This page is a new addition and will be updated regularly. We encourage input from our visitors on any topic addressed here, as well a suggestions for future topics.
________________
CONTENTS:
What The Bible says about Angels Marrying Women
Why There are Two Genealogies of Yahshua
About Peter's Vision in Acts 10
Why the Bible Doesn't Contradict Itself
About Jephthah's Sacrifice in Judges 11
What the Star of Bethlehem Was
What the Bible Says About Angels Marrying Women
In Genesis 6 we read:
"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose...There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
Many people interpret this passage as meaning that angels - the "sons of God" - began marrying women - the "daughters of men" - and created these "giants" amd "mighty men". Is this possible? Did angels marry women? Are there descendents of these unions walking the earth today, half human, half angel?
The answer to these questions is a simple, emphatic "No." Here's what Scripture says concerning this:
Firstly, who were the sons of God? In the Old Testament, other references to sons of God show up in Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7, and in Daniel 3:25. From the context it appears that in Job 38 and Daniel the verses refer to spirit beings or angels. The other two passages may refer to angels or to humans, so we need more information. Are there any passages using this term to clearly refer to humans? See Hos. 1:10: "...it shall come to pass...where it was said unto them 'Ye are not my people'...it shall be said unto them, 'Ye are the sons of the living God.'" This is a clear Old Testament reference to people as sons of God.
Now the New Testament has several of the same type of references: John 1:12; Rom. 8:14, 19; Phil. 2:15; I John 3:1 & 2 - all clear references to human beings as sons of God, but none to angels as sons of God. We see while that the reference to sons of God in Gen. 6 may be to angels or humans, the majority of reference Scriptures indicate it as a reference to humans.
What other evidence can we use to discover the truth of this passage? See Matt. 22:30: "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." Mark 12:25 says much the same: "For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." Luke 20: 34-35 says, "And Yahshua answering said unto them, 'The sons of this world marry and are given in marriage: but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain...resurrection...neither marry, nor are given in marriage...for they are equal unto the angels; and are the sons of God'..." Sons of this world, i.e. physical human beings, marry and reproduce. Angels, which are spirit beings, clearly do not marry, nor can they physically reproduce.
There are those who may believe that these "sons of God" spoken of in Genesis 6 are in fact fallen angels, who have been exiled to this world and taken on human form, allowing them to actually live as human beings and intermarry with humans. These people appeal to the word "giants" used in Genesis 6, which in Hebrew is "nephil", from the root "naphal" which means "to fall". Their belief is that these "giants" were the product of some mutation brought about by the intermarriage of angelic stock and human kind. However, if we look up the definition of the actual word used in this passage - "nephil" - it simply means "a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant." The offspring of the "sons of God and daughters of men" were tyrants, "mighty" or powerful men, who were "men of renown" - literally, men with a name ("shem") or who had made a name for themselves by their actions.
Scripture, however, does speak of rebellious angels and their condition after their rebellion. In Jude 6 we read, "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." This passage tells us clearly that these '"fallen angels" were not sent to earth and allowed to intermingle with the human race, but rather that they are bound and restrained in anticipation of their judgment. This passage destroys the last argument for the doctrine of intermarriage between angels and mankind.
There are simply no passages in Scripture which make reference to marriage or mating between humans and angels. We begin to see that this concept is an impossibility, and that the reference to "sons of God" in Gen. 6 must be to human beings who were committed to Yahweh as their God, making them His spiritual sons. Moreover, if we believe it possible for angels to mate with humans, we create a contradiction between this belief and other Scriptures: Acts 17:26 reads, "(God)...hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth..." If angels could mate with humans, there would not be only one blood from which all nations were made, but a mingling of two. Verses 28 & 29 tell us, "...For we are also His offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God..." This scripture is another reference to all mankind, and if we believe that angels and humans can intermarry, we concede to the contradictory concept that there are offspring other than God's walking the earth.
