Some of the prophecies about Christ make it clear that he is more than man. Isaiah 9:6, “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the princedom will be upon his shoulders, and his name will be called Wonderful, Counsellor, mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” No plainer words could be used to express his deity. Again, although often designated as the son of David, this implied more than an earthly descendant of David. The Lord makes this plain by quoting the words of David in Psalm 110:1, “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I put thy enemies as thy footstool” (Matt. 22:43, 44). That an angelic Being is not meant is shown by Hebrews 1:13, “But to what angel has he ever said: ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make thy enemies thy footstool.’ ” Peter also quotes this passage in his sermon on the day of Pentecost to prove the Lordship and Messiahship of Jesus (Acts 2:34, 35).

One of the most remarkable things in our Lord’s ministry is the quiet assurance with which he unhesitatingly applies to himself titles from the Old Testament which are there indisputably used of Jehovah. Moreover, the New Testament writers ascribe such titles to Christ.

‘First And Last’

A significant title assumed by the Lord Jesus in the book of Revelation is “First and Last” (chapter 1:17; 2:8; 22:13). In 22:16 the speaker says of himself: “I Jesus have sent my angel to testify unto you of these things,” having already said in verse 13, “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.” Also in chapter 2:8, there is no doubt about the person to whom the words refer: “These things saith the first and last, who died and came to life.” Now this designation “First and last” occurs three times in Isaiah (41:4; 44:6; 48:12) where on each occasion Jehovah is the speaker.

The ‘I Am’

Jehovah, the incorrect but well-established rendering of the Hebrew consonants YHWH, was regarded by the Jews as too sacred to be pronounced and was replaced by a variety of substitutes, such as “Lord” (Adonai), or “The Name.” We can no longer say with certainty how it was pronounced, but from Exodus 3:14 we know that it was derived from the verb “to be”: “God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am’; and he said: Say to the people of Israel ‘I am’ has sent you.” Now on more than one occasion our Lord refers to himself by using “I am” in a way that points unmistakably to this Old Testament title of Jehovah. In a controversy with the Jews he declared: “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). Had he been merely a pre-existent Being, then he would have had to say “Before Abraham was, I was.” That the amazing implication of his claim did not escape the Jews is clearly shown by the extreme violence of their reaction in attempting to stone him to death for alleged blasphemy. Another occasion on which he used it was at the time of his arrest. To his question to his approaching captors, “Whom seek ye?,” they answered, “Jesus of Nazareth,” to which he replied, “I am.” The effect that this brief utterance had on them was dramatic: “They went backward and fell to the ground” (John 18:5, 6). The mere literal sense of these words could hardly have produced this extraordinary effect. Then again at the crucial stage of his trial, Jesus, being interrogated by the high priest as to his messianic claims, replied, “I am: and you shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62). The savage vehemence that this called forth in the high priest and the company can be explained only if it was understood by them to be a claim to personal deity, a blasphemy in their eyes of such magnitude as to be expiated only by death.

Author Of Eternal Words

The Old Testament constantly claims to be an authoritative and immutable communication from God. In Isaiah 40:8 we are told: “The grass withers and the flower fades, but the word of our God stands for ever.” To this view of the Old Testament as a divine revelation our Lord unquestionably subscribes. For instance, his words in Matthew 5:18, “For truly I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall not pass away from the Law, until all things are fulfilled.” For his own words he makes a substantially similar claim: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35).

Light

The coming Messiah is designated in two familiar prophecies as “Light” (Isa. 9:2, compare Matt. 4:16; and Isa. 49:6, compare Luke 2:32). Five times in the first chapter of John (verses 4, 5, 7, 8, 9) this description is used. His uniqueness is stressed in verse 9: “The true light.” Our Lord himself said: “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12). Now light is a well-known title of Jehovah in the Old Testament; for instance, Psalm 27:1, “The Lord is my Light and my salvation,” or even more specifically in Isaiah in a context of messianic prophecies: “Jehovah will be to you an everlasting light” (Isa. 60:19 and 20). Again, following on the messianic prophecy of Isaiah 59:20 we have in 60:1 “light” designating the Messiah, equated with the glory of Jehovah. “Arise, shine [that is, Zion], for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has dawned upon you.” It is instructive to see how John in his introduction to his first epistle uses the very same epithet of God that he had already used in the opening verses of his Gospel of the incarnate Son, who is there the “light that the darkness found invincible” while in First John 1:5, “God is light and in him is no darkness at all.”

Rock

There are two words commonly used in Hebrew for “rock,” as well as the word “stone.” One is used for instance in Psalm 18:2, “Jehovah is my rock,” the other in Psalm 95:1, “O come let us sing to Jehovah, let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation.” Paul in First Corinthians 10:4 interprets the “rock” of Exodus 17:6 as referring to Christ. “Stone” is used as a title of God in Genesis 49:24, and in the messianic passage in Isaiah 28:16, “Behold I am laying in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tested stone.” Peter in his first letter (1 Pet. 2:6–8) understands this passage to be speaking of Christ as the foundation stone of the “spiritual house,” the Church. Although the word here is not the one used in Matthew 16:18 (“and upon this rock I will build my church”), the similarity of function is so obvious that Peter must also have had these words in mind. This seems all the more certain from his application two verses later of “rock,” a description of Jehovah taken from Isaiah 8:14, to Christ. On linguistic grounds there could be no objection to seeing in Matthew 16:18 another instance of our Lord’s taking to himself a common Old Testament title of Jehovah.

