“After this Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the scripture), “I thirst.

” A bowl full of
vinegar stood there; so they put a sponge full of the vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth. When Jesus
had received the vinegar he said, “It is finished” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” 1

For what was Jesus thirsting and what exactly was finished? For nearly two thousand years

Biblical scholars have attempted to answer these questions. There have been many and varied scholarly

theories, literal interpretations, and mystical exposes written regarding these last words of Jesus from the

Cross in the Gospel of John. Still, even the best of scholarly theories seem unable to give a completely

satisfactory explanation, as if they only describe the tesserae without seeing how the pieces fit into the

mosaic that is John’s Gospel. This paper initially attempts to answer these two questions by means of

traditional scholarship, conveying the general lines of commentary and primary postulations these two

lines of text have inspired among scholars. Then digging deeper into the greater thematical context, the

trajectory of this paper leads one to conclude that there truly is another way to understand what the

Gospel writer John intended with Jesus’ final words from the Cross. By considering them in the context

of John’s passion account as a whole, the answers to these two questions become clear as these five

words are understood to be the final pieces that perfectly complete the Gospel mosaic. We begin, then,

by first taking closer look at the first of Jesus’ final words from the Cross.

“diyw◊” (“I thirst”)

This is the shortest of all words spoken on Calvary; while two English words in Greek there is

only one: diyw◊. This word is found only in John, and the only other time is in John 4 where Jesus sat

by the well of Samaria at noon. On the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles Jesus promised waters that

would satiate all so that they would never thirst again.2 Now, here at the Cross, on Jesus’ last day, in his

final hour of twelve, Jesus thirsts. This irony isn’t lost on Brawley, whose strictly literal interpretation

renders “God’s Messiah crucified… He who claimed to be able to satisfy with living water thirsts…and

1
John 19: 28-30
2
John 7:37

1
in response is only given the gift that provokes thirst.”3 Other scholars comment very little on this word,

concluding that Jesus was simply expressing a very real physical need, as one cannot doubt that there

was a human element to Jesus’ thirst as He endured the scourging, the loss of blood, the burning

feverishness while the nails were fastened to the most sensitive parts of His body and the weight of His

body tearing His tender nerves.4 Yet, one must ask why would this be significant enough for John to

record in his Gospel? Keener thus notes that including this cry from the Cross may have been useful for

John to counter the Gnostics who failed to embrace the humanity of Jesus.5 Still, it is difficult to believe

that a strictly literal, or even political, reason would be motivation enough for John to record these as the

final words of Jesus. Indeed, the structure of this verse reveals that John intentionally stresses Jesus’

thirst in relation to the previous clause “so that Scripture may be fulfilled” so as to ensure it wouldn’t be

seen merely as a token of his suffering.6 It must be concluded then, as is typical with John’s writing, he

is clearly pointing to something beyond the literal.

At the other extreme of this Johannine irony is the spiritual meaning of Jesus’ thirst. Witkamp

and others suggest that the only way to a true understanding of Jesus’ thirst at the Cross is to see it in the

context of Jesus’ other references to physical needs in the Gospel story.7 The ‘food that he would eat’

(his Father’s will) and the ‘cup that he would drink’ were the driving forces of Jesus’ mission. It follows,

then that “Jesus thirsts out of His love for God and his love for his own in this world.”8 Other scholars

generally speculate that His thirst was to do everything in accord with God’s plan and will.9 There are

numerous writings from mystics and Church Fathers whose meditations upon Jesus’ spiritual thirst from

3
Brawley, Robert L. "The Absent Complement and Intertextuality in John 19:28-29." Journal of Biblical Literature 112, no. 3
(1993): 443. It is difficult to reconcile Brawley’s defeatist interpretation with the rest of John’s Gospel and “Book of Glory”
4
Medical experts say that among all the pains and afflictions of the body there can scarcely be one greater or more intolerable than
extreme thirst.
5
Keener, Craig. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc, 2003: 1146.
6
Witkamp, L Th. "John's Thirst in John 19:28-30: Literal or Figurative?." Journal of Biblical Literature 115, no. 3 (1996): 494.
7
John 4:7-15, 34; 6:35; 7:37; 18:11
8
Witkamp, 497
9
Witherington, Ben III. John's Wisdom. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995: 310.