Genesis 6 gives us a picture of mankind spreading over the earth, some of a Godly line, spiritual sons of God who worshipped Yahweh as their God (as may be pointed to in Gen. 4:26: "...then began men to call upon [or call themselves by] the name of Yahweh"). Others were of an unGodly line, already becoming wicked and paganistic. The intermarriage between these two groups and the resulting spiritual corruption of the children of these unions was so grievous that Yahweh's solution to it was the Deluge and almost total destruction of the human race.
Once we understand the true meaning of this passage we can learn the message for us today: We must guard against the corrupting influence of this paganistic world and worship only our Father and His son Yahshua. Only in that way can we truly become "sons of God".
Why There are Two Genealogies for Yahshua
As any student of Scripture knows, there are two different genealogies given for Yahshua in the New Testament: one in Matthew 1 and one in Luke 3. Most commentaries have explained this fact by noting that the genealogy given in Matthew records the lineage of Joseph's family, while the genealogy given in Luke records Mary's lineage. While this explanation is true, we lose vital understanding of Scripture if we leave the subject here without delving farther.
Matthew 1 begins before the Yahshua's birth with establishing Yahshua as the son of David, the son of Abraham. Then the genealogy begins, starting with Abraham and tracing the descendants down through the family to Joseph, Mary's husband. Clearly this is a physical lineage, given to establish that Yahshua was a direct descendant, and therefore physical heir, of Abraham, the one to whom the promises and blessings of God were given. As it says in Gen. 22:18 - "And in thy (Abraham's) seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed..." Gal. 3:16 expands on this: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." We also see from this lineage that Yahshua was a physical "son" of David, the one referred to in Acts 13:22 & 23: "...I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after Mine own heart...of this man's seed hath God according to His promise raised unto Israel a Saviour...", as well as in II Sam. 7:12-16: "I will set up thy (David's) seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish His kingdom...I will stablish the throne of His kingdom for ever..." According to this lineage Yahshua was truly the rod out of the stem of Jesse, and the Branch, spoken of in Isa. 11:1, a physical fulfillment of prophecy.
The second genealogy, which is given in Luke 3, is completely different and has a completely different point to establish. This genealogy is given immediately after Yahshua's baptism, 30 years after His physical birth. The lineage begins, not with His ancestors, but with Yahshua Himself. It then traces backwards through the generations. This lineage doesn't stop, as one might suppose, with Abraham, but rather continues back through Yahshua's ancestry all the way back to Adam, who is then identified as "the son of God." This genealogy is given at the time that the Holy Spirit comes upon Yahshua and when God the Father identifies Yahshua as, "...My beloved Son...": a fulfillment of David's words in Psalm 2:6: "Yahweh hath said unto me, 'Thou art my Son; this day I have begotten Thee.'" Obviously this genealogy is presented in this fashion in order to establish that Yahshua was not only the Son of man and a physical heir to the promises of Abraham, but that He was truly the Son of God, a spiritual heir of God Himself, and the only one qualified to become the salvation of mankind. Isa. 9:6 prophesies of this Son, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder..."
Yes, one goal of these genealogies is to establish that Yahshua was of the tribe of Judah on both sides of His family, a descendant of Abraham and David, and therefore qualified to fulfill prophecies concerning physical Israel, including Gen. 49:10: "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto Him shall the gathering of the people be." More importantly, they strikingly contrast with each other, one establishing His physical lineage at His birth, the other establishing His spiritual lineage at baptism. Taken together, both show the proof and fulfillment of Gabriel's words to Mary in Luke 1:31:
"And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call His name Yahshua. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David."
About Peter's Vision in Acts 10
In Acts 10 we find Peter on a housetop in Joppa, experiencing a vision that has been consistently misinterpreted by most who attempt to address it. The common interpretation of this vision is that God here rescinded the dietary laws given in Leviticus 11. Is this truly what this vision was all about?
