Recent Posts

Archive

When Was Jesus Born?


This will be a lengthy overview, but two things ought to be embedded in your mind as you continue to read this post:

  1. The book of Revelation was written by an astral prophet: John the Apostle.

  2. The birth of Jesus is conceptually and theologically linked to Genesis 6:1–4 and the sin of the “watchers”. In other words, the birth of Jesus would have alerted literate 1st century Jews that the Messiah’s arrival would reverse the sin of the “watchers”.

First, an extensive review of preliminary observations are needed, because we are now at the heart of this book, since it establishes and summarizes the core theme of the biblical epic: the war between God/his people and the dragon/his people, and between the Lamb and the beast. Scholars who research this section label it as an international myth, because stories resembling this can be found in virtually every religion of the ancient world. In other words, John draws from the combat myth motif, a story form that has many parallels in the literature of Israel’s neighbors. The basic plot line describes a dragon, often under the influence of another beast, elevating itself above the ruling god or gods. The dragon achieves a temporary victory, which results in a period of chaos. However, the defeated god [or a promised deliverer] conquers the dragon and reasserts the sovereignty of the appropriate ruling people. Here are some examples:

  1. In Egypt, the mother goddess Isis is pursued by the red dragon Seth [or Typhon] and flees to an island, where she gives birth to the sun god, Horus.

  2. In Ugaritic myth the storm god Baal defeats the seven–headed serpent Leviathan and sets up his kingdom.

  3. In Mesopotamia, Marduk, the god of light, kills the seven–headed dragon Tiamat, who had thrown down “one–third” of the stars.

  4. In Greco–Roman myth, the goddess Leto was pregnant with Apollo by Zeus. Her antagonist was Python the dragon, who tried to kill her in order to prevent her from giving birth. She was rescued by Poseidon [the north wind], which carried her away to the island of Delos in the Aegean Sea. There she gave birth to Apollo and Artemis, who received arrows as gifts. Four days later, Apollo pursued the dragon, soon slaying the monster to avenge his mother. This Leto–Apollo myth provides the closest parallel.

Here is Leto with Artemis and Apollo escaping from Python [from the 4th century b.c.]:

The main question is: why would John tell the story in mythical form? Yet this is not unusual in a biblical context. For example, titles of other gods are applied to God in the Old Testament [like the Baal title “cloud–rider” in Psalm 68:4], in order to say that God has conquered the other gods and taken their names. Thus, the purpose of this is evangelistic, that what the Greeks have known only as myth has now been actualized in history. In other words, the New Testament demythologizes Greco–Roman myth by historicizing it. What the pagans longed for in their myths has now become true in Jesus! Thus, the form is both deliberate and brilliant, using what scholars call a redemptive analogy to present the gospel in such a way as to capture the interest and hearts of the non–Christian reader. Thus, since scholars call this narrative a combat myth, it is because John unites several themes from ancient sources to develop this story about the dragon [v. 3] that produces chaos and disorder [v. 4] and then attacks the child [v. 4], the ruler [v. 5] who dies [v. 5] but recovers [v. 7]. The battle ensues and ends in victory [vv. 7–9], and order is both restored and confirmed [vv. 10–12], but the dragon still has his reign [vv. 12–17]. This is based on an ancient legendary mythic narrative pattern of combat between a hero and his adversary, or a primordial cosmic struggle between two divine beings and their allies for sovereignty. In mythical combats, the antagonist is often depicted as a monster, serpent, or dragon. The protagonist represents order and fertility, while the antagonist represents chaos and sterility. While the names of the combatants [as well as their roles] change from culture to culture, many of the constituent folklore motifs of the combat myth either remain constant or are subject to a limited range of variation. Some scholars have assumed that the common pattern exhibited by many combat myths suggests a unitary origin. They develop and use what is called a historical–geographical method, so that common patterns [when correlated with geographical distribution] provide them clues in their quest for the archetypal version. Other scholars instead opt for a chimerical–prototypical method. For example, the protagonist and antagonist were:

  1. In Babylon: Marduk and Tiamat or Gilgamesh and Humbaba.

  2. In Canaan: Baal and Yamm [Sea] or Baal and Mot [Death].

  3. In Egypt: Osiris and Seth [or Typhon] or [the Sun] and Apophis [the serpent representing night].

Likewise, the Greek world knew many versions of the combat myth, often narrated as a succession myth:

  1. Ouranos and Kronos.

  2. Zeus and Kronos.

  3. Zeus and the Titans [the Titanomachy].

  4. Zeus and the Giants [the Gigantomachy].

  5. Otus and Ephialtes [giant sons of Zeus] tried to ascend to heaven, but were repulsed by Artemis.

  6. Zeus and Typhoeus.

  7. Bellerophon and the Chimaera.

  8. Helios and Phaethon [particularly important for Revelation 12].

  9. Apollo and Python.

Satan becomes the chief adversary only in early Jewish apocalyptic literature and in the New Testament [1 Peter 5:8], though never in the Old Testament. Various versions of the combat myth were adopted from other cultures and adapted to Israelite–Jewish traditions at various times and places throughout the history of Judaism. Canaanite myths of the struggle between Baal and Yamm/Mot [understood as chaoskampf, or the “struggle against chaos”] were causally connected with creation [Psalm 74:12–17; 89:9–14; Job 26]. In these poetic passages, the conflicts were transposed into stories of God’s conquest of Leviathan [the Hebrew liwyātān]. This word is related to the Ugaritic term ltn for “dragon.” In Isaiah and Ezekiel, language from the cosmic rebellion aspect of this combat myth was used metaphorically to describe Israel’s historical enemies [Isaiah 14:10–15; Ezekiel 28:1–9]. Egypt or its Pharaoh was designated as the primordial dragon Rahab [Isaiah 30:7; 51:9–10; Ps 87:4] or the dragon Tannin [Ezekiel 29:3–5; 32:2–8; Isaiah 27:1]. The application of language drawn from the primordial cosmic rebellion myths to the historical enemies of Israel is based on the perception of the paradigmatic character of the original conflict. Israel’s memory of Egypt as an oppressor, coupled with the divine delivery through water that constituted the Exodus [compare Isaiah 51:9–11 with Exodus 15:1–8], provided the link that made it possible to describe the historical conflict in mythical terms. The sea and rivers were used as metaphors for Assyria [Isaiah 17:12–14; 8:5–8] and Babylon [Habakkuk 3:8–10, 15]. Babylon was also designated as a sea monster [Jeremiah 51:34]. Further, the cosmic waters are a designation of hostile nations in general [Psalm 18:5–18; 46:3–4; 144:5–7]. God was expected to do to Israel’s current historical enemies what he once did in the distant past to his mythological enemies. In proto–apocalyptic texts, God will repeat his primordial victories of the past: “At that time, with his fierce, mighty, and powerful sword, the Lord will punish the gliding serpent Leviathan—the coiling serpent Leviathan—and he will kill the dragon that’s in the sea.” [Isaiah 27:1]


Thus, such texts show the way in which eschatological combat myths were developed out of protological combat myths. In Daniel 7, the four beasts from the sea represent Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece; these beasts are conquered by divine intervention [v. 12], with the introduction of an everlasting kingdom represented by the “Son of Man” figure [vv. 13–14]. Thus, recall Genesis 6:1–4 and the apkallu context of the “watchers.” That passage in particular was reinterpreted as a cosmic rebellion myth in 2nd Temple literature [for example, 1 Enoch] and thereafter became an essential part of early Jewish apocalyptic tradition. Specifically, we saw in 1 Enoch 6–11 how 200 “watchers” [led by Semihazeh], rebel against God by lusting after mortal women, who conceive giants and bring evil to the earth. Azazel, who comes to the fore as a leader of the “watchers,” is bound and thrown into an abyss where he is to be confined in darkness until the great day of judgment when he will be cast into fire [1 Enoch 10:1–6]. In fact, this has similarities with the Prometheus myth. The initial binding of Azazel coincides with the judgment of the flood [1 Enoch 10:2]. In a parallel story, Semihazeh and the rest of the “watchers” are bound and confined in the abyss until the day of judgment, when they will be cast into eternal fire [1 Enoch 10:11–14]. After this, a period of perpetual righteousness and peace will dawn upon the earth [1 Enoch 10:16–11:2]. Thus, the primary function of these myths is to account for the origin of evil in the world. Hence, what we see in John’s version of the combat myth is an exalted divine being challenging the power of God and now has control of earth. Jesus functions as the divine warrior who [though Satan attempts to defeat him through his crucifixion] has freed humanity from the tyranny of Satan, though his final banishment has yet to take place. Thus, the atonement is based on divine conflict and victory. Jesus fights against all the evil powers in the world [that enslave humans in bondage and suffering], and decisively triumphs over them, thereby reconciling the world to himself.

In summary: John’s use of the combat myth has been discussed by a number of scholars who have proposed that various myths from particular ancient cultures were incorporated into it, especially the following:

  1. Babylonian combat myth involving Damkina–Marduk–Tiamat.

  2. Greek combat myth involving Apollo–Leto–Python.

  3. Egyptian combat myth involving Isis–Osiris–Horus–Seth.

There are a number of important issues that need to be raised in this quest for the oral and literary traditions that have influenced John:

  1. Is it reasonable to suppose that John would have used pagan traditions in addition to Old Testament Jewish traditions, either directly or mediated through Hellenistic Judaism?

  2. Are the parallels with pagan myths phenomenological, or are there genetic historical links indicating that John has actually borrowed from pagan sources?

  3. Did John base his narrative on a single coherent myth, or did he create a pastiche based on a variety of ancient mythical traditions?

We can answer these questions using the Greek myth: “Python, offspring of Terra, was a huge dragon who, before the time of Apollo, used to give oracular responses on Mount Parnassus. Death was fated to come to him from the offspring of Leto. At that time Zeus lay with Leto, daughter of Coeus. When Hera found this out, she decreed that Leto should give birth at a place where the sun did not shine. When Python knew that Leto was pregnant by Zeus, he followed her to kill her. But by order of Zeus the wind Boreas carried Leto away, and bore her to Poseidon. He protected her, but in order not to make void Zeus’s decree, he took her to the island Ortygia, and covered the island with waves. When Python did not find her, he returned to Parnassus. But Poseidon brought the island of Ortygia up to a higher position; it was later called the island of Delos. There Leto, clinging to an olive tree, bore Apollo and Artemis, to whom Hephaestus gave arrows as gifts. Four days after they were born, Apollo exacted vengeance for his mother. For he went to Parnassus and slew Python with his arrows. Because of this deed he is called Pythian. He put Python’s bones in a caldron, deposited them in his temple, and instituted the funeral games for him which are called Pythian.”

Thus, some scholars argue that there was a distinctive form of this myth of the birth of Apollo and Artemis on the Island of Patmos, where John may have become familiar with it. These scholars then highlight nine constituent motifs of the combat myth by John:

  1. The dragon [v. 3].

  2. Chaos and disorder [v. 4].

  3. The attack [v. 4].

  4. The ruler [v. 5].

  5. The ruler’s death [v. 5].

  6. Recovery of the ruler [v. 7].

  7. Battle renewed and victory [vv. 7–9].

  8. Restoration and confirmation of order [vv. 10–12].

  9. The dragon’s reign [vv. 12–17].

Scholars then summarize the version of the Leto–Apollo myth:

  1. Reason for Python’s attack: possession of oracle.

  2. Zeus impregnates Leto.

  3. Python pursues Leto to kill her.

  4. Zeus orders north wind [Poseidon] to rescue Leto.

  5. Poseidon aids Leto.

  6. Birth of Apollo and Artemis.

  7. Apollo defeats Python.

  8. Apollo establishes Pythian Games.

Thus, here is a brief analysis of the overlapping motifs by John:

  1. A woman on the point of giving birth [v. 2].

  2. A dragon intends to devour the child [v. 4].

  3. Birth of the child [v. 5].

  4. Kingship of the child [v. 5].

  5. Woman is aided by God [v. 6].

  6. Woman is aided by the large eagle [v. 14].

  7. Woman is aided by the earth [v. 16].

  8. Michael defeats the dragon [vv. 7–9].

However, other scholars note flaws in this analysis:

  1. It does not end with the defeat of the dragon [but in Revelation 20].

  2. The woman flees not to an island but to the wilderness.

  3. The woman gives birth before she flees, not after.

  4. In the Greek myth, the motivation for Python to pursue Leto is to prevent the birth of her twins. But here there is no obvious motivation for the dragon to pursue the woman after she has given birth and after her child has been snatched away to heaven.

  5. The designation of the child as the “ruler” [v. 5] is hardly appropriate for a mere cameo role in such a narrative.

  6. Similarly, to speak of the death of the “ruler” [v. 5] is also inappropriate, for the child was in fact “snatched” by God to heaven and “to his throne.”

Thus, in the context of the Greek myth, John has not used a coherent pagan myth; rather he has created a pastiche of mythological motifs. The use of these motifs from Greek mythology in this way constitutes a kind of narrative polemic in which Greek stories are shown to validate important aspects of the Christian gospel. In fact, John also carefully adds elements from the Old Testament so as to fill out the truths entailed in the story.


Now that we have the background combat myth context in mind, we next turn to John as an astral prophet, and how this fits directly into the timing of the birth of Jesus. In fact, the birth of Jesus is conceptually and theologically linked to Genesis 6:1–4 and the sin of the “watchers.” The birth of Jesus would have alerted 1st century Jews that the arrival of the messiah would reverse the sin of the “watchers.” Our starting place is in Romans 10:5–18, where Paul is clearly describing the necessity of believing in Jesus for salvation [vv. 9–10]. But in order to believe in Jesus, people must hear about Jesus. Paul then raises the expected objection: not everyone has heard about Jesus. Paul then gives an unexpected fascinating answer to this objection. He asserts that they have heard about Jesus [v. 18]. How is this possible? The answer is in Paul’s use of Psalm 19. Paul was not arguing that the story of the cross was in the starry heavens, but that the stars communicated the arrival of a divine messianic king! In that sense, Paul believes it was possible for the news about the coming of Jesus to be known to everyone. His task in the gospel was to explain what that coming meant, particularly with respect to the cross. Thus, for Paul, there were people who understood the arrival of a Jewish messianic king. Thus, David writes: “The heavens are declaring the glory of God, and their expanse shows the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech, night after night they reveal knowledge. There is no speech nor are there words—their voice is not heard—yet their line goes out into all the world, and their words to the ends of the earth.”

