Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View Last Supper and Passover
Show More
Loading...
Flag slate April 6, 2012 3:02 PM EDT
HI,

I just returned from Good Friday service at my church.  The Gospel was from John 18-19.  John 19:14 says Jesus was crucified on the Day of Preparation for the Passover or at least,  that was my understanding from the lesson.   Then, I remembered that the Last Supper was on the night before He was crucified.  Was not the Last Supper the same as the Passover?

Thanks for your explanation, anyone.
Flag Dutch777 April 6, 2012 4:23 PM EDT

Much debated; not known for sure.


John has the L.S. on the Day of Preparation, prior to Passover; the Synoptics have the L.S. on Passover.  The description of the table preparation suggests something other than a Passover Seder, perhaps a "chaburrah" which served as an ersatz Passover due to the rush of events.  The term used in the gospel for the bread Jesus broke is "arton" which usually signified "leavened bread" which is forbidden at Passover.  The Gk. term for unleavened bread is "azymos", and that term is not used.

Flag Nino0814 April 6, 2012 5:53 PM EDT

The writer of John is conveying the essence of the Good News as he and his community undertood it.  Jesus is incarnate God, who "takes away the sins of the world".  The writer had John the Baptist announce this when Jesus appeared, "behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world".  The pascal lamb was sacrified prior to the celebration, therefore Jesus die prior to the passover.  Did it happen like this?  No one knows, but for the gospel writers, historical details were second to communicating the meaning / significance of Jesus.  That is why the often contradict each other in historical details, and sometime in message, since they were not all of the same mind with regard to the significance of Jesus.

Flag slate April 7, 2012 9:51 PM EDT

Thank you. I often have questions about Bible readings.  It is so satisfying to find people who can help me. 

Flag Roodog April 7, 2012 11:37 PM EDT

Suppose 4 people witnessed the same event, let's say an accident:


They each would give the Police an account of what they saw and heard.


It is absolutely normative that there would be variations in each account.


The Gospels are 4 accounts of the life of Jesus Christ.


Luke's Gospel is actually like the Police report compiled from eyewitness accounts.


 

Flag Nino0814 April 8, 2012 10:18 AM EDT

Apr 7, 2012 -- 11:37PM, Roodog wrote:


Suppose 4 people witnessed the same event, let's say an accident:


They each would give the Police an account of what they saw and heard.


It is absolutely normative that there would be variations in each account.


The Gospels are 4 accounts of the life of Jesus Christ.


Luke's Gospel is actually like the Police report compiled from eyewitness accounts.


 



Luke does provide a lot of detail, including providing the historical context of Jesus' life and ministry.


It is clear that Luke was not just transcribing facts, but was a premier apologist for the Faith.  He had a clear agenda, one of them being to show that the new sect of Christians were not hostile to Roman rule, but were very peaceful, and obedient.  Even some of the Roman authorities were made to bear witness to the goodness of Christ and his disciples, where the Jewish authorities and "crowd" were depicted as unruly.


The historical context for Luke (and John) was the Gentile Christians being seen by Rome as separate from Judaism, and therefore a new sect, which was illegal, and the followers subject to persecution.  Compare Luke-Acts to Mark, Matthew and Paul's letters to see how Luke edited the message to this purpose.  Luke wants to show how the Christians were not only peaceful, but should be afforded by the Romans same legal status given to the Jewish authorities, to practice their Faith in peace.

Flag Roodog April 8, 2012 12:51 PM EDT

Apr 8, 2012 -- 10:18AM, Nino0814 wrote:


Apr 7, 2012 -- 11:37PM, Roodog wrote:


Suppose 4 people witnessed the same event, let's say an accident:


They each would give the Police an account of what they saw and heard.


It is absolutely normative that there would be variations in each account.


The Gospels are 4 accounts of the life of Jesus Christ.


Luke's Gospel is actually like the Police report compiled from eyewitness accounts.


 



Luke does provide a lot of detail, including providing the historical context of Jesus' life and ministry.


It is clear that Luke was not just transcribing facts, but was a premier apologist for the Faith.  He had a clear agenda, one of them being to show that the new sect of Christians were not hostile to Roman rule, but were very peaceful, and obedient.  Even some of the Roman authorities were made to bear witness to the goodness of Christ and his disciples, where the Jewish authorities and "crowd" were depicted as unruly.


The historical context for Luke (and John) was the Gentile Christians being seen by Rome as separate from Judaism, and therefore a new sect, which was illegal, and the followers subject to persecution.  Compare Luke-Acts to Mark, Matthew and Paul's letters to see how Luke edited the message to this purpose.  Luke wants to show how the Christians were not only peaceful, but should be afforded by the Romans same legal status given to the Jewish authorities, to practice their Faith in peace.





My point was that Luke was not an actual witness of the Gospel events but was commissioned by one said Theophilous to compile the account which we know as Luke/Acts. This account is unique in Scripture  because Luke is the only Gentile author of the entire Bible.

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook