Modes of Baptism (The Three Different Doctrinal Positions)

Modes of Baptism (The Three Different Doctrinal Positions)

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

Biblical Authority Ministries, March 25, 2026 (Donate)

Since the time of the Reformation (AD 1500s), there are many distinct denominations of churches. One of the main causes of church splits has to do with the mode of baptism.

These various churches all agree with baptism, but how and when to administer it becomes the point of contention. In short, the three basic positions are:

• Paedobaptistic: With paedobaptism, one baptizes infants based on covenant inclusion or in the case of Lutherans, it is a means of grace. Paedo means child. This is done usually by sprinkling or pouring, rarely by full immersion. Those who are paedobaptistic also accept adult baptism and that can be full immersion.
• Baptistic: Baptizes only professing believers and is done by immersion. They reject infant baptism.
• Anabaptistic: Rejects infant baptism and rebaptizes adults if they were baptized as infants. They tend to overlap with Baptists on baptism but differs historically and sometimes doctrinally. For instance, just because one professes, doesn’t automatically permit them to be baptized—often, they must shows genuine signs of conversion to Christ before they are permitted to be baptized.

Let’s look at these positions in more detail.

Dishes being cleaned by sprinkling (in a dishwasher), being cleaned by pouring water from a faucet, and being cleaned by immersion; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Paedobaptistic (Infant Baptism)

Paedobaptism is the practice of baptizing infants, typically grounded in a form of covenant theology. Paedobaptists argue that baptism has replaced circumcision as the covenant sign, and thus should be applied to the children of believers just as circumcision was applied under the Old Testament to the boys. This view is commonly held by Presbyterians, Reformed churches, and some Anglicans.

This is not the view of Lutherans who view infant baptism as a means of grace that leads to God working in their lives to grant forgiveness of sins, regeneration, and faith.

Leading Baptist commentator, Dr. John Gill strongly opposed paedobaptism. He argued that there is no explicit New Testament command or example of infant baptism. For Gill, baptism is an ordinance tied to personal faith and repentance, which infants are incapable of exercising. He rejected the covenantal continuity argument, insisting that the New Covenant differs in nature from the Old and is composed only of regenerate believers.

Nevertheless, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Anglicans disagree…and as you can see, this is a major division within protestant circles.

Baptistic (Believer’s Baptism)

Baptistic theology, which dominates Baptist Churches, Churches of Christ, Christian Churches, and Pentecostals, holds that baptism is reserved only for those who personally profess faith in Jesus Christ. Baptists hold baptism as an ordinance for visible believers, administered after conversion—when they believe in Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection.

Baptism, in this view, follows faith, citing the consistent New Testament pattern: hearing the gospel, believing, and then being baptized (e.g., Acts 2 when they heard Peter preach the gospel, they believed when they were cut to the heart in Acts 2:37, they were to be baptized in Acts 2:38).

Baptists argue strictly for immersion as the proper mode, seeing it as the clearest representation of union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. Baptists reject infant baptism and insist upon the baptism of professing believers only.

Anabaptistic (Re-baptizers)

The term “Anabaptist” historically refers to those during the Reformation who rejected infant baptism and were therefore rebaptized upon profession of faith. The name means “re-baptizer,” though many Anabaptists rejected the label, arguing that infant baptism was invalid and thus not a true baptism at all. So, the name is used strictly for descriptive purposes.

Anabaptists often held additional distinctives beyond believer’s baptism, such as separation from state churches and, in some cases, more deviant social or theological views of other believers such as the Amish and Mennonites.

Baptists are to be distinguished from Anabaptists. While both rejected infant baptism, Baptists do not see themselves as “re-baptizers” since they considered infant baptism invalid. Therefore, what critics called “rebaptism” was, in Baptist understanding, true baptism for the first time.

Conclusion

These divisions have split many churches in the last 500 years. Some churches literally put their distinctive division in the name of their local church—e.g., First “Baptist” Church!

