Blogs,  Jeshua

What was the Magi’s star?

Probably the most fascinating detail of the account of the magi’s visit to Bethlehem is the star that started them out on their journey and could be seen over the place where Jesus was at the conclusion of their journey.

Perhaps some of you have always imagined it like the star so often portrayed on Christmas cards or in the picture above – large, bright, especially twinkly, standing out from all the other stars in the night sky. I think that these sort of idealized, fairy tale portrayals can have an unfortunate effect, especially in our modern skeptical society. Such portrayals can cause us to forget that this is a real account that took place on the same earth that we live on, in the same air that we breathe, and in the same sky that we gaze upon every night.

In this post, the second of a two-part series on the visit of the magi, we will investigate the real star of the magi. If you haven’t already, be sure to read part 1.

The Biblical Details

Let us first proceed through the biblical account and gather as many details about the star as we can.

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, magi from the East came to Jerusalem… (Mt 2:1)

This passage tells us that the star appeared around the time Jesus was born but before the death of King Herod. We will discuss this more below under “When Did the Star Appear?”

“We saw his star in the east [or when it rose] and have come to worship him.” (Mt 2:2)

Some people mistakenly interpret the magi’s words here this way: “While we were in the East, we saw this amazing star and so we followed it here.” But the Greek phrase used here in verse 2 for “the east” is different from that used in verse 1 for “the East.” The NIV footnote helps us to interpret the Greek phrase in verse 2 more correctly. The star the Magi saw was one that rose in the night sky; that is, it rose in the east just like most other stars. (We are of course speaking from our perspective on a rotating and orbiting Earth.) This tells us that, for example, the magi’s star was not a pole star, a type of star that remains virtually fixed in the sky and does not rise.

This detail also seems to suggest that, if the Magi’s star rose in the east just like most other stars, then it was probably a naturally occurring phenomenon in the sky, not a special, miraculous star appearing only to the magi. We will also see other details in the account that hint at this.

This detail also tells us that the magi did not necessarily follow the star all the way to Judea. Both the Greek text and the context of the entire story suggest that they were already looking for a sign that the King of the Jews had been born so that they could go find him in Judea. (See part 1.) When they saw the sign they were looking for rising in the night sky, they headed out. They may not have seen the star again until they reached Jerusalem. (See especially Matthew 2:9-10.)

Then Herod called the magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. (Mt 2:7)

05_Wise_Men_JPEG_1024
The magi appear before King Herod

Put yourself into this time period. There is no electricity. The night sky, even in the cities, is much more visible than in cities today. When strange phenomena appear in the sky, people notice. Not only that, but people are more superstitious. When strange phenomena appear in the sky, they take it as a sign that something significant has happened or will happen.

For example, Josephus reports that a Matthias, son of Margalothus, incited his fellow Jews to pull down and cut up a large golden eagle that King Herod the Great had erected over the great gate of the temple in Jerusalem. As a result, Herod deposed the high priest, also named Matthias, and had the Matthias who incited the sedition burned alive. And Josephus notes that there was an eclipse of the moon on the very night Herod did these things (Antiquities of the Jews 17, 6, 2-4).

So the fact that Herod had to find out from the magi the exact time the star appeared tells us that this star was not a super-extraordinary phenomenon, such as a large comet, or a special, miraculous star placed in the night sky for everyone to see, as the depictions in Christmas cards and at the head of this post seem to imply. If it were, not only Herod, but all the people would surely have noticed it, and it would doubtless have made it onto the pages of the histories from this time period.

We cannot entirely exclude the possibility that God had a special star miraculously revealed to the magi and no one else. However, this is unlikely for a number of reasons, the most obvious of which is that Herod probably would not have taken the magi’s inquiry so seriously or allowed himself to get so worked up over their findings if what the magi were describing was something that only they themselves could see. It seems much more likely that the star the Magi saw was something occurring naturally that everyone could see, but which only had special significance when the Magi explained it.

When combined with Matthew 2:16, we can also conclude from this passage that the appearance of the star in some way not only indicated that the Messiah had been born but also when he was born.

After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east [or when it rose] went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. (Mt 2:9)

This passage tells us that the same star that they had seen back in their homeland endured over time, which excludes shooting stars from the realm of possibility.

It also tells us that at the time when the magi headed south from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, the star was ahead of them, so in the southern part of the sky.

