(a) Jesus predicted that his death would occur during the Feast of the Passover. See Matthew 26:2, "Ye know that after two days the Passover cometh, and the Son of Man is delivered up to be crucified." See also Mark 14:1 and Luke 22:1, where the fact is alluded to. Passover is used in the general sense of the feast of unleavened bread, as Luke explains. The feast of unleavened bread followed the Passover meal, beginning the next morning and lasting a week. But the one term was used to include the other. The Passover was expanded to mean the entire feast that followed, and vice versa.

(b) It is true that the Jewish authorities decided not to put Jesus to death during the feast (Matthew 26:5; Mark 14:2). But this decision was reached not because of any compunctions of conscience in the matter, but because they were afraid of a tumult among the people, owing to the great crowds, many of whom were friendly to Christ. But so soon as Judas offered his services, their fears vanished and they proceeded with their murderous designs (Matthew 26:14; Mark 14:11). The rulers did expedite matters at the crucifixion that the bodies might not be exposed on the Sabbath. But they had often tried to slay Jesus on the Sabbath heretofore. Public executions did take place during the feasts (Deut. 17:12 f.).

(c) The Synoptists flatly say (Matthew 26:17, 20; Mark 14:12, 17; Luke 22:7, 14) that on the first day of unleavened bread Jesus sent Peter and John from Bethany into the city to make preparations for eating the Passover, and that on the evening of the same day he ate it with his disciples. Luke calls it "the hour." Now, the first day of unleavened bread was the 14th Nisan. There is no question about this. Josephus speaks of the feast lasting eight days. The lamb of the supper being slain on the afternoon of this day, it was regarded as the beginning of the feast. Besides, Mark and Luke end the whole matter by saying that on this day they sacrificed the Passover. Jesus himself calls it the Passover (Luke 22:15). It is useless to say that Jesus ate the Passover a day in advance. This could not be done, especially by one to whom the temple authorities were hostile. Equally useless is it to say that the Jews ate the Passover a day too late. If a mistake was made about the new moon, they would hardly keep the Passover on two different days, nor would Jesus be apt to make a point about the matter.

3. The testimony of John. If we had only the evidence of the Synoptists, no serious trouble would ever arise on this question. Strauss has strenuously urged that John is on this point in hopeless conflict with the other Evangelists, since he makes Jesus eat the Passover on the evening after the 13th Nisan (Wednesday), and not the evening after the 14th (Thursday). This idea has gained a foothold among many able modern writers who see a clear contradiction between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel. Some of these evidently do so because they hold that the Paschal controversy in Asia Minor arose from this supposed conflict of John with the Synoptists, and that this shows John's Gospel to have been in existence when that controversy began. It is not worth while to maintain that John in chapter 13 alludes to a different meal on a different occasion. The points of contact with the Synoptists are too sharp and clear, such as the sop given to Judas. But five passages in John are produced as being in direct opposition to the statements of the Synoptic Gospels. A careful examination of each of these five passages in the Fourth Gospel will show that John does not say that Jesus ate the Passover meal a day in advance of the regular time, but quite the contrary.

(a) John 13:1 f., "Now before the feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing, etc." Here, it is alleged, a distinct statement is made that this supper was before the Passover, and consequently twenty-four hours before. But several things are taken for granted in this inference. One is that the phrase "feast of the Passover" is to be confined to this particular meal, and is not to include the entire festival of unleavened bread (cf. Luke 22:1). Often by a metonymy of speech the name of a part is given to the whole. Besides, it is not certain that verse 1 is to be connected with verse 2. The best exegetes agree that a complete idea may be presented therein, either a general statement that Jesus loved his own before the Passover and until the end, or that he came into special consciousness of this love just before the Passover. And if the more natural interpretation be taken and the application of this love be made in verse 2, it is not necessary that the "before" be as much as twenty-four hours. Observe also the text adopted in the Revised Version in verse 2, not "supper being ended," but "during supper." With this reading agree the other references in 13:4, "riseth from supper," 13:12, "sat down again," 13:23, "there was at the table reclining in Jesus' bosom." So the natural meaning is that just before the meal began, Jesus purposed to show his love for his own by a practical illustration. So, after they had all reclined at the table according to custom, Jesus arose and passed around the tables, washing their feet; then he reclined again and proceeded with the meal. So nothing at all can be made out of this passage against the view that this was the regular Passover; but, on the other hand, the most natural meaning is that John is here describing what took place at this Passover meal. Else, why should he mention the Passover at all?

