Ontologically, God is and in essence the single and only primal consciousness of imaginative and willfull potentialities. In His imaginative and realized potentialities by inference He communicates Himself as self sustaining love. Since only Godly intentionality is capable of sustaining and communicating such primal love it is rightfully assumed that His expressed purposes are of such nature. Now, let us consider these assertions.
Firstly, as the primal essence God is what He is and He is understood only when declared as such. Fortunately, as an act of sustaining love God graciously discloses Himself to us through His Word which He announces and was proclaimed in the kerygma and from which we derive doctrine.
Accordingly, the kerygma is distinct from didache, which refers to teaching, instruction, or doctrine. Thus the kerygma refers to the initial introduction to the claims of the Gospel with an implied or otherwise stated appeal for conversion, whereas; on the other hand, the didache (catechesis) concerns the fuller and more extensive doctrinal and moral teaching and instruction in the Faith that a person receives once he has accepted the kerygma and has been baptized* and which more fully assist our understanding of the content of this persuasive grace. God as such--that is in His divine essence--has lovingly and thereby graciously initiated both the disclosure and the creaturely capacity for understanding the act and nature of this message.
This we believe necessarily, that then:
". . . faith [comes] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." [Romans 10:17]
In other words, conceptionally faith is activated in content as a word from God--the word, however, is not faith but only the self-disclosing content on which faith acts.
Thus by faith and apriori intuition we understand that God is and He rewards those who earnestly seek Him. [Hebrews 11:6 NIV] Ethereal concepts are however just that: concepts, unless actualized in the praxis of life. Two plus two may in ethereal reality equal four; however, the concept is understood first in concrete reality--thus, Godwardly we understand the necessity of the incarnation for a fuller understanding of who He is.
Thus the axiom that if one wishes to understand a jelly fish then one must have access to a jelly fish is true in this case even more so because for God to remain ethereally aloof in His aseity may not discount His existence but it would most certainly influence our understanding of Him and at best He could only be understood apophatically.
This, Tillich understood but failed to articulate how he came to this conclusion other than through ignorance. Apophatic ignorance is hallow without reference or substance so therefore is incapable of understanding.
It is said that Buddha was once asked what God is and he pointed to a variety of things and said, "God is not this; God is not that!" Naturally, he could have gone on infinitely since the primal essence of God is beyond our grasp unless we are granted through and by His self-disclosure to glimpse His inwardness through the analogy of His outwardness in the praxis of our understanding.
This God has done, we believe, in and through the incarnation of His primal essence in the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth, His Son and the son of Mary, a virgin girl married to Joseph the carpenter as recorded in Holy Writ the Christian canon of scriptures.
That having been said, however, gives humanity at best only a glimpse of His Godly glory which may spark a certain curiosity but can only be adequately understood when appropriated in faith.
Faith without action is dead, so we thereby understand that a casual or intellectual curiosity is not sufficient. Commitment is required and by His grace we come to sense cognitively that we are indeed His child as our spirit bears witness with His Spirit that we are His offspring. [Acts 17:28]
And, again we read in Romans 8:15-19 that,
The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to son-ship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. 18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. [NIV]
Further, the Scriptures informs us that,
6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” [Galatians 4:6 NIV]
This certain dawning, as it were, is the eureka moment--that, aha! moment at which our human experience suddenly realizes that God is there and we then realize that ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ [Acts 17:28 NIV]
Devin, concerning the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the
canon of Scripture since it was included in the Septuagint and that further even Jesus leaves room for its possible inclusion when he said that the
Law and Prophets were until John the Baptist. (Luke 16:16)
However, please correct my understanding if I am wrong; but
isn’t the Apocrypha used to reinforce doctrine rather than as a source for
doctrine as are the 39 OT books and the 27 NT books? I do not wish to argue, I
simply ask for clarification considering the following observations:
Despite the fact that New Testament writers quote largely
from the Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew Old Testament, there is not a
single clear-cut case of a citation from any of the fourteen apocryphal books .
. . . The most that can be said is that the New Testament writers show
acquaintance with these fourteen books and perhaps allude to them indirectly,
but in no case do they quote them as inspired Scripture or cite them as
authority (Unger 1951, 101).
Finally, it must be observed that the apocryphal books,
unlike the canonical books of the Old Testament, make no direct claims of being
inspired of God. Not once is there a, “thus says the Lord,” or language like,
“the word of the Lord came unto me, saying . . .” In fact, some of the
documents actually confess non-inspiration! In the prologue of Ecclesiasticus,
the writer states: “Ye are entreated therefore to read with favor and
attention, and to pardon us, if in any parts of what we have labored to
interpret, we may seem to fail in some of the phrases.”
Too, there is the matter of literary style. Dr. Raymond
Surburg has written:
When a comparison is instituted of
the style of the Apocrypha with the style of the Biblical Hebrew Old Testament
writings, there is a considerable inferiority, shown by the stiffness, lack of
originality and artificiality of expression characterizing the apocryphal books
(1980, 7).
In closing, let me say that I am indeed thankful—indebted
perhaps is a better choice of words—to the Catholic Church for the canon of
Scripture, both old and new; although, I must say at this juncture in my
journey I believe I am more in the Orthodoxy camp than Rome, theologically.
Answer in response to whether or not the canon is closed:
Problem is that you do not take into consideration that Ephesians 2:20 informs us that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone.” If the apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church, are we still building the foundation? Hebrews 6:1-3 encourages us to move on from the foundation. Although Jesus Christ is most definitely active in the church today, His role as the cornerstone of the church was completed with His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. If the work of the cornerstone is, in that sense, complete, so must the work of the apostles and prophets, who were the foundation, be complete. Thus we can say in the words of Scripture that even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! Galatians 1:8; and if it is not another Gospel, then must adhere to the principle of sola scriptura. Right?
I am yours for the journey,
Jim R/~
P.S. Please continue to pray for and support our ministry in the former Soviet Union and in Southern Asia.
I have been preaching for 20 years. Yesterday I did something that I have never done before in a sermon. I publicly called out false teachers and named them by name. I said:
If you listen to Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer, if you take what they teach seriously, it will not be good for you. It will be detrimental to your long-term growth as a follower of Jesus.
I used to think that their error was so blatantly obvious that they could just be ignored. I was wrong. They are massively growing in popularity in the evangelical world and are seen as credible and helpful. Before I'm inundated with questioning emails I want to share why I distrust these two and think you should as well. So, don't shoot me -- at least not yet.
When I was a kid I could tell the difference between neighborhood kids who wanted to be my friend from the neighborhood kids who were my friends so that they could play with my toys. Joel and Joyce are the latter. They both teach a twisted form of Christianity that teaches obedience, giving and faith as a way to get things from God. They are both products of what is known as the Prosperity Gospel and The Word of Faith Movement, or the Seed Faith Movement. Dangers of the Prosperity Gospel
John Piper does a great job of defining what the Prosperity Gospel is and why it is so sinister. Please take a few minutes to watch this before moving on the critiques of Joyce Meyer and Joel Osteen:
Joyce Meyer
When I first heard her tell her story I was deeply moved and impressed. She is an amazing example of overcoming hurts and abuse. She will forever have my admiration and respect in that regard. Furthermore, she gives spectacular advice. If my wife or if one of my daughters went to her in a moment of crisis, I believe they would return with magnificently helpful advice. If they went to her for teaching, they would return with deadly heresy.