It also tells us that the star “was leading their way until it went and stood over where the little child was.” The NIV interprets this standing as stopping, which is a legitimate interpretation, although only one of several possible interpretations. “Until it went and stood over” could simply mean that at some point in its movement it was located above the place where Jesus was, not necessarily that it stopped there. Until just tells us what happened at the point of time in question; it does not tell us anything about what happened after that point. (For example, “Martha was cleaning the house until midnight” could mean that Martha stopped cleaning at midnight, but it does not exclude the possibility that Martha continued cleaning after midnight. Perhaps the speaker is simply using midnight as a point of reference to show that Martha stayed up very late cleaning.)

Did the star “stand” over Bethlehem in general? Did it “stand” directly over the particular house where Mary and Joseph were staying, from the Magi’s perspective? If it was a miraculous star, did it “stand” even closer – directly above the house (as in just a few feet above) – or did it even go inside the house and stand over Jesus’ cradle, as portrayed in some artwork? These are questions we cannot answer with certainty.

When Did the Star Appear?

Copy of a 1610 portrait (now lost) of Johannes Kepler by an unknown artist
Copy of a 1610 portrait (now lost) of Johannes Kepler by an unknown artist

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), a Lutheran astronomer who articulated the laws of planetary motion, actually published works dealing with the star of Bethlehem in 1604 and 1613. He assumed it was a naturally occurring phenomenon and not a miraculous one, though he certainly believed that it occurred as part of God’s plan and under God’s all-powerful control.

But Kepler had two limitations. First, using his laws and math, he could draw a snapshot of the sky from any perspective and any moment in time he wanted, but each one of these snapshots took time. Today we have software that employs his laws and math and allows us to rewind and fast forward through the clock of space smoothly in a matter of moments. Kepler had no such software at his disposal.

Secondly, Kepler and his contemporaries assumed that Jesus was born before the spring of 4 BC, which is also the consensus of modern scholarship because the end of the reign of Herod the Great is commonly dated to that time. So Kepler was looking for the star in the years 7-5 BC.

However, a number of conservative Christian scholars, including Lutheran Andrew Steinmann, author of From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology, make an excellent case “that Herod died in early 1 BC after January 10 but before Passover (April 8)” (p. 238) and that consequently “the date of Jesus’ birth must have been sometime in late 3 BC or early 2 BC” (p. 249; rf. p. 219-249). In other words, the ancient church fathers and the chronographers who developed the BC-AD dating system were not as far off as subsequent historians have made them out to be. (Go figure!)

This disease includes the problems in the erectrion of the order generic viagra male sexual organ. A few studies have asserted it lives up to expectations by helping the body’s common instruments viagra sale australia to attain and maintain hard on. If you go through prickling or any] additional skin situations subsequent cialis without prescription to utilizing Intrinsa, take away it straight away and converse to your physician Essential patches are obtainable only on recommendation. In some cases, the doctors cannot figure out why a particular free sample of viagra purchased this couple is unable to conceive.

Probably the most obvious biblical proof for this is in Luke 3. Luke tells us that John the Baptist began his ministry of preaching and baptizing “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar” (Lk 3:1). He also tells us that Jesus was baptized by John “when all the people were being baptized” (Lk 3:21), and that “Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry” after his baptism (Lk 3:23). Thus we could count backward 30 years from the fifteenth year of Tiberius’ rule to obtain the approximate year of Jesus’ birth. Tiberius’ fifteenth year would have been September 17, 28 AD-September 16, 29 AD. “Since it was most likely summer when John began to preach in the wilderness and Jesus came to be baptized, the summer of 29 AD is the likely date of Jesus’ baptism. Jesus, therefore, would have been born sometime from the summer of 3 BC to the summer of 1 BC if he were ‘about 30’—between 29 and 31 years old at his baptism” (Steinmann, p. 219-220).

To those who would say that “about 30” could mean that Jesus was as old as 33 or 34, as he would have to be if he was born before the spring of 4 BC, consider that Luke says that the daughter of Jairus whom Jesus raised from the dead was “about twelve” (Lk 8:42). “Since Luke did not use a more general description to indicate merely that the girl was a young adolescent, he must have been indicating her age as accurately as was known—within a year or so of twelve. Certainly, he did not mean that she could have been as old as fifteen or sixteen or as young as eight or nine” (Steinmann, p. 220, fn. 331). So too, Luke certainly did not mean that Jesus was as young as 26 or 27 or as old as 33 or 34.

