A Ministry of Christian Information Bureau
For several months now, we have been calling attention to the alarming
fact that even among evangelicals, in apparent fulfillment of Paul's warning
concerning the last days, sound doctrine is being set aside in favor of
myths.
These are being foisted on the church by some of the most respected
church leaders -- and being embraced by millions of Christians, who seemingly
have insufficient discernment to recognize today's deceptions. Most of these
myths derive from "Christian psychology." This month we will consider one
that does not: the seductive and dangerous idea of the "Gospel in the
Stars."
This theory was popular in the late 1800's. Some of the books
published then have lately been brought back into print, among them E.W.
Bullinger's Witness of the Stars and Joseph A. Seiss's The Gospel in the
Stars, both by Kregel.
It is asserted that the signs of the zodiac were originally
designed by God to communicate the "gospel"; that this "Gospel of
the Stars" was known to those living before the flood; that it was later
corrupted into astrology; and that the alleged recovery of the "Gospel
interpretation" of the zodiac is a great "witness" to God and His Word.
Not one shred of historical evidence can be offered in support of this
theory. It is based not upon fact but speculation. Seiss even admits that
the insights leading to his thesis came "in connection with his studies of
the marvelous wisdom embodied in the Great Pyramid of Gizeh." (p.5) The
alleged "Gospel in the Stars" is simply a "Christian" interpretation of
astrology and occultism, in the same class as pyramidology -- and equally
dangerous.
It is claimed that "by way of the Bible itself we reach the idea of the
GOSPEL in the STARS" (Seiss,p.13). Not so! While the Bible frequently
states that the heavens are given for "signs," it never implies, much less
states, that these "signs" present the gospel. The Bible indicates that
creation reveals God's glory and power, which are "clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made" (Rom. 1:20) and that "there is no
speech nor language where their voice is not heard" (Psalms 19:3). Never
does it say that the heavens or any other part of creation declare the
gospel. That is presented only by God's Word and preaching -- and that not
even by angels, but only by men.
The idea of "The Gospel in the Stars" puts an alleged witness from
creation on a par with the revelations contained in the Bible. If this
thesis is correct, then there are many places (Psalm 19:1-4, Rom. 1:19-24,
Heb. 1:1-2, 2 Peter 1:21, etc.) where the Bible could have, and should have,
told us that the "gospel is in the stars" -- but it does not. Heb. 1:1 for
example, tells us that God "spake in times past unto the fathers by the
prophets" but fails to say that He also spoke in the stars. Why does the
Bible never propose this idea? Obviously because creation witnesses to one
thing, prophets to something else. The creation witnesses to God's eternal
existence and power and wisdom; the Bible takes it from there and explains
the gospel. This distinction is destroyed by asserting that the gospel is
contained in the stars.
Actually, those who promote this myth admit that the gospel can't be
seen in the stars themselves, but that it comes from a "Christianized"
interpretation of the fanciful "signs" of the zodiac assigned by the ancients
to certain constellations. Nor can these figures be seen in the natural
formations of the stars, but are the arbitrary product of human imagination.
D. James Kennedy, one of those who promote Seiss's thesis, admits in his
sermon The Gospel in the Stars: "You can look at the stars in Virgo until
you are green in the face and they would never look like a woman!" And even
if they did, one would not know from that "sign" that the Son of God and
Savior of the world was to be born of a virgin -- much less that He would die
in our place and offer pardon for sin as a free gift of God's grace. One
simply cannot derive the "gospel" from the starry heavens, or from any other
part of creation!
Therefore, in no way can the alleged "Gospel in the Stars" be equated
with what the Bible says the "heavens declare" -- a message that Paul reminds
us is "CLEARLY SEEN" (Rom. 1:20) and understood by all those who observe
God's creation, no matter what their language (Ps. 19:3). That this is not
the case with the "Gospel in the Stars," is obvious. In fact, the very idea
that the "Gospel" is in the stars would never have entered the average
Christian's (much less pagan's!) head from looking up at the starry heavens.
Yet, in complete contradiction both of Scripture and common sense, it is
declared that the gospel "in all its length and breadth, stands written upon
the stars..." (Seiss, p.14) The truth is that the alleged "Gospel in the
Stars" is not contained in the stars at all. It is found only in the books
that tell us about this supposed wonder of the heavens and pretend to give us
the original meanings allegedly conveyed in ancient oral traditions -- for
which there can be found no historical evidence today.
Even the Southern Cross, which is the only constellation that really
forms a somewhat recognizable figure (and thus is "Exhibit A" for those who
promote this myth), fails on at least two counts. First of all, the "gospel"
is not clear from looking at a cross. One can only wonder that evangelicals,
who would reject the notion that the gospel is preached by a cross in a
church, would suggest that it is preached by a much less clearly formed
"cross" in the sky!
Even the physical meaning of such a symbol was unknown before
Roman times; and to this day the spiritual meaning of the cross is
unknown to those who have never read the Bible or heard the gospel preached
by men. Secondly, the fact that the Old Testament doesn't even mention the
cross is reason enough to reject any suggestion that an oral tradition
interpreting the stars presented that truth before Christ's advent. David's
statement in Psalm 22 ("they pierced my hands and my feet") was only
understood after its meaning had been revealed through its fulfillment in
Christ.
