- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Adam,
I did not understand his argument as it relates to the passover lamb forshadowing Jesus act of self sacrifice which sealed the new covenant.
I also asked about his link of Abraham sacrificing a goat instead of his Son to the Passover which occured many years later as the link he mentioned is unclear to me.
You failed to answer my question which leaves me befuddled with his aparent ramblings.
I looked up foreshadowing and it is a technique used by an author to provide clues for the reader to predict what will occur later. I suppose that the Rabbi was pointing out that the word lamb in the event of Abraham foreshadowed the Passover event. I already pointed out how the Passover event is a symbol of the self-sacrice of Jesus and the comming of the New Covenant.
Have you read Psalms 50:5. It could either be speaking of the Old or New Covenant as both were established by sacrifice though the New was self sacrifice and the old the sacrifice of an animal.
Please note they Rabbi whose argument I have addressed used a mystic interpretation of both the Passover event and the Sacrifice of a goat by Abraham.
Quote (kerwin @ June 11 2010,16:30) Adam, I did not understand his argument as it relates to the passover lamb forshadowing Jesus act of self sacrifice which sealed the new covenant.
I also asked about his link of Abraham sacrificing a goat instead of his Son to the Passover which occured many years later as the link he mentioned is unclear to me.
You failed to answer my question which leaves me befuddled with his aparent ramblings.
I looked up foreshadowing and it is a technique used by an author to provide clues for the reader to predict what will occur later. I suppose that the Rabbi was pointing out that the word lamb in the event of Abraham foreshadowed the Passover event. I already pointed out how the Passover event is a symbol of the self-sacrice of Jesus and the comming of the New Covenant.
Have you read Psalms 50:5. It could either be speaking of the Old or New Covenant as both were established by sacrifice though the New was self sacrifice and the old the sacrifice of an animal.
Please note they Rabbi whose argument I have addressed used a mystic interpretation of both the Passover event and the Sacrifice of a goat by Abraham.
Hi brother Kerwin,
That is the fate of everybody only to speculate and not to explain. There is the frustration which everyone faces. Here is the Lexicon interpretation on Psalm 50:5:Gather
'acaph (aw-saf')
to gather for any purpose; hence, to receive, take away, i.e. remove
——————————————————————————–
my saints
chaciyd (khaw-seed')
kind, i.e. (religiously) pious (a saint) — godly (man), good, holy (one), merciful, saint, (un-)godly.
——————————————————————————–
together unto me those that have made
karath (kaw-rath')
to cut (off, down or asunder); by implication, to destroy or consume; specifically, to covenant
——————————————————————————–
a covenant
briyth (ber-eeth')
a compact (because made by passing between pieces of flesh) — confederacy, (con-)feder(-ate), covenant, league.
——————————————————————————–
with me by sacrifice
zebach (zeh'-bakh)
a slaughter, i.e. the flesh of an animal; by implication, a sacrifice (the victim or the act) — offer(-ing), sacrifice.You are also trying to speculate to prove your ideas on Christian New covenant. I don't think the writer of Psalm 50 meant that.
Peace to you
AdamAdam,
You are correct if by speculation you mean “Contemplation or consideration of a subject”. I can also reach a conclusion that becomes a hypothosis based on the idea that a covenant is put into force by a sacrifice.
I suppose a self sacrafice would be a self slaughter where one self is the victim but the cause for doing so being noble or in other words an act of mercy.
The purpose of the New and Old Covenants are the same with the only thing that being is the how God's law is adherred to. That is an additional reason why I stated they both fit that passage.
Quote (gollamudi @ June 11 2010,15:44) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 11 2010,01:28) Adam………Your mixing up a (SPIRITUAL COVENANT) with a (PHYSICAL COVENANT) Jesus was the mediator of a NEW COVENANT. WE know GOD is Spiritual and what he did was work with those (carnal) minded Israelites (not just Jews as the Jews were only 1/13 of what composed Israel) in CARNAL WAY. How ever there are many Spiritual principles that were expressed by those Physical Practices they were a Shadow of things to come. Example……….the word to EAT can be taken as physical to ingest food , but spiritually it means to (take to ones self), and this is what is meant by accepting Jesus' sacrifice for our sins were are to eat his flesh (not literally but take to ourselves his sacrifice for our sins)
Adam, there were (CARNAL) commandments and rituals given for CARNAL minds, but we are a spiritual house that is being built and must learn to apply those old covenant requirements to a Spiritual level. Going back to the lower and carnal things, is not good brother. We are a SPIRITUAL House, they in the old covenant were a CARNAL HOUSE, not the same brother. We are to compare Spiritual things with Spiritual and try to see the Spiritual connections between things. They who are carnal minded (flesh minded) can not see or understand the Spiritual things things, because their minds have not been opened to them yet. We should not go back into the weak and beggarly things brother. Think about it.
