Greg Merrill

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 5, 2017
3,536
4,621
70
Las Vegas
✟319,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How many times have you heard the term "the three year ministry of Jesus" or "the three and a half year ministry of Jesus" or that Jesus was 33 years old? If you have been a Christian for as long as I have (57 years), you have probably heard all of these quite a number of times. Ever ask where these terms came from? I know why people have used them, and I know why people have believed them, but are they accurate? If you know me at all, you know that I don't usually ask such a question if the answer is obvious. So what are YOUR answers and thoughts on this subject?
 
  • Useful
Reactions: mindlight

Greg Merrill

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 5, 2017
3,536
4,621
70
Las Vegas
✟319,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I think the three-year ministry is probably correct, but Jesus may have been closer to 40 years old at the time of the crucifixion.
How in the world can you come up with that. :p I am not saying you are wrong, but is this just a guess, opinion, or do you have scripture or something else to back up your statement. Good start to this thread. I really appreciate it, and hope you add more.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
How in the world can you come up with that. :p I am not saying you are wrong, but is this just a guess, opinion, or do you have scripture or something else to back up your statement. Good start to this thread. I really appreciate it, and hope you add more.
It is almost universally agreed that Jesus was not born in 1 AD. The calendar wasn't even in existence and when the attempt was made to create one using the birth of Christ instead of the former calendar, it was over a hundred years later and it was necessary to count back and take a guess at the starting date.

Jesus was almost certainly born between 4 BC and 8 or 10 BC. Herod had ordered all the boys under age 2 to be killed, you know, and he himself died in 2 BC. That makes a strong argument for 4 BC, and some historians think it was earlier than that.

As for the death date, the Jews are recorded in Scripture as having said, derisively, that Jesus was a young man, not yet 50 years old. Would you say that he was not yet 50 years old if he was, say, a mere 32 years old? No, you'd probably say that he wasn't yet 40! And because age 37 had a special meaning in Jewish life, some point to that fact also.

None of this conflicts with the dates for the careers of Tiberius or Pilate, by the way.

So, if he was born in 4 or 6 BC and was killed in 33 AD (the most commonly accepted date), he would have been approximately, or close to, age 40.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sam91

Child of the Living God
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,256
8,174
41
United Kingdom
✟53,491.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I heard that it was common for Pharisees/rabbi's to start preaching around the age of 30. Because it is hearsay I have forgotten the reason given. I have also heard that his ministry was around three years.

I have read about this also on the internet but not got round to checking what scriptural evidence there is.

When u said 3 1/2 years I had a reaction of ooo 'like time, times and half a time' which I realise is not good and reactions like that might make me draw things out of scripture that just aren't there. So there was a lesson in yr post for me in that.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi greg,

Well, according to Luke's gospel, Jesus was 'about 30' when he was baptized and as far as we know from the Scriptures, there is nothing recorded prior to his baptism regarding any serious ministry effort. Yes, as a child he did meet with a group of elders discussing Scriptural things. As far as his age at crucifixion, I think most people accept that he was about 33 because the gospel accounts record 3 passovers during the period of his ministry.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sam91
Upvote 0

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 7, 2017
3,426
2,845
59
Lafayette, LA
✟544,986.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How many times have you heard the term "the three year ministry of Jesus" or "the three and a half year ministry of Jesus" or that Jesus was 33 years old? If you have been a Christian for as long as I have (57 years), you have probably heard all of these quite a number of times. Ever ask where these terms came from? I know why people have used them, and I know why people have believed them, but are they accurate? If you know me at all, you know that I don't usually ask such a question if the answer is obvious. So what are YOUR answers and thoughts on this subject?

Greg, the thought provoker. Thanks for your post, Gregory. Giving some life to an otherwise dull day. Yes, the ridiculousness of thinking He had nothing to say to anyone until He was baptized by John the Baptist and officially began His ministry...

Clearly He was hearing from the Father at the age of 12, so much so that the Jewish Fathers were probably getting their minds a little blown by this "Joseph's son." It's shrouded in mystery. But wisdom often has a way of being unobtrusive, and it can go right over your head when it's coming from someone humble and unassuming, especially someone young, and later someone who is clearly devout yet has no official position in the Jewish leadership.

