1
The Passion Chronology Do all four Gospels tell the Same
Story?
C.M. Hegg
[Note to the Reader: This is the first chapter in a longer work
that I am currently working on. Since the chronology debates
continue to be a main topic of discussion among
believers I felt it appropriate to release this chapter.]
When discussing the Last Supper it is only natural to begin with
the debate over the chronology and nature of the meal. Many books
and much scholarship has been dedicated to this specific aspect of
the Last Supper. So much so that Charles C. Torrey wrote:
It might seem to be a duty to apologize for renewing discussion of
this worn-out subject, where the ground has been raked over and
over, and the question is generally regarded as closed. The raking
process has not been finally prohibited…”1
Torrey penned these words in 1931. Yet, scholarship continues to
work on the seeming problems found between the narratives and has
made significant advancements within the past 80 years. Due to the
vast amount of work on the chronology of the Last Supper, my
approach here will be to lay out the Passion chronology as describe
by the synoptic tradition and show how the “problematic” portions
of John can be viewed as perfectly harmonious with the Synoptic
tradition. My chronological views follow those of many scholars,
but have specifically been collated and expanded by scholars such
as Tim Hegg2 and more recently Dr. Brant Pitre.3 This position,
which Dr. Pitre has titled the “Passover Hypotheses,”4 argues the
Last Supper is in fact a Passover Meal. While numerous proposals
have been made on the chronology of the Last Supper, several stand
out as the most common. Joachim Jeremias sights three main views
that scholars have taken on this issue. (1) The Johannine
hypothesis, i.e. that John’s account is correct and Jesus and His
disciples were not eating a Passover Meal, but were rather,
partaking in a farewell covenant meal that took place on Nisan 13.
(2) The Synoptic hypothesis, i.e. that the Synoptic accounts are
correct and Jesus and His disciples were
1 Charles C. Torrey, “The Date of the Crucifixion According to the
Fourth Gospel” JBL, Vol 50, No. 4 (1931), p. 227
2
in fact eating a Passover Meal. (3) The “two meals” hypothesis,
i.e. that both John and the Synoptics are correct resulting in two
different meals being described, one in the Synoptics which is a
Passover meal, and one in John that is a farewell meal.5 Brant
Pitre also sights three main positions (not including his own
position, i.e. the Passover Hypothesis) that various scholars have
taken, they are (1) The Johannine hypothesis,6 (2) the Synoptic
hypothesis,7 and (3) the Essene hypothesis,8 i.e. that the Synoptic
accounts of the last supper are following a solar calendar put
forward by the Essenes, while John is using the lunar calendar held
by the Temple officials. Both Jeremias and Pitre address the
problems within these four theories. The two hypothesis that I find
to be the most common have the same issue pointed in opposite
directions. Those who hold to the Johannine hypothesis must
disregard the earlier accounts given within the Synoptics which
clearly place the last supper on Nisan 14, while those who hold to
the Synoptic hypothesis do not adequately deal with the passages in
John that seems to locate Jesus’ death on Nisan 14, thus placing
the Last Supper on Nisan 13. Both theories find fault with the
other witness(es) on various grounds, suggesting theological
reasons for the discrepancies, and making the accounts seem
irreconcilable.
The problem for us is not to reconcile the Gospels. They are
irreconcilable. The problem which confronts us is how did such a
contradiction arise among the disciples of Jesus at such an early
period? I have pointed out elsewhere, that the contradiction
between the Synoptic and non-Synoptic Gospels is not based on
history, but rather on ideology.9
While some might find the Gospel accounts to be at odds with each
other, I believe this position has not taken all of the available
evidence into consideration.
John and the Synoptics The earliest written witness we have of the
Lord’s Supper is Paul’s words
5 Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Fortress Press,
1977), p. 21 6 Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans,
2015), p. 281 7 Ibid. p. 314 8 Ibid. p. 260 9 Solomon Zeitlin, “The
last Supper as an Ordinary Meal in the Fourth Gospel”, in
JQR Vol. 42, No. 3, University of Pennsylvania 1952, p. 260
3
in 1 Cor. 11:23-25.10 Paul writes this approximately twenty years
after Jesus spoke them, but Paul tells us in verse 23 that: “I
received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you.” We are
not told how Paul “παρλαβον” (received) but only that he received
the tradition π το κυρου (from the Lord). Since Paul and the
Synoptic accounts date long before John’s Gospel, it might seem odd
that some favor John’s narrative over and against a later witness.
James Dunn argues that the “synoptics focus on Jesus’ mission in
Galilee, the bulk of John’s narrative focuses on Judaea and
Jerusalem.”11 With regard to overlap period, Dunn argues that
John’s account should not be viewed as inferior:
But we can be sufficiently confident that the Johannine tradition
too goes back to the first disciples, and indeed, in this case, has
retained a clearer memory of the overlap period than we could have
deduced from the Synoptic tradition. A simple uniform rule that the
Synoptic tradition is always more reliable than John’s is
immediately ruled out. John’s version of the beginning of Jesus’
mission is itself an example of how the memory of that overlap was
handled in at least one strand of earliest Christianity or in some
churches.12
Dunn goes on to show multiple examples of John’s account to be more
specific and/or longer in order to make narrative or theology
clearer. Thus, although John’s account may have been written later,
it seems that his tradition (with the help of his memory) is quite
early. This reasoning may help when attempting to harmonize the
four Gospel accounts of the Last Supper. Since John was a first
hand witness to the narrative, the overlap material should perhaps
be seen not as a “new” or “different” account, but as a
clarification or flushing out of a specific aspect of the story. If
true, John should be approached as harmonious with the Synoptics
instead of assuming he is presenting a contradictory
narrative.
The author of the Fourth Gospel here plainly takes it for granted
(as in the many other instances which are exclaimed over by the
commentators) that his readers are familiar with the accounts given
by Mark and Matthew, and merely supplements them. The
10 I am taking the common view for dating the witnesses. 1Cor.
53-57ce, Mark 60- 65ce, Matthew 60-65ce, Luke 60-70ce, John
90-110ce; see, Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction
(Inter-Varsity, 1970), p. 441; H. Wayne House, Chronologi- cal and
Background Charts of the New Testament (Zondervan, 1981), p.
127-128
11 James D.G. Dunn, Christianity in the Making, Vol. 3 (Eerdmans,
2015), p. 320 12 Ibid., p. 321 Original author’s emphasis
4
desire of Jesus to eat the paschal meal with his disciples, the
facts relating to their preparation for the feast, and the
institution of the Eucharist, were matters of common knowledge and
therefore unnecessary to repeat; as this author elsewhere (very
wisely) omits narrative material quite indispensable for the full
understanding of his account, because it has already been doubly or
trebly provided. Thus at the very beginning of his gospel he takes
for granted the story of the baptism of Jesus, and merely gives in
1 32f. an allusion which demands the readers’ familiarity with the
Synoptists.13
Few scholars would dispute that the Fourth Gospel presupposes that
the readers are acquainted with the Synoptic tradition. To cite one
example, the apostles are abruptly introduced as ‘the twelve’
without further definition, and it is clearly assumed that the
readers will know who they were. The scanty inclusion of snippits
from Mark and Luke (if this is what the author did) could not be
construed as too undignified for an apostle. Indeed, it may have
been designed to jog the readers’ memory of what they already
knew.14
If John assumed the reader’s familiarity with the Synoptics, it
seems unrealistic that the writer would give a contradictory report
of the Passion chronology without making comment to reconcile or
explain the discrepancies. Rather, the author of this account
expected his readers to, not only, be familiar with the Synoptic
accounts but to be acquainted with the language he is employing
within his own account of the narrative. Language that continues to
mislead scholarship today.
