biblegateway.com
Biblos.com, Free Online Biblical Study Tools
BlueLetterBible.org – An on-line interactive reference library
e-Sword.net – The Sword of the Lord with an Electronic Edge
levendwater.org – Bullinger ’s Companion Bible
Philologos Religious Online Books
SearchGodsWord.org
gladtidingsfellowship.com How to Read the Bible for Understanding and Power
NetHymnal
Amazon.com
ChristianCafe.com
Family Christian StoresTruth Versus Tradition: His Star
Posted By Ken Brown on December 12, 2009
What was the star referred to in Matthew 2?
Matthew2:1 Now when [after] Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.Matthew 2:9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
This article is a little different than others I have offered. I have some information to offer as to what this star was, but I would like to get your input first. Do you have any Biblical or astronomical information to offer that we could consider before proceeding further?
I can tell you one thing that the star could NOT have been and that is the way it is portrayed in traditional pictures. It could not have been a super brilliant “star” that aimed a beam of laser-like light on the stable in which was the manger where the baby Jesus lay. First, the wise men had seen this same star while still in the East, many days (actually, more than a year) before their arrival in Jerusalem. Second, the wise men were not in Jerusalem and then proceeding to Bethlehem on the night of Jesus’ birth when “the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was” (Matthew 2:9). The record says “young child,” not, “babe.” Also, Herod inquired of them when they had seen the star. Later, when the wise men did not return to him, Herod was “exceeding wroth” and “sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men” (Matthew 2:16). Third, had this star been a super brilliant celestial phenomenon that aimed a laser at the stable, wouldn’t that have attracted the attention of EVERYONE for many miles around? Can you imagine living in those times, seeing such a spectacle, being within walking distance, and not checking it out? Can you imagine that NO ONE did? Surely, had there been multitudes present, there would have been some mention of that fact in the record.
So “the star” was certainly not the traditional picture, but what was it? If you have anything to contribute, I’d love to hear from you.
All links to external websites are for reference purposes only and do not necessarily represent the opinions or beliefs of BrownBible.com
We invite you to participate. Please rate this article and/or its comments by clicking on the stars or thumbs. Or better yet, join the conversation by leaving a comment of your own.
Help us get the word out to the rest of the world by sharing this article with your favorite social network. It's easy too! Just click on the icons shown at the end of every article. We recommend sharing with your friends at FaceBook & Twitter. Also, please share with Digg, StumbleUpon, Del.icio.us & Propeller.
Related posts
About the author
I wanna pose a few questions on this subject.
Question 1. Had there been a light that shined in to the stable could it have been the Glory of GOD? In the Old Testament when Moses went up on the Mt. and seen the Gloly of GOD, the people became scared because of the Glow from the Glorys of GOD.
The Wise Men Fallowed a star that lead them to the place where Jesus was. The thing I wanna pull out is “Lead”. They fallowed this star from a long ways away and when they arrived in Bethlehem it has stopped above where Young Jesus was.
Question 2. Could it be that they were Ordained to be there?
The reason i ask is if they fallowed this star that led them to the Christ Child. Then they must have been ordained to be there and see him. They was led like Israel was out of Egypt with a cloud of fire but the wise men was led with a Star.
Well, I guess I am so excited to just read such an oustanding article that I am commenting without a lot of real research, but December 12th is my birthday and I am going to research this topic and get back to you!
However, I wil say, that I often think about these types of details and I get so thankful for God and His Word. What did the star look like? What really happened?
When I think of my Lord, I think of such details – When he was raised, what did it sound like? I actually think of these things and it so nice to have a place to go (this website) to read and think and respond!
Our Lord is so wonderful. I was thinking about Him all day to day, that he is all love, and so great. And, then, after thinking and thinking about him I got home and found this great website and this post, on birtdhay about my (ouir) Lord’s birthday.
I have some reading to do and I will post a response about His Star.
Wow! what a great topic.