The point is that there are several different views and I want to encourage you see what the Bible says. I also want to encourage you to chat with your local pastor, elders and of course, your family and see what they believe and why they hold those positions biblically. 

This is merely meant as an introductory discussion to give you some basic understanding of the positions. It isn’t meant to dive into the debate in immense detail with scriptural battles ensuing.

But just to let you know, it can become a heated debate. But at the end of the day, remember that brothers and sisters in Christ can still stand together on the authority of God’s Word and should be able to have these discussions in an iron-sharpening-iron fashion, with respect and gentleness, to grow closer to Christ (1 Peter 3:15).

□

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.

 

 

 

Does It Take Millions And Billions Of Years To Make Diamonds?

Does It Take Millions And Billions Of Years To Make Diamonds?

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

Biblical Authority Ministries, March 24, 2026 (Donate)

I was taught it take millions and billions of years to form diamonds. It is often suggested that natural diamonds today are billions of years old.

As a materials scientist and a biblical creationist, I suggest they are not that old. Why would I be so bold as to suggest such a thing? Because there are many ways to make diamonds today and none take much time at all!

Gemstone; Photo by Bodie Hodge

Why presume that diamonds take long ages to form in the first place? You need to understand that it is because of a worldview that is predicated on long age uniformitarianism and billions of years—the secular humanistic religion.

Science is observable and repeatable. Yet, no one has ever observed diamonds forming billions of years ago. No one has ever been able to repeat that alleged slow process.

From a true scientific perspective, diamonds can be formed quickly today using several well-established industrial and laboratory methods. These processes replicate the essential conditions needed for diamond formation: high pressure, high temperature, or carbon-rich environments.

These methods are so well known that I’m going to list the scientific technical papers with each method instead of footnotes. That’s how well known these methods are. Let’s hit these methods.

High Pressure High Temperature (HPHT)

This is the most traditional industrial method and closely mimics natural diamond formation in the earth.

Carbon (usually graphite) is placed in a press and subjected to pressures of about 5–6 GPa (roughly 700,000–900,000 psi) and temperatures of about 1,300–1,600°C. A metal catalyst such as iron, nickel, or cobalt is typically used to help dissolve the carbon and allow it to crystallize as diamond.

A small diamond seed crystal is placed in the chamber, and carbon atoms attach to it, growing a diamond over days to weeks.

·       Ekimov, E. A. (2020). High-pressure, high-temperature synthesis of diamond from hydrocarbons. Progress in Materials Science, 113, 100671.

·       Wentorf, R. H. (1965). Synthesis of the cubic form of boron nitride. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 42(12), 4115–4116.

·       Zhang, J., Li, M., & Wang, H. (2024). A review of diamond synthesis, modification technology, and cutting tool applications. Materials & Design, 235, 112345.

·       Hemley, R. J., & Mao, H. K. (Eds.). (2021). Synthesis of diamonds and their identification. Mineralogical Society of America.

Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD)

This is a more modern and highly controlled laboratory method. You take a thin diamond seed and then place it in a vacuum chamber filled with a carbon-rich gas, usually methane mixed with hydrogen. The gas is energized using microwaves, hot filaments, or plasma, which breaks the molecules apart. Carbon atoms then deposit layer by layer onto the seed, forming diamond.

This is done at a lower pressure than HPHT and the temperatures range from 700–1,200°C—far less than the last method. Growth can occur over days to weeks, producing very pure diamonds.

·       Balmer, R. S., Brandon, J. R., Clewes, S. L., Dhillon, H. K., Dodson, J. M., Friel, I., Inglis, P. N., Madgwick, T. D., Markham, M. L., Mollart, T. P., Perkins, N., Scarsbrook, G. A., Twitchen, D. J., Whitehead, A. J., Wilman, J. J., & Woollard, S. M. (2009). Chemical vapour deposition synthetic diamond: Materials, technology and applications. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 21(36), 364221.

