The Glory of the Lord
Gramps49
Shipmate
in Kerygmania
Luke 2:8-20
I was going to do a Biblical Review of this story, but I got to wondering, could the Glory of the Lord actually be a description of the Aurora Borealis, the Northern Lights? Unfortunately, there is no known record of unusual sun spots during that time, though the first recording was around 800 BCE in China--the problem being there was no way of measuring sun activities during Jesus' time.
That said, there are documented sightings as far south as Cuba, Hawaii and Singapore. The latitude of Bethlehem is around 31 degrees, Cuba is at 21 degrees, Hawaii 19 degrees and Singapore is 2 degrees. I know recent Borealis maps have shown the strongest ones could be seen in Pheonix AZ Here is an image of the lights outside of Wickenberg, about the same latitude as Pheonix ~33 degrees.
Just checked the 11 year cycle for Sunspots, though. There would have been 184.45 cycles since now and then. A little off.
What I have been doing while recuperating from the gallstones.
I was going to do a Biblical Review of this story, but I got to wondering, could the Glory of the Lord actually be a description of the Aurora Borealis, the Northern Lights? Unfortunately, there is no known record of unusual sun spots during that time, though the first recording was around 800 BCE in China--the problem being there was no way of measuring sun activities during Jesus' time.
That said, there are documented sightings as far south as Cuba, Hawaii and Singapore. The latitude of Bethlehem is around 31 degrees, Cuba is at 21 degrees, Hawaii 19 degrees and Singapore is 2 degrees. I know recent Borealis maps have shown the strongest ones could be seen in Pheonix AZ Here is an image of the lights outside of Wickenberg, about the same latitude as Pheonix ~33 degrees.
Just checked the 11 year cycle for Sunspots, though. There would have been 184.45 cycles since now and then. A little off.
What I have been doing while recuperating from the gallstones.
Comments
Remember at the time of Jesus, most night skies would be much darker than they are now. As I showed in the image from AZ, the colors of the Aurora were quite vivid in spite of the lights on the ground.
To the point, it does not relate to literal physical events:
It might not be, but the Aurora Borealis probably comes close to what Luke had in mind when he wrote the account, IMHO.
Personally, I would think what Luke (and John in the prologue to his Gospel—“and we beheld his glory”) had in mind was the OT idea of kavod, which was, I think, less about anything they saw in the sky and more about immediate awareness of God’s majesty, connected to God’s presence in their midst.
At 31degrees N, the Borealis would have indeed been a rare sight. How else would you think it could be interpreted at that latitude at that time? Cecille B Deville, where are you?
So again, what leads you to the opinion that the Aurora Borealis probably comes close to what Luke had in mind when he wrote his account? What in the text suggests to you something like the Aurora Borealis rather than, say, something like a meteor shower or some other phenomenon, or something not confined to the sky, or even something not found in the natural world, is what Luke had in mind? I mean, he does tell us what he considered it to be—“the glory of the Lord.”
כָּבוֹד (kavod) literally denotes “weight” or “heaviness,” figuratively expressing what is weighty in a moral, social, or spiritual sense: splendour, honour, reputation, wealth, or the visible manifestation of divine presence.
📖 Where Kavod Can Mean “Armament”
Psalm 3:3 (Hebrew Bible):
“But You, O LORD, are a shield for me, my glory (kavod), and the One who lifts up my head.”
Here, kavod is connected to God’s protective power. Some commentators note that the root idea of “weight” or “heaviness” can extend to armor or battle gear — something substantial that shields and defends.
Thus, kavod is interpreted as armament or battle protection, not just abstract honor.
Semantic Root:
Kavod comes from kaved (כָּבֵד) meaning “heavy.”
In military contexts, “heaviness” can describe the weight of armor or weaponry.
So kavod can figuratively mean the heavy protection of God, akin to armament.