False Doctrine
1. She teaches that Jesus literally stopped being the Son of God on the Cross (listen here):
"He could have helped himself up until the point where he said I commend my spirit into your hands, at that point he couldn't do nothing for himself anymore. He had become sin, he was no longer the Son of God. He was sin."
2. She teaches that Jesus went to Hell and became the first-born again man (listen here):
"Do you know something? The minute that blood sacrifice was accepted Jesus was the first human being that was ever born again. Now that was real it happened when he was in hell."
"There is no hope of anyone going to heaven unless they believe this truth I am presenting. You cannot go to heaven unless you believe with all your heart that Jesus took your place in hell" -From The Most Important Decision You Will Ever Make
4. She teaches that words have power and you can release the power of Heaven through your words.
5. She teaches that you need special revelation from God to understand what she teaches because it is NOT contained in the Bible (listen here):
"The Bible can't even find any way to explain this. Not really. That's why you've got to get it by revelation. There are no words to explain what I'm telling you. I've got to just trust God that He's putting it into your spirit like He put it into mine." From "What Happened From the Cross to The Throne"
"Now spirits don't have bodies, so we can't see them. Okay? There probably is, I believe there is, and I certainly hope there is several angels up here this morning that are preaching with me. I believe that right before I speak some anointed statement to you, that one of them bends over and says in my ear what I'm supposed to say to you." From "Witchcraft & Related Spirits" (Part 1) - 2 A-27 Audiotape)
Unfortunately I could continue with examples of her utter misuse of scripture, false teaching and blatant heresy. In America, Christians have an embarrassment of riches. We can buy more books, download more podcasts and tune into more helpful teachers than anyone else on the planet. The lies that she teaches are easily lost in the hum of all the great teachers we hear. But this is not the case in the third world.
In many other countries their resources are far fewer. Uneducated pastors, who are doing their very best and uninformed Christians have this garbage pumped into their countries through radio waves and TV broadcasts. Because Joyce Meyer is endorsed here, she is trusted there. And, she can afford to spread her message with the money she makes from American Christians who buy her books, CDs and who attend her conferences. Her influence is severely disrupting the church in the third world. Her teachings are the unfortunate starting point for Christians in the third world and it is birthing even greater heresies.
The devastating reality that we have to come to grips with is that when we support her here, we support the churches she is undoing there.
Financial Concerns
There is nothing wrong with being wealthy. I love it when Christians are rich. That should mean more money to fund the mission. But there is a line to how much money we as leaders should spend on ourselves. I don't know where the line is, but it is somewhere before the ministry purchasing million dollar homes for us and our kids. That line is somewhere before purchasing us a $10 million private jet. The line is somewhere before the ministry spending $261, 498 for 68 pieces of furniture. That equates to $3,845.56 per item. That line is somewhere before spending so egregiously that the U.S. Senate investigates us. Joyce Meyer lands on the other side of that line.
The following link includes audio from Joyce Meyer. Around 5:30 she is asked if people will get more money back to them if they give financially to her ministry.
Not only does she teach giving as a way to leverage more money from God, she is reckless with desperate people. She is not at all concerned if people give to her instead of paying bills. This is intolerable!
Questionable Example and Lack of Accountability
I challenge you to watch a typical message by Joyce Meyer. Here are a few of things you will notice:
She pauses about every five minutes for applause. And if people don't applaud she is likely to say something like, "I'm preaching better than you're acting."
She talks about herself constantly. She is the main character in every story she tells. Even when she talks about herself in a self-deprecating way, some how it comes across in a way that causes people to admire her more.
God talks to her and reveals new information to her... a lot!
Her ministry lacks real accountability. Her family and her close friends are the governing board. This is an organization that receives almost $100 million dollars annually, and with no substantive accountability.
Conclusion for Joyce Meyer
What I wrote and linked in the first section should have been enough to completely remove her from our sphere of trust. Her doctrine is horrific. Her hermeneutics are horrible. She is a woman who seems to have an unrestrained love for money and applause. Her finances are questionable at best. Her example is questionable at best. Her impact on desperate people here, as well as churches and pastors around the globe is wildly destructive.
I lament with you a sense of loss if she was a teacher you trusted. I lament that someone who is so wrong has so much influence with so many. I do not regret, however, pointing to her as a false teacher and as one who should be rejected.
Joel Osteen
Like Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen has some really great things to say. He is encouraging and the man is certainly happy. This should not be held against him.
The man is confused on theology. He has much of the same doctrinal misunderstandings as does Joyce Meyer. They come from the same tradition. His doctrine is difficult to discern for many because he won't talk about doctrine. He won't talk about theology. He quickly back pedals when asked hard questions, as seen here in an interview with Larry King.
In fairness, Joel published a letter of apology after this interview.
While I commend him for his humility and courage to publicly declare that he was wrong, this is just one of too many instances. He frequently misunderstands important matters of faith and doctrine when being interviewed. He repeatedly gets the Gospel wrong. And he does so when talking to millions.
If we take Joel at his word, our only conclusion is that he is either incapable or unwilling to understand and explain how the Gospel intersects with all of life.
We recently hosted Hank Hanegraaff (The Bible Answerman) at SMCC. He has some very helpful insights (here and here) into Joel Osteen's confused views of faith, doctrine and Scripture:
Joel Osteen and Prosperity Gospel
The Prosperity Gospel is much like all other religions in that it uses faith, it uses doing good things to leverage material blessings from God. Essentially, use God to get things from God.
"God has already done everything He's going to do. The ball is now in your court. If you want success, if you want wisdom, if you want to be prosperous and healthy, you're going to have to do more than meditate and believe; you must boldly declare words of faith and victory over yourself and your family" From Your Best Life Now, p.132
"If you are believing for your child to find God, go help somebody else's child to develop a relationship with God. If you're struggling financially, go out and help somebody who has less than you have ... f you want to reap financial blessings, you must sow financial seeds in the lives of others ... If you want to see healing and restoration come to your life, go out and help somebody else get well" From Your Best Life Now, pp. 224, 250-51
This is not the Gospel. This is a false Gospel. Joel teaches that we open ourselves to God to get more from God. He teaches that we use our words to speak into existence a better reality. This straight from the Word of Faith Movement. This is not what is taught throughout the New Testament. Consider what the Apostle Paul wrote. And remember that he wrote this while in prison.
Philippians 4:10-13 I rejoiced greatly in the Lord that at last you renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you were concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do all this through him who gives me strength.
Conclusion
When I was in seminary, Heather and I were poor. There were seasons in which I worked 70+ hours a week while taking a full-time Master's load. There were times that I had to sleep every other day so that I could get all my work done. This was an extended period of exhausting financial stress.
During this time, I remember reading something from Joel Osteen. He and his wife claimed by faith a new house that they wanted. Joel was unsure, but his wife Victoria was confident. And she lovingly chastised him for his lack of faith. Sometime later, they purchased that house. Still in seminary, my wife and I were walking through our dream neighborhood and that was playing through my mind. As I walked through the neighborhood, looking at all the homes, I wanted so badly for what Joel is teaching to be true. I don't know if you can understand how desperately I wanted it to be true.