(b) John 13:27, "That thou doest, do quickly." The objection is made that the disciples would not have thought that Jesus referred to the feast (13:29), if the Passover meal was already going on or was over. So, it is urged, this remark must have been made a day before the Passover was celebrated. But if that were the case, where would be the necessity for hurry, as there would be plenty of time on the morrow? The word "feast" here need not be confined to the paschal supper, but more naturally refers to the whole of the feast, of which the supper was a part. So this haste was needed to provide for the feast of unleavened bread which began on the next morning. No real force lies in the fact that this day was a holy day, being the first day of the Passover festival. The Mishna expressly allows the procuring, even on a Sabbath, what was needed for the Passover. If this could be done on a Sabbath, much more could it be done on a feast day which was not a Sabbath. Hence not only was it possible for the disciples to have misunderstood the remark of Jesus on the Passover evening, but it was far more natural that such misapprehensions should arise then than a day before. So this passage, like the preceding, when rightly understood, really confirms the Synoptists.

(c) John 18:28, "They themselves entered not into the palace, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover." At first sight this does look like a contradiction. For this was certainly after the feast of John 13:2; and if they had not eaten the Passover meal, why here is a clear case of conflict of authorities. But it is by no means certain that the phrase "eat the Passover" means simply the paschal supper. This phrase occurs five times in the New Testament besides this, but all in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Matt. 26:17; Mark 14:12, 14; Luke 22:11, 15). In all of these the reference is to the paschal supper. But the word "passover" is used in three senses in the New Testament, the paschal supper, the paschal lamb, or the paschal festival. The word is used eight times in John besides this instance, and in every case the Passover festival is meant. So we may fairly infer that the usage of John must determine his own meaning rather than that of the Synoptists. This becomes more probable when we remember that John wrote much later than they, after the destruction of Jerusalem, when these terms were not used so strictly. He always speaks of "the Jews" as separate from Christians. And this very expression is used in 2 Chronicles 30:22, "And they did eat the festival seven days." The Septuagint translates it, "And they fulfilled (kept) the festival of unleavened bread seven days." See Robinson. So it is entirely possible for the phrase, "eat the Passover," to mean in this instance also the celebration of the Passover festival. Some have urged that the Sanhedrin had not eaten the Passover at the regular hour because of the excitement of the trial. But this is hardly tenable. And, moreover, since this remark was made early in the morning, how could that affect the eating of the supper in the evening? For whatever impurities one had during the day passed away at evening. Hence this uncleanness must belong to the same day on which it was incurred. If the Passover festival had begun, this would be true, for they would wish to participate in the offerings of that day. So this passage likewise becomes an argument in favor of agreement with the Synoptists.

(d) John 19:14, "Now it was the Preparation of the Passover." This is claimed to mean the day preceding the Passover festival. Hence Christ was crucified on the 14th Nisan, in opposition to the Synoptists. The afternoon before the Passover was used as a preparation, but it was not technically so called. This phrase "Preparation" was really the name of a day in the week, the day before the Sabbath, our Friday. We are not left to conjecture about this question. The Evangelists all use it in this sense alone. Matthew uses it for Friday (27:62), Mark expressly says that the Preparation was the day before the Sabbath (15:42), Luke says that it was the day of the Preparation and the Sabbath drew on (23:54), and John himself so uses the word in two other passages (19:31, 42), in both of which haste is exercised on the Preparation, because the Sabbath was at hand. The New Testament usage is conclusive, therefore, on this point. This, then, was the Friday of Passover week. And this agrees with the Synoptists. Besides, the term "Preparation" has long been the regular name for Friday in the Greek language, caused by the New Testament usage. It is so in the Modern Greek to-day. It was the Sabbath eve, just as the Germans have Sonnabend for Sunday eve, i.e., Saturday afternoon. So this passage also becomes a positive argument for the agreement between John and the Synoptists.

