It was impossible to tell at first just what he had found. The shattered shards, encased in millennia of accumulated dirt and grime, were reluctant to reveal their secret too quickly. The archeologist, however, was patient. Sifting through the soil, he carefully collected every piece he could find, painstakingly cataloging even the tiniest shard. When the dig had released every last piece still in existence, the real work began.
With great care and skill the archeologist meticulously cleaned and restored every piece. Finally he was ready to begin assembling the puzzle before him. Fitting one piece here and another there, trying to find the perfect fit, a beautiful shape slowly began to take form. The perfection of precise symmetry emerged as full, rounded sides balanced above a base that seemed too slender to support it.
Finally, his painstaking efforts were rewarded. Diligence and hard work had taken a jumble of broken pieces and turned them into an elegant vase, one of the finest of its kind ever found.
All who would seek truth must be archeologists as well. The dirt and grime of tradition, the filth of paganism, has buried many beautiful Heavenly truths. To carefully brush aside the error and uncover truth, restoring it to its full glory, requires much diligent, painstaking effort. The one principle all truth seekers must keep in mind is that truth will never contradict itself. If one passage of Scripture appears to contradict another passage, it is a clear invitation: Dig here! There is more truth to be discovered that will reconcile the inconsistency.
One such area of Scripture that has long puzzled Bible students are statements in Matthew, Mark and Luke that appear to disagree with clear statements in the book of John. Scholars even refer to Matthew, Mark and Luke as the "Synoptic" Gospels because of the great similarities in the details of each as well as the order of events given. The fourth gospel, John, differs in some particulars.
Nowhere is this seeming difference more apparent than in the record left of the crucifixion Passover. The three Synoptic gospels all seem to agree on a date for the Passover that is different than that given by the Gospel of John.
In reality, there is no inconsistency. Truth never contradicts itself! It is true that in this life not all questions will be answered. Yahuwah never removes all cause for doubt because He values personal freedom. He will never force people to believe if they do not want to believe. Thus, there will always be hooks on which to hang doubts by those who do not wish to believe. In such areas, it is the privilege of the believer to exercise faith in the One who never lies. That said, careful examination of the evidence reveals the harmony of all four gospel accounts. Each gospel provides pieces of the puzzle which, when properly understood, proves that there is no conflict.
The texts that have confused people are:
Matthew 26:17 - "Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to . . . [Yahushua], saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?" (KJV1)
Mark 14:1 - "After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death."
Luke 22:7 - "Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed."
The confusion arises when the above texts are compared with John's account of the last supper as given in John 13: "Now before the feast of the passover, when . . . [Yahushua] knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world, unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end." (John13:1)
In this, as in all other Bible puzzles, Scripture provides the answer. The law of Moses, which the Law-Giver, Yahushua, kept perfectly, clearly provides the time-parameters of both the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is . . . [Yahuwah's] passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto . . . [Yahuwah]: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. (Leviticus 23:5-7)
This passage clearly assigns two different dates for two different holy observances:
- Passover on Abib 14
- First day of Feast of Unleavened Bread on Abib 15
John 13 simply states: "Now before the feast of the passover . . . ." The Synoptics seem to even contradict the dates given in Leviticus!
- Matthew: Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Yahushua.
- Mark: After two days was the feast of the Passover, and of Unleavened Bread.
- Luke: Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover must be killed.
When assembling the various truth-pieces of this Scriptural puzzle, the dates given for Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread as given in Leviticus 23 must be kept. These provide the "border" of the puzzle. They cannot be set aside. Thus, some other explanation must be provided for why the Synoptics appear to place Passover and the first day of Unleavened Bread on the same day.
The first point to be considered is that both Matthew 26:17 and Mark 14:1 have had words added in the English translation that do not appear in the original. The italicized words below are the words which the translators added to the texts. They do not appear in the original:
- "Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came . . . ." (Matthew 26:17)
- "After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread . . .." (Mark 14:1)
Without the supplied words, Matthew simply states: "Now the first of the unleavened bread the disciples came . . . ." With the supplied words left out, Mark states: “After two days was the passover, and of unleavened bread . . . .”