I decided to take the approach of just reading the record in Matthew, KJV and try by logic to determine what the star was. After going through it, logically thinking it through, I came upon the conclusion (I am ready to change my mind with more evidence) that His Star was some type of miraculous thing that was neither a planet, star, galaxy, meteor nor comet.
After coming to this conclusion, I decided to check out what Bullinger had to say about it in my companion bible. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Bullinger has a note in Matthew regarding the star indicating that he believed it to be divine, or some kind of miracle type sighting or experience.
Reading the bible, using a bunch of research tools like concordances, translations and other tools is fun for me, but I also like to just read the KJV and try to figure stuff out without the help of any study aids, just contemplation.
I have no idea if Bullinger or I am right 100%, that the star was not an astronomical thing, but instead more of a divine or miraculous sighting and I am looking forward to learning more. But, just for fun, here is how I deduced the star being something along the lines of a divine phenomenon, rather than an astronomical thing:
First off, while I did not know that Bullinger noted in the Companion bible that he believed the star to be some type of phenomena, I was familiar with his book “The Witness of The Stars†and at one time, maybe thirty five years ago, took great interest in the book, going so far as to memorize all the major 12 constellations in the Ecliptic (Zodiac) and Bullinger’s take on the primitive meanings of the constellations and stars. I really enjoyed his work. To this day, I really enjoy star gazing and I can pick out a bunch of constellations. I can probably recall most of the 12 signs and some others and Bullinger’s explanation of their primitive meanings. I enjoy star gazing and like to “show off†pointing a constellation out here and there! It’s just plain fun and anything that reminds of God is something I take great interest in.
From that book, the most important thing I personally took from it was that, like a trees in the woods, the stars are arbitrary and not patterned, unless we (people) make a pattern out of it. You just can’t see the queen in Cassiopeia unless somebody points out that big W in the sky and tells you it’s Cassiopeia. However, it’s not quite as rigid as that, there are actually a number of constellations that kind of look graphically, like that picture (if you want to identify constellations easily, check out a really wonderful book called “The Stars†by H.A. Rey.) Here nor there, point being, I have accepted as fact that oral tradition came first in terms of meaning to the stars, man named them and gave them meaning. Some did so by revelation from God, some did so by tradition of men, some did so by perverting the most primitive meanings, which I have accepted as fact, came from God.
Since understanding this model of star and constellation names, the stars took on such great new meaning for me. Astrology was once and for ever kaput for me at a very young age, 15 or so, and in the place of the occult, I now find, to my delight, astronomy, straight science, and deep meaning in the beautiful way that God’s people handed oral tradition, the greatest concepts ever, down from generation to generation using the stars as a pictorial book for preservation. The entire story from the beginning, the fall of man to the 1st coming and then the 2nd coming of God’s son at the return is, in this way, “written†in the stars (read the book to see Bullinger’s great explanation – then for fun check out other sources and you will see the brilliance of Bullinger’s book – “The Witness of The Starsâ€).
Equipped with this knowledge from Bullinger, I deduced that if indeed the Magi were using a constellation it would most likely be a star or constellation that would fit in the story line. However, this would really not make much sense because while the prophecy held pictorially in the constellations and stars was both a forth telling and fore telling none of it, to my understanding, was depictive of actual dates or locations. Instead, the prophecy was far more general, more about the Son of God in terms of the big picture that was, for example, given to Moses by revelation about the fall of man and the seed of the woman. Having a star or constellation stand out from this pattern and actually grab hold of a specific point in history, a specific group of people, Magi, and a specific location, Bethlehem would be such a remarkable departure from the schema it just would not make any sense to me. I can see how some might think, though, that His Star could be some wild departure of the schema, and then as it would be in God’s foreknowledge that both the astronomical thing and the Magi and the location would be there at the same time, etc…. but I just don’t buy that take – it’ too wild of a departure.