2
the Cross truly stir the heart. Yet such general and otherwise ethereal responses seem to read more

theology into the Scripture than from drawing actual meaning directly from the text. Moreover, in

consideration of the linguistic structure noted above the lack of specificity seems unsatisfactory.

A number of scholars have thus searched for the exact Scripture citations John intended to invoke

with Jesus’ cry of thirst. Most have given their side in the debate whether the Scripture Jesus fulfilled

was Psalm 69v21: “for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink” or Psalm 22v15: “my tongue cleaves to

my jaws.” The former is more popularly chosen due to the closer parallel while others argue for the latter

in light of the soldiers who “cast lots for (Jesus’) clothing.”10 While journal articles have been written

defending one or another choice of passage, even these explanations seem to fall into mere speculation

and still fail to answer the question of why fulfilling any chosen passage would be significant enough for

John make this reference in the very last words of Jesus. A closer look at the next and final words of

Jesus from the Cross seem to suggest there is, in fact, something greater Jesus was thirsting to fulfill.

tete÷lestai (“it is finished”)

Culpepper looks to the Greek root of the term used τετέλεσται: “it is finished” and notes the

irony that it is Jesus’ death that marks the completion of the mission “to give life abundantly.”11

Bultmann concludes in his commentary that “Everything happened that has had to happen; the work of

Jesus is completed; he has carried out that which his Father had commanded him.”12 Calvin and others

note that all the prophecies of Scripture were fulfilled and there was nothing that remained for Jesus to

do. This is representative of the typical commentary on these final words Jesus spoke from the Cross,

all noting in some way the perfection of Jesus’ task given by the Father was now finished. Not only do

such general interpretations seem to lack real substance, but Hahn (et al) suggest they even lack

validity.13 After all, St Paul reminds us that all was not finished at the Cross, since Christ’s resurrection
10
Psalm 22:18
11
Culpepper, Alan. The Gospel and Letters of John. Abingdon Press: Nashville, 1976.
12
Bultimann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Phiadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971: 675
13
Hahn, Scott: The Fourth Cup, [2006], Transcript of taped address from Catholic Answers, Franciscan University of Steubenville,

3
is as essential for man’s redemption as the crucifixion. Indeed, the “crux” of salvation is that Jesus was

"…raised for our justification."14 Even Jesus’ own prophetic words were not finished: “Destroy this

temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”15 Brown’s linguistic analysis reveals an important clue that

is key to unlocking the deeper meaning. He notes that the normal New Testament (and Johannine) word

for bringing Scripture to fulfillment is plhrwqhØv (also used in v24 and v36). Here, however, John

intentionally uses a different verb, indicating that there must be something else Jesus is referring to as

being finished.16 Even more remarkably, Brown points to the possibility of sacrificial overtones with the

use of this particular verb, perhaps even directly linking Jesus’ completion with Moses’ words in

finishing the work of the Tabernacle.17 Nevertheless, unable to establish further textual substantiation,

Brown merely footnotes this connotation since it is a “fragile basis” for resting on this interpretation.

It seems, however, that Brown unveiled not a ‘fragile’ fragment but rather the tip of the

Johannine iceberg as his insight seems to offer a glimpse of the embedded depth of meaning intended

throughout this entire pericope. What rests on a fragile basis, rather, are all the standard answers given

for Jesus’ thirst and fulfillment since they fail to interpret them in the broader context of John’s Gospel.

At best they may mine fragments of truth or ancillary layers of meaning, but traditional scholarship falls

short of unveiling the greater mosaic that can only be seen through the lens of John’s intended context.

Brown failed to note that what followed Moses’ work was the Passover, as well as the fact that John’s

Gospel is laden with references to Moses and imagery of Jesus as a new type of Moses.18 Moreover,

John’s entire Gospel is structured around Passover, this greatest of Jewish feasts, as he records Jesus

going up to Jerusalem to celebrate this feast three times in his public ministry. Witherington and other

scholars note that the three uniquely Johannine elements in the final scene of John’s Gospel –the Day of

Steubenville, OH.
14
Romans 4:25
15
John 2:19
16
Brown, Raymond. The Gospel According to John. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970: 74.
17
Exod 33:40, Moses completed the work in preparation for the glory of the Lord to fill the Tabernacle.
18
Many scholars recognize this typology, the presentation of which is beyond the scope of this paper. Reference in John are as
follows: John 1:17; 1:43; 3:14: 5:45-46; 6:28; 7:19-23; 8:5; 8:28.