The “line” is the astronomical ecliptic. Notice that David says the heavens communicate information. Thus, this takes us into the ancient concept of astral theology, a subset of which is astral prophecy. In briefest terms, and with respect to a biblical perspective [as opposed to the pagan conception], astral theology was the idea that God made the celestial objects in the heavens [the sun, moon, and stars] to act as “signs for seasons, days, and years” [Genesis 1:14]. There is a good deal of evidence [from zodiac mosaics in ancient Jewish synagogues], that 2nd Temple Jews believed that divine activity and earthly events could be discerned in the skies. This is activity that they were careful to attribute to the true God. For example, here is the mosaic floor of a 4th century synagogue in Tiberius Galilee.

At the bottom, near the entrance, a set of Greek inscriptions honours the donors of the mosaic. To the right and left of the names of the donors stand two lions. The large middle panel has at its corners four female figures representing the seasons of the year. In the round medallion set into the square panel is a full zodiac with all 12 signs. A fallen wall has bisected the panel. The zodiac is to be read counter–clockwise with its first panel [centre left] at the very top. In the centre of the zodiac is Jesus with rays streaming from his head, driving his chariot directly to the observer. The top panel depicts the Torah shrine with two menorah and other holy objects.


Thus, how did Paul think the heavens communicated the coming of Jesus? And how did gentile people [like the Magi] know when to look for the birth of Jesus [as Paul argued that they did in Romans 10:18]? The answer is in understanding the Star of Bethlehem. At that time, the Chinese were the only ones that recorded the heavens. There were no bright stars that appeared when Herod was alive. This leads us to the Magi, astrologer priests of the Zoroastrian religion in Persia. Their astronomy was in signs of the positions of the planets that would go unnoticed to the Jews. Conjunctions where two or more planets gathered together were the most powerful of these configurations. There was an extremely close conjunction between Jupiter and Venus in 3/2 b.c. But, all of this depends on the death date of Herod the Great. Scholars argue for his death date to be on the 13th of March in 4 b.c. But newer scholarly re–evaluations are challenging this date, re–positioning it to the 28th of January in 1 b.c. Incidentally, these re–evaluations also solve the Quirinius census problem in Luke 2. Josephus [1st century Jewish historian] is the only source we have for timing the death date of Herod. He writes about Herod dying after a lunar eclipse [but before a Passover feast]. Thus, the problem with the 4 b.c. lunar eclipse is that there was only one lunar month between that eclipse and the Passover feast which begins on the day of the full moon. Since it was a slight partial eclipse occurring in the morning, it would not have been very noticeable to the general population. Josephus records many events that transpire between that eclipse and the Passover feast. According to Josephus, the eclipse is mentioned in connection with the burning of Matthias and his companions for sedition. Then Herod became ill. His doctors suggested that he go to the baths at Callirrhoe. He took their advise and crossed the Jordan River [since Herod resided in Jericho, it takes ~20 km to travel there and back]. Later on, Herod gave his kingdom to his son Archclaus and died ~5 days after having Antipater executed. If his death date was on the 13th of March in 4 b.c., this allows room for ~29 days that we see all the events above take place. Instead, the next lunar eclipse that occurred on the 10th of January in 1 b.c. was a total lunar eclipse that was seen most of the night. There were three lunar months between that eclipse and the Passover that year, therefore plenty of time for all of Herod’s final activities, having ~90 days for all the events to take place. Thus, the lunar eclipse on the 10th of January in 1 b.c fits better. Notice the visual differences between the two:

This fits with many early Christians placing the birth of Jesus in 3/2 b.c:

  • Irenaeus [2nd century Bishop of Lyons] says 3/2 b.c.

  • Clement [2nd century] says 3/2 b.c.

  • Tertullian [2nd century] says 3/2 b.c.

  • Julius Africanus [2nd century] says 3/2 b.c.

  • Hippolytus [3rd century] says 3/2 b.c.

  • Origen [3rd century] says 3/2 b.c.

  • Eusebius [3rd century Bishop of Caesarea] says 3/2 b.c.

  • Epiphanius of Salamis [4th century Bishop of Salamis] says 3/2 b.c.

  • Orosius [5th century] says 2 b.c.

  • Cassiodorus [6th century] says 3 b.c.

Thus, returning back to the Star of Bethlehem, on the 12th of August in 3 b.c., Jupiter [the king planet] and Venus briefly merged in the early morning skies against the constellation of Leo [the zodiacal sign of Judah]. From September 3 b.c. to May 2 b.c., Jupiter made three conjunctions with Regulus [the king star in Leo]. These three conjunctions would have shown Jupiter making a type of crowning effect over the star Regulus.

Then ~9 months later [coincidentally the human gestation period], after sunset on the 17th of June in 2 b.c., the two planets again joined as one in Leo. Notice that Matthew records: “After listening to the king, they set out, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it came and stopped over the place where the child was.” [Matthew 2:9] This “star” [which is Jupiter] came and “stopped” over the place where Jesus was. At first this seems impossible for an astronomical object, but not to an astronomer. Simply, this is Jupiter reaching its stationary points at the beginning and end of its retrograde motion, as seen in this diagram:

Jupiter becomes stationary at its times for retrogression and progression. When we look at Jupiter we see the planet normally moving eastward. This apparent movement is called proper motion. However, the earth is moving in its orbit around the sun faster than that of Jupiter. When the earth reaches point A, an observer would see Jupiter nearly along the same line as the earth’s own orbital movement. When the earth is travelling more or less in a direct line toward Jupiter, the planet will continue to show proper motion. But when earth reaches point B, it is no longer heading toward Jupiter. The faster velocity of the earth as it makes its turn to B and beyond, causes the apparent motion of Jupiter to slow down. This continues until the earth reaches point C. At that point the speed of the earth in relation to Jupiter is the same as Jupiter’s. That is when Jupiter appears to become stationary within the background of the stars. As the earth progresses from points C to D, it has greater relative speed than Jupiter and this causes Jupiter to retrogress. Thus, Jupiter reverses its motion and travels westward. However, at point D, the speed of the earth and Jupiter are again matched [relative to each other] and Jupiter stops its reverse motion. When point D is passed, Jupiter returns to proper motion. Here is the astronomical pattern that emerges:

The times are expressed in UTC [or +3 hours for local time in Babylon]. The northernmost planet is listed first. Angular separations are expressed in degrees and arc–minutes [1 arc–minute = 1/60th of a degree]. Notice the triple occultation [or obscuring] of Regulus [the brightest star in Leo], by Jupiter, on the 11th of September in 3 b.c., the 17th of February in 2 b.c., and the 8th of May in 2 b.c. This triple occultation of Regulus refers to that crowning effect mentioned earlier.


In summary:

  • On the 12th of August in 3 b.c., Venus and Jupiter are in their 1st conjunction, visible low in the eastern twilight before sunrise. Both are moving eastward against the stars. This is what the Magi described when they met Herod [Matthew 2:1–2].

  • On the 11th of September in 3 b.c., Jupiter and Regulus are in their 1st conjunction. It is on this date that Jesus was born. Thus, as Jesus began his ministry in October/November of 28 a.d., he was ~2 months past his 30th birthday [precisely as in Luke 3:23].

  • On the 17th of February in 2 b.c., Jupiter and Regulus are in their 2nd conjunction, as Jupiter is in retrograde motion.

  • On the 8th of May in 2 b.c., Jupiter and Regulus are in their 3rd conjunction.

  • On the 17th of June in 2 b.c., Venus and Jupiter are in their 2nd conjunction, appearing to merge into a single star low in the west at sunset. This is the Star of Bethlehem! Jesus is ~9 months old.

Thus, it was on the 25th of December in 2 b.c. at 7:00 am that Jupiter was in retrograde and appeared to stop in Virgo. This was the day when the Magi visited Jesus [Matthew 2:9–12], because when they saw Jupiter [the king planet] ahead of them to the south [sitting 65° above the horizon], it appeared to stop over the town of Bethlehem! Thus, it was the 1st conjunction on the 12th of August in 3 b.c. that set the Magi on their journey. Magi were known to have knowledge of planetary motions, and they could indeed calculate and predict the 2nd conjunction that would occur ~10 months later. Thus, they timed their journey to arrive around that 2nd conjunction [Matthew 2:3–6]. It is a reading from Micah 5:2 that sends them to David's birthplace: Bethlehem. As they left Jerusalem, the Magi saw the star again [Matthew 2:7–9]. Here we see v. 9 describing Jupiter’s move and then halt in its retrograde motion on 25th of December in 2 b.c., over Bethlehem. Even more fascinating is that this date took place in the season of Hanukkah, and thus is the date later chosen to celebrate Christmas! This was an 8–day celebration feast.

Bede [7th century] writes: “The first dedication of the temple was by Solomon in the autumn; the second was by Zerubbabel and the priest Joshua around that same time of year; a third dedication was conducted by Judas Maccabeus during the winter time when he instituted an annual commemoration of the dedication and cleansing of the temple by the priests.”

In 2 b.c., Hanukkah began on the 23rd of December. The Magi gave their gifts to Jesus on the 3rd day of the Jewish festival. This is a significant and symbolic time to present their gifts to the messianic king. This is because Hanukkah is a time for gift giving. From a Jewish context, there would have been no better time for the Magi to present their gifts to the Jewish messiah. Furthermore, the Jews would not have been honouring the season as devoted to the renewal of pagan gods. For the Jews, it was their time to celebrate their triumph over the idolatry of the gentiles and the renewal of their lives to the God of Israel. Thus, notice that Matthew records a specific age–range for all the male children that Herod wanted to murder, specifically those: “who were two years old and younger, according to the time that he had determined from the wise men” [Matthew 2:16].

Jesus was ~1.25 years old when Herod died on the 28th of January in 1 b.c. Thus, how did the Magi know to look for a star that would hail the birth of a Jewish messiah? The answer is amazing and simple: Daniel in Babylon. Daniel was always associated with Babylonian astrologers [Daniel 1:19–20; 2:12–13, 47; 4:7–9; 5:11–12], since Nebuchadnezzar made Daniel the head of all the astrologers of Babylon. A day came when Daniel was able to save the lives of all of the Babylonian astrologers. Nebuchadnezzar had an unusual dream. When the astrologers were unable to interpret his dream, he sentenced every one of them to execution [Daniel 2:12]. Among the ones arrested were Daniel and his three friends, because from the viewpoint of the Babylonians, these four Hebrews were part of the Babylonian School of Astrology, thus to be executed. But Daniel requested an audience with the king, and he received it. Then Daniel successfully interpreted the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, and saved the lives of all the other astrologers. This is how he became the head of the Babylonian School of Astrology [Daniel 2:48]. Since Daniel himself mentioned the Mosaic law [Daniel 9:11–13], a line of Babylonian astrologers from generation to generation would know about the prophecies of Balaam, specifically the one that says: “I can see him, but not right now. I observe him, but from a distance. A star streams forth from Jacob; a sceptre arises from Israel. He will crush Moab's forehead, along with all of Seth's descendants.” [Numbers 24:17]. The term “sceptre” is a symbol of royalty and kingship. This “star” that would rise out of Jacob, represents a divine king. It was the tribe of Judah [the Lion] that was prophesied to possess this sceptre in Israel [Genesis 49:9–10]. The only star in the heavens that fits this combination mentioned by Balaam is the star Regulus [the king star]. Furthermore, even more significant is that Balaam came from the city of Pethor, a city on the banks of the Euphrates River in Babylonia [Numbers 22:5; Deuteronomy 23:4].

Thus, we have a double Babylonian connection:

  1. Daniel who spelled out how many years would transpire before the birth of the Jewish messiah [the 70 weeks in Daniel 9].

  2. The prophecy of the Babylonian astrologer Balaam about a “star.”

Thus, what would have alerted the Magi before these significant conjunctions in 3/2 b.c.? The answer lies in a very rare triple conjunction [where two planets meet each other three times in a short period] in 7 b.c., of Jupiter and Saturn. In other words, since ancient astronomers believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe, they thought that the sun, moon, and the five visible planets [Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn] circled around the Earth at different distances and speeds. Farthest away was the great celestial sphere in which the stars and constellations they formed were embedded. Thus, the constellations on the celestial sphere appeared as a backdrop to the sun, moon, and planets as they moved across the heavens.

Evidence for how ancient astronomers would have understood this conjunction in 7 b.c., has been revealed by excavations in Babylon uncovering clay tablets bearing astronomical computations for that year. A cuneiform celestial almanac from Sippar predicted the triple conjunction of Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars in 7 b.c., where at the beginning of the year, Jupiter and Saturn were continuously visible in Pisces for ~11 months. The movements, stationary points, risings and settings of both planets are accurately registered month by month. They came at 1° and 4 arcminutes on the 29th of May, the 29th of September, and the 4th of December.

The ~11 month conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces is an extremely rare event, occurring only once every 800 years. A triple conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter has been observed only twice, in 786 a.d. and 1583 a.d. However, for the ancient Babylonian Magi, the conjunction was not only important astronomically, but astrologically and politically. In the Babylonian system, Jupiter, the largest and brightest planet, was known as the star of Marduk, the supreme god of Babylon. Saturn, the 2nd largest planet, was the star of the king, the earthly representative of the god. The Babylonians called Saturn kaiwanu which means “the steady one.” We see evidence for this from the Old Testament: “And you carried the tent of your king—and Saturn, your star god idols that you crafted for yourselves” [Amos 5:26]. The constellation Pisces was associated with Ea, the god of wisdom, life, and creation. Pisces was also the last sign in the zodiac, the last constellation that the sun passes through. Therefore, they believed that the conjunction of the planets in Pisces accordingly portended two things:

  1. The end of the old world order.

  2. The birth of a new saviour king chosen by their chief god.

This is because Babylonian astronomers applied their mathematical skills to the calculation of the positions of the planets and produced [as was their regular practice] an almanac for the year 241 of the Arsacid Era, which corresponds to year 305 of the Seleucid Era [or in modern terms, March of 7 b.c. to March of 6 b.c.]. Thus, they discovered that Jupiter and Saturn would reside together in the constellation Pisces for ~11 months. During that time they would come into conjunction three times, surely a series of propitious omens. Why? Because it is at this time that the priests of Marduk knew that Babylon was fallen. The city lay in ruins, and jackals ran where royal chariots once drove. Only rubble remained of the tower that once reached toward heaven. Weeds sent out their parched roots in vain search of moisture where water once rose to the hanging gardens. Where Hammurabi styled himself “King of the Universe,” the Parthians now ruled. Yet on this sacred ground faithful priests still observed the ancient ways.

