Where Was Jesus Born...and Why?

And she brought forth her firstborn Son,

and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths,

and laid Him in a manger,

because there was no room for them in the inn.

Luke 2:7, NKJV

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but that's not the answer to the question.

As I posted a few days ago, Jesus was not born in a barn because all the hotel rooms were taken. Two words in our English translations of this verse--inn and manger--have long contributed to certain speculations about the birth of Jesus Christ that probably are mistaken. It's nothing to stake your life upon. No major doctrine will come undone if Jesus was not born in a stable. And if it turns out I was wrong about this, well, that won't be an earth-shaking event either.

Here are some things to keep in mind as we move further into this story.

Jesus was born into a very large extended family that had its family roots in Bethlehem.

Joseph and Mary were lineal descendants of Jewish kings, nobles and priests.

Not only were people returning to the towns of their birth for the registration, but all Jews from everywhere were also converging on Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles, a season that started with Rosh Hashanah (the Festival of Trumpets). If an imperial decree were being carried out for all people to be registered in a province that was well known for civil unrest, it would make sense to schedule such a mass movement of people during a time when they were already on the move--so as not to disrupt their agrarian cycles and livelihoods.

So here's the story the way I believe it really happened.

Way back in March or April, shortly after Passover and the birth of John the Baptist, Joseph took Mary as his wife. By doing so, he was openly declaring to the community that he was taking responsibility for her pregnancy. Through his actions, he was saying, "This child is mine." He would do so again at the circumcision and naming. In liberal Judea, it was not unheard of for betrothed couples to share conjugal visits before they actually started living together. But in the more rural conservative areas of Galilee, it was severely frowned upon. The Bible does not tell us anything about their families' reactions to the pregnancy and premature wedding, in fact does not mention the involvement of their families at all. Is it possible that their families were so ashamed of Mary's pregnancy that they distanced themselves from the young couple? Did Joseph and Mary become social outcasts within their small community?

Already ostracized at home, Joseph and Mary probably made the trip to Bethlehem alone. Only tradition declares that she rode a donkey, but it's possible. Jews from everywhere were already trickling into Judea for the upcoming feasts. The family of David was large, and many familial relatives of both Joseph and Mary were coming to Bethlehem for both the census and the holidays. If their immediate family was embarrassed by Mary's pregnancy, imagine how the distant relatives may have felt.

The word rendered by the English language as inn is not to be misconstrued as a hotel or a tavern. It wasn't that all the hotel rooms were booked up when Joseph and Mary arrived in Bethlehem. Rather, the word refers to the guest quarters of any Jewish home of 2000 years ago--the rooftop where often a canopy was spread to expand the house's living quarters. Also connected to this area was the "upper room", such as the one where Jesus and His disciples ate the last supper. And at the Feast of Tabernacles, when Jews were supposed to move out of their permanent dwellings and live in temporary booths or shelters made from tree branches, it was common for many families to simply build their booth on their rooftop.

When Joseph and Mary arrived in Bethlehem, they found no welcome among their relatives and were not offered a place to stay on anyone's rooftop. So like many others who were coming in from out of town, Joseph and Mary found a hillside and Joseph built a tabernacle out of tree branches for them to stay in during the festival. Of course, early church traditions identified Jesus birthplace as a cave, so perhaps Joseph and Mary built their shelter against the mouth of a cave. It was a little early--the actual festival was still two weeks away--but it was September and I'm sure the weather was enjoyable.

Again, the Bible doesn't tell us if any family members were present at the birth. One tradition indicates a girl named Salome was with them--perhaps Mary's sister? But when Jesus was born, Mary swaddled him in soft cloths, probably after bathing and salting him, and she laid him in the only crib-like structure available to her in their rustic surroundings--the manger where they normally kept their food stores. It wasn't a feeding trough for cattle; it was a portable cupboard for bread. And now let that imagery sink in. The Bread of Life came into the world, and his mother placed him in a bread basket.

When Was Jesus Born?

And so it was,

that while they were there,

the days were accomplished

that she should be delivered.