Recent Suggestions on The Last Supper Recent scholarship has
brought new suggestions to this debate that help stack the evidence
for the Passover Hypothesis. Notably, Tim Hegg collated several key
proposals and began to show the first century language of the New
Testament to be misunderstood within modern scholarship.15 Brant
Pitre went a step further bringing the Passover Hypothesis into
full focus by
13 Charles C. Torrey, “The Date of the Crucifixion According to the
Fourth Gospel” JBL, Vol 50, No. 4 (1931), p. 229-230
14 Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, Inter-Varsity 1970,
p. 254; it should be noted that although Guthrie suggests most
scholars would agree John assumes his readers are familiar with the
Synoptics, some question how familiar his John’s audience would
actually be. See, I. Howard Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Sup-
per (Eerdmans, 1980), p. 70
15 Tim Hegg, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 2
(TorahResource, 2008), p. 469ff
5
meticulously showing the word πσχα (Pascha) had four meanings in
first century Judaisms.16 Pitre rightfully contends that πσχα could
be understood to mean 1) The Passover Lamb17 2) the Passover
meal,18 3) the Passover Peace Offering,19 and 4) the seven day
feast of “unleavened bread” (i.e. Nisan 15-21).20 With these
proposals firmly established within Eucharistic studies the four
Gospel accounts can now be viewed as harmonious. Scholars who hold
to the Johannine chronology have sometimes suggested that what
seems like specific dating of Nisan 14 in the Synoptic Gospels is
actually a much less specific term.21 Yet this argument drastically
misses the mark. Perhaps the strongest evidence that the Last
Supper was a Passover meal is found in the Synoptics themselves in
which all three place the day the disciples are preparing for the
Last Supper on the “first day of unleavened bread” and two of these
accounts specifically mention this to be the day the Pascha was
sacrificed:
Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to
Jesus and asked, “Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat
the Passover? (Matthew 26:17)
On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they were sacrificing
the Passover lambs, His disciples said to Him, “Where do You want
us to go and prepare for You to eat the Passover?” (Mark
14:12)
Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb
had to be sacrificed. (Luke 22:7)
All three accounts identify this day as the “first day of
Unleavened Bread.” On this phrase used by the synoptics Hegg
states:
Here, the “first day of Unleavened Bread” (Matt: Τ δ πρτ τν ζμων;
Mk: Κα τ πρτ μρ τν ζμων; Lk: λθεν δ μρα τν ζμων) is clearly the
14th of Nisan, since it is the day on which the Pesach lambs were
sacrificed. That the 14th of Nisan is referred to as the “first day
of Unleavened Bread” is not unusual, since by noon on the 14th, all
leaven was to be removed from homes and burned. Moreover, in the
1st Century the terms
16 Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans, 2015), p.
331ff 17 Ibid., p. 334 18 Ibid., p. 335 19 Ibid., p. 336 20 Ibid.,
p. 338; I suggest a fifth meaning of the word Pascha, see p. 26
below. 21 Bo Reicke, The New Testament Era: The World of the Bible
from 500 B.C. to A.D.
100, (Fortress Press, 1968) p. 180-181.
6
“Feast of Unleavened Bread” (chag haMatzot) and “Passover” were
used interchangeably (cf. Lk 22:1, “Now the Feast of Unleavened
Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching”).22
Matthew clarifies the term with the disciples question “Where do
you want us to prepare the Passover” (πσχα). As previously stated
Pitre shows πσχα (pascha) can have at least four meanings, all four
meanings would place this day within the Passover week and thus the
suggestion that this narrative took place on Nisan 13 is
impossible. Yet, with regard to this passage, we are not forced to
guess between four meanings of the word πσχα since the witness of
Mark and Luke clarify which meaning Matthew is taking by telling us
it is the day the πσχα θυον (Passover was sacrificed). Those who
oppose the Synoptic hypothesis attempt to deal with these verses in
interesting ways. For instance, Bo Reicke attempts to deal with
Mark and Luke’s assertion that it was the day the Passover lambs
were sacrificed by suggesting the writers were attempting to inform
a “wider circle of readers” by sighting this day (Nisan 14) as a
catch all for the festival time.23 Reicke preposes this was a kind
of “nontechnical dating” (perhaps like saying the “Christmas
season” in modern times), and Jesus’ Last Supper was a “covenant
meal” that actually took place on the evening of Nisan 13. He
reaches this conclusion due to what he sees as a lack of the
Passover lamb at the table:
Surprisingly, however, this nocturnal common meal was so structured
that Jesus announced his coming betrayal and, with that in mind,
established a new sacrificial covenant (Matt. 26:20- 29 and
parallels). Here again we must avoid any mechanical association
with Jewish concepts. In fact, not one word in the Synoptic
accounts suggests that for the Last Supper Jesus had a Passover
lamb slain and roasted (Páscha in Luke 22:15 f. does not refer to a
lamb but to the meal; only on this interpretation are the following
words comprehensible: “I shall not eat it again until it is
fulfilled”). The absence of all mention of a lamb can hardly be
dismissed as accidental; for in view of the many ceremonial details
of the account, such carelessness with regard to a major aspect of
the Passover festival would be most strange.24
Reicke misses the mark on several points. First, the suggestion
that we
22 Tim Hegg, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 2
(TorahResource, 2008), p. 470
23 Bo Reicke, The New Testament Era: The World of the Bible from
500 B.C. to A.D. 100 (Fortress Press, 1968), p. 181
24 Ibid., p. 181-182
7
should “avoid” any association with Jewish concepts is simply
wrong. Jesus was a Jewish teacher with Jewish disciples that were
living and teaching in a Jewish setting. Second, Reicke
specifically points to a passage in Luke where the writer
references the πσχα as a sacrifice (v. 7), yet tells us the lamb is
absent. Third, if the meal that was eaten by Jesus and His
disciples was not a Passover meal, but simply a covenant meal that
took place on the 13th of Nisan, why is it referred to as the
“πσχα” (pasha)? The idea that this was not a Passover meal, but is
called one anyway (Luke 22:15) is not logical. Fourth, the idea
that the Gospel writers make reference to a specific day and we
should assume both writers are attempting to use nontechnical
dating so not to confuse the wider audience is not supported by any
other data we have of such practice. Fifth, Jesus and His disciples
left Bethany and go to Jerusalem. If the Last Supper was a love
meal, and was not a Passover meal, why would they leave the place
they were staying in order to go to an overly crowded Jerusalem? If
it was still only the 13th of Nisan, there would be no reason for
Jesus to leave the house of Lazarus. However, if the Last Supper
was a Passover meal on the day of Nisan 14, there was no option,
the Passover had to be eaten within the walls of Jerusalem, making
the journey a required one. Reicke’s argument falls apart more when
the Greek employed by both Mark and Luke is compared to that of
Deuteronomy’s Passover language in the LXX: κα θσεις τ πασχα κυρ τ
θε,… You shall sacrifice the Passover to the LORD your God… The two
Gospels use πσχα (Passover) and θω (sacrifice), the exact words
used in the LXX to reference the Passover sacrifice. To date no
evidence has been presented to suggest that πσχα θυον would mean
anything besides the sacrifice of the Passover lamb which can only
take place on the 14th of Nisan as prescribed by the Torah. Beyond
this, I am not aware of any evidence that the phrase “the day the
Pascha was sacrificed” (or any phrase like it) referred to the
Passover in general and even more specifically a day that was not
considered part of Passover (i.e. Nisan 13). For such a claim to be
taken seriously, evidence will need to be provided that this phrase
was used in reference to anything besides the specific day of Nisan
14 in the first century. Until such evidence is produced, the day
in which the Passover lamb was sacrificed was a very specific day
in the Torah and thus a specific day in the minds of the Jewish
people.
You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month, then
the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it at
twilight. (Exodus 12:6)
Then on the fourteenth day of the first month shall be the LORD’S
Passover. (Numbers 28:16)
8
First century non-canonical evidence confirms the Gospel’s to be
speaking of a specific day instead of a “nontechnical” period.
Josephus states:
Accordingly, he having got the Hebrews ready for their departure,
and having sorted the people into tribes, he kept them together in
one place; but when the fourteenth day was come, and all were ready
to depart, they offered the sacrifice, and purified their houses
with the blood, using bunches of hyssop for that purpose; and when
they had supped, they burnt the remainder of the flesh, as just
ready to depart. (2.14.6) Whence it is that we do still offer this
sacrifice in like manner to this day, and call this festival
Pascha, which signifies the feast of the passover; (Antiquities
2.312–313 JOSEPH)
Several things should be noted here. Josephus tells us that on the
14th day was when the Hebrews θυον “sacrificed” (same word used in
Mark, Luke and the LXX of Deut 16:2), then goes on to state that
“Whence it is that we do still offer this sacrifice in like manner
to this day, and call this festival Pascha” Josephus also tells us
that the festival is πσχα καλοντες “called Pascha.” Philo
writes:
Accordingly, in this month, about the fourteenth day of the month,
when the orb of the moon is usually about to become full, the
public universal feast of the passover is celebrated, which in the
Chaldaic language is called pascha; (Moses 2.224 PHILO)
Once again, we see a first century witness references the word
Pascha with the 14th of Nisan (although the preposition περ (about)
is present in this text). These first century witnesses also shed
light on Jesus’ words when He specifically refers to the Pascha. “I
am to keep the Passover (πσχα) at your house with My disciples.”
