A PROBLEM WITH DATES

Portrait of Shakespeare by Martin Droeshout, 1623

When was William Shakespeare born and when did he die? What did he look like?

These should be pretty knowable things. After all, Shakespeare breathed his last less that 400 years ago and nearly 1,600 years after Jesus Christ was crucified. This is not ancient history. Shakespeare lived after 1500 AD; the year generally considered the beginning of modern civilization.

There is his familiar likeness above and schoolbooks tell us he was born on April 23, 1564 and died on his fifty-second birthday, April 23, 1616.

Except we really don’t know for certain what he looked like and those birth-death dates, which are probably close and possibly correct, are merely conjecture, not established fact. The portrait above appeared on a Folio of Shakespeare’s work seven years after the playwright’s death rendered by a man who, in all likelihood, had never seen Shakespeare.  Every likeness since has been based on that portrait. There is no written description of Shakespeare’s looks or contemporary portrait in existence. (There have been a couple of paintings unearthed in recent years with claims of being made during Shakespeare life, but these are not authenticated.)

The portrait on the right is known as the “Chandos portrait”, after the 

former owners, the Dukes of Chandos. The painting has been attributed to John Taylor, but also to Richard Burbage. No one really knows if it was either or someone else. It is believed to been painted from life between 1600 and 1610 – it is believed, but not certain. It fact, it isn’t even absolutely certain subject is Shakespeare, although the National Portrait Gallery feels it probably is  -- meaning it possibly isn’t. It is noted that subsequent, posthumous portraits of the author were most likely based on the Chandos Portrait. 

As to the dates, his birth has been conjectured as April 23, 1564 because there is a baptism registry at Holy Trinity Parish Church in Stratford dated April 26, 1564. Since it was a common practice to baptize three days after birth, it is assumed his birthday was on the 23^rd. However, common practice is not certainty. Infants were sometimes baptized on the day of birth and sometimes not baptized until months later. 

Somewhat the same reasoning is used in establishing his death. His burial is registered in the same Stratford Church as April 25, 1616. How long before his funeral did he die? Well, April 23 makes for a convenient date because it is St. George’s Day and St. George is the Patron Saint of England.  What better date for England’s greatest writer to have been both born and died? Of course, there has been a long debate if Shakespeare actually wrote those plays that earned him that accolade.

The death of Julius Caesar occurred on the Ides of March (the 15^th), 44 BC or at least that is the preponderance of acceptance (notice I said acceptance, not evidence). There may be one problem if the writings of Pliny the Elder are accurate. Pliny was born the closest to the death of Julius than the other ancient historians, especially Plutarch, who we depend upon. Plutarch was born in 46 AD and Pliny was born in 23 AD. 

According to Pliny there was a solar eclipse in the year of Julius’ death sometime after he was dead. There were no visible solar eclipses in the Roman Empire during 44 BC or the immediate years around it. There was such an eclipse in August 49 BC.

Pliny also quotes Augustus Caesar as saying he saw, soon after Julius’ death, a comet in the northern skies over a period of seven days. Such a comet was recorded in 49 BC, but not in 44 BC. So was Julius Caesar actually assassinated in 49 BC instead of 44 BC?

I don’t know? Can we rely on the writing of one ancient historian? (Unlike other issues discussed throughout this document where multiple sources support the statements made, I have only found one source so far claiming that Julius Caesar died in 49 BC, Biblical Chronology. The information about solar eclipses and comets is supported elsewhere, but that these occurred during the year of Caesar’s death seems to rely mainly on the writings of Pliny the Elder. I would want further documentation on this one. The picture of Julius Caesar used here is part of a statue by Nicolas Coustou done in 1696. Did Julius really look like this?)

We do know Julius Caesar was stabbed to death by 23 men and his last words were, “Et tu Brute?” Right?

Well, maybe, maybe not. We really aren’t sure of Julius’ last words. Suetonius wrote they were “You too, child?” Plutarch wrote Julius uttered no last words. It was Shakespeare who put the words “Et tu Brute” into Caesar’s mouth, you know the guy who may or may not have been born and died on April 23 and may or may not have written “Julius Caesar”.

How many men assassinated Julius Caesar? One credible source says 23 men, another says 37 did and yet another says 60 men were involved. More honest accounts admit the number isn’t known.

Let’s step back even further in our list of great men to Alexander the 

Great. We hear much about this man with little question as to the veracity of the accounts of his life. It is interesting that critics attack the accuracy of biographies of Christ’s life because they were written dozens of years after his departure, but except willingly the biographies of Alexander written 500 years after his death. (To this day, exactly how Alexander died is uncertain.) His date of birth is categorically given as either July 20 or 21 of 356 BC. This is based on Alexander being born on the Hecatombacon Sixth of the Athenian Festival Calendar. However, the Athenians were very sloppy calendar keepers or we should say calendars, for they had a second calendar for the political year. Hecatombacon was the first month of the Festival calendar and in theory began on the first new moon after the summer solstice. We say theoretically because the astrological, civil and religious calendars did not agree on when the months began, how many there were in a given year or how many days long they were. Despite the statement that Alexander was born on July 20 or 21 of 356 BC, the truth is it is impossible to really know.