Peace and love to you and yours Adam…………………..gene
Hi brother Gene,
I appreciate your reply above. But I don't think we should call God's commandments as 'carnal' as you mentioned above. God is faithful towards His people Israel. As Gentiles we are also included in Abrahaic covenant. But I am not able to understand how Jesus' death can be a human sacrifice to atone the sins of the world when one side God hated human sacrifice alltogether. God intended only animal blood for atonement but not the only means, there are other ways and methods through which He atones the sins of mankind(especially Israel's).Please see the inherent contradictions among the writers of NT on these issues for example Hebrews' writer doesn't agree with John or other NT writers. So what do you think was there concensus among these writers?
Love and peace to you
Adam
Adam …….You are right GOD'S Commandments are not CARNAL, but Spiritual, What i was implying He presented them to a Carnal minded nation and gave a long with them (carnal commandments) , such as various rituals which deal with the flesh or carnal condition of man. It is true God's Commandments are spiritual. And even the carnal rituals attached to them deal with Spiritual principles. Sorry it came across the other way Adam.peace and love to you and yours brother………………….gene
Quote (kerwin @ June 08 2010,16:03) Adam, The blood of the passover lamb's blood was meant to spare certain individuals from a visit of the angel of death.
The blood of Jesus also spares certain individuals from a visit by the death.
One symbolizes the other in that the Passover suggests the power of Jesus' death to lead to eternal life for his adherents as well as deliverance from their oppressor sin.
I state the later as any true adherent of God knows that it is those that obey all of what God commands that will inherit eternal life.
Atone used to mean reconciled though that is now considered an obsolete definition and that is most likely the correct meaning in this case.
So in delivering those that obey all his own teachings from the oppression of sin Jesus is reconciling them to God.
I hope that helps your understanding,
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
Please forgive me as I misspoke in this post as Paul states “examples” or “types” and not “symbols” when using a similar passage. Sorry if I caused any confusion and I may the Lord prevent my error from causing anyone to go stray.The scripture of Paul's that uses “examples or “types” is 1 Corinthians 10:6,11.
Your fellow student,
Kerwin
Quote (gollamudi @ June 11 2010,21:11) Quote (kerwin @ June 11 2010,16:30) Adam, I did not understand his argument as it relates to the passover lamb forshadowing Jesus act of self sacrifice which sealed the new covenant.
I also asked about his link of Abraham sacrificing a goat instead of his Son to the Passover which occured many years later as the link he mentioned is unclear to me.
You failed to answer my question which leaves me befuddled with his aparent ramblings.
I looked up foreshadowing and it is a technique used by an author to provide clues for the reader to predict what will occur later. I suppose that the Rabbi was pointing out that the word lamb in the event of Abraham foreshadowed the Passover event. I already pointed out how the Passover event is a symbol of the self-sacrice of Jesus and the comming of the New Covenant.
Have you read Psalms 50:5. It could either be speaking of the Old or New Covenant as both were established by sacrifice though the New was self sacrifice and the old the sacrifice of an animal.
Please note they Rabbi whose argument I have addressed used a mystic interpretation of both the Passover event and the Sacrifice of a goat by Abraham.
Hi brother Kerwin,
That is the fate of everybody only to speculate and not to explain. There is the frustration which everyone faces. Here is the Lexicon interpretation on Psalm 50:5:Gather
'acaph (aw-saf')
to gather for any purpose; hence, to receive, take away, i.e. remove
——————————————————————————–
my saints
chaciyd (khaw-seed')
kind, i.e. (religiously) pious (a saint) — godly (man), good, holy (one), merciful, saint, (un-)godly.
——————————————————————————–
together unto me those that have made
karath (kaw-rath')
to cut (off, down or asunder); by implication, to destroy or consume; specifically, to covenant
——————————————————————————–
a covenant
briyth (ber-eeth')
a compact (because made by passing between pieces of flesh) — confederacy, (con-)feder(-ate), covenant, league.