(Matthew 26:18) and, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover
(πσχα) with you before I suffer” (Luke 22.15 NAS95) Reicke’s
assertion that the term “the day the Pascha was sacrificed” is a
general time period that could include non-festal days around the
Passover celebration, is not supported by any evidence. What is
more, if Jesus and His disciples were not celebrating the Passover
on the 14th, but rather a covenant meal on the 13th, it would not
be referred to by Jesus and His disciples as the Pascha. Once again
we see no evidence that a meal on the 13th would be called a
Pascha, nor is there any evidence that a sacrifice performed on the
13th of Nisan would be considered anything besides a normal θυσαν
(sacrifice).
9
Two Calendars One explanation that attempts to justify Jesus
calling the meal a Passover while still placing His death on Nisan
14 is that of the Essene hypothesis. This theory suggests that
Jesus and His disciples were following the 364 day solar calendar
observed by the Essenes. First proposed by Annie Jaubert,25 James
Walther sums this theory up nicely:
It is proposed that Jesus and his disciples observed the Passover
according to the old solar calendar, which located the festival
that year in the same week as did the official calendar, a
coincidence neither impossible nor even unlikely.… … J. T. Milik in
his recent monograph, Dix ans de decouvertes dans le desert de
Juda, mentions manuscripts from Cave IV which place the observance
of the Passover on Tuesday; and since the dates of this calendar
were immovable, Passover would regularly occur on that day of the
week. The official calendar was subject to intercalation, and hence
the occurrence of festivals was in effect manipulated by the
priests who determined these intercalations. This variation and the
comparative fixity of the solar calendar seem to have been the foci
of the calendar dispute.26
This hypothesis posits Jesus ate the Passover meal on Tuesday
(Nisan 14 according to the solar calendar) and died on Friday
(Nisan 14 according to the lunar calendar). Although this
chronology might look attractive at the outset, it creates
significant problems.27 First there is no evidence that Jesus held
to the Essene calendar, but rather the evidence points to Jesus
holding to the same calendar as the Temple:
Whenever the Gospels do depict Jesus participating in the various
annual feasts, he always does so in the Temple at the same time as
the majority of Jews. For example, in the Gospel of John, Jesus
clearly keeps the feast of Tabernacles at the same time everyone
else “goes up” to the feast (see John 7:1-10).28
If Jesus was using the Essene calendar it would be impossible for
Him to have the Passover lamb at His table. Jesus and His disciples
would not have been able to sacrifice a lamb outside the temple, as
this would directly contradict the Torah’s regulation on sacrifice
(Deut. 12:5-7). There is no
25 Annie Jaubert, The Date of the Last Supper (Alba House, 1965) 26
James A. Walther, “The Chronology of Passion Week”, JBL, Vol. 77,
No. 2 1958, p.
117-118 27 For a full treatment of the Essene Hypothesis and some
of its pro’s and con’s, see
Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans, 2015), p. 260ff
28 Ibid., p. 271
10
evidence that the temple priests were willing to cater to various
groups desired calendar reckoning, and since the Pharisee’s ruled
the halachah of the sacrificial system, it is even more difficult
to assume they were flexible on the laws pertaining to the
sacrifices. Finally, it would be impossible for Jesus and His
disciples to bring an animal to the temple and take it with them
when they left the Temple proper. The temple did not act as
Jerusalem’s local slaughter house, and people were not given the
luxury of bringing meat to butcher on the altar in order to eat
common meals (which a “love meal” or banquet would have been
considered on any other day besides Nisan 14, as reckoned by the
temple). Only the peace offering had the offerer partake of the
meat, but it was to be cooked in the temple, and the priest partook
of the offering as well (Lev. 7:11-21).29 To suggest that the
disciples went to the temple, had the priest slit the throat of a
lamb, then asked the priest to give it back, and the priests
obliged such a request, is outside the realm of plausibility.30
Thus, the only possible suggestion for Jesus to have partaken of a
Passover meal according to the solar calendar in direct
contradiction to the temple, is to suggest that He did not have a
Passover lamb as part of His Passover meal. This would invalidate
the meal as the Passover altogether, bagging the question why they
continue to call it the “Pascha”, but more importantly, it would be
in direct violation of the Torah command pertaining to the Passover
meal that requires a Passover lamb. Thus, to suggest Jesus partook
of a lambless Passover meal is to suggest He did not actually keep
the Passover, making Him in violation of the Torah
regulation.
Synoptic Account The Passover Hypothesis starts with the time
marker given by the synoptics as already laid out above. Since all
three Synoptic Gospels begin the Last Supper narrative by placing
it on the afternoon of Nisan 14 (i.e. the first day of unleavened
bread, the day the pascha was sacrificed (Matt. 26:17, Mark 14:12,
Luke 22:7), this is the starting point. From this time marker
everything else takes shape. This is no different than the Synoptic
hypothesis. The point of divergence these two positions take is
when the
29 It should also be noted that the peace offering was not to touch
anything that was unclean. It is highly unlikely that the priests
would allow a person to take their portion of the offering out of
the temple proper since it would be likely to come in contact with
things unclean. It has been argued that Jerusalem was declared
clean on Nisan 14 because of the volume of attendees, but if true
(which I believe it is) this would have been reckoned according to
the calendar put forth by the temple proper and not the solar
calendar.
30 Although anachronistic, it is worth noting that the Mishnah
(Zev. 1:1ff) has an entire discussion on if a person brings an
offering on the 14th of Nisan and does not designate it as a
Passover sacrifice, is it still valid?
11
Synoptic hypothesis begins to view John as “different” in
chronology. It is at this point that the Passover hypothesis
becomes independent from others by suggesting John is actually
giving the exact same chronology as the Synoptics. This
interpretation looks at the language found within first century
literature and proposes John is using language his intended
audience would understand, but has been misunderstood by later
readers. We turn now to the texts in the Gospel of John that seem
to pose contradictions to the Synoptic accounts. Since these
theories are well laid out by various scholars I will attempt to be
brief.
John 13:1-2 If we begin at the starting point that the Last Supper
took place on Nisan 14 as seen in the synoptic accounts, the
crucifixion chronology begins to take shape. Nisan 15 is a festival
Sabbath (Ex. 12:16, Lev. 23:7, Num 28:18), so Jesus would have been
laid in the tomb around 3:30pm on this day. This poses an illusive
problem for the various hypothesis of the Passion chronology
because John’s Gospel seems to place the meal between Jesus and His
disciples on Nisan 13 and Jesus’s death on Nisan 14. In John 13:1-2
we read:
Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour
had come that He would depart out of this world to the Father,
having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the
end. During supper, the devil having already put into the heart of
Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him, (John
13:1–2)
John states “Now before the Feast of the Passover…” then goes on to
describe the dinner between Jesus and His disciples. This has led
many scholars to believe the Last Supper took place on Nisan 13.
Dr. Brant Pitre rightfully explains:
According to this interpretation, John 13:1 refers to the afternoon
of 13 Nisan (John 13:1), twenty-four hours before the lambs were
sacrificed and the remainder of John’s account takes place during
the “night” of 14 Nisan (John 13:30) - twenty-four hours before the
lambs were eaten. In the words of Raymond Brown: “The evening of
this meal and the next day, on which Jesus will die, constitute
Passover Eve.” As widespread as this interpretation is, it is quite
wrong, and reveals modern scholarly confusion about the
first-century Jewish Passover and festal terminology. In an ancient
Jewish context, “the feast” (heorté) of Passover always refers to
15 Nisan, the day on which the lambs were eaten. Therefore, “before
the feast of
12
Passover” means 14 Nisan, not 13 Nisan.31
Pitre proves this point by looking at three witnesses, Num. 28,
Jub. 49 and Mishnah Pes. 1:
Then on the fourteenth day of the first month shall be the LORD’S
Passover. ‘On the fifteenth day of this month shall be a feast
.unleavened bread shall be eaten for seven days ,(ορτ ,) (Numbers
28:16–17)32
The fact that the LXX specifically calls the 15th of Nisan the ορτ
should be enough to show that it is completely plausible, and
perhaps even expected, for a first century Jew to use the same
wording.
Remember the commandment which the Lord commanded thee concerning
the passover, that thou shouldst celebrate it in its season on the
fourteenth of the first month, that thou shouldst kill it before it
is evening, and that they should eat it by night on the evening of
the fifteenth from the time of the setting of the sun. For on this
night– the beginning of the festival and the beginning of the joy–
ye were eating the passover in Egypt… (Jubilees 49.1–2 PSEUD)
Pitre also sights the Mishnah which, although written later, may
show that calling the 15th the “festival” might have been common
phraseology dating back to the first century (and earlier) since it
was referenced as such in the Torah.
