by
Damien
F. Mackey
“I,
Jesus … am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright Morning Star”.
Some
Laudable Efforts to Identify the Star
What was the ‘Star’ that the Magi saw?
“… we saw His star in the east …” (Matthew 2:2). For what I believe to be the
correct answer to this question, I am indebted to Lieutenant- Colonel G.
Mackinlay, whose inspired book, The Magi:
How They Recognised Christ's Star (Hodder and Stoughton, 1907), reveals how
the Creator God’s providential arrangement of “signs and seasons, days and
years” (Genesis 1:14) - the heavenly bodies affecting earthly seasons and
religious festivals - enables for a precise chronological calculation of the
infancy of Jesus Christ and also his last years on earth. Colonel Mackinlay
rejects the notion that the Bethlehem Star was a conjunction of planets or a
meteor. It was instead, he explains, the Morning Star, the planet Venus, so
important for the ancients, but of less significance for we modern city
dwellers with our artificial lights.
That the Magi’s Star was Venus is a
conclusion that other good researchers have reached as well based on their grasp
of a combination of biblical texts. A most praiseworthy effort in this regard,
apart from Mackinlay’s, is that of Bruce Killian, Venus The Star Of Bethlehem (http://www.scripturescholar.com/VenusStarofBethlehem.htm),
from which I shall also be taking some quotations.
Another laudable attempt to identify the
Star of the Magi is that recently of Texan lawyer, Frederick (‘Rick’) A.
Larson, who, however, favours the planet Jupiter as the biblical star. Larson
has the lawyer’s detective-like knack of being able to pick up clues in, say,
Matthew 2:1-12, the account of the Magi and the Star, that other readers might
pass over without due pause. He brings to the narrative, awe, passion, emotion,
a love and knowledge of the Scriptures (including Genesis; the Psalms; Isaiah;
the Book of Job; Malachi; and Revelation), as well as the benefit of
sophisticated computer software, such as the astronomical program, “Starry
Night” (*), a tool obviously lacking
to Mackinlay in his day.
* A very important comment on chronology
Studies on the Star of the Magi and on other
archaeoastronomical issues, with their retrocalculations of the night skies
back into BC time, assume that our AD time is fixed, and that we actually live,
today, a little over 2000 years after the Nativity of Jesus Christ. Not until
revisionists like Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky came along were the standard BC
calculations and ‘Dark Ages’ seriously questioned, and that has led to scholars
today also rigorously testing AD time and its ‘Dark Ages’. See, e.g., Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/Niemitz-1997.pdf) and
Jan Beaufort’s summary (http://www.cybis.se/forfun/dendro/hollstein/hollstein0/beaufort/index.htm). I,
whilst not necessarily agreeing with all of what these writers have to say,
think that there is enough in their theses, however, and that of those to whom
they refer, to prompt one seriously to question the accuracy of the received AD
dates.
Larson has picked up what he has called
“The Nine Points of Christ’s Star” that he believes to be the key pieces in the
puzzle of the sacred text, and he says he will not be satisfied with a final
scenario that does not accommodate all nine of these. Such is Larson’s
thoroughness that even eight points for him will not suffice.
Could the star
have been a meteorite; a comet; a supernova; a planet;
or a new star?
One point that
most pick up, Larson says, is that the star seen by the Magi rose in the East:
“Greek en anatole, meaning they saw
his star rising in the east”. This description can apply as well to various of
these aforementioned types of heavenly bodies. Another point is that it was
seen for an extended period of time. Larson rules out a comet on various
grounds; one being that, in antiquity, comets were generally associated with
doom.
A crucial point
that Larson has picked up is that Herod - and apparently Jerusalem in general -
seemed blissfully unaware of the presence of this harbinger star. It was only
the arrival of the Magi in Jerusalem that had awakened Herod to the
extraordinary situation that had now arisen in his kingdom. That would again
rule out a comet, which the ancients (so much better attuned to the sky than we
generally are today) would not have missed. A comet would have been “the talk
of the town”, Larson rightly says.
The Magi, of
course (whether or not they had actually arisen from the prophet Daniel’s
school in the East, as Larson believes), would have had the benefit of Daniel’s
Messianic prophecy (Daniel 9:24-27 **)
to guide them as to the approximate time to expect the Messiah. They would have
been able to have combined this sacred text with their expert reading of the
‘book’ of the heavens.
** A second chronological note
Daniel’s
prophecy no longer works for us chronologically, with its beginning in the
first year of King Cyrus now dated to 539 BC. As Martin Anstey (The Romance of Bible Chronology) and
Philip Mauro (The Wonders of Bible
Chronology) have shown, this date is 82 years too early for Daniel’s
prophecy to work, meaning that historians have created too many Persian kings.
Daniel’s count of years should begin at 457 BC instead of 539. This point is
crucial.
Whatever the
Star was, says Larson, it did no arrest the attention of the inhabitants of
Jerusalem.
One of Larson’s
nine points, his first in fact, has to do with this tricky subject of chronology.
And this area of research may be his weak link, and may actually vitiate his
whole argument. Larson has determined, based on an ancient version of the
Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, that the Birth of the Messiah had occurred
in relation to the reign of Herod in 3-2 BC. However Daryn Graham has, in a
recent ground-breaking article investigating the Census of Caesar Augustus at
the time Jesus’s Birth (Luke 2:1-7), shown conclusively that the Nativity must
have occurred in 8 BC. I must stress once again, however, that, whilst I
believe that Graham is entirely correct in his choice of the 8 BC census for that
of St. Luke, one ought not retrocalculate
back to that actual date, e.g. using computer software, to determine the skies
at that particular time. Here is the relevant part of Graham’s must-read
article, “Luke's Census: Dating the
Birth of Jesus” (Archaeological Diggings,
December/January edition):
…. Even though the countless Christians throughout the ages have differed significantly from person to person, all have but one true test of faith and that is the belief in Jesus Christ being none other than the Son of God, and indeed, God himself. According to the Bible which contains the earliest surviving accounts of Jesus life, Christ was born in a stable in Bethlehem in the Roman province of Judaea, during which time a census was being taken. Of course, once we determine exactly which census that was we can also discover the precise date for Jesus’ birth. But as to which census that was has left many an accomplished modern historian without an answer. However, doubting the accuracy of the Bible on these grounds is literally jumping hastily to unnecessary conclusions. As with so many things ancient, a little investigative work can help to fill in the picture. As I will now explain, the birth of Jesus Christ as told of in the Bible is firmly rooted in solid historical facts, and this is true also of the census during that humble, yet historically momentous and epoch-making birth.
The Census
The problem many historians in the past have faced is that the most common English translations of Luke’s gospel’s description of the census can be translated several ways. But, of course, considering millennia have passed since Luke wrote it, it is forgivable that some things have been lost in translation. The common NIV translation reads: “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.” …. The problem for past historians is that the particular detail regarding Quirinius in this NIV translation can not have been the intended meaning by Luke. True, there was a census in Judaea during Quirinius’ governorship which began in 6AD … but it was certainly not of the entire Roman Empire. The 1st century AD Jewish historian Josephus made that crystal clear by writing Quirinius’ census was confined only to Syria to determine the local inhabitants’ tax payments. …. Of course, it is unlikely that Luke, who was a meticulous historian, was incorrect – it is rather that case that the translation itself is incorrect. But considering that even the influential, though at times unreliable, 4th century AD Christian historian Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History maintained this reading … it is understandable that it has gained so much credibility.
