Answering Skeptics: Who Do We Trust: God or Man?
This is a continuation of an ongoing discussion—part two in answering the question of Jesus birthplace (see Where Was Jesus Born (Part 1))—with an individual who responded to an ad I placed on Facebook. We’ll start with his question in bold, followed by my response.
Is it possible that Jesus was called a Nazarene because he grew up there? Yes it is; it is possible. And it is just as possible that He was called a Nazarene because He was born in Nazareth. Mary was from Nazareth. Joseph was in Nazareth.
If there was no decree to go to your home city to be counted and taxed in the days of Herod, there is no reason for a pregnant female to travel some 90 miles to then give birth. You brought up Joseph’s lineage linking him to the city of David. That link means no “virgin birth”…which is impossible anyway.
For a female to give birth to a male offspring, male DNA/chromosomes is required. There are some species where a female can produce an offspring without a male, but the offspring is always female (my background is science…I ran a county crime lab and was a lab rat). Many scholars believe the “birth in Bethlehem of Judea” was just to add strength to the idea that he was the messiah foretold in earlier writings. And I am sure you have heard that before….
Yes, you’re right—it’s entirely possible that Jesus was called a Nazarene for the reasons you stated, but only if we completely disregard the testimony of Scripture.
As far as I can tell, Bethlehem of Zebulun (Galilee) is only mentioned once, definitively, in Scripture—in Joshua 19:15, and then only as a property line marker. It is a biblically insignificant place. There are other references to Bethlehem, but they don’t indicate which town (e.g. Judges 12:8-10), so it’s not wise to speculate about those.
Bethlehem of Judah (Judea), however:
is where Jacob’s wife Rachel is buried (Gen. 48:7);
is mentioned in Judges 17, Judges 19;
is the setting of book of Ruth where we learn about King David’s grandmother and grandfather;
is the birthplace of King David and plays a prominent role in the history told in 1 & 2 Samuel;
is mentioned in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Jeremiah;
was predicted to be the birthplace of the Messiah in Micah 5:2; and finally,
both Matthew and Luke—the only two gospel writers who concerned themselves with Christ’s birth—unequivocally cited Bethlehem of Judaea as the birthplace of Christ.
So far, it would seem negligent at best—prejudicial at worst—to ignore the historical significance of the town, a 700-year-old prophecy, and the testimony of two contemporary witnesses.
Now it seems appropriate to consider the census, albeit briefly, lest this turn into another book.
About That Census…
In his book, The Historical Jesus, Gary Habermas writes the following:
“It has been established that the taking of a census was quite common at about the time of Christ. An ancient Latin inscription called the Titulus Venetus indicates that a census took place in Syria and Judea about AD 5-6 and that this was typical of those held throughout the Roman Empire from the time of Augustus (23 BC - AD 14) until at least the third century AD. Indications are that this census took place every 14 years…Concerning persons returning to their home city for the taxation-census, an Egyptian papyrus dating from AD 104 reports just such a practice.” (172)
Harold W. Hoehner goes into far more detail in “Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ.” I won’t burden you with an extensive quote, but only a few sentences that seem to directly address your objection. If you desire further information, I’d recommend picking up this book—it’s a great resource. He says:
“Luke’s statement…has been challenged by those who claim that there never was a single census of the entire Roman Empire. However, is that what Luke meant? Probably not. What is meant is that censuses were taken at different times in different provinces—Augustus being the first one in history to order a census or tax assessment of the whole provincial empire. This is further substantiated by the fact that Luke uses the present tense indicating that Augustus ordered censuses to be taken regularly rather than only one time. Thus it is reasonable to believe that there was an order of a general census in the time of Augustus.” (15)
I appreciate your comment about Mary traveling some 90 miles because it’s a great argument against Mary and Joseph conspiring together to make sure that they fulfilled the prophecy of Micah 5:2.
“Hey Mary, I know it’s 90 miles away, but you know what? We’ve gotta get you to the other Bethlehem, otherwise Micah 5:2 won’t be fulfilled in our Son.”
I can see Mary pitching a fit. “WHAT? Are you kidding me? I’m nine months pregnant and only now do you think of this? Are you out of your mind? Ninety miles on the back of a DONKEY??? Awwww, heck no…I ain’t goin’ nowhere!”
The only reason such a journey makes sense is if they were compelled to make the journey…just Luke 2 says they were.
Why Jesus Had to be Born of a Virgin
I’m afraid your statement about Joseph’s lineage and hence no virgin birth is misinformed. As a matter of fact, Jesus had to be born of a virgin. Take a look at Matthew 1:11:
Josiah became the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. — Matthew 1:11
Here, we see that Jeconiah is in the genealogy of Jesus, but this presents a huge problem. Why? Because of Jeremiah 22:24-30, wherein God curses Jeconiah (Coniah), saying:
Write this man down childless,
A man who will not prosper in his days;
For no man of his descendants will prosper
Sitting on the throne of David
Or ruling again in Judah.
— Jeremiah 22:30
If Joseph, a biological descendant of Jeconiah, were the biological father of Jesus, Jesus would have been disqualified by God’s own edict. But Messiah had to be a descendant of David. Furthermore, being a descendant of David via Mary was not sufficient, as the inheritance or birthright, was always passed through the paternal line, not the maternal. God’s solution?
Virgin birth: which holds fast the prophecy made by Jeremiah, and
Legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph: so that Jesus might be counted as His son and thus in the royal line.
Your comment about the virgin birth being impossible on the grounds of biology is an unargued philosophical bias against miracles and thus, at this point in our discusses, I have to reject as arbitrary.
Beware of Faulty Appeals to Authority (or Majorities…or Majorities of Authorities)
Finally, what “many scholars” believe is largely irrelevant. Remember, truth is not determined by a majority vote of the experts:
For 1,500 years, the “experts” insisted on geocentricity;
The “experts” used to insist that maggots spontaneously generated from rotting meat; and
The “experts” used to insist that bloodletting was a legitimate cure for sickness…much to George Washington’s chagrin, I’m sure.