Tag: Passover

The Ancient Israelite Festivals: Passover (Part 4)

Passover—Part 4:
Early Christian Tradition

Note: This belated article concludes a series begun earlier this year (cf. Parts 1, 2, and 3); I regret not having the opportunity to post it in a more timely manner.

Paul and the New Testament

It is somewhat surprising that, apart from the Gospels, the festival of Passover (and its symbolism) is hardly mentioned in the New Testament at all. There is a passing historical notice in Acts 12:4, and the author of Hebrews mentions the original historical tradition (and Exodus narrative, cf. Part 1) in 11:28, but without touching upon the typology and symbolism in relation to the death of Jesus (Part 3).

It may be assumed that the earliest Christians—specifically the Jewish Christians in Judea and Syria-Palestine—continued to celebrate the Passover festival in the traditional manner. Christian elements, based on the Gospel Tradition, may have been added to the celebration, but there is no clear evidence for this. There are several allusions to Paul celebrating the festivals (Acts 20:16; 1 Cor 16:8), but these are not entirely unambiguous, and, in any case, Passover is not mentioned in this regard.

The only significant reference to Passover in the New Testament (outside of the Gospels) is by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:6-8. The way in which he draws upon the Passover tradition here suggests that it has been ‘spiritualized’, with no idea at all about the Corinthians actually celebrating the Jewish festival; rather, one ‘celebrates’ the festival only in the ethical-religious sense of removing the ‘leaven’ of sin and immorality. This is not so very different from Philo of Alexandria’s interpretation, such as in On the Preliminary Studies (§169), where he interprets the leaven as symbolizing “the sweetnesses of the pleasures according to the body, or the light and unsubstantial elations of the soul,” which are “by their own intrinsic nature profane and unholy” (Yonge translation). Philo makes this statement (cf. also On the Special Laws I.291-3) in the context of the sacrificial regulations (in Lev 2:11), but it could apply just as well to Passover and the festival of Unleavened bread. For more on Philo’s allegorical and ethical-philosophical interpretation of Passover, cf. the discussion in Part 2.

The context in which Paul makes his Passover reference is the issue of sexual immorality, and the specific case, addressed in chapter 5 (vv. 1-5). Paul attacks the willingness of the Corinthians to tolerate immorality and to continue associating with a person engaged in such behavior. He clearly is not limiting his instruction to a particular kind of sin only, as the general instruction in vv. 9-12 makes clear. He ends his instruction with the strong exhortation for the Corinthians to “take out [i.e. remove] the evil (person) from you (your)selves” (v. 13), which would be an application of the Passover symbolism of removing the leaven (v. 7).

Let us consider briefly Paul’s specific use of the Passover tradition in vv. 6-8. He begins:

“Your boasting (is) not good. Have you not seen that a little fermentation [zu/mh] ferments [zumoi=] the whole mass of dough?”

The Greek word zu/mh (“fermenting, fermentation”) in the LXX translates both ra)c= (the leavening agent) and Jm@j* (the sourdough that has been leavened), and is used in the instructions for Passover in Exodus 12-13 (12:15, 19; 13:3, 7). The natural process of working the fermenting agent throughout a mass of dough (fu/rama) is utilized as an ethical-religious illustration, much as Philo uses the same imagery (cf. above). Interestingly, in the Gospel tradition, in the teachings of Jesus, leaven can serve as both a negative (Mk 8:15 par) and positive (Matt 13:33 / Lk 13:21) symbol.

The ethical-religious exhortation, applying the leaven-symbolism, comes in verse 7:

“Clean out the old fermentation [zu/mh], (so) that you might be a new mass of dough [fu/rama], just as you are without fermentation [a&zumoi].”

Paul states that the Corinthian believers are, themselves, “without leaven” (a&zumoi), which refers to their corporate status as believers in Christ, the emphasis being on their identity as a community of believers. In this regard the “leaven” refers to an instance of (individual) sin which, if unchecked, can infect the entire community. Paul uses the same proverbial saying regarding leaven in Gal 5:9, where his concern, though involving different issues, was also that the community of believers would become distorted through the teaching and influence of certain individuals. The “new mass of dough” refers to the cleansed community—purged of the instance of immorality that had not been dealt with properly (within the community), and by which sin had thus been allowed to take root. Such leaven is called “old” (palaio/$) because it represents a vestige of the old way of life, before the Corinthian believers came to trust in Jesus, when they would have willingly followed the sinful ways and habits of the society around them.

“For our Pesaµ, (the) Anointed, has been slaughtered; so then, let us celebrate the festival, not with old fermentation [zu/mh], and not with fermentation of badness and evil, but with (bread) without fermentation [plur. a&zumoi] of clear judgment and (the) truth.” (vv. 7b-8)

Here Paul alludes more clearly to the Passover festival. Once the lamb has been slaughtered (vb qu/w), on the afternoon of Passover Eve (14 Nisan), then it will be time for the people to celebrate the festival in the evening. Paul’s reference to the sacrificial death of Jesus, in the context here, probably relates to the idea that the death of Jesus served to free believers from their bondage to the power of sin (cf. my recent notes on Rom 6:1-11 and 7:6). One no longer need to follow the old ways of sin and immorality, nor to tolerate them within the Community. Instead of the “old” way of the leaven of sin, believers should follow the “new” way in Christ.

In v. 7, Paul declared that believers themselves were “without leaven” (plur. adj. a&zumoi); here he states that believers should celebrate the Passover festival (symbolically) with bread that is “without leaven” (same plural adjective, a&zumoi). Clearly Paul is referring to the eating of unleavened bread in the Passover meal, and of Passover as marking the beginning of the festival of Unleavened bread (cf. the discussion in Part 1). There is no suggestion that the Corinthian Christians (or any believers, for that matter) need to actually celebrate the Jewish festival; rather, the celebration is figurative and symbolic, occurring at the ethical (and spiritual) level. This celebration done with ‘bread’ of clear judgment (ei)likrinh/$) and the truth (a)lh/qeia) is reminiscent of the saying of Jesus in John 4:23-24 (on which, cf. my recent note).

By identifying Jesus with the Passover lamb that is slaughtered, Paul is making an association that is not part of the Synoptic Gospel tradition. However, as we have seen, it is part of the Johannine Gospel tradition (cf. the discussion in Part 3), and the reference by Paul here indicates that other Christians (and groups of believers) had made the same connection. It is even possible that Paul shared with the Johannine Gospel the idea that Jesus’ death occurred on the afternoon of Passover Eve (14 Nisan), more or less at the same time that the lambs were being slaughtered.

The book of Revelation seems specifically to follow the Johannine tradition with its prominent identification of Jesus as the Lamb of God (Jn 1:29, 36). This imagery first appears in the throne vision of chap. 5, where it is central to the scene (vv. 6ff; 6:1). Of particular importance in the book of Revelation is the connection between the lamb-motif and the sacrificial death of Jesus—both by referring specifically to the Lamb being slain (5:6, 12; 13:8), and by references to its blood (7:14; 12:11; and note the wine-blood imagery [emphasizing the coming Judgment] in 14:11ff). These references to the lamb being slain probably derive primarily from the Passover tradition, though there may also be influence from Isa 53:7-8 (cf. Acts 8:32ff), as well as from the broader tradition of sacrificial offerings (cf. again the discussion in Part 3).

Another possible allusion to the Passover lamb is found in 1 Peter 1:19, where the blood of Jesus is compared to that of a lamb “without blemish [a&mwmo$] and without spot [a&spilo$]”. While such a description (with the use of the adjective a&mwmo$) is more common to the sacrificial offerings (for sin, etc), as detailed in Lev 1:3, etc, it also applies to the Passover lamb (Exod 12:5).

Passover in late-1st and 2nd century Christianity

In the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers (c. 90-160 A.D.), there are almost no references or allusions to Passover at all (cf. Diognetus 12:9). Probably the earliest discussion of note is found in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, where he discusses the true nature of the Passover, according to the Christian interpretation. The Passover lamb, referred to as “the lamb of God” (Jn 1:29, 36), is identified as a figure-type fulfilled by Jesus Christ through his sacrificial death (§40, cf. also §111). In his debate with Trypho (a Jew), Justin ties observance of the Passover festival to the broader concept of a person’s relationship to the Old Testament/Jewish Law (the Torah regulations), framing the matter in Pauline terms—i.e., one is saved only through faith in Christ, not by observing the Torah (§46).

Gradually, the separation from Judaism led to Christians viewing the celebration of the actual Jewish festival in a negative light. The pseudo-Ignatian letter to the Philippians illustrates this, in the case of Passover, by essentially prohibiting Christians from participating in the Jewish festival—by taking part in it they would be participating with the ones “who killed the Lord and his apostles” (§14).

This reluctance to follow the Jewish festival led to considerable controversy, in the second century, among Christians in different sectors of the Church, regarding the date for celebrating Easter and the timing of when (and how) to commemorate the death of Jesus. Working from the historical Gospel tradition and early (Jewish) Christian practice, Easter was regularly celebrated on the Sunday after the Jewish Passover (14/15 Nisan). Tertullian (in On Fasting §14) is a good representative of the Christian sentiment against continuing to follow the Jewish calendar. He also makes clear that commemoration (through fasting) of Jesus’ death should not take place on a Lord’s Day (Sunday), but on the Friday prior (cf. On Prayer 18, On Baptism 19, De Corona 3).

There were Christians, especially in Asia Minor, who continued to celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus on 14 Nisan, according to the Jewish calendar, regardless of which day of the week this was; they were referred to as “Quartodecimans”, in reference to the fourteenth day of the month. This practice was in conflict with the developing tradition in other regions. In the minds of many in the Church, there were two problematic points at issue: (1) the prospect of commemorating Jesus’ death on a Sunday (Lord’s Day), and (2) the growing belief that Jesus’ resurrection should (always) be celebrated on the Lord’s Day. The points of tension, and differences in practice, led to protracted controversy (or series of controversies) regarding the determination of the proper date/time for celebrating the death and resurrection of Jesus.

There were numerous attempts at resolving these conflicts. In 154, for example, the distinguished bishop Polycarp (of Smyrna in Asia Minor) discussed the matter at Rome with bishop Anicetus. The situation was complicated by the influence of the Montanists, who celebrated the Pascha (Passover/Easter) on a fixed date (April 7) according to the Egyptian calendar. Bishop Victor of Rome was inclined to the Montanist views, and was also particularly hostile to the ‘judaizing’ practice of the Quartodecimans of Asia Minor. Councils were called in order to establish an orthodox standard, and to exclude the churches in Asia Minor that would not comply. The view of the Asia Minor churches, in response, was ably represented by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus. Cf. the account of Eusebius, Church History 5.23-25.

There were additional complications related to the precise calculation for the Christian celebration; in these efforts, Christians in the late-2nd century continued to struggle with the legacy of the Jewish Passover festival. There were Christians who continued to follow the Jewish calendar, using 14/15 Nisan as standard. Others used the first full moon of the corresponding month as the standard, or the full moon following the spring equinox. If the full moon fell on a Sunday, then, for some, Easter would need be celebrated on the following Sunday. Notable Christian authors and theologians of the time, such as Melito of Sardis, Clement of Alexandria, and Hippolytus weighed in on the subject; fragments of these writings are preserved in the 7th century Paschal Chronicle and elsewhere. The first Council of Nicea (314) attempted to establish uniformity among the Churches: following the Egyptian practice, Easter was to be celebrated on the Sunday following the first full moon after the spring equinox; this decision was re-affirmed at the council of Antioch in 341, but did not entirely resolve the matter.

The Paschal (Easter) Chronicle itself provides an extensive discussion of the matter, along with tables for the calculation of Easter. Somewhat earlier, the scholar Dionysius Exiguus had produced an “Easter Table”, that proved to be highly influential, following upon the nineteen-year cycle established by Cyril of Alexandria. This table, with extensions of it, came to be adopted by Rome and in much of the West.

All of this history illustrates both the prevailing importance and influence of the Passover festival within Christianity, as well as the struggles of early believers and congregations in dealing with the various implications of this Jewish heritage.

 

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 81 (Part 1)

Psalm 81

Dead Sea MSS: 4QPse (vv. 2-3 [1-2]); 11QPsd (vv. 5-11 [4-10]; MasPsa (vv. 2-17 [1-16])

This Psalm has a curious hybrid character: part hymn, part prophetic oracle, and a composition that may have had a place in the Israelite liturgy for the celebration of the festivals (esp. Passover, cf. the discussion below). Like other of the Asaph Psalms that we have recently examined, Ps 81 appears to have a northern provenance (indicated by the Israel/Joseph pairing in vv. 5-6).