I wanted relief and I wanted more. But I knew that it wasn't true. I knew that my exhaustion and desperation made me emotionally vulnerable to this false Gospel. I'm educated and well read. I've haven't just read the Bible, I've translated large chunks of it from the original Hebrew and Greek. I think I understand it. I think I have a relatively significant level of discernment. But for a moment, I was emotionally vulnerable to this false doctrine.
What about the millions of others who are desperate, searching, hoping and vulnerable without the discernment? We owe it to them to not tolerate a false gospel any longer.
If you made it to the end of this blog post, congratulations. This is a thick and heavy subject. Even though I've written much, this only begins to scratch the surface of the repugnant nature of the Prosperity Gospel.
I don’t know about you, but do you
sense a lot of bigotry out there among some Christians? I can almost guarantee you
that if I mention Billly Graham or Mother Tersa or Pope Francis on a blog that
I will get a rash of responses that inform me that they are either headed for
Hell or should be since none of them are branded with the right theology.
Billy Graham is New Age. Yeah, can you believe that? I
thought that the New Age wave was a thing of the trendy past. Apparently not.
He’s New Age they say because he leaves some wiggle room for someone who has
never heard the name of Jesus to have a slight chance of getting into Heaven.
Never mind that he insist that Jesus is the only door, for these self-appointed
purveyors of righteousness it is enough that the door wasn’t opened soon
enough. So, unfortunately these poor ignorant souls are left to fry in Hell for
ever and ever, world without end. Amen and amen.
And, Mother Teresa, whom I had the privilege to meet and also
to closely associate with those that knew her best . . . well, poor Mother
Teresa is sizzling away in Hell right now according to some of my
fundamentalist buddies. Kind of sad, but they insist on it. Why? Well, because
she was Roman Catholic, but primarily because she rigorously insisted that even a Hindu had the right to die in the comforting arms of sisters who really cared—whom she
appropriately called the Sisters of Charity. Oh to God that we had more sisters
and brothers of charity! Christ’s love was unconditional; so should ours be.
Then there is Pope Francis. I’m not Roman Catholic but much
of my theology is similar as is the case for most of us—i.e., the Trinity, the
virgin birth, the Resurrection, and so-forth—although, I do have my
disagreements; as do all Protestants, or they would not be protesting. Nevertheless,
I am not prepared to usher them into Hell simply because we have a difference
of opinion. My theology is this regards is best described in the words of the following
hymn—
My faith has found a resting
place,
Not in device nor creed;
I trust the Ever-living One,
His wounds for me shall plead.
Enough for me that Jesus saves,
This ends my fear and doubt;
A sinful soul, I come to Him,
He’ll never cast me out.
My heart is leaning on the
Word,
The written Word of God,
Salvation by my Savior’s name,
Salvation through His blood.
My great Physician heals the
sick,
The lost He came to save;
For me His precious blood He
shed,
For me His life He gave.
Refrain:
I need no other argument,
I need no other plea;
It is enough that Jesus died,
And that He died for me.
—‘No Other Plea’ by Lidie H.
Edmunds, 19th Century
Now, I am not so naïve to believe that this is all that
is needed to live a fully informed and fruitful Christian life; but I am saying
that it is enough.
Interestingly enough, I hardly remember a word of most sermons I hear. Last Sunday, however, Bonnie and I were fortunate to attend Northplace Church in Sachse, Texas and listen to a masterpiece by Pastor Bryan Jarrett. He and Chuck Swindoll in my books are the best. Naturally, being Pentecostal I tilt towards Bryan; although, both in my opinion are two of God’s great gifts to the church.
Now, I don’t want to pick on anyone, but hey, isn’t it nice to hear someone break the bread of life and feed you from God’s holy word?
God forgive us for allowing our pastors, yes, our pastors—not all, but far too many—to lapse into the entertainment and feel good mode which they add to what little charisma they have and pass it off as preaching. Preaching is all about the good news that Jesus died, rose from the dead, and is coming back to receive a spotless bride. Now, I know that sounds old fashioned, but pray tell me can you envision one of the Apostles of Christ every preaching a feel good sermon based on the latest book that they have just read?
The problem with this craze—that is, these charisma driven motivational sermons that lay out the current me generation “how-to-become-successful” fad in 10 Easy Steps is that they work! Yeah, you read that right. They work. They succeed in making people even more of a bunch of narcissists than they were previously. Nothing like appealing to ones self-centeredness to draw a crowd.
I can just hear someone say, “All right, now that you have got that off your chest, Jim, what’s the point?”
The point is simple. Church services in many of our churches have morphed into little more than a pep rally crowd pumped up by a team of cheerleaders (aka, worship leaders) jumping around to the drum beat of a marching band. May God forgive us.
And the results?
Well, the results are that this crazy stuff is contagious. It spreads. Oceans know no distance. Mission fields are created everywhere it spreads, too. Because, I am convinced, that just a whole lot of these otherwise fine people eventually lose out on God. I say this because there is absolutely no substitute for His Spirit to fill the void in our life and shallow sermons and whipped up emotions will not satisfy a thirsty soul. Only God can do that.
Friends, we need to pray for a real revival. That’s for sure.