·       Martineau, P. M., Gaukroger, M. P., Lawson, S. C., Twitchen, D. J., Evans, D. J. F., & Crowder, M. J. (2009). High crystalline quality single crystal CVD diamond. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 21(36), 364205.

·       Zhang, J., Li, M., & Wang, H. (2024). A review of diamond synthesis, modification technology, and cutting tool applications. Materials & Design, 235, 112345.

Detonation Synthesis (Nanodiamonds)

This method produces extremely small diamonds very quickly. Carbon-containing explosives are detonated in a sealed chamber. The explosion generates extremely high pressure and temperature for a fraction of a second, causing carbon atoms to crystallize into nanodiamonds before they can revert to graphite.

The resulting diamonds are typically only a few nanometers in size. But they have great industrial uses.

·       Danilenko, V. V. (2006). On the discovery of detonation nanodiamond. In Ultrananocrystalline diamond: Synthesis, properties, and applications (pp. 1–19). William Andrew Publishing.

·       Shenderova, O. A., & Gruen, D. M. (Eds.). (2012). Ultrananocrystalline diamond: Synthesis, properties, and applications (2nd ed.). William Andrew Publishing.

·       Zou, Q., Zeng, X., & Wang, H. (2010). Fabrication of nanodiamond by detonation method. Materials Research Innovations, 14(3), 187–190.

Shock Compression (Impact Methods)

Similar to detonation, this method uses sudden shock waves to create diamonds. A projectile or explosive force compresses carbon-rich material (like graphite) at extremely high pressures and temperatures for a very short time (seconds). This can convert carbon into diamond.

This process is also believed to occur naturally during meteorite impacts and possibly very explosive volcanoes (in small amounts). At both sites, people have commonly found diamonds. Regarding volcanoes, most diamonds might have been formed well below the surface where condition were more favorable to formation and they were transported via magmatic and lava movement.

·       Danilenko, V. V. (2006). On the discovery of detonation nanodiamond. In Ultrananocrystalline diamond: Synthesis, properties, and applications (pp. 1–19). William Andrew Publishing.

·       Shenderova, O. A., Nunn, N. A., & Ozerin, A. N. (2019). Synthesis, properties, and applications of nanodiamonds. Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B, 37(3), 030802.

·       Yan, X., Li, Z., & Chen, Y. (2026). Formation mechanisms of nanocarbon under extreme detonation conditions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.18316.

Ultrahard Ceramic and Catalyst-Free Methods

Laboratory advances have shown that diamonds can be formed without metal catalysts under extreme conditions.

Using advanced presses and carefully controlled environments, graphite can be converted directly into diamond at very high pressures and temperatures. Some experiments in labs have even shown diamond formation at somewhat lower temperatures by applying shear stress along with pressure (hours, weeks).

·       Stehlik, S., Varga, M., Ledinsky, M., Jirasek, V., Artemenko, A., & Kromka, A. (2015). Size and purity control of HPHT nanodiamonds. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 119(49), 27708–27720.

·       Ekimov, E. A. (2020). High-pressure, high-temperature synthesis of diamond from hydrocarbons. Progress in Materials Science, 113, 100671.

·       Zhang, J., Li, M., & Wang, H. (2024). A review of diamond synthesis, modification technology, and cutting tool applications. Materials & Design, 235, 112345.

Plasma and Laser-Assisted Growth Variations

These are refinements of CVD-like techniques. High-energy lasers or plasma fields are used to enhance carbon breakdown and deposition. These methods allow precise control over diamond growth, including doping diamonds with elements for electronics.

·       Shenderova, O. A., Nunn, N. A., & Ozerin, A. N. (2019). Synthesis, properties, and applications of nanodiamonds. Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B, 37(3), 030802.

·       Lipatov, E. (2020). Diamond synthesis and applications. In Advanced materials research. IntechOpen.

