Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Passover Seder?

Ask virtually anyone: “Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Passover seder?” and the response is likely to be “Of course!”Yet, Jesus could not have known what a “seder” was, let alone have modeled his Last Supper after one. The elements of even the primitive seder originated decades after he died.

The Gospels date Jesus’ ministry to the period of Pontius Pilate, Roman prefect of Judea from 26 C.E. to early 37 C.E. Jesus’ year of death is unknown; scholars settle on between 30 and 33 C.E.

At that time, the core element of Passover observance had been Jerusalem’s sacrificial cult, from 621 B.C.E. (when the biblical mandate first appeared) up until 70 C.E. (the destruction of the Second Temple). Jewish families brought paschal (Passover) lambs for sacrifice on the Temple altar as biblically prescribed: “Thou shalt sacrifice the Passover offering…in the place which the Lord shall…cause His name to dwell [Jerusalem’s Temple]” (Deuteronomy 16:2, 5-6); and the practice of King Josiah: “In the eighteenth year of King Josiah [621 B.C.E.] was this Passover kept…in Jerusalem” (Second Kings 23:21-23). For the ceremony, the kohanim (priests) conducted the sacrificial rite. Then families retrieved and consumed their meat as the main part of their Passover meal, which also included unleavened bread and bitter herbs (recalling the Hebrews’ enslavement in Egypt).

Passover meals Jesus experienced in his lifetime would have had to be along these Temple-centered lines.

Then, in 70 C.E., approximately 40 years after Jesus’ death, Rome destroyed the Second Jerusalem Temple, thus ending the required central component of Passover observance, as sacrifice of paschal lambs by the Temple priests was no longer  possible.

Instead, the early rabbis eventually introduced an inchoate, rudimentary practice that over the ensuing decades evolved into a new way of observing Passover. Thi  s would become known as a “seder,” Hebrew for “order,” because the ceremony followed a set sequence of liturgical recitations and ritual foods narrating the Passover saga, ultimately to be governed by an instructional guide called thehaggadah. In our oldest reference, the early third century rabbinic compendium, the Mishnah, we read that Gamaliel II, the greatest rabbi of the post-destruction era (likely during the late 80s C.E.), customarily said: “Whoever does not mention [expatiate upon] these three things on Passover does not discharge one’s duty…: the Passover offering [lamb], unleavened bread, and bitter herbs” (Pesahim 10:5). Thus the core Temple-centered observance mutated from sacrificing lambs into drawing upon Passover motifs to retell the Hebrews’ escape from Egypt.

Centuries of further embellishment and refinement produced the full-fledged, mature seders we know today-the kind that many modern churches adopt and adapt in “reenacting” the Last Supper even though no such seder could have been practiced during Jesus’ day.

-----------------------

Virtually all are in agreement that, as a Jew, Jesus would have observed Jewish rituals as they were practiced in his day. But this begs the question somewhat, for there is abundant evidence that the seder has evolved over the centuries and much of what Jews do and say at the seder table in 2002 would have been unknown to Jesus and his fellow Jews in ancient Jerusalem.

The common assumption that the Last Supper was a Passover seder is based upon the "testimony" of the "synoptic" Gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke). Mark 14:12 tells us that Jesus prepared for the Last Supper on the "first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover Lamb." If he and his disciples gathered to eat the Passover sacrifice, what else could that meal have been except a Passover seder?

The problem is, however, that there exists serious doubt in the minds of many New Testament scholars about the accuracy of the Gospel accounts. They may accurately record Jesus's sayings, but very little about what he actually did.

The Gospel According to John stands alone against Matthew, Mark and Luke in recording that the Last Supper took place the night before the festival began and having the crucifixion take place as Jews were preparing to usher in the festival. In this way Jesus becomes, symbolically, the Passover lamb slaughtered for the festival. So whom are we to believe? John or the other Gospels?

Among the many problems of assuming the Last Supper was a Passover seder is the fact that this would place Jesus' trial and execution on the first day of Passover. The Gospel writers may have intended to implicate Jewish officials in the death of Jesus and by having them so involved on one of their most sacred calendar days would have furthered the polemical anti-Jewish ends for which they may have been striving when the Gospels were compiled after the death of Jesus.

In the October issue of Biblical Archeology Review, Jonathan Klowans writes: "That Jesus ate a meal in Jerusalem, at night, with his disciples is not so surprising. It is also no great coincidence that during this meal the disciples reclined, ate both bread and wine, and sang a hymn. While such behavior may have been characteristic of the Passover meal, it is equally characteristic of practically any Jewish meal... A number of scholars now believe that the ritual context for the Last Supper was not a Seder but a standard Jewish meal."*

The constraints of my article preclude an exhaustive examination of this question and the controversy to which it gives rise. The curious reader will want to pursue the various threads which comprise this intriguing tapestry-of-a-question. But it is important to make note of another phenomenon: Christian churches offering a seder, in a non-Jewish context, as an act of Christian faith and worship. Many churches do so in the belief that they are bringing worshipers closer to Christianity's Jewish roots, a laudable goal. But to usurp an inherently Jewish ritual and adapt it to fit Christian theology is deeply offensive to many Jews.

