13. Passion and Resurrection of Jesus, 26:1-28:20
ii] The Last SupperSynopsis
The disciples ask Jesus where he would like them to prepare for the Passover meal. Jesus' answer implies that he has already made arrangements for the meal and that his disciples are to liaise with their host for the evening. At the meal, Jesus pointedly indicates that one of their number is about to betray him, and Judas confirms that he is the culprit. During the meal, Jesus takes bread and wine and institutes the Lord's Supper; the bread as "my body", the wine as "my blood, both symbols of Jesus' sacrifice offered for the long prophesied renewal of the covenant by God's messiah for the full realization of its promised blessings - the forgiveness of sins. After the meal, Jesus and his disciples head for the Mount of Olives.
Jesus' sacrifice realizes the covenant (the agreement between the children of faith and God) for the full appropriation of its promised blessings, which fact is recalled in the Lord's Supper.
i] Context: See 26:1-16.
ii] Background: For the festival of the Passover, a lamb was slaughtered on the 14th day of Nisan and eaten that evening, the 15th, the official first day of the festival. A seven day festival followed during which no unleavened bread was eaten. As part of local custom unleavened bread was not eaten of the 14th and so was sometimes referred to as the first day of the Feast, although the actual first day was the 15th, cf., Exodus 12.
iii] Structure: The Last Supper:
Preparations for the Last Supper, v17-19;
"My time is at hand."
The betrayer identifies himself, v20-25;
"Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed."
The celebration of the Last Supper, v26-30;
"I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine
until that day when I drink it new
with you in my Father's kingdom."
For the celebration of the Passover, Jesus has already taken the matter in hand; the disciples need only tie up the loose ends. Matthew then goes on to contrast Judas' determined act with that of Jesus decisive acts. Judas looks for a eukairian, "an opportune moment", to betray Jesus, but Jesus knows that his own kairoV, "time", is at hand.
Before commencing the meal, Jesus brings his disciples down to earth by announcing that he is the Suffering Servant about to be betrayed to death by one of his own. Naturally, all those around the table worry that they may be the offending party; even Judas asks "Is it I?" Jesus' answer to Judas is probably oblique; clear to Judas, but not to the others.
At the meal, within its Passover context, Jesus distributes bread and wine to his guests describing these elements as his body and his blood, elements which will serve as images of his coming sacrifice - the giving of his body, the shedding / pouring out of his blood. The specific context for these sacrificial images is the renewal of the Abrahamic covenant on Mt. Sinai, Ex.24:4-8, and its prophesied final renewal, Isa.42:6, Jer.31:31, by a blood-letting for the benefit of others. Those who partake in this freely offered sacrifice on their behalf, receive in full the promised blessings of the covenant, blessings best encapsulated in the NOW by God's gracious forgiveness of sins.
The Lord's Supper: The establishment of the covenant between God and mankind, through Christ's death on the cross, is prefigured in the Old Testament in Exodus 19-24 - "You have seen what I did to the Egyptians and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, (the response to God's offer) you shall be my possession among all peoples; for all the earth is mine, and you shall be to me a Kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (the promise), Ex.19:4ff. After relating the covenant law, Ex.20-23, the people respond, "all the words which the Lord has spoken we will do." Moses then "built an altar", the people "offered burnt offerings and sacrifices" and Moses took half the blood and put it in basins." He then read the law and the people responded, "all that the Lord has spoken we will do and we will be obedient." Moses then took the blood and threw it upon the people and said, "behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words."
In the institution of the Lord's supper, Jesus took the Jewish Passover meal and created a new remembrance meal. The Passover meal was designed to focus attention of God's great salvation event in the Exodus - Israel's escape from slavery in Egypt, Ex.12:21-27. By participating in the meal, with its symbolic meaning, the Israelites proclaimed (set forth) the great act of God's passover - the angel of death passed over them. In the Lord's supper, our act of remembrance focuses on Jesus' death and what it achieves. Jesus' sacrificial death fully realizes the covenant (agreement) between God and mankind; it is the means by which our relationship with God is eternally restored - "you are my people and I am your God."
So, the Lord's supper is primarily a symbolic act of remembrance; "Do this in remembrance of me", 1Cor.11:22. The symbolic meal recalls that Jesus, God's long promised messiah, has offered himself as a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins and in so doing has eternally grounded the covenant (or agreement) between God and mankind. Feeding is believing, and in this is life, 3:16.
