The question arises, did Jesus eat the Passover meal and as a consequence what day of the Passover week did Jesus die? The Synoptic Gospels speak of Jesus eating the Passover with his disciples on the day the Passover Lamb was sacrificed

“And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb” (Mark 14:12)

“Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed” (Luke 22:7)

“Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?” (Matthew 26:17)

However some have claimed that John gives a different account, implying that instead of eating the Passover meal on the day the Passover Lamb was sacrificed, Jesus ate the meal the day before and died when the Passover Lamb was sacrificed. Below are the passages they use to support this claim.

“Now before the Feast of Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.” (John 13:1)

“It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.” (John 18:28)

“Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour.” (John 19:14)

Can John be reconciled with the Synoptic Gospels? We will look at John’s account to determine whether John is claiming that Jesus died at the same time as the Passover lamb. Is the claim of a contradiction valid?

The Day of Preparation

                Both John and the Synoptic Gospels record that Jesus died on the day of Preparation before the Sabbath. They also agree that the day before Jesus’s death, Jesus ate his last meal with his disciples in the upper room and in between these they were on the Mount of Olives where Jesus was arrested and taken trial and brought before Pilot to be crucified.

“And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath.” (Mark 15:42)

“It was the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was beginning.” (Luke 23:54)

”The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and said, ‘Sir, we remember how that imposter said, while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise’.” (Matthew 27:62-63)

“Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day),” (John 19:31)

“So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.” (John 19:42)

We can see that there is not discrepancy on what day of the week Jesus died and was buried. Each of the Gospel’s states that this occurred on the day of Preparation before the Sabbath.

The term “Passover” is used to refer to the whole week of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. So in order to know what part of this week “Passover” is referring to one must look at the context. Below are examples of “Passover” referring to the whole week.

“The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem” (John 2:13)

“Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews was at hand” (John 6:14)

“many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves.” (John 11:55)

Intune with this, the phrase “the day of Preparation” refers to the day before the Sabbath. When John states, “Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover.” He is not talking about the day when the Passover lamb was slain, but the day before the Sabbath, or “the day of Preparation” during the Passover week. Notice John highlights the Sabbath as a “high day”, also emphasizing its occurrence during the Passover. So each of the Gospels agree that Jesus died on the day of Preparation.

We can further provide support that this is the case because John records, “It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.” Now if this was the day the Passover lamb was slain there would not be a problem since they could have bathed and at evening, they would have been ritually clean and could have participated in the Passover meal (Leviticus 11:24-28; 15:5-11; 17:15; 19:7-8). They would have been able to participate even if they had entered Pilot’s court. But is there a meal before evening that they would have wanted to remain clean for? And does that give us a clue to the day John record’s Jesus’ death? After the Passover lamb was slain and the Seder meal was eaten in the evening and night, during the day there was another meal that was part of the Passover celebration called the Hagigah, which occurred the midday after the Seder. It appears this is what John was referring to and if so John, like the Synoptic Gospels agree that Jesus died on the day after the Passover. And this makes sense because John does not explicitly try to synchronize the death of Jesus with the slaying of the Passover lamb as some have claimed. John who loves symbolism probably would not have been shy to have done so, if these two events occurred simultaneously. So the synoptic Gospels and John all agree that Jesus died on the day of Preparation which was after the Passover lamb was slain.

John 13:1

                So, some will question, but John says that Jesus had the last meal before the Feast of Passover? Did he? Since it is clear that all four Gospels agree that Jesus died on the day of Preparation, lets now look at John 13:1 and the phrase, “Now before the Feast of Passover”. This phrase is qualified by “when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world, he loved them to the end.” The Passover marked the beginning of the last hours of Jesus’ life.  John is stating that before this very moment of time as Jesus knew his death was approaching, that he was about to have his last meal with his disciples, he did not panic, but loved and fully gave of himself to his disciples till the very end. Notice this includes Judas. John is emphasizing that though Jesus knew what would soon take place, even though he knew this would be his last meal with his disciples, his focus was love. And he continues to model that love as in verse 2, as we have a transition, “During supper”, referring to the Seder meal. The final acts before his death had begun. In order to express his love, during the supper, Jesus knowing who he was and having loved his own, humbled himself and took on himself the role of a servant, in contrast to those who around him who were arguing who was the greatest. There is no reason to assume that this “supper” is not the Passover meal. John 13:1 states that Jesus had loved them before this meal, John 13:2 states that love for them continued as Jesus continued to serve and be focused on caring for his disciples, rather than caring for his own needs, despite knowing the suffering he was about to endure. And based on the evidence already given, this is the reading that makes the most sense. The synoptic Gospels and John are telling the same story and give the same timing for Jesus’ death. In the next article we will look at whether the Gospels of Mark and John agree on the hour of Jesus’ death: The Hour of Jesus’ Death

