Summary of The Fourth Cup: Unveiling the Mystery of the Last Supper and the Cross by Scott Hahn

Here are some of my summary notes from this wonderful book by Dr. Scott Hahn:

The Old Passover Liturgy

Covenant renewal every year: In the Book of Exodus, Moses presents the Passover liturgy as scripted by God himself, something that “should be observed every year as a renewal of the covenant” (32). And for the Passover, blood is the sign of the covenant b/c blood represents a new family bond (Ex 24:7-8).

Exact ritual: In the Passover liturgy, the ritual was exact, with scripted catechetical exchange of questions & answers (see Ex 12:25-27): “Every ingredient in the meal was a mnemonic device. The herbs were to remind the people of the bitterness of their life in slavery. The unleavened bread recalled the hurried preparation of that last meal in Egypt; there was no time to wait for the dough to rise. The lamb? Well, he died in place of the firstborn” (28).

Eat the sacrifice: “[T]he sacrifice was complete only with the eating of the lamb. That was the act that renewed the covenant. That was the act that constituted Israel as a nation. That was the act by which individual Jews knew communion with one another and with God” (36).

The seder meal: “The ritual meal for Passover is called the seder, and the document that prescribes its order is known as the haggadah. The basic structure of the seder appears to have been formalized long before the time of Jesus. In fact, the Gospel accounts assume that readers are already familiar with the structure of the seder. Today we know about that structure mostly from the Mishnah, the earliest compilation of Jewish traditions, set down by the rabbis around A.D. 200. The Mishnah corroborates the accounts in the Gospels—and fills in many of the details the evangelists took for granted” (55).

The 4 parts of the seder meal: (1) 1st cup: The preliminary course consisted of a festival blessing (kiddush) spoken over the first cup of wine, followed by the serving of a dish of herbs; (2) 2nd cup: The second course included a recital of the Passover narrative along with the Psalm known as the “Little Hallel” (Psalm 113; hallel means “praise”). Then came the drinking of the second cup of wine; (3) 3rd cup: The third course was the main meal, consisting of lamb and unleavened bread, after which was drunk the third cup of wine, known as the “cup of blessing”; (4) 4th cup: The Passover climaxed with the singing of the “Great Hallel” (Psalms 114–118) and the drinking of the fourth cup of wine.

“The seder was not celebrated in silence. The leader of the meal—usually the family patriarch, or the community’s rabbi—customarily interpreted the items on the table. He needed not just to lift the cups and the unleavened bread and put them on display but also to “say” those three things. He needed to explain their relevance. The people in attendance had to understand how each item commemorated the conditions of the original Passover” (57).

The New Passover Liturgy

Preliminary problems & some answers

3 problems: (1) several menu items missing, like bitter herbs and the sacrificial lamb, (2) disciples never posed the scripted questions & Jesus didn’t tell the Exodus story; (3) John, however, clearly says that Jesus’ condemnation took place on “the day of Preparation of the Passover” (John 19:14, 31). If Jesus died on the Day of Preparation, then the Romans executed his sentence at noon, “the sixth hour” (John 19:14), just as the Passover lambs were being sacrificed in the Temple. If John is correct, then it would seem that Jesus died several hours before the seder meals began in Jerusalem. If John is correct, then it would seem that Jesus could not have been in that upper room for the seder” (65).

Some answers: But the Gospels never give us exhaustive reportage. They are light on detail. They assume that the Passover need not be explained. And John is writing his Gospel with the Synoptics in mind, where they are very clear that it is the Passover liturgy (see Mark 14:12, 14, 16; Luke 22:15; Matthew 26:2). Professor A. Jaubert gives compelling reasons to accept both chronologies – the dates we find in the Synoptics and in John (click here for more). Joachim Jeremias gives 14 ways Jesus’ meal was a typical seder Passover meal (click here for more). Also, the Catholic Church has found it so: “By celebrating the Last Supper with his Apostles in the course of the Passover meal, Jesus gave the Jewish Passover its definitive meaning” (CCC, 1340).

Where’s the lamb?

Jesus is the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29).

Revelation speaks of Christ first appearing as “a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain” (5:6). Why does it stand “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8)? Because Jesus’ eternal priesthood offering never ceases (and so it is never repeated either (Hebrews 7:24, 27)).

The Lamb is worshipped as God by all the hosts of heaven (5:12). He opens the seals of the previously inaccessible books. The peoples on earth “washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Revelation 7:14). Later, the Seer evokes the Passover and Exodus again when he says that the victorious on the earth “have conquered…by the blood of the Lamb” (Revelation 12:11). And we have been “ransomed…with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Peter 1:18–19).

