It was my pleasure to meet you and to hear your observations concerning the Passover. Let me briefly reiterate your argument to be sure I understand. In the Law (Exodus chapter 12), Moses specified three foods to be eaten for the Passover meal: the roast lamb, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs. But the Jews added other foods to this meal while keeping the specified three. The Lord, who never sinned, provided divine approval for these additions when He not only ate the Passover according to the traditional Jewish manner, but specifically included the fruit of the vine, the cup of wine Jewish tradition demanded. Thus, divine authority is not exclusive; as long as we observe the required commands, we may add other items as long as they are not forbidden.

You are certainly correct that three items of food and only three are specified for the Passover meal by the Law (Exodus 12:8). It is also undoubtedly true that wine was added to the feast as a tradition of the Jews. “The use of wine in the Paschal Supper, though not mentioned in the Law, was strictly enjoined by tradition” (Alfred Edersheim, The Temple Its Ministry and Services, chapter 12, at Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Not only did Christ Jesus follow this tradition, He incorporated the cup into the New Testament as part of the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 26:27-29, et al). I also observe that the Lord, in keeping with Jewish tradition as it stood early in the first century, ate dip from a dish (Matthew 26:23, et al).

Before I analyze this further, I think we both need to consider the ramifications of this line of reason. If your argument is valid, then Luther was correct in retaining the Catholic practices of infant baptism and instrumental music in worship, for they are nowhere forbidden in the New Testament. Furthermore, we have no grounds upon which to oppose the polygamy of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or of Muslims other than civil law, for the New Testament does not forbid polygamy. I think we will agree that those are very serious consequences of your argument.

I believe this is a matter of general, or generic, authority based on necessary implication. The Scriptures authorize action by things they necessarily imply but do not specifically mention. Even if no apostle had specifically stated that Jesus is the Christ, the Scriptures necessarily imply He is through fulfilled prophecy (cf. Acts 17:1-3). The Passover was a feast (Exodus 34:25; Matthew 26:17). A feast implies something to drink with the food. The Lord did not specify any certain drink. Therefore the Jews had the liberty to use any drink not forbidden by divine law. According to tradition, "Red wine alone was to be used at the Paschal Supper, and always mixed with water" (Ibid).

The same principle was true of the dish into which the bitter herbs were dipped. "The 'bitter herbs' seem to have been twice partaken of during the service, once dipped in salt water or vinegar, and a second time with Charoseth, a compound of dates, raisins, etc., and vinegar" (Ibid). This was simply a way of serving the bitter herbs and did not introduce another element to the meal.

No other items are mentioned in the New Testament in connection with the Passover, nor is there evidence that any other items were a part of the Passover as observed by first century Jews.

I therefore conclude that, while the Passover as eaten by the Lord provides an interesting study of the nature of authority, it does not contradict the fact that divine authority is exclusive. We must have authority from the Lord Jesus Christ for all we practice (Colossians 3:17; 2 Timothy 1:13; 2 John 9).