Matthew's account closely resembles Mark, although heavily abbreviated, cf., Mk.14:12-26. Of particular interest is the difference in the words of administration. Mark has "Take, this is my body", instead of "take eat ...", Matthew, and for the wine Mark has "..... they all drank of it, and he said to them 'This is the blood of the covenant .......", whereas Matthew has "Drink from it all of you for this is my blood of the covenant." Mark does not have Matthew's "for the forgiveness of sins." It seems unlikely that if Mark was following Matthew he would leave out this clause.
The synoptic gospels have the last supper as the Passover meal on the Thursday evening, around sunset, although John has the day of Jesus' crucifixion as the day of preparation for the Passover meal, the day when the lamb was prepared for the meal that evening, rather than the Thursday evening. This fits John's symbolism of Jesus as the Passover Lamb, giving his life on behalf of his people. Yet, this issue around dates may stem from a failure to properly understand John's statement that it was paraskeuh tou pasca, "the day of Preparation of the Passover", when Jesus was crucified. This descriptor may simply mean "the Friday of Passover week", Carson, meaning that John assumes we all know that the disciples' final meal with Jesus was the passover meal on the Thursday evening of that year.
France argues that Jesus ate the Passover meal with his disciples on the day before the official date (ie., the evening of Nisan 14, rather than 15), so aligning the synoptic gospels with John. Matthew's reference to the "first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread", Matt.26:17, would then refer to the day of preparation, not the official first day of the festival. There is much to support the Johannine tradition over that of the Synoptic gospels. Why is there no mention of lamb at the meal? This is the most important element of a Passover meal. It is hard to imagine that the Jewish authorities would be conducting a trial, carrying arms, and arguing their case before a Roman Governor on the first day of one of the most important religious festivals in the Jewish calendar. Their anxiety to have it all settled on that Friday implies that the Sabbath and the first day of Passover fell on the same day that year and thus, Friday evening was when the Passover meal was officially held. If this is the case, then this preemptive Passover meal is a Kiddush, a social sacred meal held before the Sabbath or other holy days
Text - 26:17
The Last Supper, v17-30. i] Preparations for the last supper, v17-19. As Nolland notes, when the apostles approach Jesus it is not always for a positive reason, here it is positive; "Where do you wish for us to arrange for you to eat the passover?" Rieu.
de "now" - but/and. Transitional, indicating a step in the narrative
th/ ... prwth/ adj. "on the first day" - to the first. The dative is adverbial, temporal, as NIV. As already noted, officially the first day of the festival was the 15th of Nissan (15-22), the actual first day beginning at sunset on the 14th. None-the-less, given that all leaven was removed from the house on the 14th, the lamb slaughtered and prepared, and the meal commenced that evening, the "first day of unleavened bread" commonly identified the day of preparation before the commencement of the festival.
twn azumwn (oV) gen. "of the Festival of Unleavened Bread" - of unleavened bread. The genitive is adjectival, partitive, limiting "first day." The word may refer to the flat bread itself, "the day of unleavened bread", but John is obviously referring to the festival itself, as NIV. "On the first day of the Festival of Thin Bread", CEV, just doesn't quite work!
tw/ Ihsou (oV) dat. "[the disciples came to] Jesus" - [the disciples came to, approached] jesus. Dative of direct object after the proV prefix verb "to come to."
legonteV (legw) pres, part. "and asked" - saying. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb to "to come to", as NIV.
eJtoimaswmen (eJtoimazw) aor. subj. "to make preparations" - [where do you will, wish] we should make preparations, prepare, make ready. Deliberative subjunctive, so "Please tell us where you would like us to make preparations?" The verb qelw, "to wish, will", being a cognitive verb, tends to prompt a dependent statement of perception expressing what is desired, "where do you will that we make preparations." This may be formed by an infinitive, often classified as complementary, although technically introducing a dependent statement. It may also be formed with the use of oJti or iJna, and rarely as here, with a subjunctive.
soi dat. pro. "for you" - to you. Dative of interest, advantage, as NIV.
fawein (fagw) aor. infl. "to eat" - to eat [the passover meal, lamb]? The infinitive is adverbial, introducing a final clause expressing purpose, "in order to eat." "Where do you want us to prepare your Passover meal?" Peterson.