In the text from Matthew, the word "first" comes from the word ?????? (pr?t?s) which means "foremost (in time, place, order or importance)."2 It can mean "beginning" and "best" but it can also be correctly translated as "before". When ?????? (pr?t?s) is translated as "before" Matthew 26:17 states: "Now before the unleavened bread the disciples came . . . ." This agrees with John 13:1: "Now before the feast of the passover . . ."
Mark must be considered in the context of what immediately follows which is the account of Yahushua’s anointing in Bethany during the feast at Simon’s house. First, however, it is necessary to understand precisely how the Israelites used certain phrases, specifically “Passover” and the phrase “unleavened bread.” This provides the next piece of the Scriptural puzzle.
A study of the Outline of the passion week . . . will reveal the fact that the N[ew]T[estament] phrase ?? ????? ("unleavened bread"), . . . occurs in several of the gospel references to the paschal season. This expression is a typical Synoptic term; and yet, both Mark and Luke apparently would have it understood that at the time of their writing, the festal names ?ò ?????? and ?? ????? were being used interchangeably in a general sense.3 However, the second of these [terms] seems to have been Luke's favorite in representing the passover season,4 and probably Matthew's as well.5 Josephus also recognizes the alternative use of these two festal terms in his own day.6 He even calls the "fourteenth" the "day of unleavened bread."7,8
Language is fluid and terms are frequently used in more than one way. Just as the word "Christmas" applies to December 25, it is also often applied to the season, the time of year or the month of December. By the time of the Messiah, the terms "unleavened bread" and "Passover" had come to be festal terms that were applied to the entire week, beginning on Passover (Abib 14) and going through the entire seven-day feast of Unleavened Bread which began on Abib 15.
Two well-known writers of the first century A.D. use "Passover" and "Feast of Unleavened Bread" interchangeably, sometimes using "Unleavened Bread" to apply to the Passover; other times using "Passover" to apply to the entire feast. These writers are Philo of Alexandria (20 BC - AD 50) and Josephus (AD 37 - circa AD 100).
In order that the passover statements by first century writers may be understood, it is essential that their festal terms be cataloged and interpreted. Generally speaking, these ritual words and phrases are an unknown language, and may be of quite different meaning from their English translations. For example,the Greek word ?????, or ?????,as sometimes occurs, is found about twelve times in Josephus. We translate it passover, commonly meaning the paschal supper. But commonly, with Josephus, the word is interchangeable with the eight-day feast of unleavened bread, and only three times does it refer directly to the 14th day of Nisan [Abib], while certainly only three times does it signify the paschal lamb. And apparently no place has as yet come to light where ?????designates the supper alone, although it may refer to paschal sacrifice and supper together. In Josephus, there are about twenty-five references to this sacrificial ceremony.9
An example of Josephus using the terms "Passover" and "Feast of Unleavened Bread" interchangeably can be found in Wars II.I.1-3 where he states:
And now that the feast of unleavened bread had already come, which is called pascha [Passover] by the Jews, one that contributes such a large number of sacrifices, countless people, on the one hand, stream in from the country for the ceremony, while, on the other hand, those mourning for the doctors stood in the temple procuring recruits for their faction.10
In this passage, Josephus was giving the context for an uprising of the Israelites that occurred on Abib 14, Passover, after the death of Herod the Great. He prefaces it by stating that "the feast of unleavened bread had already come" going further to explain that the feast itself was called "pascha/Passover" by the Israelites. This is exactly how the Synoptic gospels use the phrase.