Articles to read:

• The Timing of Jesus’ Death | Catholic Answers
• What Day Did Jesus die? – Bible Contradiction #20 – YouTube

As discussed in the previous article, these scenes are not static and chromatic, simple scenes, but instead are vibrant, and full-color events. Yet each gospel writer is only giving us gist snapshots of this dynamic event. It is good to look at what the denials are not. They are not Peter getting one question and then giving one denial each time, but instead three occasions where there are conversations in which Peter denies Jesus. This is also not a scene like mannequins in a store window where the characters remain in the same place and are immobile. There is a lot of movement and a lot of talking. So for example when one author speaks of sitting and another standing, the answer is yes. There is a fire in the middle of the courtyard with a group of people over several hours. There will be a movement among those people. Sometimes they will be standing, sometimes sitting, and probably at one time, you will have both. The Gospel writers are writing the gist of the story. If we were there and giving a gist, we would have described it in similar ways and with many people telling the story would have it told as it is told in the Gospels. Peter is also in distress, most in this kind of emotional distress do not remain still for long. So in the first denial, we see the gatekeeper servant girl start asking him questions and then following him to the fire and continuing her questioning multiple times as Peter sits and stands or stands and sits is a scene we would expect. It looks like she at least asked him three times. Peter’s denials are broken up into three periods of denials where a conversation occurred where Peter was questioned more than once and he responded more than once as he was questioned. So in other words, three dynamic periods of questioning with three dynamic responses or denials. If we only saw a one-question-one-reply response, the skeptics would be complaining that that is not how real conversations work and would be calling the story fake. Also, remember Peter was in distress, people in this kind of distress typically can’t stay still and will pace. Not only is he in distress but he is also trying to protect himself and get away from the questioning. So in the second scene, a possible scenario is that he leaves the fire, the gatekeeper servant girl takes advantage of this and questions him again and as he tries to get away from her and head back to the fire another servant girl nearby comes in on the questioning, they are both saying this to bystanders as well and others joined in in this episode of Peter’s second denial. Again on the third denial, we see a group of people questioning Peter, and Peter responds to those questions with cursing and denials. In between these episodes is a clear period of time in between each denial of probably about an hour. Which is fitting with what we would expect of the two rooster crows. So despite what some might complain the accounts in the Gospels of Peter’s denial are not contradictory.

Conclusion

The account of Peter’s denial makes sense if we understand the dynamic nature of normal life and conversations, there was a dialogue between Jesus and Peter and there were dialogues between Peter and his accusers. Peter was in distress and moving about. People were in a courtyard around a fire for hours and were also not static. This account also fits with what we know of how a rooster crows. Instead of being contradictory, these Gospel accounts give us a more realistic picture of what occurred.

God made us with the compacity of creativity. Because of sin, this creativity can be used wisely or foolishly, for good or evil. Skeptics no matter how the Bible is written will imagine faults and errors, it is human nature to deny God and it is human nature to creatively, though foolishly build arguments of what we think is evidence against God, for “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” When we say there is no God, we become like mannequins in a window. When we trust in the faithfulness of God we enter an adventurous and beautiful story.