As recorded in John's gospel, Jesus is no stranger to Jerusalem and so clearly knows ton deina, "the somebody, the so-and-so", in fact, Nolland suggests that this shorthand reference to the person may well be how Jesus referred to him. It is not unusual to refer to someone we know well with a generalized title, eg., "my old mate." Similarly, the disciples don't need to use Jesus name when they catch up with ton deina; they only need to tell him what "the teacher" said. As noted below, it is possible that Jesus hasn't hired a serviced meeting room, but intends eating the meal with ton deina and his family.
autw/ dat. pro. "[tell] him" - [but/and he said, go into the city toward the certain person, the somebody, and say] to him. Dative of indirect object.
mou gen. pro. "my appointed time" - [the teacher says, the time] of me. The genitive is adjectival, best treated as idiomatic / temporal; "the time when ......"; "the time when I come in glory to the Father is near" - the possibilities are endless!
egguV adv. "[is] near" - [is] near, at hand. Adverb of place, used temporally, so "near in time = imminent". The statement is climactic, so "the time of my death is near", Quarles; "This is the time for the fulfillment of a predetermined plan", France.
meta + gen. "with [my disciples]" - with [the disciples of me]. Expressing association / accompaniment.
proV + acc. "at [your house]" - [i am doing, making, the passover] toward [you with the disciples of me]. Spacial, usually expressing movement toward, but obviously here expressing arrival at, as NIV; "It will be in your house that I will be having the Passover meal", Cassirer - as NIV, Cassirer treats the present tense verb "I am doing" as futuristic, "I will keep ....", ESV. The literal "with you", rather than the assumed "at your home / house" seems to imply that Jesus and his disciples are joining with "the somebody" to share in the passover meal.
"The disciples obey and become models of right response", D&A
wJV "as" - [and the disciples did] as. This comparative may be functioning adverbially, such that the disciples acted "as, like" Jesus had instructed them; so most translations. Cassirer takes wJV here to introduce an object clause / dependent statement of cause, expressing what the disciples did, "the disciples did what Jesus had ordered them to do", so Olmstead and Quarles.
autoiV dat. pro. "them" - [jesus commanded, instructed] them. Dative of direct object after the sun prefix verb "to instruct."
kai "and" - and [they prepared the passover meal]. Olmstead suggests that kai here is epexegetic, "that is, they prepared the Passover."
ii] The betrayer identifies himself, v20-25. Jesus and his disciples are now seated on cushions around a low table, each with flat-bread and a central dipping bowl, and together they join in a fellowship meal (either the Passover meal, or a preparatory Passover meal if we follow John's gospel). Before instituting his meal of remembrance, Jesus announces that one of those gathered will betray him, as prophesied. All ask the question, including Judas who receives an elusive reply.
de "-" - but/and. Transitional, indicating a step in the narrative.
genomenhV (ginomai) gen. aor. mid. part. "when [evening] came" - becoming [evening he was reclining with the twelve]. Variants: "twelve disciples", and maqhtwn autou, "twelve of his disciples." This genitive participle with the genitive noun "evening" forms a genitive absolute construction, best treated as temporal, as NIV. "When evening came, Jesus took his place at the table with his twelve disciples", Barclay.
esqiontwn (esqiw) gen. pres. part. "while [they] were eating" - [and they] were eating [he said]. The genitive participle with the genitive pronoun autwn, "them", forms a genitive absolute construction, best treated as temporal, as NIV; "As they were eating", ESV.
uJmin dat. pro. "you" - [amen i say] to you. Dative of indirect object. "I have something hard but important to say to you", Peterson.
oJti "-" - that. Introducing an object clause / dependent statement of direct speech expressing what Jesus says.
ex (ek) + gen. "[one] of [you]" - [one] from [you will betray me]. The preposition is used here instead of a partitive genitive.
lupoumenoi (lupew) pres. part. "they were [very] sad" - [and] grieving, sorrowing [very much, deeply]. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "to begin"; "The disciples were very upset and began to ask him", TEV.
legein (legw) pres. inf. "[began] to say" - The infinitive is complementary, completing the sense of the verb "to begin."
autw/ dat. pro. "to him" - Dative of indirect object.
ekastoV adj. "[one] after the other" - each [one]. The adjective is distributive here, "one by one / one after another", as NIV.
mhti "[Surely you do]n't [mean me, Lord]?" - not [i am lord]? This negation, when used in a question, expects a negative answer; "It's not me is it Lord?" Zerwick.
