…Also, I recall that you [Bob Sungenis] and I dialogued several years ago about the Hahnian Third Cup interpretation. Through the use of the Greek, you proved quite definitively that the Last Supper could not have been the Four Cup seder, based on the Greek words for leavened and unleavened bread (the artos, etc. analysis). Can you please find or repeat that analysis? That completely undermines the Third Cup interpretation. I appreciate it.

John [Salza]
___

Here I am leading a 2 part study on the Mass for our K of C Church and Bible Study, and last week singing the praises of Scott Hahn's analysis of the 4 cup Seder, bridging the Last Supper to the Cross, and now I find out its off base???

Indeed, do tell... Is this in an old article we no longer have up on the site?

AMDG.
Laurence Gonzaga
___

Laurence, I thought Hahn’s interpretation was at least an interesting speculation until about five years ago, when I actually researched the original Greek. There is a distinction between the bread used in the Seder versus the bread used at the Last Supper (unleavened (azumo) versus leavened (artos)). Because Jesus used different bread than the Seder, it is almost as if He was distinguishing the Last Supper from the Seder, not typologically fulfilling it. While St. Paul refers to the Eucharistic chalice as the “cup of blessing” (1Cor 10:16), this doesn’t mean there is a formal correspondence between the Seder and the Eucharist. There are other non-Seder allusions to Old Testament terminology in connection with the Eucharist, such as Psalm 116’s “cup of salvation” (v.13) with the “sacrifice of thanksgiving” (v.17). Moreover, I never found a single Church Father who said that Jesus was drinking the “Fourth Cup” on the Cross (many of Hahn’s speculations are want of patristic support, as you know). Rather, my interpretation of Jesus’ words “I thirst” is that He was thirsting to satisfy the Father’s wrath against our sins. He was bringing the propitiatory sacrifice to consummation. The wine Jesus receives is an illusion to the cup of God’s wrath (Isa 51:17,22; Jer 25:15; Apoc 19:15), not the Fourth Cup of the defunct Jewish Seder supper.

I hope Robert can find that Q&A on this issue. It expands on the foregoing and, in my mind, puts the issue to bed.

John [Salza]
___

Gents,

I found the piece I wrote back in 2006 on this issue.

Here it is:

Robert

Robert, I recall you saying that you did not subscribe to the theory of the Fourth Cup. However, it seems like a plausible typological interpretation. Please explain your problems with it. Are there technical reasons that would actually refute the theory? The idea is this: Before Christ instituted the Eucharist, He was celebrating the Seder meal which was composed of four cups. The Third Cup is called the "cup of blessing" and the Fourth Cup is called the "cup of consummation." The argument is that Christ instituted the Eucharist with the Third Cup, and did not proceed to drink the Fourth Cup in the Upper Room. Support for this is the fact that Paul calls the Eucharistic cup the "cup of blessing" in 1 Cor 10:16. After Jesus drank the Third Cup and sung the customary hymn, the Gospels say He went out to the Mount of Olives (even though the Passover protocol was to finish with the Fourth Cup). In the garden, He asks His Father for the "cup" to pass, acknowledging He had one more cup to drink, but to let the Father's will be done. On the road to crucifixon, He is also given a cup to drink but denies it. Finally, on the cross, He asks for the cup when He says "I thirst." Drinking it, He says "it is consummated" (in reference to the Fourth Cup of "Consummation"). You are also aware of the other typological elements at play (Passover, lambs being killed, Pilate finding no fault in him, Jesus wearing a priestly tunic, the cup being given on a hyssop branch, etc, all relating to the Passover sacrifice). The point is that the Fourth Cup typology makes a strong connection between the sacrifice in the Upper Room and the Sacrifice of the Calvary. The link between the Third and Fourth Cups merges the two events into one, demonstrating that the sacrifice began in the Upper Room, not on the cross. I look forward to your thoughts on this.

[~John Salza]

R. Sungenis: John, in general, I think we have to be very careful when we attempt to use analogies and allegories to prove Catholic dogma. A tendency to use proof-texting, for example, is often utilized when attempts are made to prove Catholic doctrines about Mary from the Old Testament. Some are tempted to mold the allegory so that it will fit the doctrine, and since allegories are somewhat fluid, one can usually cut and paste them until he finds an impressive connection, after which we are prompted to marvel how the Old Testament teaches Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity or Assumption. In actuality, the Old Testament doesn’t provide any factual evidence supporting these three Marian doctrines, and the New Testament can only vouch for one, perhaps two, at best. In fact, some Old Testament allegories could be fashioned in such a way to deny some Marian doctrines. Marian doctrines are supported mainly by Catholic magisterial pronouncements, and the factual evidence regarding those doctrines comes mainly from Tradition, not Scripture.