This raises the subject of our own modern calendar and the birth of Jesus, whom it is supposedly based upon. After all, BC stands for “Before Christ” and AD is short for “Anno Domini”, which means “In the Year of Our Lord”. (You will notice I stand by these designation rather than the more recent attempts to secularize the division by using BCE “Before the Common Era” and CE “Common Era” (although these designations still have their division based on the life of Christ, but don’t tell the secularists who deceive themselves into believing changing the name changes the facts.)

It is problematic establishing conclusive dates, especially dates in ancient history. Obviously we can have difficulties because there was not always a standardized calendar, as we have seen with the Greeks. Various countries and people had their own means of counting time. The Jews and Romans, for instance, based their calendars on moon cycles, while we use a calendar today based on the earth’s orbit of the sun. 

The standardized worldwide calendar of our time is called the Gregorian calendar.  There was a partially standardized calendar prior to the Gregorian called the Julian calendar. Although both are based on the revolution of the Earth around the Sun, they did have a slight difference in the count of days and had to be adjusted. Both require a leap year every four years. However, leap years were erroneously added every three years early in the use of the Julian and this over time resulted in a loss of ten days.

Although the Gregorian corrected some of the errors of the Julian calendar, it presented some problems of its own. Years in the Gregorian were dated from the birth of Christ. Years after his birth were counted forward and those before his birth were counted backward. The span of someone who lived in AD would be shown as 1900-1970 AD, while a person born in BC would be shown as 1970-1900 BC. There is no year zero, which further adds confusion. Some people think 2010 is the first year of a new decade, but in reality it is the last year of the current decade; 1999 was not the last year of the previous century, 2000 was. Our current century began on January 1, 2001.

Furthermore, 1 AD is not correct as the first year of Christ’s life, which is a matter of considerable dispute.

The Julian and Gregorian Calendars are not that old relatively. The Roman’s had a rather messy Calendar up to Julius Caesar. One big problem with it was politicians and others would change it to curry favor, thereby making exact dating difficult. This Calendar had become such an unreliable tool by the time of Julius Caesar that he had a new Calendar created. This was the Julian calendar. It was created in 46 BC and went into use in 45 BC. This was replaced by our modern calendar in 1582 under the auspices of Pope Gregory XIII, for whom it is named.

One of those fringe issues that divert people’s attention to the Gospel truths about Jesus is the debate over his birth date.  Information given by Luke and Matthew about certain personages is often used to try and pinpoint the year.

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was {governor} of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register. Luke 2:1-3

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him." Matthew 2:1-2

There isn’t much doubt that Caesar Augustus, Quirinius and Herod the Great were contemporaries around the period where BC ended and AD began. However, one question raised is the status of Quirinius during the time prior to 1 AD. It is accepted that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was Governor of Syria by 6 AD, but not earlier. Remember though, we are dealing with ancient times fraught with questionable histories and dating procedures, not to mention missing or unknown records. Still, there are several possible answers to the Quirinius Question.

The word translated in Scripture as “governor” was  “hegemon”, which means “ruling officer or procurator”. Quirinius did not become actual governor {legatus – different word} until later, but there is no reason to dispute Luke calling him a ruling officer at this time. Quirinius was serving in an official governing position in the last decade of BC (and there were many censuses taken during this period of time, any number of which could have been this one).

Other legitimate possibilities have their defenders. One is that Quirinius served as governor more than once and there is archeological evidence to the effect he did so serve during the later years of BC. A second proposition is there was another man named Quirinius. (Names are another area of confusion in ancient times and two people are often mistaken as one and the same. Sometimes one individual is also thought to be two different individuals because they went by more than one name.) Another argument is that Luke’s Greek was translated wrongly and should have been translated as “before Quirinius was governor of Syria.” Yet, another argument is that Jesus was actually born between 5 and 8 AD.  This argument hinges on the theory that Herod the Great died in 8 AD, not 4 BC and there are proponents who make a case for 8 AD. (Personally, I am not among those who place Christ’s birth that late.)

Now, why does Herod’s death date come into the discussion?  Because Herod (pictured right as portrayed in “The Bible Series on History”) was alive 

when Jesus was born according to Matthew. It was commonly accepted that Herod died in 4 BC and thus estimated that Jesus was born in 5 or 6 BC. (It is sometimes assumed Jesus must have been a child about two years old when the Magi visited and told Herod when the Star first appeared. Why? It was assumed so because Herod ordered all boys in Bethlehem up to the age of two to be killed. This is only conjecture. Herod may very well been playing it safe, overkill as it were, and Jesus may have still been an infant when the Magi came. I personally believe Jesus was closer to two.) 

But nothing is set in stone when we deal with dates two thousand years ago. So when did Herod die? Well, pick a year: 6 BC, 4 BC, 1 BC or 8 AD. In many reference books it will say he died in 4 BC. However, more recent evidence suggests he died in 1 BC. 

Part of the difficulty is much about Herod relies upon the works of Titus Flavius Josephus (37 – 100 AD – pictured left). Josephus wrote a twenty-volume history called “The Antiquities of the Jews” and an eight-volume history called “The War of the Jews”.  Josephus wrote two accounts concerning the life of Herod the Great, but these contain inconsistencies and discrepancies on events and the age of Herod at the time events occurred.