Was the Last Supper a Passover seder? The weight of the evidence leads me to conclude that it probably was not. Christian interest in the Passover seder will endure and is best addressed by efforts on the part of Jews to welcome Christians to a seder table or, failing that, to teach about the seder in Christian settings in ways that helps insure the Jewish integrity of that ritual. 

* "Was Jesus' Last Supper a Seder?", Jonathan Klowans, Biblical Archeology Review, October, 2001.

[For further reading, I recommend Passover and Easter: The Symbolic Structuring of Sacred Seasons, Bradshaw and Hoffman, Editors, Two Liturgical Traditions, Vols. 5 & 6, Notre Dame, 1999.]

Not only was Dinah raped by shachem at the age of 8 she also had a child from him!

One day Dinah, the daughter of Jacob and Leah, went to visit some of the Canaanite women.When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, who was chief of that region, saw her, HE TOOK HER AND RAPED HER. (Genesis 34:1-2)

“His soul became attached to Dinah.” At that time Dinah was eight years and one month old. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 72,6) arrive at this conclusion by assuming that Leah’s prayer that her fetus should be a girl was offered when she was in a state of advanced pregnancy. Dinah was born before Joseph as the Torah mentions Rachel as becoming pregnant after her birth. Joseph was born 14 years after Yaakov had arrived in Charan when Yaakov started serving Lavan an additional six years for his sheep. They stayed in Sukkot for 18 months before moving on to Shechem. This makes Joseph seven and a half years old at that time. Dinah was seven months older than he (Joseph was born at the end of a seven month pregnancy) so that made Dinah eight years and one month when she was raped. (Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 34:3:1 Torah Commentary by Rabbi Bachya ben Asher, trans. Eliyahu Munk, 1998.)

Simeon’s sons: Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jachin, Zohar, and Saul the son of a Canaanite woman. (Genesis 46:10)

THE SON OF THE CANAANITISH WOMAN — means the son of Dinah, who had been associated with a Canaanite (Shechem). When they (her brothers) had killed Shechem, Dinah refused to leave the city until Simeon swore to her that he would marry her and regard the child she was about to bear as his own (cf. Genesis Rabbah 80:11).

Genesis 46:10 tells us Dinah she had a son called Shaul this is also mentioned on Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers

What does that tell you

Dinah was also given away to Shachem after Jacob found out she was raped. But her brothers killed shechem and his tribe. Notice from the above commentary simeon her brother said he would marry her?

It gets worse a different Midrash relates that Dinah was married to Job, basing this on Job’s telling his wife: “You talk as any shameless woman [ha-nevalot] might talk!” (Job 2:10), and on the episode of Dinah in Gen. 34:7: “because he had committed an outrage [nevalah] in Israel” (Gen. Rabbah 19:12). 

So now Job was married to Dinah. Now if we are to take Genesis 46:10, then it’s likely Dinah had her son when she was 9 years old from shechem and Job took her after she had the child. No doubt the son would be Shechem's, by Dinah, which son was adopted by Simeon through a marriage to his full blood sister? And Dinah is being referred to as a Canaanitess (and not by name for what reason...?) because she had been joined to the Canaanite Shechem in marriage, correct? In other words, she became a Canaanitess through that marriage. If I've understood correctly, it is an interesting find.

I've also taken Gen 34:12 to be Shechem's proposal to take Dinah as a wife, v.15 to be the conditions the brothers would allow that (circumcision), v.24 the fulfillment of the conditions, and v.26 confirmation that the brothers had in fact given Dinah to be Shechem's wife, since she was taken from his house three days (v.25) after the circumcision event--which implies to me that on the day of circumcision Shechem took her to his house as his wife. So while she was violated initially, I don't see anything to indicate she was also not married to him for those three days. 

If the "Canaanite" here is Dinah, who married Shimon (see Bereshit Raba 80, 10), it is possible that Shaul isn't Shimon's son, but rather a son born to Dinah from Shechem. If so, even this son did not estrange himself from Jacob's family. She is called "Canaanite" because her son, biologically, was the son of a Canaanite (man). Therefore we can conclude that even then, when a daughter of Jacob marries a Canaanite, the newborn's identity is considered based on his/her mother (see Yevamot 45b).