4
Preparation, the Hour of Sacrifice, the hyssop, and the unbroken bones- present distinctively Passover

overtones. Yet the traditional scholarship typically stops there, failing to link the words with context

and symbolism in order to draw out the primary reason John was so persistent with his references to

Passover. It wasn’t merely for poetic allusions or some other mere literary device. The first-century

reader would have been able to see this and understand the fullness of what John intended to convey

through this imagery: the first-century readers, and certainly the Apostles, understood the details and

significance of Passover. Perhaps the fact that an understanding of the meaning of Passover has been

lost requires us first to revisit this feast as it was understood in Israelite history and early Christianity.

The Passover ritual would have been very familiar to the Apostles and all faithful Jews in Jesus’

time.19 This memorial feast celebrated God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt. During that fateful night,

every firstborn son in Egypt perished except those Israelite families who followed the instructions of God

through Moses: “Sacrifice a lamb without blemish…Take a bunch of hyssop and dip it in the blood and

touch the lintel and the two doorposts with the blood.”20 Thus, by the power of the blood of that

sacrificial lamb, God saved the Israelites and led them towards the Promised Land. So that they would

not forget the saving work of God and would rest their hope on His promise of future redemption, God

instructed the Israelites to commemorate that first Passover night as part of their ritual and identity.

The ritual was centered around four critical cups: A preliminary course consisting of a festival blessing

(kiddush) spoken over the first cup of wine, followed by the serving of a dish of herbs. The second

course included a recital of the Passover narrative and the "Little Hallel" (Psalm 113), followed by the

drinking of a second cup of wine. The third course was the main meal, consisting of the sacrificial

(Paschal) lamb and unleavened bread, after which was drunk the third cup of wine, known as the "Cup of

Blessing." The culmination and the very heart of this ancient Passover liturgy would occur with the

fourth cup of wine, known in the first century as the "Cup of Redemption." It was the blood of the

19
Feely-Harnik, Gillian. The Lords Table: Eucharist and Passover in Early Christianity. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981.
20
Ex 12:22

5
sacrificial “Paschal” lamb –the blood of atonement- that was symbolically contained in this fourth cup.21

"I have given you the blood so you can make atonement for your sins. It is the blood, representing life,

that brings you atonement."22 The fourth cup wasn’t consumed until all the participants would sing a

song, a long hymn known as the "great Hallel," a very long and beautiful hymn with explicit praises to

the eternal God in expectation of the final redemption, to achieve the promise of the fourth cup: be at one

(at-one-ment) with God.23 Only then would the leader (typically a priest, rabbi, or the most distinguished

present) drink the fourth cup and announce that the Passover is finished.”24

From the Synoptics as well as other NT writings, it is clear that the Apostles understood the Last

Supper shared with Jesus in the Upper room was a Passover meal.25 In fact, New Testament scholars see

the exact ritual pattern (Haggadah) reflected in the Gospel narratives of the Last Supper.26 While little

detail is given on the early parts of the meal, there is consensus that the cup blessed and distributed by

Jesus is the third cup in the Passover celebration: the Cup of Blessing. This is established in part by the

following of observations: First, the third cup was apparently drunk after the main meal. The earliest

account of the Last Supper (1 Cor 11:23) tells us that Jesus took the cup “after supper” and pronounced

the Eucharistic words over it.27 Secondly, the third cup was associated with a blessing after the meal and

was even referred to as the “Cup of Blessing.”28 Most scholars agree that the “blessing” said over the

bread by Jesus at the Last Supper was in relation to this third cup whereupon the “remembrance” of the

covenant would be invoked through the telling of the Exodus story.29 Jesus also makes covenant
21
It is significant to note the AT-ONE-ment anticipated with the fourth cup of atonement, in light of Jesus’ words in John 17:22
–“that they may become perfectly one.”
22
Leviticus 17:11
23
Hallel Psalms: 114, 115, 116, 117 and 118
24
From the Talmuds: “the most distinguished of the company assembled for the seder conducts it, says the blessings aloud, and leads
the singing of praise in the Hallel psalms between the 3rd and 4th cup.”
25
Mark 14:12-16, Matt 26:17, Luke 22:7; 1 Peter 1:19, 1 Cor 5:7: See End Note for discussion on apparent timing discrepancy.
26
While John makes little mention of the Last Supper account, this paper is written with the understanding of some scholars that
since John was written last partly in order to fill in the critical gaps of the Synoptics. There was no need to repeat what was already
written.
27
Words which significantly recall Moses’ words in Exodus 24, celebrating Passover at Mt Sinai.
28
1 Cor. 10:16
29
Nolland notes: “On the basis of the indication in Lk 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25 that the cup intended came after the meal, the cup is
normally identified as the third cup.” The only reason to reject this is because no other cup is mentioned!