There are very good arguments based on known information that Herod died later that 4 BC and I am leaning toward the persuasions that he died in 1 BC. (You can find more information supporting this in the Catholic Encyclopedia, in Novum Testamentum by Andrew E. Steinmann or at www.bethlehemstar.net among others. (I recommend bethlehemstar as a very thought provoking theory that Christ was born in June of 2 BC, the Magi arrived in Bethlehem in December 2 BC (on the 25^th no less) and that Herod died in 1 BC.)

I believe all the swirling debates over dates are inconclusive, circumstantial and speculative, and do not affect the truth or accuracy of Scripture. I trust the Scriptural account more than any questionable opinions written by men, including my own. I take the stand the account of Jesus’ life is true and accurate according to the Word of God. We should concentrate on the story of salvation, rather than be diverted into irresolvable bickering over dates. There exists enough evidence to support any apologetic of supposed conflicts within the Bible to render criticism mote and inconsequential.

One final consideration, in looking backward from a distance, we mustn’t forget contemporary acceptance. Certainly we have record of those enemies of Christ who brought accusations against him, the Apostles and the early Church. These included calling Jesus and his Disciples drunkards, claiming Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier and spreading a rumor his disciples stole the body from the tomb. These are smear campaigns much as we see today between political opponents. There are theological debates and arguments within the church over procedural and devotional matters. But there isn’t dispute over historic facts. 

Luke addressed both his Gospel and Acts to Theophilus, for instance (refer to “Luke’s Introduction” ).  If Luke’s information about the personages mentioned or issues such as the census were incorrect, Theophilus most likely would have caught the error and informed Luke of it. Why would Theophilus be receptive to a second volume, Acts, if he saw major errors of recent history in the first volume? 

We mustn’t lose sight that when Luke and the others wrote their accounts and letters there were those alive familiar with the facts. If a biographer of John F. Kennedy wrote that Mark Chapman assassinated him in Denver in 1959, there would be many, many people quick to complain to the publisher about these errors because they had been alive at the time and remembered it was Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas in 1963. Subsequent editions of the biography would correct this or the book would soon be assigned to the junk heap and oblivion. Why would we think grievous errors in Luke or by any other Gospel writer on the daily news of their times would escape contemporary notice?

THE VISIT OF THE MAGI

The Adoration of the Magi by Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn, 1632

Matthew 2:1-12

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod [the Great, 73 BC – 4 BC] the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, “Where is he that is born King of the Jews for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him?”

When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

And they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, ‘And you Bethlehem, in the land of Judea, are not the least among the princes of Judea: for out of you shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel’ [Micah 5:2].”

Then Herod, when he had privately called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, “Go and search diligently for the young child; and when you have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.”

When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

A possible natural explanation of the behavior of this star is this. The Magi were familiar with the heavens and the constellations. They had interpreted a triple conjunction of the planet Jupiter with Venus and the “king star” Regulus. They had then been following the movement of Jupiter until they arrived in Bethlehem at the time of its retrograde; that is, the point when Jupiter would begin its turn back on its orbit. To the naked eye this would appear as if the planet (or wandering star as it would have been called) had stopped. [Google www.bethlehemstar.net for more on the triple conjunction of Jupiter and its orbit.]

When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented to him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

But who are these Magi?

The queen, hearing the voices of the king and his nobles, came into the banquet hall. "O king, live forever!" she said. "Don't be alarmed! Don't look so pale! There is a man in your kingdom who has the spirit of the holy gods in him. In the time of your father he was found to have insight and intelligence and wisdom like that of the gods. King Nebuchadnezzar your father—your father the king, I say—appointed him chief of the magicians, enchanters, astrologers and diviners. This man Daniel, whom the king called Belteshazzar, was found to have a keen mind and knowledge and understanding, and also the ability to interpret dreams, explain riddles and solve difficult problems. Call for Daniel, and he will tell you what the writing means." Daniel 5:10-12 (NIV)

The old crèche we have is misnamed because what we have is a cardboard stable with a tiny crèche (manger) to place inside and a number of plaster figurines to position around the baby Jesus. (Actually the stable is probably inaccurate as well. Most likely Jesus was born inside a cave where the innkeeper sheltered his livestock, rather than an outbuilding of any kind.) Three of these figures are of men dressed in lavish clothes with crowns on their heads and each holding a gift. One is kneeling, one is standing and one leans down atop a camel.

We three kings of Orient are

Bearing gifts we traverse afar

Field and fountain, moor and mountain

Following yonder star.

-- Rev. John Henry Hopkins 1857                         

This is a popular Christmas Carol. It was probably heard more when I was growing up than today (after all that was a lot closer to 1857 when it was written than now). It was one of my favorites as a boy. Unfortunately these guys weren't kings, there were probably more than three and there are some questions about that 'yonder star' as well. They also weren't there at the manger right after Christ was born, nope, not even six days later on Epiphany (the twelfth day of Christmas). So let see what Matthew 2 had to say about these guys

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him." Matthew 2:1-2 (NIV)

The Magi were priests, not kings. They were in fact "king-makers". They most likely traveled from Persia to Jerusalem after seeing astrological alignments that indicated the time predicted for a coming great king had arrived. The distance they came was perhaps a thousand miles and by camel (although they probably traveled on horses) in those days took a large part of a year’s journey. For such a trip, three guys wouldn't have set out alone. There most likely was a group of Magi accompanied by a small army of armed bodyguards making the trek. Just because they brought three gifts doesn't mean there were only three givers. Assuming they saw this "star" on the night Christ was born, much as the Shepherds saw a great light and then Angels in the sky, and given the time to travel the distance, then Mary and Joseph would have been living in a house by the time they arrived to worship.

