ight; the synoptics were right, for the Last Supper was a paschal meal though without the lamb.”

Beck examines the difficulty from the features that were typically characteristic of a Passover celebration such as; reclining at the table, eating the broken bread from a dish, and drinking red wine. Yet, other features such as the paschal lamb, bitter herbs, and four cups are not mentioned. Thus, Beck acknowledges the small chance of erasing the contradiction between the synoptic gospels and John.

Others, such as John Hurt, advocate no discrepancy and insist the issue is solved by simply noting that John uses Roman time, while the synoptics use Jewish time.

One of the great values we learn from the Bible and extra-biblical sources is

It is unfortunate that although intended as a symbol of our unity in Jesus Christ, the Lord's Supper has become a point of division among Christians across the millennia. In addition to distinct understandings surrounding the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper which include (but not limited to) strong beliefs relative to Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, Memorialism, and Spiritualism; there is also the problem of determining whether or not the Lord’s Supper was or was not a Passover Meal which this article will briefly reflect upon.

John clearly states that the Last Supper took place before the Passover and that Jesus was crucified on the afternoon before the evening that was the traditional time for the Passover celebration. If we accept John’s declaration at face value, then we would have to believe that Jesus did not eat the Passover meal with His disciples since He, Himself was the paschal Lamb and sacrificed about the same time as the Passover lambs.

Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. John 18:28.

From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar." When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge's seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour. "Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews. John 19:12-14.

Matthew, Mark and Luke state that the Last Supper was the Passover meal. Yet both John and the synoptic tradition seem to agree that the day of the crucifixion was on Friday. At this point and time, I lean toward John’s position on the timing of the Last Supper and the crucifixion due to John’s purporting to be based on the recollections of an eyewitness who was present at the time. Furthermore, Mark and Matthew state that the Sanhedrin wanted to get Jesus arrested and executed before the Passover; an intention that was blocked if their timing of the Last Supper and crucifixion is erroneous.

Stein doesn’t really adopt a position. After exploring several related theories attempting to explain the apparent discrepancy between John’s account and the synoptics, Stein confesses that no one explanation is totally convincing at the present time.

Jocz agrees with Stein that the discrepancy cannot really be reconciled if the synoptics and John are thinking of the same Passover. However, he suggest that the dilemma could be solved if the assumption was made that the Last Supper was a paschal meal, but in anticipation of the festival, which would mean that the paschal lamb was missing. This solution, he maintains, makes reconciliation possible. “John was right, for Passover began on Friday night; the synoptics were right, for the Last Supper was a paschal meal though without the lamb.”

Beck examines the difficulty from the features that were typically characteristic of a Passover celebration such as; reclining at the table, eating the broken bread from a dish, and drinking red wine. Yet, other features such as the paschal lamb, bitter herbs, and four cups are not mentioned. Thus, Beck acknowledges the small chance of erasing the contradiction between the synoptic gospels and John.

Others, such as John Hurt, advocate no discrepancy and insist the issue is solved by simply noting that John uses Roman time, while the synoptics use Jewish time.

One of the great values we learn from the Bible and extra-biblical sources is t

hn’s declaration at face value, then we would have to believe that Jesus did not eat the Passover meal with His disciples since He, Himself was the paschal Lamb and sacrificed about the same time as the Passover lambs.

Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. John 18:28.

From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar." When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge's seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour. "Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews. John 19:12-14.

Matthew, Mark and Luke state that the Last Supper was the Passover meal. Yet both John and the synoptic tradition seem to agree that the day of the crucifixion was on Friday. At this point and time, I lean toward John’s position on the timing of the Last Supper and the crucifixion due to John’s purporting to be based on the recollections of an eyewitness who was present at the time. Furthermore, Mark and Matthew state that the Sanhedrin wanted to get Jesus arrested and executed before the Passover; an intention that was blocked if their timing of the Last Supper and crucifixion is erroneous.

Stein doesn’t really adopt a position. After exploring several related theories attempting to explain the apparent discrepancy between John’s account and the synoptics, Stein confesses that no one explanation is totally convincing at the present time.

Jocz agrees with Stein that the discrepancy cannot really be reconciled if the synoptics and John are thinking of the same Passover. However, he suggest that the dilemma could be solved if the assumption was made that the Last Supper was a paschal meal, but in anticipation of the festival, which would mean that the paschal lamb was missing. This solution, he maintains, makes reconciliation possible. “John was right, for Passover began on Friday night; the synoptics were right, for the Last Supper was a paschal meal though without the lamb.”