Similarly, to claim that Jesus’ drinking from the cup at the Last Supper is analogous to the Third cup of the Jewish Seder meal, while the drinking from the sponge on the cross is analogous to the Fourth cup of the Seder meal, requires a lot of pliability with both the Last Supper and the Seder meal. I’m not saying that it isn’t possible, rather, I’m only offering a few words of caution. Allegories can be good teaching tools, but more than often they can detract from the truth because they just don’t fit the historical events as precisely as the inventor wants them to fit.

Let’s see some of the difficulties we might have with saying that the Last Supper was a Seder meal.

First, John 13:29 suggests that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal, since, after the Apostles had already celebrated the Last Supper, they later thought Judas was leaving in order to buy things for the upcoming Passover. As such, the closest the Last Supper could be is the Preparation for Passover, but not the Passover (which came the day after), and therefore it could not be a Seder meal.

Second, the Seder meal employs only unleavened bread, but the Last Supper used leavened bread. The Greek for unleavened bread is AZUMOS, which corresponds to the Hebrew MATZOT (where we get the English phrase “matzot bread”). We can see the correspondence between the two words in the LXX (e.g., Ex 12:18; 23:15; Lv 23:6).

But the Greek for leavened bread is ARTOS, and the Hebrew equivalent is LEKHEM, and this correspondence also appears in the LXX (e.g., Lv 23:17). The importance of the distinction is this: in the passages of the New Testament that describe the Last Supper, in each case, the Greek word ARTOS (leavened bread) is used, never AZUMOS (unleavened bread) (e.g., Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19; 1Co 11:23-28). This must be distinguished from “the feast of Unleavened Bread” that is referred to in Mt 26:17; Mk 14:1,12; Lk 22:1, 7. In each of these verses, the Greek word AZUMOS is used for the word “Unleavened.”

These distinctions are important considerations because, without the use of unleavened bread, there was little resemblance to a Passover celebration, and thus it would be difficult to make a one-to-one correspondence between the Last Supper and a Seder meal. Moreover, in the passages of the New Testament that contain a description of the Last Supper, there is a necessary distinction that is often missed between the Passover Preparation Day (Thursday, Nisan 14) and the actual Passover Day (Friday, Nisan 15), but various translations fail to make the distinction. The importance of this distinction is that the Preparation day was not the Passover day, no more than Christmas eve is Christmas day.

Technically speaking, the comparison between the Last Supper and the Seder meal has a few other problems. The traditional Seder meal had 15 different steps. Within those steps, four cups of wine would be consumed at four different points in the Seder. The first cup, taken during the Kiddush or first step, was consumed to commemorate a day of sanctification. The second cup, during the Maggid, was consumed to commemorate the cup of wrath God poured on the Egyptians. The third cup, during the Barech, was consumed to commemorate the redemption resulting from God’s wrath. The fourth cup, also during the Barech, was consumed to express praise to God and an anticipation of the eschaton, which was initiated after a child was sent to the door to look for Elijah to announce the coming of the Messiah.

The Last Supper certainly did not have 15 steps to it. But even if we were to concentrate only on the eating of bread and drinking from the cup, there still remain some incongruities. For example, at the Last Supper, there was no ceremonial washing of the hands that took place in the Seder meal. Something new is introduced, which is the washing of feet, and this new washing has a completely different meaning, since it stresses servanthood, not spiritual cleansing.

There is no first or second drinking of the cup at that Last Supper, but merely a drinking before and after the partaking of leavened bread. Even the idea that Jesus drank the fourth cup at the cross as he was offered the vinegar and hyssop doesn’t have a Seder parallel, since Mark 14:25 says that Jesus would not drink again until the kingdom arrived, that is, after his resurrection. Analogically speaking, if the third cup was the Eucharistic cup, the fourth cup would not come until after the cross, not before it.

The Last Supper is, in its essence, a whole new celebration. This is to be expected, because Jesus is bringing a New Covenant. It is not a covenant of unleavened bread, but a covenant of leavened bread. Unleavened bread was instituted to commemorate the haste in which the Jews had to leave Egypt (as if a woman didn’t have time to put leaven in her bread and watch it rise). But that is not the case any longer. There is no rush or cause for alarm in the New Covenant. The New Covenant anticipates complete rest in Christ, not haste (Hebrews 4:3-10).

