In Matthew 2 we find the story of the wise men from the East coming to worship the newborn king of the Jews. The text says “the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was” (Mt 2:9b)
Was this star a natural or supernatural phenomenon? Both interpretations seem to be problematic. If it was a natural phenomenon, how could it be that the star stood specifically over Bethlehem? A natural celestial star would have naturally stood over every location in Israel, not just a tiny little town five miles from Jerusalem! That lends to the idea that the star was a supernatural phenomenon. But if it were supernatural, how is it that only the wise men picked up on it? Why weren’t the locals fascinated with this star? Why wasn’t anyone else drawn to the birthplace of Jesus through this star? Surely someone besides the wise men would have been drawn to a star that stood over a very specific location.
Does anyone have any suggestions for resolving this dilemma?
Thinking to Believe 
December 18, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Well, the Bible also says that the chief priets and scribes knew that the Christ would be born in Bethlehem, so King Herod sent the wise men to that specific city even though the star no doubt did shine over all Israel. But, it is a little puzzling how the star stopped over Jesus’ exact location. On a side note, I remember hearing that the star could actually have been a comet, and some Chinese astronomical records report a few comets appearing around Jesus’ birth. Perhaps God chose one of these natural phenomenas to proclaim Christ’s birth.
LikeLike
December 18, 2006 at 9:47 pm
J.J.
The chief priests knew this as a Biblical fact, but they did not realize it was being fulfilled in their own day. The wise men did because of the star. That reinforces my point that the star could not have been too spectacular. And yet, that’s also a problem because a star that could stand over a tiny little city so as to identify exactly where the Messiah was would seem to be quite spectacular.
If it was a comet, it would not be able to distinctly stand over the spot where Jesus was at. And yet, if it could stand over the spot, its peculiar nature should have attracted many more than just the wise men. Therein lies my dilemma.
Jason
LikeLike
December 18, 2006 at 11:43 pm
You can resolve this “problem” by not making it a problem. Its nature (or super-nature) is not an issue for the text, so it shouldn’t be an issue for the text’s reader. The point is not “which star was at that location at this time,” but what role does the star play in the Nativity story as it develops as a story?
To adapt some words of George Lindbeck, “The primary focus is not on celestial ontology, for that is not what the text is about, but on how life is to be lived in light of (no pun intended) God’s character depicted in the stories of Israel and of Jesus”
LikeLike
December 21, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Aaron,
If the Biblical account was a fictional story like Lord of the Rings I might be inclined to agree with you, but it’s not. It’s the chronicling of real historical events. In a fictional story asking such questions would be pointless because it’s all fiction anyway, and there is no right answer (if there was, it would be irrelevant anyway). If the Bible was just a fictional story the origin and nature of the star wouldn’t matter. But this is a real event. It doesn’t just serve a narrative purpose that some author concocted up, but was a real historical event. Your response seems to treat the Bible more as a story book, where all that matters is what the author is trying to say in the story—not what reality is.
The Biblical text always raises additional questions that we seek to answer. Theology is consumed with asking and seeking answers to questions and problems the Biblical text does not ask, but generates. Regardless of what the text does or does not say about the natural vs. supernatural nature of the star, the fact remains that the star was one or the other. And what we find in the text seems to support both the idea that it was a supernatural phenomenon and the idea that it was a natural phenomenon. I’m trying to figure out which it was.
Jason
LikeLike
August 3, 2010 at 11:13 am
Hi Jason, this is my first comment but I would to say that I have read your articles for a very long time and agree with you probably ninety nine percent of the time. I am now working my way through your blog.
My thought on this matter is that it was a supernatural happening as was the birth of Jesus. It could not be a star, not enough light and besides, it would be like the sun shinning only on one place and at night besides. Not to mention that the earth would be burned or the gravitational effects.
Just a supernatural bright light high enough for the wise men to see it. Besides, how could a star naturally go before them? It was called a star because it appeared so my those that did not have the understanding of stars as we have them today. Besides it had to be something very different or they would not have followed. The reason the locals weren’t fascinated with the light was because they didn’t see it. God was not talking to them, he was talking to the wise men. Sort of reminds me of when God spoke to Saul (Paul).
The problem sometimes is that everything has to be explained now. Most if not all stars are larger than the earth. You are going to rack your brain on this one.
LikeLike
August 3, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Hi Steve,
Thank you for your long-time readership!
Interesting thought: that the star was only visible to the magi. The text doesn’t say this, but it is possible. I find it interesting that when Herod was told about the star he didn’t ask “where is it?” but rather “when did it appear?” Does that mean he saw it too but wanted to know when it first appeared, or that he couldn’t see it at all? Hmm.
Jason
LikeLike
March 4, 2017 at 9:56 am
The Bethlehem star can be as simple as a spotlight on an flying object which lowered upon the house where the Messiah resided.
LikeLike