“The wrath of the Lamb” (Rev 6:16): Paradox: Power is made perfect in weakness (2 Cor 12:9). Jesus was crucified in weakness but lives by the power of God (2 Cor 13:4). Eventually becomes the shepherd (Rev 7:17). Gospel of John parallel – Jesus at first lamb and then calls his disciples His lambs (21:15).

Unleavened Bread

Christ is the Passover lamb but He “identified himself not with the sacrificial lamb at the seder but rather with the unleavened bread” (96). Why?

Jesus gave the Passover explanation for His reason in John 6 (rather than at the Last Supper).

Passover began the weeklong festival of Unleavened Bread. Jews treated the two feasts, Passover and Unleavened Bread, as a unit… The lamb was consumed in a day, but unleavened bread was to be a hallmark of the entire week that followed (97).

What’s more, it was not a once-and-done event. He commanded his disciples to “do this” ever afterward as his memorial sacrifice. His ultimate goal was to restore communion, which he accomplished by means of the bread that was his body. The conclusion seemed inevitable to me: we, too, have to eat the Lamb. 103

“Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Corinthians 5:8). In other words, something more remains for us to do. We are to feast upon Jesus, the Bread of Life and our Passover lamb. 104

The 4 Cups

Jesus intentionally ended the seder meal prematurely: Jesus pronounced to be the “blood of the covenant” (Mark 14:24) is clearly the third cup of the haggadah, which was known as the “blessing cup” because it was consumed with the prayer of thanksgiving at the main course. Saint Paul seems to confirm this cup as the third in his own discussion of the Lord’s Supper: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16). (108). He skipped the 4th cup – “the cup of consummation” and went off into the night singing a hymn (Mark 14:25-6). This would have been shocking for a rabbi to stop just short of the climactic moment of the most essential liturgy on the most important feast of the year. But he did it, intentionally.

Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane – this cup: What cup? The 4th cup. When all was finished on the Cross, He said, “I thirst” (John 19:28). John, who provides the only eyewitness account of the event, assures us that Jesus drank the wine (John 19:29–30). “When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, ‘It is finished’; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (19:30). It is finished!… It was the Passover that was now finished! Nothing, it seems, was missing from his seder. All was consummated, completed, brought to conclusion with the wine the Lord consumed with his final breath” (116).

Easter & the Resurrection

Easter is Passover, and the early Christians celebrated it as such. In fact, they called the holiday “Passover,” and most modern languages still use the same word to describe both the Jewish holiday we know as Passover and the Christian holiday we know as Easter. They use words taken from the Hebrew Pesach. Spaniards call it Pascua, Italians Pasqua. The Dutch say Pasen. In Zulu it’s IPhasika. All these terms derive from Pesach. Only a few languages—English, German, Polish—call the feast by a word unrelated to Passover. 158

“The Last Supper is what transformed Good Friday from an execution into a sacrifice—and Easter Sunday is what transformed the sacrifice into a sacrament. Christ’s body was raised in glory, so it is now communicable to the faithful. Indeed, the Eucharist is the same sacrifice he offered by instituting the Eucharist and then dying on Calvary; only now his sacred humanity is deified and deifying. It is the high-priestly sacrifice that he offers in heaven and on earth. That’s the holy sacrifice of the Mass. If the Eucharist were only a meal, then Calvary would be no more than an execution” (162).

Pentecost

Of all the feasts on the old Jewish calendar, only two have endured as Christian feasts: Passover and Pentecost. These two, with Sukkot, the “Feast of Booths,” were the three pilgrimage festivals of ancient Judaism. The Book of Exodus (23:14–17) required all Israelite males to celebrate these three feasts in the holy city, Jerusalem. Passover and Pentecost were inextricably bound to one another. Pentecost, in fact, gets its very name from its relation to Passover. Pentecost comes from the Greek word for “fiftieth”; Pentecost is the fiftieth day after Passover. 164

Jews in the first century commemorated the Exodus on Passover. On Pentecost they celebrated God’s gift of the Law at Mount Sinai. The first event was ordered to the second. The Israelites were set free not so that they could wander aimlessly but so that they could walk in God’s ways—the ways set out for them in the Ten Commandments. In the Old Covenant, Passover happened for the sake of Pentecost. Passover was arguably the more solemn commemoration—the highest point on the calendar—but it required the later feast for its completion. 165

We find the same dynamic at work in the New Covenant. Jesus’ Passover points forward to fulfillment with the gift of the Spirit in the Christian Pentecost (165). In the fourth Gospel, Jesus repeatedly makes the point, even at the Last Supper, His Passover meal. He tells them the Counselor, sent by the Father, will bring the work of Jesus to completion (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). When Jesus had received the wine, he said, “It is finished.” Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” (John 19:30). And, in that fulfillment, He “gave up His spirit,” thus foreshadowing the gift that would come to the Church on Pentecost. And “from that hour” (19:27), he gave up his mother & his sacramental blood & water (19:34), all as gifts to the Church of His beloved disciples. Now all that remained was its application to the Church forever.

