Did Jesus Rise During the Night?

"Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn^{G2020 V-PPA-DFS} toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came^{G2064 V-AIA-3S} to look at the grave. And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it." Matthew 28:1-2

"When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Him. Very early on the first day of the week, they came^{G2064 V-PIM/P-3P} to the tomb when the sun^{G2246 N-GMS} had risen.^{G393 V-APA-GMS} They were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large." Mark 16:1-4

"But on the first day of the week, at early dawn,^{G3722 N-GMS} they came^{G2064 V-AIA-3P} to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus." Luke 24:1-3

"Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came^{G2064 V-AIA-3S} early to the tomb, while it was still dark,^{G4653 N-GFS} and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb." John 20:1

Both Matthew 28:1 and Luke 24:1 use the Greek verb erchomai (ἔρχομαι) in the aorist indicative active third person, while Matthew's is singular (ἦλθεν) and Luke's is plural (ἦλθον). Aorist indicates past action. Indicative means to tell facts. Mark 16:2 and John 20:1 use the Greek verb in the present indicative middle third person, while Mark's is plural (ἔρχονται) and John's is singular (ἔρχεται). Present indicates what happens or what is happening. Again, indicative means to tell facts.

John 20:1 is telling us that Mary Magdalene was on her way to the tomb while it was still dark. It does not tell us that she had already arrived.

Matthew uses the Greek word epiphosko (ἐπιφώσκω), which means "to grow light, to dawn" [Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon]. "In Luke 23:54 the verb has the meaning to draw near... To dawn as the daylight, to grow toward daylight (Matt 28:1)" [AMG's The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament].

Luke 24:1 uses the Greek word orthros (ὄρθρος), which means "at early dawn." It is used to mean "at daybreak, at dawn, early in the morning" in John 8:2 and Acts 5:21 (cf. Sept. Jer. 25:4; 33:5, etc.).

Mark 16:2, using the same verb tense as in John 20:1 (but in plural), uses the Greek noun helios (ἥλιος), which means "the sun." Likewise, Mark 16:2 uses the Greek verb anatello (ἀνατέλλω), which is in the aorist indicative active genitive masculine singular, which means, as a transitive verb, "to cause to rise," as in the plants (Gen. 3:18), and as an intransitive verb, "to rise, arise, etc.," as in light (Matt. 15:16; cf. Is. 48:10), the sun (Matt. 13:6; Mark 4:6; 16:2; James 1:11), the clouds (Luke 12:54), et al.

Certain Christians, in their attempt to argue for a Wednesday-Saturday crucifixion-resurrection (while arguing that the Friday-Sunday crucifixion-resurrection is “false doctrine”), claim that there were two groups of women. They argue that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb first, by herself, and inspected it, and having seen no body returned to tell the disciples. Their argument is based on Mark 16:9: "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils." Then later came the other group of women who told nobody (16:8). But this argument fails in light of a thorough examination of all four gospels.

Matthew mentions Mary Magdalene and the other Mary—2 people. Mark mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome—3 people. Luke mentions "they," "the women" from 23:55. John mentions Mary Magdalene—1 person. John's narrative focuses on Mary Magdalene alone. Matthew's focuses on Mary Magdalene and one other person. Mark's focuses on Mary Magdalene and two other people. Luke's focuses on the group of women. All four of these passages occur before the stone was rolled away. How can Mary Magdalene come by herself to the tomb, see the stone rolled away, go tell the disciples, and yet come with Mary the mother of James and Salome asking, "Who will roll the stone away for us?" Did she magically forget that she had already seen the stone rolled away and had already told the disciples? Mark 16:9 cannot mean that Jesus appeared to her all by herself before anybody else because 16:1 says that she and two other women were coming to see the tomb before the stone had been rolled away. Matthew says that she and the other Mary were headed to the tomb before the earthquake and then the stone was rolled away.

The passages must harmonize. Mary Magdalene and other women came to see the tomb, found the stone rolled away, and then while she and at least one other person ran to tell the disciples, the rest of the women said nothing.

Literal 24-Hour Days?

"Then Esther told them to reply to Mordecai, 'Go, assemble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way. And thus I will go in to the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish.' So Mordecai went away and did just as Esther had commanded him." Esther 4:15-17

Esther asked the Jews to fast with and for her for three days—night and day. These were not literal 24-hour days, or even literal 12-hour nights and days. How do we know? The very first verse of the very next chapter reads, "Now it came about on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king's palace..."

In Acts 10, around 3:00PM, Cornelius saw in a vision an angel of God coming to him (v.3). He was instructed to send men to Joppa and call for Peter. "When the angel who was speaking to him had left, he summoned two of his servants and a devout soldier of those who were his personal attendants, and after he had explained everything to them, he sent them to Joppa. On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray" (vv.7-9). While Peter prayed, the men knocked at his door when his vision ended (v.17). This is one day after Cornelius received his vision.

Peter invited the men in and "gave them lodging. And on the next day he got up and went away with them, and some of the brethren from Joppa accompanied him" (v.23). This is now the second day after Cornelius received his vision.

"On the following day he entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting for them and had called together his relatives and close friends" (v.24). This is the third day after Cornelius received his vision.

When Cornelius talks to Peter, what does he say?

"Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour; and behold, a man stood before me in shining garments" (v.30). When we reckon the time by the concept of zero, which was foreign to their minds, we calculate three days "to [the] hour." Yet, Cornelius said, "Four days ago." How could he say it was four days when it was literally only three days? Because of Hebrew idiom; because they reckoned time by the concept of inclusion. Part of a day was equal to a whole day.

When we look at the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, we must understand this fact! Just as Esther's three days and nights were not literally three full 12-hour days and 12-hour nights of literal 24-hour days, and just as Cornelius' four days were not literally four full 12-hour days and 12-hour nights of literal 24-hours, so too was Jesus' "three days and three nights" not literally three full 12-hour days and 12-hour nights of literal 24-hour days.

The Road to Emmaus

"Indeed, besides all this, it is the third day since these things happened." Luke 24:21b

I recently exchanged a few e-mails with a gentleman who thinks this passage actually supports the Wednesday crucifixion and Saturday resurrection. He writes:

“…although Jesus clearly said he would rise on the third day, the disciples had no context in their worldview to understand a literal resurrection (cf. Luke 24:11). Therefore, they looked for a spiritual kind of resurrection, perhaps of the nation or maybe of the Lord’s work led by a new prophet. It seems clear that the Apostles and disciples with them struggled to understand what might occur on the third day after Jesus was crucified. The two on their way to Emmaus claimed “this is (G71) the third day since these things were done” (Luke 24:21). Literally, the Greek is “this leads (G71) the third day since these things were done” (Luke 24:21). In other words, this day, the first day of the week, is the first day after the third day, so hope was fading, because nothing happened! The disciples had been looking for something to occur on the third day, which would have been the weekly Sabbath (Saturday), but they were losing all hope, because it was now after the third day.”