There is a definite two-part structure to this Psalm, and here the Selah (hl*s#) pause marker serves as a legitimate structural indicator. The first part (vv. 2-8) is a hymn to YHWH, functioning as a call to worship. Within this framework, the historical tradition of the Exodus provides the setting for the prophetic oracle that follows in the second part (vv. 9-17). The words of YHWH begin at v. 6b, and this fact has led commentators, incorrectly I believe, to treat vv. 6b-17 as a coherent division of the Psalm; it is the Selah marker the provides the correct structural point of division, as noted above.

Metrically, this Psalm follows the typical 3-beat (3+3) couplet format, though there are a few exceptions (which will be noted). The heading gives the musical direction tyT!G]h^-lu^, as in Pss 8 and 84; the term tyT!G] could refer to a type of instrument (perhaps a harp), or to a particular melody (or mode).

Psalm 81 is one of the best attested Psalms among the Dead Sea manuscripts, including a MS from Masada where it fully represented. All of the manuscripts are quite fragmentary, however it is perhaps worth noting that there are no variant readings of substance in the portions of the text that are preserved.

As with all of Pss 73–83, this composition is attributed to (and/or associated with) Asaph. The second half of this Psalm is presented as a prophetic oracle, and, as we have seen, a number of the Asaph-Psalms have certain prophetic features; for more on Asaph, and the tradition that he and his descendants were prophets, cf. the earlier study on Ps 50).

PART 1: Verses 2-8 [1-7]

Verse 2 [1]

“Ring out (praise) to (the) Mightiest, our Strength,
give a shout to (the) Mighty (One) of Ya’aqob!”

The opening couplet is a call to worship, calling on the people to sing/shout praise to YHWH. The basic religious and theological principle is that YHWH is the God (Mighty One) of Israel (Jacob); as a result, He is considered as the ultimate source of their strength (zou) and protection. The suffixed word “our strength” is a bit unusual, and it is possible that here the noun zou connotes “stronghold”. Dahood (II, p. 263) reads parallel construct expressions in both lines (i.e., “Mighty [One] of…”) and treats the final <– of <yh!l)a$ as an interposed enclitic <-; in such a case the expressions would, indeed, be parallel: “Mighty (One) of our strong(hold) / Mighty (One) of Jacob”.

Verse 3 [2]

“Lift up music and give (it on the) tambor(ine),
(on the) sweet lyre (together) with (the) harp.”

The call to worship continues with this direction for the people to take up their instruments, in order to sing out praise to YHWH (as directed in v. 2). They are to “lift up” their music (hr*m=z]); curiously, the regular term (romz+m!) designating the Psalm as a musical composition is absent from the heading of Ps 81. The adjective <yu!n` means “sweet, pleasant”, here referring to the sweet sounds that can be produced on the lyre and harp.

Verse 4 [3]

“Blow (the) horn on the (day of the) new (moon),
on the full (moon), for (the) day of our festival.”

The call to worship continues, with the praise being located at the time of a public festival. The term gj^ came to designate the great pilgrimage festivals, such as Passover and Sukkot. Here the timing of the festival coincides with the beginning of the month—the expressions “new (moon)” (vd#j)) and “full (moon)” (hs#K@) are obviously parallel, marking the transition from one month to the next. The Exodus context of vv. 6-11 suggests that the festival in question is Passover.

Verse 5 [4]

“For this (is) an engraved (decree), O Yisrael,
an edict from (the) Mighty (One) of Ya’aqob.”

This couplet refers specifically to celebration the festival (gj^) mentioned in v. 4. If the context is the celebration of the Passover, then the solemn declaration here would be particularly appropriate (cf. the instructions and tradition regarding Passover in Exodus 12). The order to celebrate the festival is here treated as an edict or decree sent down by a king (YHWH), using the terms qj) (denoting something engraved or written) and fP*v=m! (a decision given down by a ruling figure which has the force of law).

This verse demonstrates the wide range of meaning that attaches to the simple prepositions l= and B=. Here, the first prefixed –l is best treated a vocative –l (“O Israel”), though most translators render it flatly as “for Israel”; the vocative better fits the context of a call to the Israelite people to praise YHWH and celebrate the festival. The second –l clearly refers to the decree as coming from YHWH, though it also possible to translate the preposition in this instance as “belonging to”.

Verse 6ab [5ab]

“(As a duty to be) repeated He set it on Yôsep,
in his going out (from) upon (the) land of Egypt.”

The term tWdu@ is parallel with qj) and fP*v=m! in v. 5, referring to the command by YHWH to celebrate the festival; the context here would seem to require that Passover is the festival in view. According to the tradition(s) recorded in Exodus 12, the directions for celebration of Passover were given at the time of Israel “going out from the land of Egypt”.

The noun tWdu@ fundamentally refers to something which is repeated; I take it to be used here with this basic emphasis, referring to the regular/repeated celebration of the Passover festival.

The use of the preposition lu^, in the context of Israel’s exodus from Egypt, is peculiar; one would rather expect /m! as in many other such references (e.g., here in v. 11 of this Psalm). As noted above, many of the Hebrew prepositions have a wide semantic range, and lu^ can occasionally carry a meaning something like “from” in English (cf. Dahood, II, p. 264). Other commentators (e.g., Kraus, Hossfeld-Zenger) translate it here as “against”, but this does not seem appropriate (or correct). I have slanted my translation slightly, to capture the idea of the Israelite people going out from the place where they had been—viz., living upon (or spread over) the land of Egypt.

Verse 6c-7 [5c-6]

“(The) lip of (one) I did not know I heard,
(and) I turned aside his shoulder from (the) load,
and his hands passed over from (the) basket.”

There is an abrupt change of speaker at the third line of verse 6, and it immediately becomes clear that YHWH is now speaking; thus the Psalm shifts to become an oracle, with the Psalmist functioning as a prophet. The setting of the Exodus, introduced in 6b, provides the impetus for this brief but dramatic recounting of YHWH’s role in the Exodus events.

It is, I think, best to treat v. 6c together with v. 7 as a tricolon. It presents a clear narrative progression:

    • God hears Israel’s cry for help =>
      • He responds and takes away the burden =>
        • The people become free from their service/labor

It may seem strange that YHWH would refer to Israel as “(one) I did not know”. This could be an allusion to the sequence in Exodus 2:23-25: the people cry for help in their bondage, and the cry comes up to God, who hears it; the cry prompts Him to remember the covenant He established with Israel’s ancestors (Abraham/Isaac/Jacob). Then in v. 25 we read: “And (the) Mightiest saw (the) sons of Yisrael, and the Mightiest knew (them).” This was the moment when God truly knew Israel as His people.

Verse 8 [7]

“In the (time of) distress you called and I pulled you out;
I answered you (from with)in (the) hiding (place) of thunder,
(and yet) I was tested by you at (the) waters of strife.”
Selah

The oracle continues with a second tricolon that further summarizes the events of the Exodus (cf. vv. 6-7 above). The first two lines here may simply be repeating the general idea of Israel’s cry for help and YHWH’s answer; however, I think it probable that the scene has shifted to the more specific setting of the episode at the Reed Sea (Exod 14-15), where the people cried out to God (14:10), and He answered them, through the hand of Moses (vv. 13-14ff). The reference to “the hiding (place) of thunder” is an allusion to the storm-theophany, applied to YHWH as Creator and heavenly Ruler, with his control over the waters; for more on this ancient cosmological imagery, expressed with some frequency in the Psalms, cf. my earlier article “The Conflict with the Sea in Ancient Near Eastern Myth”. His power over the Sea allowed Israel to escape from Egypt. The thunder-motif, with the theophanous cloud as a ‘hiding place,’ also alludes to the scene at mount Sinai (Exodus 19ff).

The implied reference to the waters of the Reed Sea is paralleled by the reference, in the final line, to the episode at the “waters of strife/Merîbah [hb*yr!m=]” (cf. Exod 17:1-7; Num 20:10-13). Dahood (II, p. 265) is almost certainly correct in his assessment that injba needs to parsed as a passive (Niphal) form with dative suffix (of agency)—i.e., “I was tested by you”. This act of faithlessness by the people is meant as a stark contrast with the faithfulness of YHWH in answering them and rescuing them from their bondage in Egypt (lines 1-2). My translation above brings out this contrastive emphasis: “…(yet) I was tested by you at (the) waters of strife”.

This ending of the Psalm’s first half, on a negative note highlighting the people’s lack of trust in God, sets the stage for the second half (vv. 9-17), in which YHWH, in another prophetic oracle, brings forth a complaint (in the tradition of the ‘covenant lawsuit’) against His people for their lack of loyalty and trust.

References marked “Dahood, I” and “Dahood, II” above are to, respectively, Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965), and Psalms II: 51-100, vol. 17 (1968).
Those marked “Kraus” are to Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen, 2. Teilband, Psalmen 60-150, 5th ed., Biblischer Kommentar series (Neukirchener Verlag: 1978); English translation in Psalms 60-150, A Continental Commentary (Fortress Press: 1993).
Those marked “Hossfeld-Zenger” are to Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51-100, translated from the German by Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 2005).

Saturday Series: John 1:29 (continued)

John 1:29, continued

Today, we continue with our previous study from last week, on John 1:29, the first sin-reference in the Gospel of John. It was mentioned that the text of this verse is secure, and yet a precise interpretation has proven somewhat difficult for commentators. In this study, I wish to focus on two areas of interpretation: (1) the expression “the lamb of God”, and (2) the force of the verb aírœ. It will be necessary to adopt an historical-critical (and intertextual) approach to these topics, looking at the historical background to the language used by the Gospel writer (and John the Baptist as speaker).

“Lamb of God”

Commentators have struggled to determine precisely the origins and significance of the expression “the lamb of God” (ho amnós tou Theoú), which occurs only here (being repeated in verse 36) in the Scriptures. A number of sources of influence have been proposed and discussed, with commentators differing on their relative plausibility. There has, however, come to be something of an emerging consensus that the two main sources are: (a) the figure of the Passover lamb, and (b) the reference to the Servant-figure in the Isa 52:13-53:12 Servant Song as a lamb (53:7). The relatively recent article by Jesper Tang Nielsen, “The Lamb of God: The Cognitive Structure of a Johannine Metaphor” (published in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language, eds. Jörg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmermann, WUNT 200 [Mohr Siebeck: 2006], pp. 217-56) discusses the conceptual blending of these two specific background-aspects of the expression (I refer to this study below as “Nielsen”).

1. The Passover lamb

Some commentators have argued that the Isaiah 53:7 reference is primary for the expression “the lamb of God” in Jn 1:29. I would strongly disagree; in my view, the Passover lamb represents the principal point of reference. This seems to be quite clear, based on two points of evidence. First, we have the specific identification of Jesus with the Passover lamb in 19:14, 36, where the lamb-identification is made in the context of Jesus’ death—being ‘lifted up’ on the cross. Second, the foreshadowing of this moment in the reference to the ‘bronze serpent’ tradition (Numbers 21:9) in 3:14-15 strongly suggests the parallel of the lamb, once it has been ‘lifted up’, giving life-saving healing to all those who look at (i.e., believe in) it.

And yet, as many commentators have noted, there is no indication, either in the Old Testament or in later Jewish tradition, of a direct connection between the Passover lamb and sin. In particular, there is no evidence that the Passover lamb (or the ritual as a whole) was ever thought to take away sin (see on the verb aírœ below). I have discussed the Passover tradition in several recent articles, and will here only mention three aspects of its significance that seem relevant to the sin-association in Jn 1:29:

    • The apotropaic function of the Passover lamb’s blood in the original Exodus-tradition (Exod 12, esp. vv. 7, 13, 22-23), as protection against death.
    • The idea that those participating in the ritual must purify themselves in preparation—represented primarily through the symbolism of the leaven that is removed (see vv. 14-20, and compare Paul’s interpretation in 1 Cor 5:7); note also the purity regulations in Numbers 9.
    • The symbolism of the historical context of the Passover—the Exodus as freedom from bondage (in Egypt).

One can see how each of these aspects could be related to the removal of sin (and its effects); yet were any of these particularly in view for the Gospel writer, or did they specifically influence the sin-association in Jn 1:29? Philo of Alexandria, in his allegorical interpretation of the Passover tradition, blends together the second and third aspects in a unique way. In his work On the Special Laws, in the section on the Passover (2.145-149), the festival is interpreted as figuratively representing the purification of the soul. He utilizes the wordplay between the Hebrew word for the festival, pesaµ (transliterated in Greek as páscha), explained as deriving from the root psµ I (“pass over”), and the Greek verb páschœ (“suffer”, i.e., being affected, specifically by the passions), so as to explain the Passover as symbolizing the “passing over” of the soul, away from the body and its passions (2.147).