The Paschal Shape of the Liturgy

The entire Mass is rich with Paschal symbols.

The Lamb: “As at the Passover, so at the Mass: the prayers establish the character of the event. It is a solemn “banquet of the Lamb.” It is a sacrifice, and the victim is “the Lamb.” The blood of the Lamb brings “mercy” to God’s Chosen People” (147).

The Alleluia: Was associated primarily with the Passover. The early Church so valued the word that it was left untranslated in biblical and liturgical texts (see Revelation 19:1–6). Like the Hebrew “Amen,” it was considered sacred for what it expressed. “Alleluia” (or “Hallelujah”) means, literally, “Praise the Lord!” 148

The Offertory: (1) Considers these two blessings from the Passover seder: (1) Over unleavened bread: Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who creates the fruit of the earth. Amen. (2) Over the cup of wine: Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the Universe, creator of the fruit of the vine. Amen; (2) Now read again the blessings from the Mass: (1) Over unleavened bread: Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have received the bread we offer you: fruit of the earth and work of human hands, it will become for us the bread of life; (2) Over the cup of wine: Blessed are You, Lord, God of all creation, for through your goodness we have received the wine we offer: fruit of the vine and work of human hands, it will become our spiritual drink: “The traditional table blessings used at the seder have been supplemented to note the Passover’s fulfillment in Jesus Christ—and, specifically, Jesus Christ as he is about to appear, really present, in the Eucharist” (151).

The Eucharistic Prayer: “The typical Catholic Eucharistic prayer follows the structure and themes of the Jewish blessing over bread (birkat ha-mazon)… The most essential part of the Mass was its haggadah, the narrative of institution in the Eucharistic Prayer. There, using the words of Jesus, the priest pronounced the blessing and described the significance of the items before him on the table” (154).

Overall: “The Mass echoes the Passover liturgy in many ways, not only in small details but in its overall structure. It includes active remembrance in its prescribed readings (the Liturgy of the Word). It includes the consumption of a sacrifice (the Liturgy of the Eucharist). In the Passover, the sacrificial victim is the lamb. In the Mass, the victim is the Lamb of God, who took unleavened bread and declared it to be his body” (153).

The Paschal Shape of Life

The Paschal Mystery was not simply a series of historic events that took place around A.D. 30. The Paschal Mystery was something that the early Christians entered and shared – something they took up, as a cup – every Sunday when they attended the Eucharist.

Jesus wants to share His redemptive suffering power with us. His divine love turned His suffering into an offering at the Last Supper – and that love is the Eucharist. The Eucharist will transform our suffering into sacrifice. We are to live a Eucharistic life, like St. Ignatius of Antioch & St. Polycarp. The essential element of the martyrs was not the public character of their death but the Eucharistic character of their self-giving. Redemptive suffering is an essential part of our master story.

The cup of sorrow is inevitable in lie but redemptive suffering is our choice. St. Paul talked about a crucifixion that he gladly accepted (Gal 2:20).

Love is the answer to the riddle of suffering. Suffering is the answer to the riddle of love. True love – self-giving love, life-giving love – requires sacrifice, and sacrifice entails suffering.

Click here for my summary notes from this talk.

Comments

  1. In my understanding, Maurice de la Taille’s Mysterium Fidei argued that the Sacrifice of Christ should be understood as encompassing both the ritual actions of the Last Supper and the immolation on the Cross.

    Here’s a breakdown of his position:

    • Last Supper as the Oblation: De la Taille saw the Last Supper as the oblation or offering of Christ’s sacrifice. At the Supper, Christ, as priest and victim, willingly offered himself to the Father through the symbols of bread and wine, anticipating his death on the Cross. This was the liturgical act that initiated the sacrifice.
    • Crucifixion as the Immolation: The immolation, or destruction, occurred on the Cross when Christ physically underwent the suffering and death that completed the sacrifice.
    • Unity of the Sacrifice: De la Taille emphasized that the Last Supper and the Cross are not separate sacrifices, but rather two complementary aspects of the single, unified sacrifice of Christ’s passion. The Supper represents the offering, and the Cross represents the consummation through immolation.