A. R. Judah says, “They seek out [leaven] (1) on the night of the
fourteenth, (2) on the fourteenth in the morning, and (3) at the
time of removal.” B. And sages say, “[If] one did not seek out
[leaven] on the night of the fourteenth, he may seek it out (1) on
the fourteenth. C. “If he did not seek it out on the fourteenth,
let him seek it out (2) at the appointed time () (Pesahim 1.3
MISH-N)
Thus when John states “Now before the Feast of the Passover,” it
should rightly be understood to mean any time before sundown the
evening of the 14th (i.e. the “Festival” being the 15th of Nisan).
The distinction between the term “ορτς” (festival) and the word
“πσχα” (Passover) is an important one.
31 Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans, 2015), p.
341-342 32 This word is also used in the LXX for Nisan 15 in Lev.
23:6: κα ν τ
πεντεκαιδεκτ μρ το μηνς τοτου ορτ τν ζμων τ κυρ πτ μρας ζυμα δεσθε.
(Leviticus 23.6 LXX1)
13
John 13:27-30 The use of ορτς (festival) for the 15th of Nisan is
also important in understanding what some have posed as a
significant problem with the end of Jesus’ meal. In John 13:27
Jesus tells Judas, “What you are going to do, do quickly.” The
disciples don’t understand this, and in v. 29 it states:
Some thought that, because Judas had the money bag, Jesus was
telling him, “Buy what we need for the feast,” or that he should
give something to the poor. (John 13.29)
John has already used the phrase “during supper” (δεπνου γινομνου)
in 13:2, but this certainly could be a reference to any part of the
ceremonial meal. Yet, John places the discussion between the
disciples and who will betray Him in verse 27-29. Luke seems to
place the discussion of betrayal after the meal and after the
“words of institution.” According to Matthew and Mark’s accounts,
the Last Supper took place in the “evening.”
Now when evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the
twelve disciples. (Matthew 26:20)
When it was evening He came with the twelve. (Mark 14:17)
It is argued that since sundown on the 14th would enter into a
festival Sabbath, no first century Jew would think of buying
supplies let alone leaving the Passover table to go purchase
something. Many commentators that hold to the Synoptic or the
Passover hypotheses believe this passage took place after sundown,
which would be the beginning of Nisan 15. If the Passover
hypothesis is correct then even the suspicion that Judas would be
going to buy something is out of place and brings doubt that this
event took place on the night of Nisan 14 turning to Nisan 15.
However, this verse may actually strengthen the Passover hypothesis
rather than damaging it. First, since the disciples believe Judas
needed to go quickly to purchase something for the festival, it
makes little sense that this took place on Nisan 13th. D.A. Carson
puts up a strong argument for why this verse is not referring to a
love meal by stating:
What you are about to do, do quickly.” John adds (13:29) that some
of those present thought Jesus was telling Judas to buy what was
necessary for the feast, or else give something to the poor. How
could they think this, if they were just then finishing the
feast?
14
But one may also ask why, if the feast was still twenty-four hours
away, anyone would think that there would be any rush to buy
things. It is more reasonable to think that the disciples thought
Judas needed to make some purchases for the continuing “Feast of
Unleavened Bread”—e.g., some more unleavened bread. Since the next
day, still Friday, 15 Nisan, was a high feast day and the day after
a Sabbath, it was best to do things immediately.33
Pitre agrees:
As even advocates of the Johannine hypothesis admit, the disciples’
interpretation of Judas’ actions make no sense according to the
common assumption that the Passover meal was still twenty- four
hours away. As Raymond Brown notes: “Why would Judas be sent out to
make the purchases on Thursday night when all Friday remained for
shopping?” The only reason for Judas to go out shortly before
“night” (John 13:30) to buy something “for the feast” was that “the
feast” - i.e., the Passover meal - was about to begin. The
disciples thus appear to imagine Judas going out to the nearby
street (perhaps containing festal vendors about to close up shop)
just before nightfall to make a final purchase for the Passover
feast.34
Pitre places this event before the actual festival meal. While the
various parts of the festival celebration at table is certainly
debatable, it is acceptable that the festival meal could have began
before the sun set on Nisan 14. Carson, Pitre, and Brown’s35 point
is well taken. If the Passover meal was not going to take place for
another 24 hours why would the disciples assume Judas was getting
up from a love meal with his Master to go buy something that could
be purchased the next morning? The very fact the disciples would
assume such a thing points to these events taking place on the
evening of Nisan 14 before the sun set. Pitre assumes the meal took
place after Judas left the table,36 and this can still place our
verse before sundown on the night of the 14th. Carson takes a
different interpretation, believing the sun had already set. Carson
then attempts to argue religious Jews within the first century
would be exempt from the festival Sabbath laws of buying and
selling if the purchase was something needed for the festival
itself.
33 D. A. Carson, Matthew. EBC 8. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and
J. D. Douglas (Zondervan, 1984), p. 530
34 Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans, 2015), p. 349
35 Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John, Vol. 2 (Doubleday,
1970), p. 576 36 Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans,
2015), p. 348
15
It is more reasonable to think that the disciples thought Judas
needed to make some purchases for the continuing “Feast of
Unleavened Bread”—e.g., some more unleavened bread. Since the next
day, still Friday, 15 Nisan, was a high feast day and the day after
a Sabbath, it was best to do things immediately. By Jewish
reckoning the high feast day (15 Nisan) had begun that Thursday
evening; but purchases were more than likely still possible, though
inconvenient. After all one could buy necessities even on a Sabbath
if it fell before a Passover, provided it was done by leaving
something in trust rather than paying cash (M Sanhedrin
23:1)[Sic].37
While this is an innovative suggestion, I find it less than
convincing. First, Carson is attempting to use the Mishnah to
support the notion that a person could purchase something for the
festival if needed. Yet, this is a misrepresentation of the
Mishnaic text:
A man [on the Sabbath] asks for jugs of wine or oil from his
fellow, B. provided that he does not say to him, “Lend [them] to
me.” C. And so a woman [borrows] loaves of bread from her neighbor.
D. And if one does not trust the other, he leaves his cloak with
him and settles with him after the Sabbath. E. And so is the case
on the eve of Passover in Jerusalem when that day coincides with
the Sabbath: F. One leaves his cloak with him and takes his
Passover lamb and settles with him after the festival. (Shabbat
23.1 MISH-N)
The Mishnah describes the scenario in which Nisan 14 falls on a
weekly Sabbath. This would put the festival Sabbath of Nisan 15 on
a Sunday. The text is suggesting that someone has not yet purchased
the Passover lamb that would be slaughtered. The Mishnah places the
command of slaughtering the Passover lamb above the command to
cease from commerce on the Sabbath. This passage, however, does not
allow for purchasing any other supplies for the festival, nor does
it take into account having some of what was needed for the
festival, but not having as much as one might desire. Carson is
utilizing later rabbinical literature to substantiate his claims,
but neglects to mention that by the time the Talmud comes around,
it is set halacha that only an olive size of matzah is required to
fulfill the command of eating unleavened bread.38 This, of course,
is far removed from our first century text, but it shows that later
rabbinical thought did concern itself with
37 This reference is an error, as Carson is referring to m.Shabbat
23:1; D.A. Carson, Matthew. EBC 8. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and
J. D. Douglas (Zondervan, 1984), p. 531
38 Pesachim 108a
16
the amount of matzah that was required. I only bring this up to
point out that if matzah was being used throughout the meal, and
was already broken and used after the meal during the words of
institution, it seems that getting up to acquire more matzah would
not be a necessity that would warrant breaking the festival
Sabbath. Since the Gospels place the Last Supper on a Thursday, the
later rabbinical rulings in m.Shabbat 23.1 still would not apply.
Jeremias states that:
Merchants were allowed to hand out foodstuffs to their customers if
nothing was said about measurement, weight and price.39
While it seems that Jeremias and Carson are arguing the same point,
this quote actually weighs against their argument. If merchants
weren’t allowed to mention price, why would the disciples suppose
Judas was going to γρασον (“buy”) the things they needed because he
was in possession of the γλωσσκομον (“money bag”)? Jeremias does go
on to mention m.Shabbat 23.4 where it allows for purchasing a
coffin and/or a shroud for the dead on a Sabbath:
A. They wait at the Sabbath limit at twilight to attend to the
business of a bride, B. and the affairs of a corpse, C. to bring it
a coffin and wrappings. (Shabbat 23.4 MISH-N)
The text continues on with various things that can be done in the
preparation of a corps on a Sabbath. This portion of Mishnah still
does not apply to our passage in John since the Mishnah gives no
mention of purchasing anything except perhaps a coffin or a
shroud.40 Nonetheless, Carson’s notion that the disciples believed
Judas would purchase unleavened bread after the sunset on Nisan 14
finds no support even in the later rabbinic texts. Nonetheless,
Carson’s belief that not enough unleavened bread had been purchased
may be true, but only if the sun is still up on Nisan 14. Luke
places the discussion between the disciples about who would betray
Jesus after they had already eaten, and after the words of
institution
39 Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Fortress
Press, 1977), p. 77 40 This passage of Mishnah is often used to
show that it would not be out of the ordi-
nary for Joseph of Arimathea to purchase a shroud on the festival
Sabbath (Mark 15:46). Although it is certainly plausible that
purchasing a shroud was permissible on a festival Sabbath, and that
a mortician would be willing and lawfully right to sell one on the
festival Sabbath, it is also possible that Joseph had bought the
shroud at a previous time, especially if he had purchased the tomb
in anticipation for family member or close friend’s eminent death.