In the end, even during Christ's "three years," it was always a matter of who had ears to hear. The miracles and supernatural confirmations only caused more to stop and take real notice. But in the end, it was still only those who had ears to hear.

Even His family to some extent are said to have rejected Him, because they were seeing Him only through the eyes of the flesh.
 
Upvote 0

Greg Merrill

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 5, 2017
3,536
4,621
70
Las Vegas
✟319,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It is almost universally agreed that Jesus was not born in 1 AD. The calendar wasn't even in existence and when the attempt was made to create one using the birth of Christ instead of the former calendar, it was over a hundred years later and it was necessary to count back and take a guess at the starting date.

Jesus was almost certainly born between 4 BC and 8 or 10 BC. Herod had ordered all the boys under age 2 to be killed, you know, and he himself died in 2 BC. That makes a strong argument for 4 BC, and some historians think it was earlier than that.

As for the death date, the Jews are recorded in Scripture as having said, derisively, that Jesus was a young man, not yet 50 years old. Would you say that he was not yet 50 years old if he was, say, a mere 32 years old? No, you'd probably say that he wasn't yet 40! And because age 37 had a special meaning in Jewish life, some point to that fact also.

None of this conflicts with the dates for the careers of Tiberius or Pilate, by the way.

So, if he was born in 4 or 6 BC and was killed in 33 AD (the most commonly accepted date), he would have been approximately, or close to, age 40.
Now this is a much more thorough answer than your first. Thank you for giving us much to chew on.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi greg,

In reading some of the responses, I have to ask you, are you looking for things that can be proved? Or are you interested in possibly logical constructs? As far as I know, the only record we have of the daily goings on with Jesus is the Scriptures. There are a couple of extrabiblical mentions that there was a man named Jesus in Israel, but, as far as I know, none of them give any information about the things that he did or any timeline of his life.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
It is almost universally agreed that Jesus was not born in 1 AD. The calendar wasn't even in existence and when the attempt was made to create one using the birth of Christ instead of the former calendar, it was over a hundred years later and it was necessary to count back and take a guess at the starting date.

Dionysius Exigius (aka Dennis the Short), a monk from Russia who died about 544, was asked by Pope John I to set out the dates for Easter from the years 527 to 626. It seems that the Pope was keen to produce some order in the celebration of Easter. Dionysius decided to begin with what he considered to be the year of Jesus' birth. He chose the year in which Rome had been founded and determined, from the evidence known to him, that Jesus had been born 753 years later. He did have an error in that because one emperor changed his name during his reign, Dionysius counted him twice.

He was almost certainly acquainted with a suggestion by Hippolytus (170–236) that the date of Jesus' birth was December 25, but the trouble was that Hippolytus had not backed up this claim with sound arguments. Dionysius, however, had just the argument: His contemporaries claimed that God created the earth on March 25. It was inconceivable that the son of God could have been in any way imperfect. Therefore Jesus must have been conceived on March 25. This meant that he must have been born nine months later—December 25. Dionysius also concluded that, as a perfect being, Jesus could not have lived an incomplete life so he must have died on March 25 as well!

December 25 was an auspicious choice. In 274, in Rome, the Emperor Aurelian declared December 25 a civic holiday in celebration of the birth of Mithras, the sun god. By 336, in that same city, Christians countered by celebrating the birth of Jesus, the son of God, on December 25. Christians in Antioch in 375 celebrated the birth of Jesus on January 6. Christians in Alexandria did not begin to celebrate Christmas at all until 430. So until Dionysius came along there was confusion over dates, and debates raged, even over the usefulness of celebrating the birth of Jesus at all. What had been universally important for all Christians—the pre-eminent event—was the celebration of Easter.

When, in 527, he formalized the date of Jesus' birth, Dionysius put Christmas on the map. Jesus was born, he declared, on December 25 in the Roman year 753. Dionysius then suspended time for a few days, declaring January 1, 754—New Year's day in Rome—as the first year in a new era of world history.

With a stroke of ingenuity Dionysius had managed to shift the attention of the church from Easter to Christmas. From this point in time it seemed only logical to celebrate the birth of Jesus before his death. If Jesus' death by crucifixion had made possible salvation for all people everywhere, so the argument went, then his birth was the sign that God was identifying with human kind by taking human form.

