Christian
Churches of God
No.
19
Christ’s
Age at Baptism
and
the
Duration of his Ministry
(Edition 3.0
19920101-20050314-20071213)
The year of Christ’s birth has caused a deal of concern over time. It seems to have been deliberately hidden. This is probably so we could not ascertain with absolute certainty the exact year to avoid the celebration of pagan ritual associated with his birth. There are, however, a number of important facts that are linked to his birth and time of baptism.
Christian Churches of God
E-mail: secretary@ccg.org
(Copyright ã 1992, 2000, 2005, 2007 Wade Cox)
This
paper may be freely copied and distributed provided it is copied in total with
no alterations or deletions. The publisher’s name and address and the copyright
notice must be included. No charge may
be levied on recipients of distributed copies.
Brief quotations may be embodied in critical articles and reviews
without breaching copyright.
This paper is available from the World
Wide Web page:
http://www.logon.org
and http://www.ccg.org
Christ’s
Age at Baptism and the Duration of his Ministry
It has been
stated most emphatically by some churchmen that the passage at Luke 3:23
indicates that Christ was exactly thirty years of age at his baptism. The
passage is translated in the King James Version as:
“And Jesus
himself began to be about thirty years of age.”
Moffatt
translates this passage as:
“At the outset
Jesus was about thirty years of age.”
The terms
from which this is translated are two Greek terms. The first, from which the
word began is derived, is the word •DP`:,<@H (from archomai). This means midst
of or to commence or commence in order of time. The prime
root of the word is archo, to be first in political rank
or power, in the sense of reigning over as part of the subset.
The second
term is ¦Jä<
JD4V6@<J" (ètõn triákonta) or years thirty,
the decade of thirty. Hence, the correct meaning is that Christ had
commenced his thirties, or in other words, Christ was in his thirties, as we would say.
This
expression has an elasticity some do not accord it, and hence by their very inflexibility introduce contradiction into
the Scriptures where none need be.
An example
of needless contradiction is found in this restriction to thirty and the
requirement to have been born during the reign of Herod the Great, i.e. prior
to Passover of 4 BCE, and born during the census of taxing of the whole world
ordered by Augustus, and executed when Quirinius was Governor of Syria (Lk.
2:3). Now, Sulpicius Quirinius was elected Consul of Rome in 12 BCE, but was
not appointed Legate of Syria until 6 CE, and died in Rome in 21 CE.
The actual
words translated Governor of Syria mean when Quirinius “had supreme
command”: Schürer holds that it is the same thing as the office
of Governor (History of the Jewish People
in the Age of Jesus Christ, vol. 1, p. 424).
Alleged
recent archaeological evidence is stated to
be that there was a census executed by Quirinius in 12 BCE, the year he was
made Consul and given some responsibility for Eastern affairs. He in fact led
an expedition against rebel mountaineers (the Homodenses or Homonadenses) in
Alecia and for his successes received a tribute in Rome. The Homonadenses were
a band of Cilician brigands located on the southern border of Galatia and
referred to by Strabo. Quirinius spent 14 years subjugating them between 12 BCE
and 2 CE. Because of his expertise he was to accompany Gaius Caesar eastward as
his tutor in 2 CE.
Quirinius
did in fact conduct a complete census in 6/7 CE himself, but it is quite
impossible for this to have been the census at Christ’s birth (ibid., p. 423).
The office of Governor of Syria was held from 10/9 BCE to about 7/6 BCE by Sentius Saturninus, and from 7/6 BCE to 4 BCE by Quinctilius Varus. The latter suppressed the revolt in Palestine that broke out after Herod’s death. L. Calpurnius Piso is suggested by some as Legate from 4-1 BCE after which Gaius Caesar became Consular Imperium, probably with a normal Governor in Syria.
Schürer speculates that the probable predecessor to
Sentius Saturninus was Titius, and also concludes from the Taxation legislation
of Herod the Great, Phillip and Agrippa (and Agrippa II) that “Roman taxes could not possibly have been
levied in Palestine during the reign of Herod and in consequence no Roman
census was taken either” (ibid., p.430).
Schürer also rejects any grammatical construction that
the census was the first census before (or earlier than) Quirinius was Governor
of Syria (ibid., p. 42l). Moreover, the style and polish of Luke’s writing
excludes the possibility of claiming grammatical usage.
