True Obedience to Governing Authorities

As Christians, we are commanded by God to submit to the governing authorities.  (Romans 13:1-7, I Peter 2:13-14, Titus 3:1-2).  However it is clear that these commandments do not apply when it means disobeying commands from God’s word.  For Americans, it does not mean they must always obey unconstitutional laws and orders.  There is great deal of confusion about this in the church today. The leaders of my own church have accused me of putting the Constitution above God.  I am not saying that Christians should go out of their way to disobey unconstitutional orders, engage in violence or protest in the streets about it.  But the commandments in Romans 13:1-7, I Peter 2:13-14 and Titus 3:1-2 do not mean that we must obey the authorities when they give orders beyond the scope of the authority that has been given to them. 

God’s Word does not teach that we are to submit to those who have authority.  The direct object of the verb “submit” (or “be subject to”) is “authorities” or “human institution”, not the person who has the authority.¹ Pay close attention to the wording of I Peter 2:13-14 (ESV).  A person is not an “it”.

Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.

At that time, the emperor was supreme.  This means that the institution of the emperor took precedence over all the other governing authorities within the empire.  More to the point, according this commandment, subjection to the authority of the emperor was to take precedence over all the other governing authorities within the empire.  God did not say that subjection to all authorities is to be “as supreme”.  Subjection to the authority of governors is qualified by the phrase “as sent by him”, where the word “him” obviously refers to the emperor.  It is very clear that this means that the commandment to be subject to the institution of governors applies only when they are acting under the authority of the emperor, not when they are acting on their own accord. If God had meant for us to obey every order from everyone in authority without regard to what authority they have been given, then the words “supreme” and “as sent by him” are completely meaningless and misleading.

When the people asked for a king in I Samuel 8, God granted their request.  That does not mean the king would be perfect or that people should put the king above God.    It is not a contradiction to say that the people chose to have a king as supreme, while also saying that God established the kingship and its supremacy. 

The American people asked for a Constitution to be their supreme authority and it was approved by their legitimately elected representatives just as the same as laws (e.g. laws against drunk driving) were properly approved in more recent times. 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

It is not a contradiction to say that the people chose to have a constitution as supreme, while also saying that God established it.  That does not mean that the Constitution is perfect, inspired by God as the Bible is, or that it is to be put above the Bible.  But it is the supreme authority in the same way as the king of Israel was in I Samuel 8 and as the emperor was in I Peter 2:13-14.  If this is not so, then who (or what) is the supreme in America today?  When did God grant Supreme Court justices, presidents, governors, health departments, etc. authority that is above the Constitution?  Is the phrase “as sent by him” in I Peter 2:13-14 completely meaningless for us today?

It is God’s will that we obey the authorities according to what has been given to them by the Constitution (and other laws pursuant to it).  Who are we to say that God can’t do that?  I’m not going to put God in a box and say that he can’t set up a government with a constitution as supreme.  I’m not going to tie his hands and say that it is always his will that we regard the governor the same as an emperor.  People are not above the law.

When the Jews accused Paul of violating the law, he did not submit to their authority (or to that of Felix or Festus).  Instead, he appealed to the supreme, who was Caesar.  If Paul could do this, then there is certainly nothing wrong with Christians appealing to the Constitution (or other laws) when those who have civil authority overstep the authority that has been given to them.  It makes no difference whether it be because of a violation of the separation of powers or any other limitation of power in the law. I suggest reading Acts 21:27-25:11. 

Most people recognize the fact that governing authorities have geographical limits to their power.  For example, if the prime minister of England were to give an order, most of all of us would agree that it would not be sinful for an American to ignore the order while not on British soil.  According to the law, the power of the prime minister of England does not extend to the United States.  Christians need to realize that other legal limitations on the power of the governing authorities are just as relevant.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

U.S Constitution, 10th Amendment

This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people, and all powers, not herein delegated, remain with the people.

Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 20

In the United States, every American citizen is a “governing authority”.  If you do not believe this, then you should not vote.  Every time you vote, you are wielding civil authority which can impose, increase, eliminate or ease restrictions on other citizens or penalize them for disobeying.  If we are to completely obey every person who has civil authority without regard to the scope of authority given to them by law, then we must obey any order given by any citizen just as if that citizen were a governor or President of the United States. God is a God of order, not chaos.  Without respect for the scope of authority in the law, subjection to it is impossible and the command to do so is essentially meaningless.