In verse 9, Peter had gone up on the housetop to pray. The next verse tells us he fell into a trance while waiting for food to be prepared, and from there we learn of the vision he saw: A vessel like a great sheet knit by the four corners was let down to earth. All manner of "fourfooted beasts of the earth, and creeping things, and fowls of the air" were contained in this vessel. A voice told him, "Rise, Peter; kill, and eat." Peter replied, "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean." The voice then said, "What God hath cleansed, call not thou common." This happened three times and then the vessel was received up again into heaven.
Many commentaries note that the vessel contains "all manner" of animals - animals mingled without regard to the distinction of clean and unclean, or the ceremonially clean and unclean all mixed together. They then go on to say that this vision is given to destroy that distinction of clean and unclean, and to repeal the "Jewish" dietary laws. The problem with this is that the exchange between Peter and the voice occurs three times, yet Peter still "doubted in himself what this vision he had seen should mean..."(v. 17) It seems that Peter, according to the commentaries, could not understand what the commentators consider to be clear divine direction. The reason for this isn't difficult to figure out: Peter was an observant Jew, confident of the rightness of His observing the Biblical laws concerning clean and unclean meats, and also confident that those laws were still in force for him. There could be no "clear divine direction" ordering him to break God's law. So what could this vision be telling him?
The key to this vision is the use of the words common and unclean, the attitude of the Jews at the time concerning Gentiles, and the interpretation Peter himself gives of this vision.
The word "common" according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, means "shared by all or several, or profane" - also translated defiled or unholy. These definitions speak for themselves. The word "unclean" means "not cleansed, or impure (ceremonially, morally [lewd], or specifically [demonic])". Concerning animals, in Scripture it refers to the carcases or dead bodies of certain animals that Yahweh ordered the Israelites not to eat in Lev. 11.
Now, in verse 28 Peter says, "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or to come unto one of another nation..." Clearly he means that to keep company or come near one of another nation would defile any law abiding Jew. (See also John 4:9, 18:28; Acts 11:3; and Gal. 2:12.) However, the law Peter speaks of is not any Biblical law, for nowhere does it forbid Jews to keep company with Gentiles, or approach or come near them. In fact, throughout Scripture we see interaction between Jews and Gentiles and God's acceptance of obedient non-Jews: Ex. 12:48 & 49 allows non-Jews to attach themselves to God and His people and keep Passover; Deut. 16:11 and 14 allows strangers to Israel to participate in Pentecost and the Feast of Tabernacles; Rahab the harlot in Canaan aided the Israelites and became part of Yahshua's lineage; Ruth was a Moabitess, married to a Jew, and was also in the lineage; and the major and minor prophets record many examples of Jews accepting assistance and friendship from Gentiles. This law Peter speaks of must be more of a tradition (probably dating back at least in part to II Kings 17) that has gained the force of law in his time.
With these things in mind, the meaning of the vision becomes clearer: the vessel let down did contain both animals considered clean and unclean according to Levitical law. Peter could have chosen a ceremonially clean animal to eat, but according to his view, the clean animals had been defiled by contact or proximity with the unclean. Notice that he says, "I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean." Now notice the reply: "What God has cleansed (or made clean), call not thou common (or defiled)." God declared certain animals as clean and allowed the Israelites to eat them. Nowhere in Scripture does it state that ceremonially clean living animals are defiled simply by proximity with ceremonially unclean living animals.
Now see Peter's understanding of his own vision: "...Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." (v. 28) Later he says, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of person: but in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted by Him." (vv 34 & 35) Peter's vision was given to him in the context of mistakenly classing clean animals as common or defiled simply because of proximity to an unclean animal. This was similar to the attitude apparently prevalent at that time that having contact with Gentiles would defile a Jew. What God is telling Peter is that He never declared Gentiles unclean and that contact with Gentiles, especially God-fearing Gentiles, would not cause any Jew to become defiled.
