The type was He would rise on the 3rd day. This was true every year in the type, no matter when the New Moon occurred. This would not be true if the Wave Sheaf was to be on a specific day of the week, it does not work.

You are saying both Pentecost and the Wave Sheaf were tied to specific days. You have not proven this and as stated, you are in contradiction to the clear statement of Ellen White. The SDABC which you should be intimately knowledgeable of also states that the Wave Sheaf was on the 16th of Nisan.

Did you just ignore what the Bible said and I quoted above?

Was the whole nation wrong? When did the nation eat the Passover?

Again, see EGW quote I provided you and you seemed to have ignored or not understood.

Rosangela and Mark,

It seems from your comments you are implying that the new moon, resets the weekly cycle. Am I correct?

That is otherwise there are problems from what you are suggesting: If Passover can fall on any day of the week, and if the first fruits start on the 15th, and there 50 days between and the 50th day is on a Sunday, then the assumption that Passover can fall on any day of the week cannot be true.

No, the type was that He would rise on the day of the Firstfruits offering, and the type was that He would rise on a Sunday, after He had rested from His completed work of salvation on the Sabbath. That's very simple.

I'm just using the Bible, and interpreting the word Sabbath as Sabbath, not as "seven days."

I didn't see any Bible quote you provided which solved the problem.

Note 1

All four Gospels agree that Jesus and His disciples celebrated the Last Supper on the night preceding the crucifixion, that He lay in the tomb over Sabbath, and that He arose early Sunday morning. The Synoptics, however, call the Last Supper, the night preceding the crucifixion, “the Passover,” whereas according to John, the Jews celebrated the Passover supper on the night following the crucifixion. The statements of John and the Synoptics thus appear to be in conflict.

Most critical commentators dismiss this apparent conflict with the casual observation that, obviously, either John or the synoptic writers were mistaken. But those who believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures reject such an explanation and propose, instead, one of various possible solutions to the problem. In order to evaluate intelligently these solutions it is necessary, first, to review Biblical and secular data relating to the time and typical significance of the Passover, and to time factors connected with the Last Supper and the crucifixion.

Time of the Passover.—The paschal lamb was slain in the late afternoon of Nisan 14, following the regular evening sacrifice, and eaten, with unleavened bread, after sunset that same night, during the early hours of Nisan 15 (Exodus 12:6-14; Exodus 12:29; Exodus 12:33; Exodus 12:42; Exodus 12:51; Exodus 13:3-7; Numbers 9:1-5; Numbers 33:3; Deuteronomy 16:1-7; Josephus Antiquities ii. 14. 6; iii. 10. 5; xi. 4. 8 [311, 312; 248, 249; 109, 110]; War v. 3. 1 [98, 99]; vi. 9. 3 [423]; Philo De septenario, sec. 18; Mishnah Pesaḥim 5. 1, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 287). Nisan 15, a ceremonial sabbath, also marked the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Exodus 12:8; Exodus 12:18; Exodus 12:34; Exodus 12:39; Leviticus 23:5-6; Numbers 28:16-17; Deuteronomy 16:3-4; Deuteronomy 16:8; Antiquities iii. 10. 5 [249]; cf. ii. 15. 2 [318]). On Nisan 16, the second day of this feast, the wave sheaf of the first fruits was presented in the Temple (see Leviticus 23:10-14; Antiquities iii. 10. 5 [250, 251]). The term “Passover” was originally applied to Nisan 14 only, but in the time of Christ it was sometimes used of the Feast of Unleavened Bread as well (Antiquities ii. 14. 6; xi. 4. 8; xiv. 2. 1 [311–313; 109–111; 21]; xvii. 9. 3; War ii. 1. 3; v. 3. 1 [10; 99]). Apparently, also, the term Feast of Unleavened Bread was similarly used to include the Passover (Luke 22:7; Acts 12:3-4; cf. Matthew 20:6).

Tables that purport to give the Christian Era dates for each paschal full moon during the ministry of our Lord are of no real help in this problem for all such tables are based on modern Jewish methods of computing the time of the Passover. How the Jews of Christ’s time coordinated their lunar calendar with the solar year is not known today, all supposedly learned statements to the contrary notwithstanding. It is therefore impossible to determine with absolute certainty the day of the week or even, always, the month in which the Passover of any year of our Lord’s ministry may have occurred. For a discussion of this problem see Vol. II, pp. 100-105; Vol. V. pp. 250-264.