Schürer supposes that Quirinius was probably Legate of
Galatia-Pamphylia during the war with the Homonadenses (from Strabo XII 6,5
(567) 9 Tat. Ann. III, 48); he says in 4-3 BCE (ibid., p. 259).
However, there is no reason to exclude the earlier periods from 12 BCE. Indeed,
it is quite possible that from 12 BCE or in 8 BCE Quirinius was exercising full
command north of Syria, or temporary command in Syria after Sentius Saturninus.
According to T.P. Wiseman, the last full citizen census taken before Quirinius
became Legate of Syria in 6 CE was in 8 BCE, whilst Quirinius was Military
Commander and Legate as supposed of Galatia-Pamphylia, as the rebels were in
the southern area of Galatia.
In 4 CE
Augustus had held a partial census, and the 6 CE census was to extend to
include the provinces for the five-percent inheritance tax (Vicesima hereditatis).
The obvious
difficulty with the argument for the 6 CE census referred to was when he was
Governor of Syria. It is some 10 years after the death of Herod, and is
therefore impossible.
Luke states
that this was the census where “all the world should be enrolled”. After the removal of Archelaus, Palestine was added to Syria for
administrative and taxation purposes, according to Josephus (A. J. XVIII, 1, 1,
2).
A census in
12 BCE or 8 BCE at the order of Augustus is a much larger affair than a
Palestinian census, and it is obvious that Josephus is attempting to limit the
census to 6 CE when
Quirinius was Legate of Syria.
Acts 5:37
mentions the days of the taxing in conjunction with the uprising of Judas of
Galilee. This uprising of Judas was after an uprising of Theudas and his 400
followers (v. 26).
The uprising
of Judas of Galilee is dated at 6 CE by Schürer. Historians attribute the
statements of Gamaliel as a Christian composition attributed to Gamaliel, and
place the Theudas of Acts as Theudas the pseudo-prophet during the reign of the
first Procurator sent to Palestine by Claudius, i.e. Cuspius Fadus 44- 46? CE.
Schürer dismisses the possibility of a Theudas prior
to 6 CE (ibid., Vol. 1, pp. 456-457, note 6), and considers the authority of
Acts slight. He obviously considers the taxation referred to in Acts as that
taxation or census of Quirinius on his assumption as Legate of Syria in 6 CE.
It is worthwhile noting that the sons of Judas the Galilean, James and Simon
were ordered to be crucified by Tiberius Julius Alexander (?46-48 CE), Fadus’ successor.
It is quite
possible that Acts refers to the taxing of 6 CE, but that taxing is not the
same taxing as Luke refers to at Jesus’ birth.
A complete harmony emerges, however,
if the date of the first general census ordered by Augustus and executed in the
east by Quirinius is 12 BCE or even 8 BCE. Christ then becomes 39 or 35 years of age at his baptism, i.e.
still in his thirties. There are then either eight or four years between his birth and Herod’s death. This allows
for the searches, the flight to Egypt, the frustrations and problems of Herod’s
family, squabbles of succession and other preoccupations to erupt into the
slaughter of the Judean nobles during 5/4 BCE, and presents no difficulty with
the harmony of all three biblical references. Curiously enough, Herod’s family
and succession preoccupations and the lies and treachery of his offspring began
at about 12 BCE, commencing what historians regard as the third and last phase
of his rule.
The version by Tertullian throws some light on the matter, although he contradicts himself.
In his treatise Against
Marcion, Tertullian says that the historical proof was that Christ was born
when a census was taken in Judea by Sentius Saturninus (Adv. Marc., IV, 19, 10, ANF III,
p. 378). Luke
(ch. 2) says the agent in Judea was (Sulpicius) Quirinius. Tertullian mentions
Saturninus again in De Pallio 1. This statement by Tertullian is weighed with those by
Sancelemente and others who supposed that Saturninus was governor of Judea at
the time of Christ’s birth, and placed the date at 747 A.U.C. Tertullian is
inconsistent and, in Adversus Judaeus VIII, he allegedly gives 751 A.U.C as the year of Christ’s
birth.
What he does say is that
Christ was born on the forty-first year of the Empire of Augustus when he was
reigning for
'xx and viii' (28)
years after the death of Cleopatra (51-30 BCE).