We can be sure of Luke’s true
meaning when we consider the following. There are two other translation
possibilities raised by experts, the second of which discussed here is
perfectly consistent with archaeological and historical records and is, I
firmly believe, Luke’s intended translation. But for the sake of interest, we
will look at both. The first possibility some say should read: “This first
census was taken when Quirinius was governor”. …. But this is on very shaky
ground. For one thing it is known by historians that it was not the first
census decreed. The Res Gestae Divi Augusti, (The Accomplishments of the Divine
Augustus) written by the Roman Emperor Augustus Caesar himself, shows that
Augustus carried out previous censuses in 28BC and again in 8BC … years before
Quirinius’ governorship of Syria. The Res Gestae was written by Augustus in his
final years in the early 1st century AD and was inscribed on the walls of
temples around the empire. It has been preserved for us today in the temple of
Rome and Augustus at Ancyra (Ankara in modern Turkey). Fragments from Pisidia
(also in modern Turkey) have also survived. It is doubtful Luke, who wrote his
Gospel only about 50 years later, was not aware of such facts as the ones
recorded in Augustus’ Res Gestae. But the second alternative translation held
by some experts and very much so myself to be Luke’s intended one, however,
makes all of the ancient evidence fall into place with Luke’s original meaning,
showing that his Gospel is historically precise and grounded in solid fact.
According to this translation the census described by Luke originally in
ancient Greek was not taken ‘while Quirinius was governor’ but ‘before
Quirinius was governor’. ….
In regard to which of Augustus’
censuses before Quirinius’ governorship Luke could have referred to, the
solution is crystal clear. The 28BC census was taken of Roman citizens alone,
so that one is ruled out. However the 8BC census, which was not only for Roman
citizens, but also for the whole empire’s population, is exactly like the one
Luke referred to. Inscriptions discovered in Spain, Cyrene and Turkey show that
the purpose of it was for everyone in the empire to register their allegiance
to Augustus – an effort that resulted in a large measure of peace throughout
the Roman world. An inscription from Turkey reads, “I will be loyal to Caesar
Augustus and to his children and descendants all my life in word, in deed, and
in thought.” …. Another from Spain says, “Of my own volition I express my regard
for the safety, honor and victory of the Emperor Caesar Augustus…” …. The
wording of the oath of allegiance in Judaea was probably somewhat similar to
these. Incidentally, in later years the Romans conducted such censuses to
determine taxes, but that was not yet the case of the actual one we are looking
at. So, the translation that the census Luke referred to was the one before
Quirinius’ term holds up to scrutiny, and that it involved ‘entire Roman world’
is verified by the archaeological findings.
You may be wondering, as have I in
the past, why Luke bothered to describe the registration ‘before Quirinius’ at
all – why not write who really was governor of Syria at the time of the 8BC
census? There is a good answer for that. The ‘entire Roman world’ census Luke
referred to was a huge undertaking that spanned years under many governors
throughout the whole massive empire. Papyrus found in Egypt a century ago show
it took place there in 9BC … while inscriptions discovered more recently
indicate it was conducted in Cyrene around 7BC … Spain in 6BC … and Paphlagonia
(in northern Turkey) in 3BC. …. As to when it took place in Judaea, Josephus,
is of help. He stated Judaea registered during Saturninus’ governorship of
8-6BC, adding that the census there was brought to a close nearly a year prior
to the end of that governorship. …. Given that in those times the period for
registration lasted for a whole year, this means that Saturninus began
conducting it soon after he entered office in 8BC. As you can appreciate, it
must have been so much easier for Luke, then, to simply use the basic terms he
did than go into such endless particulars his audience would have been quite
familiar with anyway.
As to what was involved in that
census, Luke summed it up well – “everyone went to his own town to register”.
…. By comparing this statement with the archaeological evidence, it is clear,
thankfully, that in this case nothing at all is lost in translation. Papyri
preserved in Egyptian sands are impressive in number and a few even show what
was involved in a Roman census. In one papyrus, recording an edict for a census
by a Roman governor of Egypt in 104AD, all Egyptians were required to return to
their hometowns for registration. It even states “anyone found without a permit
[to stay away from their hometown] thereafter will be severely punished”. ….
In those days it was essential for
the Romans to maintain ties between its empire’s population and their homelands
in order to sustain the local economies. In that way landlords had a ready and
constant supply of tenants. A census was one means of achieving that end.
Although Joseph lived in Galilee when Augustus ordered his census, his lineage
went back to King David, and hence he had to travel to Bethlehem, David’s
hometown. …. But of course, as always, there were some exceptions to the rule.
In Alexandria, Egyptians needed to remain there to keep the city going could
obtain permits to stay there to register.
Luke’s remark that ‘everyone went to
his own town’ is also historical. In an actual census declaration preserved on
papyrus from the Egyptian village of Bacchias dated to 91AD it is clear that
the male head of the household took himself and his family to his own hometown
where he registered himself firstly, then his house, and then his family. In
the case of that particular declaration, it was written down by a village
secretary because those registering were illiterate. …. In Joseph’s case,
though, he may have possessed the literary skills to write his own declaration.
As a carpenter, Jew, and inhabitant of the Galilee during his time he could
have been well-versed in geometry and the Jewish scriptures. …. Jesus’ ability
to read may also be a strong indication that the rest of their family,
including Joseph, could also read and write.
This all means that Luke’s gospel is
much more than a collection of stories. Its narrative is factual and reliable.
As Luke wrote, Jesus must have been born sometime between early 8BC to early
7BC during the empire-wide registration conducted before Quirinius’
governorship of Syria. Of course, I would love to take the credit for
determining this approximate date of Jesus’ birth, but I must confess I am not
the first by a long stretch. The famous ancient Christian Tertullian, a legal
expert from northern Africa, writing over a century earlier than Eusebius a few
years after the turn of the 3rd century AD, recorded that indeed Jesus was born
during Saturninus’ governorship of Judaea. …. This is important because
Tertullian had valuable access to official Roman records and was thus in a
perfect position to know such a fact.
In case you were wondering, as for
why the turning of our era takes place in our calendar 8 years later - it is
actually a mishap. In the 6th century AD, the monk Dionysius, while reforming
the calendar, wrongly dated some key historical events, and so his
miscalculations are with us today.
But besides Luke’s gospel, another
Biblical book also describes events surrounding Jesus’ birth – the Gospel of
Matthew – and it is also very useful. This gospel provides us with valuable
insight into the life of Jesus since Matthew was a disciple of Jesus himself.
Like Luke, Matthew wrote that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. He also wrote that
he was born during the reign of Herod the Great, who ruled Judaea during
Saturninus’ governorship during the census mentioned by Luke. So given Luke’s
gospel’s trustworthiness, that Matthew’s one agrees with it places it too on
solid historical ground.
[End of
quote]
Coincidentally –
but not based upon so firm a foundation of scientifico-historical reality –
does Mackinlay arrive at the same date of 8 BC for the Nativity (as did Sir
William Ramsay).
Another vital
point of evidence as far as Larson is concerned is that the Magi’s Star stopped.
This was the point that had given Larson the greatest difficulty. But then it
occurred to him that the planets, due to the optical phenomenon known as
“retrograde motion”, actually appear to stop. Mars does a loop; Venus does a
backflip; Jupiter inscribes a shallow circle. Larson has opted for the bright
planet Jupiter as the “Star” seen by the Magi.
Here is a
simplification of Larson’s picturesque account of it all, from the Annunciation
(his September of 3 BC) to the Birth (his June of 2 BC), reading from his
computer program for that period, beginning with a most unusual triple
conjunction of Jupiter and Regulus, the “King” star:
Jupiter crowns Regulus
[King] in Leo [Tribe of Judah].
Up rises Virgo [the Virgin]
clothed with the Sun, the Moon under her feet. It is Rosh-hashanah, the Jewish
New Year.
Nine months later the
biggest planet [Jupiter] goes together with the brightest planet [Venus, the
Mother planet] to make the brightest star anyone alive has ever seen. Right
over Jerusalem it sets.
The Magi arrive, about
November, and go to Herod – ‘where is the baby king?’ Herod, after consultation
with his scribes, says ‘Bethlehem’. The Magi leave on the 5-mile trek, look up
and there is the star Jupiter right over the little town of Bethlehem.
The one who is doing the
maths for the Magi informs them that Jupiter is in full retrograde – it has
stopped. It is now the 25th of December.
In consideration
of the ingenious use of modern computer software programs as employed by Larson
and others, I would suggest that we need to be well aware of those
chronological issues already referred to.