But Dionysius made a mistake in his calculations. Perhaps he had never read the gospel account of the birth of Jesus. In Matthew Jesus is said to have been born while Herod was still King (2:1). That would translate into 4 BC (or even earlier) according to the calculations of Dionysius. As a consequence, for Christians the year 2000 is not two thousand years after the birth of Jesus, but more like 2004.

That was not his only mistake. Dionysius followed the convention of his times and, as the Roman calendar moved from the year 753 to 754, he called the latter "year one" of the New World order—anno domini, the year of our Lord. The concept of naught (zero) didn't come into Europe from Arabia and India until about two hundred years later. As a result, centuries end with naught and begin with the digit one. So for us the year 2000 was the end of one millennium but it was not the beginning of the next: that occurred in 2001.

Later, when Pope Gregory tidied up the calendar on 24 February 1582, the calendar lost eleven days. To synchronise the calendar of Dionysius with the movement of the sun, October 4 became October 15, and to avoid having to make further adjustments a leap year was introduced. Pope Gregory must also have known of the mistakes made by Dionysius but all he did was to confirm them, perhaps hoping that no one would notice.

There is one other problem. Bishop Ussher (1581–1656) worked out the precise year of creation as 4004 BC (he knew about Dionysisus getting the date of Jesus birth wrong). But he also advanced the view that the earth had a total life span of six thousand years. In order to come up with this conclusion he based his calculations on all the generations mentioned in the Bible.

In reality we do not know when Jesus was born—neither the year, the month, nor the day. The chronology of our western calendar is based on mythology masquerading as theology. We do well to treat it all with the humour it deserves.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Greg Merrill

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 5, 2017
3,536
4,621
70
Las Vegas
✟319,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hi greg,

In reading some of the responses, I have to ask you, are you looking for things that can be proved? Or are you interested in possibly logical constructs? As far as I know, the only record we have of the daily goings on with Jesus is the Scriptures. There are a couple of extrabiblical mentions that there was a man named Jesus in Israel, but, as far as I know, none of them give any information about the things that he did or any timeline of his life.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted
I would like to know from the Scriptures the basis of saying that Jesus had a 3 - 31/2 yr ministry, and why some say he was 33 yrs old when he died.
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
To determine the length of His ministry and His age is a difficult matter.

We know Jesus died under Pontius Pilate who was prefect of Judaea from 26-36 AD.
John the Baptist dies as Jesus is starting his ministry. According to Josephus, the death of John was seen as responsible for the defeat of Herod Antipas' army in 36 AD, so a date not too far from this is logical to assume. Thus Jesus died towards the end of Pilate's prefectship. This makes a date of 33-35 AD most plausible for the Crucifixion to have occurred.

Luke says Jesus was about 30 when his ministry started. The Synoptic gospels record 1 passover, John records three - hence the three year ministry (John 2:13; 6:4; 13:1).

Now Josephus has the census of Quirinius in 6 AD, while Luke connects Jesus' birth to this census.
Matthew however records Jesus' birth occurred under Herod the Great, as he makes a point of mentioning his successor Herod Archelaus. This occurred in 4 BC.
Thus there is a 10 year discrepancy here, but that was the topic of another quite long thread in this forum where we discussed various solutions, from confusion of Herods to minutiae of Quirinius' career.

Regardless, Jesus died in 33-35 AD, was around thirty and was born in a range a bit before 4 BC to 6 AD. All this information fits and to go further we enter a more debatable area.
A birth date in Herod the Great's reign fits the 30 year age better, unless we mean almost thirty if we follow Josephus' census date, in which case Jesus would be in his late twenties.

I find the argument made earlier in this thread where the Jews said "he isn't even 40" quite convincing for an age in his late thirties, since I agree they would have said "he isn't even thirty/fifty" otherwise.

What I think is that Jesus was about 37 at the start of His ministry and died just before 40. This is speculation though, but here is my reasoning:
12 is important in Jewish culture. You become a man at 13 for instance, the end of your twelth year. Likewise multiples of 12 are important, hence the biblical stress of three-score and 10 years for man - why say 60 + 10 instead of just saying 70?
So I would think Jesus starting His ministry after the end of His 36th year makes sense. It is a multiple of twelve that his contemporaries would have though significant, like we celebrate decades today (due to Roman culture and its 5 and 10 and our 10 based numerical systems). This would also account for Matthew's "about thirty" comment as it would be a translation of his relative age-group in Jewish culture into Greek parlance.
Three sets of 12 years followed by a three year ministry (John's three recorded passovers) fits the OT numerical schemes of history as well. We know God likes numbers and imbues them with significance (Jesus' 12 disciples etc.).
This age nicely fits Herod the Great's reign and a death under Pilate. It is however highly debatable though and quite an inductive leap to make, I agree.
 