An even closer parallel can perhaps be found in Josephus’ brief discussion of Passover in Antiquities 2.311-14 (see Nielsen, p. 238). Josephus shifts the meaning of the lamb’s blood somewhat. Instead of its apotropaic function (see above), with the blood being applied to the house of the Israelite family (thus protecting the people inside), a spiritualizing ethical interpretation is given, whereby the blood actually purifies (vb hagnízœ) the individual who faithfully observes the ritual. This concept of the purification of the devout/faithful Israelite by the lamb’s blood is not that far removed from the Christian idea of Jesus’ blood cleansing the believer from sin (1 John 1:7).

Already in the Exodus tradition (Exod 12:27), the Passover (lamb) is referred to as a sacrificial offering (ze»aµ)—that is, an animal that is ritually slain as an offering (to God). In Israelite and Jewish tradition, the Passover would increasingly be recognized as a kind of sacrifice. It clearly is not an offering for sin; it has much more in common with the šelem offering (Leviticus 3), in which the worshiper eats the meat of the animal as part of a ritual meal. Even so, the traditional conception of the Passover as a sacrifice may well have led early Christians to connect it with other aspects of the sacrificial offerings, such as the offerings for sin—including the expiatory offerings of the Day of Atonement festival (Leviticus 16), which involved the ritual/symbolic removal of sin. That early Christians did, in fact, associate the Day of Atonement offerings with the person of Jesus (and his sacrificial death) is clear from Hebrews 8-10. It would not be unreasonable for an early Christian to blend this sin offering imagery together with the motif of Jesus as a Passover lamb that is slain, bringing life and salvation to those who believe.

2. The lamb in Isaiah 53:7

(I discuss Isa 52:13-53:12 at length in an earlier article and set of notes; see the note on 53:7)

The “Suffering Servant” figure in this famous Isaian Servant Song (52:13-53:12) is compared, in verse 7, to a lamb brought along to the slaughter. This is one of the very few Old Testament passages that could be cited by early Christians as prophesying the suffering and death of Jesus. As the repeated references in Luke-Acts make clear, it was vitally important for the early (Jewish) Christian missionaries to demonstrate (for their fellow Jews) that Jesus was the Messiah, even though his suffering and shameful/painful death made such an identification difficult. They sought to prove from the Scriptures that it was necessary for the Messiah to be put to death (see Lk 18:31ff; 24:25-26, 46; Acts 3:18; 9:22; 17:3; 18:5, 28; 26:23), and Isa 53:7ff is one of the few passages that could reasonably be quoted in support of this.

Indeed, Isa 53:7-8 is specifically cited in Acts 8:32-33ff, applied to the suffering and death of Jesus. Since the lamb in John 1:29 also is connected with Jesus’ death (as the slain Passover lamb, see the discussion above), it would be natural for the lamb in Isa 53:7f to be similarly applied to Jesus by the Gospel writer.

In the Septuagint (LXX) of Isa 53:7, the Hebrew nouns ´eh and r¹µel (referring to a male and female sheep, respectively) are translated by the Greek nouns próbaton and amnós. The noun próbaton is a descriptive term that denotes a quadruped animal that “walks forward”, referring particularly to sheep or goats; amnós, the word used in Jn 1:29, properly designates a young sheep (lamb).

The LXX of Isa 53:7-8ff seems, in particular, to have influenced the Johannine use of the lamb-motif (see Nielsen, pp. 231-3). First, there is the idea of the Servant being “taken up” from the earth (v. 8), using the same verb (aírœ) as here in 1:29 (see below). Beyond this, in 52:13-15, and again at the end of the passage (53:10-12), there is an emphasis on the glorification of the Servant, tying his vicarious suffering/death to his exaltation. Of particular note is the occurrence of the noun dóxa and the related verb doxázœ (twice) in the LXX of 52:13-14, which is significant, given the importance of these words in relation to the “lifting up” of Jesus (death-exaltation) in the Gospel of John (12:23, 28; 13:31-32; 17:1, 4-5, 22, 24; see also 7:39; 12:16).

In Isa 53:10, the suffering of the Servant is specifically connected with the idea of a sin offering, helping to explain the sin-association that is notably absent from the background of the Passover lamb (as mentioned above). The vicarious nature of this offering is clear from verse 12, where it is stated that the Servant “lifted up” (vb n¹´¹° ac*n`) the sins of many people, bearing them himself, in a way that intercedes (vb p¹ga±) for the people (on their behalf) before God. In the LXX, this is expressed in a way that better fits the vicarious suffering of Jesus: “and he (himself) brought up [i.e. carried] the sins of many, and he was given over through [i.e. because of] their sins”.

The use of the noun amnós can serve as further evidence that Isa 53:7 is in view here in Jn 1:29, since different nouns (ar¢¡n, próbaton) are used in the LXX for the Passover lamb. As I have noted, it seems likely that the Passover lamb is the main point of reference in Jn 1:29, but that the nuances of meaning from Isa 53:7ff have also shaped the “lamb of God” concept. This Johannine lamb-tradition continues in the book of Revelation, where the noun arníon (diminutive of ar¢¡n) is used for Jesus as the lamb that was slain (and now has an exalted status in heaven). The noun amnós, by contrast, is rather rare in the New Testament; apart from here in Jn 1:29 (and 36), it occurs only in Acts 8:32 (citing Isa 53:7, see above), and in 1 Peter 1:19, where the Passover lamb (with its unblemished character) may also be in view.

The noun amnós is used in Exod 29:38-41 for the lamb that is presented as a twice-daily burnt offering, while próbaton is used in Leviticus for the various sacrificial offerings (sin offering, 5:6ff, etc). Thus there is some precedence in the tradition for understanding an amnós-lamb as a sacrificial offering; and, as mentioned above, it would have been natural for Christians to extend this association, when applied to the person of Christ, to include offerings for sin as well.

The use of the verb aírœ

John 1:29 uses the verb aírœ (ai&rw), which has the basic meaning “take up”. It is a common verb, used without any special meaning in many of the Gospel references (2:16; 5:8-12; 8:59, etc). There are two possible ways of understanding its meaning here: (a) take away (i.e. remove), or (b) the act of lifting up (i.e., bear/carry). The verb is used both ways in the Gospel, equally for lifting/carrying (5:8-12) and removing (e.g., 11:39, 41). What is the principal emphasis here? Does Jesus, as the “lamb of God”, remove sin, or does he bear/carry it?

If, as I discuss above, Isa 53:7ff is an important influence on Jn 1:29, then we might assume the latter. In verse 12, it is clearly stated that the Servant, in his suffering, “lifted up” (i.e., carried) the sins of many. In Hebrew, the verb n¹´¹° is used, which certainly could be translated in Greek by the verb aírœ, even though in the LXX of v. 12 it is the more concrete verb anaphérœ (“bring up”) that is used, denoting an act of lifting/bearing/carrying. The verb aírœ does occur in LXX Isa 53:8, but in reference to the death of the Servant—i.e., his being “taken up/away” from the earth. However, since the death of Jesus is also in view in Jn 1:29 (see the discussion above), and as the departure of the Son (Jesus) from the earth (back to God the Father) is a key Johannine theme, Isa 53:8 could very well be influencing the use of aírœ here (compare the use of aírœ in a similar Passion context, 19:15; 20:13ff; see also 16:22; 17:15).

At the same time, the idea of the removal of sin is also found throughout the Johannine writings, most notably in 1 John 1:7, where it is stated that the blood of Jesus (i.e., through his death as the slain ‘lamb’) cleanses the believer from sin. Perhaps the strongest argument for this meaning of aírœ here in Jn 1:29 comes from 1 John 3:5, where it is indicated the purpose of Jesus’ appearance on earth was to “take away” sin (“…that he might take away [ár¢] sin”).

The most significant (and relevant) use of aírœ elsewhere in the Gospel occurs in the Shepherd-discourse of chapter 10. The context of Jesus’ death, as a self-sacrifice, is clearly indicated:

“Through this, the Father loves me, (in) that [i.e. because] I set (down) my soul [i.e. lay down my life], (so) that I might take it (up) again. No one takes [aírei] it away from me, but (rather) I set it (down) from myself; I hold (the) authority to set it (down), and I (also) hold (the) authority to take it (up) again—this (is) the charge (laid) on (me) to complete (that) I received (from) alongside my Father.” (10:17-18)

The verb aírœ is used in the sense of Jesus’ life being “taken away”; however, when he speaks of his actual death, as a self-sacrifice, he uses the verb pair “set/lay (down)” (títh¢mi) and “take (up)” (lambánœ). No one “takes away” his life; rather, he himself sets it down (dies) and takes it back up again (returning to life). This use of aírœ , paired with the Johannine references in 1 Jn 1:7; 3:5, seems to confirm that the principal aspect of meaning for aírœ in 1:29 is the removal (“taking away”) of sin.

In next week’s study, some concluding comments and observations on 1:29 will be made, along with a brief examination of the context of the second sin-reference in the Gospel (5:14).

The Ancient Israelite Festivals: Passover (Part 3)

Passover—Part 3:
Jesus and the Passover

The Gospel tradition

The most notable use of the Passover tradition in the Gospels is historical. That is to say, it relates to the historical tradition that Jesus’ death took place around the time of Passover. This is confirmed by multiple lines of tradition—in both the Synoptic Gospels (Mk 14:1ff par) and the Gospel of John (12:1; 13:1), as well as in subsequent Jewish tradition (e.g., the Talmudic baraitha in b. Sanhedrin 43a). The ‘Last Supper’ was, by all accounts, a celebration of the Passover meal (Mk 14:12-16ff par; Lk 22:15), regardless of how one chooses to deal with the chronological problems between the Synoptic and Johannine narratives. I have treated all of this at some length recently in the “Passion Narrative” series (Episode 2), including a discussion and overview of the chronological issue, and will not be repeating it here. The Lukan version of the Supper is presented rather more clearly as a Passover meal (for more on this, cf. the study on Lk 22:14-38 in the aforementioned series).

In the Synoptic Narrative, Jesus makes just one journey to Jerusalem; however, there is reliable evidence in the Gospels that this was not his only such journey. The Gospel of John alludes to a number of trips to Jerusalem (cf. below), coinciding with the major festivals. Passover (along with the festival of ‘Unleavened bread’) was one of the three pilgrimage festivals (<yG]j^), during which all adult males (at the least) were expected to travel to the central sanctuary (in Jerusalem) to celebrate the festival—cf. Exod 23:14-17; 34:18-23; Deut 16:16f; 2 Chron 8:13; and see the discussion in Parts 1 and 2. In traveling to Jerusalem for the three <yG]j^, Jesus would have been acting like any devout and observant Israelite, and following the example of his own parents, according the tradition Luke narrates in 2:41ff (cf. also vv. 21-24, 39).

Indeed, this is significant for an understanding of the place of the Passover within the Gospel tradition as a whole. We may begin with a brief consideration, again, of the fact that the ‘Last Supper’ was a Passover meal, and that, in holding this meal with his closest disciples, Jesus was celebrating the Passover with them.

As noted above, it is the Lukan Gospel that brings out this association most clearly, both by the way that the meal presented in the narrative (cf. the recent study), and by the words of Jesus in 22:15 (which occur only in Luke’s Gospel). His declaration begins with a Semitic idiom (cognate verbal complement), rendered in Greek, that is almost impossible to translate in English: e)piqumi/a| e)pequ/mhsa, a verb preceded by a (dative) noun from the same root. This syntactic device gives greater intensity and emphasis to the verb. In this instance, the verb is e)piqume/w, which essentially denotes having an impulse (qumo/$) directed toward (lit. upon, e)pi/) something; in English idiom, we would speak of having one’s heart/mind upon something. The related noun e)piqumi/a refers to this impulse. Literally, the two words would be translated something like “with an impulse upon (it), I have set my impulse upon…”; in this case, the sense is better captured in conventional English, respecting the intensive/emphatic purpose of the cognate verbal complement: “I have very much set my heart on…”. I will use this conventional rendering, in idiomatic English, of the first two words as I fill out the translation:

“I have very much set my heart on this Pesaµ [pa/sxa], to eat (it) with you before my suffering [paqei=n].”

There is an obvious wordplay here between pa/sxa, a transliteration of the Hebrew js^P# (pesaµ), and the verb pa/sxw (“suffer”). Philo of Alexandria brings out this same association (cf. the discussion in Part 2), and doubtless it would have been noticed by many Greek-speaking Jews. The verb e)piqume/w also brings in the connotation of “passion,” which, in a religious-ethical context, also contains the idea of suffering.

It is just here that the Passover came to have an entirely new meaning for early Christians, by its connection with the suffering and death of Jesus. Interestingly, the sacrificial language used by Jesus in the ‘words of institution’ for the Supper (Mk 14:24 par; 1 Cor 11:25) derives, not from the Passover tradition, but from the covenant-ratification ceremony in Exodus 24:1-11. The sacrificial offerings in this ceremony included <ym!l*v= offerings, of which only certain parts were burnt on the altar, with the rest of the meat being eaten by the worshiper; indeed, the covenant-ceremony apparently concluded with a ritual meal (v. 11). Like the Passover lamb, the flesh of the <ym!l*v= offerings was eaten, while the blood—at least in the covenant-ritual—was splashed upon both the altar and the people.