The disciples did have context with which to understand a literal resurrection; they had been witnesses to the resurrection of Lazarus, after all (John 11). The words of the women might have appeared as nonsense to the disciples (Luke 24:11), but nevertheless they had been witness to a couple resurrections performed by Jesus (Luke 7:11-17; 8:52-56). So quite clearly, and to the contrary, they did have context in their worldview to understand a literal resurrection.

Whether a physical or spiritual resurrection, the disciple on the road to Emmaus said, "today is the third day since these things happened." Luke 24:1 identifies this day as the first day of the week—Sunday. If you count backward, using the concept of zero, which was foreign to their minds, you arrive at Thursday. If you count backward using the concept of inclusion, which is how the Greeks, Romans, Jews, and others during that time counted, you arrive at Friday. In either case, you cannot get a Wednesday crucifixion out of it.

In Kenneth Wuest's Expanded Translation of the New Testament, it reads, "But also with all these things it is the third day since these things took place." In Jay P. Green's Interlinear Bible, it likewise reads, "But then with all these things, this third day comes today since these things happened" (literal translation). In other words, "this third day comes today" means "today is the third day."

In the Textus Receptus, the text reads: ἀλλά γε σὺν πᾶσι τούτοις τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει σήμερον ἀφ’ οὗ ταῦτα ἐγένετο. The Greek word semeron (σήμερον) [4594], which means "on this day, now, at present, this day, today," is contained in the Alexandrinus, Bezae, Basileensis, Hableianus, Hamburgensis, Cyprius, Camplanus, Guelpherbytanus A, Vaticanus 354, Nanianus, Mosquensis, Monacensis, Tischendorfianus, etc., manuscripts. In the Nestle-Aland Greek text, the text reads: ἀλλά γε καὶ σὺν πᾶσιν τούτοις τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει ἀφ’ οὗ ταῦτα ἐγένετο. "It is" is contained in the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus 1209, and Regius manuscripts.

The Greek word this gentleman referred to is ago (ἄγο) [71], which properly means "to bring." Its usage in Luke 24:21 means "to pass a day, keep or celebrate a feast, etc.: τρίτην ἡμέραν ἄγει sc. ὁ Ἰσραήλ, Lk. xxiv. 21" [Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, p.9] and "To pass, to spend. Luke 24:21" [The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament, p. 77]. The use of ἄγει is impersonal. Even if you take it to mean "brings," the word immediately after means "away from" or "since," so the third day "brings away from" the events that happened. No matter how you attempt to dice it, the day these disciples were walking to Emmaus was the third day—not "this day, the first day of the week, is the first day after the third day." That is false, and a deliberate twisting of Scripture!

Now, if you want to employ the meaning of "to bring" to the word ἄγει, your rendering would be this: "this day, the first day of the week, brings the third day." In other words, "today is the third day." Or, by the use of "to bring," it would mean the third day is to follow, which would also be the case if you used "to carry," making Monday the third day. Even if you attempted to take the meaning of "to lead," the gentleman fails to understand precisely what leading means. Leading does not mean "after." "To lead" as an intransitive verb means "to go before," while as a transitive verb it means "to guide, to direct, to serve as a channel (such as water into a house)." A synonym for "to lead" is "to preceded." So, if Sunday was leading (preceding, going before) the third day, that means that Monday would have to be the third day. No amount of grammatical gymnastics will allow "to lead" to be rendered as "after." Saturday guides Sunday. Saturday directs Sunday. Saturday serves as a channel to Sunday. Saturday goes before Sunday.

A Thursday Crucifixion?

Jesus said that He would be in the tomb for “three days and three nights” (Matt. 12:40). Accepting these parameters and taking this statement in the most literal sense, let us examine the possibility of a Thursday crucifixion. Remember, in Jesus' time each day began at sunset, approximately 6:00PM.

We know that the "high day" (John 19:31) was not the weekly Sabbath, as no Jew has ever referred to a weekly Sabbath as a high day; it was the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Lev. 23:4-8; Num. 28:16-18, 25). There are seven annual high days: the first and seventh days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Lev. 23:4-8; Num. 28:16-18, 25), the Feast of Weeks (or, Pentecost; Ex. 34:22; Deut. 16:10), the Feast of Trumpets (Lev. 23:24-25; Num. 29:1), Yom Kippur (or, Day of Atonement; Lev. 16:29-31; 23:27-28), and the first and eighth days of the Feast of Tabernacles (Ex. 34:22; Lev. 23:42-43). These were "to be a sabbath of...rest" (Lev. 16:31; 23:32) for the Jews. Whether you refer to them as Sabbaths or sabbaths (days of rest) is irrelevant.

We also know that Matthew 28:1 uses the plural form—Sabbaths. Assuming the crucifixion was on a Thursday, the Friday would have been the high day Sabbath (the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread; Luke 22:1), and Saturday would have been the weekly Sabbath. No problems so far. Could be plausible. "After the Sabbaths" could easily incorporate two Sabbaths back-to-back.

However, Scripture says that after the women had seen where Jesus' body was to be laid, "they returned and prepared spices and perfumes" and "on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment" (Luke 23:56), and that "when the Sabbath was over" the women "bought spices, so that they might [go] and anoint [Jesus’ body]" (Mark 16:1). How could they buy spices after the Sabbath, yet prepare them before the Sabbath?

Well, in order to give this view a fair shake, let us presume that Mark means that on our Saturday (their Sunday), sometime after 6:00PM, the women had bought some or more spices. If this were the case, we could easily square Jesus' statement concerning “three days and three nights” (Matt. 12:40). We could also easily square the references to the third day: "in three days" (Matt. 16:61; 27:40; Mark 14:58; 15:29; John 2:19-20), "after three days" (Matt. 27:63; Mark 8:31), "three days later" (Mark 9:31; 10:34), "on the third day" (Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Luke 9:22; Acts 10:40; 1 Cor. 15:4), "the third day" (Luke 18:33; 24:7, 46), and "third day since" (Luke 24:21). We could likewise easily square the information from the road to Emmaus, where the disciple said, "it is the third day since these things happened" (Luke 24:21).

But... there remain a couple problems that cannot be overlooked.

Scripture informs us that the day on which Jesus was crucified was a "day of preparation" or "the preparation day." This term is always used with reference to the Friday, in preparation for the Saturday.