If Jesus was born sometime in the latter half of 3 BC or in 2 BC, and if the appearance of the Magi’s star indicated when Jesus was born, then we might expect it to have appeared sometime between 4-2 BC (as early as 4 BC if, for example, the star first appeared when Mary became pregnant and if Mary became pregnant that early).

Furthermore, we know that the magi had to have arrived in Bethlehem at least 40 days after Jesus was born, because that was when Mary and Joseph went to the temple to redeem Mary’s firstborn son and to offer a sacrifice for Mary’s purification (Lk 2:22-24; Num 3:39-51; Lev 12:1-8). When they did so, they offered the sacrifice that God had reserved for the poorest people (Lk 2:24; Lev 12:8) – something which they certainly could not have done in good conscience if the magi had already given them their expensive gifts of gold, incense, and myrrh (Mt 2:11).

We might thus take an educated guess that the Magi paid their visit to Mary, Joseph, and Jesus in 2 BC, perhaps in the middle or toward the end of the year. The star, therefore, would have stood over the place where the little child was at that same time.

Wait, Is This Astrology?

We are talking an awful lot about the stars and their possible relationship to Jesus’ birth. The magi came to find the Christ who had been born because they saw a star, even though nowhere in the Bible does it say that a star would mark Christ’s birth. (Numbers 24:17 comes closest, but is nowhere near explicit in this regard.)

If that makes you uncomfortable, then I am glad in a way. In part 1 of this post, I quoted Deuteronomy 18:10-12a:

Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord.

Certainly some astrology falls under the category of practicing divination or sorcery – attempting to learn God’s will or the truth or predict the future through self-invented means (e.g. horoscopes) – or interpreting omens – attempting to learn God’s will or the truth or predict the future on the basis of abnormal phenomena (e.g. predictions connected with Halley’s Comet).

But not all astrology falls into these categories. It is God who created the sun, moon, and stars, put them in place, and set them in motion. He even says that he put them there “for signs” (Gen 1:14 KJV). It is God who organized them into constellations and has them each appear in a certain place in the sky at certain times (Job 9:9; 38:31-33). It is David who testifies: “The heavens are recounting the glory of God; the sky is proclaiming the work of his hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night displays knowledge” (Ps 19:1-2).

Just as snow and hail can be God-given signs in nature of wartime on earth (Job 38:22-23), just as miracles can be signs from God confirming his word (Mk 16:20), so phenomena in the sky can be signs from God confirming his word and marking important stages in world history and his plan of salvation (Lk 21:25-28). The sky is like a clock; God is the one who made it and runs it, and he already knows and controls everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen. It therefore stands to reason (and it is not contradictory to Scripture) that when he set that clock in motion, he made it so that it would reflect the special happenings on earth in his beautiful plan of redemption. We might imagine world histories like a slideshow and the special heavenly phenomena like a presenter pausing to draw special attention to certain slides.

The warning is that we do not replace the Creator with the created, or the source with the sign. The stars do not run our lives. The stars do not hold our future. The stars should not be worshipped (Dt 4:19). Nor should the stars be studied as sources of the truth, but only as signs confirming the truth of God’s word. (Notice that, as beautifully as David describes the heavens in the first part of Psalm 19, he spends the rest of the psalm describing the even greater beauty and usefulness of the Scriptures.) The stars do not provide us with the ultimate assurance of our salvation or of the truth of our religion; God’s word does. (If the stars are like a clock, they are predictable to an extent, and so Satan also knows how to use them to try to mislead us.)

01_Wise_Men_JPEG_1024Thus it would be best for us to assume that the Magi were looking for signs in the sky marking the Messiah’s birth at that particular time because of God’s word, especially passed down from Daniel (e.g. Dan 9:24-25). They did not seek out the Messiah simply because of everything they were seeing in the sky. They sought out the Messiah because what they were seeing in the sky confirmed for them what they were already expecting because of God’s word.

It might be of interest that some famous Lutherans, such as Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560) and Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), dabbled in astrology. Martin Chemnitz ultimately forsook it because it was an uncertain field of study compared to theology.

One Interesting Theory

Probably the most interesting theory about the Magi’s star at present – a theory which fits all of our criteria above – is that of Frederick A. Larson, a Christian lawyer. You can read all his research, which has been critically acclaimed by a number of scientists and astronomers, on his website. (With the cautions mentioned below, his DVD is definitely worth the price. And no, he’s not paying me to say that.)