Augustus was held by Tertullian in this text to have survived after Christ was
born for 'xv' (15) years. (He incorrectly
totals this as 437 years and 6 months after Darius.)
Caesar
was killed in March 44 BCE and Octavian returned to Rome to succeed him in 42
BCE. Thus 56 years from 43/2 BCE take us to 14 CE, the year of his death.
Augustus is held to have
ruled 44 years, and died in 14 CE. However, that is from the overthrow of Mark
Anthony and Cleoptara. Tertullian says he ruled 56 years. Thus, on this account, Christ was
born in the 41st year of his reign, and 28
years after the death of Cleopatra, i.e. in 2/1 BCE, over two years after the
death of Herod – which is biblically impossible. His account in Adversus
Marcionem makes
Christ’s birth in 6/5 BCE. Thus it would have to have been at the very end of
the governorship of Saturninus, even if we make assumptions regarding the
extension of the dates in question to September in 7/6 BCE. Thus
Qurinius, who was on the border of Syria and Galatia
at the time in the war against the brigands of the Cilician Homonadenses, must have been sent by Saturninus to Judea for this
census in 6 BCE, and Christ was born in the following year in 5 BCE, on the
accounts of Tertullian and Luke in the other ancient texts.
Sentius
Saturninus was governor of Syria from 744-748 (cf. ANF, ibid., fn. 3) or
10/9 to 7/6 BCE. Aug. W. Zumpt went to great lengths to prove that Publius
Sulpicius Quirinius was indeed the governor of Syria at the time of Christ’s
birth. The above scenario is the most likely.
Josephus names Volumnius
with Saturninus (Consul in 19 BCE) (Jos. Ant.,
XVI, 9, 1, p.
280). However, in the Wars of the Jews (I, 27,
1) he calls Volumnius tou stratopedarchen and in I, 27, 2 he calls him epitropos. Thus Schürer holds (vol. 1,
p. 257) Volumnius was an equestrian subordinate of
Saturninus and a procurator
of the province. Saturninus is also mentioned by Josephus in Antiquities
XVI, 10, 8,
(344); II, 3 (368); XVII, 1, 1 (6); 2,
1, (24); 3, 2, (57). The use of Qurinius by Saturninus was
seemingly of the same type of legature in regard to the census in Judea at the
time. Schürer does not canvas this view, a seemingly more obvious explanation. The records mention
them both, as we see also with Volumnius and Saturninus above.
Herod’s death plays an important
role in establishing the last possible date for Christ’s birth, as we know from
Matthew 2:12 that the visit of the Magi ended with the wise men returning to
their own country by a different route, so that they could avoid returning to
Herod. Joseph was warned in a dream by the Angel of the Lord to depart into
Egypt, as we read in Matthew 2:13-16:
“Arise and
take the young child and his mother and flee into. Egypt, and be thou there until I
bring thee word: for Herod will seek .the young child to destroy him.
When he arose,
he took the young child and his mother by night and departed into Egypt.
And was there
until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the
Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my Son.
Then Herod,
when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth: and sent
forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem and in all the coasts
thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had
diligently enquired of the wise men. (KJV)
Therefore,
the period of the visit of the wise men and the expected birth of the Christ
was up to two years before the slaughter at Bethlehem. That aspect may be
reflected by Josephus in his account of the execution of the principal men of
Judah by Herod in the period before his death.
Certainly
this account comes many months before Herod’s death – and probably a period of
two years – so that Christ was probably born within two years of the reported
action at Bethlehem, at a time well before Herod’s death.
To include
the flight into Egypt, the period involved could not have been less than one
year. Historians attribute the death of Herod to the period of 1st
to 14th of Nisan (28 March to 10 April) of 4 BCE on the following
grounds:
1. Herod’s
two successors were Archelaus and Antipas.
Archelaus,
according to Dio IV 27.6, was deposed by Augustus in 6 CE in the tenth year of
his reign (also A. of J. XVII, 13, 2(342) of Vita 1(5)) correcting the
earlier statement of B.J.: II, 7, 3, stating the ninth year. (This was
during the consulship of Aemilius Lepidus and L. Arvuntius.) He therefore began
his reign in 4 BCE.