Although it seems that some passages in the Gospels equate the Last Supper with the actual Passover, this is not necessarily the case. Spiritually speaking, Jesus was to be our Passover on Good Friday, on the 15^th of Nisan, not eat of the Passover Seder that Jews consumed on Nisan 15. In fact, soteriologically speaking, there should be a setting aside of the Seder meal. It had to be set aside so that the New Covenant could be established. When, for example, Matthew says in Chapter 26 that:

¹⁷ Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the passover?” ¹⁸ He said, “Go into the city to a certain one, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at your house with my disciples.’” ¹⁹ And the disciples did as Jesus had directed them, and they prepared the passover

it may merely mean that the apostles prepared the room for what they anticipated as a Passover meal on the following day, Friday (Nisan 15), not the Last Supper, which took place on Thursday (Nisan 14). This is supported by the fact that Lk 22:11 uses the aorist subjunctive (“that I may eat”) not the future indicative (“that I will eat”), showing that it was not definite that Jesus would be present to eat the actual Passover of Nisan 15 with his Apostles. The reason that the room would be booked in advance (that is, two days before the actual Passover of Nisan 15) is that Jerusalem at this time was like Grand Central Station during Christmas, and rooms needed to be reserved way ahead of time.

As it stands, Jesus was only able to attend the Preparation Day, Nisan 14, but that was never considered a Seder meal. The same is true in Luke 22:15 where Jesus says that he “desired with desire” to eat the Passover with his Apostles. This Hebraism simply means that he longed to do so, but whether he would be able to do so is another question. The answer to that question was told to Him in the Garden of Gethsemane when the cup that he was to drink at Passover was going to be the cup of God’s wrath He sustained on the Cross.

In addition to the fact that the Gospels never mention the Seder meal, or even make it into an allegory or analogy, we do not have to depend on the distinctions in the Seder meal to demonstrate the connection between the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. The connection between the two events is made clear in the precise Greek words and grammar the Synoptic gospels employed (See my book Not By Bread Alone, pages 143-167).

Does this mean that the “Fourth Cup” idea is wrong? I’ll leave that to you to decide. I’m only pointing out some of the various problems with taking that allegorical approach. Allegory is exciting. I used to do it for many years in my own bible study. I have many bibles filled with all kinds of allegorical notes. After a while, however, one begins to see that there is a tendency to “read into” biblical narratives what one wants to see, and the allegories never quite match the reality to the extent they are purported to match it. For this reason, I’ve always been very cautious about such methodologies when interpreting Scripture.

Dr. Sungenis:  I seen on various news stories concerning the tension on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem by Jews wanting to ascend there to Pray and the Muslims trying to keep them out.  I also seen that some Jewish groups have prepared not only the altar but the cornerstone for the 3rd Temple.  What are you thoughts on this.  Thank you.

R. Sungenis: Joseph, I believe this will be the flash point for the controversy in the Middle East. The orthodox Jews see this altar and Temple as an absolute necessity, and the reformed Jews and Zionists see it as symbolic of Jewish rights and hegemony over Jerusalem and the region at large. My feeling is that, sooner or later, the Jews will proceed to reestablish some form of ancient sacrificial ritual on or near the Temple mount, as well as attempt to rebuild the Temple. When that happens, all hell will break loose, to use a common expression, which in this case may be more true literally than figuratively.

Dr. Sungenis,

I’ve been having a rather lively debate with some of my colleagues with regard to geocentrism.  Some of them are open minded; most think I wear tinfoil on my head and talk to aliens (never mind the fact that I must surely believe the earth is flat).

The subject of ocean tides came up and I am at a loss as to how to explain them in the geocentric model.  I have poured through the Newtonian physics and done quite a bit of math but am still confused.  What I was able to determine was that according to Newtonian physics, the Solar Tidal Pull is only .46 of the Lunar Tidal Pull.  However, when using the same calculations, the Earth Tidal Pull is 17,855,227 of the Lunar Tidal Pull.  Unless I’ve done my math wrong (which is a good possibility), the moon should have no measurable influence on the Ocean Tides.  If that is true what does cause tides?

Rick Orr

Rick,

Yes, you are quite correct that the moon doesn’t have enough pull to pick up millions of tons of ocean water, but that is a fact that is rather hidden from public consumption. Current cosmology really has no explanation for earth’s tides. They are no further along than Galileo was when he said that the tides prove the earth rotates.