Luke 2:6, NKJV

Jesus was not born on December 25th. I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but that date was a pagan holiday celebrated in many cultures across the Roman Empire in conjunction with the winter solstice, usually marking the rebirth of the sun as the days started getting longer. Early on, the Gentile Christians began to separate themselves from the Jewish roots of Christianity and the celebration of Jewish feasts such as Passover, Pentecost, Trumpets, Tabernacles, and Hanukkah. And when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, the state began to incorporate pagan holidays into church worship cycles. Commemorating the birth of Christ on December 25 was one of the ensuing developments of an increasingly paganistic church.

So when was Jesus born? I'm so glad you asked.

The Bible doesn't tell us in terms of dates--such and such a day in such and such a month in such and such a year. But a careful study of the Scriptures does reveal the answer to our question.

Jesus was born during the reign of the Emperor Caesar Augustus, 44 BC - 14 AD.

Jesus was born in the closing years of the reign of King Herod the Great in Jerusalem, before his death in the spring of 1 BC.

Jesus was born at the time of a census that was carried out in Judea 4-3 BC.

Jesus was born under a stellar event observed by Persian or Babylonian astronomers that would have indicated the birth of a Jewish King...likely the convergence of Jupiter (the king of planets) with Venus (the queen of planets) and Regulus (the king of stars) as they appeared to pass from the feet of Virgo (the virgin) into the feet of Leo (the lion). This occurred after months of preamble astronomical activity, and also preceded 15 months of continued stellar events, specifically on 11 September 3 BC.

And it cannot be coincidence that 11 September 3 BC on the Jewish calendar was 1 Tishri--Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year also known as the Feast of Trumpets. Rosh Hashanah has many symbolic and prophetic applications in Judaism. It was supposedly the day Adam was created, and also the day upon which the Resurrection is supposed to take place. It is the day upon which kings were crowned, and the wedding feast of Messiah was supposed to take place. It also ushers in the fall harvest holiday season that incorporates the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles.

The feasts of Israel have lots of prophetic significance in the eternal plan of God. Look back at some of my earlier posts concerning the conception and birth of John the Baptist, and the conception of Jesus. John was likely conceived around Pentecost--which is significant because he was filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother's womb. Six months later, Jesus was conceived at Hanukkah, the light of the world conceived during the festival of lights. Then John would have been born at Passover, which is often associated with the return of Elijah. And Rosh Hashanah and the Feast of Tabernacles falls at the culmination of Mary's pregnancy.


Trumpets, Atonement and Tabernacles are closely associated with the promises of Christ's return and other eschatological prophecies. But it is likely that they have association with His brith as well: Born at Trumpets, Circumcised at Atonement, beginning his earthly sojourn during Tabernacles. The language of Luke 2 (as we will see in a later post) indicates that Mary and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem during the season of Trumpets and Tabernacles. John 1:14, in the Greek, reads that Jesus became flesh and "tabernacled" among us.

Other New Testament facts indicate Jesus began his ministry in the fall of 27 AD, and after three and a half years He was crucified in the spring of 31 AD...at the age of 32 and a half.

What the Holidays MIght Have Been Like

Joseph and Mary had quite the extended family, an illustrious assortment of grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings, nieces and nephews that might have gathered--like most Jewish families--for celebrating the holidays. For a Jewish family, this meant three annual trips to Jerusalem for the feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles.

Of Joseph's family, perhaps his grandparents Matthat and Estha were still alive and dwelling in Bethlehem. His father Heli and unnamed mother probably lived in Nazareth, as did his brother Clopas Alphaeus.

Clopas had married "the other" Mary, sister to Joseph's wife Mary, and they were raising their children in Galilee: Matthew Levi, who would become a tax collector before following Jesus; James, who would also become an apostle; Simon, who would become bishop of the church at Jerusalem during the Roman siege; and Joseph. That they named their oldest son "Levi" is indicative that they were indeed Levitical in at least part of their ancestry.