A notable perversion of Biblical data regarding the time of the Last Supper is the Wednesday crucifixion theory, which assumes: (1) that the Christian Era date of the paschal full moon of the crucifixion year can be determined with absolute accuracy (see p. 258), (2) that the Hebrew idiomatic expression “three days and three nights” indicates a period of 72 full hours (see Vol. I, p. 182; Vol. II, pp. 136, 137; Vol. V, pp. 248-251), and (3) that the Greek of Matthew 28:1 (see comment there) assigns the resurrection to Sabbath afternoon. This theory does not bear the marks of sound scholarship and is utterly at variance with Biblical meanings of terms. Therefore it is untenable.

Some have assumed that the expression “in the evening,” of Exodus 12:6, literally, “between the two evenings,” denotes the moment of sunset beginning Nisan 14, or the period between sunset and dark. Although some modern commentators have adopted this theory, a careful examination of other Biblical passages, of the writings of Josephus and Philo, and of the tractate Pesaḥim (see Mishnah Pesaḥim, 4. 1, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 243; 5. 1, 10, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 287, 325; Talmud Pesaḥim 58a, Soncino ed., pp. 287–290; and other references cited above) provide no clear evidence in support of it. See p. 265.

Typical Significance of the Passover.—The paschal lamb prefigured Christ, “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), “Christ our passover,” who was to be “sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7). Similarly, the wave sheaf of the Feast of Unleavened Bread typified “Christ risen from the dead, … the first-fruits of them that slept” (1 Corinthians 15:20; 1 Corinthians 15:23).

The Last Supper and the Crucifixion.—The following chronological statements appear to be either explicit or implicit in the Gospel narrative and are rather generally accepted by Bible students:

a. The crucifixion took place on “the preparation [eve] of the passover,” that is, on Nisan 14 (John 19:14; cf. Talmud Pesaḥim 58a, Soncino ed., p. 288; Sanhedrin 43a, Soncino ed., p. 281; Exodus 12:6; cf. GC-399).

b. The death of Christ took place on a Friday afternoon (Mark 15:42 to Mark 16:2; Luke 23:54 to Luke 24:1; John 19:31; John 19:42; John 20:1), about the time of the evening sacrifice (DA-756; DA-757; cf. GC-399).

c. Accordingly, in the year of the crucifixion, Nisan 14, the day appointed for slaying the paschal lambs, fell on a Friday; the preparation for (or eve of) the Passover coincided with the preparation for (or eve of) the weekly Sabbath (John 19:14; cf. Matthew 26:31; Matthew 26:42; Matthew 20:1). The first ceremonial sabbath of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15, thus coincided with the weekly Sabbath (Leviticus 23:6-8; cf. Mark 15:42 to Mark 16:2; Luke 23:5 to Luke 24:1).

d. The Last Supper took place the night preceding the crucifixion (Matthew 26:17; Matthew 26:20; Matthew 26:26; Matthew 26:34; Matthew 26:47; Mark 14:12; Mark 14:16-17; Luke 22:7-8; Luke 22:13-15; John 13:2; John 13:4; John 13:30; John 14:31; John 18:1-3; John 18:28; John 19:16; cf. DA-642; GC-399), that is, during the early hours of Nisan 14 (see Vol. II, p. 101) and thus on a Thursday night.

e. The synoptic accounts call the Last Supper a Passover supper (Matthew 26:17; Matthew 26:20; Mark 14:12; Mark 14:16-17; Luke 22:7-8; Luke 22:13-15; cf. DA-642; DA-652; GC-399).

f. John’s account places the official Jewish celebration of the Passover supper 24 hours later than the Last Supper, and thus on Friday night following the crucifixion, during the early hours of the weekly Sabbath (John 18:28; John 19:14; John 19:31; cf. DA-774), which would be Nisan 15.

g. At the time of the Last Supper (John 13:1), during the course of the trial (Matthew 26:5; Mark 14:2; John 18:28; John 19:14; cf. DA-703; DA-723), and on the way to Calvary (cf. DA-742), the official celebration of the Passover was apparently yet future.

h. Jesus lay in the tomb over the Sabbath (Matthew 27:59 to Matthew 28:1; Mark 15:43 to Mark 16:1; Luke 23:54 to Luke 24:1; John 19:38 to John 20:1), which would be Nisan 15.

i. Jesus arose from the tomb early Sunday morning, Nisan 16 (Matthew 28:1-6; Mark 16:1-6; Luke 24:1-6; John 20:1-16; see on Mark 15:42; Mark 15:46; cf. GC-399; DA-785; DA-786).

