Matthew2:2

1: “King of the Jews”

It appears that the location of the birth of this savior was missing from their research. So they arrived in the capital city and started asking around, hoping they would end up talking to someone who was knowledgeable about these things.

2: “His star”

In the paraphrase I render it, “We saw the star that speaks of him.” How can a star speak of anything? It speaks only if someone knows the prophecies. That means these men, who must have been trained in the religions of the Chaldeans, the Medes and the Persians, also studied deeply in the writings of other religions. There was still a significant presence of Jews in the countries of “the East,” left over from their captivity there, and it is reasonable to assume these sages could have gathered information and scrolls from Jews in their area. It also means these sages were anxious for the arrival of a true savior, one who would do more than change the political landscape for a few decades. Despite the location of their residence and the heathen culture that surrounded them, these men were seekers after the true God. They must have become convinced earlier that the God of the Jews was the only true God, and the only possible source of salvation for mankind. This made them study the prophecies about this Savior, and in them they found something that gave them what they needed to interpret the signs in the sky as being an indicator that “the Savior will soon arrive.”

Where did they find such predictions? They are not in the Old Testament, but there are two Midrashim (comments and interpretations of Rabbis) which were likely the sources that influenced them. One is called the Messiah-Haggadah and it states that “a star shall come out of Jacob,” and later “the star shall shine forth in the East.” Then there is the statement at the end of a collection of three Midrashim (the middle one being entitled, “Chapters about the Messiah,”) which predicted that a star in the East was to appear two years before the birth of the Savior.” Did such a star appear two years before Jesus was born? That is indeed when Jupiter and Saturn came together in the constellation of Pisces, and were later joined by Mars. I will not get into the meanings of the names Jupiter, Saturn and Mars because ancient mythology is full of much confusion and many contradictions on these matters. The point here is that the Magi could have gotten predictive information from the Midrashim available in their day, and that such a conjunction of planets did happen which would result in an extremely bright light in the skies.

How long would the bright light have remained in the sky? If the light were from a conjunction of planets rather than a special star that God placed in the sky for a specific and temporary purpose, the bright light would not have been visible for two years, of that we can be sure. Sometimes conjunctions of planets last only a few hours, and other times they may last a few days. The outer planets make their journey around the sun much more slowly than do the inner planets. Thus in a conjunction (a lining-up) of the earth, Jupiter and Saturn, it would be the earth’s rate of movement around the sun that would determine how long the planets would appear as one light. If we add Mars to the mix, it is safe to say that Mars would have remained part of the bright light in the sky for the least amount of time and would have become “separated” more quickly than Jupiter and Saturn would have. The point of this is that the bright “star” served only as an indicator that something was going to happen. It did not remain in the sky as they prepared and as they travelled. It shown brightly, was noticed by all, and used by a few as a signal of the fulfillment of prophecy. In that way it did its job. Then the planets moved apart and the bright light was no longer in the sky.

3

Here are the options for this clause: 1) “We saw his star which was in the East,” 2) “We saw his star rising to the east of us,” 3) “We saw his star at its rising/as it rose.”  4) “We saw his star while we were in the East.”

The problem with option number 3 is that it is not a very natural translation of the text. Yes, it is a possible meaning, but not the most obvious meaning, and our interpretive method should be to seek first the most obvious meaning for the original audience. The only problems with options 1 and 2 are the question: “If the star was in the east, how did it get to the west of your position?” Option number 4 is simply an explanation of why they journeyed from the East to get there.  However, the prophecies of the Midrashim specifically state that the star would be in the east, and the various times the terminology “in the East” is used in the rest of this passage place the emphasis on the star itself, not on the travelers.

It is most likely wrong to think of the star guiding them all the way from their country to Jerusalem. They knew to go to Israel because of the prophecies. The star only changed location when it lead them to the exact place where Jesus was at that time. That was a miracle; nothing else can explain it. But up until that moment the star could remain in the eastern sky without damaging the credibility of the story.  So in the end options 1 or 2 are the best, and I have chosen option 1.