What I believe occurs in the geocentric system is that the universe has more mass at the east-west quadrant than its north-south quadrant. As the universe rotates around the earth, the greater mass on opposite sides of the universe’s east/west quadrants will pull the earth’s water in opposite directions, almost like one was expanding an accordion with both hands. This will make the water rise on eastern and western “sides” of the earth and make it decrease on the northern and southern sides (but these boundaries are not exact by any means, since we are dealing with a sphere).

Since it takes 24 hours for the universe to rotate, and since there are two masses on opposite “sides” of universe pulling the earth’s water as the universe rotates, then there will be two tides each 24-hour day (two high tides and two low tides) all over the earth.

The earth, as a stationary body, is not affected by the universe’s vector pull (that is, there is no net force that would move the earth out of its central position in the universe) since the force from the universe is always equal on both “sides” of the earth. In other words, the universe can’t pull the whole earth to the east or west because the net force on the earth, as one solid body, is zero. But the net force on the earth’s water is different because it is fluid. It would be like putting a stocking over a ball and pulling the stocking from opposite ends. The stocking will be stretched in opposite directions, but the ball will remain stationary. Also, as the stocking is stretched, at the same time that the east/west vectors of the stocking are elongated (which represents a high tide), the north/south vectors of the stocking will be truncated (which represents a low tide).

I have attached a crude diagram of this explanation.

Let me know if it helps.

Robert Sungenis

Hi Bob;

I did not give examples of the continuity of Jewish practice in the Early Christian movement because I didn't think I needed to do so. Jesus himself said:

The phrase "until all is accomplished" is open to interpretation.  I see it referring to the Eschaton and not to the work of Christ in 1st Century Palestine. 

RS: Art, I think this can be explained very easily. First, let me say that I appreciate your pointing out the eschaton. That phase of Matthew 7:17-19 is often missed by commentators.

But your particular interpretation proves too much for your case. If “until all is accomplished” had only the eschaton as its terminus, then nothing could be fulfilled before the eschaton. In other words, even though the eschaton can serve as the fulfillment of some of “the Law and the Prophets,” the eschaton cannot be the fulfillment of ALL the Law and Prophets.

We both agree that Jesus came not to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill. But the crucial point is that the fulfillments take place in increments. Most of the Law was fulfilled at Christ’s first coming, but most of the Prophets will not be totally fulfilled until Christ’s Second Coming (cf. Daniel 12:2; 9:27; Zech 14; Ezk 40-48), a lot being fulfilled with his First Coming (cf. Isa 53; Daniel 9:24-26).

But this also means that since not one jot or tittle will pass away until either the Law or Prophets are fulfilled, then once either the Law or Prophets are fulfilled, then that portion of the Law or Prophets will pass away.

Hence, when Jesus fulfills the Passover (as Paul says in 1 Cor 5:7), then the OT Passover passes away, as do all the ceremonies that typified the suffering and death of Christ. Once fulfilled, there is no longer any use for them, and thus they pass away. That is the corollary point of Matthew 5:17-19 that I think you missed.

As it stands, then, Matthew 5:17-19 actually refutes the idea that the Mosaic law would still be mandated after Christ’s First Coming, since Jesus specifically said that it would “pass away” once it was fulfilled. Jesus fulfilled it, so it passes away immediately; it doesn’t have to wait for the eschaton.

Now, if it wasn’t the case that the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets comes in increments, and you insist that it refers only the eschaton, then you must bring back every belief and practice of the Mosaic law. For example, you then have an obligation to bring back the practice of going to Jerusalem for the three major feast days. You must bring back the Cherem and tell the Jews to execute every Gentile near Jerusalem that doesn’t want to be made a slave of the Jews. You should bring back public stoning for adultery, and deny full citizenship to the castrated. You should demand circumcision for every male at 8 days old, and if people miss the day, then you should call for their execution. You should set up temple worship, complete with daily and annual sacrifices in Jerusalem, and find some way of restoring the priesthood. In fact, you must bring back every Mosaic law without exception, for if there is one law you ignore, you will be guilty of the whole law and condemned (Gal 3:10-11). And if the Jews don’t want to do any of these things, then they will have to be executed as well (which would include most of the world’s Jewish population, since most of them don’t follow these laws).