Personally, I do not hold the position that the Last Supper was a seder meal. I think that Christ purposefully stated that this was a new covenant, not a reenactment of the old ceremony. However below are some different scenarios which are possibilities, if you are looking for such. The Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John seem to conflict chronologically. Here's the issue, and for the Synoptics, I'll just report what Mark 14:12-16 says; Matthew and Luke give less detail, but otherwise read the same: And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the Passover? And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the Passover with my disciples? And he will show you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the Passover. The problem? Coordinating with the other known historical data we have the Synoptics would seem to indicate that the timetable was that:
The lambs (the Passover, and the first day of the longer feast of Unleavened Bread) were killed (Thursday afternoon)
The Last Supper was eaten at the beginning of the Passover holiday (Thursday evening, until early Friday morning; in accord with the Jewish reckoning which started a day at 6 PM)
Jesus was crucified (Friday morning and afternoon)
But, the critics point to John's Gospel and see a contradictory schedule which has the Last Supper on a Wednesday evening -- and the rest is modified from there. To say the least, I found this to be a tangled issue with opinions running the gamut and no connection to whether a commentator was liberal or conservative. Some proposed that John shifted the chronology purposely to have Jesus killed at the same time the Passover lambs were killed. Others argued that the Last Supper was not a Passover Seder but a special meal. Yet another faction supposed that Jesus followed a special calendar used by the Essenes and some of the Sadducees, and that the Last Supper was on a Tuesday. But the solution that shaves best with Occam's razor and coordinated best with the data laid in reading John with a more nuanced eye. Let's run over the verses in John that are the "culprits"...and at the same time, we'll look at some other verses that drop strong hints that John is following the same schedule as the Synoptics. Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him... (John 13:1-2) This verse is sometimes seen as a problem because it is is read as saying that the supper and betrayal occurred "before the feast of the Passover," and the Supper, if held (by our reckoning) late Thursday, would have been during the feast of the Passover. But most recognize rather that the only thing being said to be "before" the feast of the Passover is Jesus' knowledge and love (which has no time limit on it), and that verse 2 starts a new train of thought. (This fits in with the understanding as well of John as a supplement to the Synoptics.) At worst it is admitted that the "vague expression makes it impossible to extract an exact chronology of Passion week" [Mich.Jn, 245] Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the Passover. (John 18:28) Here the thought is, Caiaphas and his cohorts have yet to eat the Passover; so the Last Supper wasn't eaten at the normal time, or else someone is making a mistake. Some even suggest that Caiaphas ate the Passover late. That's actually very close to the solution. The key here is in knowing that in the popular jargon, and as evidenced by supporting literature, "Passover" was used to refer to the entire feast which was also known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread. During this feast, there were still sacrifices being offered that the priests might temporarily disqualify themselves from by being in the place of a Gentile. Evidence of this loose association is found [Smith.CLS]: • In Luke's Gospel: Luke 2:41-43 "Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it."; and 22:1 "Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover." • In Mark's Gospel: Mark 14:12 "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover..." • In Josephus, who like Mark loosely calls the first day of unleavened bread the Passover, and uses the terms inconsistently throughout his works (Antiq.14.2.1, 17.9.2, 18.2.2, 18.4.3, 20.5.3; War 2.1.3; though always treating them separately when commenting on the OT text) • In rabbinic sources, which refer to the "nights of Passover" (in the plural); even later a distinction between the two holidays disappears altogether One pushback to this idea is that John uses the same phrase ("to eat the Passover") as the Synoptics do when they are clearly referring to the "standard" Passover meal on Thursday (Mark 14:12, Luke 22:15, Matt. 26:17). And admittedly, this is the only place where the exact phrase "to eat the Passover" would supposedly be used to refer to a meal that is a later part of the Passover/Unleavened Bread complex, without referring to the "actual" Passover as well. However, though there is no exact parallel, the data above showing the loose association of the holidays, combined with corollary data showing that John does indeed follow the Synoptic chronology, weigh in great favor of arguing that John is using the phrase in a different way than the Synoptics. Similarly, in the view championed by Alfred Edersheim, the "Passover" that the Jews were afraid to miss eating was the obligatory Chagigah offering. This was a required "peace-type" offering on the 15th which required Levitical purity to offer and to eat. The meal made of this offering was a joyous occasion. Lest anyone object that there would be no reason to refer to this sacrifice as "the Passover," Edersheim notes: One of the most learned Jewish writers, Dr. Saalschutz, is not of his opinion [that there is nothing "Paschal" about the Chagigah]. He writes as follows: The whole feast and all its festive meals were designated as the Passover. See Deuteronomy 16:2, comp. 2 Chronicles 30:24, and 35:8, 9; Sebach. 99, b, Rosh ha Sh. 5, a, where it is expressly said, "What is the meaning of the term Passover?" (Answer) The peace-offerings of the Passover. SOURCE: A. Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services The "why" of the defilement is another matter, which we may as well cover here: nearly all agree that what is in view is the perceived danger of defilement for seven days by being in contact with a corpse. There was a Jewish belief that Gentile dwellings were unclean because Gentiles buried aborted fetuses in their houses or washed them down drains. Under the rubric of Lev. 7:19-21, the priests could not eat of any sacrifice while unclean. However, Carson adds that even the one-day defilement of yeast in the house [cf. Ex. 12:19] would make for a tremendous inconvenience for the priests in their public functions. [Cars.GJ, 588] And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! (John 19:14) Some point out that John has specified the hour to coordinate with the paschal sacrifice and is making a theological point. But there are two problems with this. Contradiction is sometimes alleged in that Mark reports the crucifixion at the third hour (Mark 15:25) while John says the sixth. The basic reply is that Mark and the other synoptics are using Jewish time (sunset to sunset; third hour = 9 AM); John is using some form of Roman time, which is like ours (sixth hour = 6 AM - note that John says about the sixth hour; he's estimating). The former method is still used in the Middle East, and we and other Western nations use the latter. We know from the Synoptics that the crucifixion took over 6 hours. If John's sixth hour is really the Jewish sixth hour - noon, as unfortunately, even the Living Bible says - then the crucifixion lasted past the time when the Sabbath started. John 19:31 says that the Jews didn't want the bodies left up over the Sabbath, which obviously means that the Sabbath hadn't started yet. So either John is giving us an extraordinarily short crucifixion, or he is giving us the time in some Roman mode. Since crucifixions were usually extended affairs, the latter assumption is more valid. But there is an even more clear indication that John is using some form of Roman time. In John 1:39 we are told that Andrew and Peter met Jesus and "spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour." If this were Jewish time, that would make it 4 PM - too late to spend the "day" with someone (or maybe 4 AM, as some suggest, which at any rate is not usual visiting hours). But by the other chronology, it is 10 AM - ample time to spend the day. This is a pretty clear indication of how John is reckoning things. (But again, the LIV gets it wrong here. John 4:6 is a time reference that would fit either paradigm as well.) Objection: The Romans actually used the same sort of time as the Jews, that is, sunset to sunset. This is not entirely true. Many Romans did use this sort of time, but others did not. The time like ours (midnight to midnight) was known to be used in legal matters, and there is some evidence from martyrdom accounts in the area that this sort of time was used in Asia Minor, where John did his evangelism. Pliny the Elder also notes that various professions varied in their reckoning of time. It is our contention that the evidence does point to John using a "midnight to midnight" model. The Roman time measurement, at any