Day of the Last Supper: Wednesday or Thursday?

[MLCOPE2]

Here is an article that I read recently in which a scientist claims to have "solved" the dilemma of the date of the Last Supper. I am not going to post the link since it contains a 2nd commandment violation so I will post it in it's entirety here.

LONDON (AFP) – Christians have long celebrated Jesus Christ's Last Supper on Maundy Thursday but new research released Monday claims to show it took place on the Wednesday before the crucifixion.
Professor Colin Humphreys, a scientist at the University of Cambridge, believes it is all due to a calendar mix-up -- and asserts his findings strengthen the case for finally introducing a fixed date for Easter.
Humphreys uses a combination of biblical, historical and astronomical research to try to pinpoint the precise nature and timing of Jesus' final meal with his disciples before his death.
Researchers have long been puzzled by an apparent inconsistency in the Bible.
While Matthew, Mark and Luke all say the Last Supper coincided with the start of the Jewish festival of Passover, John claims it took place before Passover.
Humphreys has concluded in a new book, "The Mystery Of The Last Supper", that Jesus -- along with Matthew, Mark and Luke -- may have been using a different calendar to John.
"Whatever you think about the Bible, the fact is that Jewish people would never mistake the Passover meal for another meal, so for the Gospels to contradict themselves in this regard is really hard to understand," Humphreys said.
"Many biblical scholars say that, for this reason, you can't trust the Gospels at all. But if we use science and the Gospels hand in hand, we can actually prove that there was no contradiction."
In Humphreys' theory, Jesus went by an old-fashioned Jewish calendar rather than the official lunar calendar which was in widespread use at the time of his death and is still in use today.
This would put the Passover meal -- and the Last Supper -- on the Wednesday, explaining how such a large number of events took place between the meal and the crucifixion.
It would follow that Jesus' arrest, interrogation and separate trials did not all take place in the space of one night but in fact occurred over a longer period.
Humphreys believes a date could therefore be ascribed to Easter in our modern solar calendar, and working on the basis that the crucifixion took place on April 3, Easter Day would be on April 5.

I appreciate his desire to reconcile scripture and science:

"Many biblical scholars say that, for this reason, you can't trust the Gospels at all. But if we use science and the Gospels hand in hand, we can actually prove that there was no contradiction."

but do his "findings" represent serious biblical scholarship on this matter?

 

[Notthemama1984]

This stuff is not new. I have an older book (maybe in the 50s?) by R.A. Torrey where he makes the case that the Supper was on Wednesday. I do not remember the specifics, but it was an attempt to have Christ in the grave for an entire three days and three nights.

 

[MLCOPE2]

I've never really done any study on the day but I am curious to know if it falls within the realm of orthodoxy. Are there any other books on this subject? Is it even an important topic of discussion?

 

[Notthemama1984]

I am not sure about the person you linked, but Torrey's argument would fit in the realm of orthodoxy. Everything theological is just like us.

Also can the differences be something as simple as Matthew, Mark, and Luke refer to the Passover festivities as a whole, but John is referring to the meal only? The NET and ESV translate John as feast of the Passover.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Supposedly there could have been two Sabbaths that week. It was a possibility as I understand it.

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

This Sabbath day was possibly not a regular Sabbath day as is noted that it was a "high day."

(Joh 19:31) Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away

(Num 28:16) "On the fourteenth day of the first month is the LORD's Passover,

(Num 28:17) and on the fifteenth day of this month is a feast. Seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.

(Num 28:18) On the first day there shall be a holy convocation. You shall not do any ordinary work,

What the Gentile Church has failed to recognize over the Centuries is that the first day after Passover (15 Nisan) is a feast day, or "high day" because it is the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. It is therefore considered to be a Sabbath, regardless of which day of he week on which it falls. Read Numbers 28:16-18. Verse 18 Clearly indicates that the first day after Passover, Nisan 15, is to be observed as a Sabbath and so it has been through out Jewish history to this day. Depending on what day of the the week the high feast day fell on, if it fell on Saturday, there there was only one Sabbath, but it it fell on another day of the week, as it usually does, there would be two Sabbaths. In the year 31 Ad for example, the 14th of Nisan, the Passover day fell on Wednesday April the 25th. Thursday would have been the High feast day therefore it would have been a Sabbath.