(e) John 19:31, "For the day of that Sabbath was a high day." From this passage it has been argued that at this Passover the first day of the Passover festival coincided with the weekly Sabbath. But that is an entirely gratuitous inference. This coincidence would, of course, be a "high day," but so would the first day of the feast, the last day, or the Sabbath of the feast. In John 7:37 the last day is called "the great day of the feast." The Sabbath occurring during the festival would be a high day likewise. Robinson's arguments on this point are quite conclusive. Nothing can be made out of the expression against the position of the Synoptists.

McClellan discusses various other passages in John which show that the crucifixion occurred on Friday, and that this was the first day of the feast (John 18:39, 40; 19:31, 42; 20:1, 19, etc.). We conclude then that a fair interpretation of the passages alleged not only removes all contradiction between John and the Synoptists, but rather decidedly favors the view that they have the same date for the Passover meal, and that Jesus ate the Passover at the regular hour and was crucified on Friday, 15th Nisan.

It is reassuring to note that David Smith (The Days of His Flesh, Appendix VIII) reaches the same conclusion as that just stated. He makes it out that Jesus ate the regular Passover meal and was crucified on Friday 15th of Nisan and that the passages in John really agree with the Synoptic account.

In John 19:14 it is stated that the time when Pilate sentenced Jesus to be crucified, or rather when he began the last trial in which he sentenced him, was about the sixth hour. We read, however, in Mark 15:25 that it was the third hour when Christ was crucified. The Synoptists all unite in saying that the darkness began at the sixth hour. The Jewish way of counting the hours was to divide the night and day into twelve divisions each, beginning at sunrise and sunset. The hours would thus vary in length with the time of year. Just after the vernal equinox the third hour of Mark would be about 9 A.M., and the sixth hour of the Synoptists would be about noon. The ninth hour, when Jesus gave his piteous cry to God (Mark 15:34), would be about 3 P.M. But how can the sixth hour of John, the time when Jesus was sentenced by Pilate, be reconciled to this schedule? A real difficulty is here presented, but by no means an insuperable one, as Alford and Meyer hold. Let us discuss some of the more usual explanations. Andrews and McClellan give quite a variety of suggested solutions.

1. Some hold that "sixth" in John is a textual error for "third." This could easily happen, since the gamma and the digamma of the Greek are very similar. Eusebius said that the accurate copies had it "third" in John. But the textual evidence is overwhelmingly against it, and, besides, the difficulty would not be removed. John is evidently speaking of the time at the last trial and Mark of the time after Jesus has been led out to the crucifixion. So nothing is gained by this hypothesis. We should still be confronted with the same difficulty. The change to third in John was a mere stupid scribal correction.

2. Others would change the punctuation in John 19:14 so as to make "of the Passover" belong to "sixth hour," beginning from midnight. But there is no evidence that the Passover began with midnight. So Hofmann. This is very forced and unnatural.

3. Views that hinge on the word "preparation." Some would hold that John simply says that about noon the preparation time of the Passover begins. But Preparation here means Friday, and noon is not the hour needed to harmonize with Mark. Equally arbitrary is it to count six hours backward from noon so as to reach six o'clock.

Augustine suggested that the six hours are to be counted from 3 A.M. This would make 9 A.M., and would concur with the hour of Mark. But this is wholly arbitrary and unsatisfactory, and would not relieve the trouble.

4. Equally arbitrary is the solution that makes Mark refer to the hour of the sentence and John to the crucifixion, just the reverse of the Scripture account. Augustine also proposed that Jesus was crucified at the third hour by the tongues of the Jews, and at the sixth by the hands of the soldiers.

5. Others hold that Mark and John both speak in general terms. Hence the crucifixion may have taken place between 9 and 12 in the morning. Mark looks in one direction and John in the other without aiming at definiteness. The Jews, it is true, were not as exact in the use of expressions of time as we are to-day, but this solution hardly meets the requirements of the case. Mark puts his third hour at the beginning of the crucifixion, and John his sixth hour at the beginning of the last trial. This reconciliation does not reconcile.