Killian, whilst warmly praising Larson’s
effort, has offered his own criticisms of Larson’s “The Star of Bethlehem” (op.
cit.):
Fredrick Larson is a
lawyer and does and excellent job of selling the wrong identification of the
Star of Bethlehem. He identifies the Star of Bethlehem as Jupiter. He also
notes that Jupiter is the largest of the planets, but that was unknown to the
ancients who would see Venus as the most important because it was the
brightest. He sees the king of the Jews identified in a month long shallow loop
of Jupiter near Regulus the king star in the constellation of Leo. It does not
“crown” this star but loops near it as it appears to loop like a Spiro graph
drawing continuously in the sky. He then observed a close conjunction of Venus
and Jupiter to indicate the conception of Jesus and he claims these two stars
coming together was the brightest star anyone had ever seen. The problem is
that Venus at its inferior conjunction is brighter than these two stars
together. Finally he saw a link between the woman in Revelation 12 giving
birth, but he fails to mention this happens each year and that it was not
visible because it was during the day. He further presents the star guiding the
magi to Bethlehem when they already knew that
was where they were to go, but not identifying which of the many boys in Bethlehem
A miracle—many believe
the star that guided the magi was simply a miracle. A light clearly called a star.
Today we live at a time that planes fly over head all the time, God could have
done this but why say a star guided them rather than an angel. It is clear from
the information presented in this article that God was able from the foundation
of the world to use the lights He set in the sky to guide the magi. I believe
that most who hold this view do not recognize the special attributes of the
planet Venus. These stars could be seen by all, but were faint, one would only
see them if they were paying close attention.
[End of quote]
Killian would agree with Larson, though, about the Divine use of easy-to-read star tableaux:
Why
did God Make the Sun, Moon and Stars?
The
Bible explains the purpose of the sun, moon and stars in
the first chapter of the Bible. God said, "Let there
be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let
them be for signs, seasons, days and years (Genesis 1:14). The Bible
groups the sun, moon, stars, planets, comets, etc. together, generally their
purpose is to be lights and to order time, but one of
their purposes is to be for signs. …. The word sign in the Bible in its
simplest form is used synonymously with our word picture. …. The stars form
pictures that we call constellations, in a connect-the-dots fashion. The Bible
mentions constellations, some by name: the Bear, Orion, Pleiades. …. The sign
for the tribe of Judah was a banner with a picture of a lion for the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. …. The constellation associated with Judah is Leo, which
is Latin for lion. …. From the context sign not only means picture, but has a
clear relation to time, because of its association with seasons, days and
years. So to summarize one of the purposes for the sun, moon and stars is to be
pictures marking particular times.
[End
of quote]
And he goes on
to give his own picturesque star pattern for the Nativity (his 2 BC):
The Prophetic Link
The Leader of the Magi at one
time was the prophet Daniel (Daniel 2:48) so the Magi learned of God and the
Bible. The most important discovery was connecting the dawning sky with the
rising of His star on August 24, 2 B.C. to Jacob’s well known prophesy in
Genesis 49:9-10. Jacob (also called Israel )
calls Judah a lion, thus the
Bible links Judah Judah
A picture of a lion superimposed over the
constellation Leo. To allow visualization of the scepter between the feet and
His star.
|
….
The planets formed a line,
picturing a ruler’s staff or scepter on August 18 and the stars remained in
line gradually pivoting and shortening until the scepter was vertical. The
scepter is about the same size as Orion’s belt, but brighter. This passage is in
Hebrew poetry; the ruler’s staff and the scepter refer to the same thing.
Hebrew poetry repeats or contrasts objects or ideas rather than rhyming words.
On the day Venus rose, this line of stars was about to go out of alignment.
Venus was ‘He that comes’ to mark the scepter in Leo, Venus represents Jesus,
the scepter belongs to Jesus. By the next day August 25, the planets no longer
formed a scepter, the scepter had departed. August 24 is the only day that fit
the prophecy and one had to have excellent visibility conditions and one had to
be alert to spot it then. This date is significant because before the 24th
of August the scepter was visible, but His star was not visible and so had not
come, after the 24th of August the line of stars no longer formed a
scepter.
The Magi were familiar with
another prophecy that helped them to understand Jacob’s prophecy. Balaam said,
“I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near. A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel Jerusalem
[End of quote]
Killian, like
Larson, may basically be on the right track in employing such celestial picture
tableaux about the Magi’s Star.
Mackinlay had
also determined, as we have read, that the Star of Bethlehem was a planet,
namely Venus in his case. He did not, back in his day, have the advantage of
modern computer software, as has Larson, but was reliant on astronomical charts
to put a date to the circumstances of Venus that he had determined had
pertained to the chronology of Jesus Christ. Mackinlay - like Larson and
others, relying heavily on the Scriptures - showed just how significant Venus
was as “the morning star” and “the evening star”, and he quoted texts from the
prophet Micah; including that fateful text without which Herod (the Godfather
of today’s abortionists) would never have condemned to death the children of
Bethlehem. Mackinlay also shows through Micah that John the Baptist was symbolised
as the morning star, heralding as it does the dawn (Christ). He was able to
determine an internal chronology of Jesus Christ, and the Baptist, based on the
periods of shining of the morning star, all this in connection with historical
data, seasons and Jewish feasts.
As said, the
inherent weakness in such reconstructions as Larson’s, and even Mackinlay’s, is
their presuming that the conventional dates for Herod and Jesus Christ are
basically accurate - just as 539 BC is now wrongly presumed to be a certain
date for King Cyrus of Persia - and that it is therefore simply a matter of
finding an astronomical scenario within that conventional period and then being
able to refine the dates using sophisticated modern scientific data. Happily, though,
neither Larson’s nor Mackinlay’s scenario has that odd situation of the
shepherds watching their sheep out in the open, in winter, that critics
seem to latch on to every Christmas in order to ridicule St. Matthew’s account.
I definitely
think that the type of heavenly body that had guided the Magi must have been a planet,
and I very much favour Mackinlay’s
choice for it of Venus, which planet does also figure in Frederick Larson’s
scenario in conjunction with Jupiter, Larson’s showcase “Star”. The solar
system is, according to Larson, like a vast clock of immense power, precision
and beauty. I would recommend anyone to view his fascinating DVD, “The Star of
Bethlehem” (http://www.bethlehemstar.net/),
in order the better to appreciate what Genesis 1:14 is telling is, that the heavenly
bodies were created to “be for signs and for seasons and for days and for
years”. As Larson so wonderfully describes it:
… if the Star wasn’t magic or
a special miracle from outside of the natural order, then it was something even
more startling. It was a Clockwork Star. And that is overwhelming. The
movement of the heavenly bodies is regular, like a great clock. The Clockwork
Star finally means that from the very instant at which God flung the
universe into existence, he also knew the moment he would enter human history
in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. He marked it in the stars. ….
To which I
should add:
The Bible has provided us with
an exact chronology from Adam to Jesus Christ (the “second Adam”). Though it is
difficult now for human beings to arrive at the exact calculations, we can
nevertheless get close. For our AD calculations, however, we do not have this
advantage. But the answer must nevertheless lie with Jesus Christ, who is the key to time. He is the Lord of all
History, the First and the Last; the Beginning and the End; the Alpha and the
Omega. Jesus Christ is the reason for history, the creator of history, and the
guide and culmination of all history (cf. Revelation 1:8; 21:6; 2:13). For a
perfect chronology, one will need to be able to read this celestial clock, or
cosmic book, along the lines of a Frederick Larson, with the benefit of
advanced computer technology perhaps - but also independently of the stumbling
block that is the conventional chronology - to find at what precise point in
time the Birth of the Messiah actually occurred.
Who will be wise enough to do
this?
As Pope Benedict
XVI stated in his 2008 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences:
The human mind therefore can
engage not only in a “cosmography” … but also in a “cosmology” discerning the
visible inner logic of the cosmos. We may not at first be able to see the
harmony both of the whole and of the relations of the individual parts, or
their relationship to the whole. Yet, there always remains a broad range of
intelligible events, and the process is rational in that it reveals an order of
evident correspondences ….