It is clear that for Josephus the terms used to designate the two festival periods had become imprecise to the point of being interchangeable. That Josephus could refer to this eight-day period in one place as the Festival of Unleavened Bread and in other places use Passover as a synonym for the Festival of Unleavened Bread or simply refer to the entire period as the Passover confirms . . . that, in common use, a distinction was no longer made between Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread and that Nisan 14 had become assimilated to the festival period.11
The reason why the terms were so often used interchangeably is simply due to the fact that unleavened bread was also eaten at the Passover and not solely during the seven following days. "The phrase ?? ????? [unleavened bread] without any doubt had origin from O[ld] T[estament] practice, whose primitive laws stipulated that unleavened bread should be eaten with the roasted lamb on the fourteenth day of the first Jewish month."12 Leavening (yeast) was removed from the homes on the 14th, and the Passover feast that evening was eaten with unleavened bread.
The difficulty which has arisen over these texts largely comes from the assumption that in Philo and Josephus the word ????? [pascha/Passover] always refers to the paschal ceremony on 14 Nisan [Abib]. On the contrary, as has been pointed out, this word commonly refers to the whole feast of unleavened bread. And no different meaning should be ascribed to it unless represented in the text.13
With it clearly understood that “Passover” and “unleavened bread” were used interchangeably in a festal sense to apply to the entire season, as well as to individual days within the festive commemoration, it is time to look again at Mark 14:1 and the texts immediately following:
After two days was the feast of the Passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death. But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar of the people. And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she broke the box, and poured it on his head. (Mark 14:1-3)
The reason this account has caused some confusion is because it appears to contradict the account in John:
Then . . . [Yahushua] six days before the Passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of . . . [Yahushua], and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odor of the ointment. (John 12:1-3)
No time should be wasted quibbling over the differing accounts of precisely where Mary poured the ointment: Mark says Yahushua’s head; John says His feet. Every police detective knows that even eye-witness accounts can seem to differ as one person notices one thing, while another person focuses on something else, although both accounts may be true. The simple answer is that Mary poured the ointment on both the Saviour’s feet and His head.
The real apparent conflict arises over Mark’s clear statement that the Passover was in TWO days while John’s account states that Yahushua came to Bethany SIX days before the Passover. In solving this apparent contradiction, it is important to take the Scriptures just as they read and not supply additional meaning that is not there.
It is easy to jump to conclusions when the text itself does not present . . . an “inescapable conclusion.” The Bethany texts are a case in point. Does John say the anointing was six days before Passover? No! What the text says, is “six days before Passover [Yahushua] CAME TO Bethany” (John 12:1, emphasis mine). Then, after this statement, the account of the anointing is introduced with the Greek word oun meaning “then, therefore, accordingly, consequently, these things being so” (Thayer). Oun simply refers to the next thing that happened which John chooses to discuss. It doesn’t have to mean that the meal took place on the same day that [Yahushua] came to Bethany.14 By contrast, Mark describes a succession of events. At a time in which, “after two days was the Passover” (Mark 14:1a), the Jewish leaders conspired to kill [Yahushua] (Mark 14:1b). This took place when [Yahushua] was, “in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper” (Mark 14:3). This tells us that the anointing at Bethany took place two days before the Passover, and [Yahushua] came to Bethany six days before the Passover (or four days prior to this).
Thus, the account in John does not contradict the account in Mark. But to fully appreciate the complete agreement between John and Mark on this issue, it is necessary to turn the attention to the very first Passover recorded in Scripture. As has been demonstrated, the terms “Passover” and “Unleavened Bread” were used interchangeably to apply to the entire festive season. What is often overlooked, however, is that the “season” did not begin on the 14th of the month, but rather on the tenth when a very important preparatory work was performed.
And Yahuwah spoke unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, “This month shall be your beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you. Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying: ‘On the tenth of this month every man shall take for himself a lamb, according to the house of his father, a lamb for a household. . . . Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats. Now you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month. Then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight.’ ” (See Exodus 12:1-3, 5, 6.)
The tenth day of the first month was the day on which each household was to select a perfect lamb or kid for their sacrificial offering. As a symbol of the Saviour, each animal was to be perfect and without a single blemish. These young animals were to be brought into the home, washed, petted and fed. As this was done, the emotions of the family would begin to bond with the little creature. Thus, when the animal was slain, it would have a much more profound effect upon the family as a symbol of the Lamb of Yah that should be slain for the sins of the world.
