Is the Paschal Lamb a Type of the Mass?

 

Bellarmine (De Missa, Book I, Chapter 7) makes the argument that the Passover lamb was not only a type of the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, but also of the Eucharist, the Roman Mass. He produces a number of arguments in favor of this idea, each of which will be examined and refuted here in this section of my book.

Here is his first argument:

“The fact that the celebration of the Paschal Lamb was a figure of the celebration of the Eucharist is proven firstly from Scripture. 1 Corinthians 5:7, “Christ our Pasch has been immolated, let us feast … on the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” From this passage we can constitute for certain that the Paschal Lamb which is called the Pasch in the Gospel, was a figure of the immolation of Christ…..it is certain from the Gospel that before the passion of Christ the Apostles ate the flesh of Christ in the Last Supper, and hence ate the true Paschal Lamb, the feasting upon which the Apostle exhorts us to when he says, “Therefore let us feast on the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” But the feast follows the immolation; for first, the lamb had to be immolated, then eaten, not the other way around. So, the immolation of Christ should precede that eating of the Last Supper which the Apostles did before the passion of the Lord. Therefore, not only is the passion the immolation about which Paul is speaking, but also the consecration and oblation of the Eucharist prefigured by the immolation of the Paschal Lamb.” (Robert Bellarmine)

I answer; the tables can be turned on this argument quite easily by noting that the Paschal Lamb was slain before it was eaten, whereas the Last Supper was eaten before Christ was slain on the cross, therefore Bellarmine’s argument collapses. 

The cardinal’s second argument is that since the Eucharist was instituted by Christ at the time of Passover and the offering of the Paschal Lamb, that therefore the Eucharist was the antitype of the Paschal Lamb.

I answer: types are not by necessity fulfilled at the same time as when they were originally performed. For example, the High Priest’s entrance into the Holy of Holies was a type of Christ’s ascension into heaven (Hebrews 9:24), but these events did not occur at the same time, in the sense that they were most likely at different times of the year.  Add to that the fact that the Eucharist is not always celebrated on the fourteenth day of the first month of the year, as the Paschal Lamb was (Exodus 12:6)

Bellarmine’s third argument is that just as the Paschal Lamb was slain by the Israelites in remembrance of their deliverance from Egypt, so also the Eucharist is slain in remembrance of Christ’s suffering for the cross on our behalf, and that therefore the Paschal Lamb is a type of the Mass.

I answer: It is the original and first Passover that is primarily the type of Christ’s passion on the cross, and not every single Passover that was offered throughout history by the Jews. The first Passover typifies Christ’s passion in that both were deliverance from bondage, one from bondage in Egypt, the other being deliverance from bondage to sin, death, and the devil.

Bellarmine’s fourth argument is as follows: “the lamb was immolated so that it could be eaten and was like a viaticum for wayfarers; thus, it was eaten by the Jews, the habit of wayfarers carrying before themselves with staffs, chalices, etc. And what else is the Eucharist but a refreshment and viaticum for wayfarers to the true and heavenly homeland?” (Bellarmine)

I answer: The passion of Christ on the cross is our hope for entering into heaven, whereas the Eucharist is but a sacrament signifying that reality for Christians.

The cardinal’s fifth argument is that “the lamb could not be eaten except by the circumcised, and the clean, and in Jerusalem; so the Eucharist cannot be taken except by those who have been Baptized, cleansed, and are within the Catholic Church.” 

I answer that Bellarmine shows his ignorance of typological interpretation and makes many things which are most likely not so. We could apply his reasoning against him, by inferring that the Paschal Lamb was not a type of the Eucharist, since it was not carried about in procession as the Eucharist is within Roman Catholicism.

In spite of all this, even if one were to grant that the Paschal lamb is a type of the Eucharist, this would not serve the purpose of Romanists. This is because it is possible to consider the Paschal Lamb as a type of the Eucharist in a variety of ways besides the sacrificial aspect. For example, one might say that just as the Paschal Lamb was a sacrament of the Jewish church during the Old Testament period, so also the Eucharist is a sacrament of the New Testament church.