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