Of Mary's family, her grandfather Matthan the High Priest was probably dead, but her parents Joachim and Anna were still alive. There was her uncle Joseph, the tin merchant from Arimathea. And her sisters--Mary and Salome. We may think it is odd, from our 21st Century American perspective, that two girls in one family might have the same name. However, 200 years ago it was common among my German Lutheran ancestors to name every child John and Mary, coupled with unique second (or what we call "middle") names. Or they could have used Jewish variations such as Miriam, Mariamne, or Mara, all of which are translated as Mary in our English Bibles. The gospels differentiate them by calling Jesus' aunt "the other Mary", "Mary the wife of Clopas", or "Mary the mother of James and Joseph".

Salome was likely the youngest of the three sisters, and may not have been married at the time of Jesus' birth. There are some old traditions about the birth that name Salome as being present. Later she would marry Zebedee, a fisherman from Capernaum, and they would have sons James and John, who would be among the original disciples of Jesus.

When the gospels first introduce young John, it is as a disciple of John the Baptist--son of his mother's cousin Elizabeth. The gospels also record that John was well known to the household of Caiaphas--the man who served as Israel's High Priest during Jesus' earthly ministry. One ancient source says of John that he wore the priest's mitre or turban in his youth, and the symbolism contained in The Revelation is very priestly and templar in meaning. Only the sons of priests could be trained as priests, so it is very likely that Zebedee himself was of the tribe of Levi.

And we must not forget Zacharias and Elizabeth, that priestly family from the Judean Hill Country and their infant son John, a priestly family with whom Mary had stayed during the early months of her pregnancy.

It was among this extended family that Jesus was about to make His grand entrance into the world.

Who Were Mary & Joseph, part 2

Joseph also went up...to be registered with Mary,

his betrothed wife who was with child.

Luke 2:4-5, NKJV

So, if Matthew and Luke are both reporting the ancestry of Joseph--one legal, one biological--in their respective gospels, who was Mary's family? The gospels don't actually give us their names, but Luke includes some hints as to her ancestry in Chapter 1 of his gospel.

Remember Zacharias and Elizabeth? Luke identified Zacharias as a Levitical priest in the order of Abijah, and called Elizabeth a daughter of Aaron. Elizabeth was of the High Priest's lineage, and her cousin was Mary of Nazareth. This would require that at least one of Mary's parents be from the tribe of Levi.

Very old Christian traditions hold that Mary was the daughter of righteous parents--Joachim and Anna, with Joachim being from the tribe of Judah and likely a near kinsman of the family of Joseph, and Anna being the daughter of Matthan (or Mattathias) the High Priest of Israel. Some of these traditions make Mary an only child, born in her parents' old age and raised in the temple as a dedicated offering to God until she reached puberty, at which time she was betrothed. However, the gospels bear out that Mary had at least two sisters--Mary the wife of Clopas, and Salome the wife of Zebedee. Both women were the mothers of some of Jesus' 12 disciples. According to those same traditions, Matthan the High Priest was the father of three daughters as well--Anna, Zoia, and Mary. Zoia was the mother of Elizabeth, and therefore the grandmother of John the Baptist.

Joachim was said to be descended from the line of King David's son Nathan, his grandfather (called by some Pamphyra or Panthera) being a brother to Joseph's biological grandfather Matthat. And Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrien who figures prominently in the burial of Jesus, was either Mary's brother or her uncle, the brother of Joachim.

So through her father, Mary was a descendant of King David through the noble line of Nathan, and through her mother she was a descendant of the High Priests of Israel. Such intermarriage between royal, noble and priestly lines was practiced often; as in the case of the original High Priest Aaron, who married Elisheba, the daughter of Amminidab and sister of Nahshon, leaders of the tribe of Judah during the wilderness years; and in the case of Jehosheba daughter of King Jehoram of Judah who married the High Priest Jehoiada.

Who Were Mary & Joseph, part 1

 

Joseph also went up...to be registered

with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child.

Luke 1:4-5, NKJV

In an earlier post, I covered the genealogy of Joseph presented in Matthew. In a later post, I will cover the genealogy presented in Luke. I've made several references recently to the royal lineage of Joseph and the noble priestly lineage of Mary. So I thought at this juncture, it might be prudent to present a few explanations about the who, what, where, when, why and how of the Christmas story. I'm not making any of this up on my own; you can research it yourself if you don't believe me...

