by
Isaac
Newton had recognised that the Jewish teachers frequently
made
figurative allusions to things that were actually present.
Next year,
2027, will be the tercentenary of the death of Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727).
Whatever one
may think of this complex scholar, he brought an insightful observation about
the teaching methodology of the ancient Hebrew Rabbis.
Isaac Newton and Judaism -
The Jewish Link
Isaac Newton and Judaism
Isaac Newton (died 1727) was one of the most
influential scientists of all time. He was a mathematician, physicist,
astronomer, alchemist, philosopher and theologian.
The scholar Matt Goldish has written: “Philosophers
and theologians during the age of the scientific revolution commonly believed
that God reveals himself through both the book of Scripture and the book of
nature. Both books are coy with their secrets, but they can be coaxed out by
the truly wise. These secrets can never really conflict because they were
written by the same author. What many take as the conflict between religion and
science during that age is a later invention of the Enlightenment.
In the 16th and 17th centuries, the issue was more
about who had the authority to reconcile scripture with nature.”
Accordingly, Newton spent as much time and
intellectual energy on Scripture as he did on nature. But he kept his
scriptural work a closely guarded secret.
(Note that he believed that the doctrine of the
Trinity was a fraud.)
Goldish continues: “Although something was always
known of Newton’s theology, it was ignored or minimized for more than two
centuries. Indeed, in the early 19th century, it was explained away as being
the result of some kind of mental breakdown. This attitude didn’t really change
until historians began to systematically read Newton’s papers in the 20th
century.”
Newton had left his papers to his family, and they
sat in the family home all but unread until the end of the 19th century. At
that time, his mathematical papers were donated to Cambridge, and the papers
from his tenure at the Royal Mint went to the Public Record Office. But no one
was interested in the voluminous collection of his theological, historical and
alchemical manuscripts. In 1936, a relative who had inherited the remaining
papers sold them at public auction. Most were bought by two separate parties:
the famous economist, John Maynard Keynes, and a Bible scholar, Abraham Shalom
Yahuda. Thus, much of the material was preserved in two collections, most being
with the latter. Following his death, Yahuda’s archives—including the Newton
manuscripts—were donated to the National Library of Israel.
Keynes saw that Newton was more complicated than the
Enlightenment thought. Keynes wrote: “In the 18th century and since, Newton
came to be thought of as the first and greatest of the modern age of
scientists—a rationalist—one who taught us to think on the lines of cold and
untinctured reason.
I do not see him in this light. I do not think that
anyone who has pored over the contents of that box which he packed up … in 1696
… can see him like that.
Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was
the last of the magicians.”
Keynes also suggested that Newton was really “a
Judaic monotheist of the school of Maimonides.”
Here are Albert Einstein’s comments on the writings
bought by Yahuda in 1936 (in a letter to Yahuda from 1940): “Newton’s writings
on biblical subjects seem to me especially interesting, because they provide
deep insight into the characteristic intellectual features and working methods
of this important man. The divine origin of the Bible is for Newton absolutely
certain—a conviction that stands in curious contrast to the critical skepticism
that characterizes his attitude toward the churches.
From this confidence stems the firm conviction that
the seemingly obscure parts of the Bible must contain important revelations, to
illuminate which one need only decipher its symbolic language. Newton seeks
this decipherment—or interpretation—by means of his sharp systematic thinking,
grounded on the careful use of all the sources at his disposal. While the
formative development of Newton’s lasting physics works must remain shrouded in
darkness, because Newton apparently destroyed his preparatory works, we do have
in this domain of his works on the Bible drafts and their repeated
modification; these mostly unpublished writings, therefore, allow a highly
interesting insight into the mental workshop of this unique thinker.”
Let us examine some of what was in Yahuda’s collection. For example:
There is an essay of Newton’s which contains rules
for interpreting the language and words of the Bible. The first rule, for
example, deals with the symbol of “the beast” which—according to 17th-century
commentators—related to political entities. Newton writes: “Thus, if any man
interpret a beast to signify some great vice, this is to be rejected as his
private imagination because, according to the style and tenor of the Apocalypse
and of all other prophetic scriptures, a beast signifies a body politic and sometimes,
a single person which heads that body, and there is no ground in scripture for
any other interpretation.”
There is a manuscript titled, “Notes on the Temple.”
Sharon Cohen (see below) writes that it “contains observations on what he
believed to be the sacred architecture and geometry incorporated in the
structure of the Temple of Solomon, as well as customs that were practiced
during religious rituals.” The manuscript includes text in Latin, Hebrew,
Aramaic and Greek. As to Hebrew, we can see several instances in which Newton
uses Hebrew script. For example, he analyzes the Hebrew root רצף.
