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?

JESUS PRESENTED IN THE TEMPLE

The Circumcision by Tintoetto (Jacopo Comin aka Jacopo Robusti), 1587

(Jerusalem, eight days after the birth; distance from Bethlehem to Jerusalem is 6 miles)

Matthew 1:25b and Luke 2:21

And when eight days had passed, before His circumcision, His name was then called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb and [Joseph] called his name JESUS.

Having heard the Nativity repeated over and over most of our lives; we tend to run these events together as if they happened in a couple days time. It seems obvious that the Angels appeared to the Shepherds on the day Christ was born, but other events didn’t come about until certain passages of time.

Here is something to consider. We celebrate the birth of Christ on December 25, but it may be more likely this was the time of his conception, perhaps during Hanukkah. I tend to agree that Christ was born during the Feast of Tabernacles in late September of 5 BC. If we follow the schedule of priestly duties for Zechariah and the other historic data, this seems logical. I believe the Jewish Holy days have prophetic significance and you can see how Christ was crucified and rose on days related to Passover and the Holy Spirit came on Pentecost. Elijah is expected on Passover and I think there is an argument to be made that John the Baptist was born on Passover. John's birth would align with the conception time based on Zechariah's serving in the Temple on schedule. John was six months older than Jesus and if Passover came in late March of that year, this would have placed Jesus' birth near the end of September. This also fits with the Shepherds still being in the fields with their sheep before winter came.

If Mary did conceive during Hanukkah, John the Baptist would have been born three months later at Passover. And assuming a normal pregnancy of 285 days, Jesus would have been born on the 15th day of the Jewish month of Tishri (September 29 by modern reckoning). This is significant because it is the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot). It is a high day, a special Sabbath, a time of great rejoicing.

There is a credible theory that Christ was born in June of 2 BC. This is based not only on the facts given in the Gospel accounts concerning events, but also on the alignment of the constellations and the conjunction of Jupiter and it’s path that may have been the “star” guiding the Magi. In this timetable, Jesus would have been conceived in September 3 BC, the Magi would have arrived in Bethlehem in December and Christ would have been born the next June. [Google www.bethlehemstar.net for a fuller explanation.]

 PURIFICATION

(Jerusalem, 40 days after birth according to Jewish Law)

Luke 2:22-39a

And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that open the womb shall be called holy to the Lord [Exodus 13:2]) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

Under the Law of Moses a woman was considered impure after the birth of a child. For the first seven days she and her husband would refrain from any sexual relations. For the next 33 days she will not be allowed to touch anything considered holy or visit the sanctuary. At the end of this 40-day period, she is required to bring a sacrifice to the priest. Mary and Joseph followed the law as spelled out in Leviticus.

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest, who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.

And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean. Levitcus 12:1-8

And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon [which means “he heard” or “obedient”]; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,

Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, “Lord, now let me your servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared before the face of all people; a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.”

And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things, which were spoken of him.

And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”

And there was one Anna [which means “Grace”], a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, [which means “Face of God”; the apocryphal Book of Enoch gives the name Phanuel to the fourth Archangel] of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; and she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fasting and prayers night and day. And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise to the Lord, and spoke of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem. And … they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord.

We do not know much about these two people. Both were elderly, both spent much of their time around the Temple and both were glad to see the baby Jesus.

Simeon, we are told, was promised he would see the Messiah. He bears the name of one of Jacob’s sons. This was the brother of Joseph who was held prisoner in Egypt until his younger brother, Benjamin, was brought to Joseph. There seems little connect beyond the name other than the Simeon in Luke was waiting on the consolidation of Judah and Israel. Simeon was a prisoner on hold to the consolidation of his family and Jacob with Joseph. Jacob is a name also used to refer to Israel.

Simeon in Luke does prophesy about Jesus being a light to the gentiles and to His crucifixion.

We don’t know much about Anna either except the few bits Luke mentions. Anna or Hannah shares the same name as the mother of Samuel and parallels can be drawn between Samuel’s birth and youth and that of Jesus. There is speculation that Anna’s family roots stretched to the Jews held in Media who returned to Israel after the Babylonian Diaspora. For this reason, it is though when she “spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem”; she was referring to the time when all of the Jews would once again be brought together as a nation. This would be similar to what we have stated Simeon was doing.

Here we are a little over a month and a week since Jesus was born. Mary and Joseph are following the Law and Tradition of the Jews. They had Jesus circumcised on the eight day. This was the seal of the Abrahamic Covenant between God and Abraham in Genesis 17: 4-12 (NIV):

 "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham,^] for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."

 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring.

Then they took Jesus for dedication in the temple at the end of the purification period for Mary, where they offered the required sacrifice to the priest.

Note that Mary and Joseph gave what the law required, two doves or two young pigeons. This was the requirement for the woman who couldn’t afford a young lamb. Now this is something some have pointed to in saying Mary and Joseph were poor; however, not being able to afford the price of a young lamb doesn’t necessarily mean they were poor. It has been over a month, so it seems they have remained and established residence in Bethlehem. This trip and stay may have depleted whatever money they had with them on arrival. They certainly appear to be making a new home in Bethlehem, for we will find them still living there in a house when the Magi arrive.

This sacrifice also indicates the Magi had not yet visited because if so they most certainly would have bought a young lamb from the treasures the Magi gave them. 

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.