The reason for this vision is clear, and it has nothing to do with abolishing the Biblical dietary laws. The reason was this: As long as Jewish believers held to the idea that contact with Gentiles would defile them, the spread of the gospel would be hindered. God sent this vision to Peter to correct this mistaken attitude and to clear the way for the gospel of salvation to become available to Gentiles as well as Jews. This is the mystery of Christ spoken of in Eph. 3:4-6: "That Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ by the gospel."
Why the Bible Doesn't Contradict Itself
In II Timothy 3:15 &16 we read, "...from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation...All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." If it is true that all Scripture is God-inspired, can it be that these Scriptures contain self-contradictions, as many so-called Bible scholars and experts claim today, as do a vast number of common church-goers and Christians?
In this discussion we'll examine what it would mean if the Bible were self-contradictory, and several reasons why it is not.
Let's begin with the assumption that Scripture truly does contain contradictions of itself. If this were true, it would mean that in any set of contradictions one passage would be true and one would be false. This would mean that portions of Scripture contain false information which cannot be trusted or used as a basis for Godly instruction. In this case, how could we expect to know which portions are false and which are true? How could we hope to know which portions are God's words and which are lies, human inserted opinion, or Satanic deception? The fact is that if even one part of Scripture is untrue, then the entire Bible is rendered useless as a work purporting to be God's own instructions to the people He created because we are left with only our own carnal reasoning with which to pick and choose what we think is God's word and what is not. We can no longer rely on the fact that all Scripture is given by God and can be trusted implicitly to be true.
If there exists even one self-contradiction in Scripture, then II Tim. 3:16 is one of the first Scriptures we should discard, if we understand God to be as Deut. 32:4 and Num. 23:19 describe Him, as "...a God of truth..." and "...not a man, that He should lie..." Self-contradiction necessarily means untruth and falsehood. If all Scripture is God-breathed and true, then it must be a product of God's truth and unvarying consistency, for James 1:17 tells us that our Father is the "Father of lights, with Whom there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Otherwise, we have a lying testimony which claims God is unchanging and truthful but allows His teaching to change from one passage to the next, mingling truth and lies.
Finally, if we accept that Scripture is self-contradictory and subject to human fallibility concerning which parts are God's true words and which are not, then not only must we discard the Bible as a source of our learning about God, we must also discard any notion of our God altogether. It is through the Bible that we gain the very concept of our "Judeo-Christian" God, Yahweh, God of Hosts, and Yahshua, the Son of God. If we claim to believe in the God revealed in the Bible, we must believe the Bible is what it claims to be: God's own words, something we know is trustworthy and unquestionably true. Otherwise we are only believing in some human invention claiming to be God's word. This leaves us with nothing but a make-believe God in fictional book of myth and folklore, a pathetic attempt to fill a void left in us by evolution, and nothing more.
So we must accept that the Bible is not self-contradictory, but is true and consistent throughout. Yet we still have a few questions to answer: What about the apparent contradictions some people believe they see in Scripture?
Some of the contradictions that draw our attention the most are the apparently contradictory accounts of "parallel" events in the Gospels. We are faced with harmonies which tell us that two different Gospels contain two accounts of one event: one with two participants, one with only one participant, one in one place and one in another, with varying wording, and they tell us that these variances are only the differences in the perceptions of the Gospel writers. In fact, these "parallel" events contradict each other, no matter how you look at them. How can this be, if there is no contradiction in Scripture? Simple: these are not parallel accounts of one event - they are two different descriptions of two different events.
For example, Mark 5 relates the account of one man in the Gadarenes who dwelt in the tombs, inhabited by an unclean spirit. Matthew 8:28 speaks of two men in the Gergesenes, coming out of the tombs, possessed with devils. Many harmonies place these together as the same event, ignoring the blatant discrepancies in details. The fact is that the event in Matthew occurred long before the event in Mark 5 and is separated from it by at least one landmark event and several other truly corresponding events which make it clear that these are two separate, similar, and non-contradictory events.