So even a "cross" clearly depicted in the stars could not possibly
have conveyed the "gospel," which was not revealed until after Christ's
crucifixion. How much less, then, could any other symbol do so -- then or
now!
To suggest that there was an oral tradition connected to the stars that
presented the gospel, when even the Old Testament did not present it, puts
oral tradition above Scripture and thus undermines God's Word. In the
Genesis 3 statement by God that "the seed of the woman will bruise the
serpent's head," the gospel is contained only in embryo and in mystery, and
was not understood until the New Testament revealed it. Without the Bible,
and with only the stars themselves to look at, even were the "signs of the
zodiac" distinct, which they are not, no one could understand the gospel from
them.
In fact, the symbols of the zodiac have universally served to support
occultism and astrology since the earliest times. To suggest that the
"gospel" was their "original meaning" promotes a deadly delusion.
The word "gospel" is used 101 times in 95 verses in the Bible (all New
Testament) and it is never associated with the stars or the witness of
creation. The gospel is always preached by men and must be made perfectly
clear for it to be of any effect. The alleged "Gospel in the Stars" fails on
both counts. Moreover, Matt. 24:14, Mk. 13:10 etc. indicate that the gospel
must yet be preached to all nations, and thus it clearly had not been
preached in the stars -- certainly not in "all its length and breadth..." as
Seiss et al enthusiastically but erroneously declare.
The Bible indicates that the gospel began to be preached with the
advent of Christ (2 Tim. 1:10). Paul refers to "the beginning of the gospel"
(Phil. 4:15) and states that it had been a mystery until then "kept secret
since the world began" (Rom. 16:25) It is a contradiction of Scripture to
suggest that for thousands of years before it was made clear in the Bible,
the gospel had been proclaimed in an oral tradition associated with the
stars.
Yet Seiss claims that "men who lived almost a thousand years [i.e.
those before the flood]" were taught the "gospel" by God from the stars.
Then why did Christ, during His time in Hades, preach the gospel to those who
had lived before the flood (see 1 Peter 3:19-20) -- and why didn't Noah, in
his preaching to these people before they died, present the "gospel" that was
in the stars?
It just doesn't add up from any angle. Yet Seiss, for example, swept
up in an enthusiasm that carried him far beyond facts and reason, expansively
declared: "...all the great doctrines of the Christian faith were known,
believed, cherished, and recorded [in the stars] from the earliest
generations of our race, proving that God has spoken to man, and verily given
him a revelation of truths and hopes precisely as written in our Scriptures,
and so fondly cherished by all Christian believers." (p. 15) That is
blatantly false. And such speculation, far from supporting the Bible,
actually undermines it and gives mankind an excuse to look to oral traditions
instead of only God's written Word.
If the "gospel in the stars" is factual and so valuable for us to know
about, why doesn't the Bible even once refer to it? Why didn't the prophets
mention it for support and build upon it? Why didn't Peter on the day of
Pentecost, who referred to signs in the sky (Acts 2:19), use this great
"sign"?
One would think that such a witness would have had a powerful effect
upon Jews "who require a sign." Why didn't Paul, in reasoning with the
Greeks at Athens (or in his many debates with unbelievers elsewhere), along
with referring to what their "own poets have said" (Acts 17) mention this
great "sign" in the heavens? Why didn't Jesus, who quoted so often the Old
Testament and continually used illustrations, make at least one reference to
the gospel in the stars?
Such total silence throughout Scripture upon a topic that we are now
told is of great value disproves this thesis. Notice that Paul, in reasoning
with his audience from creation, did not go beyond what creation declares
plainly to all and that which is known by all in their consciences. The very
claim that the "gospel" is in the stars is inconsistent with the knowledge
that Scripture attributes to creation and with the manner in which Christ and
His Apostles referred to creation for a witness. When it came to the gospel,
Paul based what he said upon Scripture and Christ's life, death and
resurrection -- not upon the signs of the zodiac!
Why devote a newsletter to the "Gospel in the Stars"? We do so because
this currently popular myth encourages a deadly mixture of humanism and
Christianity -- the very ecumenical/syncretistic delusion that is growing in
our own day. It is similar to the "All truth is God's truth" myth that makes
Freud, Jung and other godless humanists -- or Buddha, Krishna, Mary Baker
Eddy, et al -- legitimate sources of God's Truth. Preaching the gospel from
the signs of the zodiac is like presenting it from Star Wars or other
occultic stories, which some have done. Seiss himself fell into that trap.
In his chapter titled, "The Suffering Redeemer," Seiss declares (p. 38):
"In the divine triad of Brahmanic deities the second, the Son, the One who
became incarnate in the man-god Krishna, sits upon his throne cross-legged,
holding the cross in his right hand; and is the god of deliverance...It is
the same story of deliverance and salvation through the Cross-bearer, the
divine Son of the Virgin." This is the kind of syncretistic folly presented
by such cults as Unity and Science of Mind, and which is now coming even into
the evangelical church in so many ways. Though its promoters may be sincere,
the "Gospel in the Stars" is just one more means of causing similar deadly
confusion. Let's devote ourselves to the study of God's Word as our only and
sufficient source of Truth!
In Christ's love, Dave Hunt../