Exodus 12:15

12:15 For seven days ¹  you must eat ²  bread made without yeast. ³  Surely ⁴  on the first day you must put away yeast from your houses because anyone who eats bread made with yeast ⁵  from the first day to the seventh day will be cut off ⁶  from Israel.

Exodus 13:6

13:6 For seven days ⁷  you must eat ⁸  bread made without yeast, and on the seventh day there is to be ⁹  a festival to the Lord.

Leviticus 23:6

23:6 Then on the fifteenth day of the same month ¹⁰  will be the festival of unleavened bread to the Lord; seven days you must eat unleavened bread.

Luke 22:1

Judas’ Decision to Betray Jesus

22:1 Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, ¹¹  which is called the Passover, was approaching.

Luke 22:7

The Passover

22:7 Then the day for the feast ¹²  of Unleavened Bread came, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. ¹³ 

Luke 22:1

Judas’ Decision to Betray Jesus

22:1 Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, ¹⁴  which is called the Passover, was approaching.

Colossians 1:7-8

1:7 You learned the gospel ¹⁵  from Epaphras, our dear fellow slave ¹⁶  – a ¹⁷  faithful minister of Christ on our ¹⁸  behalf – 1:8 who also told us of your love in the Spirit.

[12:15]  ¹ tn This expression is an adverbial accusative of time. The feast was to last from the 15th to the 21st of the month.

[12:15]  ² tn Or “you will eat.” The statement stresses their obligation – they must eat unleavened bread and avoid all leaven.

[12:15]  ³ tn The etymology of מַצּוֹת (matsot, “unleavened bread,” i.e., “bread made without yeast”) is uncertain. Suggested connections to known verbs include “to squeeze, press,” “to depart, go out,” “to ransom,” or to an Egyptian word “food, cake, evening meal.” For a more detailed study of “unleavened bread” and related matters such as “yeast” or “leaven,” see A. P. Ross, NIDOTTE 4:448-53.

[12:15]  ⁴ tn The particle serves to emphasize, not restrict here (B. S. Childs, Exodus [OTL], 183, n. 15).

[12:15]  ⁵ tn Heb “every eater of leavened bread.” The participial phrase stands at the beginning of the clause as a casus pendens, that is, it stands grammatically separate from the sentence. It names a condition, the contingent occurrences of which involve a further consequence (GKC 361 §116.w).

[12:15]  ⁶ tn The verb וְנִכְרְתָה (vÿnikhrÿtah) is the Niphal perfect with the vav (ו) consecutive; it is a common formula in the Law for divine punishment. Here, in sequence to the idea that someone might eat bread made with yeast, the result would be that “that soul [the verb is feminine] will be cut off.” The verb is the equivalent of the imperfect tense due to the consecutive; a translation with a nuance of the imperfect of possibility (“may be cut off”) fits better perhaps than a specific future. There is the real danger of being cut off, for while the punishment might include excommunication from the community, the greater danger was in the possibility of divine intervention to root out the evildoer (S. R. Driver, Exodus, 94). Gesenius lists this as the use of a perfect with a vav consecutive after a participle (a casus pendens) to introduce the apodosis (GKC 337 §112.mm).

[13:6]  ⁷ tn Heb “Seven days.”

[13:6]  ⁸ tn The imperfect tense functions with the nuance of instruction or injunction. It could also be given an obligatory nuance: “you must eat” or “you are to eat.” Some versions have simply made it an imperative.

[13:6]  ⁹ tn The phrase “there is to be” has been supplied.

[23:6]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “to this month.”

[22:1]  ¹¹ sn The Feast of Unleavened Bread was a week long celebration that followed the day of Passover, so one name was used for both feasts (Exod 12:1-20; 23:15; 34:18; Deut 16:1-8).

[22:7]  ¹² tn The words “for the feast” are not in the Greek text, but have been supplied for clarity.

[22:7]  ¹³ sn Generally the feast of Unleavened Bread would refer to Nisan 15 (Friday), but the following reference to the sacrifice of the Passover lamb indicates that Nisan 14 (Thursday) was what Luke had in mind (Nisan = March 27 to April 25). The celebration of the Feast of Unleavened Bread lasted eight days, beginning with the Passover meal. The celebrations were so close together that at times the names of both were used interchangeably.

[22:1]  ¹⁴ sn The Feast of Unleavened Bread was a week long celebration that followed the day of Passover, so one name was used for both feasts (Exod 12:1-20; 23:15; 34:18; Deut 16:1-8).

[1:7]  ¹⁵ tn Or “learned it.” The Greek text simply has “you learned” without the reference to “the gospel,” but “the gospel” is supplied to clarify the sense of the clause. Direct objects were frequently omitted in Greek when clear from the context.

[1:7]  ¹⁶ tn The Greek word translated “fellow slave” is σύνδουλος (sundoulo"); the σύν- prefix here denotes association. Though δοῦλος is normally translated “servant,” the word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving another. BDAG notes that “‘servant’ for ‘slave’ is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times…in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinguished” (BDAG 260 s.v.). The most accurate translation is “bondservant” (sometimes found in the ASV for δοῦλος), in that it often indicates one who sells himself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few today understand its force.

[1:7]  ¹⁷ tn The Greek text has “who (ὅς, Jos) is a faithful minister.” The above translation conveys the antecedent of the relative pronoun quite well and avoids the redundancy with the following substantival participle of v. 8, namely, “who told” (ὁ δηλώσας, Jo dhlwsa").

[1:7]  ¹⁸ tc ‡ Judging by the superior witnesses for the first person pronoun ἡμῶν (Jhmwn, “us”; Ì⁴⁶ א* A B D* F G 326* 1505 al) vs. the second person pronoun ὑμῶν (Jumwn, “you”; found in א² C D¹ Ψ 075 33 1739 1881 Ï lat sy co), ἡμῶν should be regarded as original. Although it is possible that ἡμῶν was an early alteration of ὑμῶν (either unintentionally, as dittography, since it comes seventeen letters after the previous ἡμῶν; or intentionally, to conform to the surrounding first person pronouns), this supposition is difficult to maintain in light of the varied and valuable witnesses for this reading. Further, the second person is both embedded in the verb ἐμάθετε (emaqete) and is explicit in v. 8 (ὑμῶν). Hence, the motivation to change to the first person pronoun is counterbalanced by such evidence. The second person pronoun may have been introduced unintentionally via homoioarcton with the ὑπέρ (Juper) that immediately precedes it. As well, the second person reading is somewhat harder for it seems to address Epaphras’ role only in relation to Paul and his colleagues, rather than in relation to the Colossians. Nevertheless, the decision must be based ultimately on external evidence (because the internal evidence can be variously interpreted), and this strongly supports ἡμῶν.