Articles to Read:

• You Asked: Are the Differing Narratives of Peter’s Denials Reconcilable? (thegospelcoalition.org)
• MARKed – astonishing text variants – Page 2 – Biblical Criticism & History Forum – earlywritings.com
• Previous Article: The Rooster Crow

                The account of Peter’s denial is used as an example of how the Bible contradicts itself. In all the accounts but Mark, one crow is mentioned. But in Mark, there are two. And in the accounts of the three denials, is he sitting or standing, going toward the fire or away? We will look at these passages to show that they are indeed consistent and are not a good example for those trying to demonstrate errors within the Bible. We will first look at the rooster crows and then look at the events surrounding Peter’s three denials.

Circadian rhythm and the cockcrow

One of the iconic impressions that we have about morning arriving is the sound of birds cheerily singing in the background. Well, unless you have a rooster who’s cheerily singing is more like a buzzing alarm clock. Then you might associate a rooster crow with the morning. Most of us even though we haven’t been near roosters have heard of this phenomenon. Research in Japan (Circadian clock determines the timing of rooster crowing: Current Biology) demonstrated that roosters crow in the mornings in response to their circadian rhythms. Roosters had both a pre-dawn anticipatory crow two hours before light in this study as well as a crow stimulated by the first light at dawn. They will crow at other times of the night, but these times are timed by their circadian rhythm and are predictable.

Because of this habitual behavior of roosters, the term “rooster’s crow” has been associated with the dawn. If I were to say to someone, “I will meet you at the rooster crow.” It would be understood that I was saying I will be there at dawn. You would not assume I was referring to the anticipatory crow two hours before.

What if it wasn’t a rooster?

Some have suggested that this was not a rooster, since roosters were possibly not allowed in Jerusalem because of fear that they might defile the temple (there is no definitive evidence either way). The Mishnah has references to both a watchman and the blast of the trumpet being referred to as the cockcrow. In this case as with the rooster you would have the normal “morning wakeup call” at around sunrise, marking the beginning of temple worship, but also having other calls, such as calling the priests into the temple before the “morning wakeup call” to prepare the temple in the morning. Either way, there would be a main and general “morning call” for the general public and an earlier call before this main call to call the priests in to prepare the temple before the sunrise. Mark 13:35 also refers to the third night watch as being called the cock crowing, which would be appropriate for this time period whether it was a rooster or watchman.

Bible is not an exhaustive description, nor is it a movie

When the Gospel writers were writing their accounts paper was a limited resource. Writing wasn’t an exhaustive play-by-play description of the event. It would have been more of taking snapshots of a movie. They were also more concerned with the accurate gist than a detailed account of an event. For example, for a speech, you won’t necessarily get a word-by-word account, but you will get the heart of the message. They were also translating all this into Greek, so catching the heart of the message was key. When we see slight differences in the gospel it is because they are taking different gist snapshots of the story. Yet we read the accounts and think these gist snapshots are the movie. The characters and scenes and events are not like mannequins in a shopping window. Yet we treat these stories that way. And when you see the Gospels this way, you will see errors where there are none.

The ongoing dialogue

When we read the Gospels together it is clear that Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial is an ongoing denial. There was more than one discussion going on that night, but one that travels throughout the night with them is a discussion of “who is the greatest”. In midst of the disciple’s discussion of “who is the greatest” throughout the night, Jesus discusses how they will all fall away, that Judas will betray Jesus, and Peter will deny Jesus. Jesus is saying to them that they are not as great as they think they are. And it is clear that this ongoing conversation includes Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial. Below is a chart comparing the accounts in the Gospel.

Jesus’ discussion about Peter’s denial began while they were in the upper room and carried over to their travels to the Mount of Olives. And of what we know of Peter this makes sense. Jesus just told him that he would deny him, he wouldn’t have just let that go with a simple mannequin in the window conversation. And Jesus knowing the shame they would feel also would not have let it go making sure that they understood that he still wanted to see them despite their falling away.