As Quarles notes, if the aorist participle oJ embayaV means "the one having just dipped" then the identify of Judas would be clear, but it seems likely that Jesus' words are taken generally such that the identity of the betrayer is not clear. This reference to dipping relates to the first part of the meal where those in attendance dip lettuce or a green herb in a dipping source as an appetizer. For the main part of the meal, a bowl of thickened source, made up of seasoned meat and vegetables, is in the center of the table and those present use pieces of flat bread to scoop out portions to eat.
de "and" - but/and. Transitional, here indicating a step in the dialogue to a new speaker.
apokriqeiV (apokrinomai) aor. pas. part. "Jesus replied" - having answered [said]. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "to say"; redundant.
oJ embayaV (embaptw) aor. part. "the one who has dipped" - the one having dipped [with me the hand in the bowl, this one will betray me]. The participle serves as a substantive, and with "with me the hand in the bowl" is resumed by the demonstrative pronoun ou|toV, "this one", to be the subject of the verb "to betray." "It is the one who has dipped his bread in the dish who is going to betray me", Barclay.
"Evil does not take God or Jesus by surprise: it can only do what has already been foreseen", D&A. So, the Son of Man's betrayal and death may be a surprise to the disciples, but not to Jesus, cf., Ps.22:16, Isa.53:3. The pronouncement of doom, calamity, upon Judas is traditional in form. First comes the "Woe", then the crime is identified, and then the statement "better if he had never been born." This traditional statement is simply making the point that the consequences of the crime are not pretty - we still use the same saying today. In Judas' case, the full realization of what he has done drives him to suicide. As to whether his actions bring him to damnation depends on how we read metamelhqeiV, "having repented", 27:3 (betrayal is not an unforgivable sin!).
men ..... de "....., but ..." - on the one hand [the son of man is going just as it has been written about him] but on the other hand [woe to that man]. Forming an adversative comparative construction.
tou anqrwpou (oV) gen. "[The Son] of Man" - The genitive is adjectival, relational. For "Son of Man" see 8:20.
uJpagei (uJpagw) pre. "will go" - is going away, going off. Obviously referring to Jesus' passion; "The Son of Man is entering into a way of treachery well-marked by the Scriptures - no surprises here", Peterson.
kaqwV "just as [it is written]" - as, just as, like [it has been written]. This intensive comparative serves to introduce a comparative clause. Typical wording for a Scriptural citation; "Son of Man is going the way appointed for him", NEB.
peri + gen. "about [him]" - about [him]. Expressing reference / respect; "about, concerning."
tw/ anqrwpw/ (oV) dat. "[woe] to [that] man" - [woe, calamity] to [that] man. Dative of interest, disadvantage. "Tragic is the fate of the man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed", Barclay.
di (dia) + gen. "-" - through [whom the son of man is betrayed]. Instrumental use of the preposition expressing agency; "by whom."
kalon adj. "[it would be] better" - [it was] good. A positive degree is used for a comparative; "it would be better." "That man would have been better off if he had never been born", TH.
autw/ dat. pro. "for him" - to him. Dative of interest, advantage, as NIV, but possibly reference / respect; "it would be better, with respect to him, if .....,"
ei + aor. ind. "if" - if, as is not the case, [that man had not been born, then it was good = better to = for him]. Introducing a 2nd. class unfulfilled conditional clause where the proposed condition is not true. Although the apodosis contains a past tense, here the imperfect verb to-be, an is missing. The particle an is often missing where the imperfect indicative denotes an unfulfilled obligation, so Olmstead. In the Gk. text the apodosis proceeds the protasis, so making the apodosis emphatic - it would have been far far better for Judas if he had never been born.
de "then" - but/and. Transitional, indicating a step in the dialogue to a new speaker.
oJ paradidouV (paradidwmi) pres. part. "the one who would betray [him]" - [judas] the one betraying. The participle serves as a substantive standing in apposition to "Judas."
apokriqeiV (apokrinomai) aor. pas. part. "[said]" - having answered [said]. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "to say", "answered and said"; redundant, as NIV.
mhti "[surely you do]n't [mean me]?" - not [i am, rabbi]? This negation, when used in a question, implies a negative answer, as in v22. "Surely teacher, you don't mean me?" TEV. Note that the other disciples address Jesus as "Lord", while Judas uses a title which could be viewed as carrying less weight.