The Gospel of John

The Passover tradition is more prominent in the Gospel of John than in the other Gospels. According to the chronology of the Johannine narrative, Jesus was present in Jerusalem for at least three different Passovers, and the Christian interpretation of the festival—specifically in relation to the death of Jesus—was developed in a distinctive way in the Gospel of John. For more on the Johannine theme of Jesus fulfilling, in his person, key aspects of the festivals, cf. parts 8 and 9 of the series “Jesus and the Law”.

John 1:29, 36

In 1:29, and again in v. 36, John the Baptist declares regarding Jesus:

“See, the lamb of God, the (one) taking (up) the sin of the world!”

This is part of the important theme (especially prominent in chaps. 1-3) of John the Baptist as a witness to who Jesus is. Part of this witness involves identifying Jesus as the “lamb” (a)mno/$) of God. Since Jesus is specifically identified with the lamb slain at Passover elsewhere in the Gospel (cf. below), it is naturally for commentators to make the same connection here. Probably this is the primary point of reference intended by the Gospel writer, though one might rightly question whether this would have been the meaning (at the historical level) for John the Baptist. For a concise survey of the interpretive options, cf. the discussion in Brown, pp. 58-63.

How would the Passover lamb have been connected with the idea of “taking away sin”, which more properly refers to a sin offering? There are three factors that may help explain such a connection, within the Gospel tradition, as it was developed.

First, as the Passover lamb came increasingly to be viewed as a sacrificial offering, it was natural that this concept would attract features of other sacrificial offerings—such as the offerings made for sin, or the <ym!l*v= offerings which were more akin (in nature and purpose) to the Passover lamb. Second, central to the Passover tradition were the themes of salvation, liberation from bondage, and protection from God’s judgment—all of which could be applied, figuratively, in relation to sin. There is evidence from Philo of Alexandria’s writings, for example, that Jews in the first centuries B.C./A.D. were already interpreting the Passover tradition in this way. Indeed, his utilization of the pa/sxa/pa/sxw wordplay (cf. above) occurs in just such a context. Egypt represents the passions, which lead people to irrational (and sinful) behavior, while the Passover represents moving away from such passions. And, since sin leads to God’s judgment, one can easily see how the protective blood from the slain lamb can also symbolize removal of the effect of sin (by saving/protection from judgment). Finally, there is the established Gospel tradition of Jesus’ words at the Last Supper, where the blood “poured out” was connected with the removal of sin, by at least the time of Matthew’s Gospel, since the Matthean version (26:28) contains an explicit reference to the forgiveness of sin.

John 2:13-22

In the Johannine version of Jesus’ Temple-action (i.e., the ‘cleansing’ of the Temple), though it is narrated at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, rather than toward the end (as in the Synoptics), it still takes place around the time of Passover (2:13, 23). Scholars continue to be divided on whether the Gospel of John has relocated the episode to an earlier point in the narrative, or whether the Synoptics have included an earlier Jerusalem episode as part of Jesus’ final time in Jerusalem (since the Synoptic narrative records just one journey to Jerusalem).

The view of some traditional-conservative commentators, that Jesus performed essentially the same Temple-action on two different occasions, has little to recommend it, beyond serving an innate desire to harmonize or explain away the chronological discrepancy.

In the Synoptic version, the connection with Jesus’ death is contextual, occurring as it does so close in time to the Passion-events. By contrast, in the Johannine version, the connection is made explicit—not through the narration of the Temple-action itself, but in the Temple-saying that follows in verses 19ff:

“Loosen [i.e. dissolve/destroy] this shrine, and, in three days, I will raise it.”

This saying is similar to the charge made against Jesus in the Synoptic version of the Sanhedrin interrogation-scene (Mark 14:58/Matt 26:61; cp. Acts 6:14), which, in that narrative, is presented as a false charge, or at least a misrepresentation of what Jesus actually said. According to Jn 2:19, Jesus did, in fact, utter a Temple-saying along these lines. In any case, it is the Gospel writer’s comment in vv. 21-22 that makes the connection with Jesus’ death clear:

“…but he said (this) about the shrine of his body.”

Jesus identifies the Temple with his own person (and body), implying, according to the Johannine theological idiom, that Jesus himself is the true Temple—in contrast to the ordinary/physical Temple in Jerusalem. For more on this subject, cf. Parts 6–7 the series “Jesus and the Law”; just as Jesus represents the true Temple, so he also fulfills, in his own person and being, the true meaning of all the festivals (cf. Parts 8–9 of the aforementioned series).

The Bread of Life Discourse (John 6)

In the Johannine version (6:1-15) of the Miraculous Feeding episode (on which, cf. the articles in the series “Jesus and the Gospel Tradition”), the miracle takes place around the time of Passover (v. 4). In terms of the original historical tradition, this is quite plausible, given the detail of the presence of green grass (v. 10; Mk 6:39 par), which suggests a spring-time setting. For the Gospel of John, this means that the Bread of Life Discourse which follows (vv. 22-59), and which clearly relates to the miracle, also has a Passover setting.

According to v. 59, the Discourse took place in the synagogue (of Capernaum), and it is possible that Jesus is specifically drawing upon the synagogue Scripture-readings for Passover season (for more on this theory, see the study by A. Guilding, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship: A Study of the Relation of John’s Gospel to the Ancient Jewish Lectionary System [Oxford: 1960]; cf. Brown, pp. 278-80). In any case, he utilizes the Moses-Exodus tradition of the Manna (Exod 16), referred to as “bread from heaven” (v. 4; cf. Psalm 78:24-25; 105:40; Neh 9:15).

On the relation of the Bread of Life Discourse to contemporary Jewish expository and homiletical tradition, cf. the important study by P. Borgen, Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo (Brill: 1965).

Jesus identifies himself as the true manna, sent by God the Father to give life to the world (vv. 33, 51); thus he further expounds the expression “bread from heaven” (vv. 32-34) as the “bread of life” (vv. 35-40ff) and “living bread” (vv. 51-58), comparable to the “living water” of 4:10-15. The first section of the discourse (vv. 25-34) develops the expression “bread out of heaven”, with the theological emphasis on Jesus as the one who has come down from heaven (from the Father) to give life. The second section (vv. 35-50) develops the expression “bread of life”, emphasizing that (eternal) life comes through trusting in Jesus (as the one who has come from the Father). Finally, the third section (vv. 51-58) develops the expression “living bread”, emphasizing the life that Jesus, as the Son sent by the Father, possesses, and that one must partake of that life by ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ it.

It is in this final section that the association with Jesus’ death comes clearly into view. And it is unlikely that any early Christian would have missed the strong eucharistic emphasis of vv. 51-58, drawing upon the Gospel tradition of Jesus’ words at the Last Supper (Mk 14:23-25 par), a connection that had already been made within the tradition of the Miraculous Feeding episode itself (cf. verse 11; and compare the language in Mk 6:41 par). I have discussed verses 51-58, as well as the Discourse as a whole, in some detail in prior notes and studies, including currently in the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament” and as part of a set of notes on “The Spirit and the Death of Jesus”, focusing on the specific interpretive relation between vv. 51-58 and verse 63.

The Passion Narrative (John 19)

Finally, the Johannine Passion narrative clearly identifies Jesus, in his death, as the lamb that is slain for Passover. This is unique to the Fourth Gospel, and, we may presume, to the Johannine tradition which the Gospel writer inherited. Contrary to the chronology of the Passion narrative, Jesus is crucified on the day of Passover Eve (Nisan 14), which means that the Last Supper, if it was intended as a Passover meal, would have been celebrated in advance.

One way that scholars have attempted to harmonize the Synoptic and Johannine chronologies, is to posit that Jesus and his disciples were following a different calendar than that of the Jewish religious establishment. One theory is that they followed a (364-day) solar calendar akin to that which, apparently, was used by the Community of the Qumran texts (cf. the discussion in Part 2). According to this view, Jesus and his disciples celebrated Passover earlier in the week, before the date when the rest of Judaism (including the members of the Sanhedrin) would have observed it. This has the benefit of avoiding the implausibility of the Council convening a meeting to interrogate Jesus on the day of Passover. On the whole, it is an attractive theory, but not without its own problems; indeed, the actual evidence supporting it is extremely slight.

There are two (possibly three) details in the narration of Jesus’ death (in chapter 19) which bring out this interpretation of Jesus as the Passover lamb:

    • According to v. 14, Jesus was crucified on the day of Passover eve (cf. above), around the time that the lambs were being killed
    • The mention of the hyssop branch in v. 29 (if original) may be an allusion to the Passover instruction in Exod 12:22
    • Jesus’ legs remaining unbroken (vv. 31-33) is explained (v. 36) in terms of the instruction regarding the Passover lamb (Exod 12:46; Num 9:12; cf. also Psalm 34:20)

In Part 4, we will examine the Passover tradition as it is referenced and interpreted elsewhere in the New Testament and other early Christian writings.

The Ancient Israelite Festivals: Passover (Part 2)

Passover—Part 2:
Old Testament and Jewish Tradition

The Earliest Festivals

The ancient historical tradition, associating the Passover festival with the Exodus (Exod 12-13), was discussed in Part 1. The same tradition clearly connects the Passover (js^P#) feast (on the 14th/15th of Abib-Nisan) with the festival of ‘Unleavened (Bread)’ (toXm^) on the 15th-21st of the same month. The two festivals are thus joined together from the earliest times, with the js^P# feast effectively marking the beginning of the seven days of toXm^.

Interestingly, in the Torah regulations found elsewhere in the book of Exodus, greater attention is given to the festival of toXm^. The main reason for this is that the annual cycle of Israelite festivals was, from the very beginning, closely tied to the agricultural cycle. The three great festivals, outlined in the early calendar-notices in the Torah (Exod 23:14-17; 34:18-23), were all harvest festivals. The festival of toXm^, in particular, was related to the barley harvest. It is the first of the three gj^-festivals mentioned in these passages. The etymology of the word gj^ remains uncertain, but it is used almost exclusively in reference to pilgrimage festivals—that is, occasions when the people would travel to a (central) sanctuary location, and there celebrate the festival. The related verb gg~j* (Exod 23:14, etc) denotes the celebration of the festival.

More expansive and comprehensive instructions on the festivals are given in Leviticus 23, Numbers 28, and Deuteronomy 16. In these sections, the Passover is included as a primary festival (Lev 23:4-8; Num 28:16-25; Deut 16:1-8), though always in connection with the seven-day toXm^ period. The notice in Lev 23:4-8 is relatively brief, but declares that the first day of the toXm^, the day of the Passover proper (Abib-Nisan 15), is a call (ar*q=m!) for the people to gather for a holy assembly, a day on which no regular work is to be done (v. 7). Sacrificial offerings are to be made to YHWH at the sanctuary on each of the seven days (v. 8); the seventh day is a day of holy assembly, just like the first. The requirements for the daily offerings are given in Num 28:19-24.

The instruction in Deut 16:1-7 shows signs of development, indicating that we are dealing with a well-established tradition. The reference to the historical tradition of the Exodus in v. 3 sounds very much like a fixed liturgical formula, by which the elements of the Passover feast are meant to remind the celebrants of the Exodus event in Egypt. The main Deuteronomic feature of the Passover instruction involves the centralization of cultic ritual and worship at the (Temple) sanctuary in Jerusalem:

“You are not able [i.e. allowed] to slaughter [i.e. sacrifice] the Pesaµ in any of your gates [i.e. of the towns/cities] which YHWH your Mighty (One) is giving to you, for (it is only) to (be done) at the place which YHWH your Mighty (One) shall choose for (the) dwelling of His name…” (vv. 5-6)

The implication is clear enough: the people must travel to the Jerusalem Temple-precincts, bringing the Passover lamb, to have it slaughtered there. This also means that ritual meal has to be eaten in Jerusalem as well (v. 7).

Old Testament References to Passover

The second celebration of Passover is recorded in Numbers 9:1-14, said to have taken place one year after the first Passover (v. 1), and held at the appointed time (v. 2) and according to the established instructions (vv. 3-5, 11-12, cf. above). This festival was held, at Sinai, following the construction and consecration of the Tent-shrine (Tabernacle), including a consecration/purification ceremonies for the Levites (8:5-22) in preparation of the performance of their duties in the Tent. This emphasis on (ritual) purity is also prominent in the instructions regarding Passover (9:6-13).