When Jesus told his disciples to “observe whatever they tell you” in Matthew 22:3, it is obvious that he did not intend for it to be an absolute.  Jesus said, “…beware of … the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (Matthew 16:12) 

When the scribes and Pharisees asked Jesus to show them a sign, he refused to give them what they asked for. (Matthew 12:38-39, 16:1-4)  When asked by what authority he did “these things”, he refused to answer. (Luke 20:1-8)

The ruler of the synagogue gave the people a clear and direct order:  "There are six days in which work ought to be done. Come [to the synagogue] on those days and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day." (Luke 13:14) But Jesus did not refrain from healing people on that day, which is a clear violation of the order. He said, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" (Mark 3:4)  This clearly indicates that, when it comes to rules that ought to be obeyed, it is the real law that counts, not rules of the Pharisees. 

When they accused the disciples of violating handwashing laws and for picking grains on the Sabbath, Jesus rebuked the scribes and Pharisees, not his disciples. (Matthew 12:1-2, 15:1-2, Mark 2:23-24, 7:1-5, Luke 6:1-5)  The disciples could have obeyed these orders without sinning.  (There is nothing sinful or unscriptural about washing your hands before eating or refraining from picking grains on the Sabbath.) 

Luke 5:29-30 says, “And Levi made him [Jesus] a great feast in his house, and there was a large company of tax collectors and others reclining at table with them.  And the Pharisees and their scribes grumbled at his disciples, saying, ‘Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?’” According to several sources I have read, the Pharisees did have a rule forbidding eating with sinners.  (The justification was that if you eat food that was not tithed, then you are guilty of violating the commandment to tithe.)  It is very clear from Luke 5:29-30 that Jesus not only violated the scribes’ and Pharisees’ rule, but he approved of his disciples doing it as well.  I see no evidence whatsoever in the Scriptures that Jesus’ statement in Matthew 22:3 went beyond the lawful authority that was given to the scribes and Pharisees.

If out of fear of the government, we allow them to infringe on our rights to worship as we please while exceeding the limits of their authority, we will lose our freedoms. If the government were to ban Bibles overnight, Christians might resist.  But what if the government slowly infringes on our rights little by little, making it more and more difficult to spread the Gospel little by little?  At what point will we stop giving in? The effect is the same regardless of the motives of the politicians.

Just as there were hundreds of rules of the scribes and Pharisees, there are countless laws, statutes, ordinances, precedents, regulations and orders given to us today by our elected (and unelected) officials in our government.  The Internal Revenue Code alone has 7500 pages. To tell people that they have to obey all of them, even the ones that are unconstitutional, is to place a huge burden on them.  If you don’t even attempt to obey (or even read) all these yourself, then how you can you tell other people that they have to without hypocrisy?  The hypocrite obeys rules that are popular, get a lot of media attention, or that make themselves look righteous.  The truly righteous man obeys the legitimate laws diligently and quietly without regard to how well known they are or how well they are being enforced. (c.f. Colossians 3:22)

Finally, besides the “as sent by him” qualifier, there is also another qualifier written into the passages on governing authorities.  We are only required by these commandments to submit their authority when it is “to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good”.  When their mandates punish people for doing good or reward them for doing evil, they are acting outside the authority that God has given them and such mandates can be ignored.

In summary, the doctrine of “obey the person, not the authority” is dangerous, overly rigid, burdensome, and untenable and ignores scriptural qualifiers and counterexamples.  We are to submit to all governing authorities within their jurisdiction, but we are not to regard all of them “as supreme”.

¹ To illustrate this principle, suppose that a woman is governor of a state.  The woman’s husband is required to submit to the authority of the governor just as any other citizen of the state.  But he is not required to relinquish his role as head of his household.  If his wife tries to use her authority as governor to usurp her husband’s authority, God does not require him to submit to her orders in that regard.  On the other hand, she is not required to submit if he tries to use his authority to in a way that interferes with her official capacity.  Each authority has its own dominion (i.e. there is a biblical “separation of powers”) so that there is no conflict or confusion about it. 

Divorce Itself

I have previously written many blog posts on the adultery of remarriage after divorce.  I will now write on the issue of divorce itself.  God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16).  That is a statement of fact, not a commandment.  It is just as true today as was back then.  But the Bible does give commandments also against divorce.  But before we get into the commandments themselves, I will review some concepts that I wrote into my series “The Seriousness of Remarriage after Divorce”.