Understanding that the word “Passover” had a much broader use than simply referring to the specific date of Abib 14, some scholars have suggested that the day upon which Yahushua was anointed was, in fact, the tenth day of the month – the very day on which the sacrificial animals had always been selected. Remembering that the Hebrews counted their days inclusively, rather than exclusively as is done today, the timing of the feast at Simon’s house perfectly fits the time-frame for occurring on the tenth day of the month.
The Saviour’s own words seem to indicate that He understood the significance of Mary’s anointing of Him in this light. When the disciples began criticizing Mary’s generosity, Yahushua said: “Let her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a good work for Me.” (Mark 14:6, NKJV) Then, foretelling His death in just four more days, He added:
For you have the poor with you always, and whenever you wish you may do them good; but Me you do not have always. She has done what she could. She has come before hand to anoint My body for burial.” (Mark 14:7, 8, NKJV)
The banquet was, in effect, a “thank you” dinner given the Saviour by a wealthy Pharisee by the name of Simon. Yahushua had healed Simon of leprosy (see Mark 14:3) and in his gratitude at being made well, Simon entertained the Saviour, His disciples and Lazarus at a lavish meal. Simon’s own son was one of the twelve disciples. It was this disciple who, being in the comfort of his own home, first presumed to criticize Mary’s generous gift and, by implication, the Saviour’s acceptance of it.
And being in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, as He sat at the table, a woman came having an alabaster flask of very costly oil of spikenard. Then she broke the flask and poured it on His head. (Mark 14:3)
But one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son,15 who would betray Him, said, “Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it. But . . . [Yahushua] said, “Let her alone; she has kept this for the day of My burial. For the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always.” (John 12:4-8)
The other disciples, who admired Judas for his wealth, culture and polish, quickly followed his example. It was Judas’ angry reaction against the Saviour’s gentle rebuke at his father’s dinner that directly led to Judas’ betrayal of Yahushua into the hands of the priests. After recording Yahushua’s rebuke to the disciples, the very next words in Mark are: “Then Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Him to them. And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. So he sought how he might conveniently betray Him.” (Mark 14:10, 11)
Additional circumstantial evidence that the supper at Simon’s house occurred on the tenth of the month can be found in the fact that the following events occurred afterthe feast at Simon’s house:
- Judas meets with the chief priests and leaders to betray Yahushua. (See Luke 22:1-6.)
- The day after Simon’s feast was the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. (See Matthew 21:1-11 and John 12:12-15.)
- Upon arriving at Jerusalem, Yahushua cleansed the temple of the sellers and money changers. (See Luke19:45-48.)
- Various discourses and exchanges are recorded in the various gospels as occurring in the days following the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, such as the Greeks asking to see Yahushua. (See John 12:20-33.)
An additional piece of the puzzle snaps into place with the fact that all four gospels clearly state that the crucifixion, which took place on the Passover, was the "day of preparation."
Matthew 27:59, 60 and 62 - "And when Joseph had taken the body [of Yahushua], he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed. . .. Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate . . . ."
Mark 15:42 - "And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathæa, . . . went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of . . . [Yahushua]."
Luke 23:53, 54 - "And he [Joseph of Arimathæa] took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid. And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on."
This is very conclusive evidence that the four gospels agree as to the dates of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. On the Biblical luni-solar calendar, the Passover on the 14th always occurs on the sixth day of the week.
Consequently, the next day, the first day of Feast of Unleavened Bread always fell on the seventh-day Sabbath which Leviticus 23:6 confirms was the 15th day of the month. Scripture calls the fourteenth/Passover, the "preparation day." Many Sabbatarians use the term to apply to every sixth day, as it designates the sixth day as a day of work, preparing for the Sabbath on the next day and it is certainly possible the Israelites used the term this way. Scripture itself, though, only applies that label to the fourteenth/Passover - the day before the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Because the first day of Unleavened Bread always fell on a weekly Sabbath, the day was called a "high Sabbath."