——————————————————————————–
with me by sacrifice
zebach (zeh'-bakh)
a slaughter, i.e. the flesh of an animal; by implication, a sacrifice (the victim or the act) — offer(-ing), sacrifice.You are also trying to speculate to prove your ideas on Christian New covenant. I don't think the writer of Psalm 50 meant that.
Peace to you
Adam
Hi Adam,Should Rev.13:8 be purged from “The Bible”?
How about 1Cor.5:7; should this be purged as well?
How about Eph.5:2? Do you worship “GOD The Father”=117?
Perhaps (for Adam's sake) we should nix the New “Testament”=117?“YHVH is GOD”=117
PSALM 117 is [The Bible's Center Chapter], and
the [smallest chapter] of the [LARGEST BOOK]!Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
117=יהוה האלהים(JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Gene Balthrop @ June 12 2010,02:04) Adam …….You are right GOD'S Commandments are not CARNAL, but Spiritual, What i was implying He presented them to a Carnal minded nation and gave a long with them (carnal commandments) , such as various rituals which deal with the flesh or carnal condition of man. It is true God's Commandments are spiritual. And even the carnal rituals attached to them deal with Spiritual principles. Sorry it came across the other way Adam. peace and love to you and yours brother………………….gene
You are welcome brother Gene. How about the inherent or hidden contradictions of NT writers on interpreting Jesus' death? Doesn't it show that they were also like us who applied Jewish scriptures to suit their understanding instead of God leading them. God can never be a confuser. Please think over.Love and peace to you
AdamQuote (Ed J @ June 14 2010,06:16) Hi Adam, Should Rev.13:8 be purged from “The Bible”?
How about 1Cor.5:7; should this be purged as well?
How about Eph.5:2? Do you worship “GOD The Father”=117?
Perhaps (for Adam's sake) we should nix the New “Testament”=117?“YHVH is GOD”=117
PSALM 117 is [The Bible's Center Chapter], and
the [smallest chapter] of the [LARGEST BOOK]!Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
117=יהוה האלהים(JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi brother Ed J,
I could not get your point on the above post. However I appreciate that. You know the book of Revelation is from a Christian Apocalyptic writer. There was no book of Lamb of God available in the Hebrew scriptures but there is only the 'Book Life' available. Christians interpreted anything and everything to suit their ideas to fit Jesus into them. Yes God is YHWH and He never changes and He will not give His glory to anyone there ends the matter with Christianity which gave glory to a human as if he is also another person of God. Is it not diversity from true religion of the Hebrew scriptures?Peace to you
AdamAdam,
The false Jews you like to cite interpret everything to back up what they believe and even you admit they are in error at times. So what?
The question that we seek is what God means and you have yet to show that you know that God means when he tells us to seek his righteousness and his kingdom.
I urge you to seek out what they means instead of repeating by rote words you apear not to understand from unreliable sources. I say that because when I question thouse sources you are either unwilling or unable to answer my questions.
In the future if you cite a piece then please also include your critique of that peace and why you either agree or disagree with the points made in it. This will help us understand you are and what you believe. Thank you!
Quote (kerwin @ June 15 2010,15:41) Adam, The false Jews you like to cite interpret everything to back up what they believe and even you admit they are in error at times. So what?
The question that we seek is what God means and you have yet to show that you know that God means when he tells us to seek his righteousness and his kingdom.
I urge you to seek out what they means instead of repeating by rote words you apear not to understand from unreliable sources. I say that because when I question thouse sources you are either unwilling or unable to answer my questions.
In the future if you cite a piece then please also include your critique of that peace and why you either agree or disagree with the points made in it. This will help us understand you are and what you believe. Thank you!
Hi brother Kerwin,
It's not good for a brother to blame other brother. You blame Jews without whom you could not have known who is the real and only God. Even Jesus was a Jew who assumed to be preached Monotheism and he never deviated from the religion of the Bible. Only later his followers corrupted every thing to fit Jesus into such doxalogy of worshipping Jesus a human besides God. Evidence is clear if you read the Church history. No Unitarian can prove against it. If you want follow Monotheism follow what the Hebrew scriptures say so. I have already answered your multiple questions see for your self by going back on this thread. If you criticise without reason there is no end for that. Such questions can not be answered by anybody.Peace to you
AdamAdam,
I merely call the false Jews what they chose to be by following the lies of the evil one. The fact that they are following those lies is plain to everyone and these false Jews have corrupted the image of the one true God by their false teachings. The are no different than the liars who call themselves Christans whose argument they often bash. All that is Satan using some of his servants to set up a false argument that the other ones can bash.