Killian, also favouring Venus, goes so
far as to say that the Magi were studying the Scriptures more than they were
the actual heavens:
The
Star of Bethlehem was Venus, the brightest star in the sky. This star guided
the magi by pointing to a picture in the sky of a lion with a scepter,
indicating the Jewish Messiah, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the one to rule
all the earth was coming. It was a study of the Scripture not the heavens that
led to finding that enigmatic star. ….
Why identify Venus as the Star
of Bethlehem?
Jesus called himself “the
bright morning star” (Revelation 22:16). Venus is ‘the bright morning star’.
How can the ‘bright morning star’ be identified as Venus? First, Venus can be
seen during the day and is the brightest natural object in the sky after the
sun and moon. It is the brightest object that can be called a star. Second, the
ancients referred to exactly two planets as ‘morning stars’, they were called
morning stars because they were normally only visible for a few hours before
dawn. The morning stars are Mercury and Venus. They are morning stars because
when they are visible in the morning they are normally only visible for a few
hours before sunrise. This is a result of their orbits being closer to the sun
than the earth. All other heavenly bodies are further from the sun than they
earth and are therefore visible throughout the night. Mercury and Venus are
also the evening stars. Again they are the evening stars because when they are
visible in the evening they are only visible for a few hours after sunset.
Since Jesus calls himself the bright morning star or Venus and the Magi saw His
star as it rose, it is likely Venus was the star the Magi saw and we call the
Star of Bethlehem. Venus rises as both the morning and the evening star. Since
Jesus is ‘the bright morning star,’
it had to be Venus rising in the morning not in the evening. Venus spends about
half of its cycle as a morning star. Once every 1.6 years (584 days), Venus
rises for the first time with the sun in the morning. Venus rose to mark Jesus’
resurrection Sunday April 5,
A.D. 33 .
….
When Venus rose near Jesus’
birth, the Magi had to spot Venus on the first day it rose to observe these
signs. The Magi where professional astronomer-astrologers so they would be able
to spot Venus at the earliest possible time. Since Venus is the brighter of the
two morning stars and Jesus is the bright morning star, it is logical to
conclude that Venus is His star. The Magi observed His star at its rising
therefore the day they observed Venus rise for the first time in a particular
cycle would be that time to which they are referring.
[End of quote]
Why Mackinlay’s Synthesis is to be preferred
Neither Killian’s nor Larson’s efforts
worthwhile though they are, can, I believe, match the coherent consistency of Mackinlay’s
model, that shows a Divine plan at work in every major phase of the life of
Jesus Christ. Mackinlay is able to demonstrate how perfectly the eight year
cycles of Venus, ‘His star’, wrap around the events of the life of Christ (who
is also the “Sun of righteousness”), shining throughout the joyful occasions,
but hidden during episodes of sadness and darkness. But not only does the
Divine artist make use of the planet Venus in this regard. The Moon, too, in
its various phases, and also the seasons (reflecting now abundance, now
paucity), as Mackinlay shows, also serve as chronological markers. Mackinlay’s harmonious
theory has, to my way of thinking, the same sort of inherent consistency as has
Florence and Kenneth Wood’s explanation, in Homer’s Secret ‘Iliad’ (http://www.amazon.com/Homers-Secret-Iliad-Night-Decoded/dp/0719557801), that the battles between the Greeks and
Trojans as described in The Iliad mirror
the movements of stars and constellations as they appear to fight for
ascendancy in the sky.
Since
Mackinlay’s thesis is too detailed to do justice to it here, with all of its
diagrams and detailed astronomical explanations always interwoven with the
Scriptures, the interested reader is strongly advised to read the entire book.
Mackinlay commences
with the example of Saint John the Baptist and his association also with the
morning star. (This symbolism has an Old Testament precedent, too, in Joseph’s
astronomical dream, Genesis 37:9-10, according to which people are represented
by heavenly bodies). Let us begin.
Simile of St. John the Baptist to the
Morning Star
The
figurative use of the morning star in reference to the Baptist is evident from
the prophet Malachi’s description of the Christ’s forerunner: “My messenger,
and he shall prepare the way before Me” (Malachi 3:1); because, as noted by
Mackinlay (p. 39), “the same figure of speech is supported by Malachi 4:2,
where the Christ is spoken of as the Sun of righteousness, who shall arise with
healing in His wings”. That this definitely is the right association of
scriptural ideas is shown by the reference made by Zechariah, the father of St.
John the Baptist (Luke 1:76), to these two passages in the Old Testament. Thus,
on the occasion of St. John’s circumcision, Zechariah prophesied of him: “You
shall go before the face of the lord”, and, two verses later, he likens the
coming of the Christ to “the Dayspring [or Sunrising] from on high”, which
shall visit us.
We
note further that this same passage from Malachi, with reference to the
Baptist, was quoted also by Mark the Evangelist (1:2); by the angel of the Lord
who had appeared to Zechariah before his son’s birth (Luke 1:17); by the
Baptist himself (John 3:28); by Jesus during his ministry (Matthew 11:10; Luke
7:27); and by the Apostle Paul at Antioch (Acts 13:24-25). These quotations are
all the more remarkable because they were made at considerable intervals of
time the one from the other. Jesus used the words more than three decades after
they had been spoken to Zechariah by the angel, announcing that Christ’s
forerunner would be born. And St. Paul referred to the very same passage in the
Book of Malachi some fourteen years after Jesus had spoken them.
St.
John the Evangelist wrote of the Baptist: “The same came for a witness, that he
might bear witness to the Light, that all might believe through him. He was not
the Light, but came that he might bear witness to the Light” (John 1:7, 8).
Mackinlay, commenting on this passage (p. 41), says that “The Light par
excellence is the Sun, and the Morning Star, which reflects its light, is not
the light itself, but is a witness of the coming great luminary”. All four
Evangelists record the Baptist as stating that the Christ would come after him:
a statement in perfect harmony with the comparison of himself to the morning
star (se e.g. Matthew 3:2; Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16 and John 1:15).
On
three memorable occasions St. John the Baptist preceded and also testified to Jesus:
viz. some months before Jesus’s birth (Luke 1:41, 44); shortly before Jesus’s
public ministry (Matthew 3:11); and by his violent death at the hands of Herod,
about a year before the Crucifixion (Matthew 14:10). Alluding to the Baptist’s
martyrdom, Jesus said: “Even so shall the Son of Man also suffer” (Matthew
17:12, 13).
The
figure of St. John the Baptist as the morning star is therefore a most appropriate
one.
Object of Reference Always Present
Mackinlay,
following through Isaac Newton’s principle that the Jewish teachers frequently
made figurative allusions to things that
were actually present, suggested (p. 56) that “other allusions” unspecified
by Newton, “such, for instance, as the comparison of the Baptist to the shining
of the Morning Star”, must also indicate that the object of reference was
present. “We may reasonably conclude”, he added, “that the planet was then to
be seen in the early morning before sunrise”. Mackinlay realised that if
Newton’s principle really worked in this instance, it would enable him to “find
an indication of the dates of the ministries of Christ and of John, and consequently
of the crucifixion”. Making use of calculations made by expert astronomers at
the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, Mackinlay, himself a professional observer,
drew up a chart recording the periods when Venus appeared as the morning star
for the period AD 23-36 – “a period which covers all possible limits for the
beginning and ending of Christ’s ministry”. {One will need to refer to
Mackinlay’s own chart reproducing the astronomical data that he had received}.
From
Mackinlay’s diagram we learn that the morning star shines continuously on the
average for about seven and a half lunar months at the end of each night,
giving at least an hour’s notice of sunrise; but if we include the period when
it is still visible, but gives shorter notice, the time of shining may be
lengthened to about nine lunar months.
An
eight years’ cycle containing five periods of the shining of the morning star -
useful for practical purposes - exists between the apparent movements of the
sun and Venus, correct to within a little over two days. The morning star is
conventionally estimated (see previous comment on chronology) to have begun to
shine at the vernal equinox, AD 25, and eight years afterwards, viz. in AD 33,
it began again its period of shining at the same season of the year; and so,
generally, at all years separated from each other by eight years, the shinings
of the morning star were during the same months.