According to Jack Finegan's Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Table 179, the 14th of Nisan fell on these dates in history:

• Monday, April 18, A.D. 29
• Friday, April 7, A.D. 30
• Tuesday, March 27, A.D. 31
• Monday, April 14, A.D. 32
• Friday, April 3, A.D. 33
• Wednesday, March 24, A.D. 34
• Tuesday, April 12, A.D. 35
• Saturday, March 31, A.D. 36

A chart claiming to use U.S. Naval Observatory data shows that the 14th of Nisan fell on these dates in history:

• Sunday, April 21, A.D. 26
• Friday, April 11, A.D. 27
• Wednesday, April 28, A.D. 28
• Monday, April 28, A.D. 29
• Friday, April 7, A.D. 30
• Wednesday, April 25, A.D. 31
• Monday, April 14, A.D. 32
• Saturday, April 4, A.D. 33
• Thursday, April 22, A.D. 34

According to over a dozen Hebrew calendar conversion calculators I've tested online (www.abdicate.net/cal.aspx, http://www.rosettacalendar.com/, http://www.midrash.org/calendar/), the 14th of Nisan fell on these dates in history (the first date in square brackets is the Julian date, while the second date is the Gregorian date):

• Friday, March [22 | 20], A.D. 26 (Nisan 14, 3786)
• Wednesday, April [9 | 7], A.D. 27 (Nisan 14, 3787)
• Monday, March [29 | 27], A.D. 28 (Nisan 14, 3788)
• Saturday, April [16 | 14], A.D. 29 (Nisan 14, 3789)
• Wednesday, April [5 | 3], A.D. 30 (Nisan 14, 3790)
• Monday, March [26 | 24], A.D. 31 (Nisan 14, 3791)
• Monday, April [14 | 12], A.D. 32 (Nisan 14, 3792)
• Friday, April [3 | 1], A.D. 33 (Nisan 14, 3793)
• Monday, March [22 | 20], A.D. 34 (Nisan 14, 3794)
• Monday, April [11 | 9], A.D. 35 (Nisan 14, 3795)
• Friday, March [30 | 28], A.D. 36 (Nisan 14, 3796)
• Wednesday, March [20 | 18], A.D. 37 (Nisan 14, 3797)

You will notice that according to these different calculations, only once does the 14th of Nisan, the Passover, fall on a Thursday; and this date is too late for the crucifixion. Ergo, while this view could potentially square all the biblical data, nevertheless it fails to square all the data. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the crucifixion took place on a Thursday.

The Sign of Jonah

"But [Jesus] answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here."" Matthew 12:39-41

People believe that the "sign of Jonah" was the three days and three nights. But take notice of the fact that the parallel passage in Luke says nothing about a time period. Jesus' emphasis is on the way His people rejected His ministry, preaching, and prophecy while the Ninevites received the preaching of Jonah and repented.

"As the crowds were increasing, [Jesus] began to say, "This generation is a wicked generation; it seeks for a sign, and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah. For just as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so will the Son of Man be to this generation. ... The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here."" Luke 11:29-30, 32

After Jonah had come out of the sea monster, it took him three days to reach Nineveh. He then entered the city one-half day's journey and preached for 40 days that the city would be destroyed (Jonah 3:3-4).

We can see this same sequence of three and one-half followed by 40 elsewhere in Scripture. Elijah hid himself for three and one-half years during the famine, and then fled for 40 days from Jezebel.

Now, watch this!

After Jesus was anointed by His baptism, He preached to the Jews for three and one-half years, warning that in one generation—40 years—the city and the temple would be destroyed (Matt. 12:41). Because the nation of Israel did not listen and repent, it was destroyed. Only a small percentage of the Jews accepted Him and were ready. You can take it to the bank that this will again happen to the Church at the time of Jesus' second coming.

When were Jerusalem and the temple destroyed? In A.D. 70. Therefore, if the pattern holds true—three and one-half followed by 40, if we subtract 40 from 70 we get 30. Once again, the most probable date for the crucifixion of Christ Jesus: Friday, April 7, A.D. 30 at 3:00PM.

Does the Date Matter?

Regardless of what you choose to believe about the timing of the birth and crucifixion of the Lord Jesus, it is a tertiary issue and has no bearing whatsoever upon your salvation. What does have a bearing on whether you are saved or not is whether you believe them to be true; that you believe that Jesus is eternal God, the only begotten Son of the Father, the second Person in the Trinity, the Word of God made flesh, conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, lived a holy life without sin, was crucified, entombed, resurrected on the third day, and ascended into Heaven, from where He first came.

It really does not matter whether Jesus was born in 2 B.C., 3 B.C., 4 B.C., 5 B.C., 6 B.C., or 7 B.C. It really does not matter whether Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday or a Friday, or whether He resurrected on a Saturday or a Sunday, or what year it happened. None of these dates affects whether you are a born again believer or not. We do not worship the dates. If we did, then we would be guilty of either Saturn worship or Sun worship. Scripture says that Jesus was resurrected on the third day. That is what you need to believe. The day of the week does not amount to a hill of beans. The exact dates of these events would do nothing for you one way or the other anyway

Romans 14:5-6a says, "One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord..." Colossians 2:16-17 says, "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day—things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." If you want to worship Jesus on a Saturday, then go ahead and do so. If you want to worship Jesus on a Sunday, then go ahead and do so. If you want to worship Jesus on a Wednesday, then go ahead and do so. If you want to worship Jesus on every day of the week, then go ahead and do so. The most important thing is that we celebrate His birth and His rising from the dead—not the day on which He did it.

What If...?

What if we took all of Jesus' words literally?

Jesus said that He would be in the tomb for “three days and three nights” (Matt. 12:40). He provided specific parameters. Is this merely an expression? Does the Hebrew idiom of part of a day meaning a full day apply in this case? If this statement is to be taken literally, the Hebrew idiom route would end up with three days and two nights.

In Jesus’ time, a day was from sunrise to sunset, as represented by “12 hours.” Jesus even asks, “Are there not twelve hours in the day?” (John 11:9). There were no smaller units of time than the hour. Both the day and the night were divided into four watches, designated by three reference points. In the parable of the vineyard, all three are indicated: “the third hour [from sunrise],” “the sixth hour [from sunrise],” and “the ninth hour [from sunrise]” (Matt. 20:1-9). “Evening” rounds out the day. These reference points were for mid-morning, mid-day, and mid-afternoon.

A night was from sunset to sunrise. When discussing His second coming, the four watches of the night are indicated: “in the evening, at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning” (Mark 13:35).

Understandably, the "hour" and "watch" are not necessarily exact times, but approximations. There may even be overlap between them, and the time given could depend whether the viewer rounded up or down to the reference points. For example, the "sixth hour" might be determined to be anywhere from 10:30AM or 11:00AM to 1:00PM or 1:30 PM.