Pliny the Elder [1st century Roman author] writes: “Babylon, the capital of the nations of Chaldea, long enjoyed the greatest celebrity of all cities throughout the whole world: and it is from this place that the remaining parts of Mesopotamia and Assyria received the name of Babylonia. The circuit of its walls, which were 200 feet in height, was 60 miles. These walls were also 50 feet in breadth, reckoning to every foot three fingers breadth beyond the ordinary measure of our foot. The river Euphrates flowed through the city, with quays of marvellous workmanship erected on either side. The temple there of Jupiter Belus is still in existence; he was the first inventor of the science of Astronomy. In all other respects it has been reduced to a desert, having been drained of its population in consequence of its vicinity to Seleucia, founded for that purpose by Nicator, at a distance of ninety miles, on the confluence of the Tigris and the canal that leads from the Euphrates.”

Pliny calls Marduk “Jupiter” because the highest Babylonian god was identified with the highest Roman god; and “Belus” because the Babylonians considered the name Marduk too holy for profane use, substituting the term “Bel” [meaning “Lord”] in common usage. Thus, standing on the wall of the Esagila [Marduk’s temple], in the ruins of Babylon on the 29th of May in 7 b.c., astrologers could see Jupiter and Saturn rise above the eastern horizon in Pisces ~2 hours after midnight, only 1° separating them. Jupiter was the star guided by their god Marduk, and dimmer Saturn was the steady star of the king. Since this conjunction was in Pisces, it meant that the realm of the gods was appointing a new king, who would bring about a new world order. As the light from the two planets near the horizon was distorted and colored by the roiling currents of hot air from the ground, from time to time the astrologers saw a beam of light flash from the brilliant Jupiter down toward Saturn. These flashes looked rather like the hand of Jupiter reaching down to grasp the hand of Saturn. They interpreted this as Marduk taking the hand of the newborn king to raise him to the throne and make him lord of the nations.

This again has a biblical parallel, since the expression “take by the hand” was used in ancient texts both for the God of Israel and the god Marduk taking the hand of Cyrus to make him king and conqueror. In the Cyrus cylinder, Marduk searches the whole land looking for a righteous prince to take his hand and rule the land. Likewise, we read from Isaiah: “This is what the LORD says to his anointed, Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped to subdue nations before him, as I strip kings of their armor, to open doors before him and gates that cannot keep closed” [Isaiah 45:1]. In a similar way, God takes the hand of his mysterious servant [later identified as Jesus], and destines him to be a light to the nations [Isaiah 42:6]. Thus, the prediction of such a king would have held wide interest in 7 b.c., when a power vacuum prevailed during this time. The Seleucid Empire created by the successors of Alexander the Great had collapsed in 64 b.c., and its remnants, which included Judea, had been annexed to Rome as a province named Syria. However, the power of Rome had not yet been consolidated in the area. Even after Augustus changed Rome into an autocratic monarchy in 27 b.c., his authority was questioned in the East, for the Roman emperor, unlike the Seleucid kings and their predecessors, did not derive his authority from God. For this reason, many people considered Roman rule illegitimate and hoped that a local Near Eastern king appointed by God would drive the Romans out of the country and create a better world. Thus, the triple conjunction in 7 b.c. would have been interpreted as a portent of the birth of this Near Eastern king. When the year 7 b.c. began, Jupiter was already visible in the night sky. Saturn appeared soon after on the 3rd of April. The planets met for the first time on the 29th of May. The second meeting of the planets occurred on the 29th of September, where Mars would also move into the constellation Pisces while Jupiter and Saturn were still together there. Mars was the planet of Amurru [meaning Syria–Palestine in the West]; hence this second meeting would have inspired the Magi to head in that direction. The third conjunction occurred at the time of the full moon, on the 4th of December, ~3 weeks before the winter solstice, when the Babylonians held their annual celebration of the victory of their saviour god Nabu, over the forces of darkness. The Magi may well have associated the birth of the child they were looking for with this festival, for the Mesopotamian king was commonly regarded as an incarnation of Nabu. Interestingly, the Babylonians proclaimed Nabu’s victory as bussurtu which means “good news” [the same meaning as the Hebrew word bĕśōrâ for “gospel”]. Thus, after the triple conjunction in 7 b.c., and because of the later confirmation of the Venus and Jupiter conjunction on the 12th of August in 3 b.c., the Magi understood the message of Balaam’s “star” [that a messiah–king would be born in Syria–Palestine], and they headed to a leading political centre in the region: Herod’s court. Indeed, the Magi would have rejoiced over the good news [or bussurtu], since their saviour king was born! Indeed, when “they saw the star, they were ecstatic with joy” [Matthew 2:10]. This finally leads us to John’s visions in our study here.


Starting with vv. 1–2, it is quite clear that the signs in the heavens are indisputably astronomical: sun, moon, and stars. The key figure [and logical starting point] is the “woman.” John depicts the “woman” using elements from both Jewish and Greco–Roman traditions, and there are four main ways of understanding her identity [apart from the astrology]:

  1. The People of God In this interpretation, the woman represents a community rather than an individual. Some of her traits are those of ancient Israel. The initial scene pictures the woman suffering the pain of labor, which was an image for Israel’s distress [Isaiah 26:17; Jeremiah 4:31]. Her child is the messianic ruler, who comes from Israel [Psalm 2:9]. Later, the woman’s experience is like that of Israel’s exodus from Egypt, for she escapes danger and is carried on an eagle’s wings into the desert, where she is nourished, much as Israel was fed with manna [later in vv. 13–17; Exodus 16:4; 19:4]. Yet the woman’s children are those who keep the commandments of God and the witness of Jesus, which means that her identity is broad enough to encompass the Christian community [later in v. 17]. This approach fits this book, which uses traits of the 12 tribes and those of the followers of Jesus for the community as a whole [recall Revelation 7:1–17]. Personifying a people or city as a female figure was common. For John, Babylon is depicted as a whore, and the New Jerusalem as a bride [later in Revelatio 17:1–6; 19:7–8; 21:9]. Biblically, Israel or Zion was depicted as a wife, mother, or daughter [Isaiah 52:2; 66:7–8; Jeremiah 4:31; 6:23–24; Lamentations 1:6; Micah 4:10; Zephaniah 3:13]. In ancient art, Rome could appear as a woman at ease on seven hills, and conquered nations were depicted as female captives. Thus, the image of the woman clothed with the sun, conveys the situation of a group by personification as a single figure.

  2. The Christian Church The woman has a crown of 12 stars, which could signify the 12 apostles, and her children keep the testimony of Jesus [later in v. 17], so she could represent the church. The problem with this approach is how the church can be pictured giving birth to the messiah. Ancient scholars took the child’s birth as a symbol of Jesus being born in the hearts of believers through faith [Galatians 4:19]. A more recent proposal notes that the child is to rule the nations with an iron rod [v. 5], an image used for Jesus and his followers, who share in his reign [recall Revelation 2:27–28]. Other scholars suggest that the agony of giving birth simply describes the affliction of the Christian community [John 16:19–23]. These suggestions are unlikely because the many layers of biblical images noted above relate the woman’s identity to the broader story of Israel, not only the church.

  3. Mary If the messianic child is Jesus, one might assume that the woman is Mary [v. 5]. The Marian interpretation emerged during the patristic period and was later popularized by linking this vision to the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. Those who relate the vision to Mary suggest that the dragon is Herod the Great, who sought to kill the infant Jesus, and that the woman’s escape into the wilderness is the family’s journey into Egypt [Matthew 2:13–18]. A variation is that the woman Mary represents the whole church. A more cautious assessment is that on a primary level the woman personifies the people of God collectively and that on a secondary level there may be allusions to Mary, since she gave birth to the messiah. From a literary perspective, the reminiscences of the mother of Jesus as an individual may contribute to the portrait of God’s people as a whole. The pattern is similar to including the traits of Moses, Elijah, and other individual figures in the portrait of John’s two witnesses, who also signify God’s people [recall Revelation 11:3–6], and weaving traits of Nero into the portrait of the beast, which signifies the imperial system.

  4. The Jewish Community Some scholars suggest that the woman is Israel, where the sun, moon, and stars recall the dream of Joseph [Genesis 37:9–11], and Israel is seen as a woman in labor [Isaiah 26:17–18]. Thus, the escape of the woman recalls how the Jewish community escaped destruction when the Romans conquered Jerusalem in 70 a.d., and later had a protected status within the empire. At the same time, the Christians, who were offspring of Judaism, suffered persecution, like the woman’s other children, who are threatened by the Roman dragon.

Thus, since the woman gives birth to the messianic figure [Jesus] and then is persecuted and has to flee into the desert, scholars agree that this woman is a picture of the faithful community [Israel], which existed both before and after the coming of Jesus. Israel is described as the virgin of Zion in the Old Testament and produces the messiah in fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy [2 Kings 19:21; Isaiah 37:21; Jeremiah 14:17; 18:13; 31:4, 21; Amos 5:2; Lamentations 1:15; 2:13]. Since Mary is a Jewish girl who gives birth to Jesus, Israel as a “virgin” best fits the description of this woman in heaven. Why? Because the connection to Israel as a “virgin” is important given that the signage would have to be decipherable to Jews at the time of the birth of Jesus. At that time, Mary’s circumstances would have been entirely unknown. The meaning of the “virgin” and the 12 stars around her head is evident in 2nd Temple literature, as well as later rabbinic thought. The woman is featured as being “in” heaven and both the “sun” and the “moon” are associated with her, where she is “dressed” with the sun, along with 12 stars around her head, and the moon is “under her feet.” Thus, she is an astronomical sign. Interpreting astronomical signs dominated the thinking of most people in the 1st century, whether the people were Jews or Gentiles [like the Magi]. Indeed, the Greek word sēmeion for “spectacular sign” used by John to describe this celestial display means “constellation”! In this context, the “spectacular sign” is an empirical phenomenon disclosing theological truths while also concerning the details of a stellar constellation. Thus, the idea that the woman is a constellation is made plausible when one looks more closely at the text. The description that the woman was “dressed” with the sun is stock astronomical language for the sun being in the midst of a constellation. While the sun is in the woman, the moon is at her feet. For this situation to occur, the constellation of the woman must be [in astronomical language] on the ecliptic, the imaginary line in the sky that the sun and moon follow in their journey through the zodiac constellations. Notice that this is consistent with Paul’s use of Psalm 19:4, that the stars communicating via a “line” that goes out in the heavens, is the ecliptic. What John saw indicates that the position of the sun was located somewhere mid–bodied to the woman, between the neck and the knees. Thus, the constellation Virgo is the only female figure in the zodiac and is the 3rd largest of all the constellations after Argo Navis and Hydra.

The constellation consists mostly of rather faint stars spread over a wide area. The brightest star is Spica, a stunning 1st magnitude star halfway down the constellation, close to the ecliptic. The next brightest stars in the constellation are the 3rd magnitude Gamma [γ] Virginis, Epsilon [ε] Virginis, and Delta [δ] Virginis, and the 4th magnitude Beta [β] Virginis. The constellation was called AB.SIN [meaning “seed furrow”] by the Mesopotamians [a direct reference to its association with agriculture and fertility], Parthenos by the Greeks, Virgo by the Romans, and Bethulah by the Jews.

The Mesopotamians and Greeks depicted the constellation as a young maiden who carried an ear of grain in her left hand. The ear of grain was particularly closely associated with Spica and reflects the fact that historically the constellation [and Spica in particular], was linked to the start of the grain harvest. Often Virgo was believed to hold a palm branch in her right hand. Greeks and many in the ancient Near East imagined her to have wings. The constellation was associated with Ishtar/Asherah, Athena, Demeter, Atargatis, Tyche, Dike, Justa, Astraea, Juno, and Isis. Thus, how did the ancient astronomers picture Virgo relative to the stars of her constellation? The answer is that we have four depictions of Virgo. Here are the first three from the 2nd century b.c. to the 2nd century a.d.

The 1st version of Virgo was described by Hipparchus [2nd century b.c. Greek astronomer]. Beginning at the bottom of the constellation, he regarded her feet as corresponding to the stars Mu [μ] Virginis and Lambda [λ] Virginis, the lower part of the shoulders as Gamma [γ] Virginis and Delta [δ] Virginis, and the top star in her head as Xi [ξ] Virginis. This conceptualization of Virgo is unquestionably the most bizarre, since it requires Virgo to have either an extraordinarily long neck, or a massive head. In fact, in his analysis, the distance from the top star in her head to the star in her right shoulder is the same as the distance from her left elbow to her left foot!

Ptolemy [2nd century Greek astronomer] revised this 1st version of Virgo, and his depiction became the 2nd version: “We do not employ the same figures of the constellations that our predecessors did, just as they did not employ the same figures as their predecessors. But in many cases we make use of different figures that more appropriately represent the forms for which they are drawn. For instance, those stars which Hipparchus places ‘on the Virgin’s shoulder’ we place ‘on her side’ [in other words, while Ptolemy does describe Delta [δ] Virginis as on Virgo’s right side, under the girdle, he portrays Gamma [γ] Virginis as in the left wing, but he probably meant that the star was both on Virgo’s wing and on her side] because their distance from the stars in her head seems too great for the distance from the head to the shoulder in his constellation of Virgo. And so, by making those stars to be on her sides, the figure will be agreeable and appropriate, which it would not be if those stars were drawn ‘on her shoulders.’