Jupiter
Jupiter, the largest of the planets and one of the brightest objects in the sky

To sum up Larson’s theory: In September of 3 BC, at the time of the Jewish New Year, Jupiter, the King Planet, came into close conjunction with Regulus, the King Star. Toward the end of 3 BC and entering into 2 BC, after moving on, Jupiter entered retrograde motion and headed back to Regulus for a second conjunction. (The planets are sometimes called “wandering stars” because from our perspective they can have irregular movements and reverse course due to the orbital path of the earth in relation to the other planet’s orbital path.) Then Jupiter reversed course again and came into conjunction with Regulus a third time – what Larson calls “the Planet of Kings danc[ing] out a halo above the Star of Kings. A coronation” (source).

Furthermore, this triple conjunction occurred within the constellation of Leo, the Lion, the symbol for Judah (Gen 49:9-10). In addition, as Jupiter was beginning the coronation of Regulus, the constellation Virgo, the Virgin, rose behind Leo with the new moon at her feet, so to speak. The magi, as those who studied the stars, would have noted this with interest.

Larson thinks these events marked the conception of the Messiah in the womb of Mary. Nine months later, in June of 2 BC, having moved on from Regulus through the field of stars, Jupiter came into conjunction with Venus, the Mother Planet.

This conjunction was so close and so bright that it is today displayed in hundreds of planetaria around the world by scientists who may know nothing of Messiah. … Jupiter appeared to join Venus. The planets could not be distinguished with the naked eye. … Each contributed its full brightness to what became the most brilliant star our man had ever seen. … No one alive had ever seen such a conjunction. (source)

Larson thinks that this conjunction marked the birth of the Messiah and caused the magi to set out from the land of Persia.

Furthermore, in December of 2 BC, if the magi looked south in the midnight hours, Jupiter was hanging over Bethlehem. As the final piece in Larson’s theory, on December 25 (coincidence?) of 2 BC, Jupiter again entered retrograde motion, reaching a full stop in the sky. “Magi viewing from Jerusalem would have seen it stopped in the sky above the little town of Bethlehem” (source). Of course, the magi would not see it stopping with the naked eye; they would have to have been paying very close attention to this planet and doing their planetary motion-math along the way.

Larson’s theory is interesting, but we must be careful with such theories. For instance, Larson comes up with nine biblical qualifications for the star, not all of which are airtight. For instance, he thinks that the star had to signify both birth and kingship and be connected with the Jewish nation in order for the magi to have asked the question, “Where is the one who has been born King of the Jews?” As we already considered in part 1, the magi likely knew that the Messiah was the King of the Jews from other sources. Larson also very specifically takes the “standing” of the star over the place where the child was as “coming to a stop” over Bethlehem, which is just one possible interpretation. There are also a number of other places in the course of Larson’s presentation where he seems – surely unintentionally – to be playing somewhat fast and loose with some passages of Scripture in order to lend strength to his theory.

When we put too much stock in such theories that attempt to answer questions that Scripture has not answered decisively, God has a way of upsetting the apple cart and inevitably some new piece of knowledge comes along that throws a wrench into the theory. When that happens, if we have too much stock in that theory, we will be left gravely disappointed and possibly disillusioned about our faith.

If Larson’s theory were to be convincingly disproved tomorrow, the fact would remain that the magi still saw a star that led them to come and worship the Christ-child. “Let God be true, and every man a liar” (Ro 3:4). Was the star a planet? Was it a supernova? Was it a miraculous star? Was it something else? We will never know with absolute certainty, but we will continue to know with the absolute certainty of faith that the events described in Matthew 2 are completely and historically true.

Having said all that, I and many other Christians definitely owe Frederick Larson a debt of thanks for getting us to think more seriously about the star, for helping us to think more clearly about the relationship between Christianity and astrology, and for giving us one working theory about the Magi’s star. (He is also partially responsible for the way I organized this post and a lot of its content.) It is comforting to know that the Scriptures can be pressed as hard as you like and held up to the greatest scrutiny, and they will not bend, break, or melt under the pressure. A small Christian child can comprehend the Bible’s stories in simple faith, and the wisest Christian scholar can spend his entire life, with great satisfaction, researching just one Scriptural detail – and neither will be confounded if they anchor their faith in the truth of God’s word and their free salvation in Christ Jesus.