Also, the Aramaic words שמע תא and חזי תא also appear.
We can also see the Hebrew phrase, “Baruch shem kevod malchuto leolam vaed.”
This manuscript also includes a diagram of the
Temple.
Cohen writes: “Newton saw the Jewish Temple as a
model of the universe. He believed that the Temple in Jerusalem, and the
courtyard surrounding it, was a model of the heliocentric solar system, with
the raised altar (located in the center) representing the sun.”
In an essay “The Philosophical Origins of Gentile
Theology,” Newton discusses the belief systems of ancient peoples which
gradually degenerated into idolatry. On this topic, he read Maimonides. He
owned Hilchot Avodah Zara in a 1641 translation into Latin, and made notes in
it. Maimonides famously described here how early people slipped from worship of
the one true God to worship of the sun, moon and stars.
Newton also found this view in other philosophers of
his time, who also drew upon Maimonides.
There is also a place in Newton’s writings where he
makes a proposal for reform of the Julian calendar and cites a passage from
Maimonides’ Hilchot Rosh Chodesh. Newton studied Jewish texts with great care
in the construction of his religious works. Aside from Maimonides, the main
texts he consulted were Josephus, the Mishna and Talmud and works of Kabbalah.
According to Goldish, “Newton held that … the
priesthood maintained both theological and natural truths, though these were
largely hidden from the masses. In particular, the priests knew that the sun,
and not the earth, was the center of their universe; hence, ancient temples
from Stonehenge to the Temple in Jerusalem were organized around perpetual
fires that represented the sun.” The temples symbolized the solar system. ….
[End of quote]
With all human thinking, even genius, there must be a
lot of speculation and guesswork. Only Jesus Christ has unerring knowledge
about everything. And that is why John the Baptist had proclaimed (John 3:27-30):
A person can
receive only what is given them from heaven.
You yourselves
can testify that I said, ‘I am not the Messiah but am sent ahead
of
him.’ The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the
bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the
bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete.
He must become
greater; I must become less.”
Astronomical Illustrations
Lieutenant-Colonel George Mackinlay, drawing on the theory of Isaac
Newton about the Jewish rabbis making figurative allusions to things that were actually
present, would build an entire internal chronology of the life of Jesus Christ
on what he considered to be references by Jesus and John the Baptist to the
Morning Star, the planet Venus (The Magi: How They Recognised Christ’s Star,
Hodder and Stoughton, 1907). He was able to build his entire chronology
around the cycles of Venus.
I wrote
about it in my recent article:
An astronomy that
has meaning!
(6)
An Astronomy that has meaning!
Here
follows much of that, because it is so important in the context of the Jewish illustrative
teaching method:
George
Mackinlay’s major contribution
By far the
most important contribution of the three, though, so I believe, is that of Lieutenant-Colonel
G. Mackinlay, The Magi: How they recognized Christ's star (Hodder and
Stoughton, 1907).
He, too,
had determined 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 King
Herod (the Godfather of today’s abortionists) would never have condemned to
death the children of Bethlehem.
George Mackinlay
also showed through Micah that 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.
Whilst I
do not accept that Larson, Killian, or even Mackinlay have managed, despite
their valiant attempts, to identify the Magi Star, the contribution of
Mackinlay on the chronological importance of the planet Venus I consider to be
ground-breaking.
For my own
view of what phenomenon Matthew was describing, see e.g. my article:
Did the
Nativity Star wrongly guide the Magi to Jerusalem?
(8) Did the Nativity
Star wrongly guide the Magi to Jerusalem?
Neither Killian’s nor
Larson’s efforts - worthwhile though they assuredly are - can, I believe, match
the coherent consistency of Lieutenant-Colonel G. Mackinlay’s model, that shows
a Divine plan at work in every major phase of the life of Jesus Christ.
Mackinlay
was able to demonstrate how perfectly the eight year cycles of Venus 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 has shown, also serve as chronological markers.
….
Since George
Mackinlay’s thesis is far 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.
George 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).
….
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). George
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 (see 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
George 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. I have already listed
various chronological precautions that I believe must seriously affect dating
methods, including Mackinlay’s}.
From George
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 Isaac 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.
George
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 put
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.
George 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,
George 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
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 George
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, George 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.
George 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).
(3The absence of any record of a ministry of
angels, as after the Temptation (Matthew 4:11).
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 George 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 George 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”.