Bridegroom

The figure of a bridegroom is one that is frequently used either implicitly or explicitly of Jehovah in the Old Testament. In Hosea 2:16, for instance, Jehovah says, “You will call me ‘my husband.’ ” Again in Isaiah 62:5, “As a bridegroom rejoicing over the bride, your God will rejoice over you.” Our Lord early in his ministry and often subsequently depicts himself as a bridegroom. In a reply to the Pharisees, he says concerning himself: “Can the sons of the wedding chamber fast while the bridegroom is with them?” (Mark 2:19). Again in the parable of the “Foolish Virgins” he is the bridegroom (Matt. 25:1–13). In that great final beatific vision (Rev. 21:2) the Church is depicted “as a bride adorned for her husband.”

Shepherd

In Psalm 23:1 we read, “Jehovah is my shepherd,” and in Ezekiel 34:15, “I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep.” In John 10:11, our Lord uses this title of himself, “I am the good shepherd, the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” Peter calls him “the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls” (1 Pet. 2:25) and again “the chief Shepherd” (1 Pet. 5:4). The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews speaks of him as “the great shepherd” (Heb. 13:20). That the title is unique is clear from John 10:16, “So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.”

Forgiver Of Sins

In the Old Testament, God alone has the right and power to forgive sins: Jeremiah 31:34, “For I [Jehovah] will forgive their wickedness, and their sin will I remember no more.” Or again Psalm 130:4, “For with Thee is forgiveness that Thou shouldest be feared.” In the New Testament we find our Lord claiming this right for himself. In Luke 5:21 we read of the Pharisees protesting that only God could forgive sins. This was to them, as it would be to us, self-evident. To this Christ replied by substantiating his authority to forgive, by healing the paralytic. In Acts 5:31 Peter proclaims Christ as the One whom “God has exalted at His right hand as Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” In Colossians 2:13 Paul speaks of God “having forgiven us all our transgressions,” while in chapter 3:13, it is, “the Lord [or Christ] has forgiven you.” If the right reading here is Lord, it must stand for Christ, as is clear from such a reference as “Christ Jesus the Lord” in chapter 2:6.

Redeemer

The act of redemption is peculiar to God in the Old Testament. Two Hebrew words are in use, and both occur in Hosea 13:14, “From the power of Sheol, I will ransom them, from death I will redeem them.” Again in Psalm 130:7, “For with Jehovah is grace and abundance of ransom and he will ransom Israel from all his iniquities.” A direct parallel to this is found in Titus 2:13 with the difference that now Christ is identified with God (see verse 10): “Our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might ransom us from all iniquity.” A different Greek verb for redemption is found in Galatians 3:13, “Christ has purchased us from the curse of the law.” Again in Revelation 5:9, “For Thou [the Lamb] wast slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood, men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

Saviour, Or Author Of Salvation

In the Old Testament Jehovah is frequently described as Saviour or as the author of salvation: Isaiah 43:3, “For I am Jehovah, thy God, the holy One of Israel, thy Saviour”: or Ezekiel 34:22, “And I [the Lord Jehovah, verse 20] will save my flock and it will no longer be for booty and I will judge between sheep and sheep, and I will establish over them one shepherd.” The resemblance to John 10:17, 16, is striking: “I [Jesus] lay down my life for the sheep” and “there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” In Isaiah 45:22 a world-wide salvation is promised: “Turn to me and let yourselves be saved, all the ends of the earth,” and a little later (verse 23): “To me every knee shall bow and every tongue shall swear,” words taken up by Paul in Philippians 2:10, “At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,” and (verse 11) “every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” It would be impossible to quote all the passages in the New Testament that refer to the Lord Jesus as Saviour or the author of salvation. He was given the name Jesus expressly: “for he will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21); in Hebrews 5:9, “He became unto all those who obey him the author of eternal salvation.” In harmony with all this is the significant parallel between “our God and Saviour Jesus Christ” and “our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” by Peter (2 Pet. 1:1, 11).

Co-Partner Of Divine Glory

In Isaiah 42:8 we read: “I am Jehovah and I shall not give my glory to another,” and the phrase is repeated again in Isaiah 48:11. Now in that sacredest of all his prayers recorded in John 17, our Lord speaks of the reciprocal nature of his shared glory with the Father and says: “Father, the hour is come, glorify the Son, that the Son may glorify thee” (verse 1). And again a little later: “And now glorify me, Father, with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (verse 5). Paul sums all this up in an arresting phrase. When he confronts the abjection of His humiliation with the sublimity of His exaltation, the title he uses contains two superlatives. “For had they [the leaders] known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory” (1 Cor. 2:8).

Judge

One of the earliest titles of Jehovah is that of universal judge. Abraham standing before him says: “Shall not the judge of all the earth execute justice?” (Gen. 18:25). And in Joel 3:12 Jehovah says: “I will sit to judge all the nations round about.” Now from Matthew 25:31–46 we learn that Christ will occupy the throne of glory—and there can be none more eminent than this—and preside at the last judgment. Here it is not so much the assumption of a title as the exercising of an office. In Romans 2:3 Paul speaks of the judgment of God, but in Second Timothy 4:1 it is, “Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the dead.” It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Second Corinthians 5:10 speaks of the judgment seat of Christ.

The belief in the deity of Christ is derived directly from statements concerning him in the Bible. The references are so many and their meaning so plain that Christians of every shade of opinion have always regarded its affirmation as an absolute and indispensable requisite of their faith. It is proclaimed in the very first sermon of the infant Church (Acts 2:36) where Peter, to the loftiest title known to a Jew, adds a loftier still—Lord and Christ (Messiah); while in the last vision of the Book of Revelation the Lamb occupying one throne with God (Rev. 22:3) can betoken only essential oneness.

