About ten years ago, for some reason, I got to thinking about the star the wise men of the East would have identified as signifying the birth of the King of the Jews. It struck me as being odd that something as spectacular as it must have been didn’t get more coverage in the historical record. But, then again, the wise me were astrologers, not just smart fellows who admired the stars. Astrologers don’t watch for cosmic marvels: they watch for astral movement that most of us don’t pay any attention to. What if the star they were following was one only an astrologer would notice? And what if they followed it, not by dead reckoning, but by observing its movements, doing whatever calculations an astrologer does, and figuring out where to go from the results? It would sure spoil a lot of thrilling Christmas illustrations, but it did seem plausible.
Was I surprised when, a couple of weeks later, an article appeared in New Scientist Magazine1, suggesting the same thing. According to the article*, Michael Molnar, an astronomer formerly associated with Rutgers University, had discovered a reference to the star in a 4th-century manuscript written by the Roman astrologer Firmicus Maternus. Evidently, he described an astrological event involving an eclipse of Jupiter by the Moon in Aries in 6 B.C., and said that it signified the birth of a divine king. Apparently, the early Christians were aware of the celestial event, but didn’t advertise it, in order to avoid the appearance of approving of astrology. The theory hasn’t had much promotion, but scholars quoted in the article think it has merit.
Regardless of the circumstances, though, the story of the wise men is a great illustration of how God reveals Himself to people who wouldn’t ordinarily go looking for Him. The rabbis advising King Herod knew the Hebrew scriptures well enough to tell him the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2 and Matthew 2:6), but God didn’t require the wise men to have such background. God got their attention through what they did know: the stars. They still had to act upon their revelation (they still had to go look for that King the star indicated), but they didn’t have to change their studies in order to receive that revelation. And so it is even today, for us wise men and women. We’ll still have to follow up, but, if we really want to know God, He’ll point us in the right direction, using stars that may mean nothing to anyone but us.
I hope you'll see, and recognize, God's hand in your life today!
*Chown, Marcus. Early Christians hid the origins of the Bethlehem star : New Scientist [Web Page]. December 21, 2001; Accessed 12-7-2011. Available at:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1713-early-christians-hid-the-origins-of-the-bethlehem-star.html
Showing posts with label Christmas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christmas. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
December and the Birth of Jesus
It was while I was in third grade, I think, that I first heard the idea that Jesus Christ wasn’t born in December. The reasoning was that, in December, the shepherds wouldn’t have been in the fields with the sheep. Besides, the tribes in Europe all had festivals that fell at the end of the year, and the early missionaries tied a celebration of the birth of Jesus to those festivals to make Christianity more appealing to them. I never gave it much thought: after all – December, September, or April – the important thing was that He was born.
A couple of years ago, though, I got to thinking about the early Church and those early missionaries, and realized that the idea of their adapting the tribal festivals did them a great disservice. At that time, the Christians were still being persecuted, they were still convinced of the truth of their faith, and were not so spiritually pusillanimous to compromise with the pagans. The early Church must have had some good reason for giving a December date to the birth of Jesus.
It turns out, the answer comes from the Gospel of Luke. Let’s look at the chronology of events in the first two chapters.
In Chapter 1, Zacharias (the soon-to-be father of John the Baptist) is taking his turn to work at the Temple. He is selected to enter the Temple and burn incense, while the congregation prays outside. The fact that he is entering alone (v. 21), while the congregation prays outside (v. 10), has led some commentators to believe that he must have been entering the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (see the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus, verse 17 in particular). The Day of Atonement takes place around the end of September or beginning of October. In 2003, for instance, it was October 6, with Rosh Hashanah (the New Year) coming about a week before (September 27).
While Zacharias is there, an angel appears and tells him that he and his wife Elizabeth are going to have a son. After a little unpleasantness, he goes home, and before long, Elizabeth is pregnant. Judging from the story of the birth of Samuel (1 Samuel 1:19-20) and of Isaac (Genesis 18:14), when an angel states one will have a child, he means now. So John the Baptist would have been conceived about the end of September/beginning of October.