Last edited:
  • Useful
Reactions: mindlight
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Dionysius Exigius (aka Dennis the Short), a monk from Russia who died about 544, was asked by Pope John I to set out the dates for Easter from the years 527 to 626. It seems that the Pope was keen to produce some order in the celebration of Easter. Dionysius decided to begin with what he considered to be the year of Jesus' birth. He chose the year in which Rome had been founded and determined, from the evidence known to him, that Jesus had been born 753 years later. He did have an error in that because one emperor changed his name during his reign, Dionysius counted him twice.

He was almost certainly acquainted with a suggestion by Hippolytus (170–236) that the date of Jesus' birth was December 25, but the trouble was that Hippolytus had not backed up this claim with sound arguments. Dionysius, however, had just the argument: His contemporaries claimed that God created the earth on March 25. It was inconceivable that the son of God could have been in any way imperfect. Therefore Jesus must have been conceived on March 25. This meant that he must have been born nine months later—December 25. Dionysius also concluded that, as a perfect being, Jesus could not have lived an incomplete life so he must have died on March 25 as well!

December 25 was an auspicious choice. In 274, in Rome, the Emperor Aurelian declared December 25 a civic holiday in celebration of the birth of Mithras, the sun god. By 336, in that same city, Christians countered by celebrating the birth of Jesus, the son of God, on December 25. Christians in Antioch in 375 celebrated the birth of Jesus on January 6. Christians in Alexandria did not begin to celebrate Christmas at all until 430. So until Dionysius came along there was confusion over dates, and debates raged, even over the usefulness of celebrating the birth of Jesus at all. What had been universally important for all Christians—the pre-eminent event—was the celebration of Easter.

When, in 527, he formalized the date of Jesus' birth, Dionysius put Christmas on the map. Jesus was born, he declared, on December 25 in the Roman year 753. Dionysius then suspended time for a few days, declaring January 1, 754—New Year's day in Rome—as the first year in a new era of world history.

With a stroke of ingenuity Dionysius had managed to shift the attention of the church from Easter to Christmas. From this point in time it seemed only logical to celebrate the birth of Jesus before his death. If Jesus' death by crucifixion had made possible salvation for all people everywhere, so the argument went, then his birth was the sign that God was identifying with human kind by taking human form.

But Dionysius made a mistake in his calculations. Perhaps he had never read the gospel account of the birth of Jesus. In Matthew Jesus is said to have been born while Herod was still King (2:1). That would translate into 4 BC (or even earlier) according to the calculations of Dionysius. As a consequence, for Christians the year 2000 is not two thousand years after the birth of Jesus, but more like 2004.

That was not his only mistake. Dionysius followed the convention of his times and, as the Roman calendar moved from the year 753 to 754, he called the latter "year one" of the New World order—anno domini, the year of our Lord. The concept of naught (zero) didn't come into Europe from Arabia and India until about two hundred years later. As a result, centuries end with naught and begin with the digit one. So for us the year 2000 was the end of one millennium but it was not the beginning of the next: that occurred in 2001.

Later, when Pope Gregory tidied up the calendar on 24 February 1582, the calendar lost eleven days. To synchronise the calendar of Dionysius with the movement of the sun, October 4 became October 15, and to avoid having to make further adjustments a leap year was introduced. Pope Gregory must also have known of the mistakes made by Dionysius but all he did was to confirm them, perhaps hoping that no one would notice.

There is one other problem. Bishop Ussher (1581–1656) worked out the precise year of creation as 4004 BC (he knew about Dionysisus getting the date of Jesus birth wrong). But he also advanced the view that the earth had a total life span of six thousand years. In order to come up with this conclusion he based his calculations on all the generations mentioned in the Bible.

