As I indicated when treating chronological questions about the Last Supper in Chapter 11, I am doubtful of claims made by Heinz Schiirmann and those following him that Luke 22:15-16 represents an early, independent tradition about what Jesus said at the Last Supper. I prefer the view that Luke 22:15-16 is a redactional creation of Luke, who transposes Mark 14:25 to a position before the eucharistic words and expands upon it to create a neat pattern of food-word/drink-word, in order to balance the food-word/drink-word pattern in the institution of the eucharist. Thus Mark's awkward, dangling conclusion (i.e., Mark 14:25) of the pericope on the eucharist is deleted, allowing the unit to end instead with Jesus' solemn affirmation about "my blood poured out for you" (Luke 22:20). The transposition and expansion of Mark 14:25 in Luke 22:15-18 also provide Luke an opportunity to label this meal a Passover meal, a designation that is notably lacking in every other narrative of the Last Supper proper. As I noted in Chapter 11, both the many Lucan redactional traits in the wording of Luke 22:15-16 and the historically improbable presentation of the Last Supper as a Passover meal make it likely that most if not all of the Lucan unit 22:15-16 (as well as the connecting v 17) is a creation of Luke himself.

But what of the precise parallel of Mark 14:25, Luke 22:18, taken by itself? Unlike 22:15-16 it says nothing about the meal being the Passover feast; and, being at times word-for-word the same as Mark 14:25, it is certainly not a purely Lucan creation. Either it is Luke's partial rewriting of Mark 14:25 or it: is an alternate version of Mark 14:25 preserved in Luke's special tradition. While I incline to the former view, Schlosser does present some weighty arguments in favor of the latter. True, even Schlosser readily admits that some aspects of Luke 22:18 could be seen as Luke's redaction of Mark 14:25: e.g., the omission of Jesus' introductory "Amen," the formula "for I say to you" (probably redactional in Luke 22:37 as well), and the addition of "from now on" (apo tou nyn, a typically Lucan phrase).

Yet Schlosser can also point to traits that are not readily explainable as Lucan redaction of Mark. For example, in the phrase "to drink of the fruit" Mark uses the preposition ek while Luke uses apo. Both constructions are unusual normal Greek but frequent in the LXX, reflecting the Hebrew preposition min. There is no discernible reason why Luke should have substituted apo for Mark's ek; the difference could therefore he a translation variant in two independent translations of the same Aramaic logion. Also, while Luke's "until" (heos hou) is typical of his style, there is again no clear reason why he would avoid Mark's more specific "until that day when." More importantly, there is no reason why Luke should have avoided the clear imagery of the heavenly banquet (which he gladly uses elsewhere) or the phrase "in the kingdom of God" found at the end of Mark's logion: "when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.'' At the same time, Schlosser points out that the image of an eschatological banquet is not unique to Jesus in ancient Judaism or early Christianity, and that the number of sayings containing the precise phrase "in the kingdom of God" that can be attributed to the historical Jesus with fair certitude is not great

Hence Schlosser maintains that possibly Mark's formulation is secondary. In contrast, as we have seen in the second petition of the Our Father, neither the OT, nor intertestamental Judaism, nor NT Christianity apart from the sayings of Jesus made the kingdom (of God) the subject of the verb "to come" (erchesthai). Schlosser thus concludes that at least the final part of Luke 22:18 may represent a more primitive form of Jesus' saying than does Mark 14:25. In any case, according to Schlosser the basic saying would enjoy multiple attestation of sources: Luke 22:18 would be an independent form of an eschatological saying of Jesus at the Last Supper recorded also in Mark 14:25. While I am not convinced by Schlosser's arguments, in fairness I should note that he does represent a good number of exegetes who defend the independent status of Luke 22:18 and thus the applicability of the criterion of multiple attestation in judging the historicity of the saying.

In my own view, the more telling criterion is that of discontinuity. Mark 14:25 reflects christological, soteriological, and eschatological ideas--or the startling lack thereof that are at variance with almost any stream of early Christian tradition but are perfectly understandable in the mouth of the historical Jesus. To establish this point I must undertake an exegesis of Mark 14:25, all the while keeping an eye on the Lucan form as well, since Schlosser may be right that the ending of the saying is more reliably preserved in Luke. This is a prime example of being fairly certain about the general content and structure of a logion, while not being completely sure about the exact wording.