There is essentially no difference between a “legal” divorce and “legal” separation in God’s eyes.  A divorce is any “putting away” of one’s spouse. 

Whenever the Bible talks about relationships between men and women, if you replace the masculine words like “husband” and “man” with feminine words like “wife” and “woman” and vice versa, the resulting statement will NOT necessarily be true.  Just take everything it says as is, and don’t try to make something out of it that is not there.

There are some commandments in the Bible which are clearly moral absolutes.  That means that we are to obey these commandments no matter what and if we don’t there will negative consequences affecting the eternal salvation of ourselves and others.  There are also commandments which are not moral absolutes which we are to obey except in extreme circumstances when doing so would actually go against the two greatest commandments (love God and your neighbor).

Finally no Bible passage can render any other passage useless.  (II Timothy 2:15)

With these principles in mind let us first examine the explicit commandments against divorce in the New Testament. 

“…whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.”

Matthew 5:32 (KJV)

"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Matthew 19:6 (KJV)

“And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband… and let not the husband put away his wife.”

I Corinthians 7:10-11 (KJV)

There are also other passages with bear on this question of divorce which do not explicitly mention divorce itself.  But before we get into these let us go down some false trails.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

II Corinthians 6:14-18 (KJV)

From the above passage, one might conclude that if a believer were married to an unbeliever, the believer must leave the unbeliever.  But this is not the case.  The above passage is a general commandment, which certainly can be used to say that a believer should not marry an unbeliever, but the Bible addresses this particular situation more specifically in I Corinthians 7:12-16 (KJV):

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

Thus we can conclude that the unbelief of a spouse is not sufficient grounds for a divorce.  However, if the unbelieving spouse wants a divorce, it should be granted.  Properly understood I Corinthians 7:15 is neither grounds for divorce nor justification for remarriage after divorce.  The "departing" actually is a divorce.  Here is another false trail :

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Matthew 18:15-17 (KJV)

Suppose that a man trespasses against his wife and the wife follows the above instructions.  Suppose he refuses to repent even to the point that the next step, according to this passage is to treat him as a heathen and a publican (i.e. a pagan or a tax collector).  But again, according to I Corinthians 7:12-16, an unbeliever is not to be divorced just because of his unbelief.  Treating him as an unbeliever does not mean you should divorce him.  But the “heathen” clause of Matthew 18:17 applies to generally to unrepentant sinners.  But there is another passage which gives further instruction for more specific sins.

11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

I Corinthians 5:11 (KJV)

Now this is actually saying do not keep company or even eat with such a person.  This goes much further than Matthew 18:17.  Some people might say that if you are in a situation like this, just separate yourself from your spouse, but do not legally divorce.  But I don’t think that this is the right way to look at it.  In God’s eyes, there is not much difference.  

Let’s construct a hypothetical example.  Suppose a man is married to a woman who satisfies the following :

1. She claims to be a believer.

2. She has NOT committed any form of sexual immorality.

3. But she has committed another sin or sins mentioned in I Corinthians 5:11 (covetousness, idolatry, railing, drunkenness or extortion).

4. For good measure, suppose that she refuses to repent even after her husband followed the instructions of Matthew 18:15-17.

Note that I Corinthians 5:11 is not specifically addressing relationships between men and women.  Therefore it applies equally to women as well as men.  According to the above passage, the man should separate himself from his wife.  But Matthew 5:32 and I Corinthians 7:10 seem to indicate that this would be sinful.  So what is the man to do?  Recall that Matthew 5:32 is within the context of extreme warnings against sin—those warnings are about eternal damnation.  Such commandments should generally be regarded as moral absolutes.  This means that the commandment is to be obeyed even in the most extreme circumstances (see Matthew 5:29-30).  However, note that the man who divorces his wife doesn’t commit adultery himself, but only causes his wife to commit adultery.  (This is presumably because she is then able and will be tempted to marry another man which is adultery in God’s eyes.)  But the woman in the above hypothetical situation has already put herself in danger of damnation by refusing to repent of the other sin(s) she is committing.  This fact alone would still not justify the man’s divorcing his wife, but for the reason why the instructions in I Corinthians 5:11 are to obeyed :

…that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you…To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

I Corinthians 5:2, 5 (KJV)

Again, when more specific instructions are given they take precedence over a more general command, especially when the specific instructions indicate that a person’s eternal salvation is at stake.  Nothing is more important than that. 