6. The most satisfactory solution of the difficulty is to be found in the idea that John here uses the Roman computation of time, from midnight to noon and noon to midnight, just as we do now. Hence the sixth hour would be our six o'clock in the morning. If this hour was the beginning of the last trial of Jesus, we then have enough, but not too much, time for the completion of the trial, the carrying away of Jesus outside the city walls, together with the procuring of the crosses, etc. All the events, moreover, narrated by the Evangelists, could have occurred between dawn (John 18:27) and six or seven.

For a long time it was doubted whether the Romans ever used this method of computing time for civil days. Farrar vehemently opposes this idea. But Plutarch, Pliny, Aulus Gellius, and Macrobius expressly say that the Roman civil day was reckoned from midnight to midnight. So the question of fact may be considered as settled. The only remaining question is whether John used this mode of reckoning. Of course, the Romans had also the natural day and the natural night just as we do now. In favor of the idea that John uses the Roman way of counting the hours in the civil day, several things may be said.

(a) He wrote the Gospel late in the century, probably in Asia Minor, long after the destruction of Jerusalem, when the Jewish method would not likely be preserved. Roman ideas were prevalent in Asia Minor. John evidently is not writing for the Jews primarily, since he constantly speaks of "the Jews" as outsiders. John is writing to be understood by the people, and this is the way it would be understood in Asia Minor.

(b) All the passages in John, where the hour is mentioned, allow this computation. John 1:39 would be 10 A.M.; 4:6 f. would be 6 P.M., counting from noon also (as we do). This hour suits best the circumstances. In the evening the women would come to get water, Jesus would have time for his journey thither, and would be tired and hungry. In John 4:52 the hour would be 7 P.M. This hour likewise suits the circumstances better. John 11:9, Are there not twelve hours in the day? is not against this idea, since here obviously the natural day, as opposed to night, is meant. The Romans used both methods and so do we.

(c) Moreover, one passage in John (20:19), when compared with Luke 24:29, 36, makes it necessary to understand that John used the Roman method in this instance. It was toward evening, and the day had declined, according to Luke, when Jesus and the disciples drew near to Emmaus. Here he ate supper and, "rising up that very hour," the disciples returned seven miles to Jerusalem and told these things to the eleven who were together. But while they were narrating these things Jesus appeared to them. Now John, in mentioning this very appearance of Jesus (20:19), says that it "was evening on that day, the first day of the week," i.e., evening of the day when Mary Magdalene had seen the Lord. But with the Jews the evening began the day. Hence John, here at least, is bound to mean the Roman day. It was the evening of the same day in the morning of which Mary had seen Jesus. This appears conclusive. John did use the Roman method here, may have done so always, almost certainly did so in 19:14. Besides, as McClellan shows, the natural meaning of John's phrase is that it was the sixth hour of the Friday (Preparation) of the Passover. But we have just seen that John in 20:19 counts according to the Roman day. Hence the sixth hour of Friday would be six o'clock in the morning.

This is the only solution that really harmonizes John and Mark. The rest make the hours agree, but the hours bring together different events. This method harmonizes the whole narrative, and seems entirely probable, if we can assume that the Romans or Greeks employed hours in this sense, a point denied by Ramsay.

Sir W. M. Ramsay (The Expositor for March, 1893, and Extra Volume, Hastings D. B.) contends that Mark and John are at variance, but that it is of small moment, since the ancients had little notion about hours. He seeks to show that the martyrdom of Polycarp and Pronius, usually relied on to prove that in Asia Minor the hours were counted from midnight, took place in the afternoon, instead of the morning, the usual time. Hence the eighth and tenth hours respectively would be 2 P.M. and 4 P.M. Ramsay argues that, when hours were counted, they were always counted from sunrise. He holds that John is more accurate about hours than Mark and that hence Mark is in error. He agrees that John "stood on the Roman plane" in the use of time, but denies that the sixth hour can be our 6 A.M. But the evidence is too uncertain for such a dogmatic position.

