The False Doctrine Of Baptism For The Dead

The False Doctrine Of Baptism For The Dead

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, August 25, 2026 (Donate)

Baptism for the dead is the idea that a living person can be baptized on behalf of someone who has already died. Baptism for the dead is an old idea—old, but still false regardless of the age. It was even mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:29. Later, it was practiced by early cultist Marcion in the AD 2^nd century.

Two of my children were baptized on the same day by their grandfather Ken; Photo by Bodie Hodge

In the Middle Ages, Roman Catholics had a variation of it where they would sometimes perform Baptimus in voto where they would literally baptize someone who had died—that is, if they thought they desired it when they were still living.

And today, Mormons (i.e., The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) practice baptism of the dead. The practice is especially associated today with the Latter-day Saints. However, based strictly on the 66 books of the Bible, there is no command to baptize living people as substitutes for the dead, no clear example of Christians doing so with God's approval, and no teaching that baptism can alter the eternal condition of someone who has died. According to God, salvation is by faith through grace in the Jesus Christ of Scripture.

Salvation Cannot Be Obtained By A Substitute's Baptism

This is a big point by the way—baptism doesn’t equal salvation. Scripture consistently presents salvation as believing in Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection. Each individual must repent (be sorry for their sin and turn from it) and of course the key factor is to believe in Jesus Christ (Mark 1:15; John 3:16-18; Acts 2:38; 16:30-31; Romans 10:9-10).

No person can exercise saving faith for someone else! John 3:18 says that the person who doesn’t believe "is condemned already”:

“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18, NKJV)

Likewise, Romans 14:12, NKJV, says:

So then each of us shall give account of himself to God.

Baptism can’t transfer another person's faith, repentance, or salvation to the deceased.

Baptism Follows Personal Faith

In the New Testament, baptism is for the person who individually receives the gospel. They do so in obedience.

After they heard the Gospel in Acts 2:36, they were cut to the heart and believed in Acts 2:37 and Peter then told them to repent and get baptized (Acts 2:38). And they followed in obedience and were baptized—those who gladly received his word:

Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. (Acts 2:41, NKJV)

The Samaritans believed and were baptized (Acts 8:12). Then, there was the Ethiopian who believed and was baptized (Acts 8:36-38). The Philippian jailer heard the gospel, believed, and was baptized (Acts 16:30-34).

Furthermore, salvation itself is by God's grace through faith—it’s not based on works—let alone the works of someone else (Ephesians 2:8-9)! Water baptism is an act of obedience; it’s not a ceremony through which one person can obtain or earn salvation for another.

Death Ends The Opportunity

God’s Word says that a person's condition after death is judgment (Hebrews 9:27). It isn’t a matter where their eternal destiny can be changed by a baptismal ceremony by someone who is alive.

Jesus' account of the rich man and Lazarus likewise describes a barrier between the righteous and unrighteous after death (Luke 16:19-31). Abraham doesn’t tell the rich man that living relatives can perform a ceremony to improve or change his condition. The Bible specifically says:

‘And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’ (Luke 16:26, NKJV)

What About 1 Corinthians 15:29?

The primary passage used to defend baptism for the dead by various groups is 1 Corinthians 15:29:

“Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?”

Notice carefully that Paul says "they," not "we." Paul doesn’t command baptism for the dead, explain how to perform it, or say that Christians should practice it. Instead, when you view the context, Paul uses the existence of such a practice as part of an argument exposing the inconsistency of denying the resurrection. For the same people wanting to baptize the dead were denying the resurrection, so why were these deviants baptizing for the dead, when they didn’t believe in the resurrection of people in the first place?

Paul as depicted in a discontinued exhibit at the Creation Museum; Photo by Bodie Hodge

The entire chapter is about the bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:12-22). Paul's argument is essentially: If there is no resurrection, why are people being baptized for the dead? Their practice would make no sense if the dead never rise. Thus, Paul was “pulling the rug out from undeath” the false practice.

Mentioning a practice doesn’t automatically endorse it—and that is the key point here. Scripture records many things without approving them.

No Second Chance Through The Living

The bigger biblical problem with baptism for the dead is that it creates a means by which the actions of the living supposedly affect the salvation of those who have already died. Scripture never teaches this.

Fallen, sinful man can’t repent for another person, believe for another person, be justified for another person, or be baptized to change another person's eternal destiny. Jesus Christ alone is the One who finished the substitutionary work necessary for salvation (Isaiah 53:5-6; 1 Peter 2:24). Each individual person is responsible to receive Christ in faith—it is between them and God.