But let us now look at the case where a woman leaves her husband.  I Corinthians 7:10-13, the only commandment in the New Testament that is against it, is not within the context of anything about hell and the disobedience of this commandment is not equated with adultery or any sin which is considered damning if accepted as a lifestyle (see I Corinthians 6:9 and Galatians 5:21).  Thus we can conclude that it is not a moral absolute.  This means that we are allowed to use some common sense in judgement when extreme circumstances are involved.  Thus, we conclude that a woman has more leeway in regards to divorce than a man.  This is the opposite of remarriage after divorce.

In conclusion, a man must not divorce his wife except if she commits fornication or if she claims to be a believer and he has taken her before other believers and then the entire church and she still refuses to repent of her covetousness, idolatry, railing (reviling), drunkenness or extortion.  A woman may also divorce her husband for these reasons, but there may be other possible reasons not specifically mentioned in Scripture (e.g. physical abuse or if her husband is a drunkard but not a believer).  Furthermore, the woman does not necessarily have to immediately take her husband before others and the church if her life or physical well-being is in eminent danger.

The Seriousness of the Sin of Remarriage after Divorce, part 5

This is a series of posts designed to convince people of the Biblical truth that remarriage after divorce is adultery and that the fact that the modern American Christian church has by-and-large rejected this teaching is proof that it is in a state of apostasy.  This article is the fifth in the series.  Click here to read the first article.

Real Exceptions to the Rule

Sure there are exceptions to the rule that remarriage after divorce is adultery.  But you cannot make up your own exceptions!  Only the ones mentioned in Scripture are acceptable.  If a man and a woman get a divorce and then he dies, then she is free to remarry (in the Lord) according to Romans 7:2-3 and I Corinthians 7:39. 

The second real exception is that a man can remarry if he divorced his wife because of her fornication.  I am assuming that Matthew 19:9 is a more complete version of the same statements found in Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18. And (I repeat) note that sexual immorality and fornication are the most correct translations of the Greek word used here.

The third exception is not so obvious.  This is because, technically, the case of a man abandoned by his wife is not an exception to a commandment, but it is simply territory that was never covered by the commandment to begin with.  It is very important to note that this has nothing to do with I Corinthians 7:15 (this passage will be discussed in the next section).  The only statement in the New Testament about a man remarrying after divorce is in Matthew 19:9 (NKJV):

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Focus on the “…who divorces his wife…” part for a minute. The verb divorce means to “put away” (in the King James Version) or “drive out”.  When a divorce occurs, it is sometimes the man who puts away his wife and sometimes it is the other way around.  Nothing is said in Scripture about a man remarrying after his wife put him away.   If a woman leaves her husband without his consent, then this could hardly be described as “he put away his wife”.  And if that happened, then how could it be said that “he causes her to commit adultery” (1984 NIV) or “makes her the victim of adultery” (Matthew 5:32, 2011 NIV)?  As with other exceptions, I am not saying that anyone in the situation could never sin by remarrying, but generally speaking, it is not sinful because the Bible does not address this specific case.

But it is always wrong for a woman remarry while the man she was married to is still alive.  All of that territory is covered by the commandments.  It doesn’t matter whether he was the one who put her away (Matthew 5:32, 19:9, and Luke 16:18) or vice versa (Mark 10:12, I Corinthians 7:10-11). Romans 7:2-3 and I Corinthians 7:39 also cover both cases and any other case that you might imagine (e.g. a mutual separation).  It doesn’t matter if the husband committed fornication because this exception is not mentioned.  As I said in the beginning, I take everything word in the Bible about this issue at face value.  Men and women are different.  This means you can’t generally interchange the words husband/man for wife/woman.  The resulting statement may not necessarily be true.  To assume otherwise would be to deny that women and men have different roles in marriage.

In the next two sections I will address in depth two false exceptions.

The Star of Bethlehem Found?

I watched the DVD “The Star of Bethlehem” by Rick Larson a few days ago.  This definitely deserves an investigative report on this blog.  The DVD has been out for over a year, but I just recently got around to viewing it.  I want give you my take on it.

When reading the account of the star in Matthew, a Christian is faced with two possibilities.  Either the star was simply a miraculous occurrence which cannot be explained or it is something that we would recognize today and could potentially discover what it is by extrapolating the trajectories of the stars¹ backward to the time of the birth of Christ. 