But why would they be looking for this event and why make such a trip? They weren't Jewish. First of all, there was a lot of anticipation throughout the East at the time of some expected world king. The Jews certainly were anticipating their Messiah in these years. Ancient historians noted the anticipation of such an event: 

"There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judea to rule the world " (Suetonius, Life of Vespasian, 4: 5). 

 "(T)here was a firm persuasion ... that at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers coming from Judea were to acquire universal empire " (Tacitus, Histories, 5: 13).

The Jews believed "about that time one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth” - (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 6: 5, 4).

We must also consider that the Magi may be very well aware of Daniel's timetable for the appearance of the Messiah. We have to remember that Daniel was once the Chief of the Magi and would have had great influence upon them (See Daniel 5:10-11 quoted earlier in this chapter).

When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

And they said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, ‘And you Bethlehem, in the land of Judea, are not the least among the princes of Judea: for out of you shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel’”

I bet King Herod was disturbed! If there already was murmurs about a coming King of Judea, who would rule the world, having people of the stature of the Magi pop in and ask where he was born must have really knocked Herod back on his heels. 

The man wasn't exactly the people's favorite. Herod wasn't actually even Jewish  and he had half bribed and half manipulated his way into the Kingship. He wasn't a man above  killing his own family to protect his crown; he certainly didn't want to hear about some upstart king threatening his rule.

Knowing the nature of King Herod is probably what got all of Jerusalem disturbed. Plus, a lot of people in high places were surely as corrupt as Herod and knew how things went with him would effect how things went for them. A new King could cost them, too. 

The Priests and Scribes knew where the Messiah was to be born. There was no hesitation and no lack of knowledge on their part. No surprise here about a Messiah. He was to come from the line of Jesse, from the great King David and from David's city, Bethlehem. (Note that Bethlehem means "house of bread" and from it would come the "Bread of life".)

Then Herod, when he had privately called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, “Go and search diligently for the young child; and when you have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.”

Do you notice something here? Herod met the Magi secretly. He was plotting and didn't want any one getting suspicious. He got some vital information, the time of when the star first appeared, which he would later use to his own end. Then he tried to get the Magi to make it easy for him and come back to say exactly where this newborn king could be found.

They didn't come back and tell him, so he ordered all male babies age two and under in Bethlehem killed.  Why two and under? Just to be on the safe side? Perhaps or It could be the date he was given for the star's appearance was two years earlier.

When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

There is some strange behavior on the part of this "star". The Magi saw it in the east when Jesus was born and followed it. But somewhere along the way, the star disappeared. This is why they came to Herod and inquired about the birthplace. Why did they need direction if the star was guiding them all the way?

But then after they left Herod and headed for Bethlehem, the star appeared again and took them to the house (see, Mary and Joseph were now in a house) where they worshiped Him.

Now, many have speculated on this star. Some have though it was a comet or a meteor or some other natural occurrence. I believe it could be a divine light, perhaps an Angel that led them. Why need we look for natural phenomena to explain this? God led the Hebrews through the desert as a pillar of smoke and fire, why couldn't he provide a miraculous guide to the Magi?

However, there is the possibility it was a natural occurrence designed by God for that exact moment when He created the universe. The Magi could have observed a triple conjunction of Jupiter, Venus and Regulas and then followed the orbit of Jupiter across the skies to Judea. At the point of retrograde over Bethlehem, the planet Jupiter would appear to the naked eye as stopping. (Planet comes from the Greek “planetes”, which meant wanderer. In ancient times planets were viewed as stars, which wandered.) There was such a conjunction in the years 3 and 2 BC. If research that indicates that Herod the Great died in 1 BC, rather than the previously conjectured 4 BC (see the notes on dates at the beginning of this work), this would fit into the birth of Jesus quite well. For a fascinating explanation of this and other heavenly phenomena at the same time go to www.bethlehemstar.net.

Here we have the Magi presenting their gifts. Because three kinds of gifts were given, one representing kingship, one representing priesthood and one representing the saving sacrifice, we always just show three Magi handing over a gift. It says they presented him gifts of Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh. There could have been more than one package of each.

The gifts of the Magi not only symbolized the roles Jesus would fill, King, Priest and Sacrifice, but they provided means for Mary and Joseph to flee to Egypt and survive there until they could return home. See, God provides for our necessities in whatever our situation. 

THE ESCAPE TO EGYPT

Flight Into Egypt by Henry Ossawa Tanner, 1923

Matthew 2:13-18

And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be you there until I bring you 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”. [Hosea 11:1 (Greek: egontos, eks aiguptou ekalesa ton huion mou meaning, “Out of Egypt have I called the son of Me”.)  Matthew was saying the statement was made perfect in Christ.]

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 inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not [Jeremiah 31:15]”.

This was an act true to Herod’s nature. He had obtained great power in his lifetime and he maintained it through the use of murder and terror. He had had wives and sons murdered as well as anyone else he deemed a threat to his throne. The monastery of the Essenes at Qumran had been violently destroyed by arson in 8 BC and Herod was the prime suspect. During these last years of his life, two teachers urged their pupil to remove the gold eagle, the symbol of Rome, from the Temple. Herod had these two teachers and their pupils burned alive.

