Let me begin with just a brief note on my appreciation for the accuracy of the Fourth Gospel on matters related to the Temple and feasts of the Torah. I first began to consider the possibility that John was more precise that the synoptic gospels at the Society of Biblical Literature meeting in New Orleans in 2009. Paul Anderson (The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus) gave a stunning presentation on the value of John for historical understanding (if you are skeptical, I suggest you take a look at the book). Then I read Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple. I became convinced that the Fourth Gospel is written by a Jerusalem disciple (the elder John) who ran in priestly circles (if this notion sounds strange to you, you might acquaint yourself with the evidence before discounting it). My previous views (published in many articles here 2010 and earlier on MJ Musings) about the timing the crucifixion, Passover, and Last Supper all began to change. With that said, I think there is a great value in looking at John to ask questions about the chronology of Yeshua’s last week.

RESULTS
Knowing the short attention spans of many readers, I will give my conclusions first and then you can decide whether to read the notes and commentary below. I give two results tables depending on whether we think the crucifixion was on a Thursday or a Friday (see below, “Friday Is Not a Certainty”):

IF CRUCIFIXION IS THURSDAY & PASSOVER IS THUR NIGHT/FRIDAY:

• Saturday (possibly Friday night), Yeshua arrives in Bethany (Jn 12:1). If so, he would not have traveled far since it was the Sabbath.
• Saturday night they hold a dinner for him in Bethany (arguably, could be Friday night).
• Sunday morning is the Triumphal Entry (Jn 12:12; arguably, could be Saturday morning, which would be unlikely and render Thursday crucifixion unlikely).
• Wednesday night is the Last Supper.

IF CRUCIFIXION IS FRIDAY & PASSOVER IS FRI NIGHT/SATURDAY:

• Sunday (or Sat night), Yeshua arrives in Bethany.
• Monday morning (possibly Sunday) is the Triumphal Entry.
• Thursday night is the Last Supper.

**Note that a Wednesday crucifixion theory, if based on John, would have the Triumphal Entry on Saturday morning (possibly Friday).

**Note that with so many ambiguities (what does “six days before” mean exactly?), the Palm Sunday/Good Friday tradition could fit with John’s chronology (as Raymond Brown supposes is does).

**The only things we can be “sure of” from John’s chronology: the crucifixion is on Nisan 14 when the lambs would be slaughtered and the Last Supper is the night before the regular Passover Seder. We cannot be certain about the day of the week given all the ambiguities.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE END IN JOHN
Taking the statements about timing at face value from John (for example, we skip over possibilities such as the notion that the Lazarus story may be told out of chronological order), we find these helpful periods, events, and chronological notes leading to the crucifixion and Passover:

• 10:22, Hanukkah.
• 10:40-42, Interlude beyond the Jordan.
• Ch. 11, The raising of Lazarus.
• 11:54, Interlude in the town of Ephraim (no one knows where this town is located).
• 11:55, Passover at hand and many had come to Jerusalem to purify themselves (very important, see commentary below).
• 12:1, Six days before Passover (thus, five before the crucifixion).
• 12:2-10, Mary anoints Yeshua, chief priests plot and plan.
• 12:12, The next day (five days before Passover, four days before the crucifixion).
• 12:13-16, Triumphal Entry.
• 12:17-19, Pharisees concerned with his popularity.
• 12:20-36, Greeks are brought to him, heavenly voice.
• 12:37-50, Yeshua hides, sayings on belief and unbelief.
• 13:1, Before the Passover.
• 13:2-27, Last Supper.
• 13:28-30, They supposed Judas went to buy what was needed for the feast.
• The remainder of chs. 13-17, discourses at the Last Supper.
• 18:1-27, Nighttime arrest and first trials.
• 18:28, It was morning; priests would not enter as they feared being disqualified to eat the Passover (see commentary below).
• 19:1-13, Roman trial, flogging.
• 19:14, It was the day of preparation for the Passover.
• 19:15-30, Crucifixion and death.
• 19:31, It was the day of preparation, bodies to be buried before Sabbath, Sabbath was a high day.
• 19:32-41, Body removed and burial.
• 19:42, They laid him close since time was short and it was the day of preparation.
• 20:1, First day of the week, women come to tomb in the early morning.