Other Biblical Echoes:
In passages where God’s kavod fills the temple (e.g., Exodus 40:34), the “weight” of divine presence is protective and overwhelming — like a shield.
Ancient interpreters sometimes extended this to martial imagery: God’s glory as a kind of battle armor for His people.
✨ Theological Implication
When kavod is read as armament, it shifts the meaning from abstract “glory” to tangible defense:
God’s presence is not just radiant but weighty protection.
The believer’s “glory” is not fame but the armor of divine honor.
This resonates with later imagery like Paul’s “armor of God” in Ephesians 6.
Source: https://www.bridgesforpeace.com/resource/glory-kavod
https://firmisrael.org/learn/the-weight-of-glory-and-the-hebrew-word-kavod/
What with all of the other miracles involved, I don’t see why this wouldn’t be any less literal than the others.
Just saying… why would we not balk at angels but need to find a natural explanation for the glory of the Lord?
Or any more literal.
Glory does not mean "light."
Glory means "presence."
The root of kavod is a word meaning heavy. That heaviness can be interpreted in a couple of ways:
(1) worthiness or importance, as BroJames and Nick Tamen have already noted. God and God's activity are the most important, weighty matters in the universe.
(2) palpable presence. It can be the sense of 'heaviness' as a sensory experience of the presence of another.
Your own cited sources make no mention of light, instead focusing on the solidity of the presence of God and God's will to protect.
Heat can radiate. A person's presence can be experienced as radiating. Light is not the only thing that radiates.
Points (1) and (2) are useful and helpful interpretations of those rather chewy passages in John (John 13:31,32; John 17:1, 4, 5, 22-24) about glory with reference to the impending crucifixion. Nothing about the crucifixion was bright or shiny, but it was absolutely about the most important things in the world - defeat of sin and death - and about the palpable presence of God, the Second Person, hanging on the cross.
Shepherds in the field, experiencing the palpable presence of the divine radiating around them, would have been scared shitless and rightly so. Although you may not wish to use that exact phrasing in a homily.
I respectfully disagree. When it says, "The Glory of the Lord shone around them." the implication was it was a shiny light.
Exodus 24:17 says “Now the appearance of the glory of the LORD was like a devouring fire on the top of the mountain in the sight of the people of Israel.”
Yes, it means presence, but sometimes it can be seen.
(I expect) from an anti religous point of view, a natural explanation of a light source would be nice (why that myth then) but not needed (could be made up, and not part of text)
And similarly from a religious point of view, fitting but not needed (text or miracle).
I think we agree that the presence can be experienced in different ways from a human point of view, which might include visual experience.
It's notable that hedge words instantly crop up when it comes to human experience of the presence: "sometimes" "it can". The difficulty with describing the experience of being in the presence is human sensory and cognitive limitation, further limited by trying to put it into words of whatever language we have on hand.
Your quoted verse from Exodus does this too: the appearance of the glory of the Lord was LIKE a devouring fire. The presence nearly defies description. This is comparable to Acts 2:3: divided tongues, AS OF fire, appeared among them.
The glory of the Lord in the event of the crucifixion is one place in Scripture where there are no waffle-words about the presence - the worthy, palpable presence - of God in human experience.
Speculative imagination is fun, and following one's own imagination down non-Scriptural rabbit holes can be entertaining (IME, more entertaining to myself than others).
The attempt to link aurora borealis with Luke 2 seems to me just such an exercise. If you're determined to indulge in non-Scriptural speculative imagination, why not go whole hog? Maybe what the shepherds were seeing was all the future Christmas lights in the world together at once! Maybe UFOs were blinking their lights all together to salute the newborn king! Those descriptions are equally justified as the aurora idea.
So, if we’re talking about what Luke had in mind, it appears to me that he had in mind a sense of surrounding presence and of imminence. He seems to be saying that the light, if that’s the way in which the shepherds perceived the kavod of God, surrounded the shepherds. That does not sound to me like a description of distant lights confined to the northern sky.