The Jewish scholars were already anticipating the Messiah because they believed the Messiah would come in the seventy-seventh generation since creation and they believed the seventy-sixths had just passed. The Messiah was viewed as a deliverer who would free them from Rome and sit on David’s throne as King. What Herod thought of these Jewish ideas is hard to say. He himself was not Jewish. His father was Idumean (Edom) and his mother was Arabian. He had been made King of the Jews by Rome and conquest. This made him unpopular with the Orthodox, religious and political parties of the Jews. He was unpopular for his support of Rome, his flaunting of the Law of Moses and for heavy taxation. Obviously, knowing this, he would be leery of any talk of a new King of the Jews.

Amidst such rumors, along come the Magi, people known as “King Makers”. Asking where this new king was born. This must have scared Herod to death. His action of mass murder of children is certainly something he would have considered to nip any threat to his throne in the bud. One must remember, Herod when knowing his death was imminent ordered his followers to arrest all the leading men of the city and imprison them with orders that upon his death they were all to be killed. His reasoning was he was so hated by his subjects no one would mourn for his death and on the day he died he wanted to assure the people mourned. Such a man is capable of any depravity.

Josephus wrote that Herod suffered excruciating pain in his final days. From what Josephus described, modern doctor believe chronic kidney disease and Fournier’s gangrene (a necrotizing infection affecting the genitals). The visible worms and putrefaction he suffered were probably scabies or a form of lice. 

JESUS TEACHES NICODEMUS

Visit of Nicodemus to Christ by John La Farge, 1880

John 3: 1-21

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. The same came to Jesus by night, and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that you do, except God be with him.”

This is almost the full extent of what we know of Nicodemus. We can conclude he was a man of wealth from the information in John 19:39-40 when he brings 75 pounds of myrrh mixed with aloes to prepare Christ’s body for burial. Myrrh was an expensive spice.

We can also infer from his aiding Joseph of Arimathea in caring for Christ’s body and from his stance against the Pharisees in John 7: 50-51 that he was a follower of Jesus, and from the reaction to his statements this was probably secretly. 

John 7:40 When they heard these words, some of the people said, “This really is the Prophet.” 41 Others said, “This is the Christ.” But some said, “Is the Christ to come from Galilee? 42 Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the offspring of David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” 43 So there was a division among the people over him. 44 Some of them wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him.

45 The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, “Why did you not bring him?” 46 The officers answered, “No one ever spoke like this man!” 47 The Pharisees answered them, “Have you also been deceived? 48 Have any of the authorities or the Pharisees believed in him? 49 But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed.” 50 Nicodemus, who had gone to him before, and who was one of them, said to them, 51 “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” 52 They replied, “Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee.” (ESV)

The passage in John 7 also indicates that the events described in John 3 took place well before the Passion month, another indicator that there were two separate cleansings of the Temple.

We really don’t have any information outside of scripture on the man. There was a Nicodemus (or Naqdimon) written about in the Babylonian Talmud, a rich man of Jerusalem who was living in the late 60 ADs during the time of the war with Rome. Some scholars have claimed this was the same Nicodemus, but more likely he was a nephew or other member of the same family. 

This man was of the ben Gurion family, and probably Nicodemus was a member of it as well. The ben Gurions were rich, with a long history as Pharisees, teachers of the law and members of the ruling class. Members of the family carried the name Nicodemus at least as far back as 64 BC with a Nicodemus ben Gurion written about in Josephus’s Antiquities (14:37). We’ve already mentioned that the Nicodemus ben Gurion of the Babylonia Talmud lived in the 60s AD. The Nicodemus, who met with Jesus, fits with this family in social status and time period.

Why did he come to Jesus at night? Perhaps his duties kept him busy during the day, but more likely he came secretly. Jesus was not exactly making friends with the Pharisees and Sanhedrin, both of which Nicodemas was a member. (There was another member of the Sanhedrin, who was a secret follower of Jesus and who Nicodemus apparently had a friendship with, Joseph of Arimathea.)

He shows respect toward Jesus by calling him Rabbi and says the miracles he has done show that God must be with him.

Jesus replies by answering a question never asked. Obviously Jesus knows what is weighing on Nicodemas’ mind. The question is how can I know the Kingdom of God. The answer, and the only answer, is one must be born from above.

Jesus answered and said to him, “Verily, verily, I say to you, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born?”

Jesus answered, “Verily, verily, I say to you, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said to you, you must be born again. The wind blows where it lists, and you hear the sound thereof, but cannot tell whence it comes, and whither it goes. So is every one that is born of the Spirit.”

Jesus’ reply rocked Nicodemus back on his heels. He couldn’t understand it for it made no sense.

In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. John 3:3 (NIV)

“Verily, verily, I say to you, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3 (KJV)

I show both translations here because the NIV misses some of the emphasis of its import shown by the King James. The NIV says, “I tell you the truth…” The double “Verily, verily” of the KJV means “I tell you the truth of truths.”

Jesus uses the double “verily”; this is the truth of truths, the absolute, “Verily, verily, I say to thee, if any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God” (Young Literal Translation).  This is the source of the oft-used phrase, “born again.” We find it confirmed in 1 Peter 1:23: “For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.” The literal translation of 1 Peter is “being begotten again”, or in modern English, “born again”. (Perhaps it could be interpreted as reconceived as well.)

