No I did not say they ate a lamb. The text doesn't mention what exactly they ate besides leavened bread(artos) and wine. If it was the meal of Nisan 15th, we would of seen one account mentioning they ate unleavened bread. Not one account gave that description because it was NOT the evening of Nisan 15th meal. The lamb or the unleavened bread was not mentioned in that last supper meal. The passover is mentioned in reference to identified the day, but not that it was in the last supper meal they partook the evening of Nisan 14th.

I said that since the expression “ the day of unleavened bread” is generic and can both mean the evening of Nisan 14th or the evening of Nisan 15th; we needed to look at the context of these expression that would clarify what exactly they meant. Below is what I said in the other post :

By the context they(Mark Luke and Matthew) clearly meant -- Nisan 14th that started in the evening. In context the text say it was the day(Nisan 14th) when the Passover was killed, however they only stayed together the evening of Nisan 14th because Jesus was taken to court that night and was killed later on that day on Nisan 14th. But before Jesus was taken to court, that evening(of Nisan 14th) they ate a meal.

The peace offerings were brought at all feasts and were festive meals that were called Chagigah which literally means "Festival offering". Traditionally there were two Passover chagigahs which they called the first Chagigah(eaten evening of Nisan 14th), and the second Chagigah(eaten evening of Nisan 15th). The chagigah was normally an animal coming from the bovine family, but it could have been also a goat or a lamb.

"To kill the Passover" was a reference of what day it was "the first day of unleavened bread". It was on Nisan 14th. Read my reply to kland above post #171790.

There was no chagigah in the evening of Nisan 14. What some say is that there was a chagigah eaten in the afternoon of Nisan 14 (before the Passover supper). The arguments you are using are not properly substantiated.

AV Jn 13:1 . Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. 2. And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's [son], to betray him; …4 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself…..”


AV Jn 13:29 For some [of them] thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy [those things] that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor. ”

Not unusual at all. I’m sure there was lots of "shopping" happening the evening of Nisan 14th to prepare for the next evening(Nisan 15th) meal just like it is here in America, the night of Dec 23th-24th the stores are open very late so people can buy all their last minutes preparation to be ready the night of Dec 24th-25th.

Most people had come from far away, and had to find a place and buy the stuff necessary to prepare for the Passover meal that was taken on the next evening. Basically, for most of them coming from another town, they had 24hrs to do the real preparation. Many people got there a couple days earlier to do the cleansing ritual, but the preparation for the Passover mostly started in the evening of Nisan 14th. Jesus and the disciples also came from out of town, so they did what others did starting the evening of Nisan 14th by finding a place and getting everything ready for it.

It is with your application of verse 29 that makes no sense at all. Your view is saying they were eating the Nisan 15th meal (Thursday evening) which was considered as a ceremonial Sabbath and all day Friday also, and then the next day(Nisan 16th) was Saturday which was another Sabbath day. Two days being Sabbaths in a row and there’s no way Jesus would of instructed Judas to go buy things for the feast if they were already eating it and having two Sabbath days coming ahead.

The reference to the Passover sacrifice was to qualify to answer the question "what day was "the first day of unleavenened bread""?. Was it evening of Nisan 14th or evening of Nisan 15th? Could be both. So the added "on which the passover was to be sacrificed" was to give a clear understanding which day they were referencing. Nisan 14th is the only answer on which they sacrifice the lamb on the end of the day of Nisan 14th.


On the evening of Nisan 14th and on the following day of Nisan 14th, it was allowed to eat leavened bread. It was on the evening of Nisan 15th that it was not allowed and for 7 days after that.


Yeah the evening of Nisan 14th came which was “the first day of unleavened bread”(generic term that also meant Passover Season) -- the day they needed to prepared for the Passover and kill the lamb which can be no other day than Nisan 14th where those activities happened.

The day to prepare for the Passover meal is Nisan 14th starting in the evening. See comment above.


Strong defines Artos as "bread (as raised) or a loaf." It comes from the root word airo that means "to lift up". By the basic definition of the the word, it means a leavened (lifted, full of air, raised) bread.

Whereas the Hebrew word for bread is lechem that means "food" and can be anything -- not only for bread. It’s root word is lacham that means "to feed on".

So we see there’s a difference between the basic definition of bread in Greek Artos(lifted, raised bread) from the Hebrew word lechem for bread that means "food" in a very general sense that can be just anything that you "feed on" like a lamb, or grapes, etc...

I did a mistake in the other post, I thought they used artos with azumos to say unleavened bread. They don't they only use azumos in the NT for unleavenened [bread]. Never once, the word azumos is used to described the bread in the last supper in all 4 gospels accounts and by Paul. Not once. If that meal was the Passover meal like you believe, then we would of had at least ONE account saying the bread was unleavened. There was none in all 6 accounts (Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19; Jn 13:18; 1Co 10:16,17; 1Co 11:23,26-28).