In reality we do not know when Jesus was born—neither the year, the month, nor the day. The chronology of our western calendar is based on mythology masquerading as theology. We do well to treat it all with the humour it deserves.
A few minor comments here:

Aurelian did not institute 25 December in celebration of Mithras, but for Sol Invictus. Mithraism was not a public Roman cult, but a secretive mystery religion with initiates. Mithras had solar characteristics, but was also a cthonic deity. A big part of the artistic depictions in Mithraea is a banquet between Mithras and the Sun, so they aren't exactly comparable even in Mithraism.
Sol Invictus or the Unconquerable Sun was a Roman public cult. Its connections to Mithraism are possible but not definite and the terms are certainly not interchangeable.

Gregory did not institute the Leap year. Julius Caesar did that, adding an intercalary day every 4 years to correct the Roman calender. This however was an overshoot, so every hundred or so years the days migrated one on. Thus by Aurelian's time the winter solstice fell on the 25th of December instead of 21/22 that it should be and thus Sol Invictus came to be celebrated on that date.
Gregory adjusted the calender by ommitting the leap day in years ending on 00 to correct this and by ommitting 11 days to account for the calendrical drift since Julius Caesar's time.

Similarly, Hellenistic mathematics already had a concept of 0 (for instance in Ptolemy's Almagest), but it was not in popular use until Hindu-Arabic numerals began to replace Roman numerals in high mediaeval times and certainly no one would think to name a year or day '0'.

We aren't exactly sure how Dionysius determined his years. He didn't "show his work", but when he drew up new Easter tables he replaced the Diocletianic years (from the reign of Diocletian) in use then with the modern Anno Domini. I would be interested in your source for counting Emperor's reigns wrongly as its origin, for I am unaware how this was determined.
Bede then proceeded to popularise this system later, but it took long to catch on everywhere. Spain for instance still used Pompeiian year counts into the 1300s.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: mindlight
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I would like to know from the Scriptures the basis of saying that Jesus had a 3 - 31/2 yr ministry, and why some say he was 33 yrs old when he died.

Hi greg,

Right. I think I understood the question in your OP fairly well. My question to you was whether you wanted solid evidence or would perhaps be swayed by logical conjecture?

The solid evidence is relatively thin. God didn't seem to deem it particularly important that we have a full understanding of the age of His Son or the exact length of his ministry. As a say, Luke mentions that he was about 30 when he was baptized and I would understand that to mean that he could have been 28-32 in actual years of life having lived on the earth. I also find no evidence that prior to the day that Jesus was baptized that he did any real ministry.

As to the length of his ministry, the only real evidence we have is that the gospel accounts seem to cover the period of three passovers. We do know that his ministry ended with his death. Based on the written testimony of Luke and the chronological timeline of the gospel accounts, we can be fairly confident that Jesus was no more than mid thirties when he died.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JES1023

Active Member
Supporter
Apr 21, 2017
75
85
58
Monticello MN
✟42,159.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
The 3 and half years of the ministry of Jesus comes from the Historic view of end time events when reading Daniel 9:24-27. As this passage states the 70 weeks unto the fulfilling of everlasting righteousness and to anoint the most Holy.
Unlike the Furturist view, Historic teaches the He in Daniel 9:27 is the Messiah, not the anti-christ. At the beginning of Christ ministry the 69th week, He confirm the New Covenant with many for 3 and half years. At the middle of this 7 year period, Jesus by His death and resurrection ended the need for animal sacrifices. This was the New Testament or Covenant He spoke of in Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; while Paul refers to this in I Corinthians 11:25. For the remainder of the week the Gospel message was solely given to the Jews, Matthew 10:6. Then at the end of the 70th week the Jews realized the Gospel was also for us Gentiles, see. Acts 11:18. For we see that Christ confirmed the promise/New Covenant in Galatians 3:17.

As for His age Luke 3:23 tells us Jesus was about 30 when he began His ministry.
 
Upvote 0

Greg Merrill

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 5, 2017
3,536
4,621
70
Las Vegas
✟319,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
To determine the length of His ministry and His age is a difficult matter.

We know Jesus died under Pontius Pilate who was prefect of Judaea from 26-36 AD.
John the Baptist dies as Jesus is starting his ministry. According to Josephus, the death of John was seen as responsible for the defeat of Herod Antipas' army in 36 AD, so a date not too far from this is logical to assume. Thus Jesus died towards the end of Pilate's prefectship. This makes a date of 33-35 AD most plausible for the Crucifixion to have occurred.