Postscript – The Number of Magi and Their Gifts

16_Wise_Men_JPEG_1024We have no idea how many Magi there were. The popular Western tradition numbers them at three simply because they gave the Messiah three gifts – gold, incense, and myrrh (Mt 2:11). There are twelve in some Eastern traditions.

And speaking of those gifts, what good timing on God’s part! Not long after the magi’s visit – perhaps the same night they departed – an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream telling him to take Jesus and Mary to Egypt immediately because Herod was going to search for the child to kill him (Mt 2:13). How would such poor parents afford such a trip and stay in a foreign country?

Through gold, incense, and myrrh – that’s how. “The gifts were such as could be exchanged at a high price in Egypt to provide for their sustenance while there and for their living expenses afterward. The gifts were also the kind that could easily be [kept hidden] by refugees” (Steinmann, p. 253). Jesus not only accepts the gifts of these Gentiles whose practices were associated with the occult, but he also puts them to good use – as he continues to do with all our gifts today.

Hello and welcome! I’m Pastor Nathan Biebert. I currently serve as a pastor in the South of the U.S.A. When my pastoral duties aren't occupying my time, you will often find me translating German or Latin, bicycling, hiking, fly fishing, or reading a good book alongside my wife. May God bless you during your time here at Bread for Beggars and as you carry out your God-given vocation in the world!

11 Comments

  • Jonathan Mayer

    Fantastic read! I love a well-researched article, and the theory about Jupiter is sort of mind-blowing, if it’s true. Thank you for your efforts on this series; I’ll pass it on.

    On a side note, I agree with your evaluation about the big shiny star—probably just artistic license. But as an artist, I’ll probably continue to exercise license in that regard. When you can’t “tell” the story, you’ve got to “show” it! 🙂

    • Nathaniel Biebert

      Jonathan, thanks for the kind feedback. I agree that if the theory about Jupiter is true, it is mind-blowing. In Larson’s DVD, he talks about how these heavenly phenomena were only the beginning of a “starry dance” that culminated in a “celestial dirge” when Jesus’ died. What he says about the sky on the date of Jesus’ death in his main presentation is actually confirmed in Steinmann’s biblical chronology. Larson also has an extra on his DVD that is particularly fascinating in this regard. But again – I must reiterate my cautions in the article (to myself too). If these things take us back to the absolute truth of the Bible, great. If they take us away from the Bible to search for truth elsewhere (such as in the skies), then the devil is the one cheering.

      I also want to thank you for your note about artistic license – certainly something to which I am not opposed. (I sing hymns that talk about Christ being born on Christmas morn just as loudly as those that talk about him being born in deepest midnight hour – as long as the WHY of his birth is also communicated clearly.) Perhaps I shouldn’t have been as hard on the Christmas card industry. The pictures I included in my article, however, were obviously intended to be a “real life” representation of what happened. It seems that “the big shiny star,” as you call it, comprises 99% of its popular portrayals. A balance would be nice. If any story in Jesus’ life seems like a fairy tale, it’s this one, unless we study the details carefully and discuss it seriously. And it would be nice if that careful study and serious discussion led to some accurate artistic portrayals too.

      Thanks again, and on a side note, I’ve been following and appreciating your work on Scapegoat Studio for some time. Keep up the good work.

  • Tony Pittenger

    Another interesting theory is that of Mr. Bill Overn. (Bill is a friend of mine, lives in the Minneapolis area, and was one of the scientists working on the moonshot who argued for an inch-or-so of dust on the moon rather than the commonly accepted assumption back then of six or more feet of dust.) I have Bill’s papers, and so all this is his original work; I can’t do the math to prove it but I can summarize what his theory is. Bill was proven correct about the moon dust after we sent probes up to check the landing sites out. In short, his theory is a combination of 1) A supernova, in 2) A constellation, along with 3) A planetary conjunction.

    If I haven’t put you to sleep yet, let me explain.

    1) A supernova. Greek and Chinese astronomers both record the appearance of a supernova (exploding star) in B.C. 125 (Hipparchus speaks of it). While a supernova typically fades away in weeks, this nova is said to have lasted into the year A.D. 150! (Overn quotes Ptolemy from A.D. 150 saying “it can scarcely be seen.”) The nova was bright enough to be seen during the day and even was nick-named “The Day Star.”

    2) A constellation. Overn says that the nova appeared in a constellation known then as “The Desire of Nations,” a constellation consisting of a virgin woman holding a male child. (This constellation is now called “Berenices’ Hair” or “Coma Berenices.”)