Nicodemus may have been surprised by this reply. We don’t know that, but we know it confused him. Oh, he took it as meaning born again all right; he just didn’t understand how that was possible because he was thinking of physical birth. He may have been thinking he made a mistake in coming to Jesus. It was ridiculous, re-entering the womb and being reborn? 

Jesus, with another “verily, verily,” strongly reiterates this fact. There is no way around this truth; a person must be born again to see the Kingdom of God.

Nicodemus answered and said to him, “How can these things be?”

Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you a master of Israel and know not these things? Verily, verily, I say to you, we speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and you receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and you believe not, how shall you believe if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Jesus gently admonishes Nicodemus for not understanding. Nicodemus is a teacher and a leader, yet he missed it. What kinds of things did he miss? Such things as these among many others:

"The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, " declares the LORD. This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. Jeremiah 31:31-33

"Therefore, O house of Israel, I will judge you, each one according to his ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live! Ezekiel 18:30-32

Then Jesus makes reference to an event Nicodemus would have known well when he says, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.”

Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. The people came to Moses and said, "We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us." So Moses prayed for the people. The LORD said to Moses, "Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live." So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived. Numbers 21:6-9

Nicodemus probably did not understand what Jesus was talking about. He couldn’t see the cross for that was in the future. When he came and helped bury Christ’s body that reference to Numbers 21 probably came back to him in total clarity.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. He that believes on him is not condemned, but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that does truth comes to the light that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.”

Nicodemus may have left that night still confused and in wonder. He probably hit the scrolls and over the course of time came to understand and believe in Jesus as the Messiah. He probably came to understand that no man was capable of following the Law completely and that a study of the men of God in the Old Testament clearly shows their relationship with God was not one of perfection in deed, but in faith in the Lord.

This passage, early on in Christ’s ministry, leaves no doubt that Jesus declared there is but one way to Heaven and that is through belief in Him.

It is also important to take note Jesus came to save the world, not condemn it.

JESUS AND THE SAMARITAN WOMAN AT JACOB’S WELL

The Samaritan Woman at the Well by Annibale Carracci, date unknown

(Matthew 4:12, Mark 1:14a and John 4:1-43)

 Now after that John was put in prison when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed and came into Galilee; preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God.

When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples), he left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.

Remember, not long after Jesus had cleansed the Temple in Jerusalem at Passover, he “did not commit himself to” the people there because he knew men’s hearts. In other words, even though there were those in Jerusalem who had believed on him because of some miracles he performed in the city, there were possible threats to his person because of the ruckus he had caused. What we see from this point on is Jesus constantly on the move. He left Jerusalem and went into the wilderness of Judea where for a brief time his disciples were baptizing people much in the manner of John. “After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea and there he tarried with them, and baptized.” John 3:22. 

John had also moved somewhere in the same general area continuing his own ministry, but Herod imprisoned John and Jesus knew the Pharisees had heard his group was baptizing more that John. It may be that the Pharisees had gotten this information from John. They knew where Jesus was and perhaps they were seeing him as a growing threat. Jesus was also aware that John had been arrested. In a sense, things were heating up and he moved again, this time deciding to put more distance between himself and those in Jerusalem by going to Galilee.

And he must needs go through Samaria.

Then came he to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar [meaning Drunkard or Falsehood], near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well and it was about the sixth hour [12:00 noon].

It says he needed to go through Samaria. Curious, because not only didn’t he have to go through Samaria, normally as a Jew he wouldn’t. Jews and Samaritans had a long history of dislike and distrust and they did not associate with each other. Even though it was the shorter route from Jerusalem to Galilee through Samaria, the Jew would usually travel to the east into Perea and then turn north. Look on the map and find the green line and arrow pointing at Jericho. This was the usual route up and down between Judea and Galilee.

But Jesus did not go this way. From wherever he was in the wilderness, he headed straight into Samaria and stopped at Sychar to rest. It is difficult to know where they had been Baptizing, but he may have come 10 or 15 miles in a morning if he set out early. He arrived at Jacob’s Well about noon. It says he was wearied, so that would indicate he had been walking a good distance that day already. People used to traveling place to place by foot are not going to be “wearied” after an hour or two of walking; he may have been on the road five or six hours.

Jacob’s Well (aka bir Ya’qub or Ya’kub) is venerated by four religious groups: Jewish, Samaritan, Christian and Muslim. It is currently found in Nablus, a Palestinian city in the West Bank of Israel at Jacob’s Well Eastern Orthodox Monastery (some have laid claim to other nearby wells in the region as being the real one). It has suffered damage over the years, especially as a result of being venerated and open to tourists. 

Outside of John’s Gospel, the well isn’t specifically named in the Bible, but no one doubts its authenticity or existence in history. The area where it sits is not in dispute either. This is the parcel of land Jacob bought from Hamor after he had met safely with his brother Esau.

So Esau returned that day on his way unto Seir.

And Jacob journeyed to Succoth, and built him an house, and made booths for his cattle: therefore the name of the place is called Succoth.

