Matthew 27 - Introduction

THE DATE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. The point of difficult is the day of the month. Our Lord died on Friday, but from very early times there has been a dispute whether this Friday was the 15 th of Nisan, or the 14 th. The former view places the institution of the Lord's Supper at the regular time of eating the passover, on the 14 th in the evening (Exodus 13:6-8; Exodus 23:5), the crucifixion taking place on the 15 th, the first feast day, though ‘not the first day of unleavened bread,' since the leaven was removed on the 14 th (Exodus 12:18-19). The other view is that Christ died on the 14 th, at the time when the Paschal Lamb should be slain (after three o'clock in the afternoon), hence that the Last Supper was eaten a day before the regular time for the passover feasts.

Reasons for preferring the former view:

1. The accounts given in the first three Gospels undoubtedly make the impression that the Lord's Supper was instituted during a passover feast at the regular time. They all speak of it as ‘the passover,' and Mark says (Mark 14:12) that it was the day ‘when they killed' (or ‘were wont to kill') ‘the passover,' while Luke (Luke 22:7) remarks: ‘when the passover must be killed;' adding, ‘and when the hour was come' (Luke 22:14). The disciples asked where they should prepare to eat the Passover (Matthew and Mark). An anticipation of the regular time would have been noted, if not by the disciples, by the man at whose house they met.

2. Christ, who came to fulfil the law, would not have violated it in this instance.

3. A celebration on the day before would not have been permitted, if it was the custom then to slay the lamb in the temple.

4. The reasons for the other view are insufficient: (a) If Christ had been crucified at the precise time when it was customary to slay the Paschal Lamb, some hint would have been given of so important a fulfillment of the Old Testament types. But in fact the afternoon of the 14 th at three o'clock was before the legal time. (b) The passages in John which occasion the difficulty are not decisive: John 13:1-4, ‘Before the feat of the Passover Jesus riseth from the supper,' does not necessarily mean the day before. John 13:27: ‘What thou doest, do quickly, was understood by the disciples as meaning, buy what is needed. It is urged that if the feast had begun, no purchases could be made. But if a whole day remained, the word ‘quickly' seems unnecessary. In John 18:28, John speaks of the fear of defilement felt by the Jews, intimating that early on the morning of the day of the crucifixion they had not yet eaten the passover; but this expression may refer to the continuance of the passover-feast. Besides the defilement would have ceased in the evening, in time to eat the Passover, had the evening of the Friday been the regular time. John twice speaks (John 19:14; John 19:31) of that Friday as a ‘preparation.' This need not be understood of the day before the Passover, since in all other instances the reference is to the day before the Sabbath, not before a feast-day. The Sabbath would be ‘a high day' (John 19:31), as the first Sabbath of the Passover time, even thought not the first day itself, as the other view implies. (c) The Chief priests were present at the crucifixion. But if that had been the time when the paschal lamb was slain, these men should have been present in the temple. (d) The objection that an execution would not take place on the feast day, is of very little weight. According to Deuteronomy 17:12-13, executions were to be public and of a religious character, and one of the Rabbins distinctly states that they took place on feast days: Further the custom was to release a prisoner on the ‘feast day,' (Matthew 27:15; John 18:39), and Barabbas seemed to have teen released before the crucifixion (Matthew 27:26).

DATE OF THE ANOINTING AT BETHANY. Matthew and Mark place the anointing at Bethany between the counsel of the chief priests and the treacherous proposal of Judas. John places it just after the arrival at Bethany, ‘six days before the Passover,' the entry to Jerusalem taking place ‘in the next day.' We accept the latter, as the correct date.

1. While the marks of time in the several accounts do not decide which is the more exact, John 12:9 speaks of something as following, which must have occurred previous to the public entry to Jerusalem, while Matthew 26:14, and Mark 14:10, do not necessarily imply that the proposal of Judas immediately followed the Supper at Bethany.

2. According to John the occasion was a supper made for Jesus, not an accidental eating there. Such an entertainment was more likely to have been given on the triumphal progress to Jerusalem than while Christ was so occupied in His public ministry in the temple. There would scarcely have been time for such a supper on Tuesday evening, as He went to the Mount of Olives at night (Luke 21:37), and then delivered a long discourse. Wednesday evening is too late, for the proposal of Judas followed, and the words of Matthew and Mark: ‘from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him,' suggest a longer interval than from late on Wednesday night to Thursday night.

3. There is no reason for John's displacing it, while a displacement by Matthew and Mark can be accounted for. (a) In history the recapitulation of events is more natural than the anticipation; (b) The prophecy of the speedy death would suggest the anointing of the burial; (c) J udas had murmured (John 12:4), and the rebuke no doubt had its effect in ripening his treachery, which is mentioned at this point by Matthew and Mark. Neither of them speak of Judas as the objecter, but they cannot have been ignorant of the connection between the two events. Matthew is most apt to vary from the exact chronology so as to group together events that have a close relation independent of time.