Mark 15:25 and John 19:14, however, are not any sort of supposed "contradiction" because they are speaking of two completely different things. Mark 15:25 is speaking of a precise time of the day, while John 19:14 is speaking of something else entirely. How do we know this? From noon, the sixth hour (Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44), Jesus was already on the cross and there was darkness over the entire land. If Jesus was already on the cross, how could He still be under examination by Pilate? You see, Jesus was our Passover Lamb. As such, He had to undergo preparation and be examined for any blemish (Ex. 12:2). He was examined by Annas, Caiaphas, Pilate, and Herod. Pilate repeatedly announced, "I find in Him no fault at all." The "sixth hour" must therefore refer to the sixth hour of His trial and examination before He was killed.

The "sixth hour" of John 19:14 does not correspond to midnight either. First of all, those who claim it does fail to pay attention to the context of the passage: "Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And [Pilate] said to the Jews, 'Behold, your King!' So they cried out, 'Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!' Pilate said to them, 'Shall I crucify your King?' The chief priests answered, 'We have no king but Caesar.' So he then handed Him over to them to be crucified" (John 19:14-16). Second of all, Jesus was led away to the Sanhedrin "when it was day" (Luke 22:66), then to Pilate in the morning (Matt. 27:1; Mark 15:1). The trial before Pilate-Herod-Pilate must be after 6:00 A.M., which means that the "sixth hour" cannot possibly refer to the sixth hour of the night. Not to mention that many events would have to be crammed between sunset and midnight, leaving 9 hours between His sentencing and crucifixion. Also, the Bible writers never use Roman timing (which argument also encounters the same problems as above).

We know that Saturday is a weekly Sabbath, so we will start with that as our focal point. Mark 16:1 says that "when the Sabbath was over" the women "bought spices, so that they might [go] and anoint [Jesus’ body]." Luke 23:56 informs us that after the women had seen where Jesus' body was to be laid, "they returned and prepared spices and perfumes" and "on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment." Luke 24:1 says that "on the first day of the week"—Sunday—"at early dawn, they took the spices they had prepared." John 20:1 says that "on the first day of the week"—Sunday—they "came early to the tomb, while it was still dark."

Looking at the two verses from Luke and John, we know that the women came to the tomb early on Sunday while it was still dark, before dawn. Looking at the information in Mark and Luke about the spices, we know that they bought them and prepared them, the preparation of which would have taken several hours, which seems unlikely to have occurred in the remaining time between Jesus giving up the spirit, being placed in a tomb, and the Sabbath commencing. It is also highly unlikely that this could have happened Sunday morning before the sun came up. Sunday they brought the spices, but they could not have bought and prepared the spices on Sunday. Scripture tells us that after the Sabbath they bought them (Mark) and after the Sabbath they brought them (Luke). How can that be?

Matthew 28:1 uses the plural form—Sabbaths. Further, John 19:31 says that the Sabbath after the crucifixion was a High Day Sabbath. So, it would seem that there were two Sabbaths in that week. Now, let us take the information from above and connect it to this information. This means that our High Day Sabbath was on Thursday because on Friday the women bought their spices and prepared them, as Saturday they would not be able, for Scripture says they rested on the weekly Sabbath as the Law commanded. Then followed Sunday, when the women came to the tomb with their spices. With all this information, Wednesday had to have been the day of our Lord’s crucifixion. But when was His resurrection?

Let us return to the Sunday. Scripture tells us that the women arrived at the tomb while it was still dark, before dawn, and the tomb was already empty. Jesus was not there. He had already risen! Scripture repeatedly informs us that Jesus rose on the third day: "in three days" (Matt. 16:61; 27:40; Mark 14:58; 15:29; John 2:19-20), "after three days" (Matt. 27:63; Mark 8:31), "three days later" (Mark 9:31; 10:34), "on the third day" (Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Luke 9:22; Acts 10:40; 1 Cor. 15:4), "the third day" (Luke 18:33; 24:7, 46), and "third day since" (Luke 24:21). There is no escaping that fact. However, nowhere in Scripture does it tell us that Jesus rose on a Sunday. Or does it?

All details of Scripture need to be considered. Not traditions and not opinions. If we follow all the details in Scripture above, this makes the most sense: crucified on Wednesday, high day Sabbath on Thursday, buy and prepare spices on Friday, rest on the weekly Sabbath—Saturday. If Jesus rose on Sunday, then we have three days and four nights. If Jesus' statement about “three days and three nights” is accurate, and not an expression, then Jesus would have to have risen some time late Saturday toward the start of their Sunday at 6:00PM.

That would seem to settle the issue, would it not? The details of each passage bearing light on the issue considered and mapped together. The Sabbatarians would sure like this explanation to be true. But how does this account for the details from the road to Emmaus? Remember, Luke 24:1 says, "on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared." So the day is Sunday. Verse 13 says that "two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which was about seven miles from Jerusalem." Verse 21 says the most problematic statement for the Sabbatarians: "But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, it is the third day since these things happened." It is the third day since these things happened. Which day is that? Sunday.

If Jesus died on a Wednesday and rose on a Sunday, there is the problem of having three days and four nights, because Scripture says He would rise "on the third day." If Jesus died on a Wednesday and rose on a Saturday, there is the problem of the trip to Emmaus on Sunday, because Scripture says it was "the third day since these things happened." If Jesus died on a Thursday and rose on a Sunday, there is not only the problem of not having time between the two Sabbaths for the women to buy and prepare the spices, but also the fact that the day of preparation always referred to a Friday. If Jesus died on a Friday and rose on a Sunday, there is the problem of Mark 16:1. Unless the women bought the spices after sundown on Saturday (their Sunday).

Sadly, when confronted with the details of Scripture, most Christians will close their eyes in utter rejection and blindly march over the cliff of ignorance simply because what they were taught trumps the facts of reality. When we first came to Christ we had to admit that we were wrong and had believed in error, but God forbid that as a Christian we should have to admit that we have been wrong and have believed in error. This is why so many are falling away from the faith today, turning to doctrines of demons instead in order to have their ears tickled. They have never known God and have never received salvation to begin with; merely religious education from an upbringing in the church. Because they are more in love with the world than they are with the Saviour, they reject biblical inerrancy and sufficiency and reject the Bible as our only rule of faith and life. This is why so-called "Christians" have no problem accepting homosexuality and transgenderism—because they have never read the Bible and they do not know God's thoughts on it. Christians need to develop a genuine love for God and for His Word, otherwise they are doomed to be devoured by the world.

The Death of Christ Jesus

Before we get into our study, I must preface it with this statement: Regardless of what you choose to believe about the birth of Jesus, it is a tertiary issue and has no bearing whatsoever upon your salvation. What does have a bearing on whether you are saved or not is that you believe that Jesus is eternal God, the only begotten Son of the Father, the second Person in the Trinity, the Word of God made flesh, conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, lived a holy life without sin, was crucified, entombed, resurrected, and ascended into Heaven, from where He came.