To Summarize

Modern science methods that researchers use show that diamonds do not require millions or billions of years to form. Under the right conditions, they can be produced in:

• Seconds (e.g., detonation and shock methods)
• Days to weeks (e.g., HPHT and CVD)

Each method shows that diamond formation depends primarily on conditions, not time. Industry today routinely produces diamonds rapidly for both commercial and scientific purposes. And of course, some companies make gemstones for jewelry as well.

□

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.

 

Hilariously Illogical!

Hilariously Illogical!

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

Biblical Authority Ministries, March 23, 2026 (Donate)

Letter, explicative edited out:

The information on your website is so illogical and wrong that it’s hilarious. Yet I feel worried that there are so many people who obviously believe this @!*&%$. I’m an Australian and I feel utterly embarrassed to think that Ken Ham is an Australian. And also someone that supposedly has an applied science degree from the university of queensland? Just because you believe in something doesn’t make it true. It’s one thing to read the bible’s stories and garner moral lessons from them, but to take its word literally? The bible is a historical book, which has been edited and changed over history. This site’s utter hate of science is ridiculous. Scientific thought is logical and critical thinking. The thoughts and ideas on this site are illogical and disgusting. Just because you can’t explain something or science is yet to explain it, doesn’t mean that the unexplainable is attributed to an unseen entity. This site even tries to refute things that science clearly explains. It’s just sad!

A.D. Australia

Response (point-by-point style):

Thanks for sending the email. I am replying below to your comments and questions. Please note that my comments are said with sincerity. (I understand that tone is sometimes difficult to display in writing, so I wanted to be up front about it.)

The information on your website is so illogical and wrong

Such as? This is called an unsubstantiated allegation. So, I’m surprised such a claim was made without any backing. We want the information on the website to be both logical and correct, so if there was anything to be challenged, please point it out so we can revisit it to make sure it is accurate and modify it if necessary.

Based on the humanistic worldview promoted in your email (i.e., the Bible is not true), why do you think logic exists? For logic to exist, the Bible must be true. The sheer fact that you believe logic exists betrays the very worldview to which you pay lip service. In other words, your worldview is self-refuting.[1]

The battle over morality is a matter of God's authority vs. man's faulty, imperfect, sinful understanding of authority; Image from Presentation Library

that it’s hilarious.

This is an epithet fallacy. But consider the humor of someone claiming something is wrong and chuckling about it, and yet they cannot name why it is wrong.

Yet I feel worried

Why would an evolutionist worry (see Luke 12:22)? If everything follows either purely random processes or purely predetermined material results of chemical reactions, then why worry? In such a worldview, this is illogical.

Again, the fact that people worry reveals that they want some sort of moral code, which is meaningless in an evolutionary worldview, by the way. But I’m glad you have the sense of worrying because it means that you want morality. I want to encourage you to realize that morality comes from God.

that there are so many people who obviously believe this @!*&%$.

This is another epithet fallacy.

I’m an Australian and I feel utterly embarrassed to think that Ken Ham is an Australian.

Why? The feeling of embarrassment in an evolutionary worldview is simply chemical reactions in the brain and is no different from chemical reactions for love and compassion.[2]

But again, why the sense of morality in an evolutionary worldview? What is going on here is that in your heart of hearts, you know God exists (Romans 1:20–21), and God is the basis for morality since He is the ultimate Law Giver. You are trying to suppress that knowledge (Romans 1:18), but you must still borrow from the biblical worldview in order to uphold some form of morality.[3]

And also someone that supposedly has an applied science degree from the university of queensland?

Not supposedly; Mr. Ham earned it years ago. This should come as no surprise since Christians earn advanced degrees every year at universities all over the world and are not anti-science. But consider that science is possible simply because the Bible is true, so this should come as no surprise either. In fact, most of the great founders of scientific disciplines believed the Bible such as Newton, Boyle, Galileo, etc.

Just because you believe in something doesn’t make it true.