6
reference here: “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” Another

revealing aspect of this particular meal reflected upon by one scholar30 is that since this blessing was

after the main meal, the bread Jesus was blessing was likely the aphikoman: traditionally a part of the

unleavened bread set aside to symbolize the hidden Messiah that would come.31 By blessing the

aphikoman and offering a cup of blessing in his own blood, Jesus would patently imply that this Passover

was, indeed, “a night unlike all the others.”32 It is also significant to note here also that Jewish texts

dating to the time of Jesus intimate the expectation that the Messiah would arrive on the very night of

Passover.33 Finally, after the supper and the drinking of this third Cup of Blessing, Jesus leads the

apostles in song out to the Mt of Olives. 34 This is the only record in the Bible of Jesus singing and,

given the Passover celebration has not concluded, it seems logical to assume that the songs were the

Hallel Psalms traditionally sung between the third and fourth cup of the Passover feast.

The disciples must have wondered why Jesus did not complete the Passover. Nonetheless, they

follow Jesus to the Mount of Olives, which is critical to note is still in the district of Jerusalem and thus

in keeping with the Pharisaic rules of the Passover celebration.35 The Synoptic Gospels never mention

the Passover specifically again, although they convey potent hints that Jesus has not merely “forgotten”

about the final cup -climax and ultimate purpose of the Passover meal. There, in the Garden of

Gesthemani He prays: “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.”36 In fact, Jesus prays

three times for the “cup” to be removed. The Gospel of Mark records Jesus refusing a cup of myrrh,

reminding the reader of his early vow to “not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I

30
Feely-Harnik, Gillian, 130.
31
The word’s origin derives from the Greek verb meaning “to come, arrive.” In the era of great Messianic hope in first century
Judaism, it is also significant to note that the Messiah would arrive on the night of Passover.
32
A traditional part of the Haggadah was for the youngest present to ask the question “why is this night unlike all the others”” so that
the Exodus story could be retold, and remembered.
33
Mekhita on Exodus 12:42; Targum Exodus 12:42; Targum Exodus 15:18; Targum Ps 118:23-29; Didache 10:6.
34
Matt 26:30
35
According to ancient stipulations, the Passover meal take place in its entirety within the jurisdiction of Jerusalem city limits (see:
Feeley-Harnick: The Lord’s Table).
36
Mathew 26:39

7
drink it new in the kingdom of God."37 The “hour” for the Cup of Redemption had not yet come: for the

hour for the Paschal lamb to be sacrificed had not yet arrived.38 Recall that was to be in that Passover

cup was the purifying blood of the Paschal Lamb. For John, the apostles, and no doubt for early

Christians, the Passover ritual was not yet concluded: the Rabbi has not yet declared “it is finished.”

Perhaps the apostles wondered not only about the cup but also why there wasn’t a lamb at this

particular Passover meal. Bultmann’s curiosity at this absent mention of lamb at the Last Supper leads

him to reject this meal as a Passover feast.39 It is precisely this omission, however, that confirms for

Ratzinger, Brown (et al) that Jesus was (is) the Paschal lamb.40 In the words of Pope Benedict: “Jesus

celebrated the Passover without a lamb — no, not without a lamb: instead of the lamb he gave himself,

his Body and his Blood. Thus, He anticipated His death in a manner consistent with his words: ‘No one

takes my life from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.’"41 From the very outset of John’s Gospel we

hear John the Baptist proclaim: “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”42 This

phrase is a direct allusion to the sacrificial lamb in Isaiah upon whom “the Lord has lain the iniquity of

us all.”43 The entire Gospel of John comes full circle, then, when Jesus lays down his life for his sheep;

when the Paschal Lamb whose purifying blood poured out at the Cross takes away the sin of the world.

Moreover in John 10:9 Jesus proclaims himself to be the “…door, and if any one enters by me, he will be

saved.” Just as the Israelites went in through their bloodshed door on that first Passover and were

protected and redeemed by sacrificial blood, the blood of Jesus opens the door for all to be saved and

begin a journey toward the Promised Land.