In 2012, after studying the various passages pertaining to the crucifixion of Jesus, and after looking up dates for the 14th of Nisan on a dozen Hebrew calendar conversion calculators, I had become convinced that Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday (and risen on the Sunday, as the Scriptures make plain, for those who think He rose on a Saturday). This year, after taking another look at it, I realized that all the passages (save for two that seem contradictory) support a Friday crucifixion. The actual year, however, seems impossible to determine, as you will see further below. As someone who desires to conform himself to the truths of Scripture, no matter the cost to myself, I have recently changed my position as to the crucifixion of Jesus.

THE MINISTRY OF JOHN THE PURIFIER

"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas..." Luke 3:1-2

This is when John the Purifier's ministry began. The only time period that fits all of these facts is A.D. 26-29.

1. Tiberius was named emperor in A.D. 14, but he actually started reigning two years prior to that, A.D. 12, as co-regent with Caesar Augustus. Using the earlier date, John’s ministry began circa A.D. 26–27.
    
2. All four gospels agree that Jesus was crucified on the orders of Pontius Pilate (Matt. 27:24-26; Mark 15:15; Luke 23:24; John 19:15-16). He governed over Judea from A.D. 26–36.
    
3. Antipas, Herod's son and successor, reigned over Galilee and Perea until A.D. 39. Coins exist that make reference to his 43rd year of his rule, which counted backward brings us to 4 B.C. This Herod is the one who had a hand in the beheading of John the Purifier (Mark 6:14-29) and who had a supporting role in the trial of Jesus (Luke 23:7-12).
    
4. Philip, Herod's son and successor, reigned over Ituraea and Trachonitis from 4 B.C. until his death in A.D. 34.
    
5. A Lysanias is mentioned by Josephus as having ruled over Chalcis and Abilene, and as having been slain by Mark Antony at the instigation of Cleopatra, which occurred about 36 B.C. Quite obviously this could not be that Lysanias. An inscription found on a temple in Abila named Lysanias as the tetrarch of that area. On the inscription, the words "the August lords" were thought to be a reference to a joint title that was given only to the emperor Tiberius (adopted son of Augustus) and his mother Livia (widow of Augustus). If this analysis is correct, this reference would establish the date of the inscription to between A.D. 14 (when Tiberius began to reign) and A.D. 29 (when Livia died).
    
6. The gospels indicate that Jesus was crucified at the instigation of the first century high priest named Caiaphas (Matt. 26:3-4; John 11:49-53). We know from other sources that Caiaphas served as high priest from A.D. 18 to 36, so that puts Jesus' death in that time frame.

If Jesus was “about thirty years of age” (Luke 3:23) by A.D. 26, a birth sometime between 6 and 4 B.C. would fit the chronology perfectly. Luke was a historian whose goal was to write an accurate account "in consecutive order" (Luke 1:3), and when he gave ages he did not round up or down to the nearest 5. In Luke 8:42, he writes, "for [Jairus] had an only daughter, about twelve years old, and she was dying." She could have been between 11 and 13 years of age. So when Luke wrote that "Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age" in Luke 3:23, Jesus could have been between 28 and 32 years of age, still “about thirty years of age.” All four gospels depict the ministry of Christ beginning after that of John the Purifier (Matt. 3; Mark 1; Luke 3; John 1). If Jesus began His ministry in A.D. 26-27, the end of His ministry would have been circa A.D. 29-30.

WHAT WE DO KNOW

We know what time Jesus died. Matthew, Mark, and Luke each record that Jesus died about "the ninth hour" (Matt. 27:45-50; Mark 15:34-37; Luke 23:44-46). The ninth hour is what we refer to as 3:00 P.M.

We know what day Jesus died. All four gospels agree that Jesus was crucified on a Friday (Matt. 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke23:54;  John 19:42), just before a Sabbath, which was just before the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). We know that it was a Friday because it is referred to as "the day of preparation"—that is, the day on which Jews made the preparations they needed for the Sabbath, since they could not do any work on that day (Lev. 23:4-8; Num. 28:16-18, 25).

The gospels also agree that Jesus was crucified in conjunction with the annual feast of Passover (Matt. 26:2; Mark 14:1; Luke 22:1; John 18:39). In Jesus' time, a day was from sunrise to sunset, as represented by "12 hours." Jesus even asks, "Are there not twelve hours in the day?" (John 11:9). There were no smaller units of time than the hour. Both the day and the night were divided into four watches, designated by three reference points. In the parable of the vineyard, all three are indicated: "the third hour [from sunrise]," "the sixth hour [from sunrise]," and "the ninth hour [from sunrise]" (Matt. 20:1-9). "Evening" rounds out the day. These reference points were for mid-morning, mid-day, and mid-afternoon. A night was from sunset to sunrise. When discussing His second coming, the four watches of the night are indicated: "in the evening, at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning" (Mark 13:35). While it appears as though Jesus and His disciples are having the Last Supper on Thursday (Matt. 26:19; Mark 14:14; Luke 22:15), 6:00 P.M. actually marks the start of Friday, the Passover. John, describing Friday morning, indicates that the Jewish authorities had not yet eaten the Passover meal (John 18:28-29a).

Understandably, the "hour" and "watch" are not necessarily exact times, but approximations. There may even be overlap between them, and the time given could depend whether the viewer rounded up or down to the reference points. For example, the "sixth hour" might be determined to be anywhere from 10:30 A.M. or 11:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. or 1:30 P.M..

Mark 15:25 and John 19:14 are not any sort of supposed "contradiction" because they are speaking of two completely different things. Mark 15:25 is speaking of a precise time of the day, while John 19:14 is speaking of something else entirely. How do we know this? From noon, the sixth hour (Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44), Jesus was already on the cross and there was darkness over the entire land. If Jesus was already on the cross, how could He still be under examination by Pilate? You see, Jesus was our Passover Lamb. As such, He had to undergo preparation and be examined for any blemish (Ex. 12:2). He was examined by Annas, Caiaphas, Pilate, and Herod. Pilate repeatedly announced, "I find in Him no fault at all." The "sixth hour" refers to the sixth hour of His trial and examination before He was killed.

The "sixth hour" of John 19:14 does not correspond to midnight (as The Companion Bible, edited by E. W. Bullinger, suggests). First of all, those who claim it does fail to pay attention to the context of the passage: "Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And [Pilate] said to the Jews, 'Behold, your King!' So they cried out, 'Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!' Pilate said to them, 'Shall I crucify your King?' The chief priests answered, 'We have no king but Caesar.' So he then handed Him over to them to be crucified" (John 19:14-16). Second of all, Jesus was led away to the Sanhedrin "when it was day" (Luke 22:66), then to Pilate in the morning (Matt. 27:1; Mark 15:1). The trial before Pilate-Herod-Pilate must be after 6:00 A.M., which means that the "sixth hour" cannot possibly refer to the sixth hour of the night. Not to mention that many events would have to be crammed between sunset and midnight, leaving 9 hours between His sentencing and crucifixion. Also, the Bible writers never use Roman timing (which argument also encounters the same problems as above).