MANY HAD COME TO JERUSALEM TO PURIFY THEMSELVES
According to Numbers 19, the period of time for purification after coming into contact with any kind of corpse impurity (contact with the dead, being under a roof where a corpse lay, or contact with people or objects that have corpse impurity, etc.) is seven days.

We know that people would come to feasts early in Jerusalem (not a strict requirement to fulfill the entire period in the city), with many arriving in time to spend the entire seven days purifying themselves. Paul purified himself seven days before his Nazirite vow (Acts 21:24-27). Josephus mentions the practice of many pilgrims coming from the countryside to Jerusalem and spending the seven days of purification in Jerusalem (War I.XI.6 #229). Thus, in 11:55, while Yeshua has not yet arrived near Jerusalem, some of those who have arrived wonder when he will show.

SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE DEFILED … COULD EAT THE PASSOVER
The chief priests would have to consider themselves impure if they went under Pilate’s roof (as violence happened there and a corpse under that roof was a real possibility). This would make them unfit to eat the Passover (Numb 9:6-12). Thus we see here, as in several other indications, that Yeshua’s morning trial and crucifixion happened on Nisan 14, when the lambs for Passover were slaughtered.

YESHUA CRUCIFIED ON NISAN 14
Every indication in John is that Yeshua was crucified starting the morning on which the Passover lambs were slaughtered. John 19:14 is clear that it was the day for preparing for the Passover (which is Nisan 14).

FRIDAY IS NOT A CERTAINTY
I have in the past defended the “Good Friday” notion (that Yeshua was crucified on Friday). But that was based on previous assumptions I held and harmonizing Mark with John (something I no longer feel the need to do). If Passover (the first day of Unleavened Bread) is a Sabbath, then the “Sabbath” mentioned could be the weekly Sabbath (Friday night till Saturday night) or any day of the week on which the Passover fell. If Yeshua was crucified before Passover started, then we have no reason for dogmatism about a Friday crucifixion (but neither is it impossible, Matthew 12:40 notwithstanding).

I said there we have three basic options: (1) decide Mark is right and John wrong (Maurice Casey does this in Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel), (2) decide John is right and Mark wrong (McKnight in Jesus and His Death and Brown in The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2), or (3) harmonize them in some way (I used to follow Edersheim’s harmonization but never gave much weight to the two calendars theory of Jaubert).

In this post, I want to clarify matters a bit and discuss why I opt for (2). The Last Supper was not exactly a Passover Seder, though it was a Passover-like festal meal held one night before. Mark erred in his account. John did not err. But theologically, the Last Supper is filled with Passover meaning. Mark may have erred, but he wasn’t completely wrong. Yeshua put a lot of Passover into his not-quite-Passover meal.

The Discrepancy Between John and Mark

Mark 14:12 says it was the first day of Unleavened Bread “when they were sacrificing the Passover lamb.” But John 13:1 says it was “before the feast of Passover.”

Mark 14:14 and 16 say the meal was “Passover.” But John 19:14, 31, and 42 the crucifixion was on “the day of preparation,” and 19:14 specifies “of the Passover.”

Mark 14:17-18 say that Yeshua and the twelve ate what was prepared, which had been called Passover in vss. 14 and 16. But John 18:28 says that the chief priests, the next morning, did not enter Pilate’s hall in order to remain pure “so that they might eat the Passover.”

Arguments in Favor of Last-Supper-Equals-Passover vs. Weaknesses
The wording here is mine but much of what I say is found in Scot McKnight’s Jesus and His Death and Raymond Brown’s The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2.

Mark calls the meal the night before Yeshua died “Passover.” But John says Passover was the next night after Yeshua died.

The meal took place after dark while normal meals happened earlier. A meal on the festal days of purification and preparation before Passover (pilgrims arrived early says Josephus) could just as well be at night.