And some say that Job lived in the days of Jacob and that he married Dina, the daughter of Jacob. As it is written here: “You speak as one of the loathsome women speaks” (Job 2:10), and it is written there in the account of the incident involving Dina: “He has done a loathsome act in Israel” (Genesis 34:7). (Bava Batra 15b:7)

So we can conclude Dinah was raped when she was 8 years old, had a son called Saul. Soon after Job married her rebuked her when he was angry (Job 2:10) rejecting the fact she was an 8 year old girl who was raped. Also one wonders If the punishment for raping a young girl is paying 50 shekels to the father and marrying the raped girl (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Why then did Jacobs sons kill shachems when he raped their 8 year old sister? 

One must also note that, Jacob had no problem giving away his 8 year old daughter for marriage. There is no evidence where Jacob objected the handover of Dinah to Shechem. It’s understood traditionally a father gave away his daughter at a very young age. We also see the two brothers of Dinah did not object her age. It was their rage and anger that that make them kill Shechem and his tribe. Why didn’t the father or brothers say our daughter/sister is extremely young for marriage?

------

Jacob hides 7-8 year old daughter Dinah from his brother Esau to prevent him from  marrying her

That same night he arose, and taking his two wives, his two maidservants, and his eleven children, he crossed the ford of the Jabbok. (Genesis 32:23)

-----------

ואת אחד עשר ילדיו AND HIS ELEVEN CHILDREN — But where was Dinah? He placed her in a chest and locked her in so that Esau should not set his fancy upon her (desire to marry her). On this account Jacob was punished — because he had kept her away from his brother for she might have led him back to the right path; she therefore fell into the power of Shechem (Genesis Rabbah 76:9). (Rashi commentary)

Bereshit Rabbah 76,9 raises the question of where Dinah was in all this, and answers that Yaakov had put her into a box that he had locked. His concern had been that if Esau would see her he would take her by force. "Moreover, if Esau had indeed married Dinah she would not have been raped by Shechem."(Radak commentary )

Besides, on his return to Palestine, when he was preparing to meet his brother, he concealed his daughter Dinah in a chest, lest Esau desire to have her for wife, and he be obliged to give her to him. (Legends of the Jews  1:6:215)

As soon as the messengers came and said to him : WE CAME UNTO YOUR BROTHER ESAU, Jacob took Dinah and put her in a chest so that Esau would not see her and take her for a wife. Gen. R. 76:9.(Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayishlach 19:2)

Secondly, he was punished for denying Esau a glimpse of Dinah, for maybe she could have exercised a beneficial influence on him if he had married her. (Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 34:1:1)

At least all Talmudic opinions agree that it was theoretically permitted to marry a stepfather's wife (excepting the mother), and to marry a stepsibling (a man marrying his stepsister, etc. (Yebamot (Tosefta) 2:3)

Thou Shall Not Ignore the Old Testament!

New Testament Verses Which Demand Following the Old Testament and Law Contradictions:

I hear so many Christians now a days claim that the Old Testament is defunct for Jesus was the “lamb” to clear away its rules and regulations.  This is just another  scapegoat that Christians use to ignore the atrocities and bizarre laws commanded by their god.  Their preachers spoon feed them that the Old Testament is no longer binding so that they can excuse the majority of evil that the bible promotes.  I am so tired of Christians manipulating the scriptures so that they can assign a kinder nature to their God, that I have assembled a BRIEF list of verses which clearly show that the Old Testament is not to be ignored.  Its laws should indeed be adhered to, for the New Testament demands it!  After this section I shall list where the Bible contradicts itself concerning other laws.

1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”  (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)  Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself.  None other then Jesus said so.

2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever.  “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.”  (Luke 16:17 NAB)

3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets.  He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament.  “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.”  (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

3b) “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness…”  (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

3c) “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.  Mark.7:9-13  “Whoever curses father or mother shall die”  (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating.  He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”  (Matthew 15:4-7)

6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole.  The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell.  (Matthew 5:27)

7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.”  This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18

8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,…” (John 1:17).

9) “…the scripture cannot be broken.” –Jesus Christ, John 10:35

Law Contradictions of the Bible:

10) Shall we obey the law?  Romans 13:1-7 says quite clearly that Christians are to submit to the law and regard it as the institution of God.  1 Peter 2:13-14  “Submit your self to every ordinance of man … to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors.”  Matthew 22:21 “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s.” Also see Titus 3:1. Matthew 23:2-3 & Ecclesiastes 8:2 This leads one to assume that Christians must and should obey the law, yet look at these verses which contradicts what I just sited.  Acts 5:29  “We ought to obey God rather then men.”  Exodus 1:17-20 shows God punishing the midwives for following their rulers instead of God.  Also see Daniel 3:16-18, 6:7-10, Acts 4:26 & 27, Mark 12:38-40, Luke 23:11, 24 & 33-35 which all say the law should be ignored.  Now we know why Christians get away with their selective morality so often.

11) Should we steal?  (Exodus 20:15 & Leviticus 19:13)  Stealing is absolutely forbidden.  Yet, Exodus 3:21-22, 12:35-36 & Luke 19:29-34 all promote stealing.

