Augustine's Pears

Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354—430, sometimes referred to as Saint Augustine) and some friends went into a neighbour's property and stole pears from the neighbour's pear trees. Augustine did not even eat the pears, but dumped them out elsewhere. Augustine confesses that he merely took the pears simply for the sake of doing evil. In other words, he did evil just to do evil. This is how evil works. As human beings, we do something bad simply because we want to enjoy the bad thing. After doing it, we find that doing evil does not truly make us happy. Yet we continue to choose to do evil simply for the fact of doing evil. That is how sin works, and that is why sin is so evil. We do evil because we enjoy it. Only grace can change us from bad people to good people, from sinful people to forgiven people. Only grace can reverse our course so that we can pursue what is good, right, and perfect. This is why we need Jesus. This is why we need salvation. Because apart from it, every evil act we commit is a transgression against a thrice holy God. Since we are made in His image, every time we sin we are telling the universe, "This is what God is like." Our sin is against an infinitely holy God, and therefore an infinite punishment is not only fair, but worthy.

Infant Baptism

Infant baptism has been the majority practice of historic Christianity, and is still practiced today by the majority of Christian denominations. These are irrefutable facts!

I was raised under Dispensationalism. I held to the concept of believer's baptism for years. The only infant baptism I knew of was that practiced by the Roman Catholic church, and I utterly reject their heretical practice thereof, which is full of superstition (that baptism protects against demons) and false doctrine (that even if your child lives the life of a devil, he/she will still make it into heaven because he/she was baptized).

Many individuals who have come out of paedo-baptism have done so because of two reasons: (1) poor teaching of the subject on the church's part, which has relegated it to a mere tradition of men, and (2) inadequate and incomplete study of the subject on their part. If these individuals understood hermeneutics or how to properly study the Bible in the first place, they would not make such blunders in their private personal studies. No matter how wrong they are in their conclusion, nevertheless they are brothers and sisters in the faith and we should treat them as Augustine treated Pelagius, even after he was deemed a heretic: love them and hold out hope for them. It may be a secondary issue that does not affect their salvation, but God still desires His children to conform to every biblical truth—not just those that meet their fancy.

Many former credo-baptists have since become paedo-baptists. Some attempt to argue that it even happens the other way around, which it does. But this argument is not in their favour. For example: Many former Catholics have since become Protestants. But one could also argue that some former Protestants have since become Catholics, which they have. I have even talked to former "Christians" who have since joined cults such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc. The question that needs to be asked is, Which changes in belief are actually based on Scripture and proper in-depth biblical study? Guess what? Both cannot be. The Holy Spirit is not divided and does not and will not lead two of God's children in two completely different directions. Everyone claims conviction of and leading by the Holy Spirit, but some of those claims are false and are merely based on personal feelings and opinions (as well as poor biblical study, if any at all). Scripture will decide the case between the two every time!

Most Christians avoid studying a given subject or doctrine because they are afraid that Scripture will not confirm their views and/or support their position. Rather than be like the Bereans and search to see what Scripture has to say and gladly conform their life and beliefs to it, they would rather be disobedient and rebel. Sadly, most Christians' primary obligation does not include being faithful to God's Word and maintaining a clear conscience before Him.

We have historic records of the practice of infant baptism from as early as the second century A.D. The first objection against the practice of infant baptism does not appear until the 1500s. If the Apostles never taught and/or practiced infant baptism, as some individuals attempt to argue, and from the second century on we have evidence of everyone practicing it, what happened during the 100 years or so between the Apostles and the second century practitioners? If it was something that was never supposed to have been practiced, and suddenly in the second century onward everyone is practicing it, where are the voices who raised objection to its sudden development? If infant baptism was not practiced by the first century church, how and why did this departure from orthodoxy happen so fast and so pervasively? Not only was the spread rapid and universal, but the extant literature from that time does not reflect any controversy concerning the issue. How do credo-baptists explain this? This is their greatest issue to confront.

In the 5th century A.D., Pelagius argued that children were born sinless. Augustine replied something along the lines of, "If children are born sinless, then there's no need for us to baptize children." Pelagius then responded something along the lines of, "I know of no one who would withhold baptism from children and such a person should be held in anathema." Baptism was seen as a Christian act of consecration.