As we saw in Matthew 1, Joseph could trace his family tree all the way back to the beginning of the Jewish people (actually, all the way back to creation, but Matthew stopped the list at Abraham). Abraham was the one called out from among his people to be the father of a new nation. Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brethren (the 12 patriarchs of the Jewish people). And for 42 generations, Matthew traces the ancestors of Joseph through the patriarchs to David, through the kings to Zerubbabel, and then through a list of names about which the Bible is completely silent, ending with...

And Matthan begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Joseph, who was the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called the Christ.

Luke 3:23-24 says that Jesus (as was supposed) was the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat...and presents an entirely different genealogy that traces the family back through the noble descendants of David's son Nathan rather than through the royal line of kings that descend from David's son Solomon. I'll save the real discussion for when I get to Luke 3, but for now, let me deal with those first couple of verses.

Those same critics who think Luke was mistaken when he wrote about Quirinius also like to point to the two genealogies--both of which purport to be Joseph's lineage--and say, "The gospels contradict themselves about Jesus' grandparents. They can't possibly be believed!" Once again, they speak from ignorance, focusing on the words rather than on the meaning and truth behind them.

One oft used explanation of the difference between the two genealogies is that Matthew recorded Joseph's ancestors, while Luke recorded Mary's. I heard it growing up, believed it, and actually taught it that way for a while, until I started researching rather than repeating. Luke was always so precise in his language; if he had intended to record Mary's genealogy, he would have done so. In fact, he is the one who actually gives us the clues to her lineage, but not in Chapter 3. Mary's family is revealed in Chapter 1. Luke, like Matthew, is giving the lineage of Joseph.

So how can two gospels give different ancestors--even different fathers--for Joseph, and both of them be true? I'll tell you how. One is the legal lineage of Joseph; the other is biological. For all intents and purposes, Joseph was adopted.

A 4th Century church historian named Eusebius quotes from the writings of an earlier church father, Julius Africanus, on the matter, revealing what the early church knew and believed about the ancestry of Jesus. These were people who knew the family and descendants of Jesus' brothers, who would have known the truth and been able to explain the discrepancies. So here's the truth about Joseph.

In the early 1st Century BC, there were two closely related men from the tribe of Judah living in Bethlehem. Both were descendants of King David, one through Solomon, one through Nathan. Both were also descendants of Zerubbabel the governor. The descendant of Solomon was Matthan. The descendant of Nathan was Matthat. Matthan married a woman named Estha, fathered a son named Jacob, and then died. The widow Estha then married Matthat, who fathered a son named Heli.

When Heli grew up, he married a woman but died before he could father any children. His brother Jacob, following the ancient customs of his people, took his brother's widow as wife. It was called a Leviratic Marriage, and the firstborn son of this union was actually considered the son and heir of his dead brother. That son was Joseph--called by Matthew the son of Jacob (which was biologically true), but in Luke said to be the son of Heli (which was legallytrue).

And once again, we find that a supposed contradiction is not really a contradiction after all.

The Christmas Story

Tell me if you've heard this.

It's early winter in Judea. The skies are clear, the air is crisp, there is a dusting of snow on the hills around Bethlehem. The hotels are crowded with travelers in town for the big census taking. An old man and his new young wife arrive in town, her on the back of a donkey and very pregnant. She's going into labor, and he needs to find a place for them to stay. But every hotel is full. Finally, one compassionate hotel manager decides to let them stay in the barn.

Joseph helps Mary into a stall filled with fresh hay, where she gives birth to Jesus. And after they wrap him in some old rags, they place him in the feeding trough to sleep. The cattle are lowing, the sheep and donkey are watching, the chickens are clucking in their roosts.

Meanwhile, out on the snow-dusted hills, a group of shepherds are sitting around with their sheep and an angel appears, sending them to look for the Messiah, who has been born in a barn. And as they arrive, three well-dressed kings on camels following a star reach the barn at the same time. And they all go in and worship at the feeding trough.

That was the Christmas story, basically as I heard it and imagined it growing up. Unfortunately, very little of it is factual. Starting with this. Jesus wasn't born in a barn.