However, in decreasing the size of Virgo’s neck and head, Ptolemy introduced a new problem: Virgo’s torso and arms became disproportionately long! In other words, the distance from the star on her left side, Gamma [γ] Virginis, to her left hand, Alpha [α] Virginis, is greater than the distance from her left hand, Alpha [α] Virginis, to her left foot, Gamma [γ] Virginis. Quite simply, maintaining Hipparchus’s placement of Virgo’s head could not produce a properly proportioned constellation figure. Thus, measuring from just above Virgo’s right buttock [which in a normal human body would be roughly halfway between the top of the head and the bottom of the feet], in Ptolemy’s Virgo it is 29° to the top of her head, and yet only 18° to her right foot and 17° degrees to her left foot. Thus, the 3rd version of Virgo did not entail her having an extraordinarily long neck or elongated upper body [from the waist upwards]. Eratosthenes [3rd century b.c. Greek polymath] and Gaius Julius Hyginus [1st century b.c. Latin author] portrayed Virgo in rather more vague terms than Hipparchus or Ptolemy, but nevertheless in readily identifiable terms, and in a similar manner. According to Hyginus, she had 19 stars. According to Eratosthenes, she had 20 stars. The faint star that they associate with the Virgin’s head is 16 Virginis. Thus, Eratosthenes stated that Virgo was regarded as headless. The headless version of Virgo is actually easy to explain astronomically, because there is only one faint star in the region of sky where Virgo’s head was perceived to be. The shoulders are Gamma [γ] Virginis and Delta [δ] Virginis. The elbows are Sigma [σ] Virginis and Psi [ψ] Virginis. The hands are Alpha [α] Virginis and Zeta [ζ] Virginis. Her feet are Mu [μ] Virginis and Lambda [λ] Virginis. With respect to the wings, Epsilon [ε] Virginis and Rho [ρ] Virginis are on the right wing, and Beta [β] Virginis and Eta [η] Virginis on the left wing. The six faint stars that make up the hem of her dress are Upsilon [υ] Virginis, Phi [φ] Virginis, Iota [ι] Virginis, 106 Virginis, 95 Virginis, and Kappa [κ] Virginis, all of which are 4th and 5th magnitude stars [in other words, within the range of naked–eye observation in good atmospheric conditions]. This solution incorporates most of the major stars in the relevant part of Virgo in a natural way and is probably correct. Thus, Hyginus and Eratosthenes represent a view of Virgo that is very similar to that of Hipparchus from the feet with Mu [μ] Virginis and Lambda [λ] Virginis, to the shoulders with Gamma [γ] Virginis and Delta [δ] Virginis, but has the head much lower down and a body with more reasonable proportions. According to their assessment, the stars Xi [ξ] Virginis, Nu [ν] Virginis, Omicron [ο] Virginis, and Pi [π] Virginis were not a part of Virgo’s body, but were above her head.

Teucer [1st century Egyptian astrologer] depicted the 4th version of Virgo, and portrayed her as: “a certain goddess seated on a throne and nursing a child. Some say that she is the goddess Isis in the Atrium nursing Horus.”

Abu Maʿshar [9th century Persian astrologer] also writes that she was: “a virgin that Teucer called Isis; she is a pretty, pure virgin with long hair, with a beautiful face; she has two ears of corn in her hand and is seated on a throne on which lie cushions. She is looking after a little boy and gives him bread to eat, in a place called the Atrium; this boy is called by some peoples Isa [Jesus].”

Although restricting a large constellation figure like Virgo to a 30° zone [to get it to work as a zodiacal sign] naturally results in distortion, and so cannot accurately capture the underlying constellation figure, Teucer nevertheless gives us a good sense of how she was envisioned and a general idea of her proportions. In his description of the sign of Virgo, Teucer locates Alpha [α] Virginis two–thirds of the way down. In other words, he locates the beginning of the emergence of the head at 1° to 3°, the nose at 4° to 6°, the neck at 7° 10°, the arms at 11° to 13°, the fingers at 14° to 18°, Alpha [α] Virginis at 19° to 21°, and the upper section of the lower half of the leg at 22° to 23°. Thus, his Virgo [and that of the Egyptians] is oriented parallel to the ecliptic. This is because in earlier centuries, the Babylonians regarded Virgo as two distinct constellations consisting of the Furrow [who carried an ear of grain], who rose first, and the Frond [who carried a palm branch].

While the Greco–Roman Virgo and the later Babylonian Virgo were parallel to the ecliptic, these constellations were oriented close to 90° angles to the ecliptic. It seems that at some stage around the middle of the 1st millennium b.c., when the zodiacal band was divided into 12 equal signs, the Furrow and Frond were united into a single unified figure who carried an ear of grain in her left hand and a palm branch in her right hand, thus representing two of the mainstays of the Babylonian diet [unleavened barley bread and dates], and this imagery is retained because Greek agriculture was dominated by wheat and olives. Thus, this is closest to that of Hyginus and Eratosthenes, except Teucer pictures Virgo as sitting on a throne, presumably with her legs and feet parallel. In fact, this is seen in an early 6th century zodiac in a synagogue at Beth Alpha, where Virgo is seated on a throne and is dressed in a long gown that reaches her ankles, and wearing royal red shoes.

Notice that the Hebrew word bethulah [meaning “virgin”] is the name for Virgo, alongside the image. Thus, there four portrayals of Virgo in the centuries around the birth of Jesus: three envisioned her standing and one imagined her sitting. Ptolemy, Hipparchus, Eratosthenes, and Hyginus represent versions of Virgo standing, and Teucer represents the version of Virgo sitting on a throne with an infant.

Hipparchus has Virgo’s head high, as does Ptolemy, but Eratosthenes, Hyginus, and Teucer reflect a conception of Virgo in which her head is lower, near 16 Virginis rather than at Xi [ξ] Virginis, Nu [ν] Virginis, Omicron [ο] Virginis, and Pi [π] Virginis. But, there was widespread agreement regarding the level of Virgo’s groin and legs. Here is a 7th century b.c. Egyptian portrayal of Isis [acting as Virgo] seated with Horus, carrying an ear of grain with a star over her head. Thus, how does John visualize Virgo? Notice that the “woman” is wearing a “victor’s crown of twelve stars.” Since naked–eye visibility in ideal conditions [that would normally have prevailed in ancient Babylon and Jerusalem] is ~6th magnitude, there are precisely 12 stars in this relevant upper part of Virgo. These 12 stars are:

Thus, these stars form a conical shape that is reminiscent of a tall royal crown. Most fascinating is a relief at the Egyptian Temple of Khnum, where Virgo is next to Leo, and is depicted as having a tall crown of Egyptian style. This type of crown was common in the ancient Near East, and was worn by royalty in Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, and Parthia.

It was used at the turn of the 1st century. For example, here is Musa [queen of the Parthian Empire from 2 b.c. to 4 a.d.] wearing this type of crown.

Thus, with a “victor’s crown of twelve stars” on Virgo’s head, John’s constellation figure evidently contrasts with that of Hipparchus and Ptolemy but is similar to that of Hyginus, Eratosthenes, and Teucer. In addition, Virgo is seen as having “the moon under her feet.” The Virgo of Hipparchus, Hyginus, Eratosthenes, and Ptolemy had her left foot at Lambda [λ] Virginis and her right foot at Mu [μ] Virginis. In certain years, depending on the angle of the Moon’s orbit relative to the ecliptic plane of Earth’s orbit, the Moon may pass through this area of sky. In the years 7 b.c. to 2 b.c., at times when the Sun was in Virgo, the Moon ventured under Lambda [λ] Virginis. Thus, John is portraying both of Virgo’s feet as being in the vicinity of this star. With respect to the upper body of Virgo, John reveals that she is being viewed in terms very similar to the Virgo of Hyginus and Eratosthenes, and the Virgo of Egypt and Babylon. At the same time, since Virgo is wearing a crown and is clothed with the radiance of the Sun, she is most naturally regarded as sitting on a throne.

The fact that the Moon is stationed under her feet suggests that it was in subservience, paying homage to Virgo [compare with Genesis 37:9, where the Moon, together with the Sun and eleven stars, is envisioned as bowing down before Joseph]. Thus, the Moon seems to be forming a footstool for her feet. Thus, Virgo appears exalted in glorious splendor. That she is seated is consistent with the fact that relatively little room is available for her legs, above Lambda [λ] Virginis. Just as many in the ancient world envisioned Virgo as Queen Isis seated on her throne, so John pictures Virgo as Queen Israel on her throne. It presents her in terms that anticipate her exaltation and sovereignty over the nations in the new age. As for the precise location of Virgo’s body relative to the stars of the constellation, the fact that the Sun is clothing Virgo and the Moon is under her feet gives us a sense of the celestial position of Virgo’s throne in relation to the fixed stars and the ecliptic. Virgo rises with her crown up and her legs down, but she sets upside–down, with her crown being the first part to disappear.

Thus, here we see that the Sun is perceived to be within Virgo, located over her midriff, which covers the 10° to 11° zone from Virgo’s chest, below the level of the stars Gamma [γ] Virginis and Delta [δ] Virginis, to her groin where 80 Virginis is located. At the same time, the Moon is under Virgo’s feet. Thus, notice the fascinating coincidence that when this occurs while the Sun is clothing her, it becomes a young lunar crescent!

In other words, during the lunar cycle, after a full Moon in the middle of a lunar month, it enters a waning phase. Eventually the Moon disappears from the sky for a few days at the end of the lunar month. Then it reemerges as a very thin crescent, barely visible over the western horizon in the aftermath of sunset. Thus, the Babylonians and Hebrews would [during a ~1.5 hour window of time between sunset and moonset] scan the western sky for the new crescent Moon descending in the Sun’s wake. At this time the Moon is moving away from the Sun, falling ~12° behind it every day. While doing so, it waxes until [on the 15th day of its cycle] it again becomes a full Moon. Thus, what is described in v. 1 is not an annual occurrence. It is on the 11th of September in 3 b.c. that a very thin crescent Moon was under Virgo’s feet while the Sun was also clothing her! Technically, the Moon was under Virgo’s feet, corresponding to Lambda [λ] Virginis for that whole day, from the moment it rose in the east [when it was 24° from the Sun] until Virgo set in the west [when it was 28° to 29° from the Sun]. Subject to favorable weather, the young crescent Moon would normally have become clearly visible to the naked eye shortly after the Sun set that evening. Furthermore, since the Moon in v. 1 is a footstool under Virgo’s feet [emphasizing her great glory at or near the start of the new lunar month], it was closely associated with menstruation and conception in the ancient world! The close association of the Moon with conception was made explicit by a number of Greco–Roman medical writers and various natural philosophers [like Aristotle and some Hippocratic authors]. As for the Babylonian astrologers, they believed that omens relating to the Moon could speak of conception or childbirth.


For example, the Enuma Anu Enlil [or lunar eclipse tablets] reads: “If an eclipse occurs on the 21st day of month III and sets during its eclipse, the pregnant women will ... their foetuses. If an eclipse occurs on the 14th, 15th, 16th, and 20th day of month IV and sets during its eclipse, there will be fish produce in the sea, the pregnant women will bring their foetuses to perfection; Mars will set and destroy the herds. If an eclipse occurs on the 16th day of month IV, pregnant women will not carry their foetuses full term. If an eclipse occurs on the 20th day of month VII, there will be an epidemic of the li’bu disease in the land; pregnant women will not carry their foetuses full term. If the 16th day of month V, pregnant women will miscarry. If the moon is surrounded by a halo and the Pleiades stand in it, in that year, women will give birth to male children. If the moon is surrounded by a halo, and Regulus stands in it, in that year pregnant women will give birth to male children. If the moon is surrounded by a halo, and Scorpius stands in it, high priestesses will be made pregnant.”

In summary: Virgo, with her 12–star crown, clothed with the Sun, and with the Moon under her feet describes an astronomical phenomenon that occurred on the 11th of September in 3 b.c. The only time in the year that the sun could be in a position to clothe Virgo [that is, to be mid–bodied to her, in the region where a pregnant woman carries a child] is when the sun is located between 150º and 170º along the ecliptic. This clothing by the sun occurs for a 20–day period each year. This 20º spread indicates the time when Jesus was born. Notice that the moon is at the feet of the woman. Thus, John’s vision accurately records the astronomical alignment of all these objects. Because of the moon’s behaviour relative to the ecliptic and Virgo in any given year, the 20–day window narrows to ~90 minutes to astronomically pinpoint the birth of Jesus! Since the feet of Virgo represent the last 7º of the constellation [in the time of Jesus this would have been between 180º and 187º along the ecliptic], the moon has to be positioned under that 7º arc, as observed from Palestine, in the twilight period on the 11th of September in 3 b.c. The relationship began at 6:00 pm [sunset], and lasted until 7:30 pm [moonset]. This is the only day in the whole year that this astronomical phenomenon described by John could take place! Thus, the important point to note is that the moon was in its crescent phase. It was a New Moon day, the start of a new lunar month, and the date itself landed on Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year! Thus, the 11th of September in 3 b.c. was Tishri 1 on the Jewish calendar. For Jews, this is very profound. It is the Day of Trumpets [Leviticus 23:23–26]. It was an important annual holy day for the Jews. Tishri 1 was also the day that many of the ancient kings and rulers of Judah reckoned as their inauguration day of rule. This procedure was followed consistently in the time of Solomon, Jeremiah, and Ezra. This is also powerful evidence for the celestial signs of the birth of the messianic king. Furthermore, the Jews believed that the Day of Trumpets commemorated a renewal of the world. This is when the world is reborn. Amazingly, this tradition is part of a matrix of ideas that link Tishri 1 to the sin of the “watchers” in Genesis 6:1–4, because since the most ancient Israelite calendar began with Tishri, it fell in the fall season with a harvest [after the rains had produced the fall crop]. This month and this harvest were considered a memorial of creation. Why? Because Genesis 2 has Adam and Eve placed in a lush garden. Because of the availability of food for Adam and Eve, the creation must have begun in the harvest season, and so the earliest Hebrew calendar began the year during this harvest season. Hence, the 1st month [Tishri] fell in this fall harvest season. This logic produces the idea that the Israelite New Year signalled a renewal of creation. Thus, how does this ancient calendar factor into Genesis 6:1–4 and the flood story?