God has always dealt with His people via covenants. Circumcision was instituted under the Abrahamic covenant—not the Mosaic covenant, which has been made obsolete (see Hebrews). Abraham was an unbeliever who came to faith as an adult. He came to faith before he was circumcised. As an adult who had come to faith, he had the sign and seal of the covenant (circumcision) applied. Isaac, however, received the sign and seal of the covenant before he had the faith that the sign signified. This was also the case of every other future son of the covenant. In the New Testament, we see former unbelievers who came to faith as adults. These came to faith before they were baptized. As adults who had come to faith, they had the sign and seal of the covenant (baptism) applied. Now, while we do not see it presented in Scripture (at least not with absolute words), one would expect to see the sign and seal of the covenant being applied to children before they had the faith that the sign signified, which is exactly what we see from early church history.

One quarter of the baptisms mentioned in Scripture indicate that entire households were baptized. This strongly suggests (though it does not prove) that infants were included among those baptized. It is highly unlikely that households that consisted not only of your immediate family members, but also of extended family members and of servants, that not one single individual in these households had any children or infants. Children, who were included in the former covenants, would naturally be assumed to be included in the new covenant. If children were no longer included in the new covenant, that puts them in a worse condition and makes them worse off than they had been under the previous covenant.

The new covenant is far more reaching and much more inclusive. Hence the Gentile inclusion. Does it make sense that God, Who included children in all His previous covenants, would suddenly exclude children from His new covenant? Essentially equating them alongside the heathen and their children? If children were no longer to be included, there would be such a command, a "thus says the Lord," found in Scripture. There is nothing! Since the covenant sign and seal of circumcision could only be applied to male children, would it not make sense that the covenant sign and seal of baptism would include female children, rather than eliminating children altogether?

The new covenant is more inclusive than the old, yet those who dispute the validity of infant baptism would make it less inclusive with respect to children, relegating their children to an equal position with heathen and their children.

Many of the arguments of credo-baptists against paedo-baptists are also arguments against themselves and their own position. The arguments from silence to the one are also the same arguments from silence to the other. It is argued that there are no examples of children being baptized in Scripture, yet it is failed to be acknowledged that there is likewise no examples of children of believers growing up and being baptized as adults. Until you study the subject of baptism more broadly, seeing what Scripture has to say about children and covenants, rather than blindly limiting it to a mere look at the word "baptism," you will fail to understand baptism correctly in all its depth and meaning.

Trustworthy Women Teachers For Women

Christian women! Are you looking for good, trustworthy, doctrinally-sound women teachers who don't violate 2 Timothy 2:12 and/or 2 Corinthians 6:14ff? Michelle Lesley has done extensive research into many women teachers to determine if they're biblically sound or not. Here's her recommendations:

10 Biblically Sound Blogs and Podcasts by Christian Women:
https://michellelesley.com/2015/09/04/10-biblically-sound-blogs-and-podcasts-by-christian-women/

10 More Biblically Sound Blogs and Podcasts by Christian Women:
https://michellelesley.com/2015/10/16/10-more-biblically-sound-blogs-and-podcasts-by-christian-women/

Even More Biblically Sound Blogs and Podcasts by Christian Women:
https://michellelesley.com/2017/02/10/even-more-biblically-sound-blogs-and-podcasts-by-christian-women/

WOMEN'S MINISTRIES

(Ministries with more than one contributor are listed by ministry name.)

Erin Benziger (Equipping Eve)

Berean Research

Diane Bucknell (Everyday Doxology)

Aimee Byrd (Housewife Theologian/Mortification of Spin)

Pamela Couvrette (Guarding the Deposit)

Laurel Davis (The Reluctant First Lady)

enCourage

Susan Heck (Women with the Master)

DebbieLynne Kespert (The Outspoken Tulip)

Sharon Lareau (Chapter 3 Ministries)

Debi Martin (Solid Food Ministries)

Marcia Montenegro (Christian Answers for the New Age)

Naomi’s Table

Out of the Ordinary

Martha Peace

Jessica Pickowicz (Beautiful Thing)

Elizabeth Prata (The End Time)

Trish Ramos (Fish With Trish)

Satisfaction Through Christ

Sunny Shell (Abandoned to Christ)

Sheologians

Sola Sisters

Amy Spreeman (The Berean Examiner/Berean Research)

Steak and a Bible

Theology Gals

Jen Thorn (Adorned)

The Verity Fellowship

Rebekah Womble (Wise in His Eyes)

Women’s Hope Project

Women Under Grace

While Nancy Leigh DeMoss Wolgemuth, Kay Arthur, Jen Wilkin, and Leslie Ludy are not considered false teachers, nevertheless one should approach their stuff with caution as there are a couple red flags with them.