12) Should we judge?  Jesus is quoted in Matthew 7:1-2: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.”  Also see Luke 6:37 & 1 Corinthians 5:12.  Now take a look at “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment”  (John 7:24).  Also note 1 Corinthians 5:12 & 6:2-4.

1 3) Should we covet?  Exodus 20:17 says, “Thou shalt not covet . . . anything that is thy neighbor’s,” while 1 Corinthians 12:31 says, “Covet earnestly the best gifts.”  So, are we or are we not to covet?

14) Is lying okay?  Exodus 20:16.  Proverbs 12:22 & Revelations 21:8 all say lying is forbidden.  Joshua 2:4-6, Exodus 1:18-20 & 1 Kings 22:21-22 all support lying.

15) Can we kill?  Exodus 20:13 says “thou shalt not kill”.  Exodus 32:27, Numbers 31, and THOUSANDS of other verses show God commanding us to kill.

16) Can we own slaves?  Leviticus 25:45 “Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy … and they shall be your possession… they shall be your bondmen forever.”  Genesis 9:25 “And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.”  Exodus 21:2 & 7 “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing…  And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.”  Joel 3:8 “And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it.”  Luke 12:47-48 [Jesus speaking] “And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.  But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.”  Colossians 3:22

“Servants, obey in all things your masters.”  So obviously the Biblical God thinks slavery is right, right?  Just look at these: Isaiah 58:6  “Undo the heavy burdens… let the oppressed go free, … break every yoke.”  Matthew 23:10 “Neither be ye called Masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.”  (Also see Exodus 22:21 & 21:16) Let it be known here that pro-slavery Bible verses were cited by many churches in the South during the Civil War, and were used by some theologians in the Dutch Reformed Church to justify apartheid in South Africa.  There are more pro-slavery verses than cited here.  I simply do not have the room to post all of them.

17) What about Improvidence?  Improvidence is enjoined in Luke 12:3 “Sell that ye have and give alms.” also in Luke 6:30 & 35 “Give to every man that asketh of thee, and of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again … And lend, hoping for nothing again, and your reward shall be great.” Also note Matthew 6:28, 31 & 34. Improvidence is condemned in I Timothy 5:8 “But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. “ Also see Proverbs 13:22.

18) What does the law say about anger?  Ephesians 4:26 says “Be ye angry and sin not not.”  Anger is disapproved in Ecciesiastes 7:9 “Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry; for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.” Proverbs 22:24 “Make no friendship with an angry man.”  Also see James 1:20.

19) Are we to let our good works be seen?  Matthew 5:16 “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.”  This contradicts verse Matthew 6:1 , “Take heed that you do not your alms before men, to be seen of them.”

20) Should we pray in public? 1 Kings 2:22, 54 & 9:3 shows the Lord is joyed by public prayer and listens intently.  Matthew 6:5-6 condemn public prayer and command people keep it a secret.

21) Can we wear long hair?  Judges 13:5 & Numbers 6:5 encourages people to grow their hair and insists it is a source of strength.  1 Corinthians 11:14 calls long hair a “shame”.

22) Should we circumcise males?  Genesis 17:10  “This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee: Every man and child among you shall be circumcised.  Clearly this demands circumcision, yet Galatians 5:2 says “Behold, I Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.”

23) Are there certain kinds of foods we should not eat?  Deuteronomy 14:2-8 lists several animals that we are NOT to eat because they are “unclean”, “chew the cud” and “divide the hoof”. Yet Genesis 9:3 & 1 Corinthians 10:25 insists there is nothing we can’t eat. Romans 14:14 says: “There is nothing unclean of itself.”

24) Can we take oaths?  Numbers 30:2, Genesis 21:23-24, 31, 31:53 & Hebrews 6:13 says that we can take oaths and encourages it.  Matthew 5:34 says “swear (make an oath) not at all.”

25) Can we get married?  Genesis 2:18, 1:28, Matthew 19:5 & Hebrews 13:4 all insist marriage is honorable.  Marriage is disapproved and scorned in 1 Corinthians 7:1 & 7:7-8.

26) Can we commit adultery?  Exodus 20: 14 “thou shalt not commit adultery.”  Also see Hebrews 13:4.  Now look at Numbers 31:18, Hosea 1:2 & 2:1-3 where adultery is advocated by God.

27) Can we drink alcohol?  Proverbs 31:6-7, 1 Timothy 5:23 & Psalms 104:15 all encourage drinking and intoxication.  Proverbs 20:1 & 23:31-32 discourage drinking and intoxication.

