5

Related:
- Is there any significance to using φάγω vs ἐσθίω?
- In Luke 22, How Should Prepare and Eat - be Translated from the Aorist Subjunctive?
- In the early church, was the Last Supper Considered a Passover Feast?


1. Question:

  1. In Luke 22:15 - Luke 22:16 - Does the Syntax indicate, whether Jesus was going to:

    • A.) Stop, and no longer (οὐκέτι) eat the current Passover;

    • B.) Not going to eat the current Passover - at all;

    • or C.) Not going to eat all future Passovers?


2. The Text

Luke 22:15 - With desire, I have desired to eat this Passover with you ... Luke 22:16 - Indeed I say to you: No Longer - no, I cannot eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

Not partaking of that Passover might be supported by the texts:

Exodus 12:8 - eat the flesh at night, roasted with fire, with unleavened bread, and eat it with bitter herbs.

NASB, Matthew 27:34, Interlinear - they gave Him wine to drink mixed with gall | χολῆς, (bitter herbs); and after tasting it, He was unwilling to drink.

Mark 15:23 They tried to give Him wine mixed with myrrh; but He did not take it. Mark 15:36 - Someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine;


3. How Should the Syntax Affect the Conclusion?

  1. Aorist Tense: A.) In Luke 22:15 and Luke 22:16, How should the Aorist Tense of Desired | ἐπεθύμησα and Eat | φάγω be represented in English? B.) Could οὐκέτι, and the Aorist, indicate that the act of Eating the Passover Feast had already started - but that Jesus was going to stop?

  2. Singular Pronouns: Does the inflection of "it", (singular) - indicate that the Passover Jesus would not Eat in Luke 22:16, was the same as: "this Passover" in Luke 22:16?

In Different Questions:

  1. Word Choices, (Answered in Another Question): Why are both Eat / φάγω and Eat / ἐσθίω used in these contexts? Could one imply "a Feast", and the other "a Simple meal"?

  2. Negative Subjective, (Broken Out into a Separate Question): A.) How should this Negative Subjunctive of Eat / φάγω be translated? B.) Is οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ, (three negatives) an emphatic construction?

NOTE: This question asks if the Greek Syntax and Semantic Range indicates an answer.

  • 1
    Related to question #2: Is there any significance to using φάγω vs ἐσθίω?. Different passage, same morphologic curiosity (cf. suppletion). – Susan Apr 1 '16 at 18:51
  • @Susan - Thank you. A.) Would it be reasonable to assert that the weight of the "Suppletion" explanation would override any argument, that: one of those verbs could connote "feasting", and the other "simple meals" ? – elika kohen Apr 1 '16 at 18:55
  • 1
    I think so, unless that could be shown to be a tense/mood/aspect distinction rather than a lexical distinction. – Susan Apr 1 '16 at 18:57
  • Why does it feel that the answers already understood, but looking for confirmation? If so, what about this question gives you trouble? – Decrypted Apr 1 '16 at 20:32
  • Does this mean it teeters on "until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God."? A.) How do you consider "it"? B.) What needs to be fulfilled? C.) Do we have knowledge that it was fulfilled? D.) How can it be proved? – Decrypted Apr 2 '16 at 0:11
0

Without addressing the Greek language, there are many who take both sides in interpreting this:

Some say he did eat the Passover with them.

Some say he did not eat the Passover with them.

I am open to whatever makes sense.

Note some of the following details and information, some of which may bear upon the answer:

The wording about his desire might indicate that he really wished he could partake with them. Might this imply that he could not?

I am unaware of any of the accounts indicating that there was cooked lamb at The Last Supper. This may or may not be indicative of whether The Last Supper was an actual Passover meal or something else.

Perhaps he was not to eat of it because he was to become "our Passover sacrificed for us"!

Some have suggested the he was Pescatarian, and might have not desired to eat most Passovers (that included flesh from a lamb), but during this one something incredibly special was to occur.

Perhaps he was expressing his great sentiment to be with them, regardless of the circumstances, or even dietary choices that may have been made by him and/or by certain or all of the Apostles. (I am aware of what it says in Romans 14 and other passages regarding diet.)

The killing of the Passover lamb seems to be unmentioned anywhere in the accounts. Not wishing to build an argument from silence – which I think would be weak here – it is conceivable that the sacrifice had not been made yet.

Some have believed that he was killed or impaled or died at the time that the Passover lamb would have been. (I haven't examined this claim.) Might the timing of his whipping be relevant? ("By his stripes we are healed.") Of his beating? Of the placement of the "crown of thorns"?

Tangential or not: It is conceivable that that year, the Jews had started the year on an incorrect day. In certain traditions, the year began on a day that was related to the sighting of barley ears (or something like that). New Moons were a tricky thing in some traditions too. What if they got it wrong that year?

Note that in the original post, you wrote "eat it", but the Greek word "autos" says "thereof" (in a linked Interlinear) meaning in English "of it". I don't know whether or not this is significant. But I did notice the difference.

Note the significant phrase "between the two evenings", which some source says was when the Passover was to be slain. This is also a phrase (from some source) that some have argued indicates a hint at the darkness that came over the land: Thus, Yahshua of Nazareth could have fulfilled that phrase (technically), regardless of the actual timing in relation to the regular Passover timings.

Passover timing: There has been discussion that there was some disagreement as to when the Passover was to be done or celebrated. There has even been discussion that there was disagreement as to which day was actually the Passover! I don't know all the ins and outs of all this, but perhaps it differed among various groups.... (I may have heard that it differed among the Samaritans?) Today, of course, there are differing traditions as to how and when to do Passover and/or other "Holy Days" (feasts, fast, etc.). On one calendar it may show that in the "Diaspora" (in this usage, meaning outside of Israel), two (2) days may be required for or other-wise kept for a certain event! (but not necessarily for all events).

Because he was to become "our Passover sacrificed for us" – and because he may have been given authority (as the Son of Man may have had authority over Sabbath) – he might have had the authority to institute a different day for Passover! For while the original meal and time spent were significant to the Israelites in the events of the Tenth Plague passing over them (and of part(s) of their Exodus), so too the sacrifice of Yahshua of Nazareth, as he tasted death for all people, was significant to all peoples. Perhaps a NEW Passover was being made – one in which not only could the Jews celebrate fully, but – one in which all nations could partake! (I have never heard this or read this before. It just came to me as I was typing this today.)

Some interesting things to think about?

  • 1
    Welcome to Biblical Hermeneutics. Some tips for the future. Remember, this is not a discussion board, rather an academic question and answer site. You answer, although interesting, does include a lot of speculation. Also, you don't site any sources. This site is interested in answering the questioners exact question and supporting that answer with evidence, either biblical or extra-biblical. Thanks. – alb May 12 '18 at 16:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.