    These two things may have had astronomers on alert.

    3) A planetary conjunction. Overn’s calculations have Jupiter and Saturn in conjunction three times in B.C. 7-6. His research says that this conjunction occurred once around B.C. 1526 and B.C. 576. Overn has found the historian Josephus stating that it was the B.C. 1526 conjunction that moved the Egyptian priests to advise Pharaoh to start killing Israelite boys. I have not found that reference in Josephus but assuming Overn’s math is correct: Jupiter and Saturn came into conjunction and a boy was born who freed God’s people. (Moses would have been born in 1526, Cyrus the Great in 576.) Overn theorizes that the triple conjunction in B.C. 7-6 is what got the Magi moving.

    BTW, his calculations also have the nova and constellation over Israel/Bethlehem in 6 B.C. Again, that math is way beyond me but the planets/conjunction cannot be directly overhead of Bethlehem; the planets (and the king star Rigel) move along a plane called “the ecliptic,” which is never directly overhead of Bethlehem. Coma Berenices is found in a higher latitude and does pass directly overhead.

    Bill Overn’s a neat guy. Like I said, he’s actually done the mathematical work behind all this. I really admire him for doing the research himself.

    Another interesting (but personally, less attractive) theory is that of Michael Molnar. In his book The Star of Bethlehem: The Legacy of the Magi, he posits that the Magi essentially looked ahead into their horoscope charts to see that a king would be born in the land of Judah (he says that the constellation Aries stood for the Jewish people). He refers to a coin from around that time on which a ram is looking back at a star. He also suggests that this is why the Magi were looking for a king when the Jews weren’t (God’s people being forbidden from using/consulting astrology). I’m not a fan of this theory because its premise is that God communicated the birth of the Savior through astrology – which He forbade His people from consulting. Still, Molnar’s book provides some interesting charts and will help you understand how a horoscope is actually read.

    Thanks for your article. Very nicely done! My wife has long since left the room, hinting to me that I should quit before I slip into some kind of “nerd coma.”

    PAX!

    • Nathaniel Biebert

      Thanks for the comment, Tony. And you can tell your wife that God made nerds too.

      Everything you wrote is very fascinating to me. I had heard about the discussion over how much dust there would be on the moon – a discussion closely related to whether you believe that the earth is relatively young (as conservative Christians do) or suppose that it is incredibly old (as evolutionists do).

      For what it’s worth, Josephus does say in his Antiquities: “[A] particular occasion offered itself to the Egyptians, which made them more solicitous for the extinction of our nation. One of those sacred scribes, who are very sagacious in foretelling future events truly, told the king [pharaoh], that about this time there would a child be born to the Israelites, who, if he were reared, would bring the Egyptian dominion low, and would raise the Israelites; that he would excel all men in virtue, and obtain a glory that would be remembered through all ages” (2, 9, 2). Josephus then goes on to say that Pharaoh was so afraid of this that he followed the scribe’s advice and ordered every male child born to the Israelites to be thrown into the river.

      Now there is no explicit mention here of any planetary conjunction or other phenomenon in the sky, but based on how many of the ancient “wise men” obtained their knowledge of the future, one could certainly be inferred, especially if one has knowledge of the planetary conjunction you and Mr. Overn are talking about.

      Assuming that all of the foundational information for Mr. Overn’s theory is true (and I have no reason to doubt that), it certainly is a plausible theory. The strongest strike against it, to me, is that it has the Magi departing for Bethlehem in 6 BC and thus seems to be based on a 4 BC death of Herod rather than a 1 BC death. As I mentioned in the article above, the earlier dating of Herod’s death is definitely the mainstream one (see “Herod the Great” on Wikipedia for just one example), but hardly the convincing one if one takes the Bible seriously (and hardly the convincing one if one takes secular history seriously too, as Steinmann demonstrates).

      Having said all that, I am sure that I could not stand up to your friend in any math contest. I appreciate the merits of that field of knowledge, but I have not harvested a bountiful crop from that field myself (and I have little desire to do so). The fact that no more math was required of me after my freshman year of college was not the only or primary reason I became a pastor, but I definitely viewed it as an added bonus.