You cannot go partway. Either you take the whole law or you take none of it. You cannot pick and choose which laws you are going to keep legally valid, since the Mosaic law forbade such dissection of its rituals and regimens.

You have the additional problem that no Father, medieval, saint, doctor, pope, council or catechism has seen Matthew 5:17-19 as referring only to the eschaton. As you saw in my last email, it can easily be shown from Catholic history that the Fathers unanimously held to the abrogation of the Mosaic law at Christ’s first coming, not the eschaton. The Councils did the same.

Scripture will also give you a tough road to haul, Art. First, if Hebrews 7:18; 8:1-13; 10:9; Col. 2:15; 2Cor 3:6-14 all say that the Old Covenant was annulled and replaced by the New Covenant, then obviously “until all is accomplished” of Matthew 5:18 cannot refer only to the eschaton, otherwise, you leave Scripture contradicting itself. By these passages in Hebrews, Scripture is drawing the parameters around the interpretation of Matthew 5:17-19.

AS: Then there is the fact that the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem continued to keep Kashruth leading St. Peter to do so in Antioch to placate his visitors (Gal 1).  St. Paul was not angry because St. Peter kept Kashruth.  he was annoyed that he withdrew from table fellowship with the Gentiles  and sent them the wrong message.

We are told:

I think that these verses make it clear that St. Paul was an observant Jew and did not act as if the Jewish law had been legally revoked.

RS: “Observant Jew”? If by that you mean that Paul, after he became a Christian, lived and taught that one is to adhere to all the precepts of the Mosaic law, and that his life as a Christian, except for Christ, was no different than his former life, I beg to differ. An “observant Jew,” if we use that term as it is normally understood of a Jew who kept the whole law, was not Paul’s practice. In fact, Paul repudiates that idea in Philippians 3:5 when he says of himself “as to the Law, a Pharisee…having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law.” It is one thing to say that Paul allowed certain Jewish rituals for the sake of his preaching to the Jews, but it is quite another to claim that Paul was an “observant Jew” and followed every jot and tittle of the Mosaic law. The two positions are entirely different.

I think the way to deal with this, Art, is to say that in regards to the Judaizers who were insisting on the practice of the Mosaic law for salvation, Paul was totally against this. Galatians is quite clear about this aspect of the discussion.

On the other hand, I am willing to concede to you that Paul, at times, believed it best to allow certain Jewish practices for the sake of the Jewish mind set. This follows his own teaching that “to the Jews I became as a Jew” when preaching the Gospel to win souls (1 Cor 9:20). When the practice of Jewish rituals did not threaten Christian salvation, it is easy to see that Paul considered them mere adiaphora, harmless, so to speak.

Hence, we can be clear on two points: (1) when salvation was the issue, the Mosaic law was not required, and, in fact, was condemned because it was non-salvific. (2) when appeasing Jews toward the Christian Gospel, certain practices of the Mosaic law were allowed by concession, for the sake of the Jewish conscience (even though many Jews in the first century forsook altogether their previous rituals).

Unless these distinctions are clearly made, the issue will become a cause for error, and even heresy.

AS: In fact I would ask you to produce one biblical verse which says that the Jewish Law has been revoked and that Jewish Christians are expected NOT to observe it.  I have never found any such text.

RS: Here again we must make the proper distinctions. Jewish Christians were “expected” to observe the Mosaic rituals to one degree or another simply because they were Jewish people. Generations of Jews would come and go before these rituals finally dissipated.There was no harm in this, so says Paul. But there was a big difference between sincere Jewish Christians who could not let go of their Jewish rituals and the fanatical Judaizers who were insisting on Mosaic rituals in order to be saved. In regards to the issue of salvation, the New Testament is adamant that the Mosaic law cannot save, and it never could save.

The Mosaic law could not save, but it could condemn, for as Paul says, for one transgression of the law one would be guilty of the whole law (Galatians 3:10-11). Our catechism says the same: “Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin…” (para 1963).

If that is the case, then the Mosaic law, as a LEGAL power that condemns the whole human race in sin, must be lifted so that salvation can be applied. But one cannot merely wish the legal power of the Mosaic law away. It must be legally annulled, abrogated, revoked, in full. Only then can it be replaced by a new covenant.  That is why Hebrews 7:18 says “the first commandment was annulled and replaced by a better commandment.” It is why Hebrews 8:13 says the first covenant was already becoming obsolete in Jeremiah’s day, and disappeared when Christ came. It is why Hebrews 10:9 says “he takes away the first [covenant] to establish the second [covenant].” That is why Colossians 2:14 says that Christ “canceled out the writ of debt consisting of decrees against us…having nailed it to the cross.” These are legal cancelations, for Hebrews 7-10 is nothing but the legal replacement of the Mosaic covenant with the New Covenant.