From
the historical data available, it is conventionally agreed that the Crucifixion
of Jesus Christ occurred between the years AD 28 – 33. Of necessity, then, the
three and a half years’ ministry (Mackinlay is of the view that Christ’s public ministry lasted “the longer period” of
between three and four years, whilst he also discusses “the shorter period” of
less than three years) would have begun in one of the years AD 24-29
(conventional dating).
We
shall proceed now to examine in more detail those passages in the Gospels that
refer to St. John the Baptist as the morning star.
(a) Beginning
of the Baptist’s Ministry
At
the very beginning of his ministry, the Baptist referred to the prophecy in
Malachi 3:1, in which he himself is likened to the morning star, when he said:
“He who comes after me is mightier than I” (Matthew 3:2, etc.). Now, according
to Newton’s principle of scriptural interpretation, that figures are taken from
things actually present, the morning star would have been shining when the
Baptist began his ministry; thus the witness in the sky, and the human
messenger, each gave a prolonged heralding of the One who was to come.
If we
refer to the Gospel of Matthew (3:8, 10 and 12), we find St. John the Baptist
using three figures of speech at the beginning of his ministry:
1. “Now
is the axe laid to the root of the trees” – presumably to mark the unfruitful
trees to be cut down (see also Matthew 7:19).
2. “Every tree that does not bring forth good
fruit is cut down …”.
3. “His
winnowing fork is in his hand, and He will clear his threshing floor, and
gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable
fire”.
As
Mackinlay has noted (p. 60), these three figures used by St. John all refer to
the time of harvest, which would have taken place within the month of the
Passover, “as the place where John began his ministry was the deep depression
‘round about Jordan’ (Luke 3:3), where the harvest is far earlier than on the
Judaean hills”. Now according to Mackinlay’s chart, the morning star was
shining during the month after the Passover (April or May) only in the years AD
24, 25 and 27, in the period AD 24-29. Hence we conclude that St. John the
Baptist began his ministry in one of these three years.
(b)
Beginning of Jesus’s Ministry
The
Baptist again bore witness just before the beginning of Jesus Christ’s public
ministry, when he proclaimed to the people: “This was He of whom I said, ‘He
who comes after me ranks before me, for He was before me’” (John 1:15); and he
repeated that statement the next day (John 1:30) – again bearing out the simile
of the morning star and the rising sun.
Mackinlay, analysing what time of year this was, is certain that it must have been a good deal later than the beginning of St. John’s own ministry; “probably at least four or five months, to allow time for the Baptist to be known and to attract public attention”, he says (p. 61). It could not have been earlier than the latter part of August, he goes on; and “it must also have been long before the following Passover”, for several events in Jesus’s ministry “occurred before that date”. Mackinlay suggests that Jesus Christ most likely began his public ministry, “which we must date from the marriage in Cana of Galilee”, before November, “because there would have been leaves on the fig tree” when Nathanael came from under it (John 1:47, 48) (pp. 61-62). Jesus approvingly called Nathanael “an Israelite indeed” (John 1:47). Unlike the hypocrites who loved to pray so as to be seen by men (Matthew 6:5), Nathanael had carefully hidden himself for quiet prayer under cover of his fig tree, and so he was greatly surprised that Jesus had seen him there.
Mackinlay, analysing what time of year this was, is certain that it must have been a good deal later than the beginning of St. John’s own ministry; “probably at least four or five months, to allow time for the Baptist to be known and to attract public attention”, he says (p. 61). It could not have been earlier than the latter part of August, he goes on; and “it must also have been long before the following Passover”, for several events in Jesus’s ministry “occurred before that date”. Mackinlay suggests that Jesus Christ most likely began his public ministry, “which we must date from the marriage in Cana of Galilee”, before November, “because there would have been leaves on the fig tree” when Nathanael came from under it (John 1:47, 48) (pp. 61-62). Jesus approvingly called Nathanael “an Israelite indeed” (John 1:47). Unlike the hypocrites who loved to pray so as to be seen by men (Matthew 6:5), Nathanael had carefully hidden himself for quiet prayer under cover of his fig tree, and so he was greatly surprised that Jesus had seen him there.
In
Scripture, the state of the vegetation of the fig tree is used to indicate the
seasons of the year (see Matthew 24:32). We are informed that when the branch
of the fig tree “becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer
is near”.
From
the Song of Songs (2:13), we read of the season when “the fig tree puts forth
her green figs”; and the fading of the leaf of the fig tree is mentioned in
Isaiah 34:4.
From
this scriptural detail, relating to seasons, Mackinlay is able to narrow even
further the choice of years (from AD 24-29) for the beginning of the two
ministries. “We must reject AD 24, for the morning star definitely was not
shining between the months August to November of that year”, he writes (p. 63).
This leaves us with only two options, viz. AD 25 and 27. At this stage
Mackinlay makes a further assumption – previously he had asked the reader to
assume for the time being that “the shorter period’ choice for the length of Jesus’s
ministry be out aside – in relation to the date AD 27. Whilst admitting that AD
27 would fulfil the necessary conditions given above “if we suppose that Christ
began His ministry within a month or six weeks from the time of John’s first
appearance”, Mackinlay elected to put aside this date for reasons that would
become apparent later on.
“He
must increase, but I must decrease”.
The next reference to St. John the Baptist under the figure that we are considering is: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). According to F. Meyer, the Baptist “knew that he was not the Light, but sent to bear witness of it, not the Sun, but the Star that announces the dawn …” (Life and Light of Men, p. 42). St. John’s words may have foreshadowed his imprisonment as well, as Mackinlay thinks, for “they were uttered after the first Passover, which took place, according to the assumption which we have just made, in AD 26, but before the Baptist was cast into prison” (pp. 63-64). Consequently, he adds, we may assume that St. John the Baptist spoke these words about the beginning or the middle of April.
Meyer may not have been correct, however, in concluding his otherwise beautiful metaphor above by saying that “the Star”, which represents the Baptist, and which “announces the dawn”, also “wanes in the growing light” of the Sun. The waning of a celestial body appears to be the scriptural symbolism for the destruction of wickedness. The seeming annihilation of the stars caused by the rising of the sun, was an ancient figure of speech used to typify the triumph of good over the powers of darkness and evil. Mackinlay suggests that this may be the image intended by St. Paul when he spoke of “The lawless one, whom the Lord shall bring to nought by the manifestation (in Greek, “shining forth”) of His coming” (II Thessalonians 2:8); and he adds that the figure of the rising sun extinguishing the light of the stars “is associated with conflict, punishment and judgment, which certainly did not represent the relationship between Christ and His forerunner John” (p. 65). Undoubtedly, rather, the impression that the Evangelist was intending to convey in this instance was one of the morning star decreasing in the sense of its non-appearance in the sky at the end of each night, as the increasing power of the sun’s heat and light became manifest. The planet Venus moves further and further away from its position as morning star, and increases its angular distance on the other side of the sun as the evening star. According to Mackinlay, in the year 26 AD Venus began to appear as the evening star “shortly before midsummer” (p. 64).
Interestingly,
Mackinlay’s chart indicates that it is the more probable explanation of the
non-appearance of Venus in the sky at the end of the night as being the more
appropriate figure to depict the decreasing of St. John the Baptist, which is
fulfilled in the circumstance under consideration.
Imprisonment of St. John the Baptist.
Imprisonment of St. John the Baptist.