Therefore, baptism for the dead is a false doctrine because it builds an entire practice around a errant interpretation of one verse while contradicting the clear teaching found throughout the rest of Scripture.

The biblical message isn’t "be baptized for the dead." Instead, it is to preach the gospel to the living so that they may repent, believe in Jesus Christ, and follow Him while they still have opportunity and still has their final breath—after that, it’s too late. (Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 17:30-31). This is why preaching to Gospel is so important and why we Christians should be reaching out to the lost.

Image requested by Bodie Hodge*

 □

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist defending 6-day creation and opposing evolution since 1998. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and aster of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.

His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields.

*Image generated by ChatGPT

Tattoos From A Biblical Doctrinal Viewpoint

Tattoos From A Biblical Doctrinal Viewpoint

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, August 24, 2026 (Donate)

I know Christians with tattoos. I also know Christians who believe getting a tattoo is sinful. Christians and tattoos have become a hotly debated subject, with some Christians freely getting them and others strongly opposing the practice.

Are tattoos sinful today like they were in the Old Testament?; Image requested by Bodie Hodge* 

Part of the disagreement comes down to how Christians understand the nature of the Old Testament Law and its application today. Scripture tells us:

But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. (1 Timothy 1:8-11, NKJV).

The question, then, isn’t whether God's Law was good, but how laws given under the Old Covenant should be understood under the New Covenant in Christ. This discussion often intersects with the larger doctrinal debate between Covenant theology and Dispensational theology.

What Does The Old Testament Say About Tattoos?

The primary passage is Leviticus 19:28 (NKJV):

“You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the LORD.”

The wording is fairly direct. Israel was prohibited from cutting the flesh for the dead and from tattooing marks on the body. Such practices occurred among pagan peoples and were often associated with mourning, idolatry, religious devotion, or identification. We still see these pagan practices today with tattoos.

The debate among Christians is generally not over whether Leviticus 19:28 prohibited tattoos. The debate concerns whether that prohibition continues to apply to Christians today.

The Covenant Theology Approach

Covenant theology recognizes continuity between the Old and New Testaments. God's moral standards don’t simply disappear unless Scripture indicates that a particular command was fulfilled, modified, or set aside under the New Covenant.

For example, Old Testament animal sacrifices are no longer offered because Christ fulfilled the sacrificial system through His once-for-all sacrifice (Hebrews 9:11-14; 10:1-14). Circumcision is not required for salvation or church membership (Acts 15; Galatians 5:1-6). Dietary restrictions were modified as all foods were now clean in the New Covenant (Mark 7:18-19; Acts 10:9-16; 1 Timothy 4:3-5).

The moral principles expressed in the Law, how ever, continue. Murder, adultery, theft, idolatry, dishonoring parents, sexual immorality, and other sins remain sins in the New Testament.

Even the Sabbath command has a New Covenant fulfillment and modification. The Sabbath pointed forward to the greater rest found in Christ (Colossians 2:16-17; Hebrews 4:1-11).

From this perspective, the Covenant theologian argues that the prohibition against tattoos in Leviticus 19:28 remains applicable because the New Testament never specifically repeals or modifies it. God prohibited the practice, and there is no later passage specifically authorizing it.

The Dispensational Approach

In the 1800s, a new approach emerged. It was called dispensationalism by John Darby (often called the "Father of Dispensationalism"). In this system, many Dispensationalists approach the Mosaic Law differently. They argue that Christians aren’t under the Mosaic covenant because Christ fulfilled the Law (Romans 6:14; 7:4-6; Galatians 3:23-25) and thus it is now set aside.

Under this view, Christians are governed strictly by the teachings given under the New Covenant rather than by the Mosaic Law as a covenantal system. Many moral commands from the Old Testament remain applicable because they are repeated or reaffirmed in the New Testament.

Thus, murder remains sinful, as does adultery, theft, idolatry, homosexuality, and many other sins because the New Testament teaches against them.

Regarding tattoos, however, the argument is that Leviticus 19:28 belonged to the Mosaic Law given to Israel. Since the New Testament contains no explicit prohibition against tattoos, the consistent Dispensationalists conclude that Christians have liberty in this area.

As a caveat, it should be noted that not every Covenant theologian or Dispensationalist will reach the same conclusion about tattoos. There are variations[1] within both theological systems but if they were consistent with their respective systems, this is where they should land.

A Potential Problem With Requiring New Testament Repetition

One difficulty with saying that an Old Testament moral command is irrelevant unless specifically repeated in the New Testament is that the New Testament doesn’t explicitly repeat every possible moral prohibition.