      I would agree with you in your evaluation of Molnar’s theory. If his theory is true, the Magi would be deriving their knowledge straight from the stars. The stars would no longer be signs for them, confirming the truth of God’s word, as God intended them to be, but would rather be sources for them, supplanting God’s word altogether. In that case, in order for God’s word not to mislead us, Matthew would have had to make it clear that the Magi were converted (by Mary? Joseph?) as a result of their visit, which he does not even hint at. (Not to mention that they would be taking a huge gamble traveling that great distance with those expensive gifts.)

      Thanks again for all the information, Tony, and for the kind compliment.

      • Tony Pittenger

        Hi Nathaniel,

        Yeah, Bill Overn is “the guy” from that apocryphal story about the moon dust. The story has become exaggerated to “they didn’t know until they landed.” Not true. They didn’t know until they fired probes onto the surface. Bill’s getting on in years now, still very sharp, maybe just not as fast.

        I agree that his theory looks like it gets the date wrong. This has been a hobby horse of mine and I’ve talked about the various theories in Bible class, pointing out that with any natural phenomena you go with, you just locked yourself into a date which Scripture doesn’t give us.

        My favorite theory is that of a kid, probably about 7 at the time, who simply said “maybe it was an angel flying really high but really slow.” Not a bad gig for a ministering spirit…

        “Hey Gabe, what are you up to?”

        “Oh, I’m heading over to Jerusalem to tell Zechariah that he and Elizabeth are gonna have a baby. Why, what are you doing?”

        “Oh, I’m heading toward Persia to lead the magi to the land of Israel. Gonna be gone for about a year or so.”

        “Sweet! We’ll miss you in the choir when we sing to the shepherds. Maybe we can catch up after we roll the stone away.”

        “Sounds good. Should be pretty peaceful once those soldiers get a look at us.”

        • Nathaniel Biebert

          In connection with your comment about the 7-year-old kid, I couldn’t help but think of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians: “God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things – and the things that are not – to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. … Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a ‘fool’ so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness’; and again, ‘The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.'”

          And actually, that child’s theory is very similar to the one portrayed in Bramer’s “Journey of the Three Wise Men to Bethlehem,” which appeared in another recent Bread for Beggars article.

          The fact that God is always turning the world’s “experts” and their scholarship on their head is actually another reason I like Larson’s theory. The guy’s a lawyer and, for all I know, has never taken an astronomy class in his life. And now Christian astronomers are like, “Oh yeah, all that was happening (especially the conjunction of Jupiter and Venus)… That’s pretty simple. We’ve been showing it in planetaria for years. Why didn’t we think of that explanation?” And now people around the world are paying a lawyer to come and present his theory about the star of Bethlehem to them.

          • Rev. Johann Caauwe

            Martin Chemnitz, in his Harmony of the Gospels, writes about the star “Because the angels quite often are accustomed to appear as flaming of fire, Psa. 104:4, some of the ancients feel that the angel of the Lord shone to the wise men with the sort of appearance as the column of fire that once led the people of Israel. This opinion seems almost the simplest, but in whatever way one decides this question, there is no great danger to faith.”

          • Nathaniel Biebert

            Hi Rev. Caauwe,

            Thanks for sharing the Chemnitz quote. Never a bad idea to check out what Chemnitz has to say, and never a bad thing to hear it. That definitely fits right in line with the comments here regarding the theory of the 7-year-old boy Tony mentioned. I’m sure you already see the weaknesses of Chemnitz’s (and that boy’s) theory, though it’s still certainly possible. (Even if it appeared only to the magi, God could have influenced Herod’s mind so that he still took them seriously. Some might argue that Herod wasn’t exactly a paragon of sanity to begin with, but although corrupt to the core, it’d be difficult actually to call him insane.)

  • Rev. Johann Caauwe

    It might be an overstatement to say that “we know” that the Magi arrived after 40 days when Mary and the child were brought to the temple. Again, Chemnitz (Harmony of the Gospels) suggests that the reason they didn’t bring a lamb was “because the true Lamb was now present, they didn’t offer the figure.”

    He suggests that the magi came before the purification, for several reasons.