John 19:31 informs us that the coming Sabbath was a “high day.” There are seven annual high days: the first and seventh days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Lev. 23:4-8; Num. 28:16-18, 25), the Feast of Weeks (or, Pentecost; Ex. 34:22; Deut. 16:10), the Feast of Trumpets (Lev. 23:24-25; Num. 29:1), Yom Kippur (or, Day of Atonement; Lev. 16:29-31; 23:27-28), and the first and eighth days of the Feast of Tabernacles (Ex. 34:22; Lev. 23:42-43). These days were “to be a sabbath of...rest” (Lev. 16:31; 23:32) for the Jews. In other words, these seven special days were to be days of rest exactly like Saturdays were to be days of rest. Shabbat (sabbath) means “to rest.”

Apparently the Greek word used in Matthew 28:1 is in the plural: “after the Sabbaths.” That year, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (a day of rest; Lev. 23:6-7) fell on the weekly Sabbath. John is acknowledging what kind of Sabbath it would be, while Matthew is referencing both sabbaths (days of rest) as two-in-one. In other words, if Matthew used the plural form, his pluralization does not necessarily mean two separate days, but simply two days of rest coming together on the same day. Whether you refer them as Sabbaths or sabbaths is irrelevant. Therefore, the high day in view is the Feast of Unleavened Bread falling upon a weekly Sabbath.

We read and cannot ignore the statements "in three days" (Matt. 16:61; 27:40; Mark 14:58; 15:29; John 2:19-20), "after three days" (Matt. 27:63; Mark 8:31), "three days later" (Mark 9:31; 10:34), "on the third day" (Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Luke 9:22; Acts 10:40; 1 Cor. 15:4), "the third day" (Luke 18:33; 24:7, 46), and "third day since" (Luke 24:21). Using the Hebrew idiom of part of a day equaling a whole day, and allowing the majority passages to interpret the minority passages—"three days and three nights" (Matt. 12:39-40; which is likely just an expression), counting backward from "the first day of the week" (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1), which would be Sunday, would bring us to Friday.

WHICH DATE WAS IT?

According to Jack Finegan's Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Table 179, the 14th of Nisan fell on these dates in history:

• Monday, April 18, A.D. 29
• Friday, April 7, A.D. 30
• Tuesday, March 27, A.D. 31
• Monday, April 14, A.D. 32
• Friday, April 3, A.D. 33
• Wednesday, March 24, A.D. 34
• Tuesday, April 12, A.D. 35
• Saturday, March 31, A.D. 36

A chart claiming to use U.S. Naval Observatory data shows that the 14th of Nisan fell on these dates in history:

• Sunday, April 21, A.D. 26
• Friday, April 11, A.D. 27
• Wednesday, April 28, A.D. 28
• Monday, April 28, A.D. 29
• Friday, April 7, A.D. 30
• Wednesday, April 25, A.D. 31
• Monday, April 14, A.D. 32
• Saturday, April 4, A.D. 33
• Thursday, April 22, A.D. 34

According to over a dozen Hebrew calendar conversion calculators I've tested online (www.abdicate.net/cal.aspx, http://www.rosettacalendar.com/, http://www.midrash.org/calendar/), the 14th of Nisan fell on these dates in history (the first date in square brackets is the Julian date, while the second date is the Gregorian date):

• Friday, March [22 | 20], A.D. 26 (Nisan 14, 3786)
• Wednesday, April [9 | 7], A.D. 27 (Nisan 14, 3787)
• Monday, March [29 | 27], A.D. 28 (Nisan 14, 3788)
• Saturday, April [16 | 14], A.D. 29 (Nisan 14, 3789)
• Wednesday, April [5 | 3], A.D. 30 (Nisan 14, 3790)
• Monday, March [26 | 24], A.D. 31 (Nisan 14, 3791)
• Monday, April [14 | 12], A.D. 32 (Nisan 14, 3792)
• Friday, April [3 | 1], A.D. 33 (Nisan 14, 3793)
• Monday, March [22 | 20], A.D. 34 (Nisan 14, 3794)
• Monday, April [11 | 9], A.D. 35 (Nisan 14, 3795)
• Friday, March [30 | 28], A.D. 36 (Nisan 14, 3796)
• Wednesday, March [20 | 18], A.D. 37 (Nisan 14, 3797)

So which of these sets of dates is accurate, if any, and how do we know? How did Mr. Finegan arrive at his dates, and how do we know that they are even remotely accurate? The Gregorian calendar is the most widely used civil calendar in the world, named after Pope Gregory XIII who introduced it in October 1582. Because it was introduced in 1582, any dates prior to this time period are said to be proleptic (i.e., a calendar extrapolated to dates prior to its first adoption).

HISTORICAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Justin Martyr, in chapter 67 of his First Apology, addressed to Emperor Antoninus Pius (circa A.D. 155-157), wrote: "But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn; and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration." (emphasis supplied).

Ignatius, in chapter 9 of his Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians (circa A.D. 250), wrote: "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." 

A PROBLEM?

Mark 16:1 and Luke 23:56 would appear to be contradicting information. Luke 23:56 informs us that the women prepared the spices and "on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment." This would tend to assume the weekly Sabbath. But Mark 16:1 informs us that "when the Sabbath was over" the women bought spices in order to anoint Jesus' body. This would almost suggest another Sabbath during the holy week. How could the women buy the spices after the Sabbath, yet prepare them before the Sabbath? A possible solution is that they bought them after sundown on Saturday, which would have been the start of their Sunday.

CONCLUSION

Based on the historical details surrounding Jesus' birth, and the details here, the most probable date for the death of Jesus, if we accept Finegan's dates, would be around 3:00 P.M. on Friday, April 7, A.D. 30. Contrary to what The Companion Bible, edited by E. W. Bullinger, has to say, Jesus was not crucified on a Wednesday and resurrected on a Sunday (or even a Saturday).

Nevertheless, you need to be your own judge on this issue. After all, scripture tells us in Romans 14:5 to "Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind." Ultimately, the precise date does not matter (just as with Jesus' birth). What matters is that it happened and that we must believe it to be true. Believing that what the Bible says is true is the only thing that really matters. If we had exact Hebrew dates for Jesus' birth and crucifixion, we would be able to figure it out more accurately. The fact God did not provide them for us pretty much informs us that the dates are not important—only the truth of the information is. "We walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7). Our faith in Jesus is not based on empirical evidence (historical, archaeological, and scientific), although all this information does support our faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please Him" (Hebrews 11:6). Faith in the empirical evidence is no faith at all. True biblical faith does not stop with mental assent to the facts. If it did, it would not be genuine faith.