It is likely, as W. Sanday has noted (Outlines from the Life of Christ, p. 49), that the imprisonment of the Baptist took place after the Passover, and before the harvest of AD 26 (John 4:35); and soon after St. John had stated that “He must increase, but I must decrease”. Sanday considered that the events surrounding the Passover (of John 2:13-4:45) did not occupy more than three or four weeks, and when Jesus arrived in Galilee (see Matthew 4:12) the impression of his public acts at Jerusalem was still fresh. Sanday thought that his estimation of the date of the Baptist’s imprisonment was “somewhat strengthened by the fact that the Synoptic Gospels record no events after Christ’s Baptism and before John was delivered up, except the Temptation (Matthew 4:12; Mark 1:14 see also Luke 4:14); and because the Apostle Paul said that “as John was fulfilling his course, he said, ‘What do you suppose that I am? I am not He. No, but after me One is coming, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie’.” (Acts 13:25)”. These words tend to place the end of the Baptist’s career rather early, because the message here referred to was proclaimed by him when he announced the Messiah, in autumn of AD 25 (John 1:26, 27).
Following
Mackinlay (p. 64), we therefore estimate that St. John the Baptist was
imprisoned about the middle or end of April, AD 26, when, as is apparent from
Mackinlay’s chart, the morning star, appropriately, was not shining.
“He was a burning and shining lamp”
The next reference to St. John the Baptist under this simile is a very striking one.
Jesus
speaks of him as “a burning and shining lamp; and you were willing to rejoice
for a season in his light”. (John 5:35). Mackinlay has suggested that, because
the definite article is used twice in the Greek version of this passage, “it
therefore seems to indicate some particular light” (p. 67). Though St. John was
in prison, Jesus said of him at this time: “You sent to John, and both was and
still is a witness to the truth” (John 5:33). Regarding the phrase “to rejoice
for a season in his light”, Dr. Harpur tells of a custom in the East for
travellers by night to sing songs at the rising of the morning star because it
announces that the darkness and dangers of the night are coming to an end (as
referred to by Mackinlay, p. 68).
In
effect, then, Jesus was saying that the disciples of the Baptist were willing
to rejoice in the light of the herald of day, which shines only by reflecting
the light of the coming sun; but should rejoice now ever more since the sun
itself had arisen – since “the Light of the World” had actually come. This
interpretation harmonises with Jesus’s statement recorded a few verses on (John
5:39) that “you search the Scriptures … which bear witness of Me”; the
inference again being – now that I have come, you ought to receive Me.
All
through this conversation, Mackinlay notes, “the subject is that of bearing
witness” – by his own works; by the Father; by the Baptist; by the Scriptures
and by Moses – “the whole pointing to the necessity of receiving the One to
whom such abundant witness had been borne”.
The
time when Jesus made this particular statement about the Scriptures bearing
witness to Him was just after the un-named feast of John 5:1, and before the
Passover of John 6:4. It is often assumed, Mackinlay informs us, that this
un-named feast was Passover – but some have opted for naming it the feast of
Purim, fixed several centuries earlier by the command of Queen Esther (Esther
9:32); or even the feast of Weeks at the beginning of June (p. 69). This does
not affect our chronological scheme, however, for we learn from Mackinlay’s
chart that the morning star was appropriately shining on each one of these
feasts in AD 27.
The Crucifixion.
But
when we come to the last Passover, in the year AD 29, the herald of the dawn
had just disappeared. Mackinlay shows (p. 81) that the disappearance of the
planet Venus harmonises perfectly with the record of the complete isolation of Jesus
Christ at his Crucifixion, given as follows:
(1) The disappearance of the witness
John by death (Matthew 14:10).
) The forsaking of Our Lord by all his
disciples (Matthew 26:56; Psalm 38:11; 49:20).
(3) The absence of any record of a
ministry of angels, as after the Temptation (Matthew 4:11).
(4) The hiding of God’s face, when
Christ uttered the cry: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew
27:46; Psalm 22:1).
(5) In nature, the Sun’ light failed
(Luke 23:45).
(6) Being daytime, the Paschal Full Moon
was, of course, below the horizon.
Most
relevant to our subject also is the following chapter from Mackinlay’s book:
Chapter Three: “A Star … out of Jacob”
Mackinlay
commences by establishing “the greater probability” of the following two facts:
(a) That the
Nativity of Jesus Christ was at least five months after the beginning of a
period of shining of the morning star,
and
(b) That the
Nativity was at a Feast of Tabernacles (p. 140).
Firstly, we consider Mackinlay’s
reason for believing that the Lord’s Nativity was:
(a)
Five months after a period of
shining.
To begin
with, we must consider what reason there is for supposing that the morning star
was shining at all when Jesus Christ was born. In Malachi 3:1, as we have seen
already, St. John the Baptist is referred to under the figure of the morning
star, as the forerunner of the Christ. But the morning star itself may be
called “My messenger who shall prepare the way before Me”. It is not unusual
for inanimate objects thus to be spoken of in Scripture, for instance in Psalm
88:38 we have “the faithful witness in the sky”, and in Psalm 148:3 the sun,
moon and stars of light are exhorted to praise God.
Consequently,
as Mackinlay has explained it (p. 141), “we can reasonably suppose that the
Morning Star was shining at the Nativity”. Furthermore, he adds, if the morning
star were the herald of the coming One, it is fitting to imagine that a
somewhat prolonged notice should be given; for “it would be more dignified and
stately for the one to precede the other by a considerable interval, than that
both should come almost together”.
We shall
find Mackinlay’s supposition of a prolonged heralding by the morning star borne
out by the following inference. According to the principle of metaphors being
taken from things present, we could infer that the morning star was actually
shining when Jesus Christ (in Matthew 11:10), quoting Malachi 3:1, spoke of the
Baptist as “My messenger … before My face”. Consistently following the same
line of thought, we may reasonably infer that the morning star was also shining
more than thirty years earlier when Zechariah quoted the same scriptural verse
– i.e. Malachi 3:1 – at the circumcision of his son, John (Luke 1:76). Even had
this appropriate passage not been quoted at the time, Mackinlay suggests (p.
142), “we might have inferred that the herald in the sky would harmoniously
have been shining at the birth of the human herald”.
Mackinlay
further suggests from his inference that both Jesus and John were born when the
morning star was shining, that “both must have been born during the same period
of its shining”. [He shows this in his charts]. The Annunciation to Mary was
made by the angel Gabriel in the sixth month after the announcement to
Zechariah (Luke 1:13, 24, 26); and so it follows that the Baptist was born five
to six months before Jesus. Since Mackinlay’s charts indicate that the periods
of shining are separated from each other by intervals of time greater than six
months, then both Jesus and his herald must have been born during the same
period of shining.
Consequently
Jesus Christ was born at least five months after the beginning of a period of
shining of the morning star.
It will be
noticed that some years in Mackinlay’s charts are omitted – this is due simply
to lack of space – but no events recorded in the Gospels took place in these
omitted years, nor were any of them enrolment (see below) or Sabbath years.
(b)
At a Feast of Tabernacles
The Law, we
are told by St. Paul, has “a shadow of the good things to come” (Hebrews 10:1).
The various ordinances and feasts of the Old Testament, if properly understood,
are found, according to Mackinlay, “to refer to and foreshadow many events and
doctrines of the New Testament” (p. 143). Again, A. Gordon had remarked that:
“Many speak slightingly of the types, but they are as accurate as mathematics;
they fix the sequence of events in redemption as rigidly as the order of
sunrise and noontide is fixed in the heavens” (The Ministry of the Spirit, p.
28). The deductions drawn from Gospel harmonies attest the truth of his
statement.
We have
already observed that the Sabbath Year began at the Feast of Tabernacles; the
great feasts of Passover and Weeks following in due course. Jesus’s death took
place at the Passover (Matthew 27:50), probably, Mackinlay believes, “at the
very hour when the paschal lambs were killed”. “Our Passover … has been
sacrificed, even Christ” (1 Corinthians 5:7); the great Victim foretold during
so many ages by the yearly shedding of blood at that feast. The first Passover
at the Exodus was held on the anniversary of the day when the promise –
accompanied by sacrifice – was given to Abraham, that his seed would inherit
the land of Canaan (Exodus 12:41; Genesis 15:8-18).