In Joshua 5:10-11, it is stated that the people of Israel celebrated the Passover while they camped at Gilgal, on the 14th day of the month (Abib-Nisan 14/15), according to the tradition. There is no indication that the festival was celebrated during the years of ‘wandering’, prior to the people’s entry into the Promised Land. This essentially confirms the connection between Passover (and the festival of Unleavened bread) and the agricultural cycle (cf. above)—which requires a presence on the land. From this point on, the Israelites will cultivate and farm the land, a change that is symbolized by the manna ceasing on the very day following the Passover (v. 12). This date corresponds with the beginning of the toXm^ festival, and, correspondingly, the people partook, in a very rudimentary way, of the produce of the land.

The notice in 1 Kings 9:25 (par 2 Chron 8:12-13), indicates that king Solomon presided over the festal sacrificial offerings at the altar of the newly constructed Temple in Jerusalem. This parallels the setting of the Sinai Passover, following the construction of the Tabernacle (cf. above).

According to the Chronicles, the first proper celebration of Passover, held (as intended by the Deuteronomic instruction) in Jerusalem, was arranged by king Hezekiah. According to the Chronicler’s narrative (2nd book, chap. 30), it was truly a grand affair. The call to assemble was sent, even into the northern territories, where it was clearly intended as a (symbolic) way of uniting the remnants of the northern Kingdom with the southern Judean Kingdom (centered at Jerusalem). The exhortation for the people to repent and to “return” to YHWH is expressed in traditional prophetic language. The celebration of Passover is described as part of a wider project of Hezekiah to ‘cleanse’ the Temple from the idolatrous influence and corruption that took place during the reign of his father Ahaz. Because of the work required to restore the proper functioning of the Temple, the celebration of Passover had to be delayed until the second month (vv. 2-3). The narrative also alludes to the fact that, up to that point, the Passover had not been observed as often as it should have been. Indeed, in the history of Israel, as recorded in the Old Testament Scriptures, the Passover organized by Hezekiah was the first since the initial celebration at Gilgal in the time of Joshua (cf. above).

The books of Kings do not mention the Passover during Hezekiah’s reign, indicating that the first proper Passover, held according to the Torah instructions (especially those in Deuteronomy 16:1-17 [cf. above]), took place during the reign of Josiah (2 Kings 23:21-23). It was part of the Josianic program of religious reform, tied explicitly to the regulations and instructions given in the “book of the covenant” (i.e., the book of Deuteronomy). This entailed, above all else, the centralization of worship at the Temple-sanctuary in Jerusalem, just as Deut 16 prescribes. A parallel account of Josiah’s Passover is given in 2 Chron 35:1-19, in much expanded form; the grandiose details mirror the earlier Passover held by Hezekiah.

There are only two other direct references to the Passover in the Old Testament. First, there is the notice in Ezekiel 45:21ff, part of the instruction regarding the ritual activities to be held in the new Temple of the (eschatological) New Age. The book of Ezekiel is a product of the exilic period, a period of generations when it was no longer possible to celebrate the Passover at Jerusalem. The first post-exilic celebration (in Jerusalem) by the returning exiles is described in Ezra 6:19-22; this apparently took place sometime prior to the beginning of Ezra’s mission in Jerusalem (c. 458 B.C.).

Jewish Tradition in the First Centuries B.C./A.D.

It is somewhat surprising how rarely Passover and the festival of Unleavened bread are mentioned in Jewish writings of the Second Temple period. For this study, I will focus on writings from the first centuries B.C./A.D., from c. 250 B.C. to the mid-second century A.D. These texts would pre-date the Mishnah tractate Pesaµim (c. 200 A.D.) which gives extensive information on the festival, along with instruction on how it is to be observed.

Prior to the first century A.D., the main surviving passage dealing with Passover is chapter 49 of the book of Jubilees, a work usually dated to the middle of the 2nd century B.C. The bulk of Jubilees is a reworking of the narratives in Genesis and Exodus (up to Exod 24:18), presented as an Angelic revelation to Moses. The thrust of this historical presentation is to affirm, for Israelites and Jews of the 2nd century (in face of the influence of Hellenism), the importance of adhering to the Torah regulations. The section on Passover (chap. 49) comes at the conclusion of the work. In light of the overall emphasis on maintaining ritual purity (vv. 9-11, cf. Num 9:13), the instructions regarding observance of Passover are reiterated (vv. 12-15, 19-21). There is an idealistic sectarian orientation to this instruction, with the focus on the participants being males twenty years and older (cf. Exod 30:14), who are instructed to eat the meal in the Temple sanctuary (vv. 16-17).

There would seem to be a number of points of contact between the book of Jubilees and the Community of the Qumran texts (cf. below). Indeed, Jubilees appears to have been quite popular with the Community, having the status of something like authoritative Scripture. There are at least 15 copies of the work among the surviving Qumran texts, more than for many books of the canonical Old Testament.

We find a similar interpretive reworking of the Old Testament Passover tradition in several other Jewish writings of the period. The author of the book of Wisdom makes extensive use of the Exodus traditions in the closing chapters 16-19, part of a longer treatment (chaps. 10-19) of the role of God’s Wisdom throughout Israelite history. Chapter 18 (vv. 5-19) gives a powerful and moving account of the Passover night, when the Israelites were saved from death (and delivered from their bondage), while the firstborn children of their Egyptian enemies were destroyed. The Passover sacrifice(s), alluded to in verse 9, reflect the faith and unity of all righteous Israelites, being in agreement to live according to God’s law. Wisdom is identified with “the imperishable light of the law” that is given to the world (v. 4).

The Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo (1st century A.D.) present a similarly imaginative retelling of Israelite history. The command to observe the festivals is introduced at 13:4-7 (paraphrasing Leviticus 23, cf. above). This work also evinces an interesting tendency to identify certain unspecified festal occasions mentioned in Scripture (Judg 21:17-19; 1 Sam 1:3-4ff) with Passover (48:3; 50:2). For another example of a creative retelling of the Exodus/Passover narrative, cf. the Exagoge of Ezekiel (the Tragedian), spec. lines 149-192.

The Qumran Texts

References and allusions to Passover in the surviving Qumran texts are rather slight. Based on the various liturgical and calendric texts, we can be fairly certain that the major festivals played an important role in the life of the Community (and/or those who copied and used the texts). Documents 4Q320-30 give evidence for the use of a (six-year) 364 day solar calendar, tied to performance of ritual priestly duties and used for establishing regular dates for the various festivals. Texts 4Q320-321 and 329a specifically mention Passover. The book of Jubilees (cf. above) followed a similar solar calendar (cf. also 2 Enoch 1:1). Aristobulus also discusses the issue of determining the date for Passover (section preserved in Eusebius’ Church History 7.32.16-18), an indication that such calendrical questions were pertinent among Jews in the 2nd century B.C.

Several surviving documents—1Q34 (and 1Q34bis), and 4Q505/507-509—contain prayers to be recited during the festivals. The specific context cannot always be determined from the fragmentary remains, but several of these prayers may be intended for Passover (e.g., 4Q505 125, 127, 131 [+ 132i]). For a convenient treatment of these texts, with translation and notes, cf. James R. Davila, Liturgical Works (2000) in the Eerdmans Commentaries on the Dead Sea Scrolls series, pp. 15-40.

The Temple Scroll (11Q19) also refers to the sacrificial offerings to be performed in connection with Passover and the seven day toXm^ festival (col. 17), as part of the overall Temple ritual (cp. Ezekiel’s vision of the New Temple in chaps. 40-48).

Philo and Josephus

Flavius Josephus and Philo of Alexandria are first-century Jewish contemporaries of the early Christians, writing in Greek, and their treatments of Scriptural tradition (and related matters of religion) are most relevant for a study of the New Testament. In his Antiquities, Josephus retells the Old Testament narratives, often adding imaginative details and other bits of Jewish tradition. The relevant portions of the Exodus narrative, where the Passover (pa/sxa) festival is mentioned, are given in 2.313 and 3.248-9 (cf. also 3.294). References corresponding to other Old Testament passages are: 5.20-21f [Josh 5:10-12]; 9.260-72 [2 Chron 30]; 10.70-71ff [2 Kings 23:21-23 par]. Notices of later celebrations of the Passover are given in 11.110; 14.21, 25ff; 17.213f; 18.29, 90; 20.106-108ff; and in Wars 2.10.

The most notable mention of the Passover by Josephus is in Wars 6.420-8, where he explains how a vast multitude of people, having come to Jerusalem for the festival, found themselves trapped in the city by the Roman siege.

It is typical of Philo that he gives an allegorical interpretation to the Passover tradition. He interprets the Pesaµ (Greek Fasek = Pa/sxa) in the ascetic-philosophical sense of “passing over” from the passions, using a bit of wordplay between pa/sxa and the verb pa/sxw (“suffer,” participle paqw/n), just we might between “passover” and “passion”. The main reference is in On the Special Laws 2.145-9:

“…the passover figuratively represents the purification of the soul; for they say that the lover of wisdom is never practising anything else except a passing over from the body and the passions. And each house is at that time invested with the character and dignity of a temple, the victim being sacrificed so as to make a suitable feast for the man who has provided it and of those who are collected to share in the feast, being all duly purified with holy ablutions. And those who are to share in the feast come together not as they do to other entertainments, to gratify their bellies with wine and meat, but to fulfil their hereditary custom with prayer and songs of praise. And this universal sacrifice of the whole people is celebrated on the fourteenth day of the month, which consists of two periods of seven, in order that nothing which is accounted worthy of honour may be separated from the number seven. But this number is the beginning of brilliancy and dignity to everything.” (Yonge translation)

Philo specifically explains the girding of the loins (Exod 12:11) in terms of restraining one’s appetites. By moving away from the passions, and offering the Passover sacrifice (12:4), one makes the ‘advance toward perfection’, with the unblemished lamb symbolizing a moderate spirit. The passage away from the passions should be done promptly and willingly, i.e., “in haste”. Cf. On Allegorical Interpretation 3.94, 154, 165; On the Sacrifices of Abel and Cain §63; On the Migration of Abraham §25; Who Is the Heir…? §192f, 255. On the Preliminary Studies §106. The Passover is also mentioned in On the Decalogue §159; and cf. his discussion in On the Life of Moses 2.221-7.

Perhaps the most direct and full exposition of the Passover by Philo is found in Questions and Answers on Exodus (1.4), which I quote here in full (from the LOEB translation by Ralph Marcus):

“They make the Passover sacrifice while changing their dwelling-place in accordance with the commands of the Logos, in return for three beneficent acts (of God), which are the beginning and the middle of the freedom to which they now attain. And the beginning was that they were able to conquer the harsh and insupportable masters of whom they had had experience and who had brought all kinds of evil upon them, and this (came about) in two ways, by having their force and their numbers increase. And the middle was that they saw the divinely sent punishments and disasters which overtook their enemies, (for) it was not the nations which fought against them but the regions of the world and the four elements which came against them with the harmfulness and violence of beasts. That is the literal meaning. But the deeper meaning is this. Not only do men make the Passover sacrifice when they change their places but so also and more properly do souls when they begin to give up the pursuits of youth and their terrible disorder and they change to a better and older state. And so our mind should change from ignorance and stupidity to education and wisdom, and from intemperance and dissoluteness to patience and moderation, and from fear and cowardice to courage and confidence, and from avarice and injustice to justice and equality. And there is still another Passover of the soul beside this, which is its making the sacrifice of passing over from the body; and there is one of the mind, (namely, its passing over) from the senses; and as for thoughts, (their passing over consists) in one’s not being taken with oneself but in willingly thinking further of desiring and emulating prophetic souls.”

Important in relation to the early Christian application of the Passover festival is Philo’s exposition (in On the Special Laws 2.150-61) of the seasonal symbolism, emphasizing the rebirth of new life in the springtime, and the dominance of light over darkness:

“The vernal equinox is an imitation and representation of that beginning in accordance with which this world was created. Accordingly, every year, God reminds men of the creation of the world, and with this view puts forward the spring, in which season all plants flourish and bloom…. For it is necessary that the most beautiful and desirable phenomena belong to those things which are first and have received the position of leadership, those phenomena through which the reproduction and growth of animals and fruit and crops take place, but not the ominous destructive forces. And this feast is begun on the fifteenth day of the month, in the middle of the month, on the day on which the moon is full of light, in consequence of the providence of God taking care that there shall be no darkness on that day.” (vv. 151-5, Yonge translation)

In Part 3, we will begin examining how the Israelite/Jewish Passover tradition influenced early Christian thought. Our initial focus will be on the Gospel of John.

The Passion Narrative: Episode 2 (John 13:31-38)

Episode 2: The Passover Meal

John 6:51-58; 13:31-38 (continued)

In this note, I wish to explore the final difference between John and the Synoptics in the presentation of the Last Supper scene—the inclusion of the great Last Discourse (or series of Discourses) which follows the Supper and precedes the episode in the Garden (Jn 18:1-11). There is nothing remotely like it in the Synoptic Gospels, though perhaps a very loose parallel may be seen in the teaching which Luke records in 22:25-30, 35-38 (see part 2 of this study). It is not possible here to examine the Last Discourse (13:31-17:26, or, properly 13:31-16:33) in much detail, but a structural and thematic survey may help us to understand its place in the Passion Narrative (on this, see the supplemental note).