And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit. Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. John 19:30, 31, NKJV
The Preparation Day was a work day. It was the day on which leavening was removed from the home (a symbol of sin being removed from the soul-temple). It was when the Passover lambs were slain, pointing forward to when the Messiah would be slain for the sins of the world. This fact, and the timing of the Preparation Day, is confirmed by an incident recorded in the Synoptic gospels, that was not recorded in John. This incident provides yet another piece of the puzzle, clarifying the Biblical account of the timing of the crucifixion Passover.
It was customary for condemned criminals to carry their own cross bars on their way to the place of execution. However, Matthew, Mark and Luke all record that someone else carried the Saviour's cross for Him. This was not a last act of mercy shown an innocent man. In all probability, the Saviour did not have the physical strength to carry his own cross bar due to the sleepless night just past as well as the loss of blood from the scourging He had received. The Roman soldiers solved the problem by forcing someone else to carry His cross for Him:
- "And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross." (Matthew 27:32)
- "And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross." (Mark 15:21)
- "And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after . . . [Yahushua]." (Luke 23:26)
Some writers believe that the explanation of Simon "coming out of the country" is a reference to Simon having been out working in the field. Because it was so early in the morning, a more likely reason was that Simon was traveling to Jerusalem for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The phrase "coming out of the country" implies a trip greater than the short "Sabbath day's journey" allowed on holy days. Whether Simon was working in the field, or traveling, the only way he could have been doing either one was if the Passover were a work day. The fact that the three Synoptic gospels include this story is confirmation that their earlier use of the phrase "feast of unleavened bread" was a commonly understood reference to the Passover itself.
The account in Luke is a bit different. It states: "Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed." (Luke 22:7) As has been demonstrated, the terms “passover” and “unleavened bread” were broadly used, encompassing the day the sacrificial lamb was selected on the tenth until the last day of the feast of Unleavened Bread (on the 21st) which was immediately followed by a the seventh-day Sabbath on the 22nd. What follows in Luke 22 is a detailed description of the Last Supper which is still commemorated today in the communion service. The connecting puzzle piece between the three synoptic gospels and the gospel of John is found in the fact that the Last Supper eaten just hours before the Saviour’s betrayal was, in fact, not the actual Passover meal.
In Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, just as in English, there were different words for stating whether bread was made with yeast (leavened bread) or without yeast (unleavened bread).
Unleavened bread = matzah (or matzot for more than one.)
Leavened bread = lekhem (or lekhemim for more than one.)
Unleavened bread = patireh
Leavened bread = lakhma
Unleavened bread = azumos (or azumon or azuma for more than one.)
Leavened bread = artos (or arton for more than one.)
Without a single exception, every time Scripture refers to the “Feast of Unleavened Bread” the word for bread without yeast is used: matzah, patireh, azumos. However, wherever in Scripture the bread of the last supper is mentioned, the word for leavened bread is used: lakhma, artos. Thus, the “Last Supper” occurred on the day before the actual Passover meal.
As has been demonstrated, both John and Matthew state that the Last Supper occurred before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. In 1 Corinthians 11:23 and 26-28, Paul also consistently uses the word for bread with yeast when discussing the Last Supper and its spiritual significance. While John does not give an account of the Last Supper, focusing instead upon the footwashing that preceded it, Matthew, Mark and Luke all agree that the bread used at the Last Supper was leavened bread and thus it could not have been the Passover meal. This is confirmed by the account in John which repeatedly refers to the day of the crucifixion as being the actual day of the Passover, proceeding the first day of Feast of Unleavened Bread. (See John 18:28; 18:39;19:14; 19:31 and 19:42.) For a detailed explanation, see The Last Supper: Passover? Or Not?
The final truth-piece that affirms all four Gospels were actually referring to the same events on the same dates can be found in the fact that the entire nation was unified in celebrating Pentecost. Had the three Synoptic gospels truly been referring to the Passover occurring on a date different from that given in the gospel of John, then this would have certainly effected the count to Pentecost.