Proposed Solutions of the Problem.—In the light of the foregoing let us examine the problem of the time of the Passover in the crucifixion year. Conservative commentators have generally sought to solve the problem on the basis of one of the four following assumptions:

a. That when referring to the Last Supper, the synoptic writers describe, not the Passover meal, but a ceremonial meal that preceded it by 24 hours. According to this assumption Nisan 14 fell on Friday in the year of the crucifixion and the Passover of John was the official Passover meal.

b. That “the passover” to which John refers was not the Passover meal, but a ceremonial meal connected with the Feast of Unleavened Bread. According to this assumption Friday was Nisan 15, and the Last Supper the preceding night was a celebration of the official Passover meal, at the regular time. This explanation is the reverse of the preceding one.

c. That the Last Supper was a true Passover meal, as in the Synoptics, even though celebrated only by Jesus and His disciples, 24 hours in advance of the official Passover meal referred to by John, and thus of the time other Jews celebrated it. According to this assumption Friday was Nisan 14.

d. That in the time of Christ sectarian differences with respect to calendrical reckoning, as to whether Nisan 14 and 16 should be correlated with certain days of the week, had led, in actual practice, to a celebration of the Passover on two successive days, that is, a double celebration. According to this assumption one religious faction (the Pharisees and other conservatives) would have considered that Nisan 14 fell on Thursday in the crucifixion year, and the other (the Boethusian Sadducees and other liberals), that it fell on Friday. Christ and the disciples thus, presumably, celebrated the Passover with the first group—the “passover” of the Synoptics—and the Jewish leaders celebrated it the following night—the “passover” of John. This assumption differs from the preceding one in that here Christ and the disciples were not alone in their celebration of the Passover.

For a more detailed discussion of the various attempts that have been made to harmonize the statements of John and the Synoptics with regard to the time of the Last Supper in relation to the Passover, over, the reader is referred to the following: Grace Amadon, “Ancient Jewish Calendation,” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 61, part 4, 1942, pp. 227-280; C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, pp. 38–41; J. H. Bernard, International Critical Commentary, on St. John, vol. 1, pp. cvi-cviii; D. Chwolson, Das Letzte Passamahl Christi und der Tag Seines Todes; The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, art. “Chronology of the New Testament”; J. K; Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, tr. Herbert Danby, pp. 326–329; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, on Matthew 26:17; John 18:28; H. L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, vol. 2, pp. 812, 813. (See bibliographical notes on pp. 82, 102, 265.) For a full discussion of the calendrical problems involved see pp. 248-264.

Evaluation of Proposed Solutions.—These four proposed solutions to the problem may be evaluated as follows:

a. The view that the Last Supper was a preliminary ceremonial meal in advance of the regular Passover meal assumes that the Synoptics use the word “passover” in an accommodated sense. While it may be granted that the word “passover” could have been used in this sense (see p. 533), available evidence is strongly against such an accommodated use: (1) This view rests on the conjecture that such a preliminary ceremonial meal may have been celebrated in the days of Christ. (2) The more natural and obvious reading of these passages in their context (see references listed on p. 534, par. e) points to the conclusion that the synoptic writers consistently and repeatedly speak of the Last Supper as “the passover.” (3) The comment of both Mark (Matthew 14:12) and Luke (Matthew 22:7), that the day preceding the Last Supper was “the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover” (see Mark 14:12), would seem to preclude any possibility that the “passover” of the Synoptics could have been anything but a true Passover meal (cf. DA-642; DA-646; DA-652; DA-653; EW-165: GC-399). The disciples apparently took for granted that Thursday was the day of preparation for the Passover, that is, the day on which the paschal lamb should be slain and roasted (see p. 533).