I must say that the idea that we must find a scientific proof or scientific explanation for events which occurred in the Bible is somewhat overused, at least by some.  I find little value in trying to explain how the waters parted at the Red Sea (or Reed Sea as it was) by showing the wind blew at just the right speed, direction, etc.  These details just don’t matter and no one can ever be sure of their particular theory anyway.  Its almost as silly as trying to say that the wind blew in the just the right manner to cause Jesus to walk on the water.  Miracles do not have to be explained scientifically, you just accept them by faith because you believe in God’s Word.

This whole idea of “looking for something that fits” sometimes leads people to see things as fulfillment of Scripture when it really isn’t.  These kinds of issues should not be accepted without much scrutiny.  The date of Christ’s birth and the date of the visit of wise men are unknown and Larson has a lot of space and time in which to find the two corresponding stellar events described in the Bible and then conclude what the dates are. 

Having said that, at least at first, I think the mystery of the Star is something that seems more interesting to delve into.  One reason for this is that laws of motion can be used to determine exactly how the stars were arranged at any given point in time, barring Divine intervention or miscalculation due to undiscovered forces².  But you can’t wind by time and see what happened at the Red Sea.  For the moment, let’s assume that the Star obeyed naturalistic forces in the events described in Matthew.  Let’s put Larson’s theory to the test.

Now I must say that Larson takes this way beyond just finding out what the Star was.  He describes other astronomical events surrounding the birth and death of Christ.  I will briefly comment on these first. 

Even before I did any investigation on this subject, some alarms went off in my head about what was said about the constellations and the difference between astrology and authentic interpretation of Biblical signs in the sky.  Yes, one of the differences is that the astrologer believes that the stars are not just signs, but actually control the events.  But it is certainly not the only difference!  There is nothing in the Bible that says that the constellations Leo and Virgo have the symbolism attributed to it in the DVD.  These things were myths from pagan religion.  This is like looking at a horoscope and using it to interpret the Bible! 

How, then, you might ask could it be that such coincidences could occur at the time of Jesus birth?  Remember that we do not know for sure exactly when Christ was born.  Several years can be looked through until you find something that seems significant.  It probably isn’t a coincidence that Jupiter crosses a constellation representing a lion.  A lion is considered to be king of the animals in many cultures.  It would have made sense for the original astrologer to choose a star in this constellation to be the “king” star and a planet that frequently crosses it (more frequently than the DVD leads you to believe, according to AIG) to be the “king” planet.  And Leo doesn’t particularly look like a lion; it could just as easily be some other animal.  And think of all the symbols that are associated with Jesus: Lamb, Shepherd, Rock, Root of Jesse, Bright and Morning Star, etc.  With so many symbols, it is likely that if you look hard enough you’ll find something that looks like it in the sky.  But that wouldn’t be a real Biblical sign because the Bible doesn’t tell us to look for these things in sky.  It is dangerous to mix mythology with the Bible in this way and convince people that it is real because someone could use this idea to look for symbols in the sky and use it to predict future events which only God can foresee.  Also the constellation Virgo does not fit the description given in Revelation 12.  It has about 13 stars, but the description in Revelation says that the woman has a crown of 12 stars.  Virgo doesn’t even have a crown, much less 12 stars in it.  

Larson also describes an eclipse which supposedly fulfilled Joel’s prophecy (the moon would be turned to blood) by making the moon look red at the death of Jesus.  These events necessarily depend on Christ’s death being at 33 A.D.  That date is plausible³, but in Larson’s timeline, Christ’s birth was about 2-4 B.C.  That would make him about 35 years old when he died.  But his ministry began when he was 30 years old (Luke 3:23) and didn’t only last about 3 years⁴?  Halley’s Handbook calculates the date of Christ’s “coming” to be 26 A.D. (see Dainel 9:25) which (according to Halley) corresponds to beginning of his ministry, not his birth.⁵ According to the AIG article, the eclipse was only a partial eclipse which would not have produced a reddish colored moon.  Furthermore, this would not be a literal fulfillment of the prophecy, which I always favor.