Ditto. What makes things true is predicated on the possibility of truth existing. In a materialistic, atheistic universe, why would truth, which is immaterial, exist? This is a major problem for materialists like atheists. Of course, truth is not a problem for Christians since God is both the truth (John 14:6) and the source of truth.

Without His Word, truth is meaningless. Of course, there is so much more we could dive into from this point, but that’s another discussion.

It’s one thing to read the bible’s stories and garner moral lessons from them,

But morality is meaningless if God does not exist. In a purely evolutionary worldview, chemicals react. Why would anyone care about morality unless there is an ultimate standard to reveal what morality is? God is that standard, and in His Word He has told us what is right and what is wrong.

but to take its word literally?

What do you mean by literally? Literally has traditionally meant to take something the way it is written (not the false modern concept that everything must be taken in a strict literal sense—i.e., that the metaphorical use of “pillars of the earth” means the earth is sitting on top of pillars in space). If it is a metaphor, then it should be understood as a metaphor. If the writing style is literal history, then it is literal history and should be interpreted as such. If it is a song, then follow the principles for understanding a song. This concept is entirely biblical.

But consider something else here. What if I were to argue that evolutionists should not interpret evolutionary papers literally when they use metaphors? They should interpret them in a strict literal sense. Would the evolutionists accept this? Not at all. So why attack Christians for trusting what God’s Word says in its context and literary style?

The bible is a historical book,

Yes, but it is more than that (psalms and songs, genealogies, prayers, prophecies, etc.). But I’m glad you agree that it is a historical book in some sense anyway. This very premise challenges the evolutionary ideas of origins at their very core. So how can one trust an evolutionary history of billions of years, knowing the Bible is indeed history?

which has been edited and changed over history.

This is basically a contrary to the fact conditional error fallacy. Any student of this subject would say the opposite after only a little research. The Bible’s words have been attested to through thousands of ancient manuscripts that repeatedly affirm the texts have been faithfully transmitted to us.

This site’s utter hate of science is ridiculous.

This is false and is another epithet fallacy, as well as equivocation. As an aside, it should have been obvious on our website how much we do love and enjoy science. However, I think the equivocation fallacy is pertinent here. Equating science with an evolutionary worldview is a fallacy.

The issue is not science versus religion, as many seem to think. It is worldview versus worldview. More specifically, it is humanism (with its views of evolution and millions of years) versus biblical Christianity (with its views of creation and thousands of years).[4]

We both have the same science, and when it comes to repeatable, experimental science (known as operational science), both evolutionists and creationists would agree almost every time! Where we disagree is our interpretations of the past (i.e., origins).

The reason we disagree here is due to our differing authorities. Is God the ultimate authority, or is mankind the ultimate authority on the subject? This is the debate—humanism versus biblical Christianity.

It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. (Psalm 118:8)

It will be a sad day when people who rejected God stand before Him in judgment (Hebrews 9:27) and tell Him that they trusted the false ideas of man over what God lovingly revealed to mankind. How should a just God respond?

Scientific thought is logical and critical thinking.

We agree, but again, this view is only possible because the Bible is true. (Keep in mind that the point is not that people need to believe the Bible is true, but simply that the Bible is true.)

The thoughts and ideas on this site are illogical and disgusting.

Again, this is an unsubstantiated allegation and question-begging epithet.

Just because you can’t explain something or science is yet to explain it, doesn’t mean that the unexplainable is attributed to an unseen entity.

This is a reification fallacy. “Science” doesn’t explain things; it is a methodology. People use it as a tool to help explain things, but science doesn’t make the statements; people do. This reveals how much faith is given to the religion of humanism. People have such faith in other people to come up with strange stories to explain things. This puts the ultimate authority in mankind. When the ancient Greeks didn’t know the answers, they came up with some fancy stories that fit within their worldview. And sadly, generations of people believed those stories, and now we look back and call those stories mythology.