George 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 George 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, George 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 George 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.
2.
Living in booths.
According
to George 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”.
Millstones of Capernaum
“Now,
Yeshua’s [Jesus’s] warning becomes extraordinarily vivid!
He
and his disciples were in Capernaum with the Sea of Galilee in plain view.
Perhaps they were even standing along the lake’s shoreline when Yeshua
made
this statement. And they had no doubt walked past the millstone factory many
times. It wasn’t hard for them to visualize the horrific death of someone
with
an industrial-grade basalt grinder tied around his neck sinking to the
bottom
of the lake. The fate of those who cause one of Yeshua’s disciples to sin
is
intended as a warning for us all”.
“Numerous
stone artifacts found at the site include olive presses and millstones, dishes
and craters (large bowls for mixing wine), and the earliest known
pictorial
representation of the Ark of the Covenant”.
Mike
Mason
It would have
been an appropriate site to have prompted Jesus to utter (Luke 17:2): ‘It would
be better to be thrown into the sea with a millstone hung around your neck than
to cause one of these little ones to fall into sin’.
And that
leads us seamlessly into this insightful article by Dr. Noel Rabinowitz:
Millstones Made in
Capernaum – Dr. Noel Rabinowitz
- Biblical Insights
- September 1, 2022
Millstones
Made in Capernaum
Bible
interpreters have much to say concerning Yeshua’s [Jesus’s] teaching about the
humble status of children in Matthew 18:1-6 but they usually overlook where
that event takes place – a detail that is actually quite important to the
story. After deflating the disciples’ ambitions for power and prestige in the
Kingdom, Yeshua follows up with a stern warning: “But whoever causes one of
these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have
a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of
the sea” (v.6).
We know from
Matthew 17:24 that Yeshua and his disciples had returned to Capernaum and this
detail enables us to interpret Yeshua’s words here with even greater clarity.
Capernaum is located on the northern shoreline of the Sea of Galilee and sits
on a bed of basalt rock, the remains of a long extinct volcano. Fishing was
obviously the major industry at Capernaum but it wasn’t the only industry – the
basalt provided Capernaum with nutrient-rich farming soil in which to grow high
quality grains. The abundance of basalt, however, made Capernaum home to a
third industry, namely the manufacture of heavy-duty agricultural tools such as
olive presses, household griding tools and industrial millstones.
Excavators
found a large quantity of unfinished tools at Capernaum – many more than the
residents of the village could have possibly needed, indicating that these
tools were manufactured for sale.
Workman made
small household grinding stones as well as industrial millstones which were
much larger and much heavier than the household version.
The bottom
part of the industrial millstone was cone-shaped and sat on the ground,
pointy-end up. The top part, which rested on top of the cone, was shaped like
an hourglass with what looked like a stone belt at the waste of the hourglass.
A wooden log was inserted into the “belt” and turned by a donkey. Grain was
poured into the top and ground as the donkey turned the stone.
English
Bibles typically translate the Greek phrase μύλος ὀνικὸς (mulos onikos) something
along the lines of ‘great millstone” (ESV), “large millstone” (NIV), “heavy
millstone” (NASB); “huge milestone” (NET) or simply “millstone” (KJV). The
Greek phrase, however, literally means “millstone of a donkey.” Yeshua was clearly
referring to the hourglass-shaped – and extremely heavy – upper section of an
industrial millstone.
Now,
Yeshua’s warning becomes extraordinarily vivid! He and his disciples were in
Capernaum with the Sea of Galilee in plain view. Perhaps they were even
standing along the lake’s shoreline when Yeshua made this statement. And they
had no doubt walked past the millstone factory many times. It wasn’t hard for
them to visualize the horrific death of someone with an industrial-grade basalt
grinder tied around his neck sinking to the bottom of the lake. The fate of
those who cause one of Yeshua’s disciples to sin is intended as a warning for
us all.
Queen of the South
Here, Jesus
pinpoints the geographical location of the Old Testament’s illustrious “Queen
of Sheba” (I Kings 10:1) with such utter simplicity and unerring accuracy as to
be easily grasped by a contemporaneous (of Jesus) Jew, on the one hand, but
which is utterly lost upon modern minds, on the other.
I explained
this in my article:
The Queen of Beer(sheba)
Queen of Sheba: “King Solomon gave the
queen of Sheba
all she desired and asked for …” (I Kings 10:13).