Jesus Christ
rose from the dead on the day after the Sabbath after the Passover (John 20:1);
the day on which the sheaf of first fruits, promise of the future harvest, was
waved before God (Leviticus 23:10, 11). Hence we are told by Saint Paul that as
“Christ the first-fruits” (1 Corinthians 15:20. 23) rose, so those who believe
in him will also rise afterwards. This day was the anniversary of Israel’s
crossing through the “Sea of Reeds” (Exodus 12-14), and, as in the case of the
Passover, it was also a date memorable in early history, being the day when the
Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4). The month Nisan,
which had been the seventh month, became the first at the Exodus (Exodus 12:2).
Thus Christ’s Resurrection was heralded by two most beautiful and fitting
types, occurring almost – possibly exactly – on the same day of the year; by
the renewed earth emerging from the waters of the Flood, and by the redeemed
people emerging from the waters of the “Sea of Reeds”.
Mackinlay
proceeded to search for any harmonies that there may be between the
characteristics of this Feast of Tabernacles and the events recorded in
connection with the Nativity. As we have noticed previously, he says (p. 146),
there were two great characteristics of the Feast of Tabernacles: 1. Great joy
and 2. Living in booths (tents).
1. Great joy.
The
Israelites were told at this feast, “You shall rejoice before the Lord your
God” (Leviticus 23:40), and “You shall rejoice in your feast … you shall be
altogether joyful” (Deuteronomy 16:14, 15). King Solomon dedicated his Temple
on a Feast of Tabernacles, and the people afterwards were sent away “joyful and
glad of heart” (1 Kings 8:2, 66; 2 Chronicles 7:10). There was no public
rejoicing at the Nativity of Jesus Christ, however; on the contrary, as
Mackinlay notes, “shortly afterwards Herod was troubled and all Jerusalem with
him” (Matthew 2:3). But though He was rejected by the majority, we find the
characteristic joy of Tabernacles reflected in the expectant and
spiritually-minded souls. Before the Nativity both the Virgin Mary and
Elizabeth rejoiced in anticipation of it (Luke 1:38, 42, 44, 46, 47). At the
Nativity an angel appeared to the shepherds and brought them good tidings of
great joy; and then “suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the
heavenly host praising God, and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest’.” The
shepherds then came to the infant Saviour and returned “glorifying and praising
God” (Luke 2:9-20).
Forty days
after the Nativity, at the Purification, Simeon, who had been waiting a long
time for the consolation of Israel, and the venerable Anna who was a constant
worshipper, joined in with their notes of praise and gladness (Luke 2:22-38).
And lastly the wise men from the East “rejoiced with exceeding great joy” when
they saw the star indicating where the Saviour was, and they came into the
house, saw the young Child with his Mother, and presented the gifts that they
had brought (Matthew 2:9-11). This “Mother”, the Virgin Mary, is the ultimate
“Star” pointing to Jesus Christ, her Son. John Paul II’s
encyclical, Redemptoris Mater (1987),
is full of allusions to the Blessed Virgin Mary as ‘our fixed point’, or star
‘of reference’. To quote just this one example (# 3):
….
The fact that she “preceded” the coming of Christ is reflected every year in
the liturgy of Advent. Therefore, if to that ancient historical expectation of
the Saviour we compare these years which are bringing us closer to the end of
the second Millennium after Christ and to the beginning of the third, it
becomes fully comprehensible that in this present period we wish to turn in a
special way to her, the one who in the “night” of the Advent expectation began
to shine like a true “Morning Star” (Stella Matutina). For just as this star,
together with the “dawn,” precedes the rising of the sun, so Mary from the time
of her Immaculate Conception preceded the coming of the Saviour, the rising of
the “Sun of Justice” in the history of the human race.
According to
Mackinlay (pp. 147-148), the living in booths finds a parallel in the language
of the Apostle John, when he wrote concerning the Birth of Jesus, “The Word
became flesh, and tabernacled among us” (John 1:14); and Our Lord himself used
a somewhat similar figure when he spoke of his body thus “Destroy this Temple,
and in three days I shall raise it up” (John 2:19) – words misunderstood by his
enemies and afterwards quoted against him (Matthew 26:61; 27:40).
It was at
the Feast of Tabernacles that the glory of God filled the Temple that King
Solomon had prepared for Him (2 Chronicles 5:3, 13, 14), and it would seem to
have been at the beginning or first day of the feast, the fifteenth day of the
month. Consequently, in Mackinlay’s opinion (p. 148) “it would appear to be
harmonious that the Advent of the Lord Jesus in the body divinely prepared for
him (Hebrews 10:5) should also take place at the same feast and most suitably
on the first day of its celebration”.
It
will be noticed that the glory of God did not cover the tent of meeting when
the Israelites were in the wilderness, and did not fill the tabernacle, at the
Feast of Tabernacles. But it did so on the first day of the first month of the
second year after the departure from Egypt (Exodus 40:17, 34, 35). We must
remember that there was no Feast of Tabernacles in the wilderness, nor was the
Sabbath Year kept at this stage; but both of these ordinances were to be
observed when the Israelites entered into the Promised Land (Exodus 34:22). No
agricultural operations were carried out during the forty years of wandering in
the wilderness.
As
the Feast of Tabernacles inaugurated the Sabbath Year, Mackinlay judged (p.
149) that the glory of God filled the temple on the first day of the
feast, “as that would be in harmony with what happened in the tabernacle in the
wilderness when the glory of the Lord filled it on the first day of the
only style of year then observed”.
A.
Edersheim, writing about the Feast of Tabernacles, says (The Temple, note
on p. 272): “It is remarkable how many allusions to this feast occur in the
writings of the prophets, as if its types were the goal of all their desires”.
Some
concluding thoughts about
the
“Star in the East”
We
now come to the difficult and intricate matter of identifying the star that the
Magi saw in the East, and that ultimately led them to the place where Christ,
his Mother and Joseph were (Matthew 2:1-12). Much has been written about this
famous incident, and there have been proposed many varying identifications for
the star. It has at various times been identified as a comet; a new star; a
conjunction of planets; a supernova. St. Augustine sometimes argued that it was
a regular star of the heavens (e.g. in Serm. Epiph.), at other times
that it was a new star appearing, for instance in the constellation Virgo (Contra
Faustum, Bk. 2, ch. 5 a med.). St. Thomas Aquinas, following Chrysostom,
was more inclined to the view that the star of the Nativity was not a regular
part of the heavenly system; but was a newly-created star (Summ. Theol. IIIa,
q. 36, a. 7). But he did allow for other opinions: viz. that it was an angel or
a visible manifestation of the Holy Spirit. He also quoted Pope St. Leo (Serm.
de Epiph, 31), who wrote that the star must have been more bright and
beautiful than the other stars, for its appearance instantly convinced the Magi
that it had an urgent and important meaning.
We
know from Scripture that the heavenly bodies were invested by God with a
fourfold function: “… for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years”
(Genesis 1:14). The point of the “days and years” is obvious. The Hebrew word
‘moed’, translated as “seasons”, is used to indicate something fixed or
appointed. When it is used of time, according to Ben Adam (Astrology, p.
49), “it is always a predetermined time – a time in which something
predetermined is to happen”. It is never used in Scripture to denote any of the
four seasons of the year. Already we have seen how God uses the various
heavenly bodies for seasons in this sense, and for signs or symbols.
An
understanding and study of God’s purpose and meaning in relation to the lights
of the firmament is a true astrology, as opposed to the divinely forbidden and
foolish astrology that is fatalistic. Dr. E. Bullinger (Witness of the
Stars, 1893) had shown that the constellations of the zodiac, when read in
the correct (not popular) order, and with their original (not corrupted and
later) designations, give us a condensed history of the fulfilment of the
divine promise made in the Garden of the coming Deliverer, the seed of the
Woman, and the crushing of the serpent’s head (Genesis 3:15). According to
Bullinger, this truth of the witness of the stars is told in Psalm 19:1-4: “The
heavens are proclaiming the glory of God; and the firmament shows forth the
work of his hands .… No speech, no voice, no word is heard, yet their message
goes out through all the earth, and their words to the utmost bounds of the
habitable world”.