Note the descriptions of Noah here: “Noah was 600 years old when water began to flood the earth. Noah, his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives entered the ark with him before the flood waters arrived. From both clean and unclean animals, from birds, and from everything that crawls on the ground, two by two, male and female, they entered the ark to join Noah, just as God had commanded. Seven days later, the flooding started. On the seventeenth day of the second month, when Noah was 600 years old, all the springs of the great deep burst open, the floodgates of the heavens were opened, and it rained throughout the earth for 40 days and 40 nights.” [Genesis 7:6–12]

As the waters were subsiding, just after the dove was released from the ark for the last time, we then read this chronological note: “In the six hundred and first year of Noah’s life, during the first month, the flood water began to evaporate from the land. Noah then removed the ark’s cover and saw that the surface of the land was drying. By the twenty–seventh day of the second month, the ground was dry.” [Genesis 8:13–14]

After ~1 year we see Noah leaving the ark in the 2nd month. He had turned 601 by the time he left the ark. Thus, Jewish tradition took this chronology to mean that Noah’s birthday was also on Tishri 1. Thus, notice that this is the same day for the birth of Jesus! A messiah born on Tishri 1 would inevitably have created a mental and theological association between Noah and Jesus [compare with 1 Peter 3:18–22]. Thus, since Jesus and Noah shared the same birthday, there are other details about the chronology of the flood that would have moved ancient Jewish readers to associate the Messiah [and thus Jesus] with Genesis 6:1–4. The 2nd month of the year [the month when Noah emerged from the ark] was marked astronomically by the heliacal appearance of the Pleiades. A star’s heliacal rising is a phenomenon where a star is first visible in the morning sky. On this day, a star will only be briefly visible, since if you had looked at it a day earlier, it would be too close to the sun for visibility. Ancient astrologers gave particular emphasis to the heliacal rising and setting of stars since these could be used as reliable indicators to agricultural conditions. The cluster of stars known as the Pleiades [in Hebrew kîmâ] is mentioned three times in the Old Testament [Amos 5:8; Job 9:9; 38:31]. It is always paired with Orion [in Hebrew kĕsîl], since its position in the sky is close to the Orion constellation. And most curious is the fact that Orion was considered a giant in the ancient world! Scholars wonder if kĕsîl in Job 38:31 contains a reference to a lost legend of a giant primeval hero who [having rebelled against God] was subdued, bound, and placed in the sky. In fact, the Targum of Job [an Aramaic translation of Job discovered at Qumran] has Job 38:31 translated like this: “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades or loose the cords of Orion [naphila]?” That last Aramaic word for Orion is the Aramaic noun from which Nephilim derives [recall the etymology of Nephilim, and the importance of the Mesopotamian context for Genesis 6:1–4 and its preservation in 1 Enoch and other 2nd Temple literature]. In Mesopotamian astronomy, Orion was referred to as “the true shepherd of Anu,” where Anu was the chief god of the heavenly realm. The shepherd motif was associated in the ancient Near East with kingship. Thus, Orion was Anu’s chosen king. But this naphila was not the true shepherd–king for the followers of God. Thus, shepherd imagery is overtly messianic. David became the model of the ideal king for Israel [2 Kings 18:3; 22:2] and the prototype of the messiah as the ultimate shepherd–king [Jeremiah 33:15; Ezekiel 34:23–24; 37:24–25]. The theological messaging is that the birth of the messiah on Tishri 1 [followed in the next month by the rising of the Pleiades–Orion] would have signalled the arrival of God’s shepherd–king. The 2nd month of the year when Noah emerged from the ark marked the judgment of God upon the Nephilim. But, the flood was not the permanent cure for the Nephilim and the effect of the sin of the “watchers” in human history [as seen in Genesis 6:4]. The only solution was a new Noah. Thus, on Tishri 1 [the traditional birthday of Noah], the heavens telegraphed the identity of the better Noah: Jesus of Nazareth, born via Noah’s bloodline [Luke 3:36].

Next in v. 3, a “dragon” was usually pictured as a serpent [Exodus 7:10; Deuteronomy 32:33]. For John, the “huge red dragon” has the qualities of a mythic monster. Such dragons represented the chaotic forces that needed divine control [Job 7:12; 26:13; 41:1; Ezekiel 32:2]. Dragons were arrogant and combative creatures, whose coming could signify war. This is the case here, since war breaks out [later in v. 7]. Dragons devoured the vulnerable [Jeremiah 51:34]. Jewish writers said that the Babylonians worshiped a dragon [which was idolatry] while insisting that God could defeat dragons [Psalm 74:13–14; Isaiah 27:1]. In this book, God and his allies will conquer the dragon in three stages: the heavenly battle [later in vv. 7–12], the 1,000 year incarceration [later in Revelation 20:1–3], and the final defeat [later in Revelation 20:7–10]. In Greco–Roman writings, the dragonlike serpent that guarded the legendary Golden Fleece [a symbol of authority and kingship] had sleepless eyes and made a horrible hiss. The serpentine dragon Python tried to kill Leto, the mother of the gods Apollo and Artemis. For John, the dragon’s fiery “red” color also resembles that of the monster Typhon, which could be called a dragon. Typhon was the adversary of the goddess Isis and her son Horus, as well as the opponent of Zeus. Half human, half serpent, Typhon breathed fire. John’s fiery “red dragon” seeks to inflict death, like the rider on the fiery red horse [recall Revelation 6:4] and the scarlet beast that is the dragon’s agent [later in Revelation 13:1–4; 17:3]. Thus, the mythic beast has “seven heads” and “ten horns.” Some dragons had seven heads; Leviathan had an unspecified number [Psalm 74:14]. Typhon was sometimes pictured with a hundred dragons’ heads, and the Hydra had between 9 and 100 snakelike heads. A vision of seven fiery red dragon heads could signify death. In this book, the number “seven” is a literary device that designates a complete set. Thus, the “seven heads” suggest the magnitude of the threat. Both the dragon and the beast have “seven heads” and “ten horns” [later in Revelation 13:1; 17:3]. The imagery is based in part on Daniel 7:2–8, in which four beasts appear that have a total of seven heads and the 4th beast has ten horns. This image culminates with “seven royal crowns on its heads.” The dragon’s “royal crowns” are the counterpart to the woman’s wreath of stars. A crown was a band worn around the head, sometimes by priests, but more often by kings [Esther 1:17]. Roman emperors generally refused to wear crowns in order to avoid the impression that they were instituting monarchy, preferring the wreath, which symbolized the triumph of the empire. But Rome did confer crowns on vassal kings. The “seven royal crowns” suggest that the dragon claims broad powers. The assertion of power will intensify when its agent the beast appears with “ten royal crowns” [later in Revelation 13:1]. Thus, crowns signify authority, but not necessarily legitimacy. A tyrant’s crown connotes oppression. Claiming a crown for oneself could be a sign of rebellion against a reigning sovereign. Thus, the dragon illegitimately claims power, but it will be overcome by Jesus, who wears many crowns, since he is the true King of kings [later in Revelation 19:12].

In summary: the image of “a huge red dragon” has a complex background. This symbol of a dragon was well known not only in Jewish contexts but also in every ancient culture [Sumerian, Akkadian, Indian, Greek, Hittite, Egyptian, and Phoenician], usually connected with demonic powers in the ancient world.

The earliest was Sumerian in the 24th century b.c. [the destruction of the seven–headed dragon], and in Canaan it symbolized all the serpent gods as the enemy of Baal. For example, here is a cylinder seal that shows a dragon with seven heads, representing the chaos that threatens the divine order of the world. It is the task of the gods [and king’s as the surrogate of the gods on earth] to rein in the chaos. This cylinder seal was found in Larsa at the Euphrates [late 3rd millennium b.c.].

In Babylon it is a red serpent that guards the god Marduk and is featured as a dragon–like creature on the Ishtar gate. To the Hebrews there was both Leviathan and the female sea monster Rahab. In Greek mythology there is a seven–headed Hydra slain by Hercules. In the Old Testament, there is the serpent, Leviathan, Behemoth, Tannin, and Rahab. This sea monster symbolized the war between good and evil, between the gods and chaos. Obviously, in similar fashion to the meaning of the “bottomless pit” [recall Revelation 9:1–2], this builds on the fact that for the nations surrounding the Mediterranean basin; the sea meant unfathomable depths and the chaos of death. Thus, Leviathan [or the “dragon”] came to represent all the terrors of the sea and thus the presence of evil and death. The serpent was sacred in Egypt, a symbol of Isis. Pharaoh [Ezekiel 29:3; 32:2] and Nebuchadnezzar [Jeremiah 51:34] are each called a sea monster, both because of their tendency to devour nations and because they were the enemies of God’s people. Thus, it also signified nations that stood against God and his people. Leviathan is defeated both at the beginning of creation [Psalm 74:13; 89:10 = Isaiah 51:9] and at the day of God [Isaiah 27:1].


From 2nd Temple literature we read about how Leviathan and Behemoth are destroyed on that day: “And on that day two monsters were separated—the female monster whose name is Leviathan, to dwell in the depth of the sea, above the fountains of the waters. But the name of the male is Behemoth, who occupies with his breast the trackless desert named Dundayn east of the garden where the chosen and righteous dwell, where my great–grandfather was taken up, the seventh from Adam, the first man whom the Lord of Spirits created. And I asked another angel to show me the might of those monsters, how they were separated in one day and were thrown the one into the depth of the sea, and the other into the dry land of the desert. And he said to me, “Here, son of man, you wish to know what is hidden.” And the angel of peace who was with me said, “These two monsters, prepared according to the greatness of the Lord, will provide food for the chosen and righteous, so that the punishment of the Lord of Spirits rests upon them, in order that the punishment of the Lord of Spirits does not go forth in vain.” [1 Enoch 60.7–10, 24]

Next in v. 4, the heavenly drama continues as the dragon goes to war first against the hosts of heaven [war in heaven] and then against the woman and her child [war on earth]. First, he uses his “tail” in similar fashion to the “tails” of the scorpions that tortured the earth–dwellers for 5 months [recall Revelation 9:10]. In antiquity, the tail of a dragon was often a weapon. With his tail, the dragon “swept away one–third of the stars in the sky and knocked them down to the earth.” There are three interpretations:

  1. Some believe it is an astrological drama, with the planets going to war against the stars, resulting in a shower of falling stars. As noted earlier, this is certainly astral imagery, where the zodiac supplies the background in this context.

  2. Still others believe that the stars here are not heavenly beings but earthly, namely the people of God who are trampled by Satan and his followers. They think that the angels in Daniel often represent the saints [Daniel 10:20–21; 12:1, 3], and so Antiochus’s attack on Israel in Daniel 8:10 is represented as an attack on the heavenly army itself. Therefore, the fall of the stars here does not refer to fallen angels but rather to the persecution of God’s people by the dragon. However, while it is generally agreed that Daniel 8:10 pictures the attack on Israel as a war against the heavenly host, it is also generally held that the “stars” in Daniel 8:10 are primarily angels rather than the people of God.

  3. The most common view among Christians today is that this is about Satan sweeping away “one–third of the stars,” referring to the original war in heaven. In that primordial event, Satan and his followers rebelled against God. But, this battle is viewed here from two vantage points. The dragon “knocked them down to the earth.” Thus, the dragon is the aggressor, and this seems to signify an early victory in the war. However the scene expands [later in vv. 7–9], where Satan and his angels are thrown out of heaven to earth by Michael and the heavenly host. Thus, v. 4 refers to the initial victory as Satan convinced “one–third” of the heavenly host to join him in the rebellion against God, and later in vv. 7–9 is a reference to the actual battle when they are cast out of heaven. However, it is important to note that this passage is not describing any sort of primeval angelic/demonic rebellion. The “one–third of the stars” reference follows after the birth of Jesus!

Thus, it is best to mix all three interpretations. Thus, the dragon goes to war against the woman and her child. After the expulsion from heaven, the dragon “stood in front of the woman” in order to “devour her child” as soon as he is born. Such evil intentions toward children is sadly quite frequent within the Old Testament [Exodus 1:15–16; Leviticus 18:21; 2 Kings 16:3; 2 Chronicles 28:3; Ezekiel 16:20], but the primary parallel is of course Herod’s “execution of all the male children in Bethlehem” [Matthew 2:16]. While some have seen in this picture the persecution of the saints, it is certainly Satan’s attempt to kill Jesus, not only after his birth in Bethlehem, but also in the plots of the Jewish leaders [Mark 3:6] and later attempts to arrest and kill him [John 7:30, 44–48; 8:58–59]. Since John sees this as “another sign appeared in the sky” [v. 3], can an astrological identification be made here? Yes! Since the “dragon” is described as “red,” this means it is located in the southern sky. It “stood” at the feet of the woman about to give birth. This is further indication of sky location since the Greek word for “stood” was a technical term for fixing and designating the location of a star or a constellation. Furthermore, its present perfect grammatical form points to a condition enduring into the present. In other words, this constellation is where it has always been. The word is not used to describe behaviour, as though the dragon were elsewhere and then came and stood where we find it in this scenario. Basically, we are dealing with two fixed constellations. The fact that the dragon’s tail sweeps away “one–third of the stars” of the sky further points to a sky location generally devoid of stars, compared with other sky locations. That these stars fall to earth points to a region known for falling stars. For the unaided eye, there are segments of the sky that seem totally lacking in stars. Two notable ones lie above the constellation Leo and another [much smaller] between Virgo, Raven, Cup, and Leo. These are likewise regions of falling stars [also astronomically known as Leonids]. Given John’s description, his vision of the falling stars focused on the region between Virgo, Raven, Cup, and Leo. The constellation that fits the profile of this “huge red dragon” facing an equally large pregnant woman is ancient Scorpio, which once consisted of a combination of two zodiacal signs [where Libra = the claws of Scorpio].

Thus, which constellation does John see as the “huge red dragon”? Here are the proposed options using 11th of September 3 b.c. as reference:

  1. Draco. But this is problematic, since it is found at the North Pole.

  2. Hydra, which extends from Cancer to Libra [the claws of Scorpio], thus through 4 out of the 12 zodiac signs [or “one–third of the stars” of the sky]. Hydra has a tail that reaches to the claws of Scorpio while its head reaches to the claws of Cancer. Immediately above Hydra and accompanying it are the constellations of Corvus [7 stars] and Crater [10 stars]. Notice that Corvus corresponds to the “seven heads,” lying close to Virgo; while Crater corresponds to the “ten horns” since its 10 stars has the image of a projection of ten fins [or horns] placed along the back of Hydra.

  3. Scorpio, originally a much larger set of stars than the present constellation. It was truly gigantic, even by celestial zodiacal standards, since it originally consisted of two signs of the zodiac [Libra and Scorpio]. But, since 237 b.c., it was divided by the Greeks, when the claws originally holding the Altar were lopped off to become Libra. For the ancient Chinese tradition, the original Scorpio ran from Virgo to Scorpio and included horns, neck, heart, and tail. Aratus [3rd century b.c. Greek didactic poet] wrote that the tail extended into Ophiuchus [holding Serpens], hence the constellation was seen as having a serpentine tail. Furthermore, the Chinese call Scorpio the Azure Dragon. The Babylonians also saw horns where later astronomy students saw Scorpio’s claws. Thus, in their tradition, Scorpio stood for darkness, death, and evil.

Both the 2nd and 3rd options are equally possible. But, the 2nd option [in regards to Hydra] has the advantage of matching the description of the seven heads atop the dragon [v. 3]. Hydra will be conceived as a sea serpent [later in Revelation 13:1; compare with Isaiah 27:1]. Thus, Hydra is associated with the seven–headed Leviathan in Canaanite mythology.

Notice that John is specific about how the “stars” are thrown toward the earth: Hydra’s “tail.” There are 9 stars that form this tail: Pi [π] Hydrae, Gamma [γ] Hydrae, Psi [ψ] Hydrae, Beta [β] Hydrae, Omicron [ο] Hydrae, Xi [ξ] Hydrae, HIP56332, HIP56280, and HIP57613. Hydra is also seen on two astrological cuneiform tablets from Uruk [2nd century b.c.], showing the constellation Raven perched on Hydra’s tail.