The Greek word γορσας is in the aorist participle, meaning the
sentence could just as well read “Joseph ‘having previously’ bought
a shroud…”
17
(Luke 22:20,23). What is more, the very phrase “what you are going
to do, do quickly” suggests a time restraint. If it was indeed
lawful for Judas to purchase matzah on the festival Sabbath, why
does Jesus tell him to do it quickly? If this was a lawful act, and
so common the disciples would assume this to be what Judas was
getting up to do, why would there need to be haste? Judas would be
able to purchase the matzah at anytime during the festival Sabbath
which would now last through the next day. Rather, the text implies
the sun was near setting on Nisan 14 and the disciples assume Judas
was going to purchase something before the sun set. According to
the Torah the Passover sacrifice was to be slaughtered between the
evenings” (Exodus 12:6). Daily time was reckoned“ according to the
sunrise,41 and Josephus tells us the Passover lambs were
slaughtered between the 9th and 11th hours (3:00pm and 5:00pm
respectively).
So these high priests, upon the coming of their feast which is
called the Passover, when they slay their sacrifices, from the
ninth hour till the eleventh, but so that a company not less than
ten belong to every sacrifice (for it is not lawful for them to
feast singly by themselves), and many of us are twenty in a
company, (War 6.423 JOSEPH)
The Mishnah agrees with Josephus stating that the lambs were
slaughtered after the afternoon sacrifice which was pushed back in
order to accommodate the Passover sacrifice.
The daily whole offering [of the afternoon] [generally] was
slaughtered at half after the eighth [after dawn, about 2:30 P.M.]
and offered up at half after the ninth hour [about 3:30 P.M]. On
the eve of Passover, [the daily whole offering] was slaughtered at
half after the seventh hour [1:30 P.M] and offered up at half after
the eighth hour [2:30 P.M] whether on an ordinary day or on the
Sabbath. [if, however,] the eve of Passover coincided with the eve
of the Sabbath [Friday], it was slaughtered at half after the sixth
hour [12”30 P.M.] and offered up at half after the seventh hour
[1:30 P.M], and [then] the Passover offering [was
slaughtered]
41 Much has been written on the reckoning of time in the first
century. For more on this see: F. F. Bruce, Wood, D. R. W., ed.
NBD. 3d, Accordance electronic edition, version 2.3. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1996; and also James Davis, The Time of Jesus’
Death and Inerrancy: Is Harmonization Plausible?, Bible.org,
(https://
bible.org/article/time-jesus-death-and-inerrancy-harmonization-plausible#_ftn4)
last checked May 7th, 2019.
18
after it. (m.Pesachim 5.1)42 This passage is in agreement with the
first century witness of Josephus cited above. The sun began to set
at 12:00pm, and the Mishnah tells us the Passover lambs began to be
slaughtered after the daily offering. This would place the
slaughter of the Passover lamb between the 8th and 9th hour
according to the Mishnah. The lambs were then cooked in individual
homes on fires that had already been prepared. The roasting of the
lambs could have begun as early as 3:15pm for those who were first
in line in the temple. The outer portions of the lamb that were
fully cooked first were no doubt cut off and eaten when ready. The
fact that the New Testament uses the word οψας (evening) is also
telling as the “eve” of Passover was the time that began as soon as
the sun started to set (i.e. 12:30pm) until it had fully
disappeared under the horizon.43 The Hebrew of Lev. 23:5-6
states:
In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, between the
evenings is the pesach to YHVH. And on the fifteenth day of the
same month is the festival of unleavened bread to YHVH. Seven days
you shall eat matzah.44
This text states that the 14th of Nisan is the Pesach and not the
15th of Nisan. As stated previously, Pitre has attached four
meanings to the word “Pascha.” Pitre lists these four meanings
as:
1. The Passover Lamb - sacrificed in the afternoon, on 14 Nisan. 2.
The Passover Meal - eaten in the evening on 15 Nisan 3. The
Passover Peace Offering - offered and eaten during 15- 21 Nisan 4.
The Passover Week - 15-21 Nisan, the seven day feast.45
Since Pitre does not reference Lev. 23 in regards to any of the
definitions he gives for the word Pascha, we are left to assume
that he understands this text to be referencing the Passover lamb
sacrificed on Nisan 14. However, Pitre makes note that when the
Torah references the Passover as a sacrifice
42 Translation, including times added, taken from Tim Hegg,
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 2 (TorahResource 2008),
p. 469
43 This time could be debated since we are unaware of when the
intercalation of the months within the first century were taking
place. If we attempted to guess we could be off in either direction
by a month, but I would hesitantly suggest around 7:00pm)
44 Authors translation. 45 Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper
(Eerdmans, 2015), p. 333
19
it is often easy to identify “because it is frequently accompanied
by the language of killing or sacrificing the Passover.”46
Something our Leviticus text leaves out altogether. I agree that
all four of Pitre’s suggestions for the meaning of the word Pascha
are correct, yet I believe number 2 needs modification or a 5th
meaning needs to be added, as it seems Lev. 23 calls the 14th of
Nisan “the Passover.”
In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight,
is the LORD’s Passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month
is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD; for seven days you
shall eat unleavened bread. (Leviticus 23.5–6)
John says after Judas went out ν δ νξ “now it was night” (John
13:30). If Jesus and the disciples were eating the Passover meal in
the “Evening”, i.e. before the sun was below the horizon on Nisan
14, then the suspicion that Judas would be buying something for the
ορτς (festival) which is always designated as Nisan 15, or give
money to the poor is totally acceptable. If the festival Sabbath
did not begin until the sun was fully set, and there was still a
short time before night (νξ) it would be lawful according to the
Torah for Judas to purchase something for the festival Sabbath,
which was quickly approaching. Pitre’s assumption that the meal had
not been eaten yet certainly seems the most valid, yet the idea of
the “meal” could have been anytime within the ceremonial Passover
celebration that began on Nisan 14 and extended into the night
becoming Nisan 15. My point here is simple, the ceremonial dinner
had certainly began, and portions of the meal, including eating
some of the sacrificial lamb could have taken place before the sun
set. Thus the objection that Judas would not have been able to
purchase anything if this narrative took place on Nisan 14 is not a
strong argument as our narrative extends from the 14th into the
15th.
John 18:28 Once again John gives, what seems to be, a contradicting
account by placing Jesus’ death on the 14th of Nisan in John
18:28:
Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas into the Praetorium, and it was
early; and they themselves did not enter into the Praetorium so
that they would not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.
The obvious question arises, if Jesus celebrated a Passover meal on
Nisan
46 Ibid. 334
20
14, and John’s narrative is taking place on Nisan 15, why would the
Jewish authorities worry about being defiled to “eat the Passover?”
According to the Synoptics the Passover lambs had already been
slaughtered the day before. Jeremias, who believes the Last Supper
was a Passover meal has difficulty reconciling John’s account with
the Synoptics. He states:
Since, according to John 18.28 (cf. 19.14), at the time of Jesus’
accusation before Pilate the passover lambs had not yet been eaten,
the crucifixion of Jesus occurred, according to John, on Nisan 14,
the day of Preparation.47
Jeremias believes John has shifted the chronology to make Jesus’s
crucifixion take place at the same time the Passover lambs were
sacrificed. Raymond Brown also has a difficult time reconciling
John with the Synoptics:
The reference in 18:28b means that for John the next day (Fri.
night/Saturday) would be the 15th of Nisan involving the Passover
meal, and that therefore Jesus was sentenced by Pilate and died on
the 14th of Nisan.48
Interestingly, Brown does not attempt to offer his own suggestion
on the discrepancies between the Gospels, but simply leaves the
tension, chalking it up to two separate traditions. Others are not
so quick to give up. Cullen Story gives an inventive explanation
for what seems like contradictions between John and the
Synoptics:
during the evening of the 14th of Nisan, not long after Jesus had
celebrated the passover meal with his disciples, he was seized in
the garden and taken, ultimately, to the praetorium. Those who had
seized him and the religious leaders who had authorized the
seizure-both groups being noted together as “they themselves” (John
18:28)-due to the fast-moving events that were sparked by Judas’
treachery, had only had time to slay the lamb, prepare it, and
roast it, but no time to eat it. According to Mk. 14:2, the chief
priests and scribes had wanted to avoid seizing Jesus “during the
feast, lest there be a tumult of the people”-or was there a hidden
reason as well, i.e. lest their own celebration of the feast be
interrupted? If so, their purpose was thwarted. They did seize
Jesus “during the feast” and their celebration of the passover
was
47 Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Fortress
Press, 1977), p. 19 48 Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah,
Vol. 1, Doubleday 1993, p. 745;
Brown is so confident his assumption is correct he adds the word
“meal” to his English translation in the Anchor Bible Commentary on
the Gospel of John where the Greek does not provide it.