Now,
I believe that it was from the ancient city of Beersheba that the biblical
queen departed to visit Solomon. And that:
Jesus Christ gave the right
co-ordinates for the Queen
Following on from my article:
How the Queen of Sheba may
parallel Abimelech (Genesis)
according to which the biblical “Queen”
referred to in both the Old Testament (I Kings 10:1) and the New Testament
(Matthew 12:42; Luke 11:31) was Tamar, sister of Absalom, whose grandfather was
Talmai king of southern country of Geshur (Shur), I now want to show how Jesus
gave most helpful co-ordinates enabling for one to establish the Queen’s
geographical location.
It turns out to be really quite simple.
“End of the land”
As determined previously, the Greek tes
ges (της γης) as given in both Matthew and Luke means “the
land”, the land of Israel.
Israel’s “end”, or border, was Dan in the
north and Beersheba in the south (hence, we often read: “from Dan to
Beersheba”).
Obviously only the southern border is
relevant here in the case of the:
“[Queen] of the South”
“The south” is a common biblical term for
the Negev.
So, we are directed to the chief town,
Beersheba, that stands at the southern border of the kingdom of Israel, in the
(northern) Negev – and known as “the Capital of the Negev”.
The Old Testament fully supports this,
giving the name of the Queen’s realm as “Sheba”, which is just another name for
Beersheba (cf. Joshua 19:2): “… Beersheba (or Sheba) …”.
The variations in spelling of the Sheba
in Joshua 19:2, שֶׁ֥בַע,
ending with an ayin, and in I Kings 10:1, שְׁבָ֗א, ending with
an aleph, can be explained simply as a variation. According
to Abarim publications, the meaning of the aleph-ending Sheba is
“Unknown”:
Sheba | The amazing name
Sheba: meaning and etymology
“… there are scholars (for instance those
who compiled the NOBSE Study Bible Name List), who seem to assume that the
name שבא is
nothing but the name שבע (Sheba I) spelled slightly different …”.
I would accept this view.
And, given the ancient city’s strategic
location of intersecting trade routes, we ought not be surprised to read that
the Queen of (Beer)sheba travelled to Jerusalem with so richly-laden a camel
train as she did (I Kings 10:2, 10), and that: “Never again were so many spices
brought in as those the Queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon”.
Mustard seed
“Jesus
often employed hyperbole and vivid imagery in His teachings.
When
He referred to the mustard seed as the “smallest,” He was using a common
idiomatic expression that His audience would have readily understood.
Just
as modern speakers might say “this is the tiniest detail” even if other details
are
technically smaller, Jesus leveraged the familiar “smallest seed” image
to
communicate a powerful truth about the kingdom of God”.
As with the
Queen of the South, above, analytical modern minds can get tied up in knots
trying to make sense of something that, whilst perfectly clear to ancient
Semites, does not make proper sense in modern scientific terms.
BibleHub.com gives a clear and
sensible explanation of this statement by Jesus, who would either have been
holding a mustard seed at the time, or pointing to one nearby:
|
Why
does Jesus say the mustard seed is the smallest when it is not? 1.
Introduction Jesus’
statement about the mustard seed being the “smallest of all seeds” appears in
passages such as Matthew 13:31-32, where He says, “The
kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his
field. Although it is the smallest of all seeds…” Critics sometimes point out
that there are seeds-like certain orchid seeds-that are physically smaller. This
entry will examine the botanical, cultural, linguistic, and theological
contexts of Jesus’ words to demonstrate how His statement was both understood
and accurate within its first-century setting. 2.
Biblical References and Quotations • “He put
before them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed,
which a man took and planted in his field. Although it is the smallest of all
seeds, yet when it grows, it is larger than the garden plants and becomes a
tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.’” (Matthew 13:31-32) • “Again
He said, ‘What shall we compare the kingdom of God to? Or what parable shall
we use to describe it? It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed
you plant in the ground. Yet after it is planted, it grows to become the
largest of all garden plants, with branches so big that the birds of the air
can nest in its shade.’” (Mark 4:30-32) • “Then
Jesus asked, ‘What is the kingdom of God like? To what shall I compare it? It
is like a mustard seed that a man tossed into his garden. It grew and became
a tree, and the birds of the air nested in its branches.’” (Luke 13:18-19) 3.