While the Gospel itself is laden with powerful allusions to Jesus as the Paschal Lamb, historians

37
Mark 14:25. Myrrh was actually wined mixed with a sedative, which would have helped to numb Jesus’ suffering. Not only had
his “hour” not yet come but this shows how Jesus fully and painfully embraced the suffering of all humanity.
38
See endnote
39
Bultimann, 675.
40
Brown, Raymond. The Gospel According to John. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970.
41
Pope Benedict XVI, Homily of April 5, 2007, citing John 10:18
42
John 1:29
43
Isaiah 53:6-7

8
have also uncovered convincing external evidence for this interpretation of Jesus as the perfect Paschal

sacrifice. The first-century world attached great importance to the outward behavior of a sacrificial

victim, where animals were to be led freely to the sacrificial table in order to please the deity(ies) and

even the slightest resistance would be unacceptable.44 In Jerusalem, the Jews built a causeway with a

high and narrow embankment leading from the Mt of Olives to the temple so that sacrificial animals

might freely walk to the altar to be sacrificed. Given this context, new light is shed on Jesus’ openness to

his captors on the Mt of Olives when he came forward and freely offered himself to the soldiers: “I am

He.”45 Jesus is then also “inspected,” as were the lambs for sacrifice, when he was brought to the High

Priests for examination. While Pilate comes out (since the priests won’t be defiled and will be able to eat

the Passover sacrifice)46 pronouncing Jesus “without blame” and yet handing Him over to be crucified,

John notes that it was “on the Day of Preparation of the Passover, about the sixth hour.”47 This is

precisely the moment priests were prescribed to begin slaughtering the Passover lamb in the temple. On

this Passover, however, it is Jesus –the first-born Son of God, the lamb without blemish, freely led to

slaughter- who is the Paschal Lamb through whose death all the sacrifices for sin performed at the temple

were now to be fully consecrated.

One other uniquely Johannine detail further echoes this point. The Exodus prescription for

Passover sacrifice strictly prohibits breaking the bones of the Paschal lamb.48 In fact, this would have

been very top of mind to the Jews since Brown insightfully notes that these same Old Testament

passages that would have been read in the synagogue lectionaries at Passover in the second year of the

three year cycle: at that very Passover.49 It was also prohibited for bodies to be left on a cross after

44
Manila, Bruce J and Richard L Rohrbaugh. Social Science Commentary. Gospel of John. Minn, MN: Fortress Press, 1998: 274.
45
John 18:5
46
John’s account makes it clear that it is the high priests and chief priests who orchestrate execute Jesus’ death. This is even further
confirmation of Jesus’ role as the sacrificial lamb since it is was paramount function of priests to serve God and his people by offering
sacrifices in His temple.
47
John 19:14
48
Exodus 12:46 (also Numbers 9:12)
49
Brown, Raymond. The Gospel According to John. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970: 926.

9
sundown, a law the Jews would have most wanted to observe on the feast of Passover.50 As Roman

soldiers complied with the Jews’ request they broke the bones of the two others crucified with Jesus in

order to speed up the dying process. Yet when they came to Jesus there was no need since they saw He

was already dead. The soldiers also unwittingly affirm Jesus as the perfect “kosher” sacrifice when they

subsequently pierce His side. The blood and water of the Paschal lamb had to spurt out at the moment of

death so that the blood could be sprinkled, lest the sacrifice was invalid. 51 Notably, this consecration

was done on the first Passover –and on this final Passover- with a sprig of hyssop.

“It is scarcely believable that Jesus should be designated as the Passover lamb through the

statement that a sponge filled with vinegar was stuck on a hyssop stem.”52 Perhaps, if considered in

isolation without the Passover theme resounding throughout John’s passion narrative, Bultmann’s

comment on this Scripture would have some merit. Even so, it can be convincingly argued that even this

singular detail does, indeed, point in a powerful way to Jesus as the Passover lamb. In response to Jesus’

cry of thirst He is offered bitter o¡xouß53 on a stalk of hyssop, the very plant that was used to mark the

lintels of houses with blood during the initial Passover in Egypt. Some scholars dismiss this allusion to