21
interrupted and thus, their “eating” of the passover lamb (John
18:28) went by the boards.49
While this suggestion is innovative, I believe Brown’s criticism to
be appropriate:
I find quite implausible the explanation of Story (“Bearing”) that
for John Jesus had eaten his Passover meal on Thursday night but
the Jewish attendants who arrested him and the priests had not yet
had time to eat their meal. According to Story’s interpretation of
Exod 12:10 they had till 6 AM Friday to eat it, and outside
Pilate’s praetorium they were concerned to keep open that
possibility.50
F.F. Bruce passes over this passage with little to say, but
ultimately takes the Johannine chronology without giving any idea
on how to resolve John and the Synoptics:
Whatever was the nature of the supper which Jesus had shared with
his disciples in the upper room on the previous evening, the
official Passover (for which the lambs had to be slaughtered in the
temple during the afternoon of the day which had just dawned) was
yet to be eaten (immediately after sunset), and those who were in a
state of ceremonial purity in readiness to eat it could not now
afford to contract defilement and be excluded from the
Passover.51
The conclusion that John 18:28 is referring to the Passover lamb
sacrifice on Nisan 14 is understandable but incorrect. According to
Num. 28:16ff the Chagigah, or “festival sacrifices” are to be burnt
offerings “”, meaning the entire sacrifice was to be burnt up (Num
28:19, 24). Not even the priests were able to eat the Chagigah,
thus there would be no reason for the priests to be worried about
becoming unclean in order to eat them. The key to understanding
this passage in uniformity with the Synoptic chronology comes in
Deut. 16 where the Passover peace offering that is sacrificed every
day of the festival is called the Pascha in the LXX and Pesach in
the Torah.
Observe the month of Abib and celebrate the Passover to the LORD
your God, for in the month of Abib the LORD your God brought you
out of Egypt by night. “You shall sacrifice the
49 Cullen I.K. Story, “The Bearing of Old Testament Terminology on
the Johannine Chronology of the Final Passover of Jesus”, NovT,
Vol. 31, Fasc. 4, 1989, p. 322-323
50 Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 1 (Doubleday,
1993), p. 745 51 F.F. Bruce, The Gospel & Epistles of John
(Eerdmans, 1983), p. 349; Bruce suggests
in another work that Jesus was celebrating a lambless Passover meal
on Nisan 13, F.F. Bruce, New Testament History (Anchor, 1972), p.
191-192
22
Passover to the LORD your God from the flock and the herd, in the
place where the LORD chooses to establish His name. “You shall not
eat leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it
unleavened bread, the bread of affliction (for you came out of the
land of Egypt in haste), so that you may remember all the days of
your life the day when you came out of the land of Egypt.
(Deuteronomy 16:1–3)
To this Hegg rightly states:
First, we may note the manner in which the term ,pesach , is being
used in this paragraph. The text states that “you shall sacrifice
the Passover ( to Adonai your God from the flock ( and the herd.…”
The fact that the Pesach is said to be from the flock and from the
herd means that the term is used here to mean more than just the
Pesach lamb which is sacrificed at the beginning of the
Festival.52
Pitre’s work on this passage goes further by showing that the
language within John’s Gospel clearly describes the Last Supper as
a Passover meal, and thus John expects the reader to understand his
terminology at this point in the narrative.53 Pitre also gives a
convincing exposition of pascha being used to refer to the weekly
peace offerings:
“Seven days you shall eat it with unleavened bread” (Deut. 16:3).
In this sentence, the antecedent for the Hebrew word “it” is
“Passover,” so that it means: “Seven days you shall eat the
Passover with unleavened bread.” Again, this cannot refer to eating
the initial lambs over the course of seven days, but rather to the
peace offerings of the festal week. In the passage from Chronicles,
[2 Chron. 35:7-9] we find even more explicit evidence: Josiah and
Hilkiah gives thousands of bulls as “Passovers” (pesahim) for the
people to eat (2 Chron 35:7, 8, 9). These “Passovers” cannot refer
to the initial Passover lambs, since, once again, a bull could not
be offered for that sacrifice.54
Bruggen argues that John never uses the word pascha to refer to the
Passover lamb or Passover meal, but only to the Passover feast,
which would include the peace offerings throughout the festival
week:
The fact that the expression “eat the Passover” as used in John
has
52 Tim Hegg, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 2
(TorahResource, 2008), p. 487; Author’s original emphasis.
53 Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans, 2015), p. 352f
54 Ibid., p. 337-338
23
somewhat broader meaning than it does for the other evangelists
should not surprise us. John never uses the word pascha to mean
“Passover lamb” or “Passover meal” (unlike passages such as Matt.
26:17-19; Mark 14:12-16; and Luke 22:7-15). For John the meaning is
always “the period of the Passover Feast” (2:13, 23; 6:4; 11:55;
12:1; 13:1; 18:39). “To eat the Passover” can simply be defined as
“eating the sacrificial meals that were part of the Passover
Feast.”55
Because of the wording found within the Tanach itself, Hegg and
Pitre suggest this terminology would have been easily understood
within the first century. Several suggestions have been made on the
nature of the ritual impurity that the priests were worried about.
Perhaps one of the more popular theories is that the priests didn’t
want to enter the house of a gentile because this, according to the
Mishnah, would bring ritual impurity for seven days.
It was the rule that “The dwelling-places of gentiles are unclean.”
Any Jew who entered such a dwelling would immediately contact
defilement, a defilement which lasted seven days. This would
effectively prevent him from observing the feast.56
This popular theory is based on m.Oholot 18:7 which states:
A. He who buys a field in Syria, near the Land of Israel, if he can
enter it in a state of cleanness, it is clean, and it is subject to
the laws of tithes and the seventh year. If he cannot enter it in a
state of cleanness, it is unclean, but it [still] is liable to the
laws of tithes and of the seventh year. B. Dwelling places of
gentiles [in the Land of Israel] are unclean. C. How long must [the
gentiles] remain in them for them to require examination [to
determine their status]? Forty days, even though there is no woman
with him. D. And if a slave or an [Israelite] woman was watching
over it, it does not require an examination. (Oholot 18.7
MISH-N)
Thus, Beasley-Murray suggests:
The precise ground for this uncleanness is uncertain, but it
appears to be founded on the fear of Jews that abortions and
premature babies who die may be buried within the area of Gentile
houses, so rendering the homes subject to the uncleanness of the
dead57
55 Jakob Van Bruggen, Christ on Earth: The Gospel Narratives as
History (Baker, 1987), p. 218-219
56 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Eerdmans, 1971), p.
763 57 Beasley-Murray, George R. John. WBC 36. 2d (Zondervan,
1999), p. 327
24
Although this argument does support corps defilement, which I fully
believe is the reason for not entering the Praetorium, this passage
of Mishnah goes on to say there are ten exceptions to this
law:
A. Ten places are not subject to the law applying to the dwelling
of gentiles: (1) tents of Arabs, (2) field huts, (3) tents, (4)
fruit shelters, (5) summer houses, (6) a gatehouse, (7) the open
space of a courtyard, (8) the bath, (9) an armory, and (10) the
place of the legions. (Oholot 18.10 MISH-N)
Since this was not the permanent residence of Pilot, and since this
was most likely the place where portions of soldiers resided, if we
take the Mishnah as our witness, it seems the Praetorium was exempt
from this law. However, the Mishnah is late, and we have no first
century witness that suggests entering the home of a gentile would
make a person ritually unclean due to corps defilement. Yet, corps
defilement is certainly what the priests had in mind since any
other kind of ritual impurity that could be contracted by entering
a structure would have been negated with a bath at sundown. Thus,
even if this narrative did take place on the 14th of Nisan, the
priests would have been able to take part in eating the Passover
lamb that night unless corps defilement was the issue.58
John 19:14 The Gospel of John raises yet another seeming
chronological contradiction with the Synoptic Gospels when he talks
about Jesus’ trial and writes: “Now it was the day of Preparation
of the Passover.” (John 19:14) Scholars who take the Last Supper as
a Passover meal agree on this passage. The word παρασκευ
(preparation) is not speaking of Nisan 14, but rather, to Friday
within the Passover week.