Jn 13:31-38—The Introduction to the Last Discourse

I regard 13:31-38 as the beginning, the introduction, of the Last Discourse. Indeed, these verses introduce the primary themes of the Discourse, weaving them around the Passion Narrative tradition of the prediction by Jesus of Peter’s denial. I will leave the role of Peter in the Passion (and Resurrection) Narratives for a later note. It is more important, at this juncture, to consider the place of this tradition in terms of the Last Discourse, and how it connects with the earlier Last Supper scene. I outline these verses as follows:

    • Narrative transition (v. 31a)
    • Saying of Jesus #1—Son of Man saying (vv. 31b-32)
    • Saying of Jesus #2—Declaration of his going away (v. 33)
    • Saying of Jesus #3—The Love Command (vv. 34-35)
    • Excursus: Prediction of Peter’s Denial (vv. 36-38)

Let us examine each of these elements briefly.

Narrative transition (v. 31a)—This short statement serves to join the sayings of vv. 31-35 with the Last Supper scene. It is parallel with the even shorter statement that closes the earlier scene:

    • “And it was night” (v. 30b)—darkness symbolizing the identification of Judas as the betrayer, his departure, and the beginning of the Passion.
    • “Then, when he [i.e. Judas] went out…” (v. 31a)

Judas’ departure is significant for a number of reasons, but it has special importance in terms of the Last Discourse. With Judas gone, only the true disciples, the true believers, remain in the room with Jesus. This allows Jesus the opportunity to begin his great “Farewell Discourse” with his faithful followers, imparting information and teaching which he could not have done earlier. Now it is the right time.

Saying #1 (vv. 31b-32)—This is a complex Son of Man saying with a clear earlier parallel in 12:23. Both sayings involve the verb doxázœ—which fundamentally means to regard someone with honor/esteem, but can also be used in the sense of “give honor”. Typically it is translated in the New Testament as “glorify” (i.e. give glory). For other occurrences of the verb in John, see 7:39; 8:54; 11:4; 12:16, 28. It will become an important keyword in the Last Discourse—14:13; 15:8; 16:14; 17:1, 4-5, 10, and cf. also 21:19. First consider the Son of Man saying in 12:23:

“The hour has come that the Son of Man should be given honor/glory [doxasth¢¡]”

The context is Jesus’ impending death (vv. 24-27, note the parallel with the Synoptic Passion narrative in v. 27), as well as the declaration of Jesus in v. 28:

“Father, give honor/glory [dóxason] (to) your name”

This emphasis on the name of God is also an important motif in the Last Discourse, especially the Prayer-discourse of chapter 17.

I mentioned the complex structure of the saying in 13:31:

“Now the Son of Man is given honor/glory, and God is given honor/glory in him; [if God is given honor/glory in him], (then) also God will give him honor/glory in him(self), and straightaway will give him honor/glory”

The textual evidence for the phrase in brackets is divided; a simpler structure results if it is omitted:

    • Now the Son of Man is given honor
      —God is given honor in him
      —God will give him honor in him(self)
    • Straightaway (God) will give him honor

The interrelationship between the Son (Jesus, here called by the self-title “Son of Man”) and the Father is a fundamental (Christological) theme in the Fourth Gospel, which reaches a high-point in the Last Discourse.

Saying # 2 (v. 33)—

“(My) little children [teknía], (only) a little (time) yet am I with you—you will seek (after) me, and, even as I said to the Yehudeans {Jews} that ‘(the place) where I lead (myself) under [i.e. go away], you are not able to come (there)’, (so) also I relate (this) to you now”

This saying refers back to 8:21-22, and introduces the theme of Jesus’ departure—his going away—which covers the entire process of his Passion, much as the verb doxázœ does in v. 31 (see above). It refers, variously, and with complex layers of dual meaning, to: (1) his death, and (2) his return to the Father. The theme is especially prominent in chapters 14 and 16 of the Last Discourse, where it is also tied to the promise of the Spirit (the Helper/Paraclete). The word (tekníon), used by Jesus to address his disciples, is a diminutive form of téknon (“offspring”, i.e. “child”), which features in several key verses in the Gospel (1:12; 8:39; 11:52) and the Letter of John (1 Jn 3:1-2, 10; 5:2; 2 Jn 1, 4, 13; 3 Jn 4)—always in the plural (tékna). It may indicate that Jesus is identifying the disciples (the true believers, with Judas absent) as the “offspring [i.e. children] of God” (1:12). The diminutive tekníon (“little children”) occurs only here in the Gospel, but is used frequently in the first Johannine letter (2:1, 12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21).

Saying #3 (vv. 34-35)—The last saying introduces another primary theme of the Last Discourse: the bond of love which binds the disciples to Jesus (and God the Father), and to each other. It had a precursor in the foot-washing scene of vv. 3-17 (see part 5 of this study), especially Jesus’ teaching in vv. 12-17. Here Jesus frames it as a “command” (entol¢¡), the literal Greek referring to something laid upon a person which he/she is charged to accomplish. The so-called “love command” is an essential aspect of Jesus’ teaching (see Mark 12:28-34 par, also Matt 5:43-46 par; Lk 7:41-48), and became a primary (and binding) component of the early Christian identity—Rom 12:9-10; 13:8-10; 14:15; 1 Cor 8:1-3; 12:31b-14:1; 16:14; 2 Cor 5:14; Gal 5:13-14; Phil 1:9; 2:2; 1 Thess 4:9; James 2:8; 1 Pet 1:22, etc. When the term “commandment(s)” is used in the Gospel and letters of John, it primarily refers to the love-command.

Prediction of Peter’s Denial (vv. 36-38)—As in the Synoptic Gospels (Mk 14:26-31) functions as an excursus within the Passion narrative, following the Passover meal scene. It is transitional to the Gethsemane scene (Mk 14:32-52 par), which in John’s version does not come until after the Last Discourse (18:1-11). The similar outline indicates that both John and the Synoptics are drawing upon a common historical tradition:

John’s version differs from the Synoptic primarily in the way that the core Peter tradition (vv. 37b-38) is incorporated into the Last Discourse. Verses 36-37a mark this joining transition:

“(Then) Shim’on (the) Rock [i.e. Simon Peter] says to him, ‘(To) what (place) do you lead (yourself) under [i.e. go away]?'” (v. 36a)
(to which Jesus answers:)
“(To) whatever (place) I lead (myself) under [i.e. go away], you are not able to follow me (there)—but you will follow later” (v. 36b)

Note the similarity in language and phrasing to verse 33 (Saying #2, above). The declaration that Peter will follow Jesus at a later point has a loose parallel in Lk 22:32. Peter’s response in v. 37a continues the same Johannine emphasis:

“Lord, through what [i.e. why] am I not able to follow you now?”

His declaration in v. 37b may also be shaped by the language and thought of the Fourth Gospel—compare with 10:11, 15, 17 (from the Good Shepherd parable):

Peter: “I will set (down) my soul [i.e. lay down my life] over you” (v. 37b)
Jesus: “I set (down) my soul [i.e. lay down my life] over the sheep” (10:15)

On Passover and the Passion Narrative

On Passover and the Passion Narrative

One of the most certain traditions regarding the Passion Narrative is that the arrest and death of Jesus occurred around the time of the Passover festival. This is confirmed by multiple lines of tradition—in both the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John, as well as in subsequent Jewish tradition (e.g., the Talmudic baraitha in b. Sanhedrin 43a). However, there is a distinct difference between John and the Synoptics in the precise dating and relationship to the day of Passover (Nisan 15).

According to the Synoptic Tradition, the “Last Supper” shared by Jesus and his disciples was a Passover meal which took place on the evening (after sundown) which begins the day of Passover (Nisan 15). This is stated explicitly in Mark 14:1, 12, 14, 16 par. The dating makes clear that we are dealing with the day of 14/15 Nisan—prior to the feast after sundown, on the daytime eve (of the 14th), the Passover lambs would be sacrificed (Mk 14:12; Luke 22:7).

However, according to the Gospel of John, the Last Supper (Jn 13:1-17ff) occurred some time before the day of Passover proper. This is indicated specifically by:

    • The introduction to the Passion narrative and the Last Supper scene in 13:1: “And before the festival of Pesah [i.e. Passover]…”
    • Jn 18:28 and 19:14 make clear that the trial and crucifixion of Jesus both took place on the day of Passover eve (Nisan 14), before sundown and the start of Passover. On the 15th of Nisan Jesus was already dead (and buried).

This creates an obvious chronological discrepancy between John and the Synoptics. Commentators have tried to solve the issue in a number of ways, none of which are entirely satisfactory. Many critical scholars would simply admit that two different (variant) traditions regarding the precise dating, in relation to Passover, have been preserved. For those interested in determining the “correct” historical tradition, or in harmonizing the two lines of Gospel tradition, there are several possibilities which must be considered:

    1. Either John or the Synoptics record the “correct” dating, while the other has adapted and interpreted it, giving the association with Passover a special theological or Christological application.
    2. Both traditions, in their own way, are giving a specific interpretation (or application) to the original historical tradition which generally recorded Jesus’ death as occurring around the time of Passover.
    3. Each tradition is following a different way of dating Passover—i.e. is using a different calendar.

The last of these has been a favored way of solving the problem, especially for traditional-conservative commentators eager to harmonize John and the Synoptics. The idea is that two different calendars were in use in Palestine at the time of Jesus—for example, a 364-day solar calendar, along with a lunar (or lunar-solar) calendar. According to this theory, popularized by the work of A. Jaubert (accessible in English as The Date of the Last Supper [Alba House: 1965]), the Synoptics, along with Jesus and his disciples, are following the solar calendar, by which the Last Supper was celebrated, as a Passover meal, the evening beginning Nisan 15, while Jesus would have been crucified and buried on Nisan 17/18. John, by contrast, is following the official lunar-solar calendar, whereby the Last Supper occurred on Nisan 12. Evidence for use of an alternate (solar) calendar has been found in the Qumran writings (Dead Sea Scrolls)—e.g. 1QpHab 11:4ff and 11QPsa 27—as well as in other Jewish writings such as the book of Jubilees. Nevertheless, despite its attractiveness and convenience, this theory has fallen out of favor somewhat in recent decades, largely because commentators do not see any real evidence (apart from our desire to harmonize the accounts) that there are two different calendars used in the Gospels.

Options 1 and 2 above posit the alternative view that either John or the Synoptics (or both) have made the dating specific so as to bring out a particular theological/Christological connection with Passover:

    • In making the Last Supper unquestionably a Passover meal, the Synoptic tradition, which records Jesus’ words of institution (of the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper), associates the impending sacrificial death of Jesus with the sacrificial offering(s) drawn from the Exodus narratives (Exod 24:8), by which the Covenant with God’s people was established. Jesus’ own body and blood (i.e. his death) will similarly establish a (new) Covenant with believers.
    • John identifies Jesus with the Passover lamb (19:31, cf. also 1:29, 36), which is why the Gospel writer dates the crucifixion to Nisan 14, when the lambs are prepared for slaughter (19:14). The mention of “hyssop” (19:29 MT) may also be an allusion to the ancient Passover tradition (Exod 12:22). Paul offers a similar identification of Jesus with the Paschal Lamb in 1 Cor 5:7 (and cf. also 1 Pet 1:19).

We should perhaps consider a fourth option, which, while it does not solve all of the chronological problems, may offer a simpler way of harmonizing the two lines of tradition. It is possible that Jesus and his disciples observed the Passover meal—or a meal with Passover characteristics—ahead of time, i.e. on Nisan 14, or even earlier. Several details in the Gospels could be cited in favor of this solution:

    • The dating of the Last Supper in John 13:1ff.
    • The Synoptic tradition which records that the Jewish Council (Sanhedrin) did not wish to have Jesus arrested on the feast of Passover, indicating that they would have done this before sundown on Nisan 14/15 (cf. Mark 14:1-2 par).
    • It has always seemed somewhat implausible that the Sanhedrin would have met to interrogate Jesus on Passover. This removes the difficulty, preserving the (accurate) information in John 18:28, 39—i.e., that the trial and execution of Jesus took place prior to sundown Nisan 14/15.
    • The language and wording of Luke 22:15 could be taken to indicate that the meal is prior to Passover.

The main argument against this view is the specific dating indicated by Mark 14:1, 12. It would end up as a variation of option 1 above, implying that the Synoptic Gospels redated the historical tradition in order to make the Last Supper more clearly a celebration of Passover.