The Birth of Christ Jesus

The man who developed the way we reckon years was a 6th-century monk named Dionysius Exiguus ("Dennis the Short"). He supposed that Christ Jesus was born in 1 B.C. Likewise, several of the early church fathers (Cassiodorus Senator, Irenaeus of Lyon, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, Julius Africanus, Hippolytus of Rome, “Hippolytus of Thebes”, Origen of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Epiphanius of Salamis, Orosius) supposed that the birth of Christ Jesus was between 3-2 B.C. But can either of these dates be substantiated? In order to arrive at the most accurate time possible, all the information, both biblical and historical, needs to support the period in question. It may be helpful to know that there was no year zero. The sequence of years before Christ ends at 1 B.C. and the A.D. sequence of years begins the very next year with A.D. 1.

Before we get into our study, I must preface it with this statement: Regardless of what you choose to believe about the birth of Jesus, it is a tertiary issue and has no bearing whatsoever upon your salvation. What does have a bearing on whether you are saved or not is that you believe that Jesus is eternal God, the only begotten Son of the Father, the second Person in the Trinity, the Word of God made flesh, conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, lived a holy life without sin, was crucified, entombed, resurrected, and ascended into Heaven, from where He came.

CAESAR AUGUSTUS, QUIRINIUS, & KING HEROD

"In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." Luke 2:1-2

Caesar Augustus reigned from 27 B.C. to A.D. 14. The best known censuses of Caesar Augustus occurred in 28 and 8 B.C. and 14 A.D. However, these were for Roman citizens only. Luke 2:2 and Jewish historian Josephus refer to another census, one that was "while Quirinius was governor of Syria" [or Cyrenius, KJV; Gr.: Kyrenios]. This was not that census that taxed the Jews of the area, because it was later than the probable birth date of Jesus, but was likely a census for pledging allegiance to the Caesar, which Josephus dates to a year before the death of King Herod (Antiquities 17.2.4). This census appears to have been in approximately 6 B.C. Concerning the Luke 2:2 passage, we have two lines of reasoning that we might follow:

1. We know from history that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius reigned over Judea from A.D. 6 to 7, after the deposition of Archelaus, Herod's son. Since this is later than the birth of Christ, and the passage can be translated as "before Quirinius was governor of Syria," it could be that the translators made a translational error.
    
2. Perhaps Publius Sulpicius Quirinius ruled over Syria on two separate occasions (just like a couple Canadian Prime Ministers and one American President). This first census could have been during his first term, while another one (mentioned in Acts 5:37) could have been during his second term.

King Herod (also known as Herod I or Herod the Great), distinguished from Herod the tetrarch and other Herods, reigned for 37 years from his appointment as king by the Romans (40 B.C.) and 34 years from his siege of Jerusalem (37 B.C.) (Antiquities 17.9.3, The Jewish War 2.1.3). Using inclusive reckoning, this brings us to 4 B.C.

According to Catholic Jimmy Akin, Josephus is in error with some of his information pertaining to when Herod began his reign. Josephus says that Herod began his reign by Roman appointment during the 184th Olympiad (Antiquities 14.14.5), the same year that Caius Domitius Calvinus was consul the second time and Caius Asinius Pollio was consul the first time. Apparently, Calvinus and Pollio did not enter the consul until after October 2, 40 B.C., which, according to Mr. Akin, would be the 185th Olympiad.

But there are a few factors that need to be considered. First, ancient writers refer to the Olympiad as a five-year period (Greek, pentaeterikoi, Latin quinquennales). Second, Greeks and Romans commonly counted by inclusion. The concept of zero was foreign to them. While the victors of each Olympiad are recorded in Eusebius' work every four years (according to our reckoning based on the concept of zero), it is actually every five years.

44 - 43 - 42 - 41 - 40

40 - 39 - 38 - 37 - 36

When we understand this information, Josephus was not in error with his information at all.

According to Mr. Akin, Josephus is in error on two other occasions as well. When Herod laid siege to Jerusalem, Josephus states that destruction befell the city when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls during the 185th Olympiad (Antiquities 14.16.4). That was 37 B.C. In the same passage, it states that Herod conquered Jerusalem exactly 27 years to the day that general Pompey had conquered Jerusalem in 63 B.C. Akin argues that 63 - 27 is 36—not 37. But that is using our concept of zero rather than the inclusion method. If you calculate by the inclusion method, it works out exactly to 37 B.C. Again in the same passage, it states that the government of the Hasmoneans ruled over Jerusalem for 126 years, which began in 162 B.C. Akin argues that 162 - 126 is 36—not 37. But again, if you calculate by the inclusion method, it works out exactly to 37 B.C. One might also use the regnal method (ante-dating system, or non-accession year dating) and still come out accurately.

ARCHELAUS

"But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there." Matt. 2:22

Archelaus, Herod's son and successor, reigned over Judea, Samaria, and Idumea for 10 years before he was deposed by Caesar in A.D. 6 (Antiquities 17.13.2). Counting backward, he began his reign in 4 B.C.

ANTIPAS

Antipas, Herod's son and successor, reigned over Galilee and Perea until A.D. 39. Coins exist that make reference to his 43rd year of his rule, which counted backward brings us to 4 B.C. This Herod is the one who had a hand in the beheading of John the Purifier (Mark 6:14-29) and who had a supporting role in the trial of Jesus (Luke 23:7-12).

Now, King Herod's sons being his successors does not necessarily mean that he had to have died in 4 B.C. This simply means that they could have begun co-ruling with him in order to ease them into the role once he died, or that they took over for him in his old age. But it is more likely that he died at this point.

While all this evidence supporting 4 B.C. is wonderful, there still exists one little problem: Jesus was not born in 4 B.C.! How do we know this? When the wise men, or magi, encountered Herod, Herod "determined from them the exact time the star appeared" (Matt. 2:7), and according to this time he had all male children "from two years old and under" murdered (Matt. 2:16). Thus, at the most, Jesus could have been two years old. If we back up one to two years to account for this information, we arrive at a date of 6 or 5 B.C. If we back up another year in case Herod did not immediately die after his encounter with the magi, we arrive at a date of 7 or 6 B.C. This would place the start of Jesus' ministry around A.D. 24 to 26.

THE STAR

"...the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them until it came and stood over the place where the Child was." Matt. 2:9

According to Colin J. Humphreys in "The Star of Bethlehem—a Comet in 5 BC—and the Date of the Birth of Christ," from Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 32, 389-407 (1991), Jesus was probably born in 5 B.C., at the time the Chinese recorded a major, new, slow-moving comet—a "sui-hsing," or star with a sweeping tail in the Capricorn region of the sky. This is the comet Humphreys believes was called the Star of Bethlehem.