rate, means that the time is nowhere near the sacrifice time, indeed, is over half a day off. Moreover, our second point: if John wanted to make this point, he could have done so quite obviously (as Mark mentioned the exact day the lambs were killed), and John is clearly the sort who would make significant mention of it (as the one who called Jesus the "lamb of God" -- Cars.GJ, 457). The main point made here is to say that this "preparation of the Passover" refers to the preparing of it on Thursday. [Mich.Jn, 324] But the word "preparation" here refers to the day of preparation for the Sabbath -- i.e., Friday. In other words, John is saying that it was the Friday, the Sabbath preparation day, of the Passover. The word "preparation" (paraskeue) is never used anywhere else in coordination with the word "Passover" like this, and elsewhere it always refers to Friday before a Sabbath -- in Josephus, and in second-century patristic sources. [Cars.GJ, 604] Note as well that John goes on to refer to the preparation by itself in 19:42, which all agree refers to a Friday. Next up is John 19:31: "The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation [Friday], that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day [Saturday]..." This helps us with 19:14 above, for it makes no sense unless the days are consecutive and the "preparation" of the Passover referred to is a Friday. John goes on to say that "Sabbath day was an high day," which some take to mean that he regarded this Sabbath as the Passover day itself, but "even by the Synoptic reckoning the description would be suitable, as the Sabbath in the week of Unleavened Bread had the special observance of the offering of a sheaf of barley (Lev. 23.11)." [Lind.GJ, 584] Now to seal this interpretation, we can also point to a few places where John "shows an awareness" that he is in with the Synoptic chronology: • John 13:10 -- "Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all." This verse, in which Jesus turns down Peter's request for a washing of head and hands, suggests that the disciples had already taken the ritual bath required for Passover. [Smit.CLS, 32] • John 13:27-29 -- "And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly. Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him. For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor." Some think this means John puts the Supper on a Wednesday, because shops would not be open if it were Thursday night for Judas to buy stuff for the Passover feast. But first, the "feast" here should be understood as the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the several days of holiday that followed. Second, if this is Wednesday, then why is it needful for Judas to move quickly under this assumption, since they could easily go shopping Thursday? That leaves the problem of shopping on Passover eve, but later rabbinic literature indicates that "one could buy necessities even on a Sabbath if it fell before Passover, provided it was done by leaving something in trust [the word here, agorazo, literally means "go to market" and does not imply buying with money necessarily] rather than paying cash." [Cars.GJ, 475] One suggests that it was possible also to get stuff on Passover eve, but like shopping on Christmas today, it was a lot more inconvenient. Third, this passage clues us in about this being a Passover eve by the reference to the poor. It was on Passover eve that the temple gates were left open from midnight forward, so that beggars could congregate there and collect alms. • Jesus resided for the feast time in Bethany, but ate the Last Supper in Jerusalem, where it was required that the Passover be eaten. If this was a "regular" meal, why bother going into Jerusalem? Moreover, after the meal they did not go back to Bethany, but went into the Kidron Valley (18:1), which fits in with the ritual Passover requirement that they spend the night within the "legal limits" of Jerusalem [Smit.CLS, 31]. • John 19:42 -- "There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand." The Mishnah Sabbath 23:4-5 says that burial is not permitted on the Sabbath, but washing and anointing was. [Cars.GJ, 943] The lack of completion of the burial means that John's "preparation" is a Friday, and the Supper was on Thursday. Objection: Jews counted part of a day as an entire day. If this is so, then it seems that there's no reason why the fragment of day remaining from 4:00 PM to the end of the day couldn't have been counted as one day. This is true in practical terms but the language would still be inappropriate. It stands to reason that their engagement would last longer than only 2 hours on such important topics as would be discussed, regarding Jesus' messiahship. Thus it would have to say, "They spent the day with him and into of the next day." Objection: When Jesus asked the Samaritan woman for water, he was exhausted from his journey, and it was about the sixth hour. If John was using Roman time, then it would have been 6 AM. How could he be exhausted from traveling if it was only 6 AM? It was not unusual for people to travel at night when it was cooler and travel was less exerting. The objector apparently has never lived in a place where air conditioning was not available. So we conclude that the data weighs heavily in favor of John being in full accord with the Synoptic chronology. A reader has helpfully submitted some supporting evidence for this article which we have used in a response to Bart Ehrman's Jesus, Interrupted. To see that material, please subscribe to the Tekton E-Block and request that issue in a separate email. -JPH Sources 1. Cars.GJ -- Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John IVP, 1991. 2. Lind.GJ -- Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John. Eerdmans, 1972. 3. Mich.Jn -- Michaels J. Ramsey. John. Hendrickson: 1989. 4. Smit.CLS -- Smith, Barry. "The Chronology of the Last Supper." Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991), 29-45.
++++++++++++++
When does Passover begin? Introduction It might be a bit confusing to understand exactly when Passover begins, at least from a traditional Jewish point of view. Does it begin on Nisan 14 or Nisan 15? In order to find an answer to this question, we first need to make a distinction between zman shechitat korban Pesach (the time of the slaughter of the Passover lambs) and then consider the commemoration of the holiday that was later instituted as the "Passover Seder ."
The Passover in Egypt The original sacrifice of the Passover (in Egypt) was of an unblemished male lamb that was selected on Nisan 10 and kept until the evening of the 14th, when it was sacrificed and its blood applied to the two doorposts and upper lintel of the house using a bunch of hyssop (Exod. 12:2-7, 22). The door to the house was then sealed and no one was permitted to leave until the following morning (Exod. 12:22). The blood on the doors would function as a sign for God to "pass over" the house when He descended to slay all the firstborn of Egypt later that night (Exod. 12:13). Within the sealed house - during that very night (לַיְלָה) - the lamb would be roasted over a fire and eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs (Exod. 12:8). This sacred meal was to be commemorated as a feast to the LORD throughout all the generations and retold during the Passover Seder service (Exod. 12:14, 25-27). Moreover, to commemorate the haste in which the Jews were brought out of Egypt, for seven days - from the evening of Nisan 14 until the evening of Nisan 21 - only unleavened bread was to be eaten and no leaven was to be found within any of the houses (Exod. 12:17-20). Passover at the Temple During the time of the Temple, zman shechitat korban Pesach (the time of the slaughter of the Passover lambs) was performed during the afternoon hours of Nisan 14, in observance of the commandment: "In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, between the evenings (i.e., bein ha-arbayim: בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם), is the Passover for the LORD" (Lev. 23:5). Note that the time of the lamb's sacrifice is described as "bein ha-arbayim," usually translated as "between the evenings" or "between the settings." To the sages, the "first setting" of the Sun occurred at the beginning of its descent after noon, and the "second setting" referred to sundown or twilight. Hence "bein ha-arbayim" would mean sometime after noon but before twilight, or more simply, "the afternoon." The sacrifice of the Passover lambs on the afternoon of Nisan 14 agrees with Jewish Oral Law and tradition. As Maimonides wrote, "It is a positive commandment to slaughter the Korban Pesach on the fourteenth of Nisan after midday" (Hilchot Korban Pesach). There is some discussion among the sages, however, as to whether the sacrifice of the korban Pesach occurred before or after the second set of tamid (daily) offerings made at the Temple (Exod. 29:38-42, Num. 28:1-8). In general, however, most of the sages agreed with Maimonides who clearly stated: "The Korban Pesach is not slaughtered until after the Tamid of the afternoon." In other words, the slaughter of the Passover lambs occurred on the late afternoon of Nisan 14. Note that though the sacrifice of the Passover lamb occurred on the afternoon Nisan 14, the ceremonial eating of the meal, or