28) Do women have rights?  Genesis 3:16 “And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”  1 Timothy 2:12 says a woman must not teach, remain silent and must be subjugated to her man.  1 Corinthians 14:34 & 1 Peter 3:6 both say that women have limited rights and are under control of their men.  Judges 4:4, 14-15, 5:7, Acts 2:18 & 21:9 all tell of powerful women who were not subjugated by men and were not punished for their authority of men.

29) Should we obey our masters with usurped authority?  Colossians 3:22-23 & 1 Peter 2:18 says we should. 1 Corinthians 7:23 “Be not ye the servants of men.”  Also see Matthew 4:10 & 23:10 which say we should not submit usurped to our masters.

30) Was the law of the Old Testament destroyed by Christ’s crucification?  Luke16:16, Ephesians 2:15 & Romans 7:6 says that the old law is no longer binding.  Yet Matthew 5:17-19 and MANY other verses say that the old law is forever binding.  If you want to see the many verses that command we follow the old law please consult the upper portion of this page.

31) Should we swear an oath?  Numbers 30:2 “If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath…he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.”  Genesis 21:22-24 & 31 “…swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me…And Abraham said, I will swear…Wherefore he called that place Beersheba [“Well of the oath”]; because there they sware both of them.”  Hebrews 6:13-17 “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself…for men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.  Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability ofhis counsel, confirmed it by an oath.” See also Genesis 22:15- 19, Genesis 31 :53, & Judges I 1 :30-39.  So apparently it is okay to swear an oath, we even do this on the Bible in American courts.  Just try and forget these verses: Matthew 5:34-37 “But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven…nor by the earth…Neither shalt thou swear by thy head…But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”

James 5:12 “…swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.”

32) Do we keep the Sabbath?  Exodus 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Exodus 31:15 “Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.”  Numbers 15:32-36  “And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day…And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.”  Each of these contradict Isaiah 1:13  “The new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity.“  John 5:16 “And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the Sabbath day.  “Colossians 2:16 “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days.”

33) Should we make graven images?  Exodus 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven…earth … water.”  Leviticus 26:1 “Ye shall make ye no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone.”  Deuteronomy 27:15 “Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image.”  Okay, I got it I shouldn’t produce a thing in fear of making a graven image, but wait: Exodus 25:18 “And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them.”  I Kings 7:15-16 & 23-25 “For he [Solomon] cast two pillars of brass…and two chapiters of molten brass…And he made a molten sea…it stood upon twelve oxen … [and so on]”

Why Camel flesh is not haram as mandated in Leviticus 11:4; Deuteronomy 14:7?

Christian Missionary often point to the Islamic non-prohibition to Camel flesh as a “proof” that Islam too is not consistent with the law of Moses. Therefore it is legitimate for Jesus (p) to “abandon” the Mosaic dietary law. Another Pauline teaching

As a muslim it is part of our belief that the Qur’an does not limit itself to replacement of earlier laws and customs; it supplements, affirms, and varies. The Qur’an does not consider itself unique in thus altering (while recognizing) prior legislation.

However on the question of what ought to be halal (lawful) and haram (prohibited), prior to the advent of Islam, the people of the book had were confused, permitting many impure and harmful things and prohibiting many things that were good and pure.

Prohibiting something which is halal is similar to committing shirk, and this is why the Qur’an censures the those who were prohibiting to themselves, without any authority from Allah prior to Quranic revelation, the eating and the use of certain kinds of produce and cattle.

God  says:

كُلُّ الطَّعَامِ كَانَ حِلًّا لِّبَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ إِلَّا مَا حَرَّمَ إِسْرَائِيلُ عَلَىٰ نَفْسِهِ مِن قَبْلِ أَن تُنَزَّلَ التَّوْرَاةُ ۗ قُلْ فَأْتُوا بِالتَّوْرَاةِ فَاتْلُوهَا إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ
All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, except what Israel made unlawful for himself before the Taurat (Torah) was revealed. Say (O Muhammad SAW): “Bring here the Taurat (Torah) and recite it, if you are truthful.”  3:93

The verse refer to is to some prerevelatory Mosaic prohibitions on food. That is the prohibition of ‘‘the flesh and milk of camels.’’ (‘Abdallah Ibn ‘Umar al-Baydawi, Tafsir al-baydawi)

The camel was not the subject of pre-Mosaic prohibition. The Bible does of course prohibit the flesh of camels (Lev 11:4; Deut 14:7.)  but there is no biblical or rabbinic source support for the opinion that there is some pre-revelatory basis for the ban. This is according to Noah Fiedman professor of religious law  Harvard Law School. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Feldman)

According to Prof Fieldman (who is fluent in Hebrew as well as Arabic), Leviticus 11:4 makes the prohibition on consuming camel flesh part of the organizing legal logic of the more general prohibition on eating beasts whose hooves are not split. Possibly the interpretation that connects the ban to camels relates to the pre-Islamic Arabian milieu, rather than the Jewish.