The two rooster crows

Jesus and Peter have been having this ongoing conversation. It would not have been a stretch for Jesus to have told Peter both statements “the rooster will not crow till you have denied me” and “before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me”. Jesus could have started with the general understanding of the rooster crow at sunlight, telling Peter he would deny him before dawn. But when Peter continued to persist that he would not deny Jesus, Jesus might have added not only will you deny me three times before the rooster crow at sunlight, but you will do so despite also hearing the anticipatory rooster crow (or the call for the priests to come into the temple) beforehand as a warning, making his confidence in his strength even more contrasted with his fall. Notice Mark’s account is on the way to Mount Olives, so in the later part of the conversation so having a deeper dialogue on this would be expected. Another possibility is that Jesus mentioned both rooster crows throughout the night, but since the general gist was that denials would occur before sunrise, the other accounts just chose to refer to them happening before sunrise, which is true to the text and both accounts, and therefore not a contradiction. There is no need to add the anticipatory crow, since all three denials happened before the colloquial “rooster’s crow”. So, with either of these scenarios, it would not be surprising that when the other Gospel writers wrote the account, they left out the first rooster crow and only included the common understanding of the rooster crow at sunlight, simplifying the account, yet still accurate to the story.

Peter

It would make sense that Mark’s account would include the two rooster crows. Mark’s writing style is minimalistic, if something is added, it is probably for a reason. Mark was close with Peter, listened to him tell the story, and had a good grasp of Peter’s heart and emotions as the events played out. After the rooster crowed the second time, Peter went away, broke down, and wept bitterly. I don’t think his brokenness was just from the fact that he had denied Jesus three times. I can see him telling Mark, “I not only denied Jesus, but I also continued to deny him after hearing the rooster crow the first time, despite Jesus warning me and all my boasting, it did not stop me from continuing to deny Jesus”. You can see a man deeply broken by the depths of his sin and deeply in awe with the wonder and majesty of the grace of Jesus and insisting that Mark describe the depths of his depravity that Christ would be glorified, and the grace of the Gospel be evident. He was no longer a man that saw himself as the greatest of all the disciples. Either way and regardless of motives, since Mark talked with Peter directly, it is no surprise that he would give a more detailed account.

The timing

If we take into account, the timeline of Peter’s denial it would fit with the rooster crowing twice. At least for the roosters used in the study, the anticipatory crow was two hours before dawn when the rooster would crow a second time, the time most would associate with when “the rooster crows”. This would also fit with the timing between calling in the priests for temple duty and the general morning call. This first crow was probably ignored by most. But because of Jesus’ statement Peter noticed it. The first crow occurred after Peter’s first denial. The space between Peter’s first denial and his third denial appears to have been about two hours, the typical space between the anticipatory/first crow and the second/dawn crow.

Conclusion

All the accounts fit with what we know of how people spoke and what they meant by “before the rooster crow”. It fits with Mark having known Peter, therefore his giving a more detailed account. And it fits with what we know of the timing of rooster crows and Peter’s denials.

In the next post, we will discuss the denials and the supposed contradictions. Follow this link: (Peter’s Denial Pt.2 – My Beloved is Mine)

Other Articles to Read:

• Evangelical Textual Criticism: A Rooster Crowing Once and Twice – Mark 14
• How many times did the cock crow? (tektonics.org)
• BEFORE A ROOSTER CROWS ONCE OR TWICE? A Seemingly Intractable Contradiction in the Gospel Accounts Solved – Truth In My Days Ministry
• What is the significance of the rooster crowing in regards to Peter denying Jesus three times? | GotQuestions.org
• Peter’s Denial Pt.2 – My Beloved is Mine
• Peter and the rooster’s crow: A Contradiction? (christianworldviewpress.com)

Thank you, for your response. I appreciate that you are open and willing to discuss things, even hard things with patience. Not many are willing to talk even when they disagree and try to understand the other. I learn so much from those discussions and look forward to learning more.

You are right there are many religions that claim to have aspects similar to Christianity, Buddhism being one. And on the surface, they may seem to. Jesus himself said there is a wide road, but he also said there is a narrow road that leads to life. Jesus said, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me.” We can search the wide roads, see similarities to Christianity, but only one road leads to Jesus. No other religion has this. In other words, all of our efforts are of no avail, except to be known by Jesus. What Jesus did at the cross, was the only means of restoring that broken relationship. If it were not Jesus would not have gone to the cross, nor would God the Father have allowed it. Jesus says that the Father always answered his prayer, yet when He asked for this cup to pass if it were possible, even to the sweating of blood. The request of the Son to His Father was intense. The answer was the cross. Jesus said that the deepest love of an earthly father is evil compared to the immense love of the God the Father. If there was another way, no matter how remote it was, there is absolutely no way the Father would have sent His son to the cross. If Buddhism was a way, Jesus would not have gone to the cross. If any other religion provided a way to restore our relationship with God, Jesus would not have gone to the cross. But because of the Love of the Father and the Son, they were willing to go through this, to restore a relationship with us. This is the power and romance of a Love that conquers. After His resurection, Jesus was walking with two men on the road to Emmaus “and he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” The whole of scripture is about the work and worth of Jesus.