Consider bestiality. The Old Testament clearly condemns it (Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 18:23; 20:15-16; Deuteronomy 27:21). Yet the New Testament contains no similarly explicit command saying, "You shall not commit bestiality." Does one have liberty here? Surely this silence doesn’t mean the practice suddenly became morally acceptable and is no longer condemned under immorality.

This illustrates why Christians should be careful about arguing that anything not explicitly prohibited in the New Testament is therefore permissible. The Old Testament Law remains God's Word—hence Christ’s authoritative Word. And it is profitable for Christians (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:6-11; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Other Biblical Principles

Even Christians who believe Leviticus 19:28 isn’t directly applicable should consider broader biblical principles before getting a tattoo or cutting oneself.

Our bodies belong to the Lord. Paul writes, "your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit" and reminds believers, "you are not your own" because we were "bought at a price" (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).

So, Christians should ask: Does this honor Christ? What is my motivation for cutting or tattoos? Is it vanity, rebellion, peer pressure, cultural conformity, or a genuine matter of Christian liberty? Will the image or message glorify something contrary to Scripture? Could it damage my Christian testimony? Am I acting against my conscience? How do tattoos affect by body medically and from a health perspective?

Romans 14 teaches Christians not to violate their consciences in disputed matters. First Corinthians 10:31 gives an even broader principle: “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”

What About Christians Who Already Have Tattoos?

Before people get all “high and mighty”, Christians should also avoid treating a tattooed person as though tattoos somehow place someone beyond God's grace. Many people received tattoos before becoming Christians. Others may have received them as Christians while believing they had biblical liberty to do so. Some may have gotten them knowing nothing about the debate or the Scriptural prohibition.

A person's standing before God isn’t saved or judged eternally by whether tattoo ink is present beneath his earthly skin. Salvation is by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not through an unmarked body (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, this isn’t a matter of salvation but a matter of interpretation of the Law today.

Consider Brazil’s most tattooed man—Leandro de Souza, who had over 95% of his body tattooed. When He received Christ as Lord he felt convicted and had these tattoos removed, though he doesn’t condemn those who have them.

Final Thoughts

The tattoo and cutting debate ultimately involves more than Leviticus 19:28. It touches on the larger question of how Christians understand and apply the Old Testament Law under the New Covenant. At the same time, be careful about judging another believer's salvation or spirituality merely from outward appearance. 

For someone considering a tattoo, this is not a decision that needs to be made hastily. Study God's Word, pray about the matter, consider the theological arguments, and seek counsel from faithful parents and family members—as your appearance often reflects on their Christian testimony as well.

I also suggest seeking wisdom from your local pastor and elders in your church, examine your motives, and avoid making decisions merely because the surrounding culture approves of something. 

Whatever conclusion one reaches, the ultimate question should always be: Does what I am doing honor the Lord Jesus Christ and conform to the authority of His Word?

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist defending 6-day creation and opposing evolution since 1998. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.

His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields.

*Image generated by ChatGPT

---

[1] Variations such as Leaky Dispensationalism, Revised Dispensationalism, Progressive Dispensationalism, New Covenant theology, are mixtures between Covenant theology and Dispensationalism, but really, the individual is picking and choosing which laws they want to follow and which they don’t at their own arbitrary opinion.

Did It Rain Before The Flood?

 Did It Rain Before The Flood?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, August 21, 2026 (Donate)

An all-to-often Christian teaching is that rain didn’t occur until Noah's Flood. However, a careful reading of the Bible doesn’t actually say this. I humbly suggest that Christians be careful about against being dogmatic about a "no rain before the Flood" position.

A Kentucky rainbow reminder; Photo by Bodie Hodge

What About Genesis 2:5-6?

The main passage used to argue against pre-Flood rain is Genesis 2:5-6 (NKJV):

…before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

However, Genesis 2 is focusing on events surrounding the creation of Adam. And this comment is specifically regarding a time during Creation week, prior to Adam’s creation on Day 6 (i.e., “no man to till the ground”).

Therefore, the passage tells us that God hadn’t caused rain to fall up to that particular point during Creation Week. During this time the dry ground that God created on Day 3 was being watered. There is no passage that reveals that the rain remained absent for the approximately 1,650 years between Creation and the Flood.

The mist mentioned in Genesis 2:6 may have been an important means by which God initially watered the earth. Furthermore, Genesis 2:10-14 describes rivers flowing through the pre-Flood world. Though much of this could also be spring fed, it also reveals that the hydrologic cycle was in place.