Also, these harmonies place the sermons given in Matt. 5 thru 7 and Luke 6:17-49 as the same event, completely ignoring that one was given on a mountain (Matt. 5:1) and one on a plain (Luke 6:17), as well as the fact that one is much longer than the other. These are not two different accounts of the same events, but completely different accounts of two separate events that occurred some time apart with other landmark events coming between them.
There are many examples of this type of error in perception by Bible interpreters who do not understand the non-contradictory nature of Scripture. (For a more in-depth study of this subject, see the "Integrated Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John" on our Literature-Interpretation page.)
Also, one may perceive a contradiction between a Scripture like Gal. 3:28 - "There is neither...male nor female: for ye are all one in the Christ Yahshua." and I Cor. 14:34-35 - "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak...for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." The key to this is that contradictions do not and can not exist in Scripture. The problem lies not in Scripture, but in our understanding of Scripture. Paul cannot claim spiritual oneness in Yahshua without distinction even in genders, then make such an obvious distinction between men and women during church services without making himself into a liar whose words we cannot believe. In this case, a simple addition of quotation marks at the beginning of verse 34 and at the end of verse 35 in I Cor. solves the problem - here Paul is quoting a popular adage of his time (as he does in 6:12 & 6:13, and elsewhere), then in verses 36-38 is refuting it as the false doctrine that it is, bringing it into line with Gal. 3:28.
If we cling to interpretations of the Bible that lead to a contradiction between one Scripture and another, we negate not only the very Bible we claim to believe in, but our very faith as well. If we use as the basis of our faith that all Scripture, New Testament as well as Old, is God-breathed, without self-contradiction, and consistent with itself and God's truth,then we gain a powerful understanding of Scripture that truly will make us "perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
Who Cain Married
In Gen. 4:16 & 17 we read, "And Cain went out from the presence of Yahweh...and knew his wife, and she conceived, and bare Enoch..." Some critics use this passage to argue that Adam and Eve were not the first and only people in the world when they were created. These critics believe that other people existed elsewhere at that time, because - they say - that is the only explanation for where Cain's wife came from. Did other people exist before Adam and Eve? Who did Cain really marry?
The answer to the first question is surprisingly simple to prove from Scripture. See I Cor. 15:45: "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul..." Adam was the first man. Taken together with the testimony of Gen. 1:26, we know that Adam the man was created first, in God's image, and that Eve was created from Adam - the first and only two human beings on earth. There were no others. Acts 17:24-26 supports this: "God that made the world...had made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth..." If there had been others created before or together with Adam, then there would not be only one blood from which all nations and all people of the earth spring. Clearly, there were no other human beings on the earth before Adam and Eve were created.
So where did Cain's wife come from?
Again, the answer is surprisingly simple to glean from Scripture. Gen. 5: 1-5 tells us, "This is the book of the generations of Adam...Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness...and called his name Seth: and the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he beget sons and daughters: and all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years..." Scripture does not tell us how old Adam was when he sired Cain, but obviously it was less than 130 years. After Seth's begettal, in Adam's 130th year, Adam had "sons and daughters". Adam had plenty of time to have many children, both male and female. If there were no other people existing in the world at that time, then Cain's wife had to be one of Adam's daughters, one of Cain's own sisters.
Must this idea be as repellant to us as it seems to be to some? Consider that Abraham, the patriarch of Israel, married his own half-sister: "...yet indeed, she (Sarah) is my sister: she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." (Gen. 20:12) Also, Isaac married his second cousin: Abraham said to his servant, "...go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac..." (Gen. 24:4), and Rebekah, the daughter of "Bethuel, the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham's brother", was the one who was provided (Gen. 24:15). To clarify, Milcah, Abraham's sister-in-law, was the mother of Bethuel, who was Rebekah's father. Abraham's son, Isaac, was Rebekah's second cousin.