The Qur’an attributes an act of legal prohibition to a human, rather than a divine source: ‘‘save what Israel forbade for himself.’’ When juxtaposed with the revelation of the Torah, this formulation implies that the act of prohibition stemmed from a human source. So if we seek to identify this pre-Mosaic prohibition with anything in Jewish tradition, we ought to try to find it in an apparently non-divine source.

Only one biblical prohibition fits the criteria established: (1) food-related; (2) pre-Mosaic; (3) non-revelatory. This is the statement of Genesis 32:33, establishing the prohibition on consumption of gid ha-nasheh, variously translated as the sciatic nerve, or a vein associated with it:

‘‘Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the gid ha-nasheh that is on the hip socket, because he [the angel of the Jacob story] struck Jacob on the hip socket at the gid ha-nasheh.’’

This verse describes the existence of a food prohibition stemming from a non-Mosaic origin. It also, strikingly, does not report a revelatory source, but merely recites the existence of a practice. The three conditions are thus satisfied. By contrast, the Noahide laws of Genesis 9:3-7 appear before the Mosaic revelation, and several involve food (the ban on consumption of blood, and in rabbinic tradition, the ban on the eating of live flesh). But these prohibitions are squarely attributed to God, whereas the ban on eating the sciatic nerve is described simply as an Israelite practice.

God in the Quran makes it clear that prohibiting without divine sanction constitutes proof of error, or failure to adhere to the divine will. The Quran rectify the error by showing the Jews to have partaken of this error in pre-Mosaic times, prophet Muhammad (p) shows their capability for error, and puts the Jews on a level with the pre-Islamic Arab idolaters.

The Qur’anic text continues (Q 3:94): ‘‘For one who fabricates lies about God after this, those are the wicked.’’

So anyone who asserts that all biblical prohibitions are from God may be said to fabricate lies about God. Those who do so (i.e., Jews who assert the divine origin of every prohibition) are the ‘‘wicked,’’ in opposition to ‘‘truth-tellers,’’ the self-description of the Jews in the previous verse.

Prophet Muhammad (p) challenges the Jews by asserting that their own scripture presents Jacob (Israel) as legislating for himself, on his own authority. The Jews themselves (this occurs offstage, as it were) claim that all biblical prohibition, including Genesis 32:33, is divinely mandated.

Camel meat are among those prohibited animals were those which were called bahirah, saibah, wasilah, and ham during the pre-Islamic period of jahiliyyah. (The state of mind and conditions of life prior to the advent of Islam, characterized by deviation from the guidance of Allah and the adoption of ungodly systems and ways of life. (Trans.)) Bahirah (the slit-eared) denoted a female camel which had given birth to five calves, the last of which was a male. The ear of such a camel was slit and she was loosed to roam freely; she was not to be ridden, milked, or slaughtered, and was free to eat and drink from any place she liked without hindrance. Saibah referred to a male or female camel which was released to roam freely because of a vow, usually made following a safe return from a journey, the cure of an illness, or for some other reason. As for wasilah, if the firstborn of a female goat were a male, the polytheists would sacrifice him to their gods, while if it were a female they would keep her for themselves. In the case of twin offspring, one female and the other male, they would say, “He is her brother,” and instead of sacrificing the male they would release him to roam free; he was known as wasilah. And if a male camel’s second generation offspring was capable of carrying a rider, they would let the older camel go free, saying, “He saved his back,” and calling him al-ham.

While there are other interpretations of these four terms, they are all of a similar nature. The Qur’an rejected these prohibitions and left no excuse for those who practiced them to follow the errors of their forefathers: Allah did not institute bahirah or saibah or wasilah or ham; but those who disbelieve forge a lie against Allah, and most of them do not use their reason.

وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ تَعَالَوْا إِلَىٰ مَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ وَإِلَى الرَّسُولِ قَالُوا حَسْبُنَا مَا وَجَدْنَا عَلَيْهِ آبَاءَنَا ۚ أَوَلَوْ كَانَ آبَاؤُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ شَيْئًا وَلَا يَهْتَدُونَ

When it is said to them, ‘Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger,’ they say, ‘What we found our fathers doing is enough for us.’ What! And even though their fathers did not know anything and were not rightly guided? (5:104)

Thieves and robbers

All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. (John 10:8)

Interesting, all who came before Jesus were “thieves and robbers”! How do you think the Jews would accept such absurdity? Would they accept that all the Prophets mentioned in the Tanach were “thieves and robbers”, what’s worse how are they to accept Moses their teacher who helped save the children of Israel from Pharaoh as one of the crooks? This is not to be taken lightly, the fact Christians are given the authority to call Prophets of God “thieves and robbers” cross the limit.

This sickness of name calling found in the New Testament has morally made Christians more aggressive towards non-Christians. This verse has also baffled many Christian commentators on why Jesus would use such language to identify the Prophets of old. This further proves that Jesus of the Bible was a narcissist.

