent distribution of the bread and cup took place.” Euthymius thinks to see the proof of this interpretation in the following: “The Evangelist, having said about the bread: having given praise, break it and give it to them (v. 19), then adds: likewise the cup (χαὶ τὸ ποτήpιον), and by this he shows that he is talking about the cup that he took before. He didn’t say: ὠσαύτως χαὶ ποτήpιον, but χαὶ τὸ ποτήpιον. The addition of a member points to the previously mentioned cup” 62. Allowing the Savior to celebrate Easter before others, Euthymius had to face the question of what was said by the Evangelist John, when the Lord, having soaked a piece, gave it to Judas and said, “Do it quickly, do it quickly.” Then some of the disciples thought that Jesus was saying to him: “Buy what we require for the holiday.” “These words: we demand a hedgehog for the holiday,” notes Euthymius, “caused difficulty for many interpreters. The Lord and the disciples have already celebrated Easter.” Resolving this difficulty, Euthymius says: “It is clear that some of the disciples knew the purpose of the Teacher, by which He preceded the celebration of Easter, while others, not knowing, thought that He would still celebrate on Friday. Or,” adds Euthymius, “the words of the Savior should be attributed to the Feast of Unleavened Bread” 63. According to the monuments known to us, this defense by Euthymius of the idea of ​​the Savior celebrating the lawful Pascha at the Last Supper is the most complete, and we dwell on it in our study of the opinions that existed in the Orthodox Eastern Church regarding this subject. It is obvious that the interpreter lacked knowledge of the rituals with which Passover was celebrated among the Jews in later times: everywhere he judges only according to the Law of Moses. Reclining at the Passover Supper, repeated consumption of the cup, a dish with stew, preparation for the holiday of the next day - all this would not have been difficult for him if he had been familiar with the rabbinical books. He did not resolve another important question: if the Lord alone celebrated Passover at that time before the general celebration, then how could the slaughter of the Passover lamb be performed in the church, which was not performed according to the example of ordinary sacrifices? The resolution of the bewilderment is also not entirely satisfactory, as the Jews did not blame the Savior for the anticipation of Easter, if it was allowed only by Him alone. The law clearly stated the day on which the lamb was to be slaughtered. One exception was made: for those who were not ready to celebrate Easter at a certain time. The law could not allow any other exception. Let us add to what has been said about Euthymius that he also had the opportunity to discuss the celebration of Easter by the Savior in his Paoplia, speaking about the Armenians and the Latins. But in his remarks against the Armenians, he uses the writings of John of Nicea rather than speaking from himself. First, he proves that even in the case when the Lord actually used unleavened bread for His Sacrament, we, following the apostles and holy fathers, should not be embarrassed by this, because the use of unleavened bread would solely depend on the circumstances of the time. Then in short words he says that, according to careful research, the Lord celebrated Passover on the 13th day, when they still ate leavened bread, and not unleavened bread 64 . In his dispute with the Latins, Euthymius deals only with the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit 65. Recognizing the opinion that the Lord Jesus Christ celebrated the legal Passover at the Last Supper as more just, the Eastern Church included it in its liturgical books. In the Trisong for Compline on Great Wednesday, composed by St. Andrei of Crete, it is said: the room laid out received You the Creator and the sheltered ones, and there you passed the Passover, and there you performed the sacrament: there for two of Your disciples were sent, Easter was prepared for You (canto 4, trop. 1). Having finished the lawful commandment, they hid the lawful ones, writing them in Sinai, and eating the ancient and filial Passover: the Passover became secret and sacrificed by life (canto 8, trop. 1). In the synaxarion on Holy Saturday it is said about the apostles: “You have prepared the Easter, the lawful one, at the door of the south, and having come, do it with the disciples, as the divine Chrysostom says” 66. In the Synaxarion of Maundy Thursday: “Before the