Antipas was
deposed by Caligula in the summer of 39 CE. As there are coins dating from the
43rd year of his reign, his reign began therefore in 4 BCE.
2. From
Josephus’ accounting of the periods of time, as the Mishnah suggests, from
Nisan to Nisan for regnal years and part years, i.e. portions prior to Nisan
are counted as full years; Schürer therefore locates Herod’s death
between 1 and 14 Nisan 4 BCE.
Shortly
before Herod’s death there was an eclipse of the moon. The eclipse is referred
to by Josephus (in A. of J., XVII, ch. 4). There are two eclipses
calculated for this period: one in 5 BCE and one in 4 BCE. The eclipse in 4 BCE
is on 13 March, which accords with the record of Josephus. Josephus records
that the High Priest, Matthias, was replaced by Joseph, the son of Ellemus, as
High Priest (due to ritual uncleanness from a dream). This was on a fast of the
Jews. The fast of Esther fell on 13 March 4 BCE, and this coincides with the
recording of the eclipse. There is no record of an eclipse in 3 BCE or 2 BCE,
and only in 5 BCE on 15 September and in 1 BCE on 9 January were there eclipses
of the moon visible in Jerusalem. Herod died shortly after this eclipse and
before the Passover of 4 BCE. The Marcus translation of Josephus has more notes
on this section than the Whiston translation and is more helpful. Schürer, at
any rate, deals with this in detail at his History (Vol. 1, pp.
326-328).
If the
two-year period of the Magi at Matthew 2 is taken into account, Christ
therefore could not have been born later than Passover 6 BCE. When Joseph
returned from Egypt he found Archelaus reigning in Judea, so the return from
Egypt would have been in the first year of Archelaus’ reign, i.e. in 4 BCE.
From Luke
we know that Mariam, erroneously called Mary, went up to Jerusalem after her
purification under the Law with Joseph to present the child to the Lord, and to
offer the customary sacrifice (Lk. 2:22-24). This preceded the flight into
Egypt. Luke does not mention the flight into Egypt; he merely states that they
returned to Nazareth. The period of purification for a male child is 40 (+1)
days (8 to circumcision and then thirty-three days) (Lev. 12:1-4; cf. the paper
Purification and Circumcision (No.
251)).
Therefore,
Christ could not have been born later than February 4 BCE even if Joseph had
left for Egypt on the day of Herod’s death. This he clearly did not do, as
there was no prospect of his death when they left, and Joseph lived in Egypt
until an Angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph when Herod died. Clearly, Christ
could not possibly have been born in the year 4 BCE, and from the date of the
taxing and the two-year period between the coming of the Magi and the killing
at Bethlehem two years were involved. This period, together with a flight into
Egypt prior to Herod’s death, indicates that Christ is unlikely to have been
born after the Passover 6 BCE. The
years of census, therefore, are the only other major clues.
Because of
Herod’s death by Passover 4 BCE, Christ could not have been less than 31, and
in view of the other biblical information it is likely that he was at least 35
or 39. For him to have been less than 31 he must have been born in 6 CE, and
the translation means the third decade, i.e. mid-20s (i.e. 22), but this is
impossible as it contradicts a Gospel and the requirement to be 25 years old to
enter the service of the Temple and to be thirty to teach.
The
earliest probable date is 8 BCE with the last full census before Herod’s death,
making Christ 35 years old at the beginning of the year 27/8 CE.
It
is possible, however, that Quirinius could have ordered a complete census in 12
BCE to establish control of Galatia, Cappadocia and Syria in the war against
the brigands, as robbers had also operated earlier from Trachonitis when
Augustus bestowed it on Herod in 24/23 BCE. He may well have exercised full
military command of the area until M. Titius became Legate of Syria.
He
could also have done so as military commander under the Legate Saturninus and
before Varus in 8/7 or 7/6 BCE, as part of the general census ordered by
Augustus.
The
historians Gerlach, Quandt and Hahn explain Zumpt’s assertions with the view
that Qurinius was sent to Syria with Quinctilius Varus (6-4 BCE) as
extraordinary legate, and undertook the census as such (see also Schürer vol. 1, p 424). Thus, on this view he arrived in 6 BCE at the time of
Varus’ replacement of Saturninus.