the "Seder ," would begin later, just before sundown and continue throughout the night. This agrees with Exod. 12:8 which states clearly that the Passover meal was consumed during the night: "They shall eat the flesh [of the Pascal lamb] that night" (i.e., ba-lailah hazeh: בַּלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה). And since the Jewish day begins after sundown (when three stars are visible in the night sky), the traditional Passover Seder would begin just before sundown on Nisan 14 but would continue into the new day of Nisan 15, which is also the start of the seven-day festival of chag ha-matzot (חַג הַמַּצּוֹת), the "Feast of Unleavened Bread" (Lev. 23:6). In light of all this perhaps you can better appreciate why Jewish tradition regards "Passover" as an eight day holiday, since it links the times of the korban Pesach, the Seder meal, and the seven days of unleavened bread together as a whole. Passover Today Today the traditional Passover Seder begins on "Erev Pesach," meaning just before sundown on Nisan 14 and running into the first hours of Nisan 15 (outside of Israel a second Seder is often held the following evening as well). The date of Passover can be somewhat confusing if you look at a Jewish calendar to see it listed simply as "Nisan 15." Again we must remember that the Jewish day begins on the night before it is listed on the calendar. For example, if the calendar says that March 30th is Nisan 15 (i.e., Passover), then you must understand that Nisan 15 actually begins at sundown on the night before, i.e., on March 29th: Unfortunately, most Jewish calendars refer to the previous evening as "Erev Pesach" without indicating that the first "day" of Passover spans the end of Nisan 14 and carries over to Nisan 15. In answer to our original question, then, (i.e., "Does Passover begin on Nisan 14 or Nisan 15?"), the answer is that while the Passover sacrifice was made on the afternoon of the 14th, the Passover Seder will span both the 14th and 15th! I realize all this might be a bit confusing, but it's just the way the Jewish calendar works! Addendum: The important point in all of this, of course, is that Yeshua the is the "Lamb of God" who was sacrificed and raised from the dead according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3-5). As for the precise calculations involved in all this, including the time of His early Seder with His disciples, the exact hours of His crucifixion, and so on, there are numerous questions, though I completely trust that Yeshua 100% fulfilled the types and prophecies concerning the meaning of the Passover. רָאוּי הַשֶּׂה הַטָּבוּחַ לְקַבֵּל גְבוּרָה עשֶׁר וְחָכְמָה וְכּחַ וִיקַר וְכָבוֹד וּבְרָכָה ra'uy ha-seh ha-tavuach lekabel gevurah, osher v'chokhmah v'koach vikar v'khavod uvracha Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing! (Rev. 5:12) Here's the issue, and for the Synoptics, I'll just report what Mark 14:12-16 says; Matthew and Luke give less detail, but otherwise read the same: And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the Passover? And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the Passover with my disciples? And he will show you a large upper room furnished and prepared: there make ready for us. And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the Passover. The problem? Coordinating with the other known historical data we have the Synoptics would seem to indicate that the timetable was that:
lambs (the Passover, and the first day of the longer feast of Unleavened Bread) were killed (Thursday afternoon)
the Last Supper was eaten at the beginning of the Passover holiday (Thursday evening, until early Friday morning; in accord with the Jewish reckoning which started a day at 6 PM)
Jesus was crucified (Friday morning and afternoon)
But, the critics point to John's Gospel and see a contradictory schedule which has the Last Supper on a Wednesday evening -- and the rest is modified from there. To say the least, I found this to be a tangled issue with opinions running the gamut and no connection to whether a commentator was liberal or conservative. Some proposed that John shifted the chronology purposely to have Jesus killed at the same time the Passover lambs were killed. Others argued that the Last Supper was not a Passover Seder but a special meal. Yet another faction supposed that Jesus followed a special calendar used by the Essenes and some of the Sadducees, and that the Last Supper was on a Tuesday. But the solution that shaves best with Occam's razor and coordinated best with the data laid in reading John with a more nuanced eye. Let's run over the verses in John that are the "culprits"...and at the same time, we'll look at some other verses that drop strong hints that John is following the same schedule as the Synoptics. Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him... (John 13:1-2) This verse is sometimes seen as a problem because it is is read as saying that the supper and betrayal occurred "before the feast of the Passover," and the Supper, if held (by our reckoning) late Thursday, would have been during the feast of the Passover. But most recognize rather that the only thing being said to be "before" the feast of the Passover is Jesus' knowledge and love (which has no time limit on it), and that verse 2 starts a new train of thought. (This fits in with the understanding as well of John as a supplement to the Synoptics.) At worst it is admitted that the "vague expression makes it impossible to extract an exact chronology of Passion week" [Mich.Jn, 245] Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the Passover. (John 18:28) Here the thought is, Caiaphas and his cohorts have yet to eat the Passover; so the Last Supper wasn't eaten at the normal time, or else someone is making a mistake. Some even suggest that Caiaphas ate the Passover late. That's actually very close to the solution. The key here is in knowing that in the popular jargon, and as evidenced by supporting literature, "Passover" was used to refer to the entire feast which was also known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread. During this feast, there were still sacrifices being offered that the priests might temporarily disqualify themselves from by being in the place of a Gentile. Evidence of this loose association is found [Smith.CLS]:
In Luke's Gospel: Luke 2:41-43 "Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it."; and 22:1 "Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover."
In Mark's Gospel: Mark 14:12 "And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover..."
In Josephus, who like Mark loosely calls the first day of unleavened bread the Passover, and uses the terms inconsistently throughout his works (Antiq.14.2.1, 17.9.2, 18.2.2, 18.4.3, 20.5.3; War 2.1.3; though always treating them separately when commenting on the OT text)
In rabbinic sources, which refer to the "nights of Passover" (in the plural); even later a distinction between the two holidays disappears altogether
One pushback to this idea is that John uses the same phrase ("to eat the Passover") as the Synoptics do when they are clearly referring to the "standard" Passover meal on Thursday (Mark 14:12, Luke 22:15, Matt. 26:17). And admittedly, this is the only place where the exact phrase "to eat the Passover" would supposedly be used to refer to a meal that is a later part of the Passover/Unleavened Bread complex, without referring to the "actual" Passover as well. However, though there is no exact parallel, the data above showing the loose association of the holidays, combined with corollary data showing that John does indeed follow the Synoptic chronology, weigh in great favor of arguing that John is using the phrase in a different way than the Synoptics. Similarly, in the view championed by Alfred Edersheim, the "Passover" that the Jews were afraid to miss eating was the obligatory Chagigah offering. This was a required "peace-type" offering on the 15th which required Levitical purity to offer and to eat. The meal made of this offering was a joyous occasion. Lest anyone object that there would be no reason to refer to this sacrifice as "the Passover," Edersheim notes: One of the most learned Jewish writers, Dr.Saalschutz, is not of his opinion [that there is nothing "Paschal" about the Chagigah]. He writes as follows: The whole feast and all its festive meals were designated as the Passover. See Deuteronomy 16:2, comp. 2 Chronicles 30:24, and 35:8, 9; Sebach. 99, b, Rosh ha Sh. 5, a, where it is expressly said, "What is the meaning of the term Passover?" (Answer) The peace-offerings of the Passover. SOURCE: A. Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services The "why" of the defilement is another matter, which we may as well cover here: nearly all agree that what is in view is the perceived danger of defilement for seven days by being in contact with a corpse. There was a Jewish belief that Gentile dwellings were unclean because Gentiles buried aborted fetuses in their houses or washed them down drains. Under the rubric of Lev. 7:19-21, the priests could not eat of any sacrifice while unclean. However, Carson adds that even the one-day defilement of yeast in the house [cf. Ex. 12:19] would make for a tremendous inconvenience for the priests in their public functions. [Cars.GJ, 588] And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! (John 19:14) Some point out that John has specified the hour to coordinate with the paschal sacrifice and is making a theological point. But there are two problems with this. Contradiction is sometimes alleged in that Mark reports the crucifixion at the third hour (Mark 15:25) while John says the sixth. The basic reply is that Mark and the other synoptics are using Jewish time (sunset to sunset; third hour = 9 AM); John is using some form of Roman time, which is like ours (sixth hour = 6 AM - note that John says about the sixth hour; he's estimating). The former method is still used in the Middle East, and we and other Western nations use the latter. We know from the Synoptics that the crucifixion took over 6 hours. If John's sixth hour is really the Jewish sixth hour - noon, as unfortunately, even the Living Bible says - then the crucifixion lasted past the time when the Sabbath started. John 19:31 says that the Jews didn't want the bodies left up over the Sabbath, which obviously means that the Sabbath hadn't started yet. So either John is giving us an extraordinarily short crucifixion, or he is giving us the time in some Roman mode. Since crucifixions were usually extended affairs, the latter assumption is more valid. But there is an even more clear indication that John is using some form of Roman time. In John 1:39 we are told that Andrew and Peter met Jesus and "spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour." If this were Jewish time, that would make it 4 PM - too late to spend the "day" with someone (or maybe 4 AM, as some suggest, which at any rate is not usual visiting hours). But by the other chronology, it is 10 AM - ample time to spend the day. This is a pretty clear indication of how John is reckoning things. (But again, the LIV gets it wrong here. John 4:6 is a time reference that would fit either paradigm as well.) Objection: The Romans actually used the same sort of time as the Jews, that is, sunset to sunset. This is not entirely true. Many Romans did use this sort of time, but others did not. The time like ours (midnight to midnight) was known to be used in legal matters, and there is some evidence from martyrdom accounts in the area that this sort of time was used in Asia Minor, where John did his evangelism. Pliny the Elder also notes that various professions varied in their reckoning of time. It is our contention that the evidence does point to John using a "midnight to midnight" model. The Roman time measurement, at any rate, means that the time is nowhere near the sacrifice time, indeed, is over half a day off. Moreover, our second point: if John wanted to make this point, he could have done so quite obviously (as Mark mentioned the exact day the lambs were killed), and John is clearly the sort who would make significant mention of it (as the one who called Jesus the "lamb of God" -- Cars.GJ, 457). The main point made here is to say that this "preparation of the Passover" refers to the preparing of it on Thursday. [Mich.Jn, 324] But the word "preparation" here refers to the day of preparation for the Sabbath -- i.e., Friday. In other words, John is saying that it was the Friday, the Sabbath preparation day, of the Passover. The word "preparation" (paraskeue) is never used anywhere else in coordination with the word "Passover" like this, and elsewhere it always refers to Friday before a Sabbath -- in Josephus, and in second-century patristic sources. [Cars.GJ, 604] Note as well that John goes on to refer to the preparation by itself in 19:42, which all agree refers to a Friday. Next up is John 19:31: "The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation [Friday], that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day [Saturday]..." This helps us with 19:14 above, for it makes no sense unless the days are consecutive and the "preparation" of the Passover referred to is a Friday. John goes on to say that "Sabbath day was an high day," which some take to mean that he regarded this Sabbath as the Passover day itself, but "even by the Synoptic reckoning the description would be suitable, as the Sabbath in the week of Unleavened Bread had the special observance of the offering of a sheaf of barley (Lev. 23.11)." [Lind.GJ, 584] Now to seal this interpretation, we can also point to a few places where John "shows an awareness" that he is in with the Synoptic chronology:
John 13:10 -- "Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all."
This verse, in which Jesus turns down Peter's request for a washing of head and hands, suggests that the disciples had already taken the ritual bath required for Passover. [Smit.CLS, 32]
John 13:27-29 -- "And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly. Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him. For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor."
Some think this means John puts the Supper on a Wednesday, because shops would not be open if it were Thursday night for Judas to buy stuff for the Passover feast. But first, the "feast" here should be understood as the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the several days of holiday that followed. Second, if this is Wednesday, then why is it needful for Judas to move quickly under this assumption, since they could easily go shopping Thursday? That leaves the problem of shopping on Passover eve, but later rabbinic literature indicates that "one could buy necessities even on a Sabbath if it fell before Passover, provided it was done by leaving something in trust [the word here, agorazo, literally means "go to market" and does not imply buying with money necessarily] rather than paying cash." [Cars.GJ, 475] One suggests that it was possible also to get stuff on Passover eve, but like shopping on Christmas today, it was a lot more inconvenient. Third, this passage clues us in about this being a Passover eve by the reference to the poor. It was on Passover eve that the temple gates were left open from midnight forward, so that beggars could congregate there and collect alms.
Jesus resided for the feast time in Bethany, but ate the Last Supper in Jerusalem, where it was required that the Passover be eaten. If this was a "regular" meal, why bother going into Jerusalem? Moreover, after the meal they did not go back to Bethany, but went into the Kidron Valley (18:1), which fits in with the ritual Passover requirement that they spend the night within the "legal limits" of Jerusalem [Smit.CLS, 31].
John 19:42 -- "There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand." The Mishnah Sabbath 23:4-5 says that burial is not permitted on the Sabbath, but washing and anointing was. [Cars.GJ, 943] The lack of completion of the burial means that John's "preparation" is a Friday, and the Supper was on Thursday.
The third hour (Mark 15:25) - "And it was the third hour when they crucified Him."
The sixth hour (John 19:14-15) - "Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he *said to the Jews, "Behold, your King!" 15They therefore cried out, "Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!" Pilate *said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar."
Most probably, John was using the Roman measurement of time when dealing with the crucifixion. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, for the most part, used the Hebrew system of measuring a day: from sundown to sunup. The Roman system was from midnight to midnight. "John wrote his gospel in Ephesus, the capital of the Roman province of Asia, and therefore in regard to the civil day he would be likely to employ the Roman reckoning. Thursday Nisan 13 –preparation Daylight hours Mark 14:12-16; 17 Nisan 14—meal; betrayal Jewish evening hours Friday Nisan 14 –crucifixion 3 pm . . . burial, so as not to be on the Cross on the High Sabbath Jewish daylight hours 1st day in grave Saturday Nisan 15—in grave High Sabbath 1st night and 2nd day in grave Sunday Nisan 16—in grave 2night and 3rd day Nisan 17 3rd night arose precisely sunup, therefore not in grave past 3rd day. Therefore, prophecy fulfilled that he would like Jonah be in the grave 3 days and 3 nights. Also, this harmonizes with the Synoptics and John’s Gospel as he was crucified on the on the 1st Passover day, and not on the High Sabbath. In my opinion, the Lord’s Supper was a modified Seder meal without the roasted lamb, since there is no mention of the lamb since he is the Lamb, but bitter herbs were dipped in salt water to depict the bitter sorrow with tears of the passion. He sweated tears as thought they were great drops of blood. And, of course, like a lamb taken to slaughter, he suffered that sacrificial pain of slaughter and death on the Cross as a substitute for us. "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Mt 12:40) Luke 22:17, 20 Passover points: Observed by Jesus (Matthew 26:17-20; Luke 22:15; John 2:13,23;) Jesus Meets Privately with His Disciples Prior to His Crucifixion (13:1-17:26)
Jesus Washes His Disciples' Feet (13:1-20)
Jesus Predicts His Betrayal (13:21-30)
Jesus Introduces Major Themes of His Farewell Discourse (13:31-35)
Jesus Predicts Peter's Denial and Speaks of His Own Departure (13:36-14:4)
Jesus Declares Himself to Be the Way to the Father (14:5-7)
Jesus Speaks of Both His Relation to the Father and His Disciples' Relation to the Father (14:8-21)