The Passion Narrative: Episode 2 (John 13:3-17)

Episode 2: The Passover Meal

John 6:51-58; 13:1-38 (continued)

In part 4 of this study, in regard to the lack of any reference to the Lord’s Supper in John’s account of the Passover meal (Last Supper) scene, I looked at the possible references to the Eucharist in Jn 6:51-58. Today, I will examine the other major difference in John’s version.

The Foot-Washing (Jn 13:3-17)

Assuming that both John and the Synoptic are referring to the same essential historical tradition—the (Passover) meal with Jesus and his close disciples (the “Last Supper”)—it is striking that, not only has the author left out any reference to the institution of the “Lord’s Supper” (see part 4 of this study), but has included a very different sort of sacramental scene. This, of course, is the washing of the disciples’ feet by Jesus in vv. 3-17. In order to gain a better understanding of the possible significance of this tradition (that is, why the author chose to include it so prominently), a quick survey of the structure of the episode may be helpful:

    • Narrative introduction (v. 2), which spotlights the betrayal by Judas (as in the Synoptic tradition, Mk 14:10-11 par). Verse 1 serves as the narrative (and thematic) introduction to the Passion narrative as a whole.
    • The Foot-Washing tradition (vv. 3-17) which functions as a short discourse in the style of the Johannine Discourses of Jesus:
      —The narrative description of Jesus’ act (vv. 3-5)
      —The Dialogue with Peter (vv. 6-11)
      —The Exposition by Jesus (vv. 12-17)
    • The Prediction of the Betrayal (vv. 18-30a)
    • Concluding statement (v. 30b): “And it was night”

Thus the foot-washing is one of two main components to the episode; as such, it clearly takes the place of the “Lord’s Supper” in the Synoptic tradition. Each of the three parts of the foot-washing scene provides important information as to its significance and importance for the Gospel writer (and/or the tradition he inherited).

Description of Jesus’ act (vv. 3-5)—Here the author sets the act precisely in context:

“Seeing [i.e. knowing] that the Father gave all (thing)s into his hand, and that he came out from God and that toward God he leads (himself) under [i.e. back]…” (v. 3)

This introductory statement is a veritable epitome of Johannine theology and the portrait we see of Christ in the Gospel. The entire scope of the Passion is under the guidance of God the Father, and takes place completely according to his purpose. Jesus, as the Son sent by the Father, is fully aware of this, that the process of his glorification (see verse 31ff)—his death, resurrection, and return to the Father—is about to commence. Seeing/knowing all this, Jesus

“…rises out of the dining and sets (aside) his garments and, taking a linen-towel, girded himself thoroughly…” (v. 4)

It is tempting to see this action as a kind of symbolic picture of the incarnation itself—in which Jesus “sets aside” his glory and takes on the role of a human servant (slave), whose duty it would be to perform such menial tasks as washing the feet of guests. Certainly, it is meant to depict the sacrificial service which Jesus’ was about to perform (i.e. his death) on behalf of those (the disciples/believers) whom God the Father had given to him. The wording suggests determination and purpose by Jesus in performing this act. Moreover, the participial labœ¡n (“taking…”) is also used in the Synoptic description of Jesus’ action with the bread and cup, and strongly indicates a similar allusion to Jesus’ sacrificial death.

“…then (after this) he throws [i.e. pours] water into a wash-basin and began to wash the feet of the learners [i.e. disciples] and to wipe it off with the towel with which he had been thoroughly girded” (v. 5)

Jesus’ action here reflects that of the woman (Mary) who anointed him in John’s version of the Anointing scene (12:1-11, v. 3; see also Lk 7:38). As that action was associated with Jesus’ coming death, so we should recognize a similar connection here. Only Jesus’ act of washing the feet of the disciples emphasizes the purpose of his death (i.e. that it is on their behalf), and that it is a sign of his willing self-sacrifice (cf. 10:11, 15, 17-18). There is an interesting parallel to this in the Synoptic tradition (see below).

The Dialogue with Peter (vv. 6-11)—The exchange between Jesus and Peter has always been seen as somewhat enigmatic. Is the point of it sacramental (i.e. the need for baptism), ethical (tied to repentance/penance), spiritual/mystical (participation in Jesus’ death), or something else entirely (e.g., a portrait of the need to show love)? A bit too much traditional theological and doctrinal weight has been given to the exchange. The key to it, I think, lies in the Johannine discourse format and style, which typically involves three basic components: (1) a saying or action by Jesus, (2) the person’s reaction which indicates a lack of understanding, and (3) an explanation by Jesus of its true/deeper meaning:

    1. Jesus’ action (cf. above) symbolizing his humble and sacrificial service (death) on behalf of those whom he loves (Peter and the other disciples/believers)
    2. Peter misunderstands on two levels:
      (a) Vv. 6, 8: it is not worthy of Jesus (his Lord/Master) to wash his feet (compare the Synoptic tradition in Mk 8:32f par)
      (b) V. 9: it is a question of ordinary washing/bathing with water Jesus’ declares outright to Peter in v. 7 that he does not (and cannot) understand now the significance of the act
    3. Explanation by Jesus. The principal statement is v. 8b: “If I should not wash you, you have/hold no part with me”

The statement in v. 8b indicates that acceptance of Jesus’ sacrificial act is necessary in order to join and be united with him. The further illustrative exposition in verse 10 has caused commentators some difficulty, mainly, I think, because they have focused too much on the first half of the verse, rather than the second. The first half corrects Peter’s misunderstanding (v. 9)—i.e., that is not simply a question of bathing oneself with water. The true meaning is declared in the second half (v. 10b):

“…(the) whole (body/person) is clean; and (indeed) you are clean—but not all of you”

There is a clever conceptual play on words here:

    • the whole (of you) is clean
      —you [pl.] are clean
    • not all of you (are clean)

The implication is that all those whom God/Christ has chosen (disciples/believers) are fully clean; there is no need for any cleansing—physical, sacramental, or otherwise—in addition (cf. 15:3). Judas, however, is not one of the true believers chosen by God; Jesus chose him to be one of the Twelve (6:70-71), but his ultimate association is with the Devil and darkness (13:2, 30b; see also Lk 22:3, 53).

The Exposition by Jesus (vv. 12-17)—Here we have Jesus’ own explanation of the action. The disciples are to follow Jesus’ example, and give themselves (even their own lives) in sacrificial service to each other, as a sign of love. This comes to be an important theme in the Last Discourse (13:31-17:26) which follows the Supper scene.

Synoptic Parallel—While the Synoptics do not record the foot-washing episode as such, there is a general parallel, perhaps, in Luke 22:25-27. There, after the Passover meal (Last Supper), the author includes a block of teaching on discipleship (vv. 25-30, also 35-38). Because the sayings in vv. 25-27 have corresponding Synoptic versions in Mark 10:42-45 par, commentators have questioned their place in the Last Supper scene. However, the orientation of the Johannine foot-washing is roughly similar to vv. 25-27, with its emphasis on humility and sacrificial service. Interestingly, though Luke has nothing corresponding to it at this point, the saying in Mk 10:45 (in the context of vv. 42-44) is strikingly similar in tone and theme to what we see in John:

“For indeed the Son of Man [i.e. Jesus himself] did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his soul [i.e. life] as a (means of) loosing (from bondage) in exchange for many” (Mk 10:45)

Such a saying would have fit well in the Last Supper scene (cf. Mk 14:22-25 par).

The Passion Narrative: Episode 2 (John 6:51-58; chap. 13)

Episode 2: The Passover Meal

John 6:51-58; 13:1-38

It now remains to examine how the “Last Supper” Passover scene is presented in the Gospel of John. Here, as is often the case, we are dealing with an entirely separate line of tradition, though one which shares certain elements and details with the Synoptic.

The first point to consider is the identification of the “Last Supper” as a Passover meal. This is all but certain in the Synoptic tradition (see the discussion in parts 1–2–3 of this study), but not so in the Gospel of John. Indeed, the Gospel of John has rather a different chronology for the Passion narrative, which will be discussed in more detail in a separate note. As we shall see, there are other prominent differences between the two (John and the Synoptics); and yet certain elements would seem to confirm that they are drawing upon a common historical tradition. The common features may be outlined as follows:

    • If not on the eve/day of Passover proper (Mk 14:1, 12ff par), clearly there is a general Passover setting for this meal (John 13:1, see also 11:55; 12:1; 18:28, 39; 19:14).
    • It is a meal shared between Jesus and his disciples (Mk 14:12ff par; Jn 13:1-2ff).
    • It is connected with a narrative introduction referencing the betrayal by Judas (Mk 14:10-11 par; Jn 13:2).
    • Jesus’ prediction of his betrayal, including the identification of the betrayer (Mk 14:18-21 par; Jn 13:18-30 [note the greatly expanded tradition in John]).
    • The prediction of Peter’s denial, following the scene of the meal (Mk 14:27-31 par; Jn 13:36-38).

The main differences in John’s account, compared with the Synoptic tradition, may be summarized:

    1. The meal does not occur on the evening which marks the start of Passover proper (Nisan 15), but some time before this (Jn 13:1).
    2. There is no account of the “Lord’s Supper” and its institution (see part 3).
    3. In its place we find a different sort of symbolic, sacramental act—Jesus’ washing of the disciples’ feet (vv. 3-17).
    4. Judas features more prominently in the episode (vv. 2, 25-30; see also 12:4-6).
    5. In between the Last Supper meal and the Gethsemane/Garden scene (18:1-11) there is an extensive collection of teaching by Jesus—the “Last Discourse” (13:31-17:26).

Items #1 and 4 will be discussed in separate upcoming notes; today, and in the note following, we will examine #2, 3, and 5.

The Absence of the “Lord’s Supper” (cf. Jn 6:51-58)

As discussed in part 3, the Lord’s Supper, with Jesus’ words of institution, features prominently in the Synoptic tradition (Mk 14:22-25; Matt 26:26-29; Luke 22:17-20). It is all but certain that the Gospel writers, in various ways, have shaped this portion of the narrative to reflect early Christian ritual and practice regarding the “Supper of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:20), which came to be known by the technical term of Eucharist (from the verb used by Jesus, eucharistéœ). There is nothing of this at all in John’s version of the scene, a fact which has perplexed commentators throughout the years. However, as it turns out, there is a scene in the Fourth Gospel which seems to relate in some way to the Eucharist—in Jn 6:51-58, part of the great “Bread of Life” discourse (6:25-59). I have discussed these verses several other times on this site, such as in the notes on the Feeding Miracle (6:1-15) in the series “Jesus and the Gospel Tradition” (see the note on Jn 6:22-59). There is general similarity between verse 51 and Mk 14:22ff par (note the words in bold):

    • “taking bread…and giving it to the disciples (he) said, ‘Take (it and) eat—this is my body‘” (Matt 26:26 [very close to Mk])
    • “taking bread…he gave (it) to them, saying, ‘This is my body th(at is be)ing given over you‘” (Lk 22:19 MT)
    • “if any one should eat this bread…the bread which I will give is my flesh (given) over the life of the world” (Jn 6:51)

Moreover, there are other instances of strong Eucharist language or allusions in the verses which follow (esp. vv. 52-56):

    • The people ask “how is this (man) able to give us [his] flesh to eat?” (v. 52) (the four statements by Jesus in response clearly have a parallel structure, set in tandem):
    • “If you would not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not hold life in your(selves)” (v. 53)
      • “The one chomping [i.e. eating] my flesh and drinking my blood holds (the) life of the Age [i.e. eternal life]” (v. 54)
    • “For my flesh truly is food and my blood truly is drink” (v. 55)
      • “The one chomping [i.e. eating] my flesh and drinking my blood remains in me and I in him” (v. 56)

Commentators continue to debate how one should interpret these references in the context of the Bread of Life discourse. There are a number of possibilities:

    • Option 1: The statements are all part of an authentic discourse given by Jesus at the time indicated in the narrative, and that he is referring to the Lord’s Supper—i.e. the Christian Eucharist.
    • Option 2: The narrative setting is authentic, but Jesus is not primarily referring to the Eucharist, but to a symbolic/spiritual “eating” of his words (and the power/presence of his person), as indicated in vv. 35-50 and vv. 60-63ff. A Eucharistic interpretation is secondary, but applicable.
    • Option 3: Eucharistic words by Jesus, from an original Last Supper (Passion) setting, have been “relocated” and included within the earlier discourse by the Gospel writer (or the tradition he has inherited).
    • Option 4: Vv. 51-58 represent an early Christian interpretation (by the Gospel writer?) of Jesus’ Bread of Life discourse/teaching, so as to tie it in with the Eucharist.
    • Option 5: Vv. 51-58, along with much of the discourse as a whole, are essentially an early Christian production, derived (in some fashion) from Jesus’ actual words. As such, they definitely refer to the Eucharist.