These two tablets are two pieces of a larger zodiac compilation tablet [VAT7847 on the left and AO6448 on the right]. VAT 7847 shows an 8–pointed star named SAG.ME.GAR [meaning “Jupiter” = Marduk], along with Hydra and Leo facing it. AO6448 shows an 8–pointed star named GUD.UD [meaning “Mercury”], along with Virgo and Raven. It is interesting that the Babylonian depiction of the Raven is oriented toward the tip of the tail rather than away from it [in Greco–Roman astrology]. Thus, from Pi [π] Hydrae to the Raven’s feet, “one–third of the stars” streak toward the earth. Since the scene climaxes with “the dragon stood in front of the woman” [in other words, the tip of the tail level with the eastern horizon], the shooting stars would stem from a higher point in the tail, between Gamma [γ] Hydrae, which is ~11° straight above the tip, and the star HIP59373, which is ~25° from Pi [π] Hydrae, under the Raven.

Thus, John is describing a great meteor storm [mentioned earlier as Leonids], where it is estimated that ~1,000 to ~100,000 meteors/hour can streak through the sky. Meteor storms occur when Earth moves through a dense collection of meteoroids in a meteoroid stream, and all appear to streak away from one particular point in the sky [called a radiant]. It is not that all the meteor streaks in a given shower begin at the radiant, but rather that if one draws lines from the meteor streaks backwards, those extended lines will converge at the radiant. In the case of the meteor storm in v. 4, the radiant is manifestly the tail of the serpentine dragon. During meteor storms it is very easy to tell where the radiant is. For example, during the incredible meteor storm that occurred on the 13th of November in 1833, many observers reported that the meteors were radiating from Gamma [γ] Leonis [in Leo].

Thus, if you gaze directly at the radiant, out of the corners of your eyes you will catch meteors streaking past, creating the impression that you are flying through space. In fact, the orbital speed of Earth around the Sun is ~29.78 km/s [fast enough to cover Earth’s diameter in ~7 minutes, and the distance to the Moon in ~4 hours]. Without a meteor storm, you would never naturally perceive this incredible speed through space. Thus, when “the dragon stood,” astronomically it would have looked like a snake that stands before it is ready to strike, ascending over the eastern sky where the tip of the tail appears to rest on the ground [at the point of just emerging over the horizon]. Thus, for Hydra to stand, Pi [π] Hydrae would simply have to be level with the eastern horizon. Viewed from Babylon in the run–up to dawn in September/October, Lambda [λ] Virginis [which is Virgo’s left foot, and the lowest part of Virgo] is almost level with Pi [π] Hydrae. Thus, someone in the Near East gazing at the eastern horizon as Pi [π] Hydrae was rising would have been looking at the whole of Hydra and the whole of Virgo. The image of Hydra standing beside Virgo as she is about to bring forth her baby is a powerful and deeply troubling one. Thus, since the lowest part of the tail rose above the horizon, “one–third” of the visible stars seemed to be thrown from the sky to the earth, and observers could have quickly detected that they all seemed to issue from Hydra’s tail.

Thus, the meteor display coming from Hydra would be responsible for its fiery “red” appearance, along with its seven crowns, and its “seven heads, ten horns, and seven royal crowns” horns [v. 3]. It could also be possible that the “seven heads” may be explained with reference to fireballs in the area associated with Hydra’s head, with respect to the stars Zeta [ζ] Hydrae, Epsilon [ε] Hydrae, Delta [δ] Hydrae, Sigma [ς] Hydrae, and Eta [η] Hydrae. In other words, it is possible that a single large meteoroid split into pieces as it collided with Earth’s atmosphere, giving rise to 10 meteoric “horns” and 7 meteoric “heads.”

Next in v. 5, the woman bore “a son, a boy” and this reflects a Hebrew idiom [bēn zākār, Jeremiah 20:15]. Some scholars also suggest that using both “son” and “boy” for the child echoes key biblical passages. For example, Isaiah 7:14 tells of a sign in which a woman is pregnant and gives birth to a son. Thus, the child is immanu’el [meaning “God with us”], a title with messianic associations [Matthew 1:23]. For John, the child is the messianic ruler of the nations, whose iron rod is mentioned in Psalm 2:9, a passage that was understood as messianic [recall Revelation 2:27]. Although the Greek noun huios for “son” is masculine, John uses the Greek adjective arsen for “boy,” which is neuter in form. Thus, the peculiar grammar recalls Isaiah 66:7, about birth imagery for God’s redemption of Zion. Since John combines Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 66:7 to enhance the messianic quality of the scene, it is best to take this as a portrayal of the birth of Jesus. Other interpretations are not compelling:

  1. Some scholars propose that the labor pains and satanic threats recall the passion of Jesus, when Satan acted against him (John 12:31–32; 13:2, 27; 14:30; Luke 22:3, 53]. Then the rapid movement from the birth of the messiah, to his exaltation, without mention of his ministry, could suggest that what is depicted as birth is actually his resurrection, since Jesus is the firstborn from the dead [recall Revelation 1:5] and other writers use birth imagery for resurrection [John 16:21–22; Acts 13:33]. However, the context does not prepare readers to see birth as a metaphor for resurrection.

  2. Others see the child as a symbol for the Christians whom the church births into faith, since Jesus promises that his followers will be like him in ruling the nations with an iron rod [recall Revelation 2:26–27]. This view is unlikely because that rule over the nations primarily belongs to Jesus and only secondarily to others, who participate through their relationship with him.

  3. The child has been taken as a symbol of the messianic age, which comes through pain, but since none of the other figures in the vision represents time periods, it is unlikely that the child does.

Thus, John omits all details of the life, ministry, and death of Jesus, and moves directly from his birth to his ascension. Such telescoping of events is common both elsewhere in the New Testament [John 3:13; 8:14; 13:3; 16:5, 28; Romans 1:3, 4; 1 Timothy 3:16], and in this book [recall Revelation 1:5; 2:8]. There is a logic to the omission, for his destiny to rule is linked closely with his ascension and exaltation. The infant is presented as “a son, a boy.” The emphasis is on his male sex. Thus, the death of Jesus is hinted in the maleness of his sacrifice, that is emphasized often in Old Testament contexts [Exodus 12:5; Leviticus 1:3; 4:23; 22:19; Malachi 1:14], and his resurrection is suggested in that he is “snatched away.” Moreover, since John is alluding to Isaiah 66:7 [signifying the rebirth of Israel out of the travails of her captivity], the salvation and deliverance of the people of God is centred on the coming of the messiah. This male child is destined “to rule all the nations with an iron sceptre” [from Psalm 2:9]. It pictures Jesus “shattering them like clay pots.” Thus, we have moved from the birth, to the ascension, and to the Parousia, in one fell swoop. Likewise, the fact that the Magi brought gifts of gold and frankincense for Jesus reflects the influence of Isaiah 60:1–6 [notice how Isaiah opens with a reference to the messiah as Israel’s extraordinarily bright celestial “light” that rises in a context of darkness]. So, what is the contextual background of Isaiah 7:14? The prophet was challenging the covenantally faithless Ahaz [king of Judah], to trust in God through the crisis precipitated by the Syro–Ephraimite invasion of Judah [in 734/733 b.c.], rather than turning for help to the regional superpower of his day, Assyria. The subsequent appeal by Ahaz, to Tiglath–pileser [king of Assyria], is recorded in 2 Kings 16:6–9. To encourage Ahaz to have faith in the God of David, God offered him an authenticating sign: “Later on, the LORD spoke to Ahaz again: ‘Ask a sign from the LORD your God. Make it as deep as Sheol or as high as heaven above.’ But Ahaz replied, ‘I won’t ask! I won’t put the LORD to the test.’ In reply, the LORD announced, ‘Please listen, you household of David. Is it such a minor thing for you to try the patience of men? Must you also try the patience of my God? Therefore the LORD himself will give you a sign. Watch! The virgin is conceiving a child, and will give birth to a son, and his name will be called Immanuel.’” [Isaiah 7:10–14]

The historical and theological context is important to understand the meaning of Isaiah’s oracle. In other words, the whole of Isaiah 7–12 is a unity, and was composed by Isaiah during the Syro–Ephraimite crisis. Isaiah’s prophecy was delivered in the winter of 734 b.c., in Jerusalem. The 8th century b.c. King Ahaz of Judah was terrified by the prospect of an imminent attack on Jerusalem by his enemies Syria and Israel. These northern kingdoms hated the resident regional superpower Assyria and loathed Ahaz, because he would not wholeheartedly join their anti–Assyrian alliance. Ahaz was frightened of Syria and Israel, because their kings Rezin and Pekah were relatively powerful and were dead set on ousting him from the kingship of Judah and replacing him with a puppet king more sympathetic to their anti–Assyrian agenda. Moreover, the Syrians and Israelites, along with their allies, the Edomites and Philistines, had in the immediate run–up to this crisis brought great destruction on Judah and killed many thousands of Judahite men and taken captive countless women and children [2 Kings 16; 2 Chronicles 28]. Ahaz felt that without foreign military assistance he stood no chance in the face of the determined advance of his enemies to Jerusalem, to oust him. From Isaiah’s perspective, what Ahaz was not sufficiently taking into account was that the Davidic dynasty and David’s covenant with God were at stake. The future of Ahaz, Jerusalem, and Judah was determined by God, not Pekah and Rezin. In Isaiah’s analysis, whether King Ahaz and the Davidic dynasty would remain in power in Judah would be determined in heaven, and not on the earth. God would make his decision regarding the future of Ahaz and the house of David on the basis of whether or not the king kept covenant with him, and on the basis of his own mercy and love. Consequently, as Isaiah saw it, the crisis facing the king of Judah served to shine the spotlight on Ahaz’s spiritual state and covenant performance and on the future of the Davidic covenant and dynasty. The spotlight exposed Ahaz’s unbelief, for he was unprepared to trust his God to protect him. He was evidently determined to appeal to Assyria rather than God for help. In his heart, the Judahite king was not an admirer of God or of the religion of his fathers. He loved the gods of the nations and worshiped idols and celestial entities, and had even offered up his sons as sacrifices to a pagan deity [2 Kings 16:3; 2 Chronicles 28:3]. Thus, Isaiah [representing God], went to meet Ahaz when the king was extremely worried about the vulnerability of Jerusalem’s water supply, which was the city’s weakness in times of siege. Isaiah sought to reassure Ahaz that the Syro–Ephraimite intervention in Judah would not succeed in its main objective of toppling the Davidic dynasty, because God had decreed that it would not. Thus, Isaiah challenged the king to put his faith in God. Although Ahaz would not be overthrown by Rezin and Pekah, his future and that of his dynasty were still very much at stake. This was because God had decreed that, if at this moment of crisis Ahaz turned his back on his divine covenant partner, he would bring disaster upon himself; he would “never remain loyal” [Isaiah 7:9]. In Isaiah’s judgment, this was a momentous hour in the history of the house of David in Judah. Isaiah once again reached out to Ahaz [Isaiah 7:10–14], instructing him to request a sign from God to confirm his commitment to keeping his covenant with the Davidic dynasty in Judah and to preserving Ahaz through the Syro–Ephraimite invasion.


The “sign” could be “as deep as Sheol or as high as heaven above” [v. 11]. Notice that “as high as heaven above” refers to a celestial wonder against the backdrop of the stars and constellations. In effect, Ahaz was to tailor his very own special sign within these parameters. The implicit deal was that, if God did the “sign” in “Sheol” or in “heaven,” Ahaz would turn his heart back to God and trust him through the present crisis. However, Ahaz declined to choose a sign for God to do, obviously because he was privately resolute that he was not going to trust or obey the God of Israel. He had the audacity to try to cover up his lack of trust in God with a cloak of pseudo–piety: “I won’t ask! I won’t put the LORD to the test.” [v. 12]. His words are drawn from Deuteronomy 6:16. Ironically, Ahaz, by his refusal to specify a sign, was in fact putting “the LORD to the test”! For Isaiah, the king’s failure to request a sign was nothing short of covenant treachery. Thus, by his refusal to stand firm in faith, Ahaz brought upon himself the fate decreed by God. He ceased to “remain loyal” [v. 9]. The house of David in Judah had been tested and found wanting. As it happened, subsequent history powerfully vindicated Isaiah. In the story of the Davidic dynasty and of Judah, this incident proved to be a decisive turning point. Ahaz needlessly sold Judah’s independence to Assyria, and the southern kingdom quickly became a pathetic vassal state that struggled to bear the heavy financial burdens that the short–tempered superpower put on it [Isaiah 7:17–25; 2 Chronicles 28:16–21; 2 Kings 16:17–18]. Essentially, from this moment onward, Judah was on a downhill slope to termination in 586 b.c. at the hands of the Babylonians. In response to the hard–heartedness and rebellion of Ahaz, God then declared: “‘Please listen, you household of David. Is it such a minor thing for you to try the patience of men? Must you also try the patience of my God? Therefore the LORD himself will give you a sign. Watch! The virgin is conceiving a child, and will give birth to a son, and his name will be called Immanuel’” [vv. 13–14]. Ahaz had refused to specify which sign he wanted from God [v. 12], whether a sign “as deep as Sheol or as high as heaven above” [v. 11], and so God now chose “a sign” for him [v. 14]. Disturbingly, Isaiah speaks of God as “my God,” implying that he was no longer Ahaz’s God. Thus, Isaiah 7:14 is a controversial passage in the Old Testament, because scholars debate the identity of the prophesied child. Was it about someone born in Isaiah’s day? If so, was it about Isaiah’s son Maher–shalal–hash–baz, or a son of Ahaz [either Hezekiah or an anonymous younger sibling of Hezekiah]? Or was it someone born in the future, namely the messiah?