In pagan and Christian usage, the word παρασχευ “preparation,”
became the regular word for “Friday” since Friday was the Jewish
preparation day for the Sabbath. Two Christian references to the
term meaning “Friday” occur in the Didache (8:1) and in the
Martyrdom of Polycarp (7:1). Since the Didache may be as early as
A.D. 120, only some 25 years later than John, one wonders if John
19:14 may not itself mark one of the earliest Christian
usages
58 It is outside the scope of this study to investigate the exact
reason corps defilement would be a concern. While entering the home
of a gentile certainly could be argued, I believe there are more
possibilities that could be investigated.
25
of παρασχευ meaning “Friday”59
The phrase “it was the day of preparation for the Passover”
translates the Greek ν δ παρασκευ το πσχα (paraskeue) means either
a preparation day for a festival, or the preparation day for the
weekly Sabbath. This would be the day before the first day of a
festival, or Friday of each week.60
In the first-century A.D., the Greek word “preparation” (paraskeué)
is simply the Jewish name for “Friday,” because that was the day of
the week on which one would “prepare” (paraskeuazó) for the Sabbath
which began at sundown Friday evening.61
Both Hegg and Pitre sight Josephus to support this claim who
states:
it seemed good to me and my counsellors, according to the sentence
and oath of the people of Rome, that the Jews have liberty to make
use of their own customs, according to the law of their
forefathers, as they made use of them under Hyrcanus, the high
priest of Almighty God; and that their sacred money be not touched,
but be sent to Jerusalem, and that it be committed to the care of
the receivers at Jerusalem; and that they be not obliged to go
before any judge on the Sabbath day, nor on the day of the
preparation to it ( τ πρ ατς παρασκευ π ρας ντης), after the ninth
hour; (Antiquities 16.163 JOSEPH)
Pitre gives further evidence of this by sighting Mark 15:42-43
which relates these same events but specifically states that “it
was preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath…” and Luke
23:54 which says “It was the day of preparation, and the Sabbath
was beginning.” If we accept the suggestion that John was not only
aware of the Synoptics, but expected his readers to be somewhat
familiar with them (as argued above), John’s phraseology is clear.
John 19:14 is referencing the weekly preparation day for the
Sabbath and not the preparation day for Nisan 15, Luke and John
begin to line up and John 19:31 is now perfectly in agreement with
these texts.
It was the preparation day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.
(Luke 23:54)
59 Cullen I. K. Story, “The Bearing of Old Testament Terminology on
the Johannine Chronology of the Final Passover of Jesus”, Novum
Testamentum, Vol. 31, Fasc. 4, Brill Oct., 1989, p. 318
60 Tim Hegg, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 2
(TorahResource, 2008), p. 477
61 Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans, 2015), p.
358
26
Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the
bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath… (John
19:31)
Samuele Bacchiocchi rightly states:
The first reason given for interpreting “the day of preparation” as
meaning Wednesday rather than Friday is that “the day before the
weekly Sabbath was never called a ‘preparation’ in the Bible.” This
reason is puzzling, to say the least, because it flies in the face
of the irrefutable Biblical and historical usage of the term
“Preparation-paraskeue” as a technical designation for “Friday.” In
addition to its occurrence in John 19:14, the term “Preparation-
paraskeue” is used five times in the Gospels as a technical
designation for “Friday” (Matt 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John
19:31, 42)62
The Greek supports Bocchiocchi’s statement. Since the literal
meaning of the phrase used is the preparation day “το” (of) the
Passover, it leaves less guess work.
The Greek text reads, én de paraskeué tou pascha (“It was now the
Preparation of Passover”). This phrase could also be translated as
“Preparation for Passover,” but the translation “of Passover” is
literal and gives a clear sense. It is the day of Preparation that
falls during Passover. If the phrase were translated as
“Preparation for Passover,” it could refer to the preparations
under taken on 14 Nisan for the supper of the lamb served during
the evening. Billerbeck’s opinion is that this interpretation is
the only one possible, because what we supposedly have here is a
translation of the technical rabbinic term ereb pesah (the
preparation day for the Passover meal). Although this idea is
argued forcefully, the evidence is lacking… Because the word does
not mean “evening” (ereb), and because it cannot be demonstrated
that the expression paraskeué tou pascha is used anywhere as the
equivalent of “Passover Eve” (sêder happesah), and because the word
paraskeuê appears in all four Gospels and always means “preparation
day for the Sabbath” (i.e., Friday), the obvious translation of
John 19:14 is “it was Passover Friday.”63
Arthur Wright sums it all up nicely:
62 Samuele Bacchiocchi, The Time of the Crucifixion and the
Resurrection (Biblical Perspectives, 1985), p. 39
63 Jakob Van Bruggen, Christ on Earth: The Gospel Narratives as
History (Baker, 1987), p. 216-217
27
According to the common, and, I believe, unquestionably true, view
“Preparation” is the Jewish name for Friday, as preparation was on
that day made for the coming Sabbath.64
John 19:14 could perhaps be translated into modern English as: “Now
it was the Friday of the Passover week.” This interpretation is
strengthened by the absence of the word pascha in verse 31.
Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the
bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that
Sabbath was a high day)… (John 19.31)
Of course John 19:31 brings more to the discussion than just the
reference to the “preparation,” much has been suggested with regard
to John’s meaning of μεγλη μρα (great Sabbath). To which we will
now turn.
John 19:31 - μεγλη μρα (Great Sabbath) The final issue we will look
at that is presented as a reason John’s account is different from
that of the Synoptics is the presence of the phrase “it was a great
sabbath.” John is the only Gospel writer to use such a phrase. What
is more, John uses this phrase two times within the Gospel. In John
7:37 we find this phrase in the attributive, where as in John 19:31
it is found in the predicate. Although one might put up a reason
for the difference in grammar, I view the two texts as saying the
same thing only attributed to different festivals. Interestingly,
we don’t see this same phrase used anywhere in the LXX except for
Genesis 21:8, but the Greek is translating the Hebrew word as μρ
which doesn’t apply to either text in John since (banquet) the
Gospel writer uses it in reference to appointed times of the Lord,
but the Tanach is using it in reference to a banquet that is not
appointed by God. Those who believe the Last Supper was something
other than the Passover meal point to this as more proof. It is
believed that the “great” Sabbath is made great because Nisan 15
(the festival Sabbath day) falls on the weekly Sabbath, making it
even more special than usual. Raymond Brown takes this position,
but admits there is no evidence for such a claim:
The 15th of Nisan, the first day of Passover, was a holy day (LXX
of Exod 12:16), and the fact that in this particular year it fell
on a Sabbath would make it even more solemn. However, we have
no
64 Arthur Wright, “On the Date o the Crucifixion”, TBW, Vol. 2, No.
2 (Aug., 1893) p. 106
28
early Jewish attestation of the word “solemn” (literally “great”)
being used to designate a Sabbath that is also a feast day65
R.V.G. Tasker suggests it is simply the weekly Sabbath found within
the week of Passover and is therefore referred to as great.
Preparation day, as already mentioned, was not the day of
preparation for the Passover meal but for the ensuing sabbath (cf.
Matt. 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54). It was a special sabbath
because it fell in Passover week.66
Keener is vague on his understanding of why this day would be
considered a high Sabbath:
As a Sabbath during the festival time, this Sabbath was a
particularly sacred one; by John’s chronology, it would be the
first day of the Passover festival (the second day by the Synoptic
chronology).67
Keener moves on without going further into detail, however, he does
note that the second day of the Passover could carry extra
significance as well by referencing D.A. Carson. Carson suggests
the day in question is not the 15th of Nisan but rather the 16th of
Nisan, and the first day of counting the Omer. According to this
theory, Nisan 16 falls on a weekly Sabbath (taking 19:14 as Friday)
and was also the day the first Omer would be cut and brought to the
temple. Carson references Philo and his description of the first
day of the Omer:
There is also a festival on the day of the paschal feast, which
succeeds the first day, and this is named the sheaf, from what
takes place on it; for the sheaf is brought to the altar as a first
fruit both of the country which the nation has received for its
own, and also of the whole land; so as to be an offering both for
the nation separately, and also a common one for the whole race of
mankind; and so that the people by it worship the living God, both
for themselves and for all the rest of mankind, because they have
received the fertile earth for their inheritance; for in the
country there is no barren soil but even all those parts which
appear to be stony and rugged are surrounded with soft veins of
great depth, which, by reason of their richness, are very well
suited for the
65 Raymond E. Brown The Gospel According to John XIII-XXI. The
Anchor Yale Bible. (Yale University Press, 1974), p. 934
66 Kruse, Colin G. John: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC 4.
IVP/Accordance electronic edition, version 2.1. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 2003.