Luke says Jesus was about 30 when his ministry started. The Synoptic gospels record 1 passover, John records three - hence the three year ministry (John 2:13; 6:4; 13:1).

Now Josephus has the census of Quirinius in 6 AD, while Luke connects Jesus' birth to this census.
Matthew however records Jesus' birth occurred under Herod the Great, as he makes a point of mentioning his successor Herod Archelaus. This occurred in 4 BC.
Thus there is a 10 year discrepancy here, but that was the topic of another quite long thread in this forum where we discussed various solutions, from confusion of Herods to minutiae of Quirinius' career.

Regardless, Jesus died in 33-35 AD, was around thirty and was born in a range a bit before 4 BC to 6 AD. All this information fits and to go further we enter a more debatable area.
A birth date in Herod the Great's reign fits the 30 year age better, unless we mean almost thirty if we follow Josephus' census date, in which case Jesus would be in his late twenties.

I find the argument made earlier in this thread where the Jews said "he isn't even 40" quite convincing for an age in his late thirties, since I agree they would have said "he isn't even thirty/fifty" otherwise.

What I think is that Jesus was about 37 at the start of His ministry and died just before 40. This is speculation though, but here is my reasoning:
12 is important in Jewish culture. You become a man at 13 for instance, the end of your twelth year. Likewise multiples of 12 are important, hence the biblical stress of three-score and 10 years for man - why say 60 + 10 instead of just saying 70?
So I would think Jesus starting His ministry after the end of His 36th year makes sense. It is a multiple of twelve that his contemporaries would have though significant, like we celebrate decades today (due to Roman culture and its 5 and 10 and our 10 based numerical systems). This would also account for Matthew's "about thirty" comment as it would be a translation of his relative age-group in Jewish culture into Greek parlance.
Three sets of 12 years followed by a three year ministry (John's three recorded passovers) fits the OT numerical schemes of history as well. We know God likes numbers and imbues them with significance (Jesus' 12 disciples etc.).
This age nicely fits Herod the Great's reign and a death under Pilate. It is however highly debatable though and quite an inductive leap to make, I agree.

You have said "The Synoptic gospels record 1 passover, John records three - hence the three year ministry (John 2:13; 6:4; 13:1)." Besides all the rest that you wrote, and I appreciate, this statement is the main reason people keep saying Jesus had a 3 year ministry, which I believe is erroneous. The records of the passovers were not given to show us the length of Jesus' ministry, nor do I believe we can presume what the length was by them. The records of the passovers were given because of the significant events surrounding them that are also recorded in the scriptures. I and others believe there was at least one, maybe two other passovers that were not recorded, because no significant event occurred that God choose to have recorded in Scripture. With all the many things that Jesus did, it is unlikely that He did them in only 3 years imo.
You and others have said "I find the argument made earlier in this thread where the Jews said "he isn't even 40" quite convincing for an age in his late thirties, since I agree they would have said "he isn't even thirty/fifty" otherwise." What they would have said, and why they would have said it is debatable or speculation. There could be a number of reasons why they chose to say "You are not even 50" rather than "You are not even 40."
Regarding your speculation at the end, you say "It is however highly debatable though and quite an inductive leap to make, I agree." Yes, I agree too. You and others have done a lot of study in putting out this information, and that is to your credit, but much study does not always result in the right answer, or perfect accuracy. It is not that important of an issue, but makes for good use of our grey matter in handling of the Word of God. Thank you for your input. I appreciate it.
 
Upvote 0

Greg Merrill

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 5, 2017
3,536
4,621
70
Las Vegas
✟319,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hi greg,

Right. I think I understood the question in your OP fairly well. My question to you was whether you wanted solid evidence or would perhaps be swayed by logical conjecture?

The solid evidence is relatively thin. God didn't seem to deem it particularly important that we have a full understanding of the age of His Son or the exact length of his ministry. As a say, Luke mentions that he was about 30 when he was baptized and I would understand that to mean that he could have been 28-32 in actual years of life having lived on the earth. I also find no evidence that prior to the day that Jesus was baptized that he did any real ministry.