Sanclemente
presented such a view by putting it that Qurinius has been sent to Syria as
special legate equipped with a higher authority than the Syrian legate of the
time, namely Saturninus.
Schürer (ibid.) assumes that the words of
Luke, that he had supreme command, mean precisely: when he was
governor over Syria. However, he may indeed have had supreme command of the
forces in Asia Minor for the war against the Homonadenses, and had
military command over Galatia and Syria.
That explanation allows all accounts to be in harmony. The views of all
historians are that he had this command in 6 BCE at the end of Saturninus’ rule
and before or at the beginning of the rule of Varus. It is thus argued that the
census was ordered in the last half of 6 BCE, and took well into 5 BCE to
implement.
In 23 BCE
Augustus sent M. Agrippa, his intimate friend and counsellor, to Syria, and in
21 BCE his son-in-law. His title was the Deputy of Caesar beyond the Ionian Sea
(Josephus, A. of J., XV, 10,2) and he possessed expansive powers more
than an ordinary Legate. He did not, however, go on the island of Lesbos at
Mytilene from 23-21 BCE. He returned to Rome where he was busy in the West for
four years. In 16 BCE he returned to the East where he remained until 13 BCE,
and he exercised his official power through Legates. The person actually
exercising power in the East, and in particular Syria, is unknown, but given
Quirinius’ military command and elevation to Consul in 12 BCE, it is most
likely that he would have exercised military command until M. Titius assumed
control of Syria, and we know he had done so by 10 BCE, as Josephus mentions
him as Governor at the time of Herod’s quarrel with his sons. This and the
later succession disputes of Herod’s family may well have been sparked off by
the birth of Christ, or even his anticipated birth, according to the prophecy,
as there is plenty of evidence amongst the religious communities of the
expectation of the Messiah of Aaron.
The birth
of Christ, as early as 12 BCE, would still be perfectly correct within all the
known records and the Gospels, and a further possibility of the activities in 8
BCE cannot be overruled.
No world
census is known to have occurred at 6 BCE or 5 BCE. Luke’s information is
fairly precise. The census may well have been in accord with Augustus’
requirements, especially in view of the problems in Galatia-Pamphylia, Syria
and Judea. Any attempt to dogmatically assert Christ’s age at 30 at his baptism
produces unnecessary conflict in the Gospels and the Bible generally.
To
determine when Christ was baptised and from then when he began his ministry,
and what the significance of the timing of the ministry was, we must commence
with the ministry of John the Baptist.
We know
from Luke 3:1 that John “began to preach in the fifteenth year of the reign of
Tiberius”, which cannot have commenced any earlier than October of the year 27
CE if the civil calendar in use in the East was used. Tiberius commenced to
reign on 17 September 14 CE, and the year 27 CE is arrived at only if the month
of September is counted as the first year and the second year commences in
October 14 CE. This then commences the 15th year in October 27 CE.
John’s call for repentance probably commences from Atonement of that year, and
continued until Passover of 28 CE when he was arrested. We know that Christ was
baptised some time after October 27 CE, and before the Passover of 28 CE.
Christ’s
baptism preceded the official commencement of his ministry and a number of
activities took place after his baptism, prior to the commencement of his
ministry at the imprisonment of John the Baptist.
From Luke
3:21, we know that Christ was not among the first that John baptised, but
rather he was baptised after the majority; therefore, his baptism was some time
after October 27 CE – possibly well into 28 CE.
The
sequence of time from his baptism includes the day of this baptism, then a fast
of 40 days and 40 nights. He returned to John the Baptist and recruited his
disciples over 3 days (Jn. 1:35-45). On the third day was the marriage at Cana
where he performed the miracle of water into wine (Jn. 2:1). He then went to
Capernaum where he abode “not many days” (Jn. 2:12). Then the Passover was at
hand.
Therefore,
the time period between Christ’s baptism and the Passover of 28 CE covered 44
days, plus ‘a few days’ (say 6). The period could not have exceeded fifty days.
Given the set period from Passover to Pentecost of 50 days at the end of his
ministry, the period preceding it was probably 50 days also. It certainly would
not have been much more, and could have been less. His baptism, therefore,
could have occurred in 28 CE in the month of February. So, at baptism he was
the absolute minimum of 31 years of age and probably older.