su pro. "you [have said so]" - [jesus says to him] you [you have said]. The pronoun is emphatic by position and use. D&A classify Jesus' response as a vague Semitic one expressing a "qualified affirmation." Olmstead is probably going too far when he gives the sense to be "It is as you have said, you are the one." An indefinite sense is surely intended; "Don't play games with me, Judas", Peterson.
iii] The celebration of the Last Supper, v26-30: After the appetizers Jesus offers the customary grace / blessing / thanksgiving / benediction, in the terms of "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who bringest forth bread from the earth" - and so also for the wine. Jesus breaks up the flat-bread and distributes it, and follows up by offering the disciples a common cup; "take, eat", "drink from it, all of you." In relation to the Passover meal, it is unclear when Jesus explains the significance of the bread and the wine, but from now on the bread and the wine represent the sacrifice he is about to make. Jesus offers himself so that his followers may be partakers in the life-giving benefits that inevitably flow from his sacrifice.
de "-" - but/and. Transitional, indicating a step in the narrative; "Now, as they were eating", ESV.
esqiontwn (esqiw) gen. pres. part. "while [they] were eating" - [they] eating. The genitive participle with the genitive pronoun autwn, "they", forms a genitive absolute construction, best treated as temporal, as NIV. Nolland suggests it was likely that after the meal proper, Jesus explained the significance behind the bread and wine, rather than while they were eating. Of course, "while they were eating" may just refer to the appetizer, namely, the lettuce which the guests dipped in sauce. In a normal Passover meal the meaning of the main elements was ascertained by a series of questions and answers.
euloghsaV (eulogew) aor. part. "when he had given thanks" - [jesus having taken bread and having blessed, given thanks, he broke]. As with labwn, "having taken", this participle is attendant on the main verb "to break"; "Jesus took bread and gave thanks and broke it." More often the participle is treated as temporal, as NIV; "Jesus took bread and after blessing it he broke it."
douV (didwmi) aor. part. "gave it" - [and] giving [to the disciple he said]. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "to say"; "he gave it ....... and said." It could be treated as temporal, "and then he gave it to his disciples and said."
fagete (esqiw) aor. imp. "[take and] eat" - [take] eat. The aorist imperative may imply immediacy, even urgency, in this context.
estin (eimi) "is" - [this] is. The verb to-be can express representation, BDAG 282c-286b; "this means my body", Barclay. Note how the verb to-be is used in the introduction to Jesus' parables; "is like" = "represents a situation where ......." None-the-less, the precise sense of estin here is a matter of some debate. "All of you take this bread, and eat some of it, for it represents my body", Junkins. Note how Junkins has assumed that the "all of you" for the wine also applies to the bread, v27.
to swma (a atoV) "[my] body" - the body [of me]. Predicate nominative. In the context of the question answer section of a Passover meal, focused as it is on the salvation of God's people from their enslavement in Egypt, the symbolic nature of the bread is identified as "the bread of affliction", Deut. 16:3. Jesus redefines this symbolic element of the meal as his body. We crave clarification, but we are only left with the context. Whereas the "affliction" was Israel's, now it is upon Jesus himself, the new Israel - affliction being Jesus sacrifice on the cross. When addressing "the blood" in v27, the image is made clearer by its being "poured out", and obviously the same implication applies to "the bread." The obvious descriptive for the bread would be "broken for many", but of course, "Not a bone of his shall be broken."
The Passover celebration in later years involved four cups of wine with each person using their own cup, but it is unclear how it was celebrated in the first century. Here we certainly have a common cup. Where four cups of wine are consumed, it was at the mixing of the second that the explanatory dialogue took place, although it was at the third that the eucaristew, "to give thanks", the blessing / benediction was given. So, maybe Jesus' explanation is given at the third cup. As already noted, Nolland has Jesus' explanation after the wine is consumed. Note that Luke implies two cups, cf., Lk.22:17-20, but there is a textual issue here.
eucaristhsaV (eucaristew) aor. part. "when he had given thanks" - [and having taken the cup and] having given thanks. Along with labwn, "having taken", the participle may be viewed as attendant on the verb "to give", although better treated as temporal, as NIV. Jesus' "giving thanks" at the meal has prompted the title "The Eucharist" for the Lord's Supper.
legwn (legw) pres. part. "saying" - [he gave to them] saying. Attendant circumstance participle expressing action accompanying the verb "to give", "he gave it to them and said", or possibly modal, expressing the manner of his giving, as NIV.
ex (ek) + gen. "[drink] from [it]" - [drink] from [it all of you]. Expressing source / origin.