1. Mark, Luke, and John say that the resurrection had taken place early on the first day of the week, i.e. early Sunday morning. Mark (16:9) says that Jesus, "having risen early, on the first day of the week, appeared, etc." The position of "early" is ambiguous in the Greek and the passage is disputed. Mark (16:2) states that it was very early on the first day of the week, the sun having risen, when the women came to the sepulchre. Luke (24:1) says that the women came to the tomb at early dawn on the first day of the week. John (20:1) says that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb in the morning on the first day of the week. So then, there is no doubt that these three Evangelists mean to say that Jesus rose very early on Sunday morning, and that shortly after that event came the two Marys and some other women to anoint his body with spices.

Much objection is made to some of the details in the accounts of Mark and John especially as being inconsistent. John (20:1) says that Mary comes while it is yet dark, while Mark says (16:2) that the sun was risen. But Mark also says in the same verse that it was very early, which would agree with John's statement that it was yet dark. Hence Mark's other statement, that the sun was risen, must be interpreted in the light of his own words. Two solutions can be offered.

(a) We may suppose, as McClellan and others, that John's note of time refers to the starting from Bethany, while it was yet dark or very early (Mark). In a few minutes it would be early dawn (Luke), and by the time the women come to the tomb, the sun would be up. All this is entirely possible and looks even probable, for in the twilight of early dawn, the border line is very narrow between darkness and sunrise. A stiff morning walk would pass through all the stages. It all depends on where you take your stand in this fleeting interim. Mark covers both sides and so includes it all from the first glimmering light till the full light of day.

(b) Or the expression, "the sun was risen" (aorist participle), may simply be a general expression applicable to the phenomena of sunrise. The first gleam of daylight comes from the rising sun, though not yet completely risen. Robinson gives several examples from the Septuagint, where the same phrase is used in the aorist tense in a general way for the dawning light of day (Judges 9:33; 2 Kings 3:22; Ps. 104:22). Either of these explanations is entirely possible and removes the difficulty.

2. But Matthew seems to put the resurrection on the evening after the Sabbath, our Saturday evening. He says (28:1), "But late on the Sabbath day, as it was dawning into the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to view the sepulchre." If this passage means that the visit was made at the end of the Sabbath day (evening) and after the resurrection of Jesus, then Matthew is in plain contradiction to the other Evangelists. Some have taken the position that Jesus rose at sunset on the Sabbath day, forgetting that Mark (16:9) says that he rose early in the morning. There are several ways of reconciling Matthew with the other gospels.

(a) Greswell, Alford and others would translate "late on the Sabbath day" by "late in the week." The Greek word is the same in this verse for Sabbath and week. In both cases, therefore, the translation could be the same. But little sense would result from this translation. "Late in the week" and "dawning into the first day of the week" hardly fit well. By this explanation the latter expression is used for the first part of Sunday and the visit occurred in this dawning part of the day.

(b) Others would translate "late on the Sabbath day" by "after the Sabbath day." Godet, Grimm and others contend that the Greek idiom could mean this, and the Koiné allows it (Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament, pp. 645 f.). This rendering is possible, though the papyri have instances of "late on" for this preposition (opse), and it is so translated by several English translators. Thus the Greek idiom allows either "late on" or "after."

(c) Matthew does not clearly say that this visit was made after the resurrection of the Saviour although his words may mean that. Hence the words may have their natural meaning as sustained by the papyri. Late on the Sabbath day, about sundown say, the two Marys go to view the sepulchre (Matt. 28:1), having rested through the day (Luke 23:56). The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee had gone thither on Friday, after his burial, to see where he was laid and had prepared spices. If they went at nightfall at the close of the Sabbath (Matt. 28:1) "to see the sepulchre," they could have bought spices after sundown (Mark 16:1). Then (Mark 16:2) in the early morning, they rose and took the spices and went to anoint his body. It was then that they saw the angel (Matt. 28:5). Matthew does not say that in the visit of 28:1 the angel appeared to them. He speaks of the earthquake having come, and the resurrection, and then resumes. This view gains some support from the use of the same Greek word in Luke 23:54, "And it was the day of the Preparation (Friday) and the Sabbath drew on (was dawning)." Here the meaning seems to be that the Sabbath dawned at the close of the day. So Westcott, McClellan and others. However it may be about the visit of the women in Matt. 28:1, Matthew certainly does not mean to say that Jesus rose at sunset on the Sabbath. The whole course of his narrative in the rest of the chapter shows that it was the morning of Sunday when the angel appeared. While (Matt. 28:11) the women went to the disciples, the soldiers ran to the chief priests (Matt. 28:13) and said that the disciples came by night and stole him while they slept, clearly implying that it was now day. Hence Matthew does not teach that Jesus rose at sunset, but the reverse. Besides, Matthew expressly says that Jesus rose on the third day, which would not be true, if he rose on the Sabbath.