Jewish chamfer on the heel (κατὰ τὴν παpασχευὴν) is sacrificed to the name. Because it is applied, education (τῷ τὺπῳ) follows and the truth, in that reality and hedgehog for us the shepherd is sacrificed to Christ, having preceded our Lord Jesus Christ, as the divine fathers say, the same acts with the disciples on the evening of the Thursday, that evening and Friday the whole day, one day for the Jews is imputed: for this reason they count the days of birth verbatim. Acting this way and then [like not deciding] with the disciples according to the law, of which the Divine Chrysostom is the only one” 67. The compiler of these synaxarions, Nikephoros Xanthopulos, Patriarch of Constantinople, XIV century, introduced the same opinion into his church history 68 . In the Russian Church, the opinion arose early that the Lord did not celebrate the legal Passover at the Last Supper. This is shown by the messages of two metropolitans of Kyiv in the 11th century, Leontius and John, directed against the Latins. In the presentation of this opinion, nothing new appears in comparison with the Greek works discussed 69. Based on the above explanations of the holy fathers and teachers of the Eastern Church on the Gospels, it remains to conclude that our Lord Jesus Christ, before the establishment of the Sacrament of the New Testament, celebrated the Old Testament Easter at the Last Supper. At the same time, in accordance with the opinion of the fathers, it must be assumed that either the Lord preceded the general celebration of Easter with His Supper, according to the provision of His suffering, or the Jews, determining their holidays by the appearances of the moon, which are not always reliable, then celebrated Easter later than necessary. Chronicon. Paschal. ed. Dindorf. 1832, p. 13. Euseb. H.Eccl. IV. 26. Here Eusebius also mentions the work of Melito of Sardinia “On Easter,” which gave Clement the opportunity to write about the same subject. See also Euseb. Lib. V. s. 23–25. But among the Ebionites there were also those who, adhering to Gnostic errors, abstained from eating meat and cited the words of their Gospel (καϑ’ Ἐβςαίους) as their justification. About the last Supper performed by the Savior. Instead of what was said in the generally accepted, church Gospel, with the desire I desired to eat this Easter with you, the Lord, when asked by the disciples where do you want us to prepare for You to eat Easter, answers: food with the desire I desired this Easter, meat, to eat with you? S. epiph. Haer. XXX. n. 92. p. 146. Origen in Malth. ed. Lomatsch. TIV. p. 406 et sq. Constitut. Ar. V. s. 14. r. 320. Angelo Maii Auclor. veter. coll. nov T.I.p. 254, 255. The first thought is found in the letter of St. Peter of Alexandria to Tricentius, the latter in an excerpt from a letter from Tricentius himself. Chrou. Paschal. p. 7. The writer of the preface to Chrou Pachal also adheres to the same idea. On the celebration of the Passover by the Savior according to the Jewish law: Epiph. Haer. XXX. clause 22. p. 146 and about the anticipation of other Haer. LI. n. 20. 27. About astronomical considerations that gave rise to St. Epiphany to such conclusions: lleiani.i animadvers. Opp. S. epiph. T. 2. p. 172. Inter. Opp. Dionysii Exigui. Patrolog. Cursus T. LXVII. p. 509. The same earlier in Theophilus of Alexandria: Observationеs in Heraclii Imperatoris methodum paschalem. Amstelod. 1736. p. 2, 25. Inter Opp s. I. Chrysost. T. VIII Spuria In Pascha Serm. VII. p, 968. (al. 227). For the time of delivering this sermon, see Ideler. Handbucb. der Chronologie. 1, V. S. 426. Ibid, p 974. (al. 281). This reading is only in the Evangelist Mark, but Chrysostom wants to say that other additions in the Evangelists are equivalent to this. Hom. in Malth. 81. rub. 872. 873. 876. cd. Paris. 1836. In Evan. Johann. Hom. 83. orr. T. VIII p. 563. Advers. ludaeos. serm. III. opp. Tom. 1. p. 745. 748. 751 De proditione Iudae Horn. 1. opp. T. 2. p. 541. The same is in the second Word for the same day: p. 462. Catena Grace Patrum. in Ev. Lucae. p. 547. Catena in. Ev. Lucae ib. On Gr. words of St. Cyril is given in Angelo Maii Auctor. Class. T. X. p. 368, 369. De adoratione in Spiritu L VI. p. 208. Orr. T.I. Catena in Ev. Math. ed. Possini T. 2. p. 750. It is given in the catena path. in Ev. Lucae. Corder. p. 551. and on Gr. at Angelom. Auctor. Class. T. X. p. 488. Angelo Mail Spicileg. Roman. T. IV. p. 81. "An Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith", book. IV, ch. 13, p. 249, M., 1844. In the book “On Two Wills” it is said, among other things, that the flesh of the Savior is testified by οἰ οδόντες, οἰ τεμόντες τὸ Πάσχα, καὶ ἡ φὰρυγξ τῷ ςωμὰχῳ καταπέμψασα τουτο. Opp. s. lohan. Dam. T.I.p. 519. Βίκτορος, πρ. Αντιοχείας το1 κατὰ Μὰρκον Ἐυαγγ. Ed. Matthaei. 