The initial "Amen" is, as Jeremias so often stressed, a typical introductory affirmation that Jesus used in some of his solemn sayings. Here the affirmation strengthens the certainty of the prophecy Jesus is about to make. This rhetorical strengthening is carded forward by another locution typical of Jesus, "I say to you." What follows is obviously of great import in the eyes of Jesus. The total beginning that the "Amen I say to you" creates provides no bridge backward to .the eucharistic words that immediately precede in Mark. Indeed, Jesus' speaking in a generic fashion of his drinking of the fruit of the vine sounds a bit strange after the solemn identification of the wine with his blood. All this may indicate that Mark 14:25 was an isolated logion, necessarily connected by its content with the Last Supper, but not originally connected with the eucharistic words. For those who see Luke 22:18 as an independent tradition, its position before the eucharistic words confirms this view, which is likely in any case.

Jesus' basic affirmation that he will no longer drink wine (the sign of a special, festive meal) is expressed in an emphatic form in the Greek: the double negative ou me + the subjunctive pio ("drink"), all preceded by the further negative ouketi ("no more," "no longer"). The whole clause is awkward, even "barbaric," in the Greek and may be a not totally happy rendering of an Aramaic tradition. Luke's alternate formulation ("I shall not drink from now on") is, in Schlosser's view, not a Lucan redaction of the Marcan text, but Luke's attempt to render the same underlying Aramaic tradition, where the nuance of "no longer" would be understood rather than expressed.

In any event, what is the main thrust of the logion? In the second German edition of his classic The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, Jeremias claimed that Jesus was uttering a vow of abstinence. Acting out his role as the suffering servant, Jesus was supposedly abstaining from the Passover lamb and wine in front of him at the Last Supper as a part of his intercessory prayer for a sinful Israel. This interpretation lacked any real basis in the text, since what Jesus utters is not a set formula used for a vow. In the third German edition of his book, Jeremias tried to step back slightly from his original position by saying that Jesus uttered not a strict vow of abstinence but rather "an avowal of abstinence'' or "a declaration of forgoing [the food at the Last Supper]" (Verzichterklarung,). However, this seems to be a distinction without a difference, since in his explanation of the text Jeremias all but returns to his original view that what Jesus utters is a vow.

If instead we simply look at the grammatical structure of Mark 14:25, we see a solenm, emphatic introduction ("Amen I say to you") to a promise/prediction/ prophecy of what Jesus will not do in the immediate future (drink wine at a festive meal) until some further future event occurs (the day on which he drinks it new in the kingdom of God). The initial "Amen" not only gives solemnity to what follows but more importantly indicates that Jesus is authoritatively uttering a prophecy about the end time. This end-time prophecy involves a veiled reference to his death, and for such a reference the particular grammatical structure and literary form of Mark 14:25 are well suited. A number of Jesus' sayings in various Gospel traditions have the same basic form, though not all have a clear eschatological reference. They include Mark 9:1; 13: 30; Matt 10:23; Matt 5: 26 || Luke 12:59;Matt 23:39 || Luke 13:35; and John 13:38. We shall be examining the first three at greater length in section E of this chapter. For now, let us look at Mark 9:1 as an especially apt parallel to Mark 14:25:68

The parallels in structure and content are dear. An initial ‘amen’ introduces a prophecy that some event will not happen in this world (in both cases expressed by the emphatic ou me + the subjunctive) before the final kingdom of God comes and is experienced by the person(s) who will not perform the action (drinking, tasting) mentioned in the main part of the prophecy. More specifically, in these two Marcan sayings the non-drinking and non-tasting both function as metaphors connected with death. The difference lies in the fact that Jesus in Mark 14:25 uses the pattern to prophesy his death before the full coming of God's kingdom, while in Mark 9:1 Jesus uses the same pattern to deny that some of the bystanders will die before the full kingdom of God comes. This precise pattern of prophecy (amen + negated future action + time-span until future experience of kingdom of God occurs) is a specific case of a more general biblical pattern in which it is prophesied that a person's death will not take place until some saving event occurs (see, e.g., Luke 2:26; John 21:23; outside the Bible - Jub. 16:16; and, in a more diffuse way, the Testament of Isaac 3:3,12). It is this pattern, rather than any vow or oath formula, that Mark 14:25 fits.

Clearly, then, given both the literary form of his statement and the general context of the Last Supper, what Jesus is prophesying is his approaching death though one should be careful about speaking of his "imminent death." All Mark 14:25 implies is that Jesus will die before he has occasion to join in another festive banquet--a somewhat open-ended timetable (as is the timetable in Mark 9:1). Jesus' state of non-drinking has in turn its own set limit, expressed in the temporal clause: he will resume drinking wine "in the kingdom of God." As most commentators note, "in the kingdom of God" is probably to be taken in a temporal rather than spatial sense and hence is roughly equivalent to the temporal clause in Luke 22:18: "until the kingdom of God comes." Thus, whichever version is more original, the basic sense is the same. As in the Our Father, so in Mark 14:25, the kingdom of God, at least in its full reality, is still to come. For all the powers of the kingdom already unleashed by the preaching and healings of Jesus, Jesus himself still looks forward to and urges his disciples to pray for the coming of the kingdom.