When you accuse Christians of teaching something I have to be careful to remember that it could very well be you are speaking of those servant of the Devil who call themselves Christian and not the true servants of God.
I seems I fell into that snare this time as I now question who taught that the Passover Lamb was a hint of the Anointed One's future roll as opposed to a type. Is that argument is the New Testiment or the Old?
I fell because of my own ignorance and and false belief on the subject.
Jesus was not lying when he foretold that their would be many false prophets as the false brothers whatever they choose to call themselves show.
Quote (kerwin @ June 15 2010,16:09) Adam, I merely call the false Jews what they chose to be by following the lies of the evil one. The fact that they are following those lies is plain to everyone and these false Jews have corrupted the image of the one true God by their false teachings. The are no different than the liars who call themselves Christans whose argument they often bash. All that is Satan using some of his servants to set up a false argument that the other ones can bash.
When you accuse Christians of teaching something I have to be careful to remember that it could very well be you are speaking of those servant of the Devil who call themselves Christian and not the true servants of God.
I seems I fell into that snare this time as I now question who taught that the Passover Lamb was a hint of the Anointed One's future roll as opposed to a type. Is that argument is the New Testiment or the Old?
I fell because of my own ignorance and and false belief on the subject.
Jesus was not lying when he foretold that their would be many false prophets as the false brothers whatever they choose to call themselves show.
Hi brother Kerwin,
I don't think you are so weak to fall into the trap the so called Christian made Satan who is always blamed for the culprits of all Christians. Without reason you are blaming Jews like those early Christian anti-semitics who created NT based on their polemics but not on God given authority. Therefore there are so many contradictions and confusions they created in the religion. Please be honest in evaluating the texts of NT. There are so many scholars who have proven the hidden contradictions and forgeries in NT material. You can not just close your eyes and say NT is God given. I leave it to you to think.Again peace to you
AdamAdam,
I often fall into Satan's snares and God has to rescue me. I believe I see a little but that may still be legally blind according to God's point of view.
It is absurd to believe that the writers of the New Testiment are anti-Semites as most of them are self-confessed Jews. They also teach that Jesus was and is a Jew.
I do admit that they do accuse some Jews of serving the evil one which is only the truth. Who do you think Isaiah and the other prophets were addressing when he accused their own people of rejecting God and worshipping false Gods and/or following false prophets.
To accuse Jews of rebelling against God is not anti-Semitism as it is only the truth.
The New Testiment writers like the prophets before them was not accusing the remnant that remained loyal to the one true God.
Like the prophets and the New Testiment righteous call the people of Isreal to be righteous as God is righteous and those who chose to reject that call show themselves to serve the evil one even if they are decended from Abraham.
Please see this quote from Prof. Bart Ehrman who writes in his book, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, in the chapter titled, The Invention of Scripture: The Formation of the Proto-orthodox New Testament:
“It comes as a bit of a shock to most people to realize that the Church has not always had the New Testament. But the Christian Scriptures did not descend from heaven a few years after Jesus died. The books that eventually came to be collected into the sacred canon were written by a variety of authors over a period of sixty or seventy years, in different places for different audiences. Other books were written in the same period, some of them by the same au¬thors. Soon thereafter the Church saw a flood of books also allegedly written by the earliest followers of Jesus, forgeries in the names of the apostles, pro¬duced for decades, centuries even, after the apostles themselves were long dead and buried. Virtually all of this other literature has been destroyed, forgotten, lost. Only a fraction of the early Christian writings came to be immortalized by inclusion in the sacred canon.”And His most recent book is Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them). He is a specialist in the New Testament.
He has a 40 page long chapter in the book titled A world of contradictions. It starts as follows:
“When students are first introduced to the historical, as opposed to a devotional, study of the Bible, one of the first things they are forced to grapple with is that the biblical text, whether Old Testament or New Testament, is chock full of discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable. Some of these discrepancies are simple details where one book contradicts what another says about a minor point-the number of soldiers in an army, the year a certain king began his reign, the details of an apostle's itinerary. In some cases seemingly trivial points of difference can actually have an enormous significance for the interpretation of a book or the reconstruction of the history of ancient Israel or the life of the historical Jesus. And then there are instances that involve major issues, where one author has one point of view on an important topic (How was the world created? Why do the people of God suffer? What is the significance of Jesus' death?), and another author has another. Sometimes these views are simply different from one another, but at other times they are directly at odds.