We know
from Matthew chapter 4 that Christ did not commence preaching until after John
the Baptist had been imprisoned, when he moved to Capernaum (vv. 12-13). Verse
17 specifically states: “From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say,
Repent: for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand”. The sequence from verses 18-22
indicates that Peter, Andrew, James and John were called after the imprisonment
of John the Baptist, but this is a harmonistic arrangement of the story flow to
assist the sequence from verse 23. This sequence is present at Mark 1:14-20,
and verse 21 follows on to the entry to Capernaum.
We know
from John 2 that Jesus performed the miracle of the water into wine before his
ministry commenced (cf. Jn. 2:4). His “time (or hour) had not come”; and he had
his disciples present with him, and this was prior to his visit to Capernaum.
From John
1:35 we know that Andrew, the brother of Peter, was a disciple of John and
turned to follow Christ. He took Peter to Christ telling him he had found the
Messiah (Jn. 1:41), who named him Peter (Cephas). Matthew 4:18-22 and
Mark 1:14-20 are therefore simplifications of the detailed story of the calling
of the first disciples. It is most likely from John that they had indeed been
called and possibly baptising prior to this point, and that this was a summons
which commenced the actual work.
John 2:22
shows that after the wedding at Cana in Galilee, Jesus and his disciples went
into the country of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptising,
although he himself did not baptise (Jn. 4:2). John the Baptist was also
baptising at Aenon near Salim, and this was near the Passover of 28 CE (Jn.
2:13).
Moffatt
places this section in a sequence transposing John 3:22-30 in between John 2:12
and 13, as John had not yet been cast into prison in this section; but as Jesus
began to perform miracles on the Passover he takes this to indicate that John
was imprisoned at that time. Matthew is quite emphatic that Christ did not
commence to preach until after John had been imprisoned. Indeed, Christ could
not have commenced to preach earlier than the Passover of 28 CE or the Gospels
are in disagreement, and the Word of God is compromised.
The
Authorised text of John’s Gospel, if taken in sequence, indicates that he
entered the Temple on the Passover of 28 CE performing miracles, and then
retired into the countryside of Judea where his disciples baptised whilst John
baptised at Aenon. The Authorised text therefore demonstrates that Christ’s
actual preaching was less than two years, commencing after the Passover of 28
CE.
Christ
preached until the Passover of 30 CE, when he was arrested and crucified. He
died in the late afternoon of 14 Nisan/Abib, which fell on Wednesday 5 April 30
CE. The supposed date of 25 April in 31 CE is too late, and the Passover had
not fallen that late for many centuries (see the paper Timing of the
Crucifixion and the Resurrection (No. 159)).
This would
be consistent with the sequence of the Sign of Jonah, as Jonah did not
commence to preach until he had entered Nineveh on the first day’s journey.
Jonah preached to Nineveh for slightly less than three full days, and Nineveh
was given forty days to repent and did repent. Judah was given slightly less
than (but say) three years of the ministry of John the Baptist (equal to the
first day’s journey into Nineveh) and two years of Christ’s ministry on the
year-for-a-day principle (equals two days). On the same principle Judah was
given 40 years to repent. They did not do so and were destroyed from Atonement
70 CE to 1 Abib 71 CE, completing the sign of Jonah in its second phase (see
the paper The Sign of Jonah and the History
of the Reconstruction of the Temple (No. 13)).
The
assertion that Christ’s ministry was three-and-a-half years is a late assertion
and is definitely non-scriptural. It obscures the true signs of Christ’s
ministry and limits correct understanding. The assertion is centred on another
false interpretation of Scripture relating to the construction of the Temple
and the seventy weeks of years. Indeed, this insidious doctrine has seen the
text of Daniel 9:25 tampered with in the Authorised Version to construe meaning
around this period, commencing from a fictitious date in the reign of Cyrus
Macrocheir, called Artaxerxes I by the Greeks.
The Sign of Jonah is the only sign given to Christ’s ministry. It is not just confined to the three days and three nights in the tomb and the resurrection, but rather encompasses the entire plan of the construction of the Temple and the seventy weeks of years. It has further significance arising from Ezekiel’s vision at chapter 1 and the sequence of the four Cherubs. The period of Jubilees allowed for the period of the Advent of the Messiah of Aaron and the Messiah of Israel as an extension of the Sign of Jonah.
q