Beck examines the difficulty from the features that were typically characteristic of a Passover celebration such as; reclining at the table, eating the broken bread from a dish, and drinking red wine. Yet, other features such as the paschal lamb, bitter herbs, and four cups are not mentioned. Thus, Beck acknowledges the small chance of erasing the contradiction between the synoptic gospels and John.

Others, such as John Hurt, advocate no discrepancy and insist the issue is solved by simply noting that John uses Roman time, while the synoptics use Jewish time.

One of the great values we learn from the Bible and extra-biblical sources is

Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour. "Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews. John 19:12-14.

Matthew, Mark and Luke state that the Last Supper was the Passover meal. Yet both John and the synoptic tradition seem to agree that the day of the crucifixion was on Friday. At this point and time, I lean toward John’s position on the timing of the Last Supper and the crucifixion due to John’s purporting to be based on the recollections of an eyewitness who was present at the time. Furthermore, Mark and Matthew state that the Sanhedrin wanted to get Jesus arrested and executed before the Passover; an intention that was blocked if their timing of the Last Supper and crucifixion is erroneous.

Stein doesn’t really adopt a position. After exploring several related theories attempting to explain the apparent discrepancy between John’s account and the synoptics, Stein confesses that no one explanation is totally convincing at the present time.

Jocz agrees with Stein that the discrepancy cannot really be reconciled if the synoptics and John are thinking of the same Passover. However, he suggest that the dilemma could be solved if the assumption was made that the Last Supper was a paschal meal, but in anticipation of the festival, which would mean that the paschal lamb was missing. This solution, he maintains, makes reconciliation possible. “John was right, for Passover began on Friday night; the synoptics were right, for the Last Supper was a paschal meal though without the lamb.”

Beck examines the difficulty from the features that were typically characteristic of a Passover celebration such as; reclining at the table, eating the broken bread from a dish, and drinking red wine. Yet, other features such as the paschal lamb, bitter herbs, and four cups are not mentioned. Thus, Beck acknowledges the small chance of erasing the contradiction between the synoptic gospels and John.

Others, such as John Hurt, advocate no discrepancy and insist the issue is solved by simply noting that John uses Roman time, while the synoptics use Jewish time.

One of the great values we learn from the Bible and extra-biblical sources is

he Last Supper and crucifixion is erroneous.

Stein doesn’t really adopt a position. After exploring several related theories attempting to explain the apparent discrepancy between John’s account and the synoptics, Stein confesses that no one explanation is totally convincing at the present time.

Jocz agrees with Stein that the discrepancy cannot really be reconciled if the synoptics and John are thinking of the same Passover. However, he suggest that the dilemma could be solved if the assumption was made that the Last Supper was a paschal meal, but in anticipation of the festival, which would mean that the paschal lamb was missing. This solution, he maintains, makes reconciliation possible. “John was right, for Passover began on Friday night; the synoptics were right, for the Last Supper was a paschal meal though without the lamb.”

Beck examines the difficulty from the features that were typically characteristic of a Passover celebration such as; reclining at the table, eating the broken bread from a dish, and drinking red wine. Yet, other features such as the paschal lamb, bitter herbs, and four cups are not mentioned. Thus, Beck acknowledges the small chance of erasing the contradiction between the synoptic gospels and John.

Others, such as John Hurt, advocate no discrepancy and insist the issue is solved by simply noting that John uses Roman time, while the synoptics use Jewish time.

One of the great values we learn from the Bible and extra-biblical sources is

ight; the synoptics were right, for the Last Supper was a paschal meal though without the lamb.”

Beck examines the difficulty from the features that were typically characteristic of a Passover celebration such as; reclining at the table, eating the broken bread from a dish, and drinking red wine. Yet, other features such as the paschal lamb, bitter herbs, and four cups are not mentioned. Thus, Beck acknowledges the small chance of erasing the contradiction between the synoptic gospels and John.

Others, such as John Hurt, advocate no discrepancy and insist the issue is solved by simply noting that John uses Roman time, while the synoptics use Jewish time.

One of the great values we learn from the Bible and extra-biblical sources is that there is much more to fully understanding the Lord’s Supper than we may have realized. Ultimately of course, it becomes a matter of belief.