On Easter Sunday, 3 April 1836, the Savior, Moses, Elias, and Elijah appeared in succession in the Kirtland Temple and restored priesthood keys required for the dispensation of the fulness of times. (See D&C 110.) Elijah’s coming had been prophesied more than twenty-two centuries earlier by Malachi. (See Mal. 4:5; D&C 110:14.)

This is the first of two articles that discuss the importance of this restoration and suggest that it occurred on an Easter day chosen in part because of its symbolic significance.

This first article reviews how the disciplines of scriptural study, history, and astronomy can be used to propose from the New Testament a precise date for the Savior’s resurrection: Sunday, 3 April A.D. 33, on our calendar. After noting some of the reasons why other dates have been proposed, this article suggests that modern revelation supports that date.

Part 2 will consider the relationship of the Passover ceremony to the Lamb of God and then will discuss the return of the Savior, Moses, Elias, and Elijah; the priesthood keys and authority they restored; and the significance of this restoration occurring on 3 April 1836.

The reader should keep in mind that the topics addressed in these two articles are complex, and that some of the evidence employed is by its nature inexact; nevertheless, the reader may well find the proposed conclusions to be of serious interest. (See note1 for further discussion on the nature of the evidence dealt with in these articles.)

This article will suggest that modern revelation supports an A.D. 33 date for the Resurrection. While noting other viewpoints, it will also attempt to show that this date was already the most likely candidate if one considered only biblical evidence concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus. It will then note how conflicting evidence concerning the birth of Jesus has led to another date ( A.D. 30) also being widely accepted.

Although the date of the Savior’s resurrection has been the subject of careful study for centuries, there has not been agreement among scholars on the day of the month or even the year it occurred. The Bible provides a number of clues, but the information it offers has not been sufficient to provide an indisputable correlation with our calendar. 2

The morning of the Savior’s resurrection could be considered the most important moment in earthly history. The announcement “He is risen” signaled that death had been conquered and the Atonement accomplished. Certainly it is an event worthy of the celebration and great rejoicing which we accord it each year at Easter.

Biblical References

This section will review the evidence from the four biblical Gospels that helps identify the day of the week, the day of the month, and the year of the Savior’s resurrection.

“The First Day of the Week”

One chronological detail on which all four Gospel writers agree is that the morning the stone was found rolled away from the tomb occurred on “the first day of the week,” the day we call Sunday.3 (See Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1.) Most scholars conclude from these verses that the Savior rose from the dead on Sunday.

On the other hand, it has been suggested that perhaps the Resurrection occurred on Saturday, and that only the empty tomb was discovered on Sunday.4 However, a literal translation of Mark 16:9 clearly opposes this view: “And rising early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary the Magdalene.”5 A Saturday Resurrection seems even more unlikely because the early Christians celebrated the Resurrection on Sunday.6 (See Acts 20:7.) Thus, Sunday is proposed as the most likely day of the Savior’s resurrection.

The New Testament references to the time of the Crucifixion will now be discussed because they contribute additional chronological information.

“The Day of the Preparation”

All four Gospels agree that the Savior was crucified on a day of “preparation” for a Sabbath﻿—that is, the day before a Sabbath. (See Matt. 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:42.) But a problem arises because the word “Sabbath” could refer either to a weekly Jewish Sabbath (Saturday) or to a feast day. Feast days were sacred days of rest, but they often fell on a day of the week other than Saturday. (See Lev. 23:39.) Therefore, the “day of preparation” on which Jesus was crucified could refer to either (1) a Friday, the day before a weekly Sabbath, or (2) the day before a feast day (possibly any day of the week). Proponents of both interpretations find biblical support for their positions because there is evidence that the Sabbath following the Crucifixion was both a Saturday and a feast day.7

In support of a feast day Sabbath, John explicitly states that the day of preparation on which Jesus was crucified was “the preparation of the passover.” (John 19:14.)

At the same time, the continuity of events described in the three synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) indicates that the Sabbath that began shortly after the Savior’s death was also a Saturday, the weekly Jewish Sabbath, because it was the day preceding the day of the Resurrection. It is specifically stated that after the Savior was hurriedly laid in the tomb on the preparation day, the women who attended the burial went to prepare spices and ointments, rested on the Sabbath day, and then returned to the sepulcher to anoint his body very early in the morning on the first day of the week. (Luke 23:54–56; Luke 24:1; Mark 16:1.) Hence, the Sabbath referred to was the day that preceded Sunday, and the day of preparation before it, the day on which the Savior was crucified, was a Friday.