b. The view that “the passover” of John 18:28; John 19:14 was a ceremonial meal connected with the Feast of Unleavened Bread, 24 hours after the official Passover supper, which was on Nisan 15, assumes that John uses the word “passover” in an accommodated sense. In favor of this view, it may be noted that common usage in NT times, as reflected, for instance, by Josephus (see p. 533), commonly applied the term Passover to the combined celebration of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. But although it may be granted that John could have used the word “passover” in this accommodated sense (see p. 533), available evidence is strongly against his so doing in the passages cited: (1) There is no clear use of the word “passover” in this sense anywhere in the NT. (2) The more natural and obvious reading of John’s statements in their context points to the conclusion that the Passover meal to which the apostle refers was the official celebration of the Passover, at least the one generally recognized by the Jewish leaders. (3) The anxiety of the Jewish leaders to conclude the trial and execution of Jesus immediately, before the feast, in order to avoid delaying the case until after the feast, would appear to preclude any possibility that the feast had already begun (Matthew 26:3-5; Mark 14:1-2, cf. DA-703). (4) Jewish law, as later codified in the Mishnah and the Talmud, prohibited the trial on a feast day of a case involving the death penalty (Mishnah Beẓah 5. 2, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 185; Sanhedrin 4. 1, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 185), or purchases such as that of the linen shroud and possibly also of spices for embalming the body of Jesus (Mark 15:46; Luke 23:56; however, see Mishnah Shabbath 23. 5, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 771). The violation of these regulations—if they were in force in earlier times, as seems probable, and if, indeed, heed was given to them, which, however, cannot be established (see Note 2)—would appear to rule out the possibility that the arrest, trial, and crucifixion took place on Nisan 15, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and a ceremonial sabbath. (5) Preparations for embalming the body of Jesus (Luke 23:54 to Luke 24:1), such as the women made on the day of the crucifixion, were considered labor, and as such would seem to be inappropriate even for a ceremonial sabbath (Leviticus 23:7; however, see Mishnah Shabbath 23. 5, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, p. 771). (6) At sunset of the crucifixion day the women “rested the sabbath day according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56), obviously a reference to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. (7) If, as this view assumes, the crucifixion fell on Nisan 15, the first day of unleavened bread, then the resurrection fell on Nisan 17, or the third day. But the offering of the first fruits, a type of the resurrection of our Lord, took place on the second day, or Nisan 16 (see Leviticus 23:10-14; 1 Corinthians 15:20; 1 Corinthians 15:23; GC-399; DA-785; DA-786). According to this view, then, the resurrection did not occur at the time called for by the ceremonial type of the wave sheaf. (8) In Jewish literature “the preparation of the passover” (John 19:14) is consistently applied to Nisan 14, never to Nisan 15, as this view would require (see Mishnah Pesaḥim 4. 1, 5, 6, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 243, 268, 271). (9) “The Passover was observed [by the Jews generally] as it had been for centuries [in other words, during the early hours of Nisan 15 (see p. 533)], while He to whom it pointed had been slain by wicked hands [late on Nisan 14], and lay in Joseph’s tomb” (DA-774; cf. GC-399).

c. The view that the Last Supper, although a true paschal meal, took place 24 hours prior to the time when the Jews, generally, celebrated it assumes that such a practice was possible. This view, unlike the preceding one, does take into account the fact that the crucifixion occurred in fulfillment of the type provided by the slaying of the paschal lamb on Nisan 14. It was, admittedly, impossible for Christ to eat the paschal lamb at the usual time, and also, as Himself the true paschal Lamb, to be slain at the usual time for the slaying of the Passover lambs. It would seem more important that His death should synchronize with the death of the Passover lambs than that His eating of the Passover should synchronize with the official time for eating that meal (pp. 533, 534; GC-399). Accordingly, His eating of the Passover would take place earlier than the time regularly set for it if the types of the slaying of the lamb and the offering of the first fruits were to be fulfilled “not only as to the event, but as to the time” (GC-399). However, this view is also confronted with difficulties. It is difficult to see how Jesus and the disciples, as sole exceptions to the rule, could have celebrated the Passover a day in advance of the usual time. Note that: (1) There is no historical evidence of anyone else having ever eaten the Passover early. The Passover lambs were to be slain at the Temple (Mishnah Pesaḥim 5. 5–7, Soncino ed. of the Talmud, pp. 323, 324) at a specified time (see p. 533), and, consistently as far as the record goes, there was no provision for slaying them at any other time than the late afternoon of Nisan 14 (for an exception see Numbers 9:6-11). (2) The disciples apparently recognized Thursday as the day on which preparations for the Passover should properly be made, in the crucifixion year (see Matthew 26:17; Luke 22:7), and seemed to take for granted that Thursday night was the proper time for eating the paschal meal. Whether the subject had been under discussion and Jesus had informed them that the time of celebration would be an exception and come on Thursday rather than Friday night, or whether they considered that Thursday night was a normal time for the celebration, we are not informed. The synoptic writers are silent as to anything out of the ordinary about the eating of the Passover on Thursday night by Jesus and the disciples.

d. The view that there was a double celebration of the Passover is based on one or another of various conjectures. What is perhaps the most plausible of these conjectures assumes that the “passover” of the Synoptics was the one celebrated by the Pharisees and other conservative Jews, whereas that of John was the one observed by the more liberal Boethusian Sadducees and others sympathetic with their interpretation of Scripture. (The Boethusian Sadducees of Christ’s day are known to have contended that the “sabbath” of Leviticus 23:11 referred to a weekly Sabbath instead of a ceremonial sabbath.) Those who set forth this view conjecture that in a year like a.d. 31, when, they assume, Nisan 16 would normally have fallen on the weekly Sabbath, the Sadducees would advocate the adjustment of the Jewish lunar calendar to make Nisan 16 fall, instead, on the first day of the week. This could, it is granted, have given rise to a double celebration of the Passover, but there is no evidence that, in actual practice, it ever did so. However, in that it makes the “passover” of the Synoptics and that of John both valid occasions for the celebration of the Passover, theory offers a possible solution of the apparently contradictory statements of the various gospel writers.

Conclusions.—We have here one more instance where our present-day ignorance of ancient Jewish practices appears to be the cause of our inability clearly to harmonize the seemingly conflicting statements of John and the Synoptics. However, on the basis of all available evidence, but without accepting any one of these four proposed explanations, this commentary suggests the possibility of the following sequence of events connected with the Last Supper, the crucifixion, and the Passover:

a. That in the year of the crucifixion, whether as a result of controversy between liberal and conservative elements of Judaism, or because of other circumstances now unknown, there may have been a double celebration of the Passover.

b. That, with other conservative Jews, Christ and the disciples celebrated the Last Supper on Thursday night, during the early hours of what was officially Nisan 14, and that the Last Supper was a true celebration of the Passover.

c. That Jesus died on the cross about the time of the evening sacrifice and the slaying of the paschal lambs, on Friday, Nisan 14.

d. That, in the year of the crucifixion, the official celebration of the Passover came on Friday night, after the crucifixion.

e. That Jesus rested in the tomb over the weekly Sabbath, which, in that year, coincided with the ceremonial, or annual, sabbath, Nisan 15, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

f. That Jesus arose from the tomb early on Sunday morning, Nisan 16, the day when the wave sheaf, which typified the resurrection, was presented in the Temple.

Happily, it is not necessary to solve this problem in order to avail ourselves of salvation through “Christ our passover,” who was “sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7)

Anyway, a Nisan 14 on a Friday is impossible in A.D. 31, and sooner or later the SDABC will have to deal with that.

Based on mathematical calculations of the moon? You can't use the mathematical calculations.

The Passover was eaten - Christ and His disciples ate the Passover Thursday evening. He was crucified on Friday afternoon. In the Hebrew calendar, this was the very same day.

You link the 7th-day Sabbath to the Feast of Weeks but ignore the fact that the first day of the feast was Unleavened Bread was a ceremonial Sabbath it was the commemoration of the Passover lamb dying for sin, not the 7th-day Sabbath. It was this Sabbath that Leviticus is talking about for the Wave Sheaf and the 50 days to Pentecost.

There is a question a discrepancy between the synoptics and John, and I posted a discussion on that.

No! By no means, kland.


No, the 50 days don't begin on the 15th, but on the day of the wave sheaf offering (first fruits), which is described, not as being on the 16th, but as being on "the morrow after the Sabbath."

Repeating: even if we considered the word "Sabbath" as referring to a ceremonial sabbath, there aren't 7 ceremonial sabbaths between the 16th of Nisan and Pentecost. In order to avoid this, you must attribute to the word "Sabbath" the meaning of "seven days" (a meaning it has never had) and say that the word has two completely different meanings in the same verse - "ceremonial sabbath" and "seven days."

So then you would be saying the wave sheaf could at times be almost a week later than Passover?