In
the sign Virgo, where the true beginning lies for reading the circular zodiac
(not in Aries, according modern belief) is the commencement of all prophecy in
Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmity between you and the Woman, and between your
seed and her seed. She shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for her
heel”. Later prophecy identifies this Woman as being of the stock of Israel,
the seed of Abraham, the line of David; and, further, She is to be a virgin:
“Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name
Immanuel” (Matthew’s inspired adaptation, in 1:23, of Isaiah 7:14).
The
first constellation in Virgo is Coma, represented by a woman and child, and
meaning “the desired”, or “the longed for”. We have the word used by the Holy
Spirit in this very connection, in Haggai 2:7: “The DESIRE of all nations shall
come”. Bullinger and others have suggested that it was in all probability the
constellation of Coma in which “the Star of Bethlehem” appeared (op. cit., p.
36). He also recalls a traditional prophecy, well-known in the East, “carefully
preserved and handed down, that a new star would appear in this sign [i.e. of
Coma] when He whom it foretold should be born” (ibid., pp. 36-37).
This,
he thought (ibid., p. 37), was doubtless referred to in the prophecy of
Balaam the sorcerer, just prior to the entry of the Israelite host into the
Promised Land; a prophecy “which would thus receive a double fulfilment, first
of the literal “Star”, and also of the person to whom it referred”. Thus God
spoke through Balaam (Numbers 24:17):
There
shall come forth a star out of Jacob
And
a sceptre shall rise out of Israel.
This
two-fold repletion of an idea – where the two nouns in the first verse
correspond effectively to the two nouns in the second verse (thus ‘star’ to
‘sceptre’, and ‘Jacob’ to ‘Israel’) – so characteristic of Hebrew and Canaanite
literature, also points in this case to a two-fold fulfilment of the prophecy.
These words were fulfilled in a minimised sense a millennium before Christ,
during the reign of King David, the sceptre of Israel, and a descendant of
Jacob. But the prophecy would not be properly and completely fulfilled until
the time of the Incarnation and the Birth of the true Messiah, who would be
known as the “Son of David”.
But,
as Bullinger says (ibid., p. 31), “It is difficult to separate the
Virgin and her Seed” in the prophecies. Therefore, the genius of Hebrew
expression in allowing for a two-fold interpretation of this particular
prophecy, opens the door for the fullest possible meaning to be deduced from
these words. As the following comment by Pope Pius XII (spoken to the crowds of
Fatima on May 13, 1946) would imply, the words of the above prophecy,
applicable to Jesus Christ, also have relationship to his Mother as
Co-Redemptrix: “Jesus is King throughout all eternity by nature and by right of
conquest: through Him, with him, and subordinate to him, Mary is Queen by
grace, by divine relationship, by right of conquest and by singular election”.
(As quoted by Fr. William Most, Mary in Our Life, p. 25).
Matthew
(2:1-12) is the only Evangelist to narrate the incident of the star seen by the
Magi, leading them to the Christ with his Mother, Mary, in David’s city of
Bethlehem. What does Matthew tell us about this star? That the Magi had seen it
in the East, calling it “His star”, and that it indicated that He was to be
worshipped as King of the Jews (2:2). And, later, that Herod determined from
the time when the star first appeared how old the Child was (2:7). Finally,
Matthew narrates that the Magi were filled with joy when they saw the star,
after their meeting with Herod, and that they followed the star which “went
before them, till it came to rest over the place where the Child was”
(2:10-11).
Two
things are to be noted here. Contrary to popular belief, nowhere at all does
Matthew say that the Magi followed the star from their own country to Judaea!
He simply says that they saw the star in their own country, “in the East”, and
that they came to Jerusalem to worship the King of the Jews. Once there in Jerusalem,
they see the star and are filled with joy, and from Jerusalem they follow the
star to Bethlehem, and to the very place where the Child is to be found. There
the star comes to rest. From this last attestation some Bible-believing
astronomers will assert that the star of Bethlehem was entirely miraculous, and
was not a known heavenly body (star, planet, comet, nova, or conjunction).
Others
have suggested that, because the Magi referred to the star as “His star”,
it must have been a new star, created especially for the time of the Nativity.
But before we propose our own suggested identification, certain conclusions by
way of elimination can be reached already:
1. The star of Bethlehem could not have been a meteor or a
meteorite; the life of one is too short.
2. Likewise, the star could not have been a comet or a nova
without having attracted world-wide attention.
Neither
seems to have been present at the time of Jesus Christ’s Birth; although,
according to J. Bjornstad and S. Johnson (Star Signs and Salvation in the
Age of Aquarius, p. 60), “there may be an indication from Chinese records
that a nova did appear around this time”. Nevertheless, while a comet would
appear to move, a nova would not.
3. Perhaps the most popular
identification of the star of Bethlehem – because this identification fits the
dates proposed today as being most likely for the event of the Nativity – is
that it was in fact a conjunction of two or more planets. Kepler (1571-1631)
was the first astronomer to point out that three times in BC 7 there were
conjunctions of the planets Jupiter and Saturn (now estimated at May 29,
September 29, and December 4). These conjunctions occurred in the sign of
Pisces (Bullinger, op, cit, p. 39). An event such as this is
comparatively rare, happening only about once every one hundred and twenty-five
years. A major objection to this particular conjunction, however, is that the
two planets never seem to approach one another closer than twice the distance
of the moon’s diameter; “therefore they could never have been viewed as a
single star” (Bjornstad et al, ibid.). Obviously, then, the difficulty
of the star’s appearing to be standing over Bethlehem while the Magi were
looking on, is a major obstacle to accepting this interpretation.
Mackinlay
has rightly noted that “it appears to be a principle in miracles to use
existing agents in a miraculous way, rather than to create fresh ones” (p.
151). This statement is borne out throughout the Scriptures; for instance, when
Joshua wanted light, another sun was not created, but the light of the existing
one was employed to the necessary effect (Joshua 10:12); and when Jesus fed the
multitudes, He did not specially create bread, but miraculously multiplied the
existing stock. Also, at Fatima in 1917, God worked a miracle of the sun that
already shone in the sky; it was not a miraculous new sun that danced above the
crowds.
Mackinlay
(quoting Alford’s Commentary on the New Testament) remarks that “the
expression of the Magi, ‘we have seen his star’, does not seem to point to any
miraculous appearance, but to something observed in the course of their
watching of the heavens”. This seems natural and probable. Mackinlay also
dismisses the suggestion that, because the Magi referred to ‘His star’,
it must have been one specially sent for the occasion. This suggestion, he says
(p. 152), “can have no weight, because when Christ was speaking of God the
Father in the Sermon on the Mount He said, “He maketh His Sun to rise on the
evil and the good” (Matthew 5:45). As the ordinary great luminary is certainly
intended in this passage, it must follow that the expression “His Star” may
refer to one of the well-now orbs of heaven”.
With
reference to the suggestion by Kepler and other astronomers that the star of
Bethlehem was a conjunction of planets, Mackinlay notes that “the appearances
at conjunctions depend on the positions of two or more stars, and they are
changing from night to night”. We have no account of “stars”, he adds (p. 153).
What were the characteristics of the
star seen by the Magi?
(1) Twice it was mentioned specially
as being seen “in the East” (Matthew 2:2, 9), inferentially it was not also to
be seen in the South and West as are the other stars.
(2) It had been visible for some
considerable period; the wise men doubtlessly had seen it in their own country,
from which the journey might involve weeks, possibly months, of travel.
That
it had appeared for some considerable time is inferred also from Herod’s
question, as to “what time the star appeared” (Matthew 2:7), and from his
subsequent action in fixing on the maximum age of the infants to be murdered
“from two years old and under, according to the time which he had carefully
learned of the wise men” (Matthew 2:16).
“What
ordinary celestial body bears the characteristics we have just referred to”?,
Mackinlay asks (p. 154). “Surely the reply must be the Morning Star, which is
only seen in the East, and which shines continuously at the end of each night
for a period of about nine lunar months in the latitude of Palestine, an object
which the Magi must have observed over and over again in the course of their
watching of the heavens”.
No comments:
Post a Comment