The Old Covenant Passover: Former Shadow or Supplemental New Covenant Feast? #4

Now to go about the task of answering the objections to the “cessation” of the practice of the Passover as Old Covenant saints practiced it.

I will start by saying that I am not claiming that New Covenant saints should never and under no circumstances practice the Passover in an Old Covenant format but I will say this, it is our “privilege” to circumcise our sons physically and for medical reasons, but we don’t do it so that we can understand more fully the shadow and type of Christ’s being cut off for us that was presented in Old Covenant. Certainly, the Passover feast was intended to make the Old Covenant saint more aware of the future and final atonement in their own context; to make the Old Covenant saint know God’s salvation by grace through faith alone better through the representation of the coming Messiah, but the fact that we now live after the time in history when Christ has lived the perfect life and died on the cross provides us with the reason that we no longer celebrate the Passover feast as pre-cross saints did; we celebrate the Passover as Jesus has reinstituted it in the New Covenant and as Paul has elucidated us in his letters to Jesus’ meaning of the feast. It is the New Passover feast that God has ordained as a means of grace through the remembrance of Christ’s triplex work, not the observance of the type and shadow of the work, pictured in the old Passover before Christ had come…that feast is no longer a means of grace to renew our faith at all in any formal sense, and it is never right to have the Jewish practice and understanding of the Old Passover inform our practice and understanding of the New Passover. Instead, our practice and understanding of the New Passover celebration is what we use to inform our understanding of the way Jews celebrated the Old Passover. Though its studious celebration today may be useful in enlightening us to just how the Old Covenant saints would have celebrated it in times past, it has no sanctifying influence on the New Covenant saint and has only an educational value, thus it isn’t necessary to engage in that Old ritual format even on a periodic basis, but perhaps only in a classroom type setting and perhaps only once in a lifetime. What is further, the yearly practice of the Old Passover format (in addition to the periodic celebration of the Lord’s Supper) when it is instituted by a local church it may actually hinder the effectiveness of the Lord’s Supper by distraction, and confuse the congregants as to the reasons for the separation of the two and the superiority in time and substance of the Lord’s Supper over the Old Passover. I believe some of this confusion is rooted in the dispensational expectation of the reinstitution of Old Covenant types and shadows (such as associated with the earthly temple) rather than their abrogation in Christ as their Archetype and Substance, though not all those who promote a regular celebration of the Old and New Passovers (which I call a practice of “Dual Passover Celebration”) actually settle in dispensational camps.

While it is true, there is no one verse in the New Testament that explicitly states that we should not celebrate the Old Passover, I believe the Holy Spirit through the men born along felt it unnecessary to add such a statement because the books of the New Testament are replete with evidence that shows ALL Old Covenant rituals fulfilled in Christ’s coming and atoning work, the format of the Old Passover feast included. Perhaps the clearest reason for regarding the Old Passover passe and the New Passover (The Lord’s Supper) as its culmination is in Jesus’ words themselves as recorded by Luke in chapter 22:

“14 And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

In one solemn meal, Jesus assumed the role as the lamb in the eyes of those with whom He partook that last supper; He set Himself up as the vision of sacrifice from them on, instead of the physical exodus from Egypt as the deliverance of the people, He had prepared His disciples to soon look to His passion as their spiritual deliverance and to “do this” as the remembrance. So Christ has taken the Old feast and resurrected it or redeemed it to specifically apply to Himself, thus being changed by the New Covenant feast in His blood. Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. Of course Jesus thought the Passover was important and He kept it because He kept the whole Law in order to establish all righteousness. It was for that same reason that He submitted Himself to the baptism of John; Jesus lived the perfect life and that included the correct practice of the ritual feasts of Israel which even typified Himself. Jesus affirmed the Law as presented in the Old Testament and re-presented in the New, but this is no reason to keep the feasts of the Old Covenant in their old format because the 10 commandments were reiterated in the New Testament and their keeping is still required just as the Holy character of God, which they illustrate, has not changed, but the cultic ceremonies and rituals of the Old Covenant were not reiterated but rather, they were reinterpreted in Christ. The types and shadows, which the feasts and sacrifices and circumcision were, prefigured Christ, who is their archetype and substance, but the 10 commandments (being a summary of the Law as they were) were not a type or shadow prefiguring Christ and thus their reinterpretation was not necessary. Furthermore, for the above reason, the Old Covenant feasts and sacrifices (and they cannot be separated in such a way as has been suggested) are not “manners and customs that we need to keep” in the same way that the 10 commandments are. In Leviticus 23 the feasts instituted were directly tied to the sacrifices offered so their separation is not allowed if one is to argue that New Covenant saints could celebrate the feast of booths or even the Passover in their previous format:

“37 "These are the appointed feasts of the LORD, which you shall proclaim as times of holy convocation, for presenting to the LORD food offerings, burnt offerings and grain offerings, sacrifices and drink offerings, each on its proper day, 38 besides the LORD’s Sabbaths and besides your gifts and besides all your vow offerings and besides all your freewill offerings, which you give to the LORD.”

The question that must then be asked is, why not practice circumcision and sacrifice grains and animals for the same reasons: Jesus did it, we could learn more about God, it ties the Old and New testaments together?

Another objection to the abrogation of the Old Passover into the New was that no one seemed harmed by its practice, in fact, everyone in attendance “benefited” in some way. Simply because no one in attendance appeared to be “damaged” by the practice of the Old Passover, or because no one has been heard to say that they didn’t benefit from the experience in some small way, is no reason to assert that New Covenant saints might celebrate it. One of the responsibilities of the pastor is to rightly divide the Word of truth and his sheep into sanctifying pastures. The average layman can easily be lead into an errant practice when even well-meaning pastors teach and practice error. One evidence of this may be the first comment that was made on the blog thread which corresponded with the show. I don’t know if or where this lady attends church, but the responses made by the pastor (with whom I disagreed on the topic) regarding my objections to her comments were clearly made in her defense. She clearly has been damaged by the hermeneutical errors that lead one to a duel Passover theology; here is her quote in full:

“THank u thank u …I love u. I am a Jew that came to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1998. I call myself a Messianic Jew not a Christian. I do because most Christians do not follow the beliefs or even know the real Jesus Christ or they would follow the old testament. They would follow what Jesus believed in the Old Testament and preached. Thank u for making my day. I love u guys.”

There are several problems with her statements that should raise red flags. The first one is that she does not call herself a Christian, and the second (which apparently is her reason for the first) is that she believes that most “Christians” do not know Jesus Christ nor believe what He believes, for (in her mind) if they did, they would “follow the Old Testament”. If the application of normal Christian terminology is followed, what else could possibly be meant by that except a connection between knowing Christ and Old Covenant obedience? I believe the proper response to this lady is that Paul has already refuted her line of reasoning when he addressed the Galatians. Unfortunately, after I had opposed her comment, her statement was later defended by other participants in the thread of comments. I believe she is a prime example of how this hermeneutical error misunderstands the fulfillment of Old Testament types and shadows and which can lead to damaging results from a pastoral perspective.

To conclude, New Covenant saints actually do celebrate the Passover, but it is not in the same way as the Old Covenant saints did. Jesus fulfilled all the types and shadows of the Old Testament, feasts and sacrifices. So, to usher in the new era, as an inaugural feast of the advent of the Kingdom of God, Jesus took the Old Passover meal with His disciples, on the night before His death, and expanded its Old Covenant meaning by showing that the bread represented His body and the wine represented His blood. In its institution, and later in Paul’s commentary of it, Christ told them to take the meal with those elements, “in remembrance of Me”, and we are told to take this meal until His return. So Christ did not destroy the Old Passover just like He did not destroy the Law, He elucidated them; because of the Jew’s misunderstanding of the Law, Jesus told them that not only was it adultery to take another man’s wife, but if you even look on another man’s wife you have committed adultery already in your heart, not only was it murder to take your neighbor’s life, but if you hate him then you are already guilty of murder in your heart, likewise, He took the bread and cup of the Passover meal and added to their meaning thus when we come to the Lord’s Table, in essence we are continuing to obey the Lord’s command to continue the feast.