On the Sacraments and the argument to how they were instituted by Christ

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that only the Apostles were present.

It says that Jesus sat at the table with the twelve but it does not say that they were alone, not does it say that no one else received.

All present would have participated in the Passover. No Jew would have abstained from the Passover Seder.

-Tim-

Nowhere does it even hint that others were present. What we do know from what it says is that Jesus and the 12 were present. Anything beyond that is speculation.

The argument about who was there and who wasn’t is really beside the point. It has not much to do with the issue of Holy Orders.

No one knows who was there exactly to the person. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that Jesus’ disciples (all of them) would be, or could be, present.

If you insist on the literalist interpretation of “the twelve” as “exclusively the twelve” then you will run into many other difficulties in scripture interpretation.

Here’s an example:
Scripture says that Joseph “took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son”.
What does that mean? Does “kept her a virgin until” literally mean she gave up her virginity after the “until”?
No. The word is not exclusive of the other possibility.

It is not speculation but a matter of how the Passover Seder meal was performed.

They would have sat on one side of a low table or U shaped table, or reclined on the floor in a similar way, and would have been served from the empty side of the table. Women would have been present to serve. The women would have been Jews and would have taken part in the Passover ritual. This is historical fact, not speculation.

It isn’t difficult to imagine that some of the Apostles had family with them. Passover was celebrated with one’s family and all Jews were to go to Jerusalem for the Passover if possible. A wife would not have celebrated Passover without her husband if she were in the same city.

It’s not besides the point. The OP didn’t just mention holy orders. He mentioned the Eucharist.

One of the OP’s premises was that the Apostles and Jesus were alone and therefor the Eucharist was only for the Apostles. It is however, all but impossible that the twelve Apostles and Jesus were alone.

-Tim-

Right. I agree with you. I am saying that the validity and nature of Holy Orders has nothing to do with the fact that families or others might have been there.
The fact that others may have been there has nothing to do with Holy Orders.

Ok yes, the point is relevant to the OP.

Cool Peace. I’m going to ride my new bicycle now. :thumbsup:

If I’m understanding you, you mean the number 12 is not to be literally understood as “12”.
(It just means for example “some” or “quite a few”, …)

Here’s an example:
Scripture says that Joseph “took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son”.
What does that mean? Does “kept her a virgin until” literally mean she gave up her virginity after the “until”?
No. The word is not exclusive of the other possibility.

Totally different. “till” or “until” is not used only to mean there was a change afterwards. There are other instances where the word means nothing changed afterwards. (allstswwv.org/Orthodox%20Study%20Forum/Lessons/Virginity%20of%20Mary.htm)
(Eg. I might tell my husband I’ll love him till I die. That doesn’t mean I won’t love him when I’m in heaven.)

Can you supply some examples from Scripture where “12” didn’t literally mean “12”?

I would like to ask the learned members on this thread, who assert women and servants WERE also present at the last supper.

How would the preamble to the meal where Jesus washes the feet of the 12, fit within that argument.
Jesus was their Rabbi which means Master/Teacher. How would that event be understood by the other people supposedly present.

If you still conclude that there were other people there. Would Jesus have washed their feet also? If (no) why? same as if (yes)
Finally after the meal was concluded we are told that Jesus went to the garden. Did the women and servants also accompany HIM there?

That’s exactly the point. :shrug:

Can you supply some examples from Scripture where “12” didn’t literally mean “12”?

No I can’t and I’m not interested. What would be the point? I’m not a literalist. In fact the Catholic Church is not literalist in it’s reading of Scripture.

Timothy and others have a much better grasp of the historical context.
BTW our pastor is a scripture scholar and his take is along the lines of Tim’s… that it would be expected to have others around.

:o That’s what happens when I answer in a rush because I have to dash off. Later, when I reread your post and my response, I wanted to delete my post, or at least that part of it, but of course, it was way to late to do so.

No I can’t and I’m not interested. What would be the point? I’m not a literalist.

The “point” is that whenever the number 12 is used in the gospels in reference to Jesus’ followers, it means the 12 apostles - the 12 who were chosen/appointed by Jesus and whose 12 names are recorded in a couple of the gospels.
And I do know that numbers are often used symbolically or non-literally in Scripture, but the number 12, when used in the gospels in reference to the disciples, is not one of those instances.

Timothy and others have a much better grasp of the historical context.
BTW our pastor is a scripture scholar and his take is along the lines of Tim’s… that it would be expected to have others around.

And there are probably other Scripture scholars who have an even better grasp of the historical context than Timothy or you who would disagree with that interpretation.

I asked earlier for some sort of support for your and Timothy’s interpretation - support in Church documents, Scripture, writings of early Church fathers and/or saints, etc. Neither of you have given one single citation.

My biggest objection is that you present your interpretation as fact!!! - not opinion/speculation. And the only basis you offer for that assertion is your personal rationale - and “grasp of the historical context”.

Celebrating Passover with family is not speculation. It is a matter of historic fact that Passover was celebrated with family.

Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom; and when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, but supposing him to be in the company they went a day’s journey, and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances; (Luke 2:41-44)

Extended family and sometimes whole villages traveled together to Jerusalem for the Passover. The text above shows that Mary and Joseph’s family and friends were with them. How Passover was celebrated is common knowledge, not speculation.

*Pilgrimages to Jerusalem to attend the Passover (Luke 2:41), the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2), and other major religious events were the social highlights of the villager’s year. Religious obligations could be fulfilled while leaving enough time to shop, to see family and old friend, and to pass on to the young the importance of their cultural heritage.

  • Manners and Customs in the Bible: An Illustrated Guide to Daily Life in Bible Times, Hendrickson Publishers, 2006, Victor H. Matthews*

God commanded the first Passover to be eaten by the household or multiple households together and that is the way it was celebrated ever since, even to this very day. It is almost impossible for the Apostles and Jesus to have been alone and this renders the OP’s premise that the Eucharist was only for Apostles because only the Apostles were there highly unlikely at best.

-Tim-

I am aware of all that. That would be the norm.
But this was not going to be just a normal Passover meal. It was going to be special and different. During this Passover meal Jesus intended to “ordain” the first priest New Covenant priests, present to them the form of the New Covenant sacrifice (cf Lk 22:20) which they were subsequently charged to offer as the New Covenant priests (“Do this…”).

Jesus knew He was going to be doing all this; He had “eagerly desired to eat this Passover” with them. Arrangements were made accordingly.

Time to get ready for Mass

Just want to add the following to my previous post.
If there were any family members also in Jerusalem, other arrangements could easily have been made (possibly eating with the owner of the house; other relatives; …)
I assume other followers/disciples of Jesus would just have made their own normal arrangements with their families.

Jesus “knew that His hour had come to depart out of this world” and there were further things He wanted to teach/say to the apostles. Quite lengthy actually. Chapters 13-17 in John’s gospel.

(Apologies for the grammatical errors in my previous post #32. Do not like it when I cut things so close that there’s no time to review and edit a post.)

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.