The same thing is going on today. In an evolutionary worldview, when people don’t know an answer, they come up with stories that fit within their worldview (e.g., Oort cloud, abiogenesis, missing links, etc.) I look forward to a time when people look back and the evolutionary stories as mythology. But the point is that evolution, like Greek mythology is a product of the religion of humanism.

The issue is that when God speaks on a subject, He cannot be wrong, but fallible, sinful, imperfect human beings can and will be wrong when they try to explain things, especially about the past, apart from God and His Word.

This site even tries to refute things that science clearly explains.

Again, this is a reification fallacy. “Science” does not explain things; people do. I’ve had some people say science speaks, tells, or explains things to them, but what they really mean is that scientists speak, tell, or explain their views of the data.

Also, this is another unsubstantiated allegation.

Moral relativism is based on a false understanding of history. Image from Presentation Library

It’s just sad!

This is an appeal to emotion fallacy, which is especially illogical in an evolutionary worldview because everything would ultimately be meaningless (like sadness) in a strictly chemical universe. This actually undercuts the anti-Bible argument that has been presented in this email.

I want to encourage you to consider abandoning the humanistic worldview with its materialistic evolutionary bent. A materialistic evolutionary worldview is illogical on many fronts (such as having no basis for logic, which is immaterial, and no basis for truth or knowledge).

With that in mind, I would like you to consider a biblical worldview, which does have a basis for logic, truth, knowledge, and more—including morality, which seems to be important to you (to your credit). Please take some time to read this message entitled What Does It Mean to Be “Saved”? This extended article explains salvation, one of the major themes in the Bible in an easy to read fashion starting at the beginning.

With kindness in Christ,

Bodie

□

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. Originally at Answers in Genesis; Edited; Republished by permission.

---

[1] Atheism: an irrational worldview, Dr. Jason Lisle, Answers in Genesis website, October 10, 2007, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/atheism-irrational.

[2] For the reader, Ken Ham, who is originally from Australia, was the president and CEO of Answers in Genesis. 

[3] Evolution and the Challenge of Morality, Dr. Jason Lisle, Answers in Genesis website, April 14, 2008, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/04/14/evolution-challenge-of-morality.

[4] See The New Answers Book 2, Ken Ham, Gen. Ed., chapter entitled: How old is the Earth? by Bodie Hodge, Master Books, Green Forest, AK, 2008, https://www.biblicalauthorityministries.org/2024/05/how-old-is-earth.html.

A Matter of Days

A Matter of Days

Paul Taylor and Bodie Hodge

Biblical Authority Ministries, March 20, 2026 (Donate)

[This was an old response that Paul and I had put together to an email asking us about an alleged extra sabbath day surrounding the crucifixion and resurrection—an oldie but a goodie!].

All verses NKJV

There are all sorts of alleged difficulties with determining the dates of the crucifixion, and we would certainly not want to insist on Jesus’ crucifixion being on a Friday for traditional reasons—but rather for biblical reasons and our hope here is to explain this in more detail, but also understand that we are not being dogmatic about such a stance either.

Empty Grave; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Extra/Special Sabbath?

For many years, one author held to the view similar to that which you have expressed. However, Scripture is actually silent on there being an “extra” Sabbath at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. The text says:

John 19:31 Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

This is not to be confused with the “High Sabbath” in John 19:31, which is a Sabbath that falls during the Passover week or other Jewish festival. Jesus died the day before the Sabbath, i.e. the Preparation Day, which is the day before the Sabbath (Mark 15:42). Jesus died and was placed in the tomb on the Preparation Day (John 19:14; 42).

This Preparation Day happened to be the first day of Passover as well. Therefore, a more plain reading of the texts suggests that Jesus was indeed crucified on the day before the Sabbath, i.e. Friday. As the English word Friday was not used, we think this is as plain an indication that the traditional timescale is, in fact, the biblical timescale as we can get. There should be agreement that Jesus rose on the first day of the week, i.e. Sunday (Mark 16:9; Luke 24:1).