In this chapter I will talk about some of the important and interesting discrepancies of the Bible that emerge when it is examined from a historical perspective. Since my specialty is the New Testament, I will be dealing with the kinds of problems that are found there. But you can rest assured that very much the same problems can be found in the Old Testament as well-in fact, even more so. Whereas the New Testament, consisting of twenty-seven books, was written by may be sixteen or seventeen authors over a period of seventy years, the Old Testament, the Jewish Scriptures, consist of thirty-nine books written by dozens of authors over at least six hundred years. There is a lot of room for differing perspectives, and if you look for them, you will find them in droves.”
You have to read the whole of Ehrman's chapter to get the full sense, but here I quote a few paragraphs:
“And so the contradiction stands: in Mark, Jesus eats the Passover meal (Thursday night) and is crucified the following morning. In John, Jesus does not eat the Passover meal but is crucified on the day before the Passover meal was to be eaten. Moreover, in Mark, Jesus is nailed to the cross at nine in the morning; in John, he is not condemned until noon, and then he is taken out and crucified.
…
What is one to make of this contradiction? Again, on one level it seems like a rather minor point. I mean, who really cares if it was one day or the next? The point is that Jesus got crucified, right?
Well, that is both right and wrong. Another question to ask is not 'Was Jesus crucified?' but also 'What does it mean that Jesus was crucified?' And for this, little details like the day and time actually matter. The way I explain the importance of such minutiae to my students is this: When, today, a homicide is committed, and the police detectives come in to the crime scene, they begin searching for little scraps of evidence, looking for the trace of a fingerprint or a strand of hair on the floor. Someone might reasonably look at what they are doing and say, 'What's wrong with you? Can't you see that there's a dead body on the floor? Why are you snooping around for a fingerprint?' Yet sometimes the smallest clue can lead to a solution of the case. Why, and by whom, was this person killed? So, too, with the Gospels. Sometimes the smallest piece of evidence can give important clues about what the author thought was really going on.
I can't give a full analysis here, but I will point out a significant feature of John's Gospel-the last of our Gospels to be written, probably some twenty-five years or so after Mark's. John is the only Gospel that indicates that Jesus is 'the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.' This is declared by John the Baptist at the very beginning of the narrative (John 1:29) and again six verses later (John 1:35). Why, then, did John-our latest Gospel-change the day and time when Jesus died? It may be because in John's Gospel, Jesus is the Passover Lamb, whose sacrifice brings salvation from sins. Exactly like the Passover Lamb, Jesus has to die on the day (the Day of Preparation) and the time (sometime after noon), when the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple.
In other words, John has changed a historical datum in order to make a theological point: Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. And to convey this theological point, John has had to create a discrepancy between his account and the others.”
So how do you trust such scriptures as God's word?
Please think over
AdamAdam,
Several Points
1) Have you tested the facts?
Does John make the point that Jesus is the Passover Lamb. I did a search for lamb and could not find one place where anyone made that point except Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:7. So your source is assuming that John was referring to the passover lamb and not to a guilt offering which in some cases requires a male lamb. Of course we are speaking types so both would apply to the Anointed One.
2) That John had Jesus die on the Day of Preparation.
Kind of doubt that is true since Jesus eats the Passover meal in John 13. Perhaps got confused by verse 1 that is merely speaking of the time of that day. The evening meal mentioned in verse 2 is the Passover Feast.
I did check and and Matthew 27:62, Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, and John 19:42 call the Friday after the Passover Feast Prepreation Day.
I see the proplem. Your source is addressing a noted poor interpretation of John.
The actual day is not the passover feast prepreation as is claimed by some but rather Yom Shishi or the Friday preparation for the Sabbath.
Overall this appears to be one group of Satan's servants putting up a false agument that another group can then destroy. In logigical reasoning it is called a strawman argument.
I am interested in what Paul meant when he called Jesus our Passover Lamb. Something that may investigating at a later time.