Passover and instead cling to a theory that it wasn’t hyssop at all but a spear that delivered the sponge

full of o¡xouß to Jesus’ lips.54 Bruce suggests this notion can be traced back to an 11th century Greek

manuscript where an errant Scribe inserts the textual variant “u¢sswpoß” (a Roman javelin) in place of

the original “uJssw¿pw” (“on hyssop”).55 According to Kilpatrick, this “plausible conjecture leads us

to improbabilities and difficulties greater than those of the text of the manuscripts.” His research

revealed that during the six decades before AD 66, it was auxiliary troops not legionary troops stationed
50
Witherington, Ben III. John's Wisdom. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995: 464.
51
According to Manila, blood and water immediately pouring out from his side Jesus proves himself a “kosher offering” in
accordance with Pharisaic requirements.
52
Bultmann, 674.
53
A sour wine or water mixed with bitter wine that would have been typical for soldiers to have with them. This paper originally was
intended to explore and debate this point but the evidence and commentaries are mostly consistent on this. It is important to note that
it was a variation of wine, “the blood of the grape” in Hebrew.
54
For both practical reasons (as the tiny hyssop stalk seems inadequate for the task) but also since the Synoptics fail to give this
detail.
55
Bruce, FF. The Gospel of John. Cambridge: Pickering & Inglis, 1983: 373.

10
in Judea and therefore no such “u¢sswpoß” - a weapon unique to Roman legionary troops- would

have been available to stretch the sponge to the lips of Jesus.56

Scholars are eager to dismiss the literal “uJssw¿pw” on practical terms in that a short branch of

hyssop would seem a most inappropriate means of delivering satiation for Jesus’ thirst. As Bultmann

states and others agree, hyssop would not be particularly suitable for the purpose since it is assumed that

the Cross “would be too high for a meager branch of hyssop to reach Jesus’ mouth.”57 Historical

research, however, has demonstrated the fact that a Roman cross could very well have been low to the

ground: “Since crucified people were not raised very high off the ground, the soldiers would have had to

merely lift the stalk barely above their own heads.”58 Hence, with this clear allusion to the purifying

blood of the sacrificial lamb spread by hyssop to mark the doorpost of the gateway to salvation, John is

once again pointing to Jesus as the ‘Lamb of God’, ‘the Door’ to redemption.

Finally, the Lamb of the Passover had to be consecrated by a priest, and ultimately in the temple

it was the high priest who offered the sacrifice to God. John presents one last unique piece of evidence

in his Gospel confirming that the lamb of the new covenant was offered not only by a priest, but the high

priest: Jesus Christ. Only John mentions that Jesus was stripped before his crucifixion of one garment in

particular, a seamless linen tunic, which he calls in the Greek the "citw◊na". This is the exact word

used for the official tunic worn by the High Priest in the Passover sacrifice.59 When the High Priest

offered a holy sacrifice, he was to take off the beautiful outer garment of the priesthood and simply wear

this linen "citw◊na" which is what Jesus was wearing moments before he offered himself up as the

sacrifice on the Cross. John is reminding faithful readers that Jesus is the true priest, as well as the true

victim.60 As Caiphus tears his garment, Jesus becomes the one true high priest to offer the final Paschal

56
GD Kilpatrick, cited by Bruce, FF. The Gospel of John. Cambridge: Pickering & Inglis, 1983: 373.
57
Bultmann, 674.
58
Kostenberger, Andreas J. Commentary on the New Testament: John. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004: 550.
59
Exodus 28, Leviticus 16
60
Bultmann footnotes the Rabinnic tradition depicting Adam receiving an unstitched garment from God, likewise after him Moses,
which was also applied to the Redeemer to come after Moses. Still, he argues it not at all possible John was depicting Jesus as priest!

11
sacrifice. Thus, we have come full circle from Brown’s suggestion that Jesus’ words from the Cross

‘seem to connote sacrificial overtones.’ Indeed. Now through the lens of this Johannine Passover

context, the questions this paper set out to address can clearly be answered.