Not to say that I am not ready for anything when it comes to God. I try keep a humble attitude about learning more, but I also just use my head and it would take some huge pieces of evidence for me to see such a big departure from the schema for me to believe that “His Star†was in someway related (other than by confirmation) to the actual pictorial message, which was purely based on oral tradition of the larger picture.
I do, however, have a personal feeling that God could have made this divine or miraculous sign in the sky as special treat, against the back ground of the pictorial image, and if I were there to have seen it myself, it would have really blown my mind as such. Just thinking of it, me there looking at the night sky where God’s master plan was recorded by the ancients and then witnessing some type of phenomena regarding His Son, like God reached out with His phenomena paint brush and put a special dab of paint, “His Star,†against the canvas of His story as recorded by the ancients. Whoa… it makes my heart leap up and I get all choked up just thinking about it. I would definitely not be able to sleep out of sheer exhilaration on my way to Bethlehem, and I would not be afraid of Herod’ power one wit!
In addition to this line of thinking, I know of only four things out of many bright stuff in the sky that can be seen by the naked eye and considered by some to be a star. They are, stars, galaxies, planets, comets and meteors.
Two of these astronomical entities, stars and galaxies, are super predictable as to placement in the sky as they both rise in the east and set in the west as the world spins. They do appear to move over the course of a year, depending on your point of view, toward the north to the south and back as the world rotates on its axis. So, neither a star or galaxy is going to point the way to one location. Both are going to move across the sky at night, and some will be hidden over the course of the year, by virtue of your point of view except for the ones in the way south or north (like Polaris according to your point of view, which will remain more steady. If you are to believe that the His star is part of the schema it really complicates things about the schema because it means that the further away His star was from the south or north from Bethlehem the more complex the notions would have had to been in the minds of the Magi to determine the message. Way too complicated… I have never seen any record of revelation like this where it takes so much to figure it out. Even the Ark was given in straight language. It just doesn’t fit in my heart that it would take fantastic math to decipher this “star†… possible, but really just doesn’t fit for me.
So, I ruled out Stars and Galaxies based on it not fitting the schema and being too “geeky.â€
Another reason for me to rule out stars and galaxies as a predictor (and anything astronomical for that matter) by the way, is that I really don’t think that God would use the occult, nor would He likely invite or tell anything at all to occultists about His Son. Too weird – doesn’t fit.
So, Stars and Galaxies – nixed by virtue of not fitting in the schema of the primitive meanings that I have studied, nixed by virtue of the complexity of knowing which ones and where, greater complexity the further from the south or north.
The biggest reason, more than the “geeky factor†I nixed them by virtue of it just not making any sense that God would use either a star or galaxy to convey a predictive location or time that has nothing to do with the schema of the constellations and to my knowledge is something that only occultists do (like astrologers) and I am quite sure that God is NOT into astrology.
Then, I went on to the remaining three items, planets, comets and meteors.
Meteors, I whacked out of the picture right away because they simply streak across the sky.
Planets and comets seem the most likely things His star could be, if His star were an astronomical thing. But, it just doesn’t fit for me logically because a comet doesn’t stick around that long in the sky, it would have to be a slight or one time occurrence unknown to the ancients, or they would have included it in the schema, and a planet would by its nature have to fall into the category of the schema known by the ancients so both planets and comets get nixed.
That leaves only one thing I can think of – a divine or miraculous phenomena of some type. I am over simplifying all my deductions for speed, but suffice it to say I thought I was a real “smarty pants†when I looked up Bullinger and he came to the same conclusion in the Companion Bible. Of course I could be wrong, but it’s what I think as of right now… ready to learn here.
Especially ready to learn on this note… a REAL wild guess, so please forgive me, but since I am quite sure that my salvation does not depend on it. I am going to go so far as to say that my best guess, based on my experience, and sense of the “whole word†…His star was actually a phenomena of divine sighting for a very particular group, the magi, and maybe others, and was in fact an arch angel. I have lots of reasons to believe this to be so, not the least of which is God’s love for Son and the heralding and protection that His young Son could expect.