Hi brother Kerwin,
Here are the verses for you when Jesus was crucified.When was Jesus crucified? (Mark 15:25 and John 19:14)
Mark 15:25 “And it was the third hour, and they crucified him”. ( remember it was the day after passover since Jesus has paasover with disciples in evening of previous day)John 19:14 “And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King” (Jesus yet to be crucified on this day which was the day of passover)
If you want please see this link: http://bible.cc/john/19-14.htm for different versions of NT for the same verse. Gospel of John calls Jesus as 'the Lamb of God' in the first chapter what does it mean? If you compare with Jn 19:14 nothing but a Passover Lamb. If you say every one as Satan's agent it is you have mistaken then blame the writers of NT who contradicted themselves including great saint Paul.
Adam,
I use the NIV which does state passover week. If you look at the context of John you would know that Jesus ate the Passover Feast on the previous day which is a Thursday. Since in order to eat the Passover feast one must eat the lamb John was obviously not speaking of the Prepreation day for that which is probably the same day one eats the feast.
You also should look at the parallelels with the other gospels who say that the meal was the Passover Feast and that the Friday was Prepreation Day.
Common sense should show play a part some time and your point obviously is absurd.
As for John the Baptist meaning the Jesus is the Passover Lamb where is the evidence. I do not see the connection. In fact if you read what John states he tells you that the lamb takes away the sins of the world. Does the Passover Lamb take away sins? It sounds more like he was genalizing with the guilt or sin offering.
Quote (kerwin @ June 15 2010,20:42) Adam, I use the NIV which does state passover week. If you look at the context of John you would know that Jesus ate the Passover Feast on the previous day which is a Thursday. Since in order to eat the Passover feast one must eat the lamb John was obviously not speaking of the Prepreation day for that which is probably the same day one eats the feast.
You also should look at the parallelels with the other gospels who say that the meal was the Passover Feast and that the Friday was Prepreation Day.
Common sense should show play a part some time and your point obviously is absurd.
As for John the Baptist meaning the Jesus is the Passover Lamb where is the evidence. I do not see the connection. In fact if you read what John states he tells you that the lamb takes away the sins of the world. Does the Passover Lamb take away sins? It sounds more like he was genalizing with the guilt or sin offering.
Hi brother Kerwin,
No where does John mention that Jesus ate Passover meal. Infact John 13 says 'time was near for Passover' it doesn't mean Jesus had already participated in Passover meal. The chapter never comes in black and white like other synoptic Gospels. It was only an evening meal which Jesus partook with his disciples for the last time. John's Christology is so clear he wanted to make Jesus die on the Passover day. You are only mistaken.Think over
AdamThe Crucifixion Date:
On Which Day Was Jesus Crucified?When examining the four crucifixion accounts as they are presented in the New Testament, it is difficult to point to a single event upon which all four Gospel writers agree. Even the date of the crucifixion is an issue of contention among the four Gospels.
A perfunctory examination of New Testament texts reveals that the Books of Matthew,1 Mark,2 and Luke3 all agree that the Last Supper was actually a Passover Seder. Bearing in mind that Jesus was crucified on the very next day following the Last Supper, that would mean that according to all three synoptic4 Gospels, Jesus was crucified on the first day of Passover, or the 15th day of the Jewish month of Nissan (for example, if tonight were a Passover Seder, then tomorrow would be the first day of Passover5).
The author of the Book of John, however, completely contradicts the first three Gospels, and maintains that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover, or the 14th day of Nissan. The Book of John reads, “Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover . . . . Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.” (19:14-16)
The implications of this stunning contradiction cannot be overstated because both claims cannot be true. In essence, this is not the sort of inconsistency that can be explained away by missionaries insisting that the reason for the varying Gospel accounts is due to different perspectives of the Gospel writers. Jesus was crucified either of the eve of Passover, which is the 14th day of Nissan, as John contends, or on the first day of Passover, which is the 15th day of Nissan, as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke maintain. Jesus could not have been crucified on both days.
As a result of this conflict over the crucifixion date, numerous other aspects of John's passion narrative will differ radically with the synoptic Gospels. For instance, John's description of what transpired during the Last Supper is entirely different from the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John cannot include a Passover Seder in his version of the Last Supper because according to his reckoning of the date of the crucifixion, the night of the Last Supper fell on the night of the 13th day of Nissan, which was not a holiday. Therefore, in his Last Supper no aspect of the Seder ceremony occurs. In fact, in John's Last Supper, there is neither eating of the matzo nor drinking of the wine because in John's Gospel the evening before the crucifixion does not occur on the festival of Passover. In the book of John (chapter 13), where the events that occurred the night before the crucifixion are described, we therefore find no mention of anyone drinking wine, or eating matzo and herbs as we find in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John's account of the Last Supper only describes Jesus' washing the feet of the disciples.