However, there are some who believe the Crucifixion was on a Thursday.8 Proponents of a Thursday Crucifixion do not feel this reasoning is conclusive. They suggest that if Friday was a feast day, then the Sabbath on which the women rested could have lasted two days. Although they sometimes concede that “Friday” is the usual meaning of “the preparation,”9 they reject Friday as the day of the Crucifixion for reasons that will now be discussed.

“The Third Day”

On many occasions the Savior prophesied that he would rise on “the third day” from his death (see Matt. 16:21; Matt. 17:23; Matt. 20:19; Mark 9:31; Mark 10:34; Luke 9:22; Luke 13:32; Luke 18:33), while at other times the phrase “after three days” or “in three days” was used (see Mark 8:31; Matt. 27:63; John 2:19). It is clear that these phrases were equivalent in meaning because they were used interchangeably. (Compare Mark 8:31 with Mark 9:31 and Mark 10:34; also Matt. 27:63–64.) On one occasion the Savior stated that he would be “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matt. 12:40.)

Interestingly, these same verses are used to support three different views: a Wednesday, a Thursday, and a Friday Crucifixion.

The Wednesday View. Those who advocate a Wednesday Crucifixion base their opinion on Matthew 12:40 [Matt. 12:40]. They note that Jesus died about 3:00 P.M. (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34; Luke 23:44), and they believe he was dead for exactly three days and three nights, and so conclude that the Resurrection occurred in the afternoon. Because the Savior had risen by Sunday morning, they place the Resurrection on Saturday and the Crucifixion on Wednesday.

This view seems untenable because the disciples were witnesses that Jesus actually did “rise from the dead the third day” after his crucifixion (Luke 24:46–48), and the day they saw him is identified as Sunday, the third (not fourth) day since the crucifixion (see Luke 24:1, 13, 20–21). Moreover, the fact that the women came to the tomb on Sunday morning to anoint the body after having had to rest on the Sabbath seems to nullify this view, because under no circumstances could there have been a three-day Sabbath to prevent them from coming sooner.

The Thursday View. Proponents of a Thursday Crucifixion also feel that a Friday death does not allow enough time to fulfill Matthew 12:40 [Matt. 12:40]. That is, even though there may be parts of three days between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning, there are only two nights. They solve this problem by placing the Crucifixion on Thursday afternoon and the Resurrection on Sunday morning; and thus they are forced to propose a two-day Sabbath, as discussed above.

The Friday View. Scholars who advocate a Friday Crucifixion point out that the arguments for Wednesday and Thursday are based almost entirely on one interpretation of an isolated verse (Matt. 12:40), rather than on the many statements that Jesus would rise the third day. Although we might count Sunday as the third day after Thursday, they note that it is clear from many other passages in the Old Testament and rabbinic literature that the Jews counted inclusively10﻿—that is, in counting three days after a Friday death, they would have counted Friday as the first day, Saturday as the second, and Sunday as the third. (See Luke 13:32–33; Luke 24:7, 21, 45–48.) Moreover, according to Jewish custom, any part of a day was reckoned as an entire day (including the night);11 hence, part of Friday, all of Saturday, and part of Sunday would have been counted as three days and three nights.

Therefore, the Jewish manner of reckoning both nullifies the objection to Friday and also implies that Sunday would have been counted as the fourth day after a Thursday Crucifixion.

Accordingly, Wednesday seems to be entirely excluded and Thursday is unlikely because its support lies almost wholly in one verse which strains the interpretation of many others. Thus, while Thursday is possible, it is proposed that the day of the Crucifixion was probably a Friday.

Crucifixion at Passover

All four Gospels agree that the day of the Crucifixion was at the time of the Passover celebration. This is an important chronological clue, because the Passover was always prepared on 14 Nisan, the fourteenth day of the Jewish lunar month Nisan, according to the Lord’s commandment. (See Ex. 12:2–6; also “Calendar” and “Feasts” in the Bible Dictionary, LDS edition of the Bible.)

However, there is an apparent disagreement as to whether 14 Nisan was the actual day of the Crucifixion or the day before the Crucifixion.

As discussed above, John’s account specifically states that the Crucifixion occurred on the preparation of the Passover, 14 Nisan (John 19:14; John 18:28), and he is completely self-consistent on this point. On the other hand, the synoptic Gospels are not so clear. They agree with John that Jesus might have been released because of the Passover feast (Matt. 27:15; Mark 15:6; Luke 23:17; John 18:39), apparently supporting John’s 14 Nisan Crucifixion date. But they also describe the Last Supper as a Passover meal (Matt. 14:17–19; Mark 14:12–16; Luke 22:7–13), which would imply a 15 Nisan Crucifixion.