Christ’s claim to be equal with God underlies his teaching right from the start. The disciples could not long have missed the implication of the change in the very frame of his message from that of the Old Testament prophets, whose familiar introduction, “Thus saith the Lord,” was now replaced by “But I say unto you” (no fewer than nine times in the early part of the Sermon on the Mount recorded in Matthew, chapter 5).

In content and scope his teaching embraced much that was new about the nature of God. Not only the disciples but also the Jews soon recognized that he was affirming his equality with God (John 5:18). He was beginning to reveal that the “unity” of God involved a true uniting of three “persons” in the Godhead, of whom he was claiming to be one. (“Godhead” simply means “the divine nature”; “head” is an abstract ending, commonly appearing as “hood,” and it was just by chance that “Godhead” became current instead of the equally proper “Godhood.”)

The New Testament writers seem never to have felt the need to systematize the many statements of Christ on his unique relationship to the Father, or to define by way of a logical formulation the basis of their belief in the “Trinity.” For them this doctrine was practical and implicit, rather than theoretic. Not surprisingly, therefore, the word “Trinity” itself never appears in the New Testament. To see in its absence a possible objection to the doctrine would be as illogical as to deny that theological knowledge is to be found in the New Testament since the word “theology” is nowhere used.

It is, moreover, a well-known fact that evidence for the beliefs of a community does not demand the existence of a systematic statement. No one, for instance, would question the belief of certain primitive peoples in polytheism because it lacks orderly expression.

By “trinity” is meant “three in one” and “one in three,” “trinity in unity” and “unity in trinity.” Thus it is not “tri-theism” or “three Gods,” nor is it merely three aspects of God. The word “person” is the word that, by a process of transference, has been adopted to designate the distinctions existing in the Godhead, namely Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is probably the best term at our disposal to denote the possession of such decisive characteristics of personality as intercommunication and fellowship, as ascribed individually to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In numerous passages in the New Testament the “trinitarian” pattern is so clearly defined that one would be compelled to invent some such word as “trinity,” if it did not already exist, to describe the implications of the statements.

It was not until the Gospel had been preached for some three hundred years in New Testament terms that anyone took on himself to assail the belief of Christians in the deity of Christ. The person who did it was Arius. The novel form of his attack shows that Christians had hitherto accepted it without question. His arguments, as formulated by him, were clearly intended as an objection to the prevalent view, not as a correction of a heresy. If the state of affairs had been otherwise, that is, if Christians generally had denied the deity of Christ, then his opposition would have been meaningless. As promotion to a bishopric had been denied him, he has left himself wide open to the suspicion of having been motivated by a desire for personal revenge. He was evidently a man who knew how to exploit secular political influence to the full, and the story of his machinations makes sordid reading. As a consequence of strong political support, a controversy arose out of all proportion to the merits of his arguments. His views were finally shown to be at complete variance with Scripture and were pronounced heretical. Nevertheless, from time to time they have been revived, either deliberately or in ignorance, often peddled from door to door by text-mongers, unaware that the very passages which they have learned to quote so glibly were first used over sixteen hundred years ago by a frustrated “cleric.”

Within the brief compass of this booklet it will not be possible to quote all the passages referring to the deity of Christ and to consider all the ways in which this truth is indicated in Scripture. The reader should, however, find no difficulty in adding to the references given here. In the passages quoted, the original text has been kept constantly under review, and on occasion wording not to be found in any standard translation has been introduced, where it was felt that the meaning of the original could be made more apparent. In the section that immediately follows, the evidence is all the stronger for being of an incidental nature.

A twenty-four page pamphlet published earlier this year in Britain by the North of England Evangelical Trust attracted immediate interest in church circles. For one thing, it presented the case for “The Deity of Christ”—a neglected theme in contemporary Christianity—with biblical reverence and theological power. Even more significant, the treatise was the work not of ordained clergymen or theologians but of two laymen who used their initials, F.F.B. and W.J.M., rather than their full names. But the brief identification left no doubt in informed evangelical circles of the authors: Dr. F. F. Bruce, head of the Department of New Testament Language and Literature in the University of Manchester, and Dr. William J. Martin, head of the Department of Old Testament Languages in the University of Liverpool.

The essay appears simultaneously in CHRISTIANITY TODAY and in His magazine, a publication of Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, by special arrangement. Copies of the essay are available in pamphlet form from the North of England Evangelical Trust in Manchester, England.—ED.

I believe … in Jesus Christ who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.…” Thus the Apostles’ Creed affirms a doctrine mentioned by both Matthew and the physician Luke and obviously known to the Apostle Paul. Yet this doctrine of the Virgin Birth has become a stone of stumbling to minds both ancient and modern. Its seeming impossibility has made it the object of numerous attacks, some scholarly, many ignorant. The passages on which the doctrine is based have been alleged to be later insertions into the gospel record and therefore to be deleted or ignored. The Virgin Birth has been dismissed as something borrowed from the pagan myths of the first century. Other persons have simply rejected the thought that a child, even Christ, could be born to a woman apart from a physical relationship with a man. Nevertheless, the doctrine has definite New Testament authority and was incorporated into the creeds of the Church. We are therefore forced to ask some basic questions. Was the Virgin Birth necessary? Is it important for our understanding of Christianity and the person of Christ? What is its significance? If we sacrifice this doctrine, do we lose anything of value?