(d) Sabbath day may be used of the day followed by the night, according to a possible understanding of the language. The Jews originally counted from evening to evening, but this custom did not prevail universally. Jonah (1:17) and Matthew (12:40) speak of three days and three nights, following the day by the night. Meyer, Morison, Clark and others hold this view, and it is possible, but certainly not so satisfactory as the view given under (c). At any rate, it remains clear that Matthew agrees with the other Evangelists in putting the resurrection of Jesus Sunday morning. The chief point of difficulty is Matthew's visit of the women in 28:1, whether this was in the evening before simply "to view the sepulchre," or in the morning to anoint the body of the Saviour. The condensed account of Matthew leaves this question unsettled, and there we too shall have to leave it. And this last matter does not affect the question as to the time of the Lord's resurrection, but only the number of the visits made by the women.

1. Luke settles the matter pointedly by mentioning all the time between the crucifixion and the resurrection (Luke 23:50-24:3). The burial took place Friday afternoon just before the Sabbath drew on (Luke 23:54). The women rested on the Sabbath (Saturday) (Luke 23:56), and went to the sepulchre early Sunday morning, the first day of the week (Luke 24:1). There is no escaping this piece of chronology. This is all the time there was between the two events. Jesus then lay in the tomb from late in the afternoon of Friday till early Sunday morning. The other Gospels agree with this reckoning of the time, as we have already seen.

2. But how about the prediction of Jesus, repeatedly made, and once illustrated by the case of Jonah, that he would rise after three days? Are two nights and a day and two pieces of days three days? Let us see.

(a) The well-known custom of the Jews was to count a part of a day as a whole day of twenty-four hours. Hence a part of a day or night would be counted as a whole day, the term day obviously having two senses, as night and day, or day contrasted with night. So then the part of Friday would count as one day, Saturday another, and the part of Sunday the third day. This method of reckoning gives no trouble to a Jew or to modern men, for that matter. In free vernacular we speak the same way today.

(b) Besides, the phrase "on the third day" is obliged to mean that the resurrection took place on that day, for, if it occurred after the third day, it would be on the fourth day and not on the third. Now it so happens that this term "third day" is applied seven times to the resurrection of Christ (Matt. 16:21; Matt. 17:23; Matt. 20:19; Luke 24:7, 21, 46; 1 Cor. 15:4). These numerous passages of Scripture, both prophecy and statement of history, agree with the record of the fact that Jesus did rise on the third day. (Luke 24:7.)

(c) Moreover, the phrase "after three days" is used by the same writers (Matthew and Luke) in connection with the former one, "the third day," as meaning the same thing. Hence the definite and clear expressions must explain the one that is less so. The chief priests and Pharisees remember (Matt. 27:63) that Jesus said, after three days I rise again. Hence they urge Pilate to keep a guard over the tomb until the third day (Matt. 27:64). This is their own interpretation of the Saviour's words. Besides, in parallel passages in the different Gospels, one will have one expression and another the other, naturally suggesting that they regarded them as equivalent. (Cf. Mark 8:31 with Matt. 16:21, Luke 9:22 with Mark 10:34.) On the third day cannot mean on the fourth day, while after three days can be used as meaning on the third day.

(d) Matthew 12:40 is urged as conclusive the other way. But the "three days and three nights" may be nothing more than a longer way of saying three days, using day in its long sense. And we have already seen that the Jews counted any part of this full day (day and night) as a whole day (day and night). Hence this passage may mean nothing more than the common "after three days" above mentioned, and, like that expression, must be interpreted in accordance with the definite term "on the third day" and with the clear chronological data given by Luke and the rest. They seemed to be conscious of no discrepancy in these various expressions. Most likely they understood them as well as we do at any rate.