Stand Up

There seems to be a sudden rash of bullying-induced suicides being reported in the media. I don't believe there is more bullying going on. I don't believe there are more suicides happening. I just think the media is focusing more attention on them at this particular time. That being said, I'd like to weigh in with a personal story.

I was never a rough-and-tumble little boy. I didn't care for sports. I didn't fight or compete or cuss or chew the way most guys did when I was growing up. I was smart. I was creative and talented. I took art and music and choir and creative writing and piano. I didn't take shop or ag; of course, I never took home ec either. I wrote stories, composed songs, penned poems. My closest friends were almost always girls when I was growing up. I was a good kid. I combed my hair and wore nice clothes. I cried.

And there were times that I was called ugly names. Like queer and fag and homo. Most creative of all were those smart guys who changed the first letter of my name and called me "Gasey". I suspect that most of the people who participated in those little rituals of adolescent behavior were really trying to compensate for their own inferiorities.

Now first of all, I wasn't gay, and being called gay didn't make me want to be. I've always liked girls. Alot. Which is why I preferred their company to those rough and tumble bullies who got off trying to pound me with the dodge ball. And I have to admit that being called names like that hurt my feelings. I don't remember spending alot of time crying over, sulking, nursing depression over it. I do seem to remember having some rather clever comebacks.

I never thought about killing myself over what other people thought of me.

And I've never really thought about why not until now. But I know why.

It's because my identity has never been in what other people thought of me. My parents raised me with a good bit of confidence and self-esteem. They never put me down, made fun of me, or called me names. They encouraged me, they supported my endeavors, they talked openly and honestly to me about all kinds of subjects. They also loved me unconditionally and demonstrated it to me in multiple ways.

Most importantly, the led me into a wonderful relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

The problem in our society is not bullying or name calling. As I have recently experienced on Facebook (for those of you following me there), grown adults can still be pretty vicious when they don't like you. If you don't believe me, go into a world of strangers and start expressing yourself. See what happens.

The problem is not "other people". You cannot make "other people" like you. You cannot make "other people" stop saying mean things. You cannot make "other people" keep their opinions to themselves. But you can do something about YOU, and your response to THEM.

We're running around trying to put a stop to the name calling, instead of teaching our society the kindergarten adage "sticks and stones"...which I seem to remember my teachers telling me when I was called some pretty ugly names. No one got in trouble for name calling when I was a kid.

You can ignore "other people". You can turn a deaf ear to their words. You can shrug it off, or laugh it off. You can comeback with some witty reparte of your own. If you really don't like what someone is saying, you can always introduce the end of their nose to the flatside of your fist--if you must. Of course, this last one could have consequences of its own.

I'm not advocating violence, or repaying evil with evil. What I am advocating is that people take responsibility for their lives, their identities and their actions. Quit blaming other people and start taking a stand for yourself. I don't care who you are or what you're doing. If you're a Christian, stand up and be counted. You're living in a world where you are a hated minority, but don't let that stop you from representing Jesus. If you're a democrat, a lesbian, an atheist, don't be put down by people who don't like you. If you believe yourself to be right in what you are, go ahead and be proud of it. Don't let people calling you a liberal drive you to insane acts of self destruction.

Of course, the kind of confidence I have, the kind of self-esteem I'm talking about, isn't manufactured. It is instilled from birth by loving parents. Some of you may have to find it on your own, as grown adults. It's gonna mean putting the past behind you and pressing on. But if you are a parent, you have a precious opportunity to make sure you instill confidence in your children by loving them and encouraging them that they are worth more than a long walk off a short pier.

His Own City

So all went to be registered,

everyone to his own city.

Joseph also went up from Galilee,

out of the city of Nazareth,

into Judea, to the city of David,

which is called Bethlehem,

because he was of the house and lineage of David,

to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife,

who was with child.

Luke 2:3-5, NKJV

I love the prophetic nature of the Bible, that the Scriptures record how God precisely revealed the details surrounding the coming of His Only Begotten Son. Hundreds of years before Jesus was born, the particulars were already planned, spoken, and written down. And not one item was left to chance. This was all fulfilled in the hands and at the will of the Great Orchestrator.