67 Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Baker, 2003),
p. 1150-1151
29
production of living things. (Laws 2.162 PHILO-E)
Carson’s suggestion is that the Sabbath ritual along with the
presence of festal rituals makes this day μεγλη (great). Arthur
Pink presented this same understanding and concisely wrote:
The day on which the Saviour was crucified was “an high day”: it
was on the eve of the regular weekly sabbath and also of the first
day of the feast of unleavened bread, from which the Jews reckoned
the seven weeks to pentecost; the same day was also the one
appointed for the presentation and offering of the sheaf of new
corn, so that it possessed a treble solemnity.68
Pitre, taking this same view, connects John’s first mention of a
“great Sabbath” by pointing out the additional ritual celebration
of the water- libation found in Zech. 14, which fell on the 7th day
of Sukkoth. Thus, the festival ritual of Sukkoth which is the same
for all seven days of the week long festival would be expanded on
the 7th day by the addition of the water- libation ritual. Although
quite long, I feel two quotes from Pitre to be worth viewing in
full:
Unlike an ordinary Sabbath, where everyone would remain in their
homes observing the day of rest, on the feast of first fruits
(Nisan 16), the Jewish pilgrims residing in Jerusalem would have
been going up to the Temple in Jerusalem for the offering of the
sheaf of first fruits - a celebration, as the Mishnah says, carried
out “with great pomp.” On such a day, the pilgrim crowds would have
easily seen that the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves had been
left on the crosses overnight, in direct contradiction to Jewish
Scripture and tradition, which held that failing to bury the body
of a hanged man would bring defilement on the whole land (Deut.
21:23; Josephus, War 4.317). In this context it would make good
sense for the Jewish leaders to urge Pilate to get the bodies down
from the crosses, lest a riot break out among the crowds in
response to the direct violation of Mosaic law.69
As Raymond Brown points out in his commentary, this reference to
“the great day” (hmera t megal) is a reference to the seventh day
of the feast of Tabernacles. For that day there took place the
climax of the seven-day “water-libation” ceremony, which has its
roots in the book of Zechariah’s description (Zech 14:8, 16-19) and
which is described in the Mishnah tractate on the feast of
Tabernacles (see Mishnah, Sukkah 4:9-5:1) If this
interpretation
68 Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John (Zondervan,
1975), Vol. 3, p.247 69 Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Last Supper
(Eerdmans, 2015), p. 364
30
is correct, then the first mention of a “great day” (John 7:37) can
help us to solidify the “great day” to refer to the solemn festal
offering of the water in the Temple during the weeklong festival of
Tabernacles, so too he uses the expression “the great day” to refer
to the solemn festal offering of the first sheaf of grain in the
reading of the Gospel in the light of external evidence from Jewish
liturgy and internal evidence from the Gospel itself provides
converging lines of support for the Passover hypothesis.70
Thus, the evidence tips the scales towards the reference to “great
Sabbath” meaning a Sabbath that had more sacrifices and ritual
obligations in the temple. This is not to say there aren’t further
objections. However, the points that are looked to for criticism of
the Passover hypothesis have already been dealt with in length in
previous works. Below I have mentioned several of the common
challenges that are put forward and references to full scholarly
handling of these criticisms.71
The Presence of the Passover Lamb Much scholarly debate has been
had concerning the presence of the Passover sacrifice at the Last
Supper. If this meal was in fact a Passover celebration, on the
evening of the 14th of Nisan, as argued above, it is my contention
that not only did the lamb have to be present, but Jesus had to
partake in eating the lamb. Luke makes reference to the πσχα
(pascha) specifically in verse 7, referring to the Passover lamb.
πσχα is used again in verses 11 and 13, and with this word being a
specific reference to the sacrificial lamb in verse 7, it looks as
if the text continues to reference the lamb itself. Thus, Jeremias
writes:
According to Luke 22.15 Jesus began the Last Supper with the words,
‘I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I
suffer.’ In this connection it must be noted that the words ‘to eat
this passover’ can only mean ‘to eat this passover lamb’ (not ‘to
celebrate this year’s passover’ or the like)72
Although Jeremias is convinced that Jesus’ reference to the πσχα
can only be a reference to the lamb, the argument can also be made
that to “prepare the Passover” could be referring to the entire
meal (which would include
70 Ibid. p. 366 71 See p. 34 72 Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic
Words of Jesus, Fortress Press 1977, p. 207-208
31
the Passover lamb), a position Darrell Bock takes:73
Jeremias’s suggestion (1966: 207-18) that Jesus refrained from
eating this meal does not make sense, since Jesus has just said
that he has just said that desired to share this meal with them.
The meaning, rather, is that Jesus will not again sit at the
Passover table until his return. Jesus’ refusal to eat such a
festal meal until the consummation signals a new state in God’s
plan.74
Although Jeremias concludes his statement about the πσχα referring
to the Passover lamb, he goes on to suggest Jesus abstained from
eating anything at the Last Supper. Bock is rightly
skeptical:
In explaining his desire to eat the Passover with the disciples,
Jesus speaks of not eating “it” until “it” is fulfilled in the
kingdom of God, meaning he will abstain from eating such “a
celebration meal” until “the plan” is done.75
Bock is certainly not alone in his criticisms of Jermias’
suggestion. Marshal cites H. Patsch (Abendmahl und historischer
Jesus, p. 106-230) and concludes:
Although, therefore, this interpretation of the passage cannot be
excluded as impossible (especially for Luke 22:18), it is not
persuasive and reads a good deal into the text. Jesus was speaking
about ‘not eating again’, not about ‘fasting’. This verdict would
appear to be sound. The sayings on which Jeremias bases his
interpretation are primarily statements about the future fulfilment
of the Passover in the kingdom of God.76
Jeremias sees this as the only way the Quartodeciman tradition of
fasting began,77 but fails to address perhaps the most important
implication this theory raises. The Torah specifically commands the
children of Israel to eat the Passover lamb:
73 Bock does note specifically state the word πσχα changes from
lamb to meal within this passage. Bock does, however, state that
verse 7 is referring to the Passover lamb (Luke, p. 22) but takes
the reference to τομασαν τ πσχα in verse 8 as prepara- tion for the
meal, and not the lamb alone.
74 Darrel L. Bock, Luke, Vol. 2, Baker 1992, p. 1720 75 Ibid. 76 I.
Howard Marshal, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper, Eerdmas 1980, p. 82
77 I believe Jeremias has misunderstood the custom of the
Quartdeciman’s, something
I will discuss below.
32
They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire; with
unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. (Exodus
12.8)
The command to eat is part of the celebration that is to be
continued:
This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as
a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations, as a statute
forever, you shall keep it as a feast. (Exodus 12.14 ESV)
To sit at the table on Nisan 14 and not partake in the Passover
lamb would go against the command of Torah. Jesus is to be the
spotless and sinless sacrifice for His people in less than 24
hours, and now He will break the command of Torah to eat the
Passover sacrifice? Not only is this unlikely, but it is impossible
if Jesus is truly the sinless Messiah. The Torah goes further to
proclaim that a man who is ritually clean and not on a journey, yet
neglects to (keep the Passover), which certainly includes the
Passover offering, will be cut off from his people. Thus, the
suggestion that the Passover lamb was not present at the Last
Supper falls very short.
Final Comments on the Passover Hypothesis It was my goal in this
first section to show that the Synoptic Gospels are perfectly in
line with John’s account of the Passion. There are many more
aspects that could be addressed here, but I feel there is no need
to restate the fantastic work of good scholars. Remaining
objections to the Last Supper being a Passover meal have already
been dealt with in satisfactory fashion in works like Brant Pitre’s
Jesus and the Last Supper, Tim Hegg’s Commentary on the Gospel of
Matthew, and Joachim Jeremias’ The Eucharistic Words of
Jesus.78
With the evidence presented above I feel confident in the assertion
that the recorded meal we have in all four Gospels is the retelling
of Jesus and His disciples celebrating the Passover festival meal
on Nisan 14.