I got that from some obscure source I have had laying around for years.

 

[Notthemama1984]

That is the argument that Torrey makes in this book....


Amazon.com: Difficulties in the Bible (9780883683019): R. A. Torrey: Books

 

[Gage Browning]

I don't think it was 2 sabbaths, I think it was a "special" sabbath, kind of like having "Christmas on the Lord's Day"!

---------- Post added at 03:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:53 PM ----------

Plus..."paraskevé" translated, "Day of Preparation" has always been Friday in Greek literature.

---------- Post added at 04:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------

Just a little not from DA Carson-
D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1991) 603‐4. “Despite the fact that Barrett (p. 545) confidently insists paraskeuè tou pascha must refer to the Preparation day of (i.e. before) the Passover, he does not offer any evidence of a single instance where paraskeuë refers to the day before any feast day other than Sabbath.1 If this latter identification is correct, then tou pascha must be taken to mean, not ‘of the Passover’, but ‘of the Passover Feast’ or ‘of the Passover week’. This is a perfectly acceptable rendering, since‘Passover’ can refer to the Passover meal, the day of the Passover meal, or (as in this case) the entire Passover week (i.e.Passover day plus the immediately ensuing Feast of Unleavened Bread: cf. Jos., Ant. xiv. 21; xvii. 213; Bel. ii. 10; Lk. 22:1; cf. notes on 18:28). Hence paraskeuë tou pascha probably means ‘Friday of Passover week (cf. also notes on v. 31). In this view, John and the Synoptics agree that the last supper was eaten on Thursday evening (i.e. the onset of Friday, by Jewish reckoning), and was a Passover meal.

 

[dudley]

This stuff is not new. I have an older book (maybe in the 50s?) by R.A. Torrey where he makes the case that the Supper was on Wednesday. I do not remember the specifics, but it was an attempt to have Christ in the grave for an entire three days and three nights.

I have the same book and read the same thing......so should we have services of the Lords Supper On Wednesday?

 

[Notthemama1984]

Does it really matter?

 

[MLCOPE2]

Does it really matter?

That's pretty much the question that I have at this point.

 

[lynnie]

It has always mattered a lot to me. A whole great big huge lot. If six days in Genesis is six days, then three days and three nights in the gospels ought to be three days and three nights. It has amazed me over the years how many people who are literal about Genesis get all uptight when you talk about the good Wednesday position.

Thanks for the post.

 

[bpkantor]

Just as a note on the counting of three days...

In the Roman world when you counted calendar days (and you can see this in Roman letters) you count the day you are in and the day you are going to.

For example

M T W Th F S
1 2 3 4 5 6

If I was on Monday the 1st I would say that it will be Thursday in 4 days. Or if Thursday was a special day and I was writing a letter on Monday, I would say date the letter as being 4 days before Thursday. That was just the way they counted in the Roman world (they include the day they are in and the day that they are counting to).

Granted Jesus was in a Jewish context so it may be different, but this note might help.

God bless,
--Ben

 

[Steve Curtis]

The "three days" part is not as troubling to some as the "three nights" part. A Wednesday Last Supper is intended to address this. Personally, I have never looked into the arguments deeply enough to comment, but I would be curious to hear from those who have.

 

[tcalbrecht]

then three days and three nights in the gospels ought to be three days and three nights.

This is a Hebraism, meaning any portion of a three day period. Friday to Sunday would qualify.

But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened. -- Luke 24:21

 

[VictorBravo]

It seems God made it night for about 3 hours:

Luke 23:44- "And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour."

 

[Steve Curtis]

But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened. -- Luke 24:21

Not sure what this reference is intented to answer. I don't think that anyone is questioning whether Christ arose on the third day! Clearly, Sunday ("the first day of the week") was the third day. The discussion is generally around the first day.

 

[tcalbrecht]

But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened. -- Luke 24:21

Not sure what this reference is intented to answer. I don't think that anyone is questioning whether Christ arose on the third day! Clearly, Sunday ("the first day of the week") was the third day. The discussion is generally around the first day.