Assuming the Star of Bethlehem was a comet, there were 3 possible years: 12, 5, and 4 B.C. By using the one relevant, fixed date in the Gospels, the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar (A.D. 28-29), at which time Jesus is described as being "about thirty" (Luke 3:23), 12 B.C. is too early for the date of His birth, since by A.D. 28 he would have been 40 years old. Herod the Great is generally assumed to have died in the spring of 4 B.C., but was alive when Jesus was born, which makes 4 B.C. unlikely (although possible). In addition, the Chinese do not describe the comet of 4 B.C. This leaves 5 B.C., the date Humphreys prefers, which has the added virtue of including the year's Passover, a most propitious time for the birth of a Messiah. The Chinese say the comet appeared between March 9 and April 6 and lasted over 70 days (Makes sense when you consider that the magi followed it from the east, which would have been a journey of several days.).

The magi "saw His star in the east" (Matt. 2:2). The appearance of this star does not necessarily correspond to Jesus' birth, but could perhaps correspond to His conception. It also does not say that the magi followed the star for two years, but that Herod murdered all male children "from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi" (Matt. 2:16). In other words, there is some approximating going on here. The only thing we know for certain is that Jesus was no longer a baby (βρέφος) in the manger (φάτνη), but was now a child (παιδίον) in a house (οἰκία).

A FAST & THE PASSOVER

Josephus brackets the death of Herod by "a fast" (Antiquities 17.6.4) and the Passover (Antiquities 17.9.3; War 2.1.3). In the former passage, it also states that on the night of the fast there had been an eclipse of the moon. Now, Josephus does not say what kind of eclipse it was (partial or full), but only that there was one. Four lunar eclipses occurred in the likely time frame: September 15, 5 B.C.; March 12–13, 4 B.C.; January 10, 1 B.C.; and December 29, 1 B.C.

Correlation of Josephus with the Talmud and Mishnah indicate that the fast was probably Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur occurs on the 10th day of the 7th month (mid-September to mid-October) and Passover on the 14th day of the 1st month (March or April). The first eclipse, a total eclipse that became noticeable several hours after sundown, fits Yom Kippur too early. The 4 B.C. eclipse, a partial eclipse only visible late at night, seems too far from Yom Kippur and too close to the Passover. The 1 B.C. eclipses require that the fast was either not Yom Kippur, or that the calendar was altered for some reason. None of these eclipses seem to fit very well with the requirements. However, there appears to be another fast that occurs exactly one month before the Passover: The Fast of Esther. The day before Purim is a fast day commemorating Queen Esther’s command for all Jews to fast before she approached the king. Purim fell on March 12–13, 4 B.C.

THE MINISTRY OF JOHN THE PURIFIER

"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas..." Luke 3:1-2

This is when John the Purifier's ministry began. The only time period that fits all of these facts is A.D. 26-29. Tiberius was named emperor in A.D. 14, but he actually started reigning two years prior to that, A.D. 12, as co-regent with Caesar Augustus. Using the earlier date, John’s ministry began circa A.D. 26–27. If Jesus was “about thirty years of age” (Luke 3:23) by A.D. 26, a birth sometime between 6 and 4 B.C. would fit the chronology perfectly. Luke was a historian whose goal was to write an accurate account "in consecutive order" (Luke 1:3), and when he gave ages he did not round up or down to the nearest 5. In Luke 8:42, he writes, "for [Jairus] had an only daughter, about twelve years old, and she was dying." She could have been between 11 and 13 years of age. So when Luke wrote that "Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age" in Luke 3:23, Jesus could have been between 28 and 32 years of age, still “about thirty years of age.”

CONCLUSION

Based on these historical details, the most likely time of Christ’s birth in Bethlehem is 6-5 B.C.

Nevertheless, you need to be your own judge on this issue. After all, scripture tells us in Romans 14:5 to "Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind." Ultimately, the precise date does not matter. What matters is that it happened and that we must believe it to be true. Believing that what the Bible says is true is the only thing that really matters. If we had exact Hebrew dates for Jesus' birth and crucifixion, we would be able to figure it out more accurately. The fact God did not provide them for us pretty much informs us that the dates are not important—only the truth of the information is. "We walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7). Our faith in Jesus is not based on empirical evidence (historical, archaeological, and scientific), although all this information does support our faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please Him" (Hebrews 11:6). Faith in the empirical evidence is no faith at all. True biblical faith does not stop with mental assent to the facts. If it did, it would not be genuine faith.

Are You Smarter Than An Atheist?

Are you smarter than an atheist? I am; at least according to a quiz put out by the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life.

The quiz I took only had 15 questions, so I feel gypped. According to a summary of the quiz, the quiz had 32 questions. American Atheists got an average of 20.9 questions right. American Jews got 20.5, American Mormons 20.3, American Protestants 17.6, and American Catholics 16.0 (according to the figure—the text says 16.0 for American Protestants and 14.7 for American Catholics).

I was actually looking forward to the 32 questions, though I have no doubt in my mind that I still would have achieved 100% on them. But that is nothing special since this is the field of study I excel in. I am an apologist, defending the Christian faith, so I ought to known my own field.

Josephus' Testimony

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."

Antiquities 18:63-64

This quote is allegedly the testimony of what Flavius Josephus had to say about Christ Jesus. However, scholars have debated over the inclusion of certain statements, which could not be logically uttered by a Jew unless one had become a Christian, which Josephus never had. Here is that testimony with the questionable aspects struck out.

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."

Here is how a 10th century Arabic manuscript of Josephus records that testimony.

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and [He] was known to be virtuous. Many people from among the Jews and the other nations became His disciples. Pilate condemned Him to be crucified and to die. Those who had become His disciples did not abandon His discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after His crucifixion and that He was alive. Accordingly, He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

This testimony is more neutral concerning Jesus. It does not contain the disputed aspects from the above testimony, but still tells us quite a bit concerning Jesus. This testimony would be much more closer to the original penned by Josephus. Here are the facts this testimony reveals to us about Jesus:

• Jesus was a wise, virtuous man with a significant following of Jewish and Gentile disciples.
• He was crucified under Pilate.
• There were reports that He appeared to witnesses following His resurrection.
• Some were claiming that He was the Messiah that the Jewish prophets had predicted.

Whether or not some well-meaning but misguided Christian (most likely a Catholic) made edits or embellishments to Josephus' original testimony or not is not of importance. The fact is, Josephus testified to the very real existence of Jesus. There is zero doubt that He existed. No serious scholar has ever ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus, and with good reason.