We observe, first of all, that the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Christ attests the reliability of the Scriptures and the promises of God recorded therein. As Matthew records the announcement to the wondering Joseph that Mary’s child has been conceived by the Holy Ghost, he is careful to point out that prophecy was being fulfilled. “Now all this was done,” he writes, “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” (1:22, 23). Matthew is referring to the prophecy recorded in Isaiah 7:14. This verse has become the battlefield of controversy, the test of many a version of the Scriptures. When some translator substitutes “young woman” for “virgin,” the cry of heresy is heard. So the translators of the Revised Standard Version have been charged with denying the Virgin Birth of our Lord.

Two Hebrew words can be translated “virgin.” The first, bethulah, can mean only “a virgin pure and unspotted.” The second, almah, can mean “a young woman of marriageable age” or a “virgin.” It is this latter word which Isaiah uses. His word can thus legitimately be translated either “young woman” or “virgin.” Other factors must prove decisive in arriving at the true significance of his prophecy.

Prophecy Twice Fulfilled

Many of the Old Testament prophecies have more than one fulfillment. Whenever a prophecy has two fulfillments, one is generally immediate and partial, the other future and complete. The context of Isaiah 7 shows that the birth of the child whose name was to be “Immanuel” was to be a God-given sign to King Ahaz indicating the imminence of the conquest of the kingdoms by the king of Assyria. This child would obviously have to be born during the lifetime of Ahaz. And this suggests a possible partial fulfillment of the prophecy. A comparison of Isaiah 7:16 and 8:3, 4 shows that the latter reference records the immediate fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. The prophetess bears a son, by “the will of man,” and this son is the promised sign to King Ahaz. If, therefore, we insist that Isaiah 7:14 be translated with “virgin” and never with “young woman,” we find ourselves with two virgin births recorded in Scripture, while we hold that the birth of Christ was unique! By acknowledging that almah can mean either “young woman” or “virgin,” we avoid this inconsistency. But Matthew, faced with the twin meaning of the word, by the inspiration of the Spirit chose “virgin.”

When Matthew selected his word and referred to this ancient prophecy, he was showing that the Virgin Birth had its roots not only in the Messianic hope of Israel but in the unbreakable promise and plan of God. As this Child is conceived in Mary, a young woman who is a virgin, the sure word of prophecy is attested, the authority of the Bible is still further confirmed, and the certainty of God’s promises is proclaimed.

In the next place, the Virgin Birth declares the presence of the supernatural. Biologically and medically, a virgin birth is a sheer impossibility. Equally impossible, however, are the feeding of the five thousand, the raising of Lazarus, and the resurrection of Christ. The Virgin Birth is the first of a long sequence of quite impossible events and miracles recorded for us in the four Gospels.

These miracles are referred to as “signs.” But of what are they signs? Christ himself pointed out their significance: “But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you” (Luke 11:20). The miracles, including the Virgin Birth, are signs to man that God’s kingdom has come to earth, that God has intervened in the world, that an other-worldly power is present, that the supernatural is real. The miracles proclaim that the world of the known, the understandable, the scientifically measurable, has been invaded from beyond by the sovereign finger of God. This divine, supernatural power is not bound by our known principles and laws. The Virgin Birth and the other miracles do not submit themselves for attestation to research and experiment, to test tubes and slide rules.

The Presence Of Mystery

The laws of conception and birth, as we know them, state emphatically that there must be a father. In Mary’s case no father is involved; instead, we are shown the sovereign hand of God working through the Holy Spirit in supernatural power. Here is mystery, and it continues throughout the whole ministry of Jesus. As someone has said, “The presence of mystery is the footprint of the divine.”

Our world naturally finds all this difficult and impossible. “There are no miracles,” man cries, “only problems.” “Dismiss it if it cannot be proved!” demands our scientific society. In this space age, we are in danger of becoming so earth-bound that we evade the possibility of miracles, forgetting the power of God and ignoring the reality of the supernatural. The Virgin Birth forcibly proclaims that the supernatural came to this world with Christ. As we are challenged by the other-worldly life of Christ, so are we challenged initially by his other-worldly birth.

Furthermore, the Virgin Birth is a unique attestation of the person of the Saviour. The redemptive work of Christ depends upon his supernatural birth to the Virgin Mary. When we are asked, “Is the Virgin Birth historically necessary for salvation?,” we must reply affirmatively. This miracle tells us not what we have to do to gain our salvation but what Christ had to become in order to gain our redemption. It tells us that God has intervened on our behalf by a Man, bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh. The Man dying on Calvary for our sins was no angel sent from heaven but a person born as every other child is born, to a woman. Thus in the providence and power of God the one who died as our substitute on the Cross is one who can pay man’s penalty, for he is Man. The writer to the Hebrews expresses the truth in these words, “Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people” (2:17).

The Virgin Birth guarantees for us that this Man, born to a woman but not by the will of man, is the God-Man. Conceived by the Holy Ghost, this Child of Mary’s womb does not stand in the fallen sequence of Adam, sharing mankind’s guilt and sin. He is Man without man’s sin. That this is so is demonstrated by the life he lived in relation to his Father during his sojourn in the flesh upon earth. His sinless life, born from Mary, is revealed in his perfect obedience to his Father’s will. This obedience had a passive aspect. “I can of myself do nothing,” he stated; “as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me” (John 5:30). The rebellious willfulness of fallen man was absent from this Man among men. He was in his Father’s hands, and he was content.

There is also a positive aspect of his obedience that again demonstrates his sinless nature. “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work” (John 4:34). This positive acceptance of his Father’s will led him through the temptation of the desert and the agony of the garden to the consummation of the Cross. “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.… It is finished!” (John 17:4, 19:30). Here is not only an acceptance of God’s will but a perfect obedience to it that reveals the perfect Man. He is born to a woman, as all other men indeed are, but not in the line of sinful man. He stands as a Man in the world but without the rebellion, the arrogance, the pride of Adam’s fallen race.