To consider the bread at the last supper to be leavened was new to me also. So I had to look up the Hebrew word shewbread. Interesting findings :

a) Shewbread in Hebrew is the same word used for ordinary bread or "food" -- is lechem. Nothing special there.

b) However the description of shewbread in Lev 24 uses the word
challah for "cakes".
AV Lv 24:5 And thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes(challah) thereof: two tenth deals shall be in one cake.(challah)

The Hebrew word challah means "a cake (as usually punctured)". It's root word is chalal meaning "properly, to bore, i.e. (by implication) to wound, to dissolve; figuratively, to profane (a person, place or thing), to break (one's word), to begin (as if by an "opening wedge");"

c)I did not see any texts in scriptures that the shewbread was unleavened.

d)All the meat offering bread was to be burned along the sacrifices. The Lord said very specifically "No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto the LORD, shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the LORD made by fire.(Lev 2:11, see also Ex 23:18; Lev 6:17; 10:12). The meat offering was usually flour, bread, or cakes and it was forbiden to be offered with leavened.

e)Their was an exception to this rule of sacrifice burned on the altar without leaven and it was with the two loaves of leavened bread at Pentecost.
AV Lv 23:17 Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; [they are] the firstfruits unto the LORD. ;
This bread represented US and that’s why it is with leaven but needs to be cooked in the fire before it can be an acceptable sacrifice to the Lord.

f) Here’s another exception with the peace offering (Chagigah) AV Lv 7:13 Besides the cakes, he shall offer [for] his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offerings. I’m unsure if this is a burned offering, but as with the Pentecost bread, this peace offering (Chagigah) bread represents us.

g)However the shewbread was not burned, or a meal offering to be burned with a sacrifice. It was to be set on the table for a week and then after eaten by the priests. The meal offering bread offered with the sin offering needed to be eaten also by the priests, however the Bible says whatever they didn’t eat needed was to be burned up with the sin offering. For the shewbread, I could not see any instruction that the 12 loaves of cakes that was set on the table was to be burned if not all eaten. So to my understanding the whole 12 loaves needed to be all eaten up.

h) I didn’t see anywhere in the Bible that said the shewbread was to be unleavened, whereas, very careful instruction is given for the meal offering bread that needed to be unleavened.

Concerning the symbolic representation of the bread of the last supper, that bread represented His body that was broken for us. We all know that Jesus came in a sinful corrupt body like postfall Adam, despite He did not sin. To represent His body as an unleavened bread could imply that He came with a perfect uncorrupt body which would contradict the heart of the gospel message. So I don’t see any problem with the symbolism of the last supper meal with some leavened bread representing the body of Jesus coming as a corrupt man that was “punctured” like the 12 cakes(challah) of shewbread yet he sacrificed Himself for us. All other Chagigah meals taken (evening of Nisan 14th, Pentecost, Feast of Tabernacles) ….all were partaken with leavened bread (Lev 7:13). It was only the Chagigah of Nisan 15th that unleavened bread was mandatory.

Another symbolism related to the body of Christ is we are His body. The shewbread was 12 “punctured” cakes that represent the 12 tribes of Israel and also the 12 disciples. We all partake of His suffering (we too get punctured) and we together make one bread. To me it is consistent symbolism between Jesus body coming as a corrupt sinful man as Adam that came to show US the way. And US who are HIS BODY, we too came from Adam with a corrupt body that got “punctured” too while following His way.

AV 1C 10:17 For we [being] many are one bread, [and] one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

Verse 1 and verse 2 are independent. Before the feast of the Passover Jesus realized that His hour had come to leave this world and return to the Father. This is all the text says, as all translators admit. It doesn't say at all that the supper of v. 2 occurred before the feast of the Passover.

John 13:1 Now before the Passover Festival, Jesus realized that his hour had come to leave this world and return to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.
John 13:2 By supper time, the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray him (ISV).


Not true at all. Jesus was in Jerusalem since the previous Sunday (His triumphal entry). They had been in Jerusalem for four days.


It wouldn't make much sense to buy things at night either on Nisan 14 or on Nisan 15, but 1) the term "feast" can refer to any day of the feast, and 2) it would make much more sense to go out at that hour to buy an animal that had to be sacrificed next day in the morning than to buy an animal that had to be sacrificed next day in the afternoon.


Would you say on Friday morning that the Sabbath has arrived? That you are on the Sabbath? Of course this argument doesn't make any sense at all.


Of course not. It wasn't necessary to repeat that it was unleavened bread, once it was "the first day of unleavened bread".


This bread consisted of twelve loaves made of the finest flour. They were flat and thin. They were arranged in two piles of six loaves each, with each loaf piled on top of another. Not feasible with leavened bread. Josephus confirms that it was unleavened bread.


There was a whole week of unleavened bread. What was God trying to teach to the people of Israel?

Passover, prepare the Passover, means exactly one thing. Saying "Kill the Passover" emphasizes that fact. Jesus and the disciples ate lamb as part of the Passover meal. Otherwise, it wouldn't be.

Whether they killed and ate The Passover early, I do not know. But "kill the Passover" cannot mean don't eat unleavened bread. How can "kill" not mean to take a direct action to end the life of the lamb?