John 19:14

John has appeared to many readers of his Gospel to be contradicting the Synoptics and his own account of Jesus’ observance of the Passover meal with His disciples (cf. 13:1, 27). However the phrase "the day of preparation" normally described the day before the Sabbath. [Note: C. C. Torrey, "The Date of the Crucifixion According to the Fourth Gospel," Journal of Biblical Literature 50:4 (1931):241; A. J. B. Higgins, "The Origins of the Eucharist," New Testament Studies 1 (1954-55):206-8; Westcott, The Gospel . . . Greek Text . . ., 1:343; Hoehner, p. 70.] The day in view then would be Friday. Likewise "the Passover" can refer to the whole eight-day feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread as well as the Passover day (cf. 18:28; Luke 22:1). [Note: Cf. Josephus, Antiquities of . . ., 14:2:1; 17:9:3.] The day of preparation for the Passover, therefore, evidently refers to the Friday of the eight-day feast. This harmonizes with the other chronological references to the Passion Week.

Why did John make this chronological reference here? Apparently he did so to encourage the reader to connect Jesus with the Passover lamb. Secondarily, this reference helps to explain why the Jews wanted the body of Jesus removed from the cross prematurely (John 19:31-37). It was the day before the Sabbath, and a special Sabbath at that, since it fell during Passover week. A similar early reference to a Sabbath followed by a later explanation of the significance of that reference is in 5:9 and 16-18.

Mark wrote that the soldiers placed Jesus on the cross "about the third hour" (i.e., 9:00 a.m., Mark 15:25). Here John wrote that Pilate sentenced Jesus about "the sixth hour." Obviously Jesus’ sentencing preceded His crucifixion. What is the solution to this apparent contradiction?

One explanation is that John used the Roman method of reckoning time whereas Mark and the other Synoptic writers used the Jewish method. [Note: E.g., Westcott, The Gospel . . . Greek Text . . ., 2:324-26; and Tasker, p. 209.] In the Roman method, the sixth hour would be 6:00 a.m. The problem with this view is that apparently this Roman system of reckoning time was not common. The only documentary evidence that the Romans used it appears in a few legal documents. [Note: Morris, p. 708.] Nevertheless this seems to be the best explanation. Another explanation is that a scribe miscopied the Greek numerals and inadvertently substituted "six" for "three." [Note: Barrett, p. 545.] However there is no manuscript evidence to support this theory. A third view is that both evangelists intended only approximate time references and did not expect their readers to be too fussy about the differences. [Note: Carson, The Gospel . . ., p. 605; Tenney, "John," p. 178; Morris, pp. 708-9; A Dictionary of the Bible, "Numbers, Hours, Years, and Dates," by W. M. Ramsay, extra volume: 479.] Nevertheless time references as well as other factual statements are usually capable of harmonization in the Bible. A high view of inspiration has led most conservative interpreters to conclude that Mark and John meant just what they said. A fourth view is that the Synoptic writers used a Galilean method of reckoning time that began the day with sunrise while John used a Judean method that began it with sunset. [Note: Hoehner, pp. 77-90.]

Before passing sentence on Jesus, Pilate presented Him to the Jews as though this was a mock coronation ceremony. He knew that the Jews did not acknowledge Caesar as their king even though they had just professed to do so (John 19:12). His announcement was therefore an expression of contempt for both Jesus and the Jews. Ironically Jesus was their King. Pilate spoke more truly than he knew.

"Unlike the presentation of Jesus in 19:4-6, this [presentation] was not intended to ridicule Jesus. Since that occasion, Pilate had been moved by Jesus and defeated in his attempt to rescue him. Now he makes the moment of his decision the moment of decision for the Jews. They have a final and crucial opportunity of declaring their mind on Jesus and recanting, if they will, on their unjust and bitter accusations of him." [Note: Beasley-Murray, p. 342.]