Accordingly, in this final act of obedience upon the Cross, the sinless Lamb of God, born of a woman, Mary, can offer himself to God and so perfectly pay the price of man’s sin. He is a “lamb without spot or blemish.” Again Hebrews offers a clear statement: “For such a high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself” (7:26, 27).

Finally, the Virgin Birth is the sovereign God’s perfect answer to the problem of how to find a suitable sacrifice for man’s sin. The sacrifice must be man, yet must be free from man’s foul taint. Only in the sinless Son of God, born as a Man in this world by the sovereign act of the Spirit in Mary’s womb, could such a sacrifice be found. As B. B. Warfield has well written, “It is only in relation to the New Testament doctrine of redemption that the necessity of the virgin birth of Jesus comes to its complete manifestation.” The redemptive and saving work of the Saviour depends upon his birth of a virgin by the Spirit of God.

T. Leo Brannon is pastor of the First Methodist Church of Samson, Alabama. He received the B.S. degree from Troy State College and the B.D. from Emory University.

A question frequently heard by astronomers near Christmas is, “What was the Star of Bethlehem?” Everyone who asks this question must believe that there is at least a possibility that the Star can be explained by some known astronomical phenomenon; otherwise the question would not be asked. To answer this question might seem easy: it should be only a matter of looking through ancient records to see if anything unusual appeared in the heavens at the time of the birth of Christ, or of calculating the motions of the celestial bodies for that time to see if any unusual events were taking place in the heavens.

Actually it is not possible to say definitely what was taking place in the skies of the first Christmas simply because we do not know when the birth of Christ took place. This may seem strange since we call this year A.D. 1964, that is, Anno Domini, or the year of our Lord, 1964. But Christ was not born 1964 years ago, and at present we have no way of telling exactly what the year was. At the time of the birth of Christ the Roman calendar was in use in Palestine. This calendar counted the years from the legendary date of the founding of the city of Rome: “ab urbe condita” or A.U.C., that is, “from the founding of the city.” The idea of counting the years from the birth of Christ was not introduced until several centuries later.

Two thousand years ago the Roman calendar used months that kept step with the phases of the moon and were alternately twenty-nine and thirty days in length, while the year was supposed to keep step with the seasons, or the time required for the earth to go once around the sun. In the year 47 B.C. a new calendar was designed by Julius Caesar, and ours was derived from this calendar with a few changes. The Roman calendar had no week; the months were divided roughly into thirds by three days called the Kalends, the Nones, and the Ides, and the other days were numbered backward from these three. The week was not introduced into our calendar until the time of the Emperor Constantine, in A.D. 325. Other important changes in the calendar were made by Augustus a few years after the death of Julius Caesar, by Dionysius Exiguus in A.D. 533, and by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582.

The change most important to us is the one proposed by Dionysius in 533, when he suggested that the years should no longer be counted A.U.C. but should be reckoned from the birth of Christ. Dionysius looked through the records to see which year should be called the year 1, and since we have more records available to us we know now that he made a mistake. Dionysius found a statement by Clement of Alexandria that the birth of Christ took place in the twenty-eighth year of the reign of the Roman Emperor Augustus. It was in 726 A.U.C. that Augustus was proclaimed emperor, so Dionysius added twenty-eight years to this date to obtain 754 A.U.C. as the year of the birth of Christ and the year A.D. 1. But Dionysius did not seem to be aware of the fact that Augustus had ruled for some time using his own name of Octavian. After the death of Julius Caesar on the Ides of March in 44 B.C. (according to our calendar), Octavian, his grandnephew, became his heir and in 42 B.C. defeated Brutus and Cassius at Philippi. Octavian also defeated Anthony and Cleopatra in the naval battle at Actium and became the ruler of Rome in 31 B.C. Four years later the senate conferred upon him the title of Augustus. Dionysius should have taken these four years into account but did not, and hence was in error by four years for this reason alone.

What other evidence concerning the date of the birth is available? In the accounts of the life of Christ in the Gospels we find some evidence. In Matthew we find the statement that the birth occurred “in the days of Herod the King.” The historian Josephus states that Herod died a few days after an eclipse of the moon visible from Jericho, and a few days before the feast of the Passover. Since the dates of eclipses and of Passover depend on the motion of the moon, it is possible to determine these dates accurately by calculation. The only lunar eclipse that satisfies the necessary conditions took place on March 13, 4 B.C. The Passover was celebrated on April 12 of that year, so Herod must have died at some time near April 1, 4 B.C., and Christ must have been born before this date, possibly a few years before.

Another clue is found in Luke, where we read of the reason Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem and why Bethlehem was so crowded that “there was no room for them in the inn.” This was because taxes were being collected, and everyone had been ordered to return to his native town or city for this purpose: “all went to be taxed, everyone into his own city.” If we knew just when this tax collection was made we would know the date of the birth of Christ, but unfortunately there is no exact record. No one had any accurate idea until about twenty years ago, when some archaeologists working in Ankara, Turkey, uncovered an inscription giving a list of the years in which orders were issued for tax collections. Three of these are 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14. Others are listed, but none falls between 28 B.C. and A.D. 14 except 8 B.C. Clearly, 28 B.C. is too early and A.D. 14 is too late, so that the tax collection of 8 B.C. appears to be the one with which we are concerned. This seems to indicate that the birth of Christ may have taken place as early as 8 B.C. But we must remember that this was the year in which the orders were issued, and it is easy to see how with the slow travel and poor communications of those days the actual collection of taxes might have been delayed for a year or two in countries like Palestine, near the edge of the Roman empire. Thus the year of the birth may well have been 7 B.C. or even 6 B.C. Most students of the question agree upon these two years as the most likely ones.