Because all four Gospels are describing the same events, and because John’s calendrical references are so precise and self-consistent, whereas the synoptic accounts are unclear,12 most scholars accept John’s account that the day of the Crucifixion was 14 Nisan and then offer explanations for why the Savior and his disciples ate the Last (Passover) Supper a day before the Judeans. (For example, it has been suggested that the Last Supper was eaten a day early because the Savior knew of his imminent arrest, or that perhaps the disciples used the calendar of Qumran or a Galilean calendar to reckon when to celebrate Passover.13) Part 2 of this article will give a doctrinal argument supporting 14 Nisan. Accordingly, although a 15 Nisan Crucifixion date is not impossible, it is proposed that the most likely Judean date for the Crucifixion is 14 Nisan.

Caiaphas and Pilate

Unfortunately, the year of the Crucifixion is not mentioned in the scriptural text. But the fact that the high priest Caiaphas (Matt. 26:57; John 18:24) and the Roman procurator Pilate (Matt. 27:2; Mark 15:1; Luke 23:1; John 18:29) presided at Jesus’ trials limits the year of the Crucifixion to the period of their common jurisdiction, A.D. 26 to 36﻿—and there are advocates for nearly every one of those years.14 However, other biblical information about the beginning and length of the Savior’s ministry limits the possible Crucifixion years even further.

The Year of Tiberius Caesar

The only year explicitly stated in the Gospels is in Luke’s account of John the Baptist beginning his ministry “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar” (Luke 3:1), shortly before Jesus came to be baptized (Luke 3:23). If one knew (1) how Luke reckoned the reign of Tiberius, and (2) the length of the Savior’s ministry, then the year of the Resurrection could be deduced. Each of these questions will now be considered.

Beginning of Ministry. The evidence is strong that throughout the Roman Empire the years of Tiberius were counted from the beginning of his reign at the death of Augustus Caesar in August, A.D. 14. Consequently, the fifteenth year of Tiberius, when John the Baptist began his ministry, was probably August/September A.D. 28 through August/September A.D. 29.15

It has been suggested that Luke may have reckoned the year of Tiberius not from the death of Augustus, but from the coregency of Tiberius with Augustus Caesar, which began about A.D. 12. If so, Jesus’ baptism would have occurred in A.D. 26–27. Proponents of this view cite Tertullian, an early Christian writer, who appears to have used both methods of reckoning.16 Critics charge, however, that there is no evidence from documents or coins that such reckoning was ever actually used.17

Thus, it is proposed that A.D. 28–29 is the most likely time for Jesus’ baptism, and A.D. 26–27 is a possible second choice.

Length of Ministry. The book of John specifically mentions three annual Passovers during the ministry of the Savior, counting the one at his death (John 2:13; John 6:4; John 11:55), but implies an extra year between the first two because a spring harvest is mentioned (John 4:35) followed by another Jewish feast (John 5:1). Thus, it follows that Jesus’ ministry was not less than about three and a half years, and included at least four Passovers.18

Counting four Passovers from A.D. 28–29 brings us to A.D. 32–33 as the most likely Resurrection years (with a lower limit of A.D. 29, when one counts from A.D. 26).

Other Historical Evidence

More clues to the year of the Resurrection come from other historical evidence. For example, most scholars date the conversion of Paul, which occurred some time after the Resurrection, to A.D. 34–35. For that reason, a Crucifixion date later than A.D. 33 is unlikely, and some feel that even A.D. 33 may be too late.19

Another historical clue is that Pilate yielded to the Jews’ demands after they accused him of not being a friend to Caesar. (John 19:12.) Such submissive behavior was typical of Pilate some time after the death of Sejanus in October, A.D. 31; but before that he had firmly ignored Jewish protests.20 Thus, Pilate’s actions also favor the A.D. 32–33 date derived above.

In conclusion, the historical evidence points to the Resurrection year as probably being A.D. 32 or 33, with a lower limit of A.D. 29 and an upper limit of A.D. 34.

Calendrical Calculations

In summary, the historical and biblical evidence seems to indicate that the Lord was crucified at the time of a Passover feast, probably (1) on a Friday, (2) on the fourteenth day of the lunar month Nisan, and (3) during the period A.D. 29 to A.D. 34. Principles of astronomy can now be used to determine when 14 Nisan could have fallen on a Friday during that period, and to correlate the possible dates for the Crucifixion to our Gregorian calendar.21

First, it may be helpful to briefly consider the workings of the Judean lunisolar calendar.

