All right. The next one, kind of on a similar line, is about the star of Bethlehem. And the question is, with advanced math in the field of astronomy, astronomers can rewind the night sky. Was what happened in the night sky the year of Christ's birth completely insignificant? After watching The Star of Bethlehem by Rick Larson's, it would seem hard to say yes to that question. I would personally not believe that this was what led the wise men to the specific house in Bethlehem as a star cannot do that very well.
But I do think this could have initially caught the attention of the wise men if they understood the meaning and symbols of the different stars and planets. What happened in the sky certainly was an unusual occurrence. Any comments? Okay. Now, yeah, I do have some comments. And actually, I do address this question in the Matthew commentary that I wrote several years ago. And let me read to you what I wrote there. Okay. So this is from let me see. Page 36 of the Matthew commentary.
What I wrote was this," In 1614, the astronomer, Johannes Kepler, developed the theory that the star the Magi saw was actually the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn. For several centuries, his theory held sway among many Christians. Today, astronomers discount his theory as implausible as far as those two planets are concerned. However, they have put forth alternative theories such as the star being the conjunction of Jupiter and Venus. And perhaps this is the case.
However, planetary conjunctions I'm still reading from the commentary. However, planetary conjunctions happen on a regular basis over the centuries. If the magi were motivated by a planetary conjunction, why were other magi not compelled to travel to Jerusalem when those same planets conjoined at other times?
In other words, if this is something that happened that happens once a century or so, well, then you'd think once a century, Magi would be traveling from the east to Jerusalem and saying," Hey, we just saw the star in the sky. We've heard that a king has been born." But you don't read of that happening. So that would raise questions in my mind. Origen points out that this star, now I'm back to reading from the commentary, had to be something specially ordained by God as a unique sign.
He says," It was not any of the constellations existing in the sky that was made to be the star of the East." Rather, it was something of another order appointed for this purpose and in the service of the knowledge of Jesus. And in another place, Origen says," I consider the star that was seen in the east to have been a new star, unlike any of the other well-known planetary bodies." All right.
Another problem this is me writing now from the commentary for this naturalistic theory is that those theories that it was conjunction of two planets, they can't adequately explain how the star disappeared when the Magi reached Jerusalem, only to reappear and then direct them to Bethlehem. And this is just an aside, I know that the ones who follow those theories and advocate them, they come up with all kinds of hypothetical explanations. None of them sound very, very convincing to me, I'd have to say.
Also, planetary theories do not realistically explain how any natural heavenly body could point to a particular dwelling where the infant resided. So still reading from my commentary," Perhaps the star was not a celestial body at all, but an angel or some other agent of God." Chrysostom argues for that explanation, saying," It seems to me that this star was not of the ordinary sort, or rather, it was not a star at all.
Instead, it was some invisible power transformed into the appearance of a star." In the first place, this is evident from its very course. First, there is not any star that moves in this manner. This is not like the motion of a star, but of some power highly endowed with reason. For it did not even have any course of its own. Rather, when they were ready to move, it moved. When they needed to stand still, it stood.
So when you watch a video like The Star of Bethlehem by Rick Larson's, you have to remember you're only hearing one side of the story. They're putting together all of the evidence that supports that theory, but you're not hearing another astronomer from a different viewpoint pointing out the fallacies or soft parts of their theory. You're just hearing one side. It'd be like going to court and one lawyer presents this case and you don't have a lawyer presenting the other case.
Well, yeah, of course, you're going to be convinced by the first lawyer because you don't have the other side presented. So when you're watching something like that, you're hearing an idealized version of a theory without hearing the opposing side. Now, it doesn't mean that this isn't possible. I'm not deriding it as," Oh, that's absolutely out of the question." I do think it's very unlikely, particularly just on its own.
The other thing we have to remember and that people like Rick Larson's totally forget, is that we know very little about the beliefs of the Magi. Would the conjunction of two heavenly bodies, two planets, really make them conclude that a king had just been born in Judea?
I mean, do you have any primary source that," Oh, yeah, when they saw two planets coming together and something extra bright like that, ah, that meant a king was born in Judea." We have no evidence whatsoever that that is how they would interpret that. Furthermore, even if they did, why on earth would they travel all the way there to present gifts? I mean, Judea was an insignificant Roman province. Did Magi travel to various countries every time a king was born in that country?
I mean, not that we have any record of. So something more, something supernatural was going on here. The other thing is that we do not know the exact year and day when Jesus was born. So again, films like the one you mentioned by Rick Larson's, well, he's having to assume the year and day when Jesus was born, or at least the approximate time of the year. And yes, maybe we can unwind the night sky. I'm going to just take that as a given.
But since we don't know the day and year when Jesus was born, we're forced to fix the date of his birth based on the night sky, which is assuming a lot.
In other words, you start off with a theory that it's the conjunction of these two planets, and then you're saying," Then Jesus had to be born when those two planets came together." Well, it should be the other way around that we start off with the date of his birth, and then we look to see, was there anything happening in the heavens from a natural sense that could be tied into that? We don't start off from that and say," Well, then Jesus had to be born then." That's doing things backwards.
That's another reason why I question theories like that. But again, if that helps someone's faith to believe that, fine. I mean, it's possible God could have used the conjunction of two heavenly bodies. That theory leaves still a lot of things unanswered. And I find it personally a lot easier to believe that God produced a miraculous event in the heavens that specifically drew the Magi to Judea. I think he did something in their hearts to draw them there.
No materials available for this lesson.