A Clue To The Season

We cannot be sure of the exact year of the birth of Christ, and we have but one slender clue as to the season of the year. This is the statement in Luke that there were “shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.” Shepherds do not ordinarily watch their flocks at night except during the spring, the season when the lambs are born; and so it would seem that the birth of Christ may have taken place in the spring. The early Christians celebrated the Nativity on January 6, together with Epiphany and the Baptism. This was very close to the Roman feast of the Saturnalia, which marked the first day of winter, then December 25. Later Christmas or the Nativity was separated from Epiphany and moved back to coincide with and take the place of the pagan festival of the Saturnalia. Although the Saturnalia is often thought of as a period of riotous celebration, it was originally a more sober time of good feeling.

Now that we know the approximate time, let us look for the answer to our question: “What was the Star of Bethlehem?” Many suggestions have been made. One is that the Star was nothing more than an exceptionally bright shooting star or meteor, what is called a fireball or bolide. Sometimes these are bright enough to be seen in full daylight, and when seen in the night sky they are very spectacular objects. The ordinary meteor is a very small object, usually no larger than the head of a pin, that strikes the earth’s atmosphere at such a high speed that the friction with the air heats it up until it shines. In the brief interval of a second or two the particle is entirely consumed, but while this is happening we see the object as a bright star-like point streaking across the sky.

Larger meteors, weighing perhaps hundreds of pounds or several tons, put on a more exciting show, sometimes giving more light than the full moon. While these are rather rare, anyone who lives far from cities and who spends a considerable amount of time out of doors after dark is likely to see several of them in a lifetime. Such an object would not be considered extremely unusual, and it would seem also that the Star of Bethlehem must have been something less ephemeral. So let us search further for some explanation that seems more likely.

Was The Star A Comet?

Comets immediately come to mind, since even today they have a great effect upon the emotions of the superstitious and the ignorant. Comets move in regular orbits around the sun, but these orbits are usually not nearly so circular as those of the planets. The orbits of most comets are long narrow ellipses, with the sun near one end of the ellipse. When a comet is far from the sun, it cannot be seen even with large telescopes; but as it approaches the sun it becomes brighter and may grow a long tail composed of very thin gases and very fine dust. If when the comet comes close to the sun it also comes close to the earth, it will be a very spectacular object in the night sky. Faint comets are not unusual, as many as fourteen having been observed in a single year; but really bright ones are unusual, appearing only a few times each century. No bright comet has been seen in the night sky since the last appearance of Halley’s Comet in 1910. Two other really bright comets have been seen in the night sky during this century, but these were not visible to observers in the northern hemisphere.

Although bright comets are sometimes visible for months or even a few years in great telescopes, they are visible to the unaided eye for a few weeks at most. At these times they can be seen rising and setting like the sun, moon, and stars, slowly changing their positions among the stars from night to night. A spectacular comet attracts so much attention that its appearance was likely to be recorded in many places in ancient times. As an example we may take Halley’s Comet, which appears once every seventy-seven years since it goes around the sun once in that period. Records of every appearance of this comet back to 240 B.C. have been found in Europe, China, or Japan. When we search these same records to see if a bright comet was seen at the time of the birth of Christ, we find that one (Halley’s) was seen in 11 B.C. and another in 4 B.C., with none between these dates. We have already seen that 4 B.C. is too late while 11 B.C. is too early, and may thus dismiss comets as a possible explanation of the Star. We need not consider the possibility that a comet did appear at the right time but was not recorded, because such an apparition was almost universally held to be an evil omen, heralding the coming of war, pestilence, or famine, and never a sign of something good.

Every few years at irregular intervals, a bright nova or “new star” appears suddenly in the sky, and it has often been suggested that such an object might have been the Star of Bethlehem. A nova is really not a new star but a faint star that very suddenly, in a few hours, becomes much brighter. Some sort of explosion takes place; the star blows off its outer layers and may increase its brightness many thousands of times in a day or two. Sometimes these objects become bright enough to be seen in full daylight, only to fade away in a few weeks or months so that telescopes are required to see them. About a dozen novae are discovered somewhere in the universe each year, but few of these are near enough to be seen without telescopes even when at their brightest. There are two classes of novae, ordinary ones that at maximum give off about 25,000 times as much light as the sun, and supernovae, which are 100,000,000 times as luminous as the sun.

If a star at a distance of 100 light years were to become a supernova, it would be brighter than the full moon. Two of these that were close enough to be very conspicuous are recorded: one appeared in 1572 and was bright enough to be seen in full daylight; the other, seen in 1604, was brighter than any object in the night sky except Venus and the moon, and remained visible to the unaided eye for seventeen months. The nova of 1604 was observed by Kepler, one of the greatest of all astronomers, and he was the first to suggest that the Star of Bethlehem might have been such an object. We cannot find any record of the appearance of a nova at any time near the birth of Christ, and we should expect such an event to have been recorded. This does not mean, however, that we must discard this explanation of the Star.

Before we consider another possibility, let us see just what we know about the Star itself. It is mentioned in only one chapter in the Gospels, Matthew 2, where we read:

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

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.

When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,

And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

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.