Sacrificial blood served to realize / ratify the establishment of, and renewal of, the Abrahamic covenant, namely, the agreement between God and Abraham and his descendants (including the stranger within his gates - the inclusion of Gentiles), of a blessed relationship between the divine and humankind, which agreement is founded on faith (for the Sinai covenant, Law leading to faith). The covenant is fully realized in Jesus' sacrifice and is appropriated through faith - faith in the faithfulness of Jesus. Matthew identifies its most evident blessing as "the forgiveness of sin" (only Matthew includes this statement). A variant "the new covenant" exists, the "new" reflecting Jeremiah 31:31, but of course, there is but one covenant between God and humanity, fully realized in the sacrificial death of Christ (this is a matter of some dispute!).
gar "-" - for [this is (represents???) the blood of me]. Introducing a causal clause explaining why they should drink.
thV diaqhkhV (h) gen. "of the covenant" - of the agreement, covenant. The genitive is adjectival, idiomatic / producer; "the blood that realizes the covenant." Olmstead opts for identification, "the blood that ratifies the covenant", while Quarles opts for producer, "the blood that initiates the covenant." The particular idiomatic sense is difficult to pinpoint, but the genitive "covenant" is limiting the "blood" to the sacrificial blood of Jesus poured out for the full realization of the covenant.
to .... ekcunnomenon (ekcunnw) perf. mid./pas. part. "which is poured out" - the one being poured out, shed. The participle is adjectival, attributive, limiting "blood". Reflecting Isaiah 53:12, of the Suffering Servant who "poured out his life to death."
peri + gen. "for [many]" - Here expressing advantage, "for", or representation, "on behalf of", as if uJper.
eiV + acc. "for" - toward. Here expressing purpose / end-view, "with a view to."
aJmartiwn (a) gen. "[forgiveness] of sins" - The genitive is adjectival, usually viewed as verbal, objective. This statement finds its basis in Jeremiah's new covenant prophecy "I will forgive their wickedness and remember their sins no more." Jesus achieves what he set out to do, to "save his people from their sins."
With these words Jesus brings an eschatological dimension to his renewal of the covenant through his sacrifice on the cross. It is realized now in the forgiveness of sins, but we are yet to taste its ultimate blessings.
de "-" - but/and. Transitional, indicating a step to a new point.
uJmin dat. pro. "[I tell] you" - [i say] to you. Dative of indirect object.
ou mh + subj. "[I will] not" - [i will] not not = by no means [drink from now]. Subjunctive of emphatic negation.
ek + gen. "from" - from [this fruit]. Expressing source / origin, as NIV, or possibly partitive, "of this fruit", ESV.
tou genhmatoV (gimomai) gen. "of the vine" - The genitive is adjectival, possibly just possessive, "belonging to", or idiomatic / producer, "the fruit produced by the vine", even source / origin, "from." "I will never again drink this wine", TEV.
ek arti + gen. "from now on" - from now. Temporal construction. It seems likely that Jesus is drinking with the disciples and will continue to do so during the meal, so the sense is probably "never again after this", TH.
eJwV + gen. "until" - until [that day]. Here as a temporal preposition; "until the time comes", Barclay.
oJtan "when" - when [i drink it new]. Temporal conjunction introducing a temporal clause; "When I drink a new kind of wine", Rieu, is likely, given that "new" limits "it = wine", but possibly "until I drink it with you in a new way", TH.
meq (meta) + gen. "with [you]" - with [you in the kingdom of the father of me]. Here expressing association / accompaniment. Jesus is pointing his disciples to that day when they will again experience an intimate fellowship together in the fully realized kingdom of God.
uJmnhsanteV (uJmnew) aor. part. "when they had sung a hymn" - [and] having sung. The participle is adverbial, best treated as temporal, as NIV. "Then they sang a Psalm", Rieu.
twn elaiwn (a) gen. "[the mount] of olives" - [they went out into the mount] of olives. The genitive is adjectival, idiomatic / identification; "the hill where the olive trees grow"