And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padanaram; and pitched his tent before the city. And he bought a parcel of a field, where he had spread his tent, at the hand of the children of Hamor, Shechem's father, for an hundred pieces of money. And he erected there an altar, and called it El Elohe Israel [Mighty is the God of Israel].Genesis 33:16-20

Now we come to an interesting question. Why was Jesus there? John 4 Verse 4 says, “And he must needs go through Samaria”. (“Now he had to go through Samaria” in the NIV.)

Why?

We have already stated a Jew would take the long way north along the border of Perea rather than set foot in Samaria. After the imprisonment of John, perhaps Jesus felt some threat of arrest and went into Samaria both because it was the shorter route and because the Pharisees might hesitate to pursue him there, but I don’t believe that was the reason.

Jesus had a date with a woman, not that she knew it or the Disciples knew it, but Jesus knew it.

There came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give me to drink.” (For his disciples were gone away to the city to buy meat.)

Then said the woman of Samaria to him, “How is it that you, being a Jew, ask drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria?” For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.

Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that say to you, ‘Give me to drink’; you would have asked of him, and he would have given you living water.”

The woman said to him,” Sir, you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep, from whence then have you that living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?”

Jesus answered and said to her, “Whosoever drinks of this water shall thirst again, but whosoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst, but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.”

The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.”

There is an act of intolerance here, which may not be obvious. It is not altogether in the question, “How can you a Jew ask me a Samaritan for a drink”, even though we are informed that “Jews do not associate with Samaritans”.

No, it is in the statement, “Sir, you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get living water?”

This woman must have been eyeing this strange man carefully. First she probably hadn’t expected or wanted to meet anybody when she came to the well. She didn’t come at the usual hour, which would have been early in the day before it got too hot and when one would normally get the supply of water for their daily need. She came at the sixth hour, around noon since hours were counted from sunrise.

She certainly didn’t expect to find a Jewish man nor did she expect him to speak to her. Generally Jews would not enter Samaria and even if a Jew did he would avoid as much contact with the people there as possible. Speaking to a lone woman would be suspect and might even be dangerous. 

Yet this Jewish man not only has the audacity to speak to this woman, he asks her for a drink when he has no vessel to get the water or to drink from. It may seem a simple request and a simple act of kindness to hand a thirsty person your vessel, but it would not have been for this woman. It would have been intolerable to consider it. If a Jew touched her vessel it would have been considered unclean and she would have to destroy it. (Probably if a Samaritan touched anything belonging to a Jew it would have suffered the same fate.)

This Jew had to know that and certainly if the roles had been reversed would have viewed it the same way. She must have been surprised he would not only ask her for a drink, but also then offer one to her.

What did she think? If he could give her a drink, why was he asking her for one? And where would he get it, did he know of another well nearby. Perhaps he thought he could draw it somehow from Jacob’s Well?

His term “living water” wouldn’t have seemed unusual to her.

Wells had two water supply sources. (Collecting rainwater would have been done with a cistern.) Well water would come from an underground spring or an underground stream. A stream fed Jacob’s Well. Wells of this nature, because the stream is moving, were referred to as “living water”. Therefore the woman did not see anything unusual in the use of this term. She asks him to give her this water not just because she won’t get physically thirsty again, but so she doesn’t have to trudge to the well and carry the water home again. She does not understand he is talking about something beyond physical water until later in the conversation.

It is an interesting and instructive dialogue.

Jesus said to her, ”Go, call your husband, and come hither.”

The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.”

Jesus said to her, “You have well said,’ I have no husband’ for you have had five husband, and he whom you now have is not your husband, in that said you truly.”

The woman said to him, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.”

Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour comes when you shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father. You worship you know not what; we know what we worship for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth for the Father seeks such to worship him. God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah comes, which is called Christ. When he is come, he will tell us all things.”

Jesus said to her, “I that speak to you am he.”

She asks for this “living water” and he tells her to go get her husband, somewhat of a non sequitur. Perhaps she wasn’t surprised by this given women’s second-class status of those times. But she has no husband, at least not a legal one. 

“I have no husband.” She doesn’t qualify it. If it were any other stranger they might assume she is a widow or perhaps her husband has abandoned her. Perhaps she had never married.

Keep in mind Jesus never met her before. She is a stranger in a country that is anathema to Jews. Can you imagine the shock this woman must have felt when he answered she was living with a man who she wasn’t married to and had had five husbands. No wonder she perceived him to be a prophet.

According to Josephus and 2 Kings 17 Samaritans are descendants of the Israelites who mixed with people deported to their country by Assyria. This fits with the Assyrian pattern of conquest. The Samaritans also claim to be descendants of Israelites who remained in the Northern Kingdom, that is Israel, during the Babylonian Captivity. Their exact history is still disputed, but modern DNA testing in 2004 does support they are descended from Israelites with Assyrians and other nationalities as well.

There was a split between the Jews and Samaritans, possibly at the time the Second Temple was constructed after 538 BC. At any rate, the Samaritan and Jewish religions are very similar, but do have some differences. They both believe in one God and in the Law of Moses as a covenant made by God with the Israelites. They call their version of the Torah the Memar Markah and it does differ in places from the Jewish Torah. They do not accept the other Old Testament books. They keep the Sabbath, circumcise and practice the main Jewish holidays, such as Passover, Pentecost, Yom Kippur, etc. (But not Hannukkah nor Purim.)