Yeshua broke bread in the middle of the meal, whereas at normal meals this is at the beginning. In anticipation of Passover, it may not have been uncommon for people to have festal meals with symbolic portions and perhaps multiple breakings of bread.

In John 13, some thought Judas was sent away to give money to the poor (a concern in Passover haggadahs now and perhaps then). They may have thought this about any night leading up to Passover as well, since Yeshua would have been sensitive to this issue at all times, and the festal season lent itself to such almsgiving even before Passover.

They sang a hymn after, possibly the Hallel (Psalm 113-118). A hymn, possibly the Hallel, could have been sung at a festal meal in anticipation of Passover and in the enthusiasm of the pilgrims gathered.

In John 13:23 and 25, the Beloved Disciple was lying at Yeshua’s breast (reclining is a Passover custom). The reclining posture of the symposium meal, a Greco-Roman custom brought into the Passover, would fit well with any festal or significant meal.

Arguments Against Last-Supper-Equals-Passover

There is no mention of lamb at the meal. Mark 14:12 may possibly mean that Yeshua and disciples slaughtered a lamb, but even if so, it is never mentioned again.

A Jewish trial is much less likely on Passover than it is on the day of preparation for Passover.

Early Christianity had a weekly celebration of remembrance of the body and blood (1 Cor 11; Didache), not an annual celebration.

It seems (Maurice Casey argues otherwise) that only the Twelve were present at the Last Supper, but Passover would include everyone and women too.

What Probably Happened

On the night before Passover, Yeshua had a festal meal with the Twelve. They reclined and Yeshua taught them. They sang Hallel after supper. Yeshua evoked strong Passover themes such as blood atonement, covenant, and coming into the kingdom.

Mark erred in relating what he read in his sources. He thought the Last Supper was a Passover. He had some justification for his mistake. Yeshua made the meal like Passover in some ways.

Theologically, the Last Supper was a sort of “renewed Passover” looking ahead to the Passover the disciples expected to celebrate the next night. Yeshua explained his death as a sacrifice re-constituting the people of Israel in a new covenant (and including the nations, as understood later). The atonement theology of Yeshua is nowhere more explicit than here. The Last Supper is not a Passover-replacement. Jewish thinking is so much more “both-and” and not “either-or.” The Last Supper is a reinterpretation of and reapplication of Passover, adding a new Exodus theme to the existing Exodus theme.

In many ways, it is true that the Last Supper is and isn’t a Passover. It is a Passover without a lamb. It is part of a larger set of rituals and stories about redemption. It is about Passover finding its goal in Yeshua without ceasing to be relevant in its progress from Egypt to the history of Israel in the land to the coming of the Lamb of God to inaugurate final redemption.

With that said, this is merely a comparison and contrast of the body and blood sayings (often referred to as the “words of institution”). Obviously, these do not exist in John’s Last Supper. So we really only have four traditions to compare on this. The results may surprise you and the relationships make sense once you see them.

The verses are all quoted below. Here are observations:

(1) Mark and Matthew say he “blessed” (from eulogeo) while Paul and Luke say “gave thanks” (from eucharisteo).

(2) All four say “this is my body.”

(3) Mark and Matthew say “take,” while Paul and Luke do not.

(4) Matthew adds “eat.”

(5) Paul and Luke add “which is [given] for you” (Paul leaves out the “given”).

(6) On the cup, all four have the words “covenant” and “my blood.”

(7) Mark, Matthew, and Luke have “poured out,” and all but Luke have “for the many.”

(8) Matthew adds “for the forgiveness of sins.”

(9) Paul and Luke have “do this in remembrance of me.” Paul has it for both the bread and the cup while Luke has it only for the bread.

Do you notice something? Mark and Matthew go together as a pair and Paul and Luke. This adds more evidence, by the way, to the theory that Paul is a source for Luke’s gospel and the book of Acts.