Some have suggested alternative timings, to “allow” Jesus to have died on the Wednesday or Thursday rather than the Friday. Holders of such a position have sometimes criticized the Friday–Sunday position as following a “tradition” of men, rather than Scripture, because the Scripture does not explicitly say that Jesus died on a “Friday”.

However, to have Jesus dying on a Wednesday requires the postulation of an extra Sabbath day on the Thursday, though nothing is mentioned in the Gospels. There is nothing in the text that leads us necessarily to suspect that the Sabbath was anything other than the regular Day Seven Sabbath. We want to emphasize that this is not, to us, a major point of doctrinal concern. The “Special Sabbath” analysis is certainly a valid analysis, maintained by people whose commitment to the authority of Scripture is sound. We would want to maintain that our own timescale is scripturally sound—and we believe it is to be preferred, as it does not require assumptions extra to the text.

Some have tried to push for an extra Sabbath by appealing to John 18:28 saying the Jews were looking to celebrate the Passover after Jesus was crucified. A friend suggested to us:

“In light of John 18:28, this would seem to indicate a Thursday crucifixion. This verse seems to indicate that the Jewish leaders were planning to celebrate the Passover following the crucifixion of Jesus – the next day, which began 3 hours after His death.”

A major problem appears with the Thursday crucifixion scenario by appealing to the Jewish leaders wanting to eat the Passover after Christ’s death…that would be saying that Jesus didn’t eat the Passover on the correct day, who ate the evening before. We doubt Jesus erred!

Leonardo Da Vinci's "The Last Supper" painting; Open source

It is true that they were planning on eating the Passover, but not the next day. John 18:28, is indicating they were wanting eat later that day, which was still the same day Jesus ate, but Jesus ate at the beginning of the day (evening in the Jewish calendar), whereas the others were wanting to eat later in the day.

Sir Robert Anderson in “The Coming Prince” calculated which days would have been Passovers for various years.[1] For example, 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.

If one wants a Wednesday Passover, they need search a while as AD 27 is the closest day they will find. One thing that seems overlooked too often is that John 2:20 establishes that Jesus’ first Passover was 46 years after Herod began building the temple, which was 17 BC. So, Jesus first ministry Passover would have been AD 30.

Jesus celebrated 2 more Passovers (John 5:1 and John 6:4) then the next Passover was His Crucifixion, AD 33, which occurred on a Friday. So, the beginning of the Friday (which is Thursday evening in our modern sense) is when Jesus ate the Passover, then was betrayed, beaten, put on trial and ultimately crucified.

This occurred on the Preparation Day, which was also the Passover that year immediately before the Sabbath, which was a High Sabbath because it fell during Passover week.

Significance Of The Passover

God has always been very strict about the Passover. When the firstborns of Egypt were struck down, the Lord gave specific instructions that were to be followed to the letter by the Israelites in Exodus 12. Throughout Israelite history, the Passover was among the most honored and sacred times of sacrifice. Recall that even Jesus, during his recorded 3 prior years of ministry diligent regarded Passovers (John 2:13; John 5:1; John 6:4). Even Jesus parents celebrated the Passover each year (Luke 2:41).

It would make little sense for God to be so strict with the Israelites to perform sacrifices on the Passover, and yet not have Jesus, who is the ultimate sacrificial Lamb, not be sacrificed on the Passover:

1 Corinthians 5:7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us.

Matthew 26:2 "You know that after two days is the Passover, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified."

Such leads to the conclusion that Jesus was sacrificed later the same day He ate the Passover. The great scholar Archbishop James Ussher affirms that Jesus was crucified on the Passover[2].

“Three Days And Three Nights” Or “The Third Day”?

This leads us to the seeming problem of reconciliation with the counting of “three days and three nights.” Yet, we have clear biblical evidence from the book of Esther that the biblical method of counting was not the same as our Western method. The table which we drew up here illustrates this.