The narrative then turns to Mary. In the sixth month, an angel tells her that she will bear a son, and that her cousin Elizabeth is six months pregnant. If the months are counted from Rosh Hashanah, and if Zacharias received his annunciation on the Day of Atonement, this Annunciation would have taken place about March. She goes to visit Elizabeth, who recognizes that Mary is carrying Jesus*. Human reproduction being what it is, nine months later, she would have given birth. Nine months from March is December.
Now, this isn’t to say that Jesus wasn’t born in September or April, and I don’t know why the shepherds might have been in the fields in cold weather, either. (Well, yes I do know: if the town is full of tax collectors, and if flocks are considered as wealth, it would make sense for people to hide their assets out of town. But be that as it may.) But we can see that, when the early Church set Jesus’s birth at the end of December, it wouldn’t have been as a concession to the pagans they were trying to reach, but because they had reason to believe it was true. Happily, it appears to be much easier to put a date on the Resurrection.
(*Incidentally, this part of the story (Luke 1:39-44), also makes a pretty good argument for when life begins. It says Mary left "with haste" to see Elizabeth, and when she arrived, Elizabeth exclaims that blessed is the fruit of her womb. Mary couldn’t have been more than a couple of weeks pregnant, yet the fetus is recognized as being Elizabeth’s "Lord".)
A couple of years ago, though, I got to thinking about the early Church and those early missionaries, and realized that the idea of their adapting the tribal festivals did them a great disservice. At that time, the Christians were still being persecuted, they were still convinced of the truth of their faith, and were not so spiritually pusillanimous to compromise with the pagans. The early Church must have had some good reason for giving a December date to the birth of Jesus.
It turns out, the answer comes from the Gospel of Luke. Let’s look at the chronology of events in the first two chapters.
In Chapter 1, Zacharias (the soon-to-be father of John the Baptist) is taking his turn to work at the Temple. He is selected to enter the Temple and burn incense, while the congregation prays outside. The fact that he is entering alone (v. 21), while the congregation prays outside (v. 10), has led some commentators to believe that he must have been entering the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement (see the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus, verse 17 in particular). The Day of Atonement takes place around the end of September or beginning of October. In 2003, for instance, it was October 6, with Rosh Hashanah (the New Year) coming about a week before (September 27).
While Zacharias is there, an angel appears and tells him that he and his wife Elizabeth are going to have a son. After a little unpleasantness, he goes home, and before long, Elizabeth is pregnant. Judging from the story of the birth of Samuel (1 Samuel 1:19-20) and of Isaac (Genesis 18:14), when an angel states one will have a child, he means now. So John the Baptist would have been conceived about the end of September/beginning of October.
The narrative then turns to Mary. In the sixth month, an angel tells her that she will bear a son, and that her cousin Elizabeth is six months pregnant. If the months are counted from Rosh Hashanah, and if Zacharias received his annunciation on the Day of Atonement, this Annunciation would have taken place about March. She goes to visit Elizabeth, who recognizes that Mary is carrying Jesus*. Human reproduction being what it is, nine months later, she would have given birth. Nine months from March is December.
Now, this isn’t to say that Jesus wasn’t born in September or April, and I don’t know why the shepherds might have been in the fields in cold weather, either. (Well, yes I do know: if the town is full of tax collectors, and if flocks are considered as wealth, it would make sense for people to hide their assets out of town. But be that as it may.) But we can see that, when the early Church set Jesus’s birth at the end of December, it wouldn’t have been as a concession to the pagans they were trying to reach, but because they had reason to believe it was true. Happily, it appears to be much easier to put a date on the Resurrection.
(*Incidentally, this part of the story (Luke 1:39-44), also makes a pretty good argument for when life begins. It says Mary left "with haste" to see Elizabeth, and when she arrived, Elizabeth exclaims that blessed is the fruit of her womb. Mary couldn’t have been more than a couple of weeks pregnant, yet the fetus is recognized as being Elizabeth’s "Lord".)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)