One theory that has been suggested is that Mark and Matthew represent a Jerusalem tradition (earlier, less infiltrated by the later customs of the Yeshua-community [early Christianity]) and Paul and Luke represent what has been called an Antioch tradition, more infiltrated by the ritual observance of the Yeshua-community [early Christians]). Scot McKnight discusses this theory on pg. 261 in Jesus and His Death.

Mark 14:22-24 (RSV)
And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said,
“Take; this is my body.”
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it.
And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

Luke 22:19-20 (RSV)
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying,
“This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
And likewise the cup after supper, saying,
“This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”

The Last Supper Was / Wasn’t a Passover Seder
To keep things simple, I am only comparing Mark and John’s accounts here. Matthew, Luke, and Paul follow Mark mainly (there is complexity overlooked in that statement, though, since Luke is influenced by John in some way–see Fitzmeyer’s commentary on Luke or Paul Anderson’s study on The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus for more about this).

Let me lay out the argument that Mark and John do not agree on the timing of the Last Supper as clearly as I can:

(a) Mark says that the disciples asked Yeshua about preparing for Passover on the first day of Unleavened Bread and when the Passover lamb is sacrificed. This statement already involves a slight complication due to differences in reckoning days (to keep it simple, let’s just talk about two ways: the Jewish and the Roman). By the Roman reckoning (see Adela Yarbro Collins’ commentary citing Pliny) a day ordinarily means “dawn till dark.” This is the reckoning Mark is using. The Passover lambs are sacrificed on Nisan 14 and the Passover’s first day (same thing as first day of Unleavened Bread) begins after sundown, which in the Jewish reckoning is another day, Nisan 15). It is noteworthy that Mark says nothing about Yeshua or the disciples bringing the required burnt offering (the “appearance” offering of the festivals) or the Passover lamb. Is this because Mark is reluctant to show Yeshua offering a sacrifice? Is it because Mark has his facts wrong and it was not yet Passover (and thus, nothing in Mark’s sources for this account suggest that Yeshua made a sacrifice)?

(b) John says that the Last Supper of Yeshua and the disciples happened before the feast of Passover. This is already enough to say: Mark and John have a disagreement. John’s clear assertion about this timing continues in a number of ways. When Yeshua is brought to Pilate after the meal and the time in the olive grove, the chief priests do not want to enter the Praetorium so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover (18:28). The flogging of Yeshua occurred on the day of preparation for the Passover (19:14), which would mean Nisan 14 when the lambs were to be slaughtered for the Seder. The body of Yeshua was taken down more hurriedly than the norm for a crucifixion because it was the day of preparation (19:31), which here clearly means “preparation for Passover” since John goes on to say the Jews did not want bodies left on the cross during the sabbath, especially since it was a high day. Apparently, sometimes bodies were left during sabbaths (at least John says so), but this being such an important Sabbath (Passover and Sabbath on the same day), they did not want to allow this to happen. Finally, in 19:36, John compares Yeshua directly to the Passover lambs, whose bones were not to be broken.

(c) In order to harmonize these two accounts, the only options are: (i) to propose multiple calendars, (ii) to propose that Yeshua deliberately had a Passover Seder a day early, (iii) or to interpret John’s account in every case as though the “Passover” means the festal offering of the first day and not the Passover lambs for the Seder offered on the day of preparation (this is Alfred Edersheim’s harmonization and the one I have used in previous years).

(d) I will discuss possible harmonizations as well as many other angles regarding the timing of the Passover-Last Supper-Crucifixion in future posts. For now, let me say that I do not think harmonization is possible. We have here variant traditions about the timing and nature of the Last Supper. But what we do not have is a disagreement about the overall purpose and symbolism of Yeshua’s death. He is the Passover and prepares a New Exodus for his movement of renewed Israel (which will be extended to include the nations). Both accounts make this point in various ways. So the theology of the Last Supper and crucifixion is harmonious while the historical details are not.

I welcome dialogue by comment or by email at yeshuaincontext at gmail. I cannot read 10,000 words essays on the matter. Feel free to suggest possibilities briefly. Feel free to ask questions or challenge.