The Samaritans believe in a Messiah, called Taheb. This restorer would come and rule his kingdom from Mount Gerizim and eventually reunite Judah and Israel, plus restore the true religion of Moses. Mount Gerizim was the site where Abraham offered up Isaac in sacrifice. If you refer back to the previous map you will see Sychar, Jacob’s Well and Mount Gerizim not far from each other, perhaps a couple miles.

This is why the woman says our fathers worshipped in this mountain and you say Jerusalem is where men should worship. 

Jesus then tells her a time is coming when people will worship in spirit and truth rather in some particular place and this is the manner people should worship God. He also said, “You worship you know not what; we know what we worship for salvation is of the Jews.”

She responses, perhaps defensively, that she knows a Messiah is to come and he will explain all things.

Notice Jesus whole approach to this woman. He asked her for something. When she declined, he did not get angry or upset with her, but offered her something instead and in such a way it raised her curiosity.

Instead of addressing her question about his offer directly he asked her to do something, which caused her to revel and face her own sin. But never in this conversation did he accuse her or berate her about what she had done. He doesn’t engage in attacking her religious belief or get into any argument, but gives her new information that raised her curiosity even more and led her to continue talking. After she admits to a belief in a Messiah, she says this Christ will tell us all things.

Jesus says, “I am he,” and it probably hit her at that moment that he had indeed told her things he could not have known about her. Jesus had found this woman, had drawn her to him and at last reveled who he was and she believed.

And upon this came his disciples and marveled that he talked with the woman, yet no man said, “What seek you?” or “Why talk you with her?”

The woman then left her water pot and went her way…In the meanwhile his disciples prayed him, saying, “Master, eat.”

But he said to them, “I have meat to eat that you know not of.”

Therefore said the disciples one to another, “Has any man brought him ought to eat?”

Jesus said to them, “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me and to finish his work. Say not ye, There are yet four months and then come harvest? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look on the fields for they are white already to harvest. And he that reaps receives wages and gathers fruit to life eternal that both he that sows and he that reaps may rejoice together. And herein is that saying true, ‘One sows and another reaps. I sent you to reap that whereon you bestowed no labor, other men labored, and you are entered into their labors.”

The Disciples arrived at the tail end of Jesus’ conversation with this woman. They didn’t interrupt or question, but were obviously amazed to see this. Jews did not associate with Samaritans.

Now we were told when Jesus first arrived at the well, he was alone because the Disciples had gone into town to buy food. We may wonder if Jews and Samaritans would deal with each other. Where would they buy food? It may be that even in Sychar there were merchants who would deal with anyone. It is also quite possible they went to a Jewish town to purchase their food. If you look at the map, you can see Sychar is not far over the border from Judea. 

Just after they arrive at the Well, the woman hastens off. She had come to fetch water, but she leaves her water jar behind. She isn’t concerned with physical water now; she has found the Living Water and can’t wait to tell others.

The disciples never ask what this was all about. They had gone to fetch food and now their only concern is eating. They have probably sat down and opened some of the provision and began to have their lunch. They urge Jesus to join them and eat.

He gives them another one of those strange answers of his, “I have meat to eat that you know not of.”

What do you see, fellows? Do you look for the harvest elsewhere in familiar fields not yet ready? Or do you see the harvest is ready before you? Do you see this woman, who you looked through with distain, had been sow with seeds of hope ready for the reaping? Someone sowed in these people this hope, but it wasn’t you, but here is the opportunity to reap what has been sowed and you should rejoice in it. Open your eyes and see what is before you, not what is far away. Now is the time to gather fruit to salvation. 

The woman then left her water pot and went her way…into the city and said to the men, “Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did. Is not this the Christ?”

Then they went out of the city and came to him.

And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, “He told me all that ever I did.”

 So when the Samaritans were come to him, they besought him that he would tarry with them and he abode there two days. And many more believed because of his own word and said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of your saying for we have heard him ourselves and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.”

The woman had come to belief and hurried to tell those in town of this. She urged them to come to Christ, to see what she had seen. And they went out to the well to Jesus. Here we have the first recorded act of witnessing by a new Christian. These people knew this woman and they knew her past. They sensed something had changed about her, in her demeanor, in her enthusiasm perhaps. As a result many came to believe in Jesus as the Messiah and they asked him to remain. Remember, these are Samaritans and Jesus and his Disciples are Jews, in a sense they are enemies. 

He stayed two days talking with these people and they accepted him as the Christ. Note what they said: “Now we believe, not because of your saying for we have heard him ourselves and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.”  The woman did not save these Samaritans. She simply brought them the message. 

The woman became the sower and Jesus reaped the harvest. He is again setting an example to his Disciples (then and now) to make haste and sow the word. Do not concern yourself with the reaping. The Holy Spirit will take care of that. You just remember what is presaged in John 4 and said in Romans 10:11-15.

For the scripture says, Whosoever believes on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich to all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

And how shall they preach, except they be sent?

The Will of God sent Jesus through Samaria and he preached to this woman of whom he was. The Holy Spirit sent the lady to her neighbors and towns folk, where she confessed the Christ and preached to them. Because they heard they came to Christ and believed in him as the Savior.

To God there was no difference between Jew and Greek, or in this case, Jew and Samaritan. God was God of them all and any that called on Jesus were saved.  

 Now after two days he departed thence, and went into Galilee.