The most interesting part about this movie is the Star itself and particularly the explanation of its motion as seen by the wise men as they approached Bethlehem.  Larson claims that the Star is really the planet Jupiter and that it was in conjunction with Venus at the time that it “went before” the wise men to Bethlehem.  Assuming a naturalistic explanation, the fact the Star “stopped”⁶ over Bethlehem could only be accomplished by a nearby object such a planet.  For purposes of this discussion, I am considering the motion of the Star (and all other heavenly bodies) to be relative the earth⁷.  In this perspective, the planets are revolving around both the earth (i.e. its rotation) and the Sun simultaneously.  These two simultaneous motions are what make possible the stoppage in motion of a planet relative to the earth. 

This stoppage in motion is described by Larson as a momentary change in direction (to the opposite direction).  But did this planet (Jupiter), according to Larson’s calculations, actually stop?  If the Star was moving either toward or away from the earth during the instant in which it “stopped” then it didn’t really stop, but only appeared to stop from the view of the observer who could not necessarily perceive that this was the case.  A literal interpretation would not allow this additional movement.  I am not saying that this is the case in Larson’s scenario (he didn’t describe it in that much detail in the DVD), but I must be skeptical until I see otherwise.

Did the planet actually stand over where the child was lying in a manger?  (I am just seeing if you are awake.  I really mean that house that Jesus was staying at the time that the wise men came, not stable that the shepherds visited!)  Again, I am a literalist, so the Star must have been collinear with the child and the center of earth.  That is the definition of “over”.  If Jupiter did not really stop over the child but only appeared to be over Bethlehem from the wise men’s line of sight, then this does not count.  Again, I don’t know whether or not Larson considered this detail.  If this were really true that Jupiter actually did all these things, then it is a very amazing and definitive proof of the events described in Matthew.  But according to the AIG article, Jupiter would have appeared near the horizon at the time of this conjunction. If this is the case, Larson's claim does not fit the biblical account.

What was the real star of Bethlehem, then?  Every reliable source that I have been able to find says that there is no naturalistic explanation for the Star as described in Matthew.  (Some articles attempt an explanation which includes Divine Intervention to move the star in the manner described in Matthew.  Some of these may be plausible, but are highly speculative.)  You just have to accept that it was a miracle that God performed at the proper time.  No scientific explanation is needed.

In conclusion with having done just a brief investigation of the “Star of Bethlehem” DVD (or even just giving it a little thought), I have to say that I don’t come to same conclusions that were arrived at by Mr. Larson.  There are many arguments which can be used to refute its claims on both a scientific basis and a theological basis.  Basically, the DVD exaggerates many things.

(1) For purposes of this discussion, “stars” include planets, comets, asteroids, meteors or anything else which would have been considered a star at that time.  The ancients were not mistaken that other objects are stars, but it is merely a matter of semantics.

(2) Couldn’t it be possible that gravitational field could have been disturbed by an object that is not now detectable?

(3) Assuming a Friday crucifixion, the date of Christ’s death was either 30 or 33 A.D.  See http://www.bible.ca/d-3-days-and-3-nights.htm#IIB for a discussion of this.

(4) That is the weak link in my argument.  I have no definitive proof that Jesus’ ministry wasn’t much more than three years.

(5) It is interesting that Larson establishes that the Magi were from Babylon and may have been influenced by Daniel who wrote the prophecy of the seventy-sevens, which predicted the coming of Christ.  However, as mentioned above, it was not the date of his birth, but the beginning of his ministry that was predicted.

(6) “…it came and stood over where the young child was.” Matthew 2:9

(7) Larson uses the language of a Heliocentrist and affirms the Copernican claim that the earth revolves around the Sun and rotates about an axis.  But he explains that retrograde motion is the apparent motion of an object relative to the earth’s frame of reference and purports that this is what is being referred to when the Bible says that the Star “stopped” over Bethlehem.  But I, being a literalist, take it and all other passages referring motion of heavenly bodies to be absolute motion.  This view is referred to as geocentrism.  The question of which view is correct is not relative to this discussion.  However the fact that the literalism from which geocentrism springs is very relevant will be made manifest in the rest of the article.

Suggested Additional Reading:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v5/n1/star-of-bethlehem-dvd

http://www.bible.ca/D-Xmas-story.htm

http://geocentricity.com/ba1/no086/star_of_bethlehem.html

http://geocentricity.com/ba1/no122/bethstar1.html

http://geocentricity.com/ba1/no123/bethstar2.html

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_whentheysawthestar

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Star_of_Bethlehem