Oceans, seas, clouds, rivers vapor, and so on are all part of the hydrologic cycle. Photo of the Gold Coast in Australia by Bodie Hodge

This is to be expected since God made the laws of nature and uphold them into existence and had no reason to change them—thus water evaporated and condensed (natural created-properties of water) so water vapor, cloud condensation, and rain should no doubt be realities.

What About Hebrews 11:7?

Hebrews 11:7 says Noah was warned "of things not yet seen." Some interpret this to mean Noah had never seen rain. This is bit of a stretch!

But the verse doesn’t say that. A global Flood had not been seen either! The unprecedented event Noah hadn’t seen was the coming worldwide catastrophic Flood and God's judgment upon mankind. And Bible reveals that is what Noah endured on the Ark.

Was The Rainbow New?

Genesis 9:12-17 also does not necessarily mean that the first rainbow existed after the Flood. Again, it would call into question the very natural laws by which God upholds things into existence.

God could have taken an already-existing phenomenon and given it a new covenant significance. God does this. Similarly, Christ gave bread and wine a special meaning in the Lord's Supper even though bread and wine already existed. Our bodies have become the Temple of the Holy Spirit (i.e., collectively the third Temple, if you will). Man’s bodies existed beforehand and now take on new responsibilities and meanings.

What About The Water Cycle In More Detail?

Ecclesiastes 1:7 describes rivers flowing into the sea while water continually returns to supply them, and passages like Job 36:27-28 describe evaporation, clouds, ice/snow, and rainfall. Scripture therefore recognizes the normal water cycle.

God provides rain regularly for things like fields, crops, and harvests throughout the Bible (e.g., Deuteronomy 11:11-17). Why assume He didn’t do that in His perfectly created world?

When God told Noah that rain would come in the seven days to begin the global Flood (Genesis 7:4), did Noah react in such a way, as to be confused about what rain was if he hadn’t seen it before and had no concept of it? No. Instead Noah did all that God commanded him, knowing full well what the rains would do.  

Red River Gorge in Kentucky has many waterfalls and natural bridges in the park; Photo by Bodie Hodge

Since the pre-Flood world already possessed oceans, rivers, sunlight, and an atmosphere, there is no biblical requirement that this process was absent before Noah. There is no logical reason to insist that teh normal water cycle did not function before the Flood. Thus, this becomes an arbitrary assertion that really isn’t defensible biblically, logically, or scientifically.

Conclusion

Did it rain before the Flood? Though Scripture does not openly tell us, we have no reason to think it didn’t.

The Bible clearly says there had been no rain before Adam was created (Genesis 2:5-6), but it never says there was no rain during the entire pre-Flood era. So one should be careful about applying this verse to an era of time that it wasn’t intended. Therefore, Christians should not teach "no rain before Noah" as established biblical doctrine. Rain before the Flood is totally consistent with Scripture.

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist defending 6-day creation and opposing evolution since 1998. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.

His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields.

 

What Was The Date Of Christ's Resurrection?

What Was The Date Of Christ's Resurrection?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, August 19, 2026 (Donate)

This is such a great question! The Bible does not give a modern calendar date for Christ's resurrection—nor did we expect it to. In fact, today, we use the Gregorian calendar which didn’t exist in Christ’s day.

Empty Tomb; Image requested by Bodie Hodge*

An earlier form of the Gregorian was in effect—the Julian calendar—named for Julius Caesar. The Gregorian calendar has leap years and things like that to correct the Julian calendar which would drift slight over centuries.

When we ask the question about Jesus’ resurrection date, it would be convenient to have it on our modern calendars and not use the Julian calendar or the Babylonian calendar (commonly called the Jewish calendar) as the date drifts and moves around compared to our modern calendar.

With that said, the most common date used and defended historically is Sunday, April 5, AD 33 as translated to our modern calendar. This follows from placing the Crucifixion on Friday, April 3, AD 33, with Christ rising on the first day of the week. Of course, you can’t give a date, without some debate, but this date tends to stand up to the scrutiny.

Why Is The Date Debated?

The debate is centered on a range that it could have happened. Obviously, people aren’t arguing the Christ resurrected in AD 1776. We have to go back to time markers given in God’s Word—the absolute authority in all matters.

Then secondarily, we use historical data to help us out. When we do this, we are initially narrowing down the timeframe primarily surrounding AD 33. For example, scriptural time markers give chronological points rather than a numbered Roman year on the Julian calendar.

For instance, historians must correlate the reigns of Tiberius Caesar and Pontius Pilate (Luke 3:1). Both were in power at the same time—one as emperor and the other as governor of Judea under Tiberius.