Four places are mentioned in this passage: Galilee, Nazareth, Judea, and Bethlehem. Matthew will also add Egypt, but I'll deal with that another time. There are prophecies concerning each of those places in the Old Testament in regards to the coming of the Messiah.

Isaiah 9:1 tells us that "in Galilee of the Gentiles, the people who walked in darkness have seen a great light." Jesus childhood, early adulthood, and the first portion of his ministry took place in the region around the Sea of Galilee.

Isaiah 11:1 states "There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots." In Matthew's Gospel, it says that Joseph and Mary took Jesus to be raised in Nazareth that he might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene." And yet there is no Old Testament Scripture that actually says that. Perhaps it was a reference to some oral tradition, but the word Nazarene in Hebrew is from the same root as the word Branch. Jesus was that promised Branch, and He was associated with a town that meant Branch, and therefore was called Jesus the Branch (Nazarene).

Genesis 49:10 says, "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet." The province of Judea took its name from the ancient tribal lands belonging to Judah, both of which occupied the same geographical areas, and Jesus was born in the province of Judea, but also to a family that descended on both sides from the tribe of Judah.

Micah 5:2 told that "Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from old, from everlasting." It would be this Scripture the scholars would consult to pinpoint the birthplace of Messiah for King Herod and the Magi from the East.

Not only that, but God had also made a covenant with David that there would always be an heir to sit upon His throne, and that the House of David would rule over Israel forever. Even prophecies concerning the great Kingdom of the Messiah--what we call the Millennial Reign of Christ--indicate that David will once again sit on his throne.

So in 3 BC, a descendant of David, of the tribe of Judah, who had been born in Bethlehem but was living in Nazareth, took as his wife another descendant of David (as well as the Aaronic priests)--a woman who had conceived a son by the power of the Holy Spirit. And events around the world were transpiring that would take this young couple from their home in the north, relocate them to a temporary home in Bethlehem before sending them into Egypt so that later their Son could be brought out of Egypt, back to the land of His birth, and placed back in Nazareth in Galilee. All so that the prophecies could be fulfilled exactly.

Because prophecy from God should be exact, and so should the fulfillment. Not almost. Not mostly. Not all but for one tiny detail. All of it. And Christ was exactly that.

The Real Tragedy

Lots of people are talking about the tragedy of Tyler Clementi. And since I'm usually pretty vocal about stuff going on, some might be wondering if I have anything to say about it. Actually, I do, and I've held off for several days trying to get my thoughts into words. And when everything is said and done, I may have everybody mad at me and throwing firebrands from the right and the other side of this issue. But this is what I think...

I think Tyler's death is a tragic loss. I think it is regrettable. Lamentable. Pitiable. I also think it was avoidable.

For those of you who don't know the story, let me sum it up. Admittedly, I didn't know him, and I don't know anything about the situation other than what has been publicized by the media. Tyler was a student at Rutgers University, talented, popular, intelligent. Tyler was also gay. Tyler's roommate used a hidden camera to record Tyler in flagrante dilecto with another man, then uploaded the recording to the Internet. After which, Tyler tweeted a despairing farewell to the world, took his life in his own hands, and jumped.

Now Tyler's family, and our society, is looking for someone to blame.

I think suicide is the last act of a confused mind, and solves no one's problems. I also know that it is too complicated an issue to pin the blame upon any one person, much less charge someone with a crime because of it. Nobody told Tyler to kill himself. Nobody drove Tyler to that bridge. Nobody forced Tyler over the railing and onto the edge. Nobody pushed Tyler into the river. Tyler took his life in his own hands, and only Tyler will ever know why. And yet there are alot of people who want someone to pay for what Tyler did.

The most notable solution suggested is that the two students responsible for making Tyler's private act a public spectacle be charged with his death. I don't agree. I think they should be charged with the crimes they committed against Tyler's privacy and against his person, and prosecuted under the law. But they should not be punished for something in which they had no say...

Anymore than the cheating husband can be charged with murder because his loyal wife couldn't bear his infidelity one more day.

Or the daughter whose own personal tragedy sent her father into a depression so deep he could not escape it.

Or the investigators whose discoveries drove a frightened man into a desperate act.

Or the wife who left her husband and wouldn't return his phone calls.