When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him; and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

Nowhere else in the Bible is the Star mentioned, and even here the word is used but four times. Few people seem to realize this, and we find many inaccuracies and embellishments in the story as it is told and pictured today. How often do we see in advertisements and on Christmas cards pictures of the shepherds with the Star of Bethlehem in the sky, even though the shepherds never saw the Star. We see pictures of the shepherds and the Wise Men visiting the Christ-child together, although they never did so. Other pictures show the Wise Men worshiping the Child as he lay in the manger, but Matthew distinctly states that they entered a house to visit him. Although the Scriptures do not say how many Wise Men there were, we all are taught that there were three; and somewhere during the centuries names have been supplied for them!

Only The Wise Men Saw

Brief as the mention of the Star is, and despite the fact that no description whatever is given of it, we find an extremely important clue in the lines quoted above: no one but the Wise Men saw the Star. When they told Herod of it he had obviously not seen it or even heard of it, for he “inquired diligently what time the star appeared.” Obviously no spectacular object had been seen in the heavens, for if it had, no one, especially Herod, would have been ignorant of it. The shepherds saw the angel of the Lord but not the Star. Only the Wise Men saw it. We must remember that the word “star” was often used in those days in a somewhat different way and with a broader meaning than the one with which we are familiar today. Then the word was used for almost any object in the sky, whatever its nature, and sometimes even for events in the heavens. Since no one else saw the Star, we must search, not for some spectacular object in the sky visible to everyone, but rather for something that must have been visible to anyone who looked at the sky, but that was thought to be of especial significance only by the Wise Men.

Before doing this we must know more about these men—who they were, where they came from, what they thought and believed. “Wise men from the east” probably means from the part of the world we call Persia. We have another name for these men: the Magi. From this come our words magic and magician, and the Magi were magicians and necromancers. They were priests of Zoroaster and believers in astrology. Today in the scientific world astrology is thoroughly discredited and condemned, and no scientist has any faith in its teachings. Astrology seems to have originated among the ancient Babylonians as an important part of their religion, although few of those who practice astrology today realize that they are practicing an ancient pagan religion. But we must think of things as they were 2,000 years ago to understand the Wise Men.

They believed that the heavenly bodies actually influenced the lives of human beings and had worked out a very complex scheme by which it was supposed that this influence could be determined beforehand. The sky was divided into imaginary regions (the stars themselves have nothing to do with astrology even today) that were supposed to control the various parts of the earth, various races, different parts of the body, and so on. The influence of the regions was supposed to be determined partly by the arrangement within them of the seven ancient planets: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and the sun and the moon. These seven objects move about among the apparently fixed stars, and any unusual arrangement of them was supposed to portend some unusual event. The Wise Men were familiar with the ancient prophecies concerning the coming of a King, whose birth was to be preceded by a sign in the sky. Indeed, this was part of the religion of Zoroaster, and so we would expect the Magi to be watching the heavens for such a sign.

Signs In The Heavens

What events in the heavens of astrological significance were taking place in the years we have chosen as those in which the birth of Christ probably occurred? When Kepler first saw the great nova of 1604, he was watching something else unusual, a close grouping of the planets Mars and Jupiter and Saturn. Jupiter and Saturn are the slowest moving of the planets, Jupiter requiring almost twelve and Saturn nearly thirty years to go once around the sky as they move eastward among the stars. As they follow these motions, ordinarily Jupiter passes Saturn once each twenty years. When one planet passes another they are said to be in conjunction, even though one may be at a considerable distance north or south of the other when they pass. Near the end of 1603 there was a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, and during the following months Jupiter slowly moved ahead of Saturn. Before the two planets were very far apart Mars passed them both, near the beginning of October, 1604. While the three planets thus stood close together on October 10, 1604, the bright nova mentioned earlier appeared almost in their midst. It must have been a most striking sight, and it set Kepler to thinking about the Star of Bethlehem.

He calculated back to see when this close grouping of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn had taken place before and found that it happens once each 805 years, and that it must have been seen in 6 B.C.! In 6 B.C. the three planets were close together in Pisces, the Fishes, which the ancient astrologers called the House of the Hebrews, since celestial events taking place there were supposed to be of particular importance to the Jews. Also they believed that Saturn ruled over the destinies of the Jews, so that they had two good reasons for believing that this extremely rare grouping of the planets portended some event of extreme importance about to take place among the Jews. Since the Wise Men were watching for a sign of the coming of the King, it is easy to think that they might have accepted this as the sign, and it may well have been this that started them on their journey to Jerusalem. This celestial event was of great significance to the Magi but would have attracted little attention from the casual observer of the heavens.

Other important events had been taking place in the same part of the sky a little earlier. Jupiter and Saturn (and the other planets as well) do not move steadily eastward among the stars but sometimes appear to reverse their motions and go westward for a few months. If this happens at just the right time after Jupiter has passed Saturn, Jupiter will pass Saturn a second time as it reverses its motion, and a third time when it starts forward again, giving three conjunctions in a few months instead of the usual one each twenty years. This happened in Pisces, on May 29, September 29, and December 4 of 7 B.C. Also, in the spring of 6 B.C., after Mars had moved away from Jupiter and Saturn but while they were still fairly close together, Venus passed the two planets, forming another close and unusual grouping visible in the morning sky.

Thus the Wise Men saw several rare and, to them, very significant events taking place in the House of the Hebrews. First, during 7 B.C. the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn that occurs only once each 125 years. Next, the close grouping of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn early in 6 B.C., which occurs only once in 805 years and which must have been an unheard-of event to them. As has been suggested above, this was probably the sign that started them on their long journey which ended in Bethlehem. If so, while they were traveling, the third close grouping of Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn took place. Kepler always believed that another nova had appeared at about the time of the end of the journey; but as we have seen, we have no evidence of this.