• Jesus Contrasts His Disciples' Relation to God with the World's Relation to God (14:22-31)
Jesus Calls the Disciples to Remain in Him, the True Vine (15:1-17)
Jesus Declares He Is the True Vine and His Disciples Are the Branches (15:1-6)
Jesus Applies His Teaching on the Vine and the Branches (15:7-17)
Jesus Speaks of Conflict with the World and of the Paraclete (15:18-16:15)
Jesus Explains the Source of the World's Hatred of His Disciples (15:18-25)
Jesus Says the Paraclete and the Disciples Will Bear Witness to Him (15:26-27)
Jesus Refers Directly to the Jewish Persecution of His Disciples (16:1-4)
Jesus Explains the Twofold Work of the Paraclete in More Detail (16:4-15)
Jesus Predicts Joy and Suffering (16:16-33)
Jesus Promises That After a Little While the Disciples' Grief Will Turn to Joy (16:16-21)
Jesus Describes the Reasons for the Joy That the Disciples Are About to Experience (16:22-28)
Jesus Prepares the Disciples for Their Imminent Desertion of Him (16:29-33)
Jesus Concludes His Time Alone with His Disciples by Praying to His Father (17:1-26)
Jesus Prays for the Glorification of the Father and the Son (17:1-5)
Jesus Begins His Prayer for the Eleven Disciples by Describing Their Situation (17:6-11)
Jesus Prays for the Eleven Disciples (17:11-19)
Jesus Prays for All Who Believe in Him Through the Witness of the Eleven (17:20-24)
Jesus Concludes His Prayer with a Summary and a Pledge (17:25-26)
The third section of John's Gospel, which follows the prologue (1:1-18) and the account of Jesus' public ministry (1:19—12:50), is characterized by Jesus' being alone with his disciples before his betrayal and arrest. While there may have been others present, such as those who were serving the meal, the focus is on the Twelve (so also Mt 26:20 par. Mk 14:17 par. Lk 22:14). The section begins with an account of Jesus washing the disciples' feet and the prediction of Judas' betrayal (13:1-30). Then there is a lengthy section known as the farewell discourse, which consists of teachings (13:31—16:33) and a concluding prayer by Jesus (17:1-26). The Lord's Supper ordained at (Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:12-25; Luke 22:7-20) Jesus crucified at the time of (Matthew 26:2; Mark 14:1,2; John 18:28) The Institution of the Lord’s Supper The institution of the Lord's Supper is recorded in the three Synoptic Gospels and in Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. The words of institution differ slightly in each account, reflecting a Marcan tradition (upon which Matthew is based) and a Pauline tradition (upon which Luke is based) . In addition, Luke 22:19b-20 is a disputed text, which does not appear in some of the early manuscripts of Luke. Some scholars therefore believe that it is an interpolation, while others have argued that it is original [ 22][23] A comparison of the accounts given in the Gospels and 1 Corinthians is shown in the table below, with text from the ASV. The disputed text from Luke 22:19b-20 is in italics. Mark 14:22-24 And as they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, ‘Take ye: this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.’ Matthew 26:26-28 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, ‘Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.’ 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.’ Luke 22:19-20 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.’ Jesus' actions in sharing the bread and wine have been linked with Isaiah 53:12,[24] which refers to a blood sacrifice that, as recounted in Exodus 24:8, [25] Moses offered in order to seal a covenant with God: scholars often interpret the description of Jesus' action as asking his disciples to consider themselves part of a sacrifice, where Jesus is the one due to physically undergo it . [26] Although the Gospel of John does not include a description of the bread and wine ritual during the Last Supper, most scholars agree that John 6:58-59 (the Bread of Life Discourse) has the nature of Holy Communion (The Lord’s Supper as we celebrate it today) and resonates with the "words of institution" used in the Synoptic Gospels and the Pauline writings on the Last Supper. [27] Also, this passage is the source of three difficult problems to which the careful student of Scripture should have some kind of answer. The first major problem which we face in this passage is a textual one. One of the Greek manuscripts omits the last half of verse 19 and all of verse 20. It would appear that this deletion was an attempt to solve the problem raised by the reference to two different cups of wine in the passage. Such a change in the text seems completely unnecessary to me. The second problem is one of harmony and chronology. It hinges on an apparent discrepancy between the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and the gospel of John. It is a significant problem because of its implications, first with regard to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures, then for the interpretation of the Last Supper, and finally for a determination of the day on which our Lord was put to death. A casual reading of the synoptic gospels would seem to indicate that Jesus observed the Passover with His disciples, while John’s account would have Him put to death before its enactment (cf. John 18:28). While the explanations of this problem may differ, conservative scholars would agree that there is a solution. (See: “When Does Passover Begin?” above. ) The third problem relates to the great controversy over the precise meaning of the words of Jesus, “This is My body.” Roman Catholicism believes that each remembrance of the Lord’s death is a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ, and that the elements actually become the literal flesh and blood of the Savior.118 Others hold that while such a miraculous transformation is not necessary, the Lord is somehow present with, but not in, the elements as they are partaken.119 In either of these cases, the observance is regarded as a sacrament, the actual conveyance of grace to the participant. The preferable interpretation, that this is the symbolic remembrance of our Lord’s death, avoids this error, while stressing the significance and symbolic meaning of this ordinance.120 Let us here deal with problems one and two. According to Bible.org: “The problem, simply stated, is this. John’s gospel clearly sets the time of the death of Christ at the same hour in which the Passover lambs were being slain (John 18:28; 19:14,36). In apparent contradiction to this, the synoptic gospels speak of the last supper as though it were the observance of the actual Passover. There is therefore an apparent 24-hour discrepancy in the gospels. In the Synoptics, Jesus observed the Passover with His disciples; in John, Jesus was the Passover Lamb, put to death at the time of the slaughter of the Passover lamb, before the Passover meal was eaten. Liberal ‘scholars’ have little difficulty here. They delight in pointing out this ‘error’ to the conservative, who holds to biblical inerrancy. They are free to accept John’s account and discard the Synoptics as inaccurate, or to regard the Synoptics as correct, and John to be in error. Conservative scholarship has posed several possible ways to harmonize the gospel records, three of which are currently most popular: (1) On the basis of some historical data, it is known that there was a division within the nation as to when the month of Nisan was to commence. Because of this confusion over the calendar, there ended up being two days on which the Passover lambs were slaughtered and two days on which Passover was observed, one, a day earlier than the other. Jesus could then have observed the (first) Passover with the disciples, while He died as the true Passover Lamb on the second, a day later. (2) There is also evidence that some (perhaps the Galilean Jews) commenced the new day in the morning, at daybreak, while the Judean Jews began the new day in the evening at six o’clock. If such were the case, the Synoptics were reckoning from the Galilean time frame, and John from the Judean. A third view, held by a number of conservative scholars, contends that there is no real discrepancy between John’s account and the Synoptics. Every alleged problem is explained individually. For further reference on this complicated matter, consult: Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), pp. 75-90; Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), pp. 649-670. R.T. France, I Came to Set the Earth on Fire (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976), pp. 136-140. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), pp. 774-785.” Clarke John 19:31 31The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day, (for that Sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. It was the preparation - Every Sabbath had a preparation which began at the ninth hour (that is, three o'clock) the preceding evening. Josephus, Ant. b. xvi. c. 6, s. 2, recites an edict of the Emperor Augustus in favor of the Jews, which orders, "that no one shall be obliged to give bail or surety on the Sabbath day, nor on the preparation before it, after the ninth hour." The time fixed here was undoubtedly in conformity to the Jewish custom, as they began their preparation at three o'clock on the Friday evening.