In my view, only the middle three (2nd, 3rd and 4th) options have any real chance of being correct. Traditional-conservative commentators (especially Evangelical Protestants) would perhaps opt for the second; and, it must be said, the overall tone of the discourse (and Johannine thought) favors a spiritual/symbolic interpretation of vv. 51-58. Critical scholars would probably tend toward option 4—i.e., that vv. 51-58 represent a distinctly Christian ‘layer’ of interpretation that has been added to the discourse, which otherwise would have been a Passover exposition (given to Jews in the Synagogue, v. 59) on the “Bread of Life” motif from Exodus. However, there is much to be said for option #3—that the Gospel writer(?) has included Jesus’ Eucharistic words and teaching, originally given to his disciples in the context of the Last Supper and his impending Passion. Arguments in favor of this view are:

    • The lack of any reference to the Eucharist at the “Last Supper” (see above). The author certainly knew of this tradition, and it is hard to image that he would not have included it, or a reference to it, somewhere in the Gospel.
    • The general similarity here to the words (and essential thought) presented by Jesus at the Last Supper in the Synoptic tradition (Mk 14:22ff par, see above).
    • The fact that, in the chapter 6 setting, such references to eating/drinking Jesus’ flesh and blood would have been virtually incomprehensible to people at the time (including interested but uncommitted followers). They are more intelligible when spoken to Jesus’ close disciples at a time closer to his death.
    • The Passover setting in chapter 6 might have made it possible, in the mind of the author, to “transfer” the Eucharistic words from one Passover to another, so as to take advantage of the “Bread of Life” motif (which involves ‘eating’ Jesus).

A careful examination of the structure of vv. 51-58 may help us to interpret the passage more clearly. Consider:

    • V. 51a: I AM saying of Jesus (“I am the Living Bread stepping down out of Heaven”); this connects vv. 51-58 with the earlier portions of the discourse (vv. 26-34, 35-50).
    • Vv. 51b-52: Exposition by Jesus (v. 51b)—The need to eat this Bread, which is identified with Jesus’ flesh Reaction/Question by the people (v. 52)
    • Vv. 53-56: Exposition by Jesus (four statements)—Eating/drinking his flesh and blood
    • V. 57: Exposition by Jesus—Feeding on him (the Son)
    • V. 58: Concluding statement by Jesus (“This is the Bread stepping down out of Heaven”)

There is a definite chiasmus involved in this structure:

    • Bread coming down out of Heaven (v. 51a)
      • Eating this Bread, which is Jesus’ flesh (vv. 51b-52)
        —Eating/drinking his flesh and blood [Eucharistic motif] (vv. 53-56)
      • Eating Jesus, the one (Son) sent from the Father (v. 57)
    • Bread coming down out of Heaven (v. 58)

It appears that the Eucharistic motif in vv. 53-56 has been carefully set or ‘inserted’ into the conceptual structure of the Bread of Life discourse—with the sudden (and rather unexpected) shift from bread/flesh to flesh and blood. Only in these verses is there any mention of drinking in the discourse, which otherwise naturally, and appropriately, refers only to eating. The critical question is whether the Gospel writer or Jesus himself is responsible for this development. If one decides that the latter is more likely, then it is harder to maintain a primary Eucharistic reference in vv. 51-58 (though a secondary application is still possible); if the former, then a direct allusion to the Eucharist is all but certain.

The Ancient Israelite Festivals: Passover (Part 1)

This is the beginning of a regular, periodic series, focusing on the major Festivals of ancient Israel, as attested in the Old Testament Scriptures, and subsequently in Jewish practice. I will be relying primarily on the Scriptural sources, with an emphasis on how the Festival traditions and customs influenced early Christian thought and practice. These studies will correspond, generally if not strictly, with the traditional dating and chronology for each festival during the year. We begin with the festival known as Passover—Hebrew js^P# (Pesaµ), Greek Pa/sxa (Páscha).

Passover—Part 1:
Ancient Origins and Old Testament Background

Terminology

The traditional term “pasch(al)” comes from the Greek transliteration (pa/sxa, páscha) of the Hebrew noun js^P# (pesaµ), while our English “passover” stems from the customary assumed meaning of the root jsp I in Hebrew (“to pass over”). Unfortunately verb forms of jsp I are extremely rare in the Old Testament, with only four occurrences, three of which are in Exodus 12 (cf. below), and those may represent an attempt to explain the meaning of js^P# in terms of the historical tradition of the Exodus. The other occurrence is in Isaiah 31:5. There is a separate root (jsp II) which apparently means something like “limp, hobble” (cf. 2 Sam 4:4; 5:6; 1 Kings 18:16, 21, and the derived adjective j^s@P! “lame”).

Some commentators believe that jsp I more properly denotes protection (i.e. “guard, protect”) which certainly would fit the context in Exodus 12, as well as the reference in Isa 31:5. The core Exodus tradition indicates that js^P# signifies a specific kind of sacrificial/ritual offering, and could relate to the Akkadian pašâ—u, meaning something like “soothe, appease”, such as of the deity in a ritual context; and, indeed, there are scholars who would explain Hebrew js^P# on this basis. The Hebrew noun itself is used exclusively for the “Passover” festival—or, specifically, to the sacrificial offering of the festival.

The Exodus Narrative and Tradition

Our understanding of the origins and background of the js^P# festival stem almost entirely from the ancient historical-religious tradition(s) in the book of Exodus (chapters 12-13). This, of course, refers to the traditions regarding the “Exodus” of the people of Israel from Egypt, made possible through the miraculous “plagues” that struck the land of Egypt (chaps. 7-12). The last of these plagues took place on the evening of the “first Passover”, the night-vigil of the Exodus.

The narrative in Exodus 12 is typical of the way that traditional narrative and religious law/custom are blended together throughout the Pentateuch, but especially in the book of Exodus. While this is part of the sheer beauty and power of the book, it also creates difficulties for commentators who approach the narrative from an historical-critical perspective—exploring both the historical background and historicity of the narrative. In terms of the Passover/js^P#-tradition itself, there are three aspects which have to be considered:

    • The ancient background of the festival, which may pre-date the Exodus tradition
    • The context of the historical tradition of the Exodus, and
    • The parameters of the festival as it would be understood and practiced subsequently by Israelites
The Initial Reference in Exodus 12:11

The festival is established and outlined in vv. 1-11, at the conclusion of which is the following declaration:

“It is a js^P# to/for YHWH”
(v. 11b, cf. also vv. 27, 48, Lev 23:5, etc)

By all accounts this is an extremely ancient formula, however one evaluates the narrative otherwise from an historical-critical standpoint. This wording suggests that js^P# represents a kind of sacrificial/ritual offering. Apparently it is a familiar term, requiring no explanation; however, it is not immediately clear whether this familiarity should be understood (a) from the standpoint of (later) readers, or (b) in terms of the underlying historical tradition. If the latter (b), then it would mean that Israelites at the time of the Exodus would be familiar with the word and its usage. Let us consider this possibility.

A Pre-Exodus Festival?

A number of critical commentators have posited the theory that the Passover/js^P# reflected a pastoral religious tradition already in existence among Israelites (and/or other Semitic peoples) by the mid/late-2nd millennium (i.e. by the 13th century B.C.). This would conform with other aspects of ancient Israelite religion, whereby current/existing forms and customs were adapted—and re-interpreted—to be given a new and deeper meaning, specific to the religious experience of Israel. For example, the basic design of the Temple/Tabernacle was hardly unique or original, but tended to follow a pattern already in existence in Canaanite Temples, and nomadic Tent-shrines, etc. The same can be said with regard to many aspects of the sacrificial ritual, and other areas of Israelite religion. The uniqueness was not in the specific form, as much as it was of special (revelatory) meaning it had for Israel as the covenant people of YHWH.

The same may have been true of the js^P# offering. It may have originated as a pastoral/nomadic custom—an offering from the flock/herd, possibly intended to ensure God’s protection for the tribe. The communal-meal aspect of the offering could well have been part of the basic rite. According to this theory, Exodus 12:1-11 takes an existing rite, and applies it specifically to the context of the Exodus setting. This is a js^P# offering to God, but one with very special meaning and significance, since it marks YHWH’s protection over Israel and His deliverance of them from bondage in Egypt.

The Traditions in Exodus 12-13

By all accounts, Exodus 12-13 represents a complex blending of historical and religious traditions. The historical Exodus-setting of the Passover rite is, of course, foremost in view; and yet this narrative also serves as the framework for what we would call Torah—that is, instruction on important matters related to the religious and cultural life of the Community. As noted above, the guidelines for performing the Passover festival are given primarily in 12:1-11. The basic details are well-known, and may be summarized as follows:

    • The Passover is to take place in the month of Abib (Nisan, March-April), which becomes the first month of the Israelite calendar (v. 1; cf. 13:4; 23:15; 34:18; Deut 16:8)
    • Each household (ty]B^) selects a lamb (from the sheep or goats) for the Passover meal (vv. 3-5); the lamb is to be a male in its first year, and must be “complete” (<ym!T*)—an adjective with ritual significance, as it refers to the physical wholeness/perfection that is required for sacrificial offerings (Lev 1:3; 3:1; 22:19ff; Deut 15:21, etc).
    • The lamb is selected on the 10th of the month, and kept (vb rm^v*) until the 14th, when it is to be slaughtered “between the two settings (of the sun)” (<y]B*r=u^h* /yB@), a phrase taken to denote the time between noon and sunset—i.e., in the afternoon/evening (vv. 3,  6). According to the Mishnah (Pesaµim 5:5), the slaughtering was done in groups of thirty or more, a number that might cover more than one household.
    • In each house where the meal is eaten, blood from the slaughtered animal is put upon the doorposts and crosspiece (lintel), v. 7. This implies the removal of the animal’s blood before it is eaten, an essential religious and societal requirement for Israel (Gen 9:4; Exod 29:12, etc).
    • The meat (“flesh,” rc*B*) is to be eaten that same night, roasted in fire, and served with toXm^ and “bitter herbs” (<yr!r)m=), i.e., herbs with a sharp/pungent flavor used for seasoning (v. 8). The word hX*m^ is introduced and used here without any explanation, and we may assume that, like js^P# itself (cf. above), hX*m^ was a familiar term even at the time of the Exodus. The context indicates that it refers to flat bread-cakes made without leavening (cf. below), though the relation of the word to the presumed root Jx^m* (“drain [out]”) is not entirely clear.
    • The whole animal is to be roasted, and whatever of it that is not eaten must be burnt up in the fire that night, with nothing remaining of it into morning (vv. 9-10).
    • The instructions regarding how one is to be dressed when eating (v. 11) clearly is meant to symbolize and commemorate the historical circumstances of the Exodus. The historical tradition is particularly emphasized in vv. 12-13; on the central declaration in v. 11b, cf. the discussion above.

More detailed instructions follow in vv. 14-27, beginning with the statement in v. 14, which clearly has future generations of Israelites in mind:

“And this day shall be to you for a memorial (/ork=z]), and you shall celebrate it (as) a festival (gj^) to YHWH…”

Verses 15-20 establish the connection between the Passover festival and the seven-day festival of toXm^ (‘Unleavened Bread’); cf. also in 13:3-16. It is likely that this originally involved two separate celebrations, and the festivals remained distinct throughout Israelite history, even though they were inseparably joined from the earliest time, due to the historical Exodus-tradition. During the seven days (15th-21th of the month), there should be no leavened dough (lit. sourdough, Jm@j*) present in Israelite houses; the leavening agent itself is called roac= (13:7; Deut 16:4, etc), the etymology of which remains uncertain.

Specific ritual instructions for the js^P# (Passover) festival then follow in vv. 21-27, describing: (1) how the blood is to be applied to the doorframe, and the ritual symbolism involved (vv. 22-24); and (2) application of the symbolism within the Passover meal-service in the house (vv. 25-27). The latter includes the famous instruction which forms the basis of the liturgy (Passover Haggadah) that would develop:

“And, it shall be that, (when) your sons should say to you, ‘What (does) this service (mean) for you?’ even (so) you shall say: ‘It (is the) slaughtering [jb^z#, i.e. sacrifice] of (the) passover [js^P#] to YHWH, who passed over [lu^ js^P*] (the) houses of (the) sons of Yisrael in Egypt, in His striking (the) Egyptians; and (indeed) our houses He snatched (out of danger).'” (v. 26f)

Further instructions on the Passover are found in vv. 43-49, following the statement in v. 42, declaring the Passover evening as a night-vigil commemorating the historical tradition of the Exodus.

In Part 2 of this article, we will survey other Old Testament references to the Passover (and toXm^ festival), with some consideration given to how it developed in Israelite/Jewish thought and practice. This will be important for an understanding of how the festival—and its ritual symbolism—influenced early Christianity. The importance of the Passover in the Gospel tradition, with its specific connection to the Passion (and death) of Jesus Christ, is currently being featured in a set of studies in the series “The Passion Narrative” (Episode 2). See also the note on the chronological issues involved with the Passover association in the Gospel narrative(s).