You need to incorporate these passages, and many like them, into your understanding, Art. You cannot merely glom on to Matthew 5:17-19 and think that it answers the question. The Bible is one cohesive whole. You can certainly believe in preserving Jewish practices as adiaphora all you want and I won’t bother you, but when you neglect to read and consider the clear language of the above passages which all teach that the Mosaic covenant has been annulled because of its condemnatory nature, then you haven’t reached the summit yet, and you become more detrimental to the process than helpful.

AS: What I have found is this:

It was not the Law that had changed, but Christians who have been changed.

RS: Yes, the Law didn’t change. It was always condemnatory (even though it could also act like a tutor). But it is precisely because the Law couldn’t change that it had to be annulled.

AS: The covenants of Abraham was never revoked even though Moses' covenant superceded it.  It remained in force as St. Paul clearly saw and taught.

RS: “Superseded” means that the Mosaic law would have replaced the Abrahamic covenant, but that didn’t happen. We need to be careful how we use the word “superseded.”

Moreover, the Abrahamic covenant was a salvation covenant, the Mosaic covenant was a law covenant that didn’t offer salvation. The two are entirely different.

The Mosaic covenant was added because the Jews needed a more specific covenant for their purpose and needs, mainly as a tutor to Christ and as a convictor of sin, not as a salvific covenant. As Paul says in Galatians 3:19: “Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions.” But if it was the convictor of sin and, as Paul says in Gal 3:22, it “shut up all men under sin,” then it had to be revoked in order to free men from its condemning grip.

The Abrahamic covenant, in being a salvation covenant for the world, was originally made when Abraham was a Gentile, for Paul makes the point that Abraham received the promises BEFORE he was circumcised. That is why Paul says in Galatians 3:6-8 that nations’ salvation was in view when God made the promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:3.

AS:  In like fashion the Mosaic Law  and its promises have been transferred to the Church.  The morality of the OT, several of the prayer forms, and our attitude towards liturgy is part of our patrimony from Judaism.  So are Purgatory, the Decalogue, the oneness of God, and the witness of the OT to Christ.

RS: I heartily agree, but we borrow from the Mosaic law just as the US Constitution borrowed from the Magna Carta, as a practical help in guiding us, not as an in-force and valid legal entity that demands we accept its principles under pains of death and damnation. The Old Testament is very valuable. I read and study it more than the New Testament. But as I said about Matthew 5:17-19, once any portion of the OT “Law and Prophets” are fulfilled, then according to what Jesus said, that portion passes away. We merely keep the memory of them when we incorporate their principles in our own New Covenant worship.

AS: The OT covenants have not been revoked.  They remain in force but with the coming of Christ they have been superceded and their benefits have been transferred to us. 

RS: Again, you need to be careful with your language, and you need to make the proper distinction between legal and non-legal, otherwise you do an injustice to all the passages in Hebrews that speak of the revoking of the Old Covenant. “Revoke” is normally a legal term, and superseded means that the previous entity has been replaced. If the Mosaic law is not revoked, in the legal sense, then Colossians 2:14-15 is wrong and the Law will still condemn us.

AS: As to the symbolism of the Seder in the Mass, I am surprised that you have not understood what I meant.  Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Third cup of the Seder when the unleavened Afikomen was eaten.  This Afikomen was the 2nd of three matzohs hidden until the end of the meal which had been was broken before being hidden. It was originally eaten with the last piece of the Passover Lamb and is considered to represent the Passover Lamb.  (For us Christians, that is the Lamb of God.) The Third Cup was the Birkat Hamazon "the cup of blessing/redemption".  It is self-explanatory.  Jesus drank the Fourth cup on the cross which consummated the Seder and represented the End Times which are the times in which we live. Understanding the Seder the celebration of the redemption of the Hebrews from bondage in Egypt also celebrates their redemption from sin.  It is this imagery that Jesus carried over into the Mass.

RS: That is certainly possible, but it is not provable, because the Gospels simply don’t mention anything about Four cups. Moreover, the Greek words that are used in the Gospel accounts are often devoid of Jewish seder background. I’ve written on this in the past, but I don’t want to get into it now. Understanding the Old Covenant’s revocation is much more important.