Inextricably linked to this debate is the question of the identity of the “virgin” who gives birth to the child. Was she Isaiah’s wife? Was she a member of Ahaz’s royal harem? Or was she simply a woman who happened to be passing by when Isaiah was meeting with Ahaz? Or, was she the mother of the messiah? The question is simple: does the oracle speak of the near future or of the distant future or of both? Thus, it is clear from Isaiah 7:15–8:8 that it does speak to the near future, since the fact that the “sign” is a response to Ahaz’s rebellion [Isaiah7:12–13] and is expressly directed at “you” [the Davidic house], thus favouring a fulfillment in the near future. At the same time, Isaiah 8:8–10; 9:2–7; and 11:1–16, reveal that the prophet is looking beyond the near future into the distant future. So it is best to conclude that Isaiah’s oracle has a relevance to both the near future and the distant future. This dual perspective comes to the surface in Isaiah 9:1, where he speaks of the “former” time, which brings distress and darkness, and the “future” time, which brings joy and light. As to the identity of the newborn of Isaiah 7:14 in his near future, in light of what the prophet reports in Isaiah 8:3–4, it is difficult to deny that “Immanuel” was Maher–shalal–hash–baz, Isaiah’s son. Thus, not only do we have an allusion back to Isaiah 7:14 about the conception, childbirth, and naming, but we also have the birth being regarded as the beginning of a countdown to the fulfillment of God’s promise to punish Syria and Israel, just as in Isaiah 7:15–16 [where Immanuel’s birth marks the start of a countdown to the desertion of Syria and Israel]. A further indication that “Immanuel” in Isaiah’s day was the prophet’s son is found in Isaiah 8:18, where we read that Isaiah and his sons are “a sign and a wonder in Israel from the LORD of the Heavenly Armies, who resides on Mount Zion.” Thus, recall that Isaiah 7:14 spoke of the birth of Immanuel as a “sign.” If Maher–shalal–hash–baz was “Immanuel,” then the “virgin” of Isaiah 7:14 was Isaiah’s wife. Thus, other interpretations of “Immanuel” come up short. For example, the identification with Hezekiah fails on the grounds of chronology. Whichever chronology of the kings of Judah one adopts, Hezekiah was certainly born well before the Syro–Ephraimite crisis, and it is hard to see how naming a non–succeeding son of Ahaz by a concubine in the royal household constitutes as a “sign” signaling divine judgment on the king. The idea that the “virgin” was simply a passerby can be safely rejected, since Ahaz, who did not want the sign and had no intention of heeding it, proceeding to track an anonymous woman to her home and getting updates about her pregnancy, delivery, and naming of her child.


Although we judge that the “virgin” in Isaiah’s day was his prophetess wife and the newborn was his son Maher–shalal–hash–baz, this interpretation is not without apparent difficulties. The main perceived problem centers on the particular Hebrew word used to describe the woman: ʿalmâ. Isaiah’s wife, if she is the same woman who previously bore him Shear–jashub [Isaiah 7:3], does not seem a ready fit for the role of ʿalmâ. That is because the word is not a natural one to use of a married woman and certainly not one who has already had a child. Indeed, although the term does not refer to virginity as such, generally speaking an almah is sexually inexperienced. It has been suggested that Isaiah’s 1st wife [the mother of Shear–jashub], had died and that Isaiah had recently married a 2nd wife, so that he is referring to a woman who at the point that he was speaking was a bona fide ʿalmâ, in the sense that she had not previously borne a child. That possibility should not be quickly dismissed, although it is probably unnecessary to resort to this. With respect to the distant future, there can be no question that the birth of the messiah was in view. The royal birth announcement in Isaiah 9:6–7 makes this abundantly clear: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name is called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the growth of his government and peace there will be no end. He will rule over his kingdom, sitting on the throne of David, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from this time onward and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of the Heavenly Armies will accomplish this.”

The child would be the ultimate son of David who fulfilled the Davidic covenant and was divine in nature. That Isaiah 7:14 had in view the birth of the messiah is also strongly supported by Isaiah 11:1–10. There, in the climax of Isaiah 7–12, the prophet again referred to the arrival of the messiah on the earthly scene and his ultimate destiny: “A shoot will come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch will bear fruit from his roots. The Spirit of the LORD will rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and power, the Spirit of knowledge and fear of the LORD. His delight will be in the fear of the LORD. He won’t judge by what his eyes see, nor decide disputes by what his ears hear, but with righteousness he will judge the needy, and decide with equity for earth’s poor. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and the wicked will be killed with the breath of his lips. Righteousness will be the sash around his loins, and faithfulness the belt around his waist. The wolf will live with the lamb; the leopard will lie down with the young goat. The calf and the lion will graze together, and a little child will lead them. The cow and the bear will graze, and their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The nursing child will play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child will put his hand on vipers’ dens. They will neither harm nor destroy on my holy mountain; for the earth will be full of the knowledgee of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. At that time, as to the root of Jesse, who will be standing as a banner for the peoples, the nations will rally to him, and his resting place is glorious.”

Isaiah makes it explicit that the birth that was uppermost in his mind during the Syro–Ephraimite crisis was that of the messiah. Accordingly, in the near future, the ʿalmâ in Isaiah 7:14 was Isaiah’s wife, and in the distant future she was the messiah’s mother. Whatever ambiguity there was concerning the word ʿalmâ, the simple fact is that if the offspring was divine [as the name “Immanuel” implied], the only natural conclusion to reach was that the ʿalmâ was a virgin, with the father of Immanuel being divine and the means of reproduction being non–sexual. It is doubtful if Ahaz grasped the full meaning and significance of the sign. To him, the oracle may have sounded like an adaptation of a pagan myth concerning the birth of a child to a virgin mother goddess, like the ancient Egyptian myth of the virgin goddess Isis and her son Horus. The pagan king of Judah may well have assumed that the prophesied myth–like sign would be enacted in some kind of drama. Indeed drama was a common prophetic tool. For example, we read that Isaiah: “walked around naked and barefoot for three years as a sign and a warning for Egypt and Ethiopia, so the king of Assyria will lead away the Egyptian captives and exiles from Cush, both the young and the old, naked and barefoot—with even their buttocks uncovered—to the shame of Egypt.” [Isaiah 20:3–4].

Thus, Isaiah is showcasing an extraordinary dramatization of the virgin and Immanuel, and of a real pregnancy over ~9 months, and a real birth afterward. When Ahaz saw Isaiah’s pregnant wife, and then learned that she had given birth to Maher–shalal–hash–baz [and named him “Immanuel”], he would have understood that the woman and her son were playing the parts of the virgin and her divine child. However, for Isaiah, his wife was not playing the part of a virgin mother goddess in a mythical scene, but rather the part of the messiah’s mother as she became pregnant with and gave birth to the incarnate 2nd Yahweh. It was the messiah’s mother who would be the “virgin.” She alone could with full justification use the name “Immanuel” to describe her son. That the drama unfolding in 733 b.c. was not the actual fulfillment of Isaiah’s oracle was clear simply by virtue of the nature of the actors playing the key roles: Isaiah’s wife, particularly if she was already a mother, seems to have lacked the qualifications to be a bona fide ʿalmâ, and Isaiah’s 2nd son was certainly not divine [he was not “God with us” or “Mighty God”], and by virtue of the participation of Isaiah in the drama, impregnating his wife. However, the outworking of the “sign” in Isaiah’s day was not devoid of impressive elements, because Isaiah’s wife did conceive, did give birth to a boy, and did, evidently without Isaiah’s personal intervention, prophetically name him “Immanuel,” all in accord with the prophetic word. Thus, Maher–shalal–hash–baz was a “sign” pointing forward to the true son of the virgin, the divine messiah. As Isaiah framed it, Maher–shalal–hash–baz’s very existence was a rebuke to the Davidic dynasty; God would fulfill his promises to David not through the seed of Ahaz or one of his dynastic successors, but rather through an adopted son of David born of a virginal conception. After all, God’s plan was to unite his own house with that of David [2 Samuel 7], causing a virgin girl to become pregnant by non–sexual means. That the 2nd son of Isaiah was a dramatic type, pointing forward to the messiah, is clear in Isaiah 8:8–10. In Isaiah 8:5–8, he prophesied concerning the near future, but in v. 8 he suddenly spoke of the land as belonging to “Immanuel.” This makes it clear that “Immanuel” there was not Maher–shalal–hash–baz, but the messiah whom he represented. This conclusion is supported by the fact that vv. 9–10 go on to present an eschatological word of judgment to the nations that scheme against Israel/Judah, because “God is with us.” This final element intimates that “Immanuel” in the person of the messiah would rescue his people from the international conspiracy at the end of the age. The allusion to Psalm 2 is forceful, since that psalm [widely regarded as a coronation psalm] warned a conspiracy of nations not to rebel against the messiah, but to submit to him in advance of his coming in wrath. Thus, the sign had significance for Isaiah’s own day too. Positively, it demonstrated that God would fulfill his promise to neutralize Ahaz’s enemies Syria and Israel [Isaiah 7:15–16; 8:3–4].


Negatively, since it was none other than God who was Judah’s covenant partner, Ahaz’s religious treachery could not go unpunished [Isaiah 7:17–25]. The sign showed that God was turning away his favor from the Davidic dynasty that had ruled an independent Judah for ~200 years. The dynasty of David, associated with Ahaz, had been exposed by Isaiah as unworthy. Judah would now lose its independence and become a vassal state, and embark on an inevitable path toward destruction and deportation. The messianic drama acted out by Isaiah’s wife and 2nd son was a fitting sign both positively and negatively. Because the kings of Syria and Israel had shown contempt for the Davidic covenant, a sign that highlighted the ultimate fulfillment of God’s promise to unite his house with David’s was appropriate. In addition, because Ahaz had violated the Davidic covenant, a sign that emphasized that the future of the Davidic covenant lay with a virgin–born messiah rather than the reigning Davidic dynasty, could not be debated against. However, to what extent the message conveyed by the sign was understood by Ahaz is unclear. It is doubtful that he took much notice of Isaiah’s word. Indeed 2 Chronicles 28:22–23 seems to imply that Ahaz by this time had started worshiping the gods of Syria in a desperate bid to secure their favor against his enemy Rezin [king of Syria]. The king’s decision to begin worshiping the gods of Syria is difficult to explain in the aftermath of the Assyrian campaign against Syria and Israel. However, if he had been seeking to secure their aid against the Syrians during the Syro–Ephraimite crisis, the Assyrian campaign against Syria would have confirmed his faith in the Syrian divinities rather than undermining it. The fact that Ahaz gave the instruction for a model of the altar of Ben–Hadad in Damascus to be constructed and put in the place of the altar of burnt offering of the Jerusalem temple at the time of his meeting with Tiglath–pileser in 732/731 b.c. [2 Kings 16:10–16], is consistent with this interpretation. Thus, how was Isaiah 7:14 interpreted in the period running up to the birth of Jesus? One tentative indication that the oracle was interpreted within 2nd Temple Judaism as referring to the messiah is the rendering of the Hebrew word ʿalmâ with the Greek word parthenos [in the LXX]. Usually parthenos implies sexual chastity. If the LXX translator was using it in this sense, then he interpreted ʿalmâ in the context of Isaiah 7:14 to imply virginity and therefore believed that the oracle revealed that the messiah would be born by supernatural, non–sexual agency. Furthermore, early Christians regarded Isaiah 7:14 as predicting the birth of Jesus to a virgin.


In no place is this clearer than in Matthew 1:18–25, where Matthew explicitly quotes Isaiah’s oracle. His use of parthenos indicates that he was convinced that Isaiah was predicting the messiah would be conceived non–sexually in the body of a virgin [in other words, Matthew 1:18, 21, and 25 is drawn from Isaiah 7:14]. Thus, it is evident that Matthew is inviting his readers to interpret the events relating to the nativity of Jesus with reference to Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the pregnancy and childbirth of the “virgin.” It should also be noted that when Jesus declares, “I am with you each and every day until the end of the age” [Matthew 28:20], he is picking up on Isaiah 7:14, claiming that he himself is the prophesied “Immanuel.” The fact that Isaiah 7:14 is so prominent in the first and last main parts of Matthew’s gospel [bracketing his whole book], suggests that the theme of Jesus as the presence of God with humans was very important. Thus, Luke 1:27 calls Mary a parthenos [meaning “virgin”], and v. 31 records Gabriel as saying: “you will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you are to name him Jesus.” The allusion to Isaiah 7:14 is undeniable. This strongly suggests that Luke [like Matthew], believed that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in connection with the events of the nativity of Jesus. Moreover, it is striking that when Simeon met Joseph, Mary, and Jesus, in the Jerusalem temple on the 40th day after the birth, he declared: “This infant is destined to cause many in Israel to fall and rise. Also, he will be a sign that will be opposed.” [Luke 2:34]. This statement strongly alludes to Isaiah’s “sign” to Ahaz [Isaiah 7:14]. That Maher–shalal–hash–baz was a “sign” is reiterated in Isaiah 8:18, where Isaiah refers to himself and his children as “a sign and a wonder.” That Jesus as a newborn infant was declared to be a “sign” closely identified him with this son of Isaiah. Since, according to Luke, Simeon was speaking just 5.5 weeks after the ultimate fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, the allusion was particularly powerful. It should be observed that this oracle about Jesus being a sign that would be opposed and would cause many to fall is directed by Simeon exclusively to “Mary, his mother” [Luke 2:34]. Luke is implying that Simeon perceived that Mary was the virgin about whom Isaiah had been prophesying and whose part Isaiah’s wife had played back in 733 b.c. In other words, Simeon is conscious that the messiah and his virgin mother were standing before him!


Furthermore, the angel who announced the birth of Jesus during the night to the shepherds, said to them: “and this will be a sign for you: You will find a baby wrapped in strips of cloth and lying in a feeding trough.” [Luke 2:12]. The reference to “a sign” arguably recalls Isaiah 7:14. The fact that the angel proclaimed the birth of “a baby” confirms this. In fact, the “sign” about a “baby” in a “feeding trough” is also based on Isaiah 1:3. The angel seems to be implying that the messianic identity of the newborn baby would be demonstrated to the shepherds by the facts that the bed of this newborn infant still “wrapped in strips of cloth” was literally a “feeding trough” and that he shared a room with animals. Moreover, the angel alludes to Isaiah 9:6–7 when he said to them: “Today your Savior, the Lord Messiah, was born in the city of David.” [Luke 2:11]. This is inextricably linked to the “great light” that Isaiah proclaimed would shine in the darkness [Isaiah 9:2]. Thus, the angel was strongly influenced by Isaiah’s extensive prophecies. Thus, like Matthew, Luke maintains that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in connection with the birth of Jesus to Mary.