The Jewish lunisolar calendar (luni = moon; solar = sun) used the moon to reckon months and the sun to measure years. At the time of the Savior, the first day of each month was determined by actual observation of the moon.22 A day on the Judean calendar was from evening to evening. Months began after sunset at the beginning of each lunar cycle﻿—that is, on the night when the thin crescent of the new moon was first visible. (See Figure 1 for details.) It was important to begin the month on the correct day because special sacrificial offerings were to be made then. (See Num. 10:10; also “New Moon” in the Bible Dictionary, LDS edition.)

The lunar calendar was tied to the solar year by choosing Nisan, the first month of the Judean year, to begin immediately after the new moon nearest the spring equinox, when the sun rises most nearly due east. In this way, the feast day 15 Nisan (the first day of unleavened bread) was not allowed to precede the spring equinox. Because twelve lunar months are about eleven days less than a solar year, a thirteenth “leap” month was added about every third year to keep Nisan properly aligned with the equinox.23

Sir Isaac Newton was the first to use his law of gravity to calculate the position of the moon in antiquity to determine the date of the Crucifixion.24 From historical considerations, Newton concluded that the most likely Crucifixion years were A.D. 33 and 34. He then used lunar calculations to determine in which years 14 Nisan could have been a Friday. His results are listed in Table 1.25 For the years Newton considered historically plausible, he found that only A.D. 33 and 34 were astronomically possible, because only in those years could 14 Nisan have fallen on a Friday. Of these two possibilities, he favored A.D. 34.26

Earlier in this century, J. K. Fotheringham, unaware of Newton’s work, performed the same calculations using his own criteria for crescent visibility;27 and further refinements were recently made by Colin J. Humphreys and W. G. Waddington.28 Their results are also shown in Table 1.

Note from Table 1 that, of the years deduced as most likely for the Crucifixion ( A.D. 32–33), A.D. 33 is a perfect fit: 14 Nisan almost certainly was a Friday that year. On the other hand, 14 Nisan could not have been a Friday (or even a Thursday) in A.D. 32 or A.D. 31, so those years are excluded; A.D. 30 is astronomically acceptable, but is less likely for reasons discussed earlier. As the table indicates, A.D. 34 would be another possibility if a leap month was added that year; however, that would be improbable because it was a sabbatical year,29 making A.D. 34 an unlikely third choice.

Thus, the evidence considered so far indicates that the three possible years for the Crucifixion, in order of likelihood, are A.D. 33, A.D. 30, and A.D. 34.

Crucifixion Lunar Eclipse

According to the Bible, the sun was darkened for three hours at the time of the Crucifixion (Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44–45), which might suggest a solar eclipse if it were not that (1) solar eclipses are not total for more than about three minutes, and (2) the moon was full on 14 Nisan, not new, as would be required for a solar eclipse. However, a lunar eclipse may occur at a full moon, causing the moon to turn a dark reddish color.

Table 1. Gregorian Calendar Dates for 14 Nisan Year A.D. Newton (1733) Fotheringham (1934) Humphreys/Waddington (1983) 26 Sun, 19 Apr 27 Thu, 8 Apr† Thu, 8 Apr† 28 Tue, 28 Mar Tue, 28 Mar 29 Mon, 16 Apr Mon, 16 Apr‡ 30 Fri, 5 Apr Fri, 5 Apr‡ 31 Tue, 25 Mar*25 Tue, 25 Mar Tue, 25 Mar 32 Sun, 11 Apr*25 Sun, 11 Apr† Sun, 11 Apr† 33 Fri, 1 Apr Fri, 1 Apr Fri, 1 Apr 34 (Wed, 22 Mar)†† or Thu, 20 Apr*25 Tue, 21 Mar† or (Thu, 20 Apr)†† Wed, 22 Mar or (Thu, 20 Apr**)†† 35 Tue, 10 Apr*25 Tue, 10 Apr 36 Sat, 29 Mar Sat, 29 Mar

Fotheringham pointed out that there was a partial lunar eclipse on Friday, 14 Nisan, 1 April A.D. 33, but he did not consider it a decisive factor. He calculated that this lunar eclipse would have been visible in Jerusalem at moonrise for nineteen minutes and suggested that perhaps it gave rise to the reports of the sun darkening at the Crucifixion (on the assumption that it was confused with a solar eclipse).30