Cultural and Horticultural Context In the
ancient agrarian society of first-century Jewish culture, the mustard seed
(commonly identified as the black mustard seed, Sinapis nigra) was a familiar
staple. It was widely used in cooking and medicinal practice. Among the seeds
typically sown in home gardens or small-scale farming, the mustard seed was
proverbially regarded as the smallest. Rabbinic
texts (e.g., certain Jewish Talmudic writings) often use the mustard seed as
a figure of speech for something that is extremely tiny. Although
modern science recognizes that some seeds-like orchid seeds-are smaller on a
purely physical scale, orchid seeds were not planted by local farmers in
Galilee or Judea. Within
everyday farming in that region and time period, the mustard seed was the
smallest routinely handled and discussed. Archaeological discoveries in areas
around the Sea of Galilee have uncovered remnants of mustard seeds in ancient
farming contexts, suggesting they were commonly grown and recognized for
their distinctively small size. 4.
Linguistic Usage and Idiomatic Expression Jesus
often employed hyperbole and vivid imagery in His teachings. When He referred
to the mustard seed as the “smallest,” He was using a common idiomatic
expression that His audience would have readily understood. Just as modern
speakers might say “this is the tiniest detail” even if other details are
technically smaller, Jesus leveraged the familiar “smallest seed” image to
communicate a powerful truth about the kingdom of God. In the
Greek text of the Gospels, the phrase translated “smallest of all seeds” is a
concise way of saying, “smallest among the seeds you commonly sow.” This in
no way contradicts more technical botanical facts unknown or unused by
Jesus’s original hearers. His statement was accurate within the agricultural
scope and idiomatic speech of the day. 5.
Purpose of the Mustard Seed Analogy Jesus’s
primary goal in citing the mustard seed was not to issue a scientific
treatise on botany. Instead, He was illustrating how something that begins
very small-such as the early community of believers or the initial stirring
of faith-can grow far beyond the original expectations. This lesson shines
through even if some outside seeds are physically smaller. Faith, like a
mustard seed in a garden, can develop into something substantial, offering
shelter and refuge. Moreover,
Jesus’s teaching emphasizes the nature of God’s transformative power. The
small beginnings of Christ’s ministry, or the sparks of a new believer’s
faith, ultimately become a worldwide movement. This reflects the broader
scriptural context in which God often uses the humble, the unexpected, and
the seemingly insignificant to display His glory and sovereignty (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:27). 6.
Evaluating Common Objections 1. “It
is factually incorrect since we know smaller seeds exist.” -
Response: Jesus’s statement corresponds to what first-century farmers in
Judea commonly experienced. He was not delivering a universal claim about
every seed on earth but rather referencing the smallest seed they typically
sowed in their gardens. 2. “The
Bible cannot be trusted on scientific matters.” -
Response: The Bible’s purpose is redemptive revelation, not a modern
scientific catalog. Within its historical and cultural context, references to
natural phenomena, such as seed sizes, serve illustrative and theological
purposes. The verifiable historical and archaeological evidence supports that
mustard seeds were known to be the tiniest seeds used by local agrarian
communities. 3. “Jesus’s
hyperbolic or metaphorical language undermines scriptural truth.” -
Response: In Scripture, hyperbole and metaphor are legitimate rhetorical
devices. They do not negate truth but highlight spiritual realities.
First-century listeners understood these figures of speech and were taught
profound lessons in a relatable way. 7.
Harmonizing Scriptural Integrity and Cultural
Understanding All
Scripture is God-breathed and coherent (2 Timothy 3:16). The gospel writers recorded Jesus’s
parables accurately, preserving His intent and meaningful imagery. We can
trust the reliability of these texts based on the extensive manuscript
evidence that aligns with our current readings. Early copies of Matthew,
Mark, and Luke consistently preserve the parables involving the mustard seed,
underscoring the unity of these accounts. From a
Biblical worldview, the simplest path to properly understanding this passage
is to recognize that Jesus used the common horticultural knowledge of His
day. Modern
readers should recall that the parables are primarily about divine truths
rather than precise scientific treatises. In other words, Jesus’s point about
small beginnings transforming into significant results remains entirely
intact and resonates through history. 8.
Concluding Thoughts Jesus’s
reference to the mustard seed being the smallest of seeds served as a vivid,
relatable illustration to teach about the kingdom of God and the nature of
faith. He spoke within the context of typical household gardening practices,
where mustard indeed represented the smallest seed sown. Contemporary
knowledge of ever-tinier seeds does not invalidate Jesus’s lesson, because
His parable was never meant as an exhaustive botanical classification. In
embracing the scriptural message, we discover that even the smallest act of
faith can flourish beyond what seems humanly possible. This underscores a
central biblical theme: God delights in using what is small and humble to
accomplish His grand designs. Through cultural context, linguistic
examination, and a recognition of the parable’s intent, Jesus’s statement
stands as both accurate for its time and eternally meaningful for spiritual
growth. |