    Now, although de la Taille is nowhere mentioned in the book, Abbot Anscar Vonier’s A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist was written as a response to de la Taille on this very issue, according to Aidan Nichols in his Introduction to the Zaccheus Press edition of Key (Zaccheus rediscovered Vonier’s lost gem and was the first publisher to reprint of the book in over 50 years). In fact, the controversy surrounding de la Taille’s views was already well underway. As a sign of the contemporary debate, two years before Vonier published his book, Fr. Vincent McNabb had already published a sharp, illuminating critique of this “new theory of the eucharistic sacrifice” in a 1923 article for Blackfriars, which is available online here. In short, according to Nichols and other scholars,* Vonier was motivated to write Key because of his disagreement with de la Taille’s views on this issue.

    I had read Key before hearing Dr. Hahn’s wonderful Fourth Cup presentation (on cassette tape). I am no theologian but I was struck by the apparent conflict between Hahn and Vonier on this issue, with Hahn seeming to take something very much like de la Taille’s position as to the relationship between the Supper and the Cross. (I was prompted to post this comment after reading the excellent summary of Vonier’s Key already posted on this blog.)

    I remain an admirer and indeed a big fan of both Vonier and Hahn, but Hahn’s Fourth Cup theory – as attractive as it is – gives me pause in light of Vonier. I wonder if Hahn is aware of this conflict? I would presume he is. Perhaps he sides with de la Taille on this issue.

    *For example, The Oxford Handbook of Sacramental Theology, Boersma & Levering, eds.: “The French school [i.e., de la Taille], Vonier seems to argue, makes it appear that Calvary was incomplete without the foregoing Supper and what took place there. Vonier also implies that for de la Taille, “the first Mass, which the Lord Himself celebrated in the Upper Room, is more truly the opening phase of the Sacrifice of Christ than it is the sacramental presentation of that sacrifice” [quoting Nichols’ remarks in his Introduction to Key]. Vonier maintains that the Holy Eucharist is the sacrament of the sacrifice of Christ. He believed that through St. Thomas’s approach one could also recognize that “the sacrifice of the Mass is the expression in sign of all that our great high priest in his once-for-all offering on the Cross underwent, did, and was. Calvary and the Mass are the self-same reality, in two utterly different modes.” [ibid.]

    PS: I think every substantive point raised by Odo Casel had already been made by Vonier in Key, albeit, Casel’s “mystery-sacrifice” was a more rhetorically evocative phrase than Vonier’s “sacramental sacrifice.” It is difficult for me to believe that Casel was not strongly influenced by Vonier, and indeed, borrowed many of Vonier’s ideas and insights. (And as for that part of his Eucharistic theology that doesn’t lean on Vonier, in Liturgical Piety, Louis Bouyer set out a pitiless critique and debunking of Casel’s emphasis on pagan mystery cults as antecedents for Christian worship.)

    PPS: I see there’s at least one person who agrees with me on Vonier and Casel, at least to some degree. A thesis titled “Kerygma and the Liturgy: Encountering the Risen Christ in Dom Odo Casel’s Mystery Theology” by Anthony J. Rosselli notes, respecting the core issue of Casel’s theology:

    Quote (p. 47 of thesis):
    To articulate [his position on the nature of Christ’s presence in the sacrament], Casel drew on his contemporary, Abbot Anscar Vonier, O.S.B. (d. 1938), who saw in this telescoping of the spatio-temporal reality a “unity and duality of a very peculiar nature.” [Key, p. 88] In studying the relationship between the Last Supper (the first Eucharistic meal) and the historical sacrifice on the Cross, Vonier was able to articulate his concept of the sacramental world wherein space and time are suspended and repurposed.[Key, pp. 92-93] How is it that the Last Supper could have been a true Eucharistic sacrifice if the sacrifice of the Cross had not yet occurred in history? Vonier’s answer proved essential for Casel’s own position:

    “Once the sacramental view of the Eucharistic sacrifice is admitted, the difficulty no longer exists. As the sacrament is essentially a representation, it could be instituted at any moment by Christ…. That great act of Redemption, the immolation of Christ on the Cross, could be represented before, as well as after, His crucifixion; and though the sacrament derives all its truth and value from the death of Christ, its institution, or even its celebration or use, may precede that event. The celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice by Christ no more superseded His role on Calvary than did the first breaking of bread of the Christian Church after the coming of the Holy Spirit. Sacraments, and sacraments only, possess that aloofness from the historical sequence of events.” [Key, p. 93]

    Thus, in the same way that the sacramental world, which is not necessarily subject to the historical sequence of time, is able to reveal how the Last Supper presents the sacrifice of the Cross, so the Eucharistic sacrifices of the present age are able to substantially present
    the historical acts of 2,000 years ago.

    [End of quote]

    On p. 73, Roselli notes that Cardinal Journet, in endorsing Casel, also “[f]ollow[ed] Anscar Vonier (as Casel did).”

Leave a comment