Thus we see some possible explanations of the Star that astronomers have to offer: a brilliant meteor or fireball, a comet, a nova or new star, and some unusual groupings of the planets. Of these the last appears to be the most likely. But there is another possibility, or perhaps it would be better to say another point of view. Many of us believe the Star to have been a miracle, and thus utterly incapable of explanation. The important thing is not the explanation of the Star but the Christmas story itself, and the simple truths which it presents. Especially during this period of international tension and apprehension, with its possibility of far more devastating war than ever before, we find the world badly in need of the principles of good will and brotherly love so that peace may be preserved.

In the time of England’s struggle against Napoleon, Timothy Pickering, Secretary of State in President John Adams’s cabinet, offered a toast to “the world’s last hope—Britain’s fast-anchored isle.” During World War II, in his speech at the Lord Mayor’s dinner in London, Winston Churchill said of the British Empire, “Here we are, and here we stand, a veritable rock of salvation in this drifting world.… British and American forces continue to prosper in the Mediterranean. The whole event will be … a new hope for the whole world.”

But the world’s true hope—its last and only hope—is to be found in no earthly power. The prophet Isaiah thus expresses the true hope of the world: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (9:6, RSV). The background of this prophecy is the disastrous reign of King Ahaz, when pure religion became contaminated with idolatry and when the pillars of the social structure were tottering. Clouds were lowering on the political horizon of Judah; at her frontiers she was threatened by Assyria, the most brutal nation that had ever turned earth’s garden into a battlefield. In such a time the prophet announced a hope centering in the divine gift of a child. And this hope has long since transcended its national limitations and become the hope of the world.

To Isaiah it was given to see the dawn of a new age with such vividness and certainty that he described future events as if they had already taken place: “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light”; “for to us a child is born, to us a son is given.” When the light dawns upon the people who dwell in darkness, they will rejoice with the joy of the harvest, for the light will bring freedom. “Thou hast broken the yoke of his burden … the rod of his oppressor” (9:4). The hope of Israel, as that of the world, lies not in the triumph of abstract ideas, nor in the progress of civilization, nor in the development of intercontinental missiles, but in a Person incarnating in himself all righteousness, both individual and national.

The names of the child—“Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace”—could be applied to none but a divine person. How is he a Wonderful Counselor? The greatest problem of mankind and of every individual is sin. The wonder of his counsel is manifested in the Atonement, whereby the sinner can be pardoned without the condoning of sin. Only divine love, the fulfillment of justice, could make practical such a plan of the divine counsel. To those who in trust and submission acknowledge their sinful state and accept him as Saviour, Christ is, as Isaiah’s Hebrew can also be rendered, “A Wonder of a Counselor.” When grief and sorrow threaten to crush us or when the remorse of awakened conscience overtakes us, let us heed Christ’s counsel, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28).

The names “Mighty God,” “Everlasting Father,” transcend the bounds of imagination. What an amazing wonder! God became incarnate and manifested himself to the world in the form of a child! “Everlasting Father” suggests that God is intimately related to the believer, guiding him and providing for his needs, and that, like no earthly father, whose loving care must come to an end when death beckons, he remains our Father to all eternity. The last name, “Prince of Peace,” goes to the heart of the Messiah’s work. In settling the question of our sin, he brings peace with God, inner harmony, tranquil security amid whatever storms may rage round about us. More than this, the Messiah also will bring peace to the nations.

“And the government will be upon his shoulder.” When the Wise Men came from the East, they asked, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews?” (Matt. 2:2). So long as government rests upon human shoulders, the prophet sees no hope for the nation. The principles guiding Israel then were rooted in selfishness, and everywhere corruption prevailed. The same can be said of the principles guiding nations today. It is common knowledge, admitted by many of our leading statesmen, that the last world conflagration was brought about in no small measure by national greed, selfishness, and lust for power.

“Prince of Peace”! What depth of comfort is wrapped up in this name! The roll of men who have sought to build great empires is long—Rameses, Cyrus, Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, Tamerlane, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, to name but a few. From the proud Pharaoh to the madman of Berchtesgaden, these have wrought with fire and sword. Even the story of the British Empire, perhaps the most just the world has known, led the laureate Robert Bridges thus to address George V in a coronation ode:

Remember all the blood and all the tears

That slowly have thine empire soldered sure.

Must empires always be built on blood? Let us go back to the words of Isaiah, “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder.…” These words tell the Christmas story of the birth of a child, then lead us across the ages from Bethlehem’s manger to a throne. After nearly a score of years, the world has emerged from the bloodiest war in history with ominous clouds still on the horizon. Hydrogen bombs and intercontinental missiles threaten destruction on a scale and with a speed unthought of in the past. With weapons of such power, all life could be annihilated. Even the hearts of Christians are fearful! But let those who are looking for the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ lift their hearts to the future and rejoice that the kingdoms of this world shall pass away, and that the Prince of Peace will in his own good time give to earth a government of righteousness.

Then there will be no troubles with segregation or desegregation, no problems of nationalism, no tears of the oppressed, no cry of the poor to God. For nineteen hundred years Christ’s followers have rejoiced in that peace of spirit which was his dying bequest. But in his Messianic kingdom there will be a new peace—such peace that even the beasts of prey will be friends of little children; such peace that “they shall beat their swords into plowshares” and shall not “learn war any more” (Isa. 2:4). But this peace will come only with that Prince who is also the “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father.” He is the world’s last, best, and only hope.

T. Leo Brannon is pastor of the First Methodist Church of Samson, Alabama. He received the B.S. degree from Troy State College and the B.D. from Emory University.