Just before the Saviour returned to Heaven after His resurrection, He gave clear directions to His disciples to remain in Jerusalem: "And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." (Acts1:4, 5)
The disciples obeyed their risen Master. The next several days were a time of heart-searching and repentance.
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:1-4)
Pentecost is one of the annual feasts for which all devout Israelites returned to Jerusalem for its celebration. The fact that Jerusalem was filled with these pilgrims from distant lands is referred to in the very next verse.
And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilæans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, where in we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judæa, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues and wonderful works of . . . [Elohim]. (Acts 2:5-11)
This incredible list of people of Israelite blood, living in so many different nations and localities confirms that they, too, were in Jerusalem for the express purpose of keeping the annual feast of Pentecost.
If John and the other gospel writers had been discordant in their chronology over the passover date, how does it come about that not only all the disciples, but Jews too from every part of the Near East, were in full agreement over the date of Pentecost, which they were observing on the same day. If there had been difference of opinion over the passover date, there was bound to have been variance over the date of Pentecost.16
Far from offering contradictory accounts of the crucifixion Passover, the four gospels are all in agreement! The differences in their accounts actually provide confirmation that they are all in agreement with no contradiction whatsoever.
Truth never contradicts itself. If there are apparent discrepancies, they merely highlight an area where additional study is needed. In areas where the wisdom of Yahuwah has determined that not all cause for doubt is to be removed, allowing everyone to exercise their freedom of choice to believe or to doubt as they will, let believers choose to exercise faith, for “without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to [Elohim] must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” (Hebrews 11:6, NKJV)
While the critic of faith will be quick to make assumptions and use their assumptions to discredit Scripture, the believing student should train themselves to carefully analyze the words (and silence) of Scripture. In most (if not all cases) the puzzles we face rest on our own misunderstanding of the text, not the words of Scripture itself.17
In this time when knowledge is being increased and many Heavenly truths are being restored, all should feel encouraged to study for themselves every tenet of their beliefs. If a belief is in error, the Holy Spirit has been pledged to lead all who seek truth into a knowledge of that truth. "And when He [the Spirit of Truth] has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness and of judgment." (John 16:8, NKJV)
1 All scripture references are King James Version unless otherwise specified.
2 #4413, The New Strong's Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words.
3 Mark 14:1; Luke 22:1.
4 Acts 12:3; 20:6.
5 Matt. 26:17.
6 Ant[iquities], XVII.IX.3; B.II.I.3, etc.
7 B.V.III.1. Thackeray: "When the day of unleavened bread came round on the fourteenth," etc.
8 Grace E. Amadon, "The Johannine-Synoptic Argument," (original manuscript of the published article), Andrews University, James White Library,Collection 154, Box 2, Folder 1, p. 1, emphasis supplied.
9 Grace E. Amadon, "Important Passover Texts in Josephus and Philo,"(original manuscript of the published article), Andrews University, James White Library, Collection 154, Box 2, Folder 1, p. 1, underlined original; italics supplied.
10 Direct translation by G. E. Amadon, ibid.,p. 2.
11 Barry D. Smith, “The Chronology of the Last Supper,” Westminster Theological Journal 53:1 (1991), pp. 35 & 36.
12 Amadon, "The Johannine-Synoptic Argument," op cit., p. 3.
13 Amadon, "Important Passover Texts in Josephus and Philo," op cit., p. 9.
14 Oun “does not always furnish a strictly causal connection, but may be used more loosely as a temporal connective in the continuation or resumption of a narrative” (A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. F. Blass, A. Debrunner and Robert Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961, 234-5).
15 For additional confirmation of Judas Iscariot as the son of Simon, see John 13:2-3 and 13:26.
16 Amadon, "The Johannine-Synoptic Argument," op cit., p. 9.
17 Kyle Pope, “Dating Passover and the Last Supper,” Ancient Road Publications.