Moreover, John begins his 13th chapter by saying, “Now before the festival of the Passover . . . .” This is a stunning opening statement because according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke that momentous night wasn't “before the festival of Passover, but rather it was the festival of Passover. Also, according to John, when Judas Iscariot mysteriously leaves the Last Supper with the moneybag, the disciples immediately presume that he is taking money to purchase food for the festive meal (13:29). Why would Judas be purchasing food for the feast if, according to the first three Gospels, they had just eaten it?
Furthermore, John's story describes how, when the Jews were handing Jesus over to Pontius Pilate to be crucified on the morning of the crucifixion, “They [the Jews] themselves did not enter the headquarters, so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover.”6 (John 18:28) Why were these Jews concerned about not being able to eat the Passover? According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke they had already eaten it because the Passover Seder took place the previous night. This is not a problem for John because John states that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover, so that this statement makes perfect sense in his story. In contrast, the synoptic Gospels never mention in their accounts the fear the Jews had of entering the home of Pilate. Such concern would be preposterous because in Matthew, Mark, and Luke's story, the Jews had already eaten the Passover lamb the previous night.
The first question that naturally comes to mind is: Why would John change the crucifixion date from the 15th day of Nissan to the 14th day? Why was it so important to the author of the fourth Gospel that Jesus be crucified on the eve of Passover rather than the first day of Passover, as the other three Gospels claim?
The simple answer becomes quite clear when we have a good understanding of what message John's Gospel was trying to convey to its reader.
Remembering that the book of John was the last of the four Gospels to be written, the author was trying to appeal to a second century church that had already become predominantly gentile. Bearing this in mind, John had to appeal to these pagans of the Greco-Roman world whom he was addressing. This was accomplished by carefully integrating heathen practices with elements of the Jewish faith. The notion that an animal was to be revered and sacrificed as a god was well known and widely practiced throughout the Roman Empire7 in mystery religions such as Mithraism, which flourished during the time that the Book of John was being written. This book's author was well aware of this and seamlessly fused together the Mithraic sacrifice of the redeeming bull with the Jewish sacrifice of the Paschal lamb.
It is for this reason that only in John's Gospel does John the Baptist proclaim of Jesus, “Behold, the Lamb of God . . . .” (1:29, 36) In fact, of the four Gospels, only John ever equates Jesus with the Passover lamb. If Matthew, Mark, and Luke agreed with the fourth Gospel that the lamb was the antitype of Jesus, as John insisted, why is it that when the synoptic Gospels described the communion at the last supper, Jesus raised the matzo saying, “This is my body”? He should have raised the Paschal lamb. At mass, priests should be giving their parishioners lamb chops rather than a wafer for communion.
In addition, only John's narrative includes the story of the Roman soldiers who pierced the side of Jesus rather than break his legs on the cross (John 19:31-37). This brief narrative only fits into the theological story line of the fourth Gospel. This is because only the author of the Book of John was eager not to have Jesus' bones broken so as not to violate the prohibition of breaking the bones of the Paschal lamb found in the Book of Exodus (12:46).
Therefore, we have come to the reason that John places the crucifixion on the 14th day rather than the 15th. Because the Torah commands Israel to slaughter the Paschal lamb on the eve of Passover or on the 14th day of Nissan (Exodus 12:6), John's Jesus is also “slaughtered” (i.e. crucified) on the eve of Passover or the 14th day of Nissan.
Adam,
Your interpretation skills are lacking. If you read the Law then you would know that the Jewish Day goes from dusk to dusk and so just before Passover would be the same time the Passover Lamb was sacrificed. This would mean that the the lamb was already sacrificed at that time as it is sacrificed before Passover.
You are trying to argue that John is stating that Passover occured on Sabbath beginning with the dusk just after Jesus was laid in his tomb. In Chapter 19 John does testify that it was a special Sabbath because it was a high day which is one of the High Holy Days of Judaism. That would make is 15 Nisan which is the Feast of Unleavened Bread. It would contradict Christian tradition as it would not be a Saturday but rather a Sunday. That may of course be an error of the King James version though the NIV does call is special.
I just do not see the support for that supposedly Christian teaching even if we are to take the book of John is issolation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