Scripture needs to interpret Scripture within the relative context and culture. Old Testament Jewish culture equates “Three days and three nights” with “on the third day.” The scriptural basis for this was established here. Consider an example in Esther:

Esther 4:16 “Go, gather all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me; neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. My maids and I will fast likewise. And so I will go to the king, which is against the law; and if I perish, I perish!”

Now, if the days and nights were counted in a Western way, this would result in Esther going to see the King on the fourth day. However, this is what we actually read:

Esther 5:1 Now it happened on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king’s palace, across from the king’s house, while the king sat on his royal throne in the royal house, facing the entrance of the house.

Another example can be found in Samuel:

1 Samuel 30:12–13 And they gave him a piece of a cake of figs and two clusters of raisins. So when he had eaten, his strength came back to him; for he had eaten no bread nor drunk water for three days and three nights. Then David said to him, “To whom do you belong, and where are you from?” And he said, “I am a young man from Egypt, servant of an Amalekite; and my master left me behind, because three days ago I fell sick.”

There are other examples, with other numbers besides three, but this should suffice. This teaching is reinforced in the New Testament Jewish culture as well:

Matthew 27:63–64 saying, “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ “Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead.’ So the last deception will be worse than the first.”

The above example is particularly pertinent. If the Chief Priests and Pharisees had counted in the Western fashion, they would surely have wanted the tomb to be made secure until the beginning of the fourth day, especially since they are referring to the danger of Jesus’ body being stolen “by night.”[3]

If one looks up the many passages of Christ’s death, one would find both instances of three days and three nights (Matthew 12:40) and on the third day (Luke 24:46) or even in reference to raising the temple in three days (Mark 15:29; Luke 2:46).

Church Fathers Equate Three Days With Three Days And Three Nights

Both Ignatius, John the Apostle’s disciple, and the early Church Father Irenaeus equated three days with three days and three nights:

“He also rose again in three days, the Father raising Him up; and after spending forty days with the apostles, He was received up to the Father, and “sat down at His right hand, expecting till His enemies are placed under His feet.” On the day of the preparation, then, at the third hour, He received the sentence from Pilate, the Father permitting that to happen; at the sixth hour He was crucified; at the ninth hour He gave up the ghost; and before sunset He was buried. During the Sabbath He continued under the earth in the tomb in which Joseph of Arimathaea had laid Him. At the dawning of the Lord’s day He arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by Himself, “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man also be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” The day of the preparation, then, comprises the passion; the Sabbath embraces the burial; the Lord’s Day contains the resurrection.”

“And the Lord Himself says, “As Jonas remained three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth.” Then also the apostle says, “But when He ascended, what is it but that He also descended into the lower parts of the earth?” This, too, David says when prophesying of Him, “And thou hast delivered my soul from the nethermost hell”; and on His rising again the third day, He said to Mary, who was the first to see and to worship Him, “Touch Me not, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to the disciples, and say unto them, I ascend unto My Father, and unto your Father.”

Because of the lack of clarity in the text on the actual day of Jesus’ crucifixion, we would not want to “start a new church over this issue.” We hope you will accept that the ministry’s view, represents a conservative evangelical interpretation of Scripture—in the same way that we accept that your interpretation is a completely valid conservative evangelical interpretation.

And as always, we want to encourage deeper study into the Scriptures. It is good to endeavor to be consistent in our use of counting the days but due to the passages in Esther, Samuel, and Matthew and other reason outlined, we would lean toward the Friday–Sunday type.

With kindness in Christ,

Paul Taylor and Bodie Hodge

---

[1]  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. 

[2] James Ussher, The Annals of the World, translated by Larry and Marion Pierce, Second Printing December 2003, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, page 815. 

[3] It is true that this was stated the following day after the Crucifixion, but the point is that the two phrases are being used almost interchangeably.  We are not certain if this is in reference to the 3 days from when they say this or if they were looking back.  Regardless, it was under guard when Christ arose.