Obviously, marriage between family members was an accepted practice, at least until specific rules were given in Lev. 18:6-18. Why? Our best guess is that it was because Adam and Eve were created genetically perfect. It took many generations of intermarriage for this genetic perfection to become corrupted to the extent that intermarriage between close family members became undesirable and unacceptable to God. Even in David's time, David's son Amnon had relations with his own half-sister Tamar. The trouble in this case began not with the close family relationship, but with Amnon's poor treatment of his sister/mistress. However, we can see that by then relations with close family members was neither worthwhile nor desirable.
It is clear, if we let Scripture interpret itself, that the wife that Cain took in Gen. 4:17 was his own sister. While this would not be acceptable to us today, this is the only logical and Scriptural interpretation that we can make in light Biblical instructions given to us later on. Let us accept this very simple truth so that we may go on unhindered to the greater truths that Scripture gives us.
About Jephthah's Sacrifice in Judges 11
In Judges, we are given a scenario of victory: Jephthah, the son of a harlot who was thrust from his home by his half-brothers in Gilead, has become the captain of Gilead's forces and led them in battle against the children of Ammon. The spirit of Yahweh has come upon Jephthah (v. 29) and he believes that Yahweh will deliver Ammon into his hands.
In verses 30 and 31, Jephthah makes a vow to Yahweh: "If Thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into my hands, then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth out the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be Yahweh's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering." After this, the children of Ammon are truly delivered into Jephthah's hands, and he completely subdues them.
As he returns home, who should meet Jephthah as he comes to his house but his daughter, his only child. Suddenly the scenario turns to lamentation and grief as Jephthah informs his daughter of his vow and tells her, "...I have opened my mouth unto Yahweh, and I cannot go back." The story plays out with Jephthah's daughter submitting to her father's vow, requesting two months to go into the mountains and "bewail her virginity", and then returning to her father, "who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed..."
There are many Bible teachers, scholars, and Bible commentaries which claim that Jephthah actually offered his daughter up as a burnt sacrifice to Yahweh. Is this possible?
The answer is an emphatic "No!" In Hebrews 11:32 Jephthah is offered as an example of faith. How can this be so if he offered up another human as a burnt sacrifice, a practice that is absolutely condemned throughout the Old Testament? See Lev. 17:21; II Kings 16:3 & 17:17; Jer. 32:35; Eze. 20:31 & 23:37. So, what is the answer to this seeming contradiction in Scripture?
Let's try an alternate reading of one word and a closer examination of the story itself. In verse 31, according to Bullinger's Companion Bible, the passage can be read, "...whatsoever cometh forth...shall surely be Yahweh's, or I will offer it up for a burnt offering." Now this becomes a two part vow: if something came out to meet him which was acceptable to offer up as a sacrifice to Yahweh, Jephthah would do that. If anything came out that was not an acceptable sacrifice, it would still be dedicated to Yahweh and would no longer belong to Jephthah.
When Jephthah's daughter agrees with her father that his vow should be kept, she asks for two months in the mountains to "bewail her virginity." If she were to be offered up as a burnt offering, she would more likely have asked for time to bewail her coming loss of life. However, if she were to be dedicated to Yahweh to be in His service (as Hannah dedicated Samuel before his birth), and to remain a virgin in that service, then the story begins to make more sense. If we go further, we see that in verse 39, when Jephthah "did with her according to his vow", it doesn't say that he offered her up for a burnt sacrifice: it only says that "she knew no man."
This is not a story of a man who commits human sacrifice and then is still considered a faithful and acceptable man by God. This is the story of a man's rash words before battle, of a daughter's righteousness and devotion to her father, and of the faith of two people who served God according to His will. The sacrifice that Jephthah offered up was the loss of his chance for grandchildren through his only child. A tragic story perhaps, but far less tragic than the damage done to Scripture if we accept the notion that a man can commit human sacrifice and still be acceptable to God as an example of faith.