If the "third day" was Sunday, the then first day must have been Friday (there is no day zero in ancient Hebrew way of thinking.) Thus the phrase "three days and three nights" fits with the Friday-Sunday scheme. There is no need to add an extra day (which would actually be a fourth day).

 

[Rufus]

I'm confused just reading this

Does it really matter?

Some try to disprove the Bible by using this supposed contradiction.
I still don't understand this much, at all.

 

[lynnie]

I appreciate the clarifications to my post, really, but I'm sticking with this:

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Mt 12:40)

Saying three hours of darkness Friday was the third night, or saying Friday counts as one day and night, and sat is the 2nd and Sunday morning is the third just doesn't work when I run up against old earthers. Six days equals 20 billion years and all that jazz. For the sake of my own conscience and consistency I stick with the view that the sabbath was a special Passover sabbath, and Jesus really was in the tomb three days and nights just like Jonah. I will venture to say I even think they were full 24 hour days.

I have kids and they have inquisitive friends, and the Friday night to Sunday AM just does not hold water for the average kid either. Not saying I am right, it just seems like the position with the most intellectual and biblical integrity.

 

[Steve Curtis]

If the "third day" was Sunday, the then first day must have been Friday (there is no day zero in ancient Hebrew way of thinking.) Thus the phrase "three days and three nights" fits with the Friday-Sunday scheme. There is no need to add an extra day (which would actually be a fourth day).

I have never really given this much thought, but now I guess that am! In fact, I was recently approached by a couple at church with this question, so I was planning on looking into it before long anyway. I'd really appreciate help in understanding how the traditional view of the Thursday night Last Supper deals with the "nights."
I understand that "three days" could be understood as part of Friday, all of Saturday, and part of Sunday. Got that. And had that been the prophecy, there would be no confusion. It's the idea of "three nights." Do you know of any other situation where two nights (Friday night and Saturday, for example) could have been understood as three nights?

 

[Gage Browning]

The "Day of Preparation" is Friday. Also John tells us "that Sabbath was a high day", not "that day was a high Sabbath"! A big difference. It was a Sabbath already, however it was a special Sabbath, the one that fell within the feast of unleavened bread.
I thought what Ignatius said was pretty informative.
250 AD IGNATIUS: "On the day of the preparation, then, at the third hour, He received the sentence from Pilate, the Father permitting that to happen; at the sixth hour He was crucified; at the ninth hour He gave up the ghost; and before sunset He was buried. During the Sabbath He continued under the earth in the tomb in which Joseph of Arimathaea had laid Him. At the dawning of the Lord's day He arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by Himself, "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man also be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." The day of the preparation, then, comprises the passion; the Sabbath embraces the burial; the Lord's Day contains the resurrection." The (Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, chapter 9)

But for those who don't buy the loosey goosey way the Jews counted time and days, then think of it this way.
Those who insist that we must literally interpret 3 days & 3 nights = 72 Hours "It is the sign of Jonah" they say, haven’t understood that it is impossible to harmonize LITERALLY all the data. If Jesus was after 72 hours, then all the verses would read on the FOURTH day.

 

[tcalbrecht]

I understand that "three days" could be understood as part of Friday, all of Saturday, and part of Sunday. Got that. And had that been the prophecy, there would be no confusion. It's the idea of "three nights." Do you know of any other situation where two nights (Friday night and Saturday, for example) could have been understood as three nights?

The difficulty you're having is with the phrase, "three days and three nights." It's not "three days" and "three nights" as two separate concepts. The phrase is an idiom and must be taken together to mean any part of three days. If you try to divide it, it will never make sense.

 

[KMK]

I understand that "three days" could be understood as part of Friday, all of Saturday, and part of Sunday. Got that. And had that been the prophecy, there would be no confusion. It's the idea of "three nights." Do you know of any other situation where two nights (Friday night and Saturday, for example) could have been understood as three nights?

The difficulty you're having is with the phrase, "three days and three nights." It's not "three days" and "three nights" as two separate concepts. The phrase is an idiom and must be taken together to mean any part of three days. If you try to divide it, it will never make sense.

Mr. Albrecht is correct. It must also be remembered that a 'day' in Jewish counting was from sundown to sundown.