In summary: when the Magi watched the celestial Virgo emerge in the eastern sky pregnant with the Sun [mid–bodied], no scripture would have seemed more obviously pertinent than Isaiah 7:14. Before their eyes, Virgo seemed to be acting out in the celestial realm the very drama envisioned by Isaiah. The fact that Isaiah declared that the baby would be divine in nature [“Immanuel” and “Mighty God”] would have seemed very compatible with the celestial apparition. This Isaiah connection is strengthened by the fact that the Magi were inspired to bring their gifts of gold and frankincense by Isaiah 60:4–6, a passage with close links to Isaiah 7–9. Thus, John discloses the celestial wonder that was observed by the Magi unfolding in the eastern sky, strongly hinting that Isaiah 7:14 was being fulfilled in heaven. This astronomical approach to the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 raises an interesting and important question: was Isaiah’s Immanuel oracle being interpreted in strictly terrestrial terms but applied to the heavenly phenomenon that attended Jesus’s birth, or was the Immanuel oracle believed to have prophesied the celestial wonder that occurred in Virgo, low on the eastern horizon, on the 11th of September in 3 b.c.?


In other words, did those who interpreted what was happening to Virgo in terms of Isaiah 7:14 believe that the “virgin” who conceived and gave birth to the child was exclusively terrestrial, or did they believe that she was simultaneously celestial and terrestrial? It must be conceded that there are a number of elements within Isaiah 7–12 that were regarded as favoring a celestial aspect to Isaiah 7:14. For example, the reference to a “sign” in “heaven above” [Isaiah 7:11]; the prophecy of a “great light” [Isaiah 9:2]; the conceivable allusion to Virgo’s “branch” [Isaiah 11:1]; the fact that Virgo may have been present at the meeting between Isaiah and Ahaz, in December/January of 734/733 b.c. [Isaiah 7:10–25]; and that the “sign” was a punishment for Ahaz, who had strong pagan tendencies [2 Chronicles 28:1–4, 22–25] and probably worshiped astral deities:

  1. The sundial of Ahaz [2 Kings 20:8–11].

  2. The priests of astral cults [2 Kings 23:5].

  3. The horses and chariots dedicated to the Sun, and rooftop altars dedicated to the worship of astral deities [2 Kings 23:11–12].

Thus, the Babylonian Magi would have known that the zodiacal constellations [which originated in Babylon], were being studied in the 8th century b.c., when Isaiah issued his oracle. Moreover, they would have been aware that the conceptualization of the 6th zodiacal constellation as a young virgin was very ancient. For example, the MUL.APIN is a Babylonian astronomical text from 1000 b.c., and it identifies the constellation Furrow [which, together with the Frond, occupied the part of the sky that became known as Virgo] with the virgin goddess Shala [meaning “maiden”]. However, in regards to the question earlier, it is much more natural to interpret Isaiah 7:14 in strictly terrestrial terms, with the “virgin” being Isaiah’s wife and the messiah’s mother, and with the child being Maher–shalal–hash–baz and the messiah. Indeed a celestial interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 would have been difficult to sustain:

  1. A constellation figure could not have named the terrestrial baby “Immanuel.” Virgo could only do that through her terrestrial counterpart, the earthly virgin mother. However, introducing such a shift of referent would rupture the logical flow of Isaiah 7:14. The text is more naturally interpreted as speaking exclusively of a terrestrial “virgin.” Moreover, the name “Immanuel” reflects a particularly human and Judahite perspective rather than a celestial one.

  2. In light of the fact that Ahaz rejected a celestial sign in Isaiah 7:11, it is unlikely that God granted him one. The logic of vv. 11–14, particularly the “therefore” in v. 14 [which refers back to v. 13], indicates that God withdrew his offer and issued the house of David a “sign” quite unlike the options he had just offered. In v. 11 God had offered to do a “sign” that would satisfy Ahaz’s need for reassurance concerning Isaiah’s oracle, calling on him to trust and not capitulate to his fear. However, in v. 14 the “sign” is not tailored to encourage Ahaz in faith, but rather to confirm Isaiah’s word in the face of Ahaz’s unbelief and rebellion and also to express God’s disfavor concerning the Davidic dynasty. Therefore it would actually be surprising if the “sign” of v. 14 was “as deep as Sheol or as high as heaven above.”

Thus, John does not have a celestial interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, but rather is simply claiming that the fulfillment of the “Immanuel” oracle on the earth was attended by a dramatization of it in the heavens. Any remaining thought that Isaiah was predicting that a celestial sign would occur in Ahaz’s day is ruled out by Isaiah 8:11–22, since it is widely agreed that this passage belongs to the period of the Syro–Ephraimite crisis. The fact that Isaiah is issuing a warning that there would be no fresh signs during the period of Assyria’s conquest of Syria and Israel and the regional superpower’s subsequent oppression of Judah, mandates that this section be dated to 733 b.c. It is here that Isaiah declared that the people of Judah would long for some divine revelation during the Assyrian oppression that was about to descend on the kingdom. But they would be granted only the revelations given in oral and written form through Isaiah and the signs and wonders consisting of the prophet himself and his sons [vv. 16–20]. At that time the people of Judah would “turn their faces upwards” and “look toward the earth” [vv. 21–22]. This language recalls God’s offer in Isaiah 7:11. Thus, there would be no celestial wonder in 733–727 b.c. Indeed, the people of Judah would be so frustrated that they had no revelation other than the prophetic word [vv. 16–20] and the signs and wonders that were Isaiah and his sons [v. 18] that they would desperately look for some astronomical or sub–terrestrial sign of the kind Ahaz had rejected.


There may well be an implication that they would do so with bitterness in their hearts against their king for spurning God’s offer, and against God himself for refusing to give that kind of “sign.” God would not give them the celestial sign [the “light”], for which they longed. No, he would only give them “distress and darkness, the gloom that comes from anguish, and then they’ll be thrown into total darkness” [v. 22]. This provides the context in which Isaiah 9 must be understood. Isaiah 9:1–7 is a birth announcement, like Isaiah 7:14–16 [about “Immanuel”] and Isaiah 8:1–4 [about “Maher–shalal–hash–baz”]. In vv. 1–7, the one whose birth is being announced and celebrated is obviously the messiah. What Isaiah is declaring here is the ultimate fulfillment of the “Immanuel” oracle of Isaiah 7:14. This is clear in vv. 6–7. The birth announcement in Isaiah 8:1–4 was evidently intended by Isaiah to refer to the coming of the 1st “Immanuel,” Isaiah’s son, while the birth announcement in Isaiah 9:1–7 was manifestly intended to refer to the coming of the 2nd “Immanuel,” the messiah. Whereas the birth of “Immanuel” is simply anticipated in Isaiah 7:14, in Isaiah 9:1–7 it is portrayed as having already occurred! In other words, Isaiah is speaking from the perspective of one present at the time of the messiah’s birth, and declares that the prophesied messiah is “Mighty God,” and has now been born. This fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 is associated in Isaiah 9:1–2 with the coming of a “great light.” The focus in Isaiah 9:1 is specifically on Galilee. Galilee is spoken of in terms of its divisions before the invasion of Tiglath–pileser III [in 733/732 b.c.], with the tribal territories of “Zebulun” and “Naphtali,” and after it the Hebrew equivalents of the three Assyrian provinces of “the way of the sea, the territory beyond the Jordan—Galilee of the nations.” The deep darkness that encompassed Judah [Isaiah 8:20–22] was also enshrouding Galilee. However, now there is a major contrast between the “former” time and the “future” time. The fact that the first of the two moments is associated with the Israelite tribal names reveals that the “former” time [when the land came into contempt] would begin with the invasion of Tiglath–pileser III late in 733 b.c.


We know from Isaiah 7:14–8:8 that this Assyrian conquest of Galilee started on the heels of the birth of Maher–shalal–hash–baz in September/October of 733 b.c. Thus, it is the “Immanuel” oracle of Isaiah 7:14 that establish the chronological schema of the “former” time and the “future” time. The “former” moment relates to the birth of the 1st fulfillment of that oracle in 733 b.c. The “future” time is the time of the messiah’s birth, the ultimate fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, because the “future” time of the glorification of the northern tribes was certainly not the period after the Assyrian termination of the northern kingdom [in 722–721 b.c.], when the land was desolate and in ruins. This approach makes sense, because Isaiah 9:1–7 is the messiah’s birth announcement. Thus, according to Isaiah, the “future” time [associated with the messiah’s birth], brings an end to the gloom and the anguish. It augurs glorious days for Galilee. More specifically, it brings the shining of celestial light in the midst of the deep darkness. Whereas in Isaiah 8:21–22 we read of those who longed for a celestial sign but were merely thrust into deep darkness, now we learn that “the people who walked in darknesshave seen a great light;for those living in a land of deep darkness,a light has shined upon them” [Isaiah 9:2]. The people of Israel are no longer abandoned to the gloom of deep darkness at the point of the 2nd fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, in connection with the messiah’s birth. They are finally permitted to see a magnificent celestial light. Those walking and dwelling in a land of deep darkness are those living in Sheol. However, now, finally, at the time of the messiah’s birth, those living in Sheol get a heavenly sign in addition to the prophesied earthly one. The momentous celestial phenomenon which Ahaz had spurned and for which the people of Judah and Israel would long without satisfaction during the “former” time [namely the Syro–Ephraimite crisis and the Assyrian reign of terror in Ahaz’s latter years], would be granted only in the “future” time. The “future” time is the ultimate 2nd fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14’s oracle about the virgin conceiving, giving birth to a child, and naming him “Immanuel” [the time of the messiah’s nativity]. Of course, the “great light” shining in the darkness is not merely literal; it is also metaphorical, encapsulating the nature and effect of the messiah’s presence and ministry in Galilee. Thus, Isaiah 9:2 is reminiscent of Numbers 24:17. The 2nd century b.c. Sibylline Oracles also refers to the star in connection with the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. It reads: “When the heifer God the Highest’s word shall bear, the manless maid the Logos give a name, then from the east a star in fullest day, that brightly shines shall from the heavens beam, announcing a great sign for mortal men. Then God’s great son will come to humankind.” [Sibylline Oracles 1:323–324]

Note the allusions to Isaiah 7:14 with “shall bear,” “give a name,” and “sign.” In fact, the reference to the “star” is sandwiched between the strong allusions to Isaiah 7:14. Thus, with respect to how 2nd Temple Jews interpreted Isaiah 9:1–2, the New Testament cites and alludes to Isaiah 9:1–2, regarding it as having come to fulfillment in connection with the coming of Jesus. Specifically, Matthew 4:13–16 quotes the verses and claims that they were fulfilled when Jesus began his ministry from his base in Capernaum, in Galilee. Matthew’s extension of his quotation to Isaiah 9:2 suggests that he perceived the verse had prophesied that the messiah himself, thus a “great light” in Galilee as he did his ministry there. This interpretation of Isaiah 9:2 is in accord with the originally intended meaning of Isaiah; not only would a literal “great light” shine in the darkness to signal the coming of the messiah, but, metaphorically, the messiah himself would shine his light in Galilee. Matthew has already spoken of the literal light in regards to the Star of Bethlehem. Thus, Matthew 4:13–16 repeats it metaphorically. John also frequently speaks of Jesus as the “light” prophesied by Isaiah [John 1:4–5, 7–9, 14; 3:19–21; 8:12; 9:5; 11:9–10; 12:35–36, 46]. This is especially clear in John 8:12, which is set in the Court of the Women in the Jerusalem temple [John 8:20] during the Feast of Tabernacles. In saying, “I am the light of the world,” Jesus is literally claiming to be the fulfillment of Isaiah 9:1–2. Coming on the heels of the chief priests and the statement of the Pharisees when he said “search and see that no prophet comes from Galilee” [John 7:52], is his allusion to the fulfillment of Isaiah 9:2 in and through his person and ministry, and this is powerfully ironic. In John 12:35 Jesus recalls Isaiah 9:2 once again: “The light is among you only for a short time. Walk while you have the light, so that the darkness may not overtake you. The person who walks in the darkness is in the darkness and does not know where he is going.”

Thus, Jesus is “light to humanity” [John 1:4], and “the light shines on in the darkness, and the darkness has never put it out” [John 1:5]. Because of this, John the Baptist “was not the light, but he came to testify about the light. This was the true light that enlightens every person by his coming into the world.” [John 1:8–9]. Thus, the language here strongly recalls Genesis 1:3 and Isaiah 9:2, making the point that Jesus is the light anticipated by the scriptures. John is essentially replacing a focus on the fulfillment of the literal dimension of Isaiah 9:2 with a focus on the fulfillment of the metaphorical dimension of this oracle; that is, on Jesus himself as the prophesied light. Thus, John regards Isaiah 9:2 as having been fulfilled in and through the ministry of Jesus. Isaiah 9:2 [like Numbers 24:17], had in mind both a literal and a metaphorical light in connection with the coming of Jesus. John does not refer to a literal light shining in the darkness, but only to a metaphorical light. He emphasizes that the coming of Jesus to the world, and more specifically his people, is the coming of the prophesied light. When John speaks of the “light” as “coming into the world” [John 1:9; compare with John 3:19], he is referring to the incarnation and birth of Jesus. Likewise Paul writes: “In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves, but rather Jesus the Messiah as Lord, and ourselves as merely your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God's glory in the face of Jesus the Messiah.” [2 Corinthians 4:4–6]

Again, Paul is drawing not only on Genesis 1:3–4, but also on Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the “great light” that would shine in the darkness to mark the inauguration of God’s plan to bring salvation with the birth of the Messiah [Isaiah 9:1]. Thus, Paul assumes that Isaiah 9:2 has come to fulfillment metaphorically in the person of Jesus. Notice that the New Testament authors clearly regard Isaiah 9:2 as having been fulfilled in connection with the coming of Jesus. They are particularly concerned to highlight that the oracle of the “great light” was fulfilled metaphorically through the ministry of Jesus. But Matthew and Luke also hint at the oracle’s literal astronomical fulfillment at the time of the birth of Jesus.

Finally in v. 6, the woman “fled into the wilderness.” In John’s context, this is the flight of Christians to Pella from the siege of Jerusalem [66 a.d.]. The motif of the wilderness was extremely important in Israelite and early Jewish literature. For the Qumran community, the desert retreat was a prelude to the final eschatological battle: “The first attack of the Sons of Light shall be undertaken against the forces of the Sons of Darkness, the army of Belial: the troops of Edom, Moab, the sons of Ammon, the Amalekites, Philistia and the troops of the Kittim of Assyria. Supporting them are those who have violated the covenant. The sons of Levi, the sons of Judah, and the sons of Benjamin, those exiled to the wilderness, shall fight against them with […] against all their troops, when the exiles of the Sons of Light return from the Wilderness of the Peoples to camp in the Wilderness of Jerusalem.”

The desert was traditionally regarded as a place of refuge in times of trouble [1 Kings 17:2–3; 19:3–4] and had a variety of theological associations in early Judaism. Notice that John does not mention that the scene has changed from heaven to earth; the desert is therefore not a geographical place but a symbol.