However, this eclipse has recently taken on new significance with the observation by Humphreys and Waddington 28 that Peter’s reference to the sun darkening and moon turning to blood (Acts 2:20) probably refers to the events of the Crucifixion. They cite contemporary reports of lunar eclipses described in such terms as “the moon turned to blood,” and as supporting evidence they note that the uncanonized “Report of Pilate” claims that at the Crucifixion “the moon appeared like blood.”31 These researchers then refined the calculations for the lunar eclipse of 1 April A.D. 33 and determined that it should have been visible in Jerusalem for thirty minutes. They note that it might well have been widely observed, because Jews on 14 Nisan would have been looking for the rising of the full moon of Passover. Figure 2 is based on their illustration of the eclipse.

Thus, if it is accepted that a lunar eclipse was observed on the day of the Crucifixion, then Friday, 1 April A.D. 33, is the only candidate among the potential dates listed in Table 1.32 If so, this eclipse could put an end to arguments for other days (Thursday) or years ( A.D. 30 or 34).

Because the Resurrection occurred on the Sunday following the Crucifixion, it is proposed that Sunday, 3 April A.D. 33, is the day that best matches the Gospel writers’ description of the Savior’s resurrection day.

Conflict with Data on the Savior’s Birth

Except for the lunar eclipse, most of the evidence presented thus far is well known. Why, then, are scholars not in agreement on the most likely day of the Crucifixion? The problem is that this proposed date for the Resurrection (3 April A.D. 33) does not appear to some to be consistent with other biblical and historical evidence concerning the date of the Savior’s birth and the length of his life.

The biblical record is much less precise about the time of the Savior’s birth than about his death; years have been proposed from at least 9 B.C. to A.D. 2. Most of the events mentioned in the Bible in connection with his birth have not been clearly identified in secular sources: the star of Bethlehem (Matt. 2:2), a taxation decree that would require the journey to Bethlehem (Luke 2:1), nor the governorship of Cyrenius before A.D. 6 (Luke 2:2).33

The most decisive factor relative to the date of Jesus’ birth has been considered to be the date of the death of Herod the Great. The historian Josephus is understood to date Herod’s death in 5–4 B.C. Because the Magi visited him after the Savior was born (Matt. 2), it is reasoned that Jesus’ birth must have occurred by at least 4 B.C. , and probably about 6 B.C.

The length of the Savior’s life is traditionally believed to be about thirty-three years because he was baptized when he “began to be about thirty years of age” (Luke 3:23), and his ministry lasted somewhat more than three years, as described earlier. That Jesus was within one year of age thirty at his baptism is consistent with John the Baptist beginning his ministry at age thirty, as was customary for those of priestly descent (Num. 4:3), and with John being about six months older than Jesus (Luke 1:24–27).

Thus, three conflicting conclusions have been based on the historical and biblical evidence: (1) that the Savior was born in 6–4 B.C. , (2) that the Savior lived 33–34 years, and (3) that the Savior died in A.D. 33.

Clearly, at least one of these conclusions must be discarded as being incompatible with the other two, because there are 36 years between 4 B.C. and A.D. 33. Thus, it becomes a matter of choosing the most convincing evidence, and there are advocates for rejecting each of the three positions:

Option A: 6–4 B.C. Birth and A.D. 30 Death. Many scholars have chosen to retain the 6–4 B.C. birthdate and a 33- to 35-year life, thus rejecting the A.D. 33 death date. These scholars note that A.D. 30 is an astronomically possible year for the Crucifixion (see Table 1) and suggest that Luke probably reckoned the years of Tiberius’ reign from his coregency with Augustus.

Option B: 6–4 B.C. Birth and A.D. 33 Death. Other scholars reject the 33-year life span as the length of Christ’s life because they feel that the evidence from both sacred and secular history for the Savior’s death in A.D. 33 is so convincing that it must be chosen, even with a 6–4 B.C. birthdate.34 These proponents suggest that Luke’s phrase “about thirty” (at Jesus’ baptism) is vague enough to include age 33–35 as a beginning point, meaning that Jesus would have died at about age 36–38.

Option C: 2–1 B.C. Birth and A.D. 33 Death. Other scholars have recently argued from historical evidence that Herod could not have died by 4 B.C. , but probably died about 1 B.C. 35 These scholars agree more closely with most early Christian writers, who generally placed the Savior’s birth at about 2 B.C. 36

Which, if any, of the above three scenarios is correct? Each has its advocates. Fortunately, modern revelation adds light to these issues and helps us choose among the options.