As to the length of his ministry, the only real evidence we have is that the gospel accounts seem to cover the period of three passovers. We do know that his ministry ended with his death. Based on the written testimony of Luke and the chronological timeline of the gospel accounts, we can be fairly confident that Jesus was no more than mid thirties when he died.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted
I think I like all of what you said, but I would say that it is recorded that he was about 30 years old at his baptism because that was the legal age where a Jew could participate with things concerning the law. (Vaguely said, I know.) For this reason, I doubt if Jesus was under 30, for instance 28.
See my other response in this thread to see what I think about the length of Jesus ministry.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think I like all of what you said, but I would say that it is recorded that he was about 30 years old at his baptism because that was the legal age where a Jew could participate with things concerning the law. (Vaguely said, I know.) For this reason, I doubt if Jesus was under 30, for instance 28.
See my other response in this thread to see what I think about the length of Jesus ministry.

Hi greg,

Ok, let's stick with what Luke tells us: Jesus was about 30 years old when he was baptized.

Let me ask you another question, however, about your reasoning as to why it had to be 'at least' 30. You say it is because there was some Jewish custom or law that a man had to be thirty to be of 'legal age where a Jew could participate with things concerning the law.' Have you any Scriptural support of that? If not, have you any Talmudic support of that? If either one, please point me in that direction.

I hope you'll continue your response. After all, you did say in your OP that you liked researching the harder things of God. Although not in those exact words.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Greg Merrill

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 5, 2017
3,536
4,621
70
Las Vegas
✟319,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hi greg,

Ok, let's stick with what Luke tells us: Jesus was about 30 years old when he was baptized.

Let me ask you another question, however, about your reasoning as to why it had to be 'at least' 30. You say it is because there was some Jewish custom or law that a man had to be thirty to be of 'legal age where a Jew could participate with things concerning the law.' Have you any Scriptural support of that? If not, have you any Talmudic support of that? If either one, please point me in that direction.

I hope you'll continue your response. After all, you did say in your OP that you liked researching the harder things of God. Although not in those exact words.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted
I agree. Let's stick with what Luke says... "about 30".
I have found some commentaries that are not vague like I was. Hope this helps.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(23) Began to be about thirty years of age.—At this age the Levites entered on their full work (Numbers 4:23; Numbers 4:30; Numbers 4:35), a kind of probationary period beginning at twenty-five (Numbers 8:24) or even, in later times, when their work was lighter, at twenty (1Chronicles 23:27). No age was fixed for the beginning of the priesthood, nor of the prophet’s work; but it may fairly be inferred that thirty was looked on as the time when manhood reached its completeness, and we may therefore believe that our Lord waited in patient humility till that age had been attained before entering on the work of His public ministry.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

Here is amongst critics a little dispute, whether our blessed Lord at his baptism (after which he soon began his public ministry) was full thirty years of age; wsei and arcomenov in the Greek give occasion to the doubt. Those who judge that he was thirty complete, conceive that the age before which the priests and Levites did no service in the tabernacle of God. Numbers 4:3 commanded the number of them to be taken from thirty years old to fifty, and it was done accordingly, Luke 3:34,35, &c. David, in the latter end of his life, so numbered them, 1 Chronicles 23:3, when their number (of that age) was thirty-eight thousand; yet in that chapter, 1 Chronicles 23:24,27, we find them numbered from twenty years old and upward; but possibly that was for some more inferior service. In conformity to this, most think that both John the Baptist and Christ entered not upon their public ministry till they were of that age; but whether they were thirty years of age complete, or current, is a question, but so little a one, as deserves no great study to resolve: the two qualifying words, wsei and arcomenov, would incline one to think Christ was but thirty years of age current, which is advantaged by what others tell us, that the Jews ordinarily called a child two or three years old as soon as it did but enter upon its second or third year. Some think our Saviour was ten months above twenty-nine years of age when he was baptized, after which he was tempted of the devil forty days before he entered the public ministry; but these are little things.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age,.... Or Jesus, when he was baptized and began his public ministry, was about thirty years of age: an age at which the priests, under the law, who were typical of Christ, entered on their work,Numbers 4:23 The word, "began", is left out in the Syriac and Persic versions: and is often indeed redundant, as in Luke 3:8and frequently in Mark's Gospel. The Arabic version renders it, "Jesus began to enter into the thirtieth year", which carries the sense the same with our translation:
 
Upvote 0