What the Star of Bethlehem Was
Matthew 2:1-2 tells us that when Yahshua was born, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is He that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen His star in the east..." The identity of this star has been the subject of much debate, with some claiming that it was a nova which appeared to astronomers before Yahshua's birth, and others claiming that it was a prominent comet which moved past the Earth at that time. Neither of these claims are supported in Scripture. A clearer answer may be found in Scripture, and it is much more significant than a simple astronomical event.
First notice that this star moved: "When they had heard the king, they departed; and lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them..." (v. 9) While all of us are familiar with the phenomenon of the moon seeming to move and follow us as we travel about, we know that this in only an optical illusion: if we were to attempt to follow the moon, rather than it apparently following us, it would lead us nowhere - it is our motion, not the moon's, which creates the illusion. We see this same phenomenon with stars: This was no star or nova.
Not only did the star move, but when it came to the place where the child Yahshua was, it stopped moving and stood still over His home: "...til it came and stood over where the young child was." So we have here an unnatural event: a star which moves through the heavens, then becomes stationary over a particular point on earth. While a comet may move through the heavens, it does not at any point become stationary; so this cannot be a comet.
Another point to ponder is that this star had apparently led the wise men to Jerusalem over the space of two years' time, for it says in v. 7, "...Herod...inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared..." Then in verse 16, Herod, when he saw that the wise men were not returning to him, "...was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem...from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men." This star had, over a two year period, led these wise men to Jerusalem. What comet remains visible in our skies for two year?
Finally, it appears that once the star had led them to Jerusalem, it disappeared for a while, because in v. 10 it says that when the wise men saw the star "...they rejoiced with exceeding great joy." Why do that unless the star had disappeared once they came to Jerusalem, and now they were overjoyed to find that it had reappeared and to have its guidance again? Otherwise they would have simply taken for granted the continuing presence of a star that they had followed for some two years.
So what was this mysterious star? The key lies in the symbolic use of the word "star" in Scripture. Look at Rev. 12:3-4: "..there appeared...a great red dragon...and his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth..." The interpretation of this follows in vv. 7-9: "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels...and he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." This symbolism is repeated in Rev. 9:1 & 2: "...and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit, and he opened the bottomless pit..." This is clearly a spiritual being - or angel - referred to here as a star, performing a certain task, and verse 11 seems to make reference to this star as "the angel of the bottomless pit."
Also, there are references to a Star out of Jacob; the morning star; Abraham's seed being numbered as the stars of heavens; stars making obeisance to Joseph; and the stars and sons of God rejoicing at the creation - all symbolic references to people and spiritual beings as stars, and there are numerous examples of this in Scripture.
So was this star of Bethlehem actually an angel? See Luke 2:7-13: "...And she brought forth her firstborn son...and there were in the same country shepherds...keeping watch over their flock by night...and, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them...and the angel said...'unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour'...and suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host..." There was not only an angel there announcing Yahshua's birth on the very day it occurred, but a multitude of angels - the heavenly host spoken of here. This announcing angel could very well be the star that appeared to the wise men at the exact same time, leading them to Jerusalem, then disappearing long enough for them to inform Herod of Yahshua's birth (so that the prophecies concerning Rachel's mourning quoted in Matt. 2:18 might be fulfilled) and then reappearing again in order to lead them to the very place where young Yahshua lived at that time.
With this explanation we can more clearly understand the existence of the star of Bethlehem in Biblical, spiritual terms which emphasize the importance of the event it coincides with: We see an angel present to announce Yahshua's birth, and then appearing to men from the east to lead them to His city. All of this is in order to fulfill prophecies surrounding Him and to honor Him as King of the Jews. The alternative is to see the "star" as simply a star or comet, both inherently meaningless phenomena and appearing as unnatural and unexplainable astronomical events. Which view makes greater sense to you?
Did You Know?
Page 2
Page 3,
Page 4
If you have any comments or questions you'd like answered, please e-mail us at
houseofyahshua@hotmail.com