Now before we look into a few commentaries below is a statement made by Jesus where he claims that Moses will accuse the Jews for what they have done.

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. (John 5:45)

Another baffling verse, here Jesus claims he will conceal what the Jews have done and instead make Moses accuse them. The question is, why would  Moses speak for the Jews who were living under the time of Jesus. Was Moses watching everything the Jews were doing? Here you can see how Jesus was making Moses look bad in front of his devoted followers the Children of Israel. What’s interesting, Moses never told his followers he will accuse them before God. Also notice how Jesus said “There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope.” here we can see that Jesus emphasised that the Jews put their hope on Moses and the very same man would let them down. It seems like every single Jew would be accused by Moses.  Let’s read a few commentaries on John 10:8 :

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 8. - All that came before me are thieves and robbers. Great difficulty has been felt by commentators in understanding "before me." The words clearly gave the early Gnostic heretics a text on which they established their dualistic rejection of the old dispensation. Their absence from certain texts led Augustine and others to emphasize the word "came." "All who came," i.e. in their own strength or wisdom, when not "sent" or authorized by God. Other endeavors have been made (see Meyer and Lunge) to give it a non-temporal meaning, such as χωρίς, "independently of me."

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

8. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers] These words are difficult, and some copyists seem to have tried to avoid the difficulty by omitting either ‘all’ or ‘before Me.’ But the balance of authority leaves no doubt that both are genuine. Some commentators would translate ‘instead of Me’ for ‘before Me.’ But this meaning of the Greek preposition is not common, and perhaps occurs nowhere in N.T. Moreover ‘instead of Me’ ought to include the idea of ‘for My advantage;’ and that is impossible here. 

John Trapp Complete Commentary

8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

Ver. 8. All that ever came before me, &c.] Manes (that mad heretic) made an argument from this text against Moses and the prophets, as going before Christ. But Austin answereth, Moses and the prophets came not before Christ, but with Christ. Intruders, whether before or since our Saviour’s days, are these thieves and robbers. Ah, whoreson {a} thieves, rob God of his glory! said Dr Taylor, martyr, in a dream, of the scribes and Pharisees of his time.

Schaff's Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Such is the general sense of this verse; it is less easy to fill up the outline it presents. We may well wonder that any should have thought that the words ‘all that came before me’ might include the prophets of the former dispensation; for the context most clearly proves that Jesus is speaking of those who ‘came before Him,’ professing to be ‘the door of the sheep.’ 

Whedon's Commentary on the Bible

8. All that ever came before me—Few texts have more perplexed commentators than this. It seems, at first sight, to say that all the previous religious teachers of mankind were impostors. The ancient Gnostics (a professedly Christian sect who rejected the Old Testament) quoted it to disprove the divine mission of Moses.

We can see through commentaries many took this verse to mean all the previous Prophets were “thieves and robbers”. Another reason why the Jews don’t accept the teaching of Jesus and reject the New Testament as the inspired word from God

Did Luke Have a Doctrine of the Atonement?

 written by Dr. Bart D Ehrman 

For this week’s readers’ mailbag I have chosen a question about my claim that the author of Luke-Acts, unlike other writers of the New Testament, does not have a doctrine of the atonement – that Jesus’ death brought about a restored relationship with God (for Luke, it was the *resurrection* that mattered, not the crucifixion).   The questioner sets up the question with an important observation.   I suspect my answer will not be what he expected.

QUESTION:

I have spent a lot of time looking in the gospels for teachings on the atonement. I could only find 5 passages (really more like 2, because they are parallel).

• Mt 20:28/Mk 10:45 Jesus life as a ransom for many Luke leaves this part out of the story

• Mt 26:28–this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
• Mk 14:24–This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
• Lk 22:20 This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Are you saying that Luke (in Acts and in his gospel) is diverging from Matthew and Mark re the atonement? If so, what does Lk 22:20 suggest, if not the atonement?

RESPONSE

First I would say that yes, these are key passages in the discussion.  Another is Mark 15:37-39, where Jesus dies and the curtain in the Temple is immediately ripped in half.  This curtain is to be understood as separating God from humanity – he was believed to dwell in the Holy of Holies behind the curtain, and only the high priest could go into his presence in that room, and that only once a year on the Day of Atonement to make a sacrifice for the people’s sins.  Now, with the death of Jesus, in Mark, the curtain is destroyed, and people do have access to God.  Luke changes the scene significantly: for him the curtain was ripped, but it was *before* Jesus died.  Now it doesn’t show that Jesus’ death brings access to God.  It is a symbol of God’s destruction of the temple because of what the Jewish people have done to Jesus.  (As Luke says “the hour of darkness has come”)

So here’s the deal so far.   Luke omitted Mark 10:45, that Jesus’ death was a ransom for many.  Why’d he do that?  He also changed the ripping of the curtain.  Why’d he do that?   And as significantly, he also omitted Mark 14:24, that Jesus blood was poured out for many?  Why’d he do that?  Or *did* he do that?

