Luke 4:16-21
    
      In this passage Yeshua enters the synagogue on the Sabbath day, "as was his custom." This implies that it was the seventh day Sabbath. If there is any doubt about this, the phrase used for the Sabbath in this passage is "day of the Sabbaths" (τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων). This phrase is never used for Yom Kippur or any other annual Sabbath in either Hebrew or Greek. The Aramaic form imitates the Greek and Hebrew very closely:  ביומא דשׁבתא. The Hebrew form is  בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת. On the other hand, Yom Kippur is called:
  שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן, or σάββατα σαββάτων, or  שַׁבַּתְּכֶם, σάββατα ὑμῶν.  The key here is that the words "day of the Sabbath" or "day of the Sabbath," wherein the word "day" is specified, only refers to the seventh day.
     The proposal has often been made that the passage was read by Yeshua in connection to the actual year of Jubilee being proclaimed. If so, then this interpretation can be confirmed if and only if (iff) that Sabbath day was Yom Kippur. For the Jubilee was proclaimed on the 10th day of the 7th month. If the passage was read on another day, then the passage must be interpreted to mean that the Jubilee was being proclaimed before it actually came or after it actually came, such that the words "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled" either refer to the Jubilee out of time OR they do not refer to the Jubilee element in the prophecy at all, but only the other parts of the passage, and Yeshua only read "Year of Yahweh's favor" to complete the sentence, OR because he was relating the work of his first coming as a  spiritual TYPE of Jubilee, and the literal Jubilee was still to come in the end of days, but it was not actually the Jubilee yet. This last option, as we shall see, is the most likely reason. Yeshua was fulfilling the spirit of the Jubilee by his work and ministry in his first coming, and the literal and physical deliverance will come in the actually Jubilee at the end of the age. The literal Jubilee will be connected with the day of the vengeance of our Almighty (Isa. 61:2), which Yeshua did not read. It is therefore quite clear that Yeshua is extracting the sense of the prophecy applicable at that time to himself, and the rest of it is left for the end of days. This is a common method of saying a passage is fulfilled, similar to the slaughter of the children of Bethlehem was said to fulfill, "Rachel weeping for her children." A comparison is being made between the two events or passages, and similarities are being noted by the word "fulfilled." And understanding of Rabbinical interpretation here will help us to understand that the words "fulfilled" do not need to refer to the literal sense of the passage, but only to the spiritual or homiletical sense. And indeed, this is what most of the Christian commentaries have said. They have not related the sense to a single year. For apparently the earliest Christian chronologists, who did not accept the book of John, limited the duration of Messiah's ministry to one year, and this passage was one of their proof texts. Therefore, the commentaries go to lengths to show that the "year of Yahweh's favor" is not meant to be taken literally at this time.
     Now we can show that the 7th day and Yom Kippur did not fall on the same day in those years. In other words, the 10th day of the 7th month does not coincide with the weekly Sabbath. Therefore, for:

AD 29    Yom Kippur is on Friday
AD 30    Yom Kippur is on Wednesday
AD 31    Yom Kippur is on Sunday
AD 32    Yom Kippur is on Sunday

(Note it is not possible to retreat to the position that the year was merely the seventh year and not the Jubilee either, since  Yom Teruah did not land on the weekly Sabbath either. This will be seen by counting backward ten days:

AD 29 Yom Teruah is on Wednesday
AD 30 Yom Teruah is on Monday
AD 31 Yom Teruah is on Friday
AD 32 Yom Teruah is on Friday)

    And with those years we have exhausted all the possibilities for Yom Kippur falling on a weekly Sabbath. Therefore, the passage could not have been read on the 10th day of the 7th month, and therefore the "fulfillment" said to happen on the "Today" he really was reading on had nothing to do with an announcemnt of the literal Jubilee on that "today." For the only proper day to proclaim a Jubilee was the 10th day of the 7th month. It would be a violation of the commandment to proclaim liberty at another time and then to claim it "has been fulfilled" "today" if that is what was meant by "fulfilled." So now if those who want to dogmatically insist it was a Jubilee proclaimation find a way to wiggle out of the chronological fix they have gotten themselves into, then whatever illegitimate way they find we can toss back at them when they try to disallow the spiritual interpretation that has already been given by myself and other commentators.
     There is a further chronological consideration in that this passage comes after the woman at the well of Samaria, recorded by John, and the plucking of the grain on the Second-first Sabbath in Luke 6:1.  The John passage is four months before the harvest, and Luke 6:1 is the the first of the Sabbaths (i.e. the second Sabbath of Passover week). Therefore, the reading of this passage took place in the months leading up to Passover, and not in the fall, and therefore not on the 10th day of the 7th month. The only way to get out of this fix to to propose a 5 year chronology of Yeshua's ministry, which no one with any sense has done.
     Then, we come to the question of what an actual Jubilee at this point would do to biblical chronology. It would mean that the Jubilee cycle would have to move ahead by 5 years. In turn, this would put the sabbatical year 5 years ahead. This means one sabbatical year will drop out of the time available for Daniel 9:24-26 leaving a total of 68 sabbatical years before the Messiah is cut off instead of the required 69 (7 + 62). As for the Jubilee year, such a proposal would ruin the perfect alignment of all the other Jubilees.
      Also we have to consider that if Luke 4 were a Jubilee then the previous year would be Sabbatic. The chronologer would then have to avoid placing John 4 within a Sabbatic year, and likewise he would have to avoid including Luke 6:1 in a Jubilee.  One way or another a year gap would have to be opened up in the book of John, and the ministry of John would have to be shortened.
     My final answer to any critics then is to present us with their chronology so that we can cross examine it, and by this I mean a complete set of charts. If they are bold enough to do this in contradiction to what I have already done, then I will actually take the time to point out the discrepancies and contradictions in their chronology.
     The critics cannot really claim they have made a case when they have not presented a completed chronology because no two critics agree with themselves. There can only be one right chronology, and the nature of disagreement with what is correct is chaos and multiple disagreements between the critics.  It is therefore impossible to cross examine the critics in a general sort of way without knowing what their completely chronology looks like. They can only be cross examined when they submit their particular chronology for review! And on a further note, does anyone really deserve to sit in the critics chair at all when they cannot refer us to a completed chronology?  And I do not mean here that the critic has to be the author of the chronology they cite. They simply have to say, "I hold to this chronology," and "here is the source of the chronologer that produced it."
     Only then will I be able to examine the other side. If no other side is presented, then there is no other side. A mistake in chronology is like a butterfly flapping its wings in Beijing. Next year it will cause a blizzard in New York.  Only a weather man with a super computer could figure out that the one event causes the other (I'm being absurd on purpose here). Likewise, we can only figure out the damage that the critics do when they have presented their chronologies for review.
     A good thought experiment is to suppose that someone made a mistake...a minor mistake in a date of a letter that Abraham Lincoln wrote, and then they come up with a chronology that depends on that mistaken dating. Soon surrounding events in Lincoln's life are displaced, and a floating chronology is created that disagrees with other chronologists of Lincoln's life. How are we to prove who make the mistake? We have to ask the mistaken chronologer to show his overall chronology of how his floating chronology fits into world history.
      One other note I should make....if the Almighty cares to have the world know what the correct chronology is, and I think so, because he included a ton of info in the Scripture, then when all the chronologies are on the table, it will be obvious which one is correct. Therefore, the critic must produce the chronology he is relying on.