Reply to "Passover and Yeshua's Crucifixion" by Derek Leman

Daniel Gregg

"THE THEORY STATED
Yeshua was crucified on the first day of Passover/Unleavened Bread and buried prior to
the beginning of the weekly Sabbath on Friday at sundown. He rose sometime before
dawn on Sunday, the first day of the week."

        Yeshua was crucified on the 14th of Nisan, the preparation day of the Passover (John 19:14).  This day was NOT the first day of unleavened bread.  The first day of unleavened bread did not begin until sundown at the end of the 14th day.   The Passover Seder that Yeshua ate was not the regular Seder on the 15th, but it was a day in advance (John 13:1).  To explain the Synoptic Gospels C.S. Mann and W.F. Albright point out that, "It is possible to translate the Greek by 'with reference to the first day of Unleavened Bread ...' — i.e., the disciples were asking Jesus for guidance as to the procedures to be followed for the next day" (page 319, The Anchor Bible, Matthew, Matthew 26:17).  What is noteworthy is that this commentary was made in consultation with Jewish Scholars with a good knowledge of Hebrew, and it is is obvious that this is the source of the suggestion.   So none of the gospels state that it was the first day of unleavened bread.   It is only a question, "They came concerning the first day of unleavened bread" or "for the first day of unleavened bread".  The dative case used in Greek clearly admits the Hebrew lamed in reverse translation and concisely resolves the apparent conflict between the gospels.

        Leman puts the resurrection before dawn as he should (see John 20:1 and Hosea 6:3), however, this ruins the chronology because now he has only two nights and two days between Friday after noon and Sunday morning.

        I introduce the correct chronology of Passion week in this article: The Sabbath Resurrection, and will not repeat it here, since this paper is simply a rebuttal to Leman's arguments.

"• ALTERNATIVE CHRONOLOGY: There are those who doubt the interpretation of Judaism
regarding the calendar and timing of Passover and Unleavened Bread. Jewish sources
say that lambs for Passover were slain on Nisan 14 in the afternoon leading up to
sundown when the date would become Nisan 15. Some believe, usually on the basis of
their own Torah interpretation, that the lambs were slain on Nisan 13. Most seem to
dismiss the fact that Jewish sources are likely to at least be correct about the temple
procedures at the Second Temple. How does this affect the issue of the timing of
Yeshua’s crucifixion? Alternative chronology proponents say Yeshua’s Last Supper/
Passover Seder was at the beginning of Nisan 14 rather than the beginning of Nisan 15.
This is all part of a proposal that Yeshua was crucified on Wednesday or Thursday
instead of Friday. This alternative chronology makes a non-Friday crucifixion possible by
adding an extra day between the Seder and the special Sabbath (Yom Tov) of the first
day of Unleavened Bread, a key in interpreting the gospel accounts toward a non-Friday
crucifixion." (page 1).

        If by "Judaism" Leman means the biblical chronology, then I agree.  But we also agree that the lamb was slain on the 14th from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. and that it was eaten after sunset.   So there is no difference from Judaism.  There are others who get it wrong.   However, to suggest that those who say the Last Supper was a night early have it wrong is simply unbiblical.  John 13:1 says "Now before the feast of the Passover ...";  In John 18:28 the Passover has not yet been eaten.   In John 19:14 it is still the preparation of the Passover, and in John 19:31 it is still the preparation.  In John 13:29, the disciples think that Judas is going to buy something for the feast, a thought that would not be entertained on the 15th of Nisan.   Further, to place the crucifixion on the 15th of Nisan as Leman does totally ruins the beautify typology of the biblical timing.  Messiah did die at the same time for the slaying of the lambs.     For Jews who want to make the Last Supper a Passover Seder, there is nothing to worry about.   Observing it two days in a row is common enough, however only one of those days is the official 15th of Nisan Seder.   So Leman's intimation that a Wednesday or Thursday Crucifixion somehow changes the regular Jewish time for the Passover is simply incorrect, because the Last Supper is not stated to be the regular Passover time in any of the gospels—not when you correct the translations in the synoptic gospels as suggested by Mann and Albright.

          It is good that Leman thinks the Yom Tov is a special Sabbath no matter what day of the week it falls on.  We are told just that in John 19:31.

CONTRADICTORY GOSPEL ACCOUNTS: Many interpret the Fourth Gospel as
indicating Yeshua’s crucifixion at the time the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in
the temple. Yet the synoptics are abundantly clear that the Last Supper was a Passover
Seder. For many, this is a matter of contradictory accounts and either one set of
evangelists or the other has the facts wrong. It is common to assume that the Fourth
Gospel has it right and not the synoptics (which is backwards -- as the Fourth Gospel is
later, it would seem more appropriate to doubt it, if any of them).

         The Fourth Gospel corrects the confusion of Gentiles over the first three, who did not know Hebrew and could not figure out that that the the texts were not saying that it was the first day of unleavened bread, but that the disciples were only asking about preparations "regarding" the first day of unleavened bread.  The Greek itself is ambiguous, and can mean either "For" or "On" the "first day of unleavened bread".  Mann's point is the only legitimate way to reconcile the Synoptic Gospels with John (cf. Mark 14:12; Matthew 26:17; Luke 22:7).  Probably, the knowledge of how to explain it disappeared with the original Aramaic or Hebrew texts since the lamed would have been expressed in Greek by a mere dative case.