Why does Jesus thirst? While not discounting every literal and mystical interpretations brought

out through centuries of scholarship, it seems now indubitably clear that John intended to show Jesus as

thirsting to drink that final fourth cup, the Cup of Redemption, of the Passover celebration that began in

the Upper Room at the Last Supper and ends on the Cross. As the Lamb of God, the perfect Paschal

Sacrifice, Jesus the high priest thirsts to present himself to the Father as the perfect and eternal offering:

“the Lamb of God, that takes away the sin of the world.”61 Thus “diyw” -the shortest of all words

spoken from the Cross- are truly the sweetest, as in response to this single word the bitterness of all

human suffering is made sweet in that single drink of bitter wine where the blood of the Paschal Lamb

completes the Old Covenant Passover! Thus the new and eternal Passover, offering the Cup of

Redemption for all, commences at the Cross.62

What is finished? As noted above in the Haggadah, after drinking from the Fourth Cup the

leader of the Passover feast would proclaim “it is finished” to conclude the celebration. These are the

very words of Jesus, and this is what was finished on the Cross: the Passover feast. Thus the Gospel

that began with the wedding feast in Cana as Jesus transformed water into wine (the blood of the grape)

now ends with the eschatological banquet celebrating the wedding feast of the bridegroom with the wine

of the New Covenant: the blood of the lamb. The final time these exact words repeated in Scripture is in

Revelation, at the “marriage supper of the lamb” where John looks and beholds "a Lamb standing, as

though it had been slain"63 Thus Jesus, our celebrant priest and reigning king in the eternal worship of

the heavenly assembly, also appears continually as the Passover Lamb of the New Covenant. His

61
John 1:29
62
New Covenant theology explanation is beyond the scope of this paper but as Jesus brings the Old Covenant Passover to an end, the
blood that was symbolized is now the true blood of the New Covenant effects what is signifies: metaphor now becomes metaphysical.
Remembering becomes recapitulation. Symbol becomes Sacrament.
63
Rev. 5:5-6

12
sacrificial offering continues until Jesus’ wish expressed at the Last Supper is at last fulfilled “that they

may all be one:” thus the “at-one-ment” -the hope and promise of the Cup of Redemption- are realized.

The Gospel of John is resplendent with layers of meaning, powerful allusions, and various

typologies. Many scholars over the years have done well to draw these out from the lines of the text and

certainly others have developed deep and beautiful meditations from the words of the Beloved Disciple.

However, traditional scholarship has failed to consider the final words of Jesus within the whole of

John’s primary context and thus have failed to offer satisfactory answers to the questions of John 19:28-

30. Once the entirety of John’s Passover mosaic is understood, and the elements of the great Paschal

feast are pieced together, it becomes clear that the two missing tessarae are the very ones that Jesus

provides from the Cross: Jesus calls for the fourth cup of the Passover celebration, and after drinking

proclaims at last that the feast “is finished.”

End Note

This paper uses cites the Synoptic Gospel accounts of the Last Supper in order to establish a

foundational premise of this paper, that this was a Passover celebration. Two explanations are thus in

order. First, the author subscribes to the theory that since John wrote last his primary aim was to fill in

the gaps where the Synoptic writers left out details John felt critical –the last five words of Jesus is case

in point. Where the details were given in the Synoptics, rarely does John repeat the stories. It follows,

then, that John’s lack of inclusion of the Last Supper should not be a surprise or indication of omission:

he was aware of the other Gospel accounts of this event and found them sufficient.

Secondly, up until recent scholarship from the Dead Sea scrolls, there was a problem attempting

to reconcile John’s timing of the Passover feast with event of the Last Supper in the Synoptics. Whereas

the former takes place before the Day of Preparation, the other Gospel writers indicate their feast was on

the eve of Passover. This has now been resolved, as the words of Pope Benedict confirm:

“This contradiction seemed unsolvable until a few years ago. The majority of
exegetes were of the opinion that John was reluctant to tell us the true historical

13
 date of Jesus' death, but rather chose a symbolic date to highlight the deeper truth:
Jesus is the new, true Lamb who poured out his Blood for us all. In the meantime,
the discovery of the [Dead Sea] Scrolls at Qumran has led us to a possible and
convincing solution which, although it is not yet accepted by everyone, is a highly
plausible hypothesis. We can now say that John's account is historically precise.
Jesus truly shed his blood on the eve of Easter at the time of the immolation of the
lambs. In all likelihood, however, he celebrated the Passover with his disciples in
accordance with the Qumran calendar, hence, at least one day earlier; he celebrated
it without a Iamb, like the Qumran community which did not recognize Herod's
temple and was waiting for the new temple.”64

The following book by Annie Jaubert provides detailed evidence in support of this argument: The Date

of the Last Supper, Staten Island: Alba House, 1965.

64
Pope Benedict XVI, Homily of April 5, 2007.

14