This in itself does not prove that Buddhism is better or worse than Jesus. Nor would I claim that I am wiser or better than others. I am not. I have great love and respect for you and Michael and learn from my discussions with y’all. One of the reasons I want to hang out with y’all is I love how you challenge me to grow. Wish we lived closer together, and we could hang out and talk more. But Buddhism and Christianity only have superficial similarities and those similarities have a very different core, and essentially are not the same in the end. I don’t say this to put down your comment, but to discuss and help you understand why I would say Buddhism and Christianity are different. And I am eager to hear your thoughts.

If who Jesus claimed to be is true, then we must abandon all other so-called gods, religions, or ways to life, for if we reject Jesus, then we have now rejected the only true God and have rejected the source of love. And life and like a rose plucked from a bush, even in our grandest beauty and most fragrant smell, we too will one day wither and decay. No matter how much nutrition we place in the vase, it is fundamentally different from the source of life. The wonder of the Gospel is that in order for us to be restored into a relationship with God, we cease striving, and trust in the work and worth of Jesus. This is personal and engaging. It is not an idea we trust, it is a person we trust. God, himself, coming and living amongst us in order to restore a relationship with us. Which is something you expect from a God, who from all eternity has been in relationship.

God has ordained that there would be the poor

Questions:
Why do you think there are poor in this world?
Can we get rid of poverty?
What does the fact that there are poor in this world mean?

Reading:

“For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You will freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.’”
–Deuteronomy 15:11

God is about to take his people, Israel, into the Promised Land, a land flowing with milk and honey, a land and a nation that was supposed to represent God’s Kingdom breaking through on earth, and they are told something startling and seemingly out of place, “the poor will never cease to be in the land.” Why in this nation that is called the Promised Land, and is supposed to represent the best of all nations, are they told there would always be poor in their land? This promise is given with no condition on whether or not they followed the Lord or not. It was to be. God in His providence and mercy ordained that in this great nation there would be poor. The scripture show that God has an intimate concern for the poor. So what is God doing here? Why is this so? Let’s explore this. . . .

Scripture reading:

Read these verses and discuss what they mean to you and in regards to ministering to the poor.

Matthew 26:11
For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.

Proverbs 19:17
Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will repay him for his deed.

Matthew 25:41-46
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Questions:
Do you believe that God has ordained that there will always be the needy and the poor in the land?
What do you think God is doing here, when He tells Israel that “the poor will never cease to be in the land”?

“And he withdrew from them about a stone’s throw, and knelt down and prayed, saying, ‘Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours be done.’ And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became great drops of blood falling down to the ground.”

Some have said that Christianity is exclusive. I don’t believe this. . .

Christ asked for another way. Jesus asked God, “if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me”. Christ was in agony as he prayed, so much so that He sweated blood. If there was another way, he wanted it. And if it were possible, it would have been done, for Christ’s prayer would have been answered, by a Father who loved his Son. Christ went to the cross and experienced God’s wrath because it was the only way to bring about our salvation. There was no other option. Our salvation was bought at a great price. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” God loved us and did what it took to save us by paying a high price, the only price, He gave His Son, so that whoever believes in Christ should not perish but have eternal life.

Yes, Christianity does say that only those who are in Christ will be saved and those outside of Christ will experience everlasting torment. But this is not exclusive. The calling is not exclusive, it is for everyone who comes. What should be said is that it is the only way and the greatest way for the salvation of mankind. and instead of being exclusive, it is God making a way for anyone and everyone who believes in Christ. His arms are open wide and He calls out, “Come”. And anyone who hears His voice and does come is accepted.