Many churches claim that they hold this observance in conjunction with all their other feasts, but most commemorate it differently from the way Jesus commanded. Perhaps the most noteworthy difference is the frequency of the celebration. Some churches celebrate it monthly, weekly, even daily.

The Passover was an annual celebration. Logically, then, so is the Memorial. The Passover​—the day Jesus died—​always fell on the 14th day of the Jewish month Nisan. Hence, Christ’s death should be memorialized once a year on the calendar day that corresponds to Nisan 14. In 1994 that day is Saturday, March 26, after sundown. Why is it, though, that churches of Christendom have not made this a day for special observance? A brief look at history will answer that question.

Apostolic Custom in Danger

There is no doubt that during the first century C.E., those guided by Jesus’ apostles celebrated the Lord’s Evening Meal exactly as he had commanded. However, during the second century, some started to change the time of its commemoration. They held the Memorial on the first day of the week (now called Sunday), not on the day corresponding to Nisan 14. Why was that done?

For the Jews, a day started at about six o’clock in the evening and ran until the same time the following day. Jesus died on Nisan 14, 33 C.E., which ran from Thursday evening to Friday evening. He was resurrected on the third day, early Sunday morning. Some wanted the commemoration of Jesus’ death to be observed on a fixed day of the week each year, instead of on the day on which Nisan 14 happened to fall. They also viewed the day of Jesus’ resurrection as more important than that of his death. Hence, they settled on Sunday.

Jesus commanded that his death be memorialized, not his resurrection. And since the Jewish Passover falls on a different day each year according to the Gregorian calendar that we now use, it is only natural that the same would be true of the Memorial. Many therefore stuck to the original arrangement and observed the Lord’s Evening Meal on Nisan 14 each year. In time they came to be called Quartodecimans, meaning “Fourteenthers.”

Some scholars recognized that these “Fourteenthers” were following the original apostolic pattern. One historian said: “As regards the day for observing the Pascha [the Lord’s Evening Meal], the usage of the Quartodeciman churches of Asia was continuous with that of the Jerusalem church. In the 2nd century these churches at their Pascha on the 14th of Nisan commemorated the redemption effected by the death of Christ.”​—Studia Patristica, Volume V, 1962, page 8.

A Dispute Grows

While many in Asia Minor followed the apostolic practice, Sunday was set aside for observance in Rome. About the year 155 C.E., Polycarp of Smyrna, a representative of the Asian congregations, visited Rome to discuss this and other problems. Unhappily, no agreement was reached on this matter.

Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in a letter: “Neither could Anicetus [of Rome] persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord and the other apostles with whom he consorted; nor yet did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, for he said that he ought to hold to the custom of the elders before him.” (Eusebius, Book 5, chapter 24) Note that Polycarp reportedly based his stand on the authority of the apostles, whereas Anicetus appealed to the custom of previous elders in Rome.

This dispute intensified toward the end of the second century C.E. About 190 C.E., a certain Victor was elected bishop of Rome. He believed that the Lord’s Evening Meal should be observed on a Sunday, and he sought the support of as many other leaders as possible. Victor pressured the Asiatic congregations to change to the Sunday arrangement.

Replying on behalf of those in Asia Minor, Polycrates of Ephesus refused to bow to this pressure. He said: “We keep the day without tampering with it, neither adding, nor subtracting.” He then listed many authorities, including the apostle John. “These all,” he maintained, “observed the fourteenth day for the Pascha according to the Gospel, in no way deviating therefrom.” Polycrates added: “I for my part, brethren, . . . am not affrighted by threats. For those better than I have said, We must obey God rather than men.”​—Eusebius, Book 5, chapter 24.

Victor was displeased with this reply. One historical work says that he “excommunicated all the Asiatic Churches, and sent his circular letters to all Churches that were of his opinion, that they should hold no communion with them.” However, “this rash and bold act of his was ill resented by all wise and sober men of his own party, several of whom wrote sharply to him, advising him . . . to preserve charity, unity, and peace.”​—Bingham’s Antiquities of the Christian Church, Book 20, chapter 5.

Apostasy Institutionalized

Despite such protests, the Christians in Asia Minor became increasingly isolated on the issue of when to celebrate the Lord’s Evening Meal. Variations had crept in elsewhere. Some celebrated the whole period from Nisan 14 through the following Sunday. Others were holding the occasion more frequently​—weekly on Sunday.

In 314 C.E. the Council of Arles (France) tried to force the Roman arrangement and suppress any alternative. The remaining Quartodecimans held out. In order to settle this and other matters that were dividing the professed Christians in his empire, in 325 C.E. the pagan emperor Constantine called an ecumenical synod, the Council of Nicaea. It issued a decree that instructed all in Asia Minor to conform to the Roman usage.

It is interesting to note one of the principal arguments advanced for abandoning the observing of the Memorial of Christ’s death according to the date on the Jewish calendar. A History of the Christian Councils, by K. J. Hefele, states: “It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom (the calculation) of the Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded.” (Volume 1, page 322) To be in such a position was viewed as a “‘humiliating subjection’ to the Synagogue which irked the Church,” says J. Juster, quoted in Studia Patristica, Volume IV, 1961, page 412.

Anti-Semitism! Those who celebrated the Memorial of Jesus’ death on the same day that he died were viewed as Judaizers. It was forgotten that Jesus himself was a Jew and that he had given the day its meaning by then offering his life in behalf of mankind. From then on, the Quartodecimans were censured as heretics and schismatics and were persecuted. The Council of Antioch in 341 C.E. decreed that they were to be excommunicated. Nevertheless, there were still many of them in 400 C.E., and they persisted in small numbers long thereafter.

Since those days, Christendom has failed to return to Jesus’ original arrangement. Professor William Bright admitted: “When a special day, Good Friday, came to be devoted to the commemoration of the Passion as such, it was too late to restrict to it the ‘paschal’ associations which St. Paul had connected with the sacrificial death: they had been freely applied to the Resurrection-festival itself, and a confusion of ideas established itself in the ritual language of Greek and Latin Christendom.”​—The Age of the Fathers, Volume 1, page 102.