    • Nathaniel Biebert

      Again, Rev. Caauwe, thanks for sharing Chemnitz. It’s good to have the iron-on-iron. I am going to make Chemnitz’s commentary on the account of the magi in his Harmony my bedtime reading tonight, thanks to your comments. Not having read it at this point (or at least, not remembering having read it) and only having the one argument you shared (the true Lamb being present), I think Chemnitz would have difficulty backing that up upon further reflection. Were the “pair of doves or two young pigeons” not a foreshadowing of Jesus and his sacrifice? Only those who could afford the lamb got to offer the pre-figurement of the Messiah? As I understand it, the “pair of doves or two young pigeons” were simply a substitute for the lamb for poor people, and they too, as was every sacrifice for sin and/or purification, pre-figured the sacrifice of the Messiah. In addition, if they were following that logic consistently, why did they continue to celebrate the Passover (Luke 2:41), and why did Jesus himself celebrate it (Luke 2:42; 22:7ff)? It would seem that Mary and Joseph would then be inventing some sort of in-between sacrificial system on their own.

      Finally, Chemnitz’s supposition seems to predicate of Jesus’ earthly parents a maturity of understanding about exactly who Jesus was and what he came to do that goes beyond what the Scriptures indicate. (And even if they did have that mature level of understanding, they would know that the type or foreshadowing was still in place until the ultimate sacrifice was actually made.)

      I have all the respect in the world for Chemnitz (especially his Examination, which leaves virtually every other post-biblical, human-produced theological work in the dust), but this seems to be a place where a Scripturally-informed critical reading (which should be done with everyone and everything except God and his Word) would lead to a departure from Chemnitz’s conclusions.

    • Nathaniel Biebert

      Please permit me one more reply, Rev. Caauwe. First, thanks again for directing me to Chemnitz. I had a good reading last night and this morning. As a result, I am going to post a sort of addendum on my first post, consisting of some of the other Magi-related sources Chemnitz cites, along with some others that I discovered as a result of researching those sources and my own annotations.

      I don’t know if it is the fault of the translator, but I found Chemnitz’s presentation here, both in his “Rationale of the Order” and in his commentary on the account itself, to be quite the opposite of his orderly presentation in his Examination. It was as if he simply spilled out (I would almost be inclined to use a more descriptive word if it were not Chemnitz) all of his encyclopedic knowledge onto the page. This made it very useful for locating source information and quotes from the fathers, but not very useful for actually thinking about the order of the accounts and the account itself in a contemplative, logical way. In other words, I don’t know if he reached his goal of listing the different opinions “merely and simply.”

      Secondly, I think the most convincing strike against his “Rationale” is the sacrifice Mary and Joseph offered for Mary’s purification, reserved for the poorest people. But he doesn’t even discuss it in the “Rationale”; he only brings it up in passing when commenting on the purification itself, and then, as I have already said, he gives a very unsatisfactory explanation. In fact, by acknowledging that Mary could have “easily” exchanged the gifts of gold, incense, and myrrh in order to buy a yearling lamb, and implying that she would have otherwise, he actually ends up convincing the reader that his order is incorrect.

      And finally, an important point I did take away from Chemnitz was his emphasis on the word “appeared” (Mt 2:7). On the basis of that word, Chemnitz asserts that “the star which appeared to the magi was seen neither before nor after.” The Greek literally says, “the time of the appearing star.” Appear could mean to be there, having not been there before (e.g. Lk 9:8). That would be a powerful strike against Larson’s theory and against Larson’s and my inference from other details of the account that the star of Bethlehem was a naturally occurring phenomenon.

      However, appear can also mean to make oneself visible/noticed, or to be noticed or recognized, of something that was already true or present. For instance, the angel appears to Joseph (Mt 1:20; 2:13,19). He was there before, but now he made himself noticeable and recognizable to Joseph. Romans 7:13 is another example (“in order that sin might appear/be recognized as sin”). In that case, what Chemnitz asserts would not have to be true. And perhaps what Larson is arguing for is something of a blend of these two meanings. If Jupiter was the star of Bethlehem described in Matthew, it certainly was not the star of Bethlehem as such before it confirmed for the magi that the Messiah had been conceived and/or born. It appeared as such at a certain time, and ceased to be such once the magi found Jesus.

      My point: Chemnitz’s assertion should be qualified, but it is possible. And if the basis on which it rests is true, that would be an arrow in the quiver of the other side (the other side being a more miraculous position on the star).

      Some of Chemnitz’s other assertions simply cannot be made as fact as they are, e.g. “[The star] turned from Jerusalem to Bethlehem; that is, from the north to the south…” and “[the star] was able to mark that precise house in which the Baby Jesus was…”

      Thanks again for prompting all the extra thought, reading, and reflection! And by the way, I have often enjoyed your own blog posts. (“Often” not because I have read any posts I didn’t enjoy, but only because I don’t check it as regularly as I would like.)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.