The questioner is pointing out that the verse (Jesus’ blood is “poured out for many”) *is* found in Luke 22:20.  BUT, here’s the big deal: it appears that Luke did not originally have the verse.  It was added by later scribes.  Here is my discussion of the passage in my book Misquoting Jesus (I have a much longer and detailed discussion in my book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture).

*******************************************************************

For proto-orthodox Christians, it was important to emphasize that Christ was a real man of flesh and blood because it was precisely the sacrifice of his flesh and the shedding of his blood that brought salvation – not in appearance but in reality.  Another textual variant in Luke’s account of Jesus’ passion emphasizes precisely this reality.  It occurs during the account of Jesus’ last supper with his disciples.  In one of our oldest Greek manuscripts, along with several Latin witnesses, we are told the following:

And taking a cup, giving thanks, he said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves, for I say to you that I will not drink from the fruit of the vine from now on, until the kingdom of God comes.”  And taking bread, giving thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body.  But behold, the hand of the one who betrays me is with me at the table” (Luke 22:17-19).

In most of our manuscripts, however, there is an addition to the text, an addition that will sound familiar to many readers of the English Bible, since it has made its way into most modern translations.  Here, after Jesus says “This is my body,” he continues with the words “‘which has been given for you; do this in remembrance of me’; And the cup likewise after supper, saying ‘this cup is the new covenant in my blood which is poured for you.’”

These are the familiar words of the “institution” of the Lord’s Supper, known in a very similar form also from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:23-25).  Despite the fact they are familiar, there are good reasons for thinking that these verses were not originally in Luke’s Gospel, but were added in order to stress that it was precisely Jesus’ broken body and shed blood that brought salvation “for you.”  For one thing, it is hard to explain why a scribe would have omitted the verses if they were original to Luke (there is no homoeoteleuton, for example, that would explain an omission), especially since they make such clear and smooth sense when they are added.  In fact, when the verses are taken away, doesn’t the text sound a bit truncated?  Precisely the unfamiliarity of the truncated version (without the verses) may have been what led scribes to add the verses.

And it is striking to note that the verses, as familiar as they are, do not represent Luke’s own understanding of the death of Jesus.  For it is a striking feature of Luke’s portrayal of Jesus death — this may sound strange at first — that he never, anywhere else, indicates that the death itself is what brings salvation from sin.  Nowhere in Luke’s entire two volume work (Luke and Acts), is Jesus’ death said to be “for you.”  And in fact, on the two occasions in which Luke’s source Mark indicates that it was by Jesus’ death that salvation came (Mark 10:45; 15:39), Luke changed the wording of the text (or eliminated it).  Luke, in other words, has a different understanding of the way Jesus death leads to salvation from Mark (and from Paul, and other early Christian writers).

It is easy to see Luke’s own distinctive view by considering what he has to say in the book of Acts, where the apostles give a number of speeches in order to convert others to the faith.  What is striking is that in none of these instances (look, e.g., in chapters 3, 4, 13), do the apostles indicate that Jesus’ death brings atonement for sins.  It is not that Jesus’ death is unimportant.  It’s extremely important for Luke.  But not as an atonement.  Instead, Jesus death is what makes people realize their guilt before God (since he died even though he was innocent).  Once people recognize their guilt, they turn to God in repentance, and then he forgives their sins.

Jesus’ death for Luke, in other words, drives people to repentance, and it is this repentance that brings salvation.  But not according to these disputed verses which are missing from some of our early witnesses: here Jesus’ death is portrayed as an atonement “for you.”

Originally the verses appear not to have been part of Luke’s Gospel.  Why then were they added?  In a later dispute with Marcion, Tertullian emphasized:

Jesus declared plainly enough what he meant by the bread, when he called the bread his own body.  He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed in his blood, affirms the reality of his body.  For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh.  Thus from the evidence of the flesh we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood.  (Against Marcion 4, 40).

It appears that the verses were added in order to stress Jesus’ real body and flesh, which he really sacrificed for the sake of others.  This may not have been Luke’s own emphasis, but it certainly was the emphasis of the proto-orthodox scribes who altered their text of Luke in order to counter docetic Christologies such as that of Marcion.

****************************************************

Short story: Luke didn’t originally have the verse.  Scribes inserted it.

And that means that Luke omits all references in Mark to Jesus’ death bringing about an atoning sacrifice.

Moreover in all the speeches of Acts, where the apostles talk about the salvation that Christ brought, it is never said to have been brought specifically by his death.  It is the resurrection that matters.

My conclusion: Luke did not have a doctrine of Jesus’ death as an atonement.