We are now in a better position to appreciate (1) what the historical Jesus would have meant when he spoke Mark 14:25 || Luke 18:22 at the Last Supper and (2) the argument from discontinuity that supports the authenticity of this saying. As Jesus comes to the Last Supper, he is faced with the fact that his ministry, from a human point of view, has been largely a failure. All Israel has not heeded his message and accepted him as the eschatological prophet sent from God. Worse still, the bankruptcy of his life-project may be complemented by the bankruptcy of his life, as the possibility of a violent death looms. Jesus senses that his death is near; that is the thrust of his prophecy that he will not drink wine at a festive meal again. But his prophecy does not end on this gloomy note. Jesus is convinced that his cause is God's cause and that therefore, despite Jesus' personal failure and death, God will in the end vindicate his cause and his prophet by bringing in his kingdom and seating Jesus at the final banquet, to drink the festive wine once again. The prophecy in Mark 14:25 is thus a final cry of hope from Jesus, expressing his trust in the God who will make his kingdom come, despite Jesus' death. To the end, what is central to Jesus' faith and thought is not Jesus himself but the final triumph of God as he comes to rule his rebellious creation and people--in short, what is central is the kingdom of God.

With this understanding of the logion, we can appreciate the full force of the argument from discontinuity, supporting the authenticity of Mark 14:25 || Luke 22:18. The basic affirmation of hope in this verse is utterly discontinuous with the christological, soteriological, and eschatological ideas of the early church, no matter what stream of the Christian tradition we look at. As far as christology and soteriology are concerned, not only is no tide mentioned in this saying, no messianic role or function is assigned to Jesus in the final triumph of the kingdom. Instead of saving anyone from death Jesus needs to be saved out of death himself, and only God can do that. The death itself is spoken of indirectly (Jesus will never enjoy another festive meal in this world). Its nearness, while intimated, remains indistinct; no timetable is given. Neither is any cause-and-effect relation created between Jesus' death and the coming of the kingdom; indeed, the only relation between the two events is that the kingdom’s arrival will somehow bring Jesus out of death. There is no hint of Jesus' death as atoning sacrifice, to say nothing of an explicit affirmation of his resurrection, exaltation, or parousia. In all this there is something disconcerting to Christian expectations. Not only does Jesus not mediate access to the eschatological banquet for others; there is no indication in the saying that he will enjoy any special place in the banquet, even as host. He is simply placed at the banquet table drinking wine; he is one of the saved, no more, no less. Not surprisingly, Matthew alters this non-christological saying by changing "in the kingdom of God" to "in the kingdom of my Father," thus insinuating the Evangelist's Son-christology into a logion notably devoid of it.

Even a communitarian or ecclesiological dimension is lacking in the versions of the saying found in Mark and Luke. The logion says nothing about Jesus being reunited with his disciples at the final banquet, nothing about the broken fellowship being restored. Significantly, once again it is Matthew, the evangelist intent on ecclesiology, who adds the phrase "with you" to the promise that Jesus will drink wine in the kingdom (Matt 26:29). Granted, a communitarian element is already implied in the imagery of a banquet. Still, it is telling that (1) no specific reference is made in the Marcan and Lucan versions to the disciples and their relationship to Jesus in the kingdom and that (2) Matthew felt it necessary to insert this neglected dimension. If Mark 14:25 may be called a word of comfort, it is a word of comfort that Jesus speaks more to himself than to his disciples. In the face of failure and approaching death, Jesus consoles himself with the promise of ultimately being seated by God at the final banquet, despite the collapse of his mission in this present world. Thus, the focus of the saying is on Jesus' death as a sign of failure rather than of salvation, and on the coming of God's kingdom as the salvation of Jesus rather than the parousia of Jesus. This is simply not the christology, soteriology, and eschatology of the first generation of Christians, no matter what branch or stream of tradition we examine. Hence it is especially the criterion of discontinuity that argues for the authenticity of Mark 14:25 || Luke 22:18. As Anton Vogtle says, we have in Mark 14:25 part of the bedrock of the Last Supper tradition. For us, the important point here is that Mark 14:25 confirms from the Marcan tradition and from the form-critical category of prophecy what we already knew from Q and from the form-critical category of prayer: Jesus looked forward to a future coming of God's kingdom--and continued to do so even at the end of his life