1775. T. 2. p. 76. Chronicon. Pasch. p. 10–12. The manuscript of the Evangelist John with the reading shown is also indicated in the chronicle. r. 411. Instead of τυπι κ όν shouldn't we read μυτι κ όν? . Μι p ιόβιβλον. – Cod. 115. It is inscribed as follows: “That the Mystical Supper was celebrated by the Lord on the 13th day of the moon, the day before the legal Passover, and that then Christ did not eat the lamb with the disciples.” Published by Corderius after the interpretation of the same Philoponus on the six-day period. Fabr. Bibl. Graec. T. X. p. 643. Lequien Dissert. Damascen. p. XCI. §46. The rules of the Trullo Council already testify sufficiently to these relations. See the rule of Timothy, in Cotelier's Monumenta Eccles. Graec. III. p. 423 and 433. This difference is noted in the short essay of Archimandrite Nikon “On the Doctrine and Rituals of the Armenians,” ed. in Greek at Cotelier, in the note. to Constitution. Apost. L.II. With. 24. p. 237. Nikon died at the end of the 10th century. Fab. Bibl. Gr. T. XI. p. 275. Then unleavened bread is mentioned in the denunciations of Isaac the Catholicos, the first of which is in extracts from Nikon the Montenegrin, placed in Kotelier T. III. r. 423. 433., attributed to John of Nicaea, a contemporary of Photius the Patriarch. See nat. Coteller. p. 65l. Also to the Slavs. manuscripts (Academic Bible No. 191 l, 315 vol.). About Vagan or John of Nicaea in Neumann. Versach. einer Geschichte der armenischer Litteratur. s. 117. We quote from the ancient Slavic translation, because in the Greek text there is a later insertion, made during the revision of this work, perhaps by Catholicos Isaac. Rk. Academician Bible No. 191 l. 343. Vol. etc. This insertion is exposed by the consideration of the previous and the following: it begins with the words ἀλλως τέ δε πρὸς τῆς Ῥορτὴς του πὰσχα and extends to the words Ἐ γίνοντο τὸ πάσχα καὶ τὰ ἃζυμα Combefis. Auctuar. T. 2. p. 345. This is how the answer to the Armenians was compiled in the essay “On Unleavened Bread,” placed inter opp. S. Johannis Damasceni T. I. p. 648., where a rather lengthy discussion about this subject is given by Meletius, who is called a God-bearing man and a careful student of the Scriptures. From the conclusion of this letter, directed against the Romans, it is clear that Meletius wrote after the opening of the dispute about unleavened bread with the Latins, and for the most part literally agreed with Nicetas Stiphatus. About this work, Lequesne notes that in its content it represents an extract from Filopopov’s reasoning. Dissertat. Damascen. p. XCI. §46. This message of Michael Cerullarius is known in Latin translation. Cardinal Humbert gives it all in parts with his objections Canisii lictiones sacrae. T. III. p. 281. In Latin translation published by Canisius. ibid. r. 311. Completely placed on Gr. at Cotelier's. Monurn. Eccles. Gr. T. II. r. 112–135. The same is repeated in the explanation of Mark 14:12, but in the explanation of the evangelist Luke 22:7 Thursday is called “the day of unleavened bread” and not “the first of unleavened bread.” This is probably a misreading. A different reading of this place is represented by our ancient Slavic translation, following other lists, which Leken also mentions. Dissert. Damask. p. LXXXIX. §43. The same when explaining Luke 22:7–11. The same when explaining Mark 14:18 and Luke 22:14,49. The same in the interpretation of Mark 15:33. Published by Gr. Aloysius Mingarelli. 1756. Anecdotorum Fasciculus, p. 272 et sq. Euthym. Zygab. Comment in quatr. Euangel, T. 1. par. II. pag. 990. ct sq. Πανοπλία ed. 1710. Τίτλος κ ς. σ. p γ β. Perhaps more is said in another similar work of Niketas Choniates Θυσαυρὸς ὀρθοδοξίας, where the 22nd book is devoted to a discussion of unleavened bread (Monfauc. Paleograph. p. 332), but this extensive work has not been published at all. Triodion post. 1826. l. 479. The same in Greek. Triodion. 1820. l. 418. Lenten Triodion l. 491. Greek Triode. l. 426. L. I. cap. XXIII. cd. 1555 p. 77. Leonty's message in Russian translation was published in the Vremnik of the Society of History and Ancients. Ross. Book 5. Division II. The Epistle of John in the monuments of literature of the 12th century, ed. Kalajdovich, p. 214.