Women she does not endorse or recommend, because they are false teachers, include: Jennifer Kennedy Dean, Lisa Harper, Rebekah Lyons, Raechel Myers, Shauna Niequist, Jennifer Rothschild, Susie Shellenberger, Sheila Walsh, Amanda Bible Williams, Jennie Allen, Lisa Bevere, Rachel Held Evans, Heather Lindsey, Anne Graham Lotz, Kelly Minter, Jen Hatmaker, Lysa TerKeurst, Beth Moore, Christine Caine, Victoria Osteen, Joyce Meyer, Priscilla Shirer, Ann Voskamp, Bobbie Houston, Margaret Feinberg, Bianca Olthoff, Sarah Jakes Robers, Charlotte Gambil, Paula White, Sarah Young, and any individual or church associated with the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation). Ministries not endorsed or recommended include She Reads Truth, IF Gathering, Proverbs 31 Ministries, and the Q Conference, among others. You can discover her reasons here:
https://michellelesley.com/2016/05/09/the-mailbag-do-you-recommend-this-teacherauthor/

Your Constitution? Or God's Word?: A Christian's Allegiance

What is every Christian's responsibility? To conform to the Word of God? Or to conform to a church constitution or statement of faith? Every Christian should be living according to "Ecclesia, semper reformanda secundum verbi Dei." ("The church, always reforming according to the Word of God.") My only allegiance is to the Word of God. I have no allegiance to any church constitution or statement of faith. Where these deviate from the Word of God, I must conform to Scripture above all else. If this means I lose friends and I'm rejected by others, then so be it. To God be the glory! As Don Fortner has said:

Our only rule of faith and practice is the Word of God. We have . . .
         no creed to defend,
         no denomination to maintain, and
         no confession to bind our minds.

"What do the Scriptures teach?" That is and must be our only concern. If the plain teachings of Holy Scripture appear to destroy or contradict our understanding of any doctrine, then let us relinquish the doctrine, or acknowledge the fact that our minds are both depraved and minuscule, and bow to the revelation of God.

If being a member of a local church is supposed to mean that I pledge my allegiance to their particular constitution or statement of faith and blindly follow it without question, regardless of what the Bible has to say, then I will no longer be a member of any local church; I will merely attend one. I am already a member of the universal church, the invisible church, and that is all that matters. Its demand on me is very simple: conform to the Word of God, grow in the Spirit, and become more like Jesus. In my personal Bible studies, whatever is revealed through the Word, I need to wrestle with it and submit to it in order to be in obedience to it. If that sets me against a particular constitution or statement of faith, then so be it. I seek to be a God-pleaser—not a man-pleaser. If all I did was look for churches that hold to the same convictions as I do in every area, I'd be church-hopping for the rest of my life.

I am accountable and responsible to God first, and to my family second, which means that I need to do what I believe is best for them, regardless of the opinions of others. "Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind" (Rom. 14:5). I'm not a follower and I've never given in to peer pressure. I'm pretty stubborn, so if I've changed my mind about a position, it's because there's good reason for my having done so. I don't formulate my beliefs lightly. Many hours of reading and studying envelope my decisions. I'm a High C personality (Cautious, Calculating, Competent, Conscientious, Contemplative and Careful) for a reason. Very fact and detail oriented.

The current state of the church across all denominations is a sad state, mirroring the Pharisees by clinging to and teaching the traditions of men (and current societal norms) rather than the commandments of God by searching and conforming to the Bible. "I believe everything my church believes." When Christians agree unquestioningly with everything their church constitution or statement of faith has to say, they ought to examine themselves honestly and truthfully ask themselves if they're worshipping God, or if they're worshipping the church. The two are not one and the same. Where does your allegiance lie?

Your Constitution? Or God's Word?

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.