The Bible tells us that the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry was in Tiberius's fifteenth year. He baptized Jesus after this when He was "about thirty years of age" and this marked when His ministry began (Luke 3:23). Keep in mind that Christ was born about 4 BC (yes, there was an early error in the initial calculation for Christ’s birth—King Herod, who was a lesser king for the region of Judea, under Caesar, died in 3 BC). Jesus was born while King Herod was still alive, but he died soon after that.

The Bible also mentions at least three Passovers that Jesus celebrated (John 2:13; 6:4; 11:55). Some suggest that Jesus, therefore, had His ministry for three years. However, what we can know is that it was at least three years—it could have been a little more.

Another requirement for the crucifixion occurs in connection with the Passover week overlapping with the weekly Sabbath causing it to become a High Day or High Sabbath with Passover itself occurring on the day before the Sabbath (Saturday).

Another mild disagreement arises over ancient Jewish calendars (the Jewish group called the Essenes used a 365-day solar calendar; others used a lunar 354-day calendar with intercalary months). So, mapping these chronological points shows how intense this can get regarding this debate! 

What Dates Sticks Out?

Even with all this, most dates are eliminated quickly as possibilities. First, Pontius Pilate provides firm historical boundaries. Jesus had to have been crucified while Pilate governed Judea, historically and generally without much dispute, this is dated at AD 26-36. Caiaphas provides another historical boundary. Caiaphas served as high priest during the period in which an AD 33 crucifixion would fall (generally from AD 18-36).[1]

Simply consider this next piece of biblical data. The Passover began the day before the Sabbath which is also called the Preparation Day (preparing for the Sabbath, see John 19:31)—that is when the Last Supper took place—it was the Passover meal Jesus shared with His disciples.

Then Jesus was later arrested that night and crucified later that day during the daylight portion of the Passover/Preparation Day; and He was put in the grave prior to the Sabbath which began at sunset. The Pharisees still needed to eat the Passover meal after Jesus was turned over to be crucified (John 18:28).

Doing a little research, we find that (as correlated to our Gregorian calendar), AD 30 was a Thursday, AD 31 was Tuesday, AD 32 was a Monday, AD 33 was a Friday, AD 34 was a Tuesday, AD 35 was a Monday and AD 36 was a Friday.[2]

Crown of Thorns; Image requested by Bodie Hodge*

Thus, most dates can be eliminated as the Passover was not on a Friday for most of these dates. This leaved AD 33 as the reasonable date and AD 36, which is far too late. The AD 36 date would have Jesus being about 40 years old having a about 7-8-year ministry, which seems to be a stretch.

Why Is AD 33 Biblical And Defensible?

Luke places John the Baptist's ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1-3). Tiberius's reign, based on Roman historical accounts, is reckoned normally from AD 14. This points toward AD 28/29. Jesus began His ministry afterward, and John records at least three Passovers, indicating a ministry extending several years. This fits AD 33 considerably better than AD 30. AD 30 is based on a Thursday crucifixion but then, there would be no need to rush to get Him buried prior to the Sabbath.

A Friday crucifixion also fits the traditional chronology of Friday (1^st day); Saturday (2^nd day); and Sunday (3^rd day). The Bible repeatedly asserts that Jesus was to rise on the third day (Matthew 16:21, Matthew 17:23, Matthew 20:19, Matthew 27:64, Mark 9:31, Mark 10:34, Luke 9:22, Luke 13:32, Luke 18:33, Luke 24:7, Luke 24:21, Luke 24:46, Acts 10:40, 1 Corinthians 15:4).

Jesus indeed rose on the first day of the week (Sunday, now called the Lord’s Day to honor Christ’s resurrection):

Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons. (Mark 16:9, NKJV).

See also Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1, John 20:19. So counting backwards from Sunday being the third day, the Sabbath being the second day, then Friday must be the first day.

This is consistent. Christ died Friday, April 3, AD 33, His resurrection occurred Sunday, April 5, AD 33. Christ rose on the third day. So, while Scripture does not require Christians to affirm a particular modern calendar date, April 5, AD 33 is biblically consistent, historically plausible, and strongly defensible.

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist defending 6-day creation and opposing evolution since 1998. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.

His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields.

*Image generated by ChatGPT

---

[1] Take note that likely places Caiaphas as a lower level priest around the time Jesus stayed back at the Temple when he was 12.  

[2] As indicated by Larry Pierce in James Ussher, The Annals of the World, translated by Larry and Marion Pierce, Second Printing December 2003, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, page 822.