          In Mark 14:12, we have "And concerning the first day of unleavened bread, when they had killed the Passover, the disciples were saying to Him, 'Where wilt thou having gone, we may prepare, that thou mayest eat the Passover?'"   The disciples were looking all the way ahead to the time when the lamb would be eaten, after they had killed it.  They were asking as expected before even the 14th of Nisan had begun.   The Greek uses the imperfect, but some try to translate "customarily killed".   However, the Greek imperfect is always from the perspective of past time (Moulton, pg. 65, Syntax).  It does however focus on the action of the killing, and the result of it from 1-5 p.m, just from the perspective of the past.

          In Luke 22:7, we have "Cometh yet the day of unleavened bread, for which it was necessary to have killed the Passover".   Here again, we have the Greek imperfect, "it was necessary" combined with an infinitive, "to be killed".   It is a present infinitive, but it is controlled by the main verb, so it refers to the killing from the past perspective of sunset beginning the first day of unleavened bread.  The point is that it was necessary to have killed the lamb already when sunset on the first day of unleavened bread arrived.   They were not really concerned about the lamb itself, but about the place it would be eaten.

          In Matthew 26:17, we have, "Concerning the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Yeshua, saying ....".   Again the dative case in the Greek readily admits the Hebrew "L-" (Lamed) in reverse translation.  And in Greek, it is ambiguous.  The case can be translated, "For/On the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Yeshua, saying ...."  The gospel of John clears up the ambiguity in no uncertain terms.   There are really no other solutions that will leave matters contradiction free.

 "I will start building my case with the most obvious and lucid statements equating the Last
Supper with a Passover Seder and then show the pattern of the Last Supper as it relates
to the Seder of ancient times."

       There is no need to deny that the Last Supper followed a Passover Seder format, especially if Yeshua knew he would not be at the official Seder.   He says we would not be in no uncertain terms:  "For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God" (Luke 22:16).   The translators illegitimately inserted the words "any more".  Said words are not in the Greek text.   The Greek text is an emphatic, "For by no means may I eat it until when it shall be fulfilled in the kingdom of God".

      "Mark 14:14, Where is my guest room, where I am to eat the passover with my disciples?"

        Leman has supplied us with a mistranslation here.  The text says, "where I may eat the Passover".   The Greek uses the subjunctive "may".   Yeshua is not committing to a certainty of fact that he "will" eat that Passover.

       Luke 22:15, And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you
before I suffer.”

         Again Leman supplies us with a mistranslation.  The Greek actually says, "And He said to them, 'With longing desire, I have longingly desired this: the Passover to eat with you before I suffer."   The translators illegitimately moved the word "this" from after "desired" to between "eat" and "Passover".  The demonstrative is neuter and can refer to anything.  The accusative of both "this" and "the Passover" go with the verb.   "This" therefore refers to his desire and not "the Passover".

         Leman goes on to contend that John 18:28 is speaking of the festive sacrifice on the 15th of Nisan (cf. Deut. 16:5-6).   The problem with putting this meaning on "Passover" in John's context is its connection with the preparation day (John 19:14; 31).  This rules out the festive offering on the 15th of Nisan, which was also called Passover, for the simple reason that the 15th of Nisan was not the "preparation of the Passover" (John 19:14).

         Leman contends that the custom of releasing a prisoner was for the 15th of Nisan, but this does not make sense.   The Jews had control over which day the release of customarily made.   Of course they would choose the 14th.   It doesn't make sense to have a prisoner released only to just miss the main event, or the first of the main events, since the festive offering on the 15th was very important on account of the night following the 15th when they completed crossing out of Egypt.

         Leman tries to explain "preparation of the Passover" as a conflation between the meaning of "Friday" for "preparation" and the 15th festive offering for the word "Passover".   The trouble is that the phrase already has an obvious use, and that is for the preparation of the Passover offering on the 14th.  So Leman's argument proves nothing an is an obvious attempt to reinterpret the usual meaning of the phrase.

          Leman suggests that John 19:31 "an high day" "Sabbath" refers to the day of the wave sheaf.   The problem is that this day was never a Sabbath on its own.   In fact, as soon as the sheaf was waved in the Temple, farmers could put the sickle to the grain and start work.  So he is forced into the usual apologetic for John 19:31—only very weakly, that the weekly Sabbath was somehow special because it just happened to line up with a feast day (in this case Nisan 16 the wave sheaf day).  But the problem here is the same as with those who claim a "high Sabbath" is only when the Passover holy day lines up with the weekly Sabbath.  The question is why such an idiom would exist for only that calendrical coincidence that occurs only 1 in 7 years, when it is perfectly obvious that the Passover Sabbath (Lev. 23:11) is a Yom Tov or special Sabbath (= high day) on whatever day of the week it falls, and has absolutely nothing to do with just happening to line up with a weekly Sabbath!   Further, with Leman's explanation, we are stuck with the wave sheaf on a weekly Sabbath and the resurrection on Sunday so that the wave sheaf does not line up with the resurrection day  -- which it does according to Paul's typology.

        Is John overly literal by speaking of Yeshua's bones not being broken in connection with the Passover?   No, not if he actually was crucified when the lambs died.  So clearly it is preferable to have it that way.

        Leman appeals to the Talmud, but it says that Yeshua was "hanged on the eve of Passover".

         "Three days and three nights" (Matthew 12:40) is the least of Leman's problems.  And we do use an inclusive reckoning (see the aforementioned article), so the examples from Esther prove nothing.   Three nights still must be at least three parts of three nights.  The greater problem for a Sunday resurrection is the fact that the texts say "first of the sabbaths" and not "first day of the week" (per. Lev. 23:15).   But see my article for more on that.   I don't think Leman wants to take it on directly because mere exposure to the ideas presented therein is fatal to his whole chronology and shows that Messianics still have to discard a lot of rotten inherited theology and mistranslation from the Church.