All instances of suicide with which I am personally acquainted.

If you want to blame somebody, blame this kid's friends...the ones he didn't feel he could turn to when he was unexpectedly outed. Or blame the parents...who apparently didn't provide enough love for him to find shelter with them. Or blame the Internet and its lack of regulation which allows anything to be uploaded by anyone anywhere. Or blame the makers of the tiny camera, the technology which made this all possible.

You see what a wide net could be cast...

The real tragedy is that Tyler felt he had no other option. He had so little belief in himself--or anything bigger--and was so embarrassed and humiliated by the exposure of his privacy, that his personal choices led him down a sad, regrettable, unfortunate, and ultimately avoidable path.

Historicity

And it came to pass in those days

that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus

that all the world should be registered.

This census first took place

while Quirinius was governing Syria.

Luke 2:1-2, NKJV

I've had several conversations recently that call into question the reliability of the Bible as an historical document. In doing research for these two verses, I have discovered that they are a heated topic of debate among Biblical scholars. I have also noted that everyone argues their point with an agenda in mind--that agenda having to do with the status of Scripture. Either the Bible is a flawed human product filled with contradiction, or it is the Divinely inspired Word of God--authoritative, infallible, inerrant, perfectly written and perfectly preserved. Those with the former agenda search the text for discrepancies, errors, impossibilities, incongruities and the like which will supposedly support their position that the Bible cannot be trusted. Those with the latter agenda rise to the defense of Holy Writ and search for ways to refute the accusations of mistakes in the Bible because, after all, the historicity and truthfulness of the Bible depends upon their ability to counter every criticism and answer every question.

I definitely fall into the latter camp, though I won't fall into the trap of thinking that the Bible's reliability relies completely on me. I am not an expert in anything. So I will just state simply what I've read from lots of really smart people, some of them experts, about this little conundrum in Luke 2:1-2.

Luke has already stated, in 1:5, that the birth of Christ happened during the reign of King Herod in Judea. Traditionally, his reign has been dated as 37 BC - 4 BC. His death in 4 BC was tied to a reading of the Jewish historian Josephus who said that Herod died shortly after a lunar eclipse at the time of Passover. For some reason, a German theologian and presumed expert in 1896 decided that it must have been the eclipse in the spring of 4 BC. However, modern scholarship in the area of astronomy has revealed that the 4 BC eclipse was merely a partial lunar eclipse, while there were three other total lunar eclipses--two in 5 BC, and one in 1 BC. For this and other reasons, Herod's death (which could not have taken place as early as 5 BC) should really be dated to 1 BC.

Caesar Augustus was the Emperor of Rome from 44 BC to 14 AD.

Now for the real puzzle. Quirinius was a well known historical figure in the Roman Empire who served as legate of the province of Syria from 6-12 AD, which included Judea after Herod Archelaus was deposed in 6 AD. Quirinius oversaw a census in 6-7 AD that resulted in a revolt led by Judas the Galilean and the formation of the Zealot political movement in Judea. With these facts in hand, those who look for mistakes in the Scriptures cry "AHA! See: The gospels can't possibly be correct, because Quirinius and the census didn't take place while Herod was alive." And they think that this somehow destroys the Bible's credibility.

While the rule of Quirinius, the census, and the Jewish revolt in 6 AD are undisputed facts, I'd like to point out that there is only one (at least according to one expert I read) reference in any surviving records to that event. So what else does history say? There is a good body of evidence that reveals Quirinius public, political career extended over three decades in the region that included Judea. He actually held positions of power over those lands governed from Syria as early as 3 BC if not before. And Luke doesn't actually assign Quirinius the title of "governor" so much as he simply indicates Quirinius did some governing in relation to the census.

And it just so happens that Augustus called for an Oath of Allegiance to be taken by his subjects, which was administered in the region of Syria and Palestine in "about" 3 BC. There is some scholarship that has suggested that this registration of citizens was also intended to identify any potential political rivals in any province of the empire to any governing authority. In Judea, the Hasmonean-Herodian dynasties had usurped both the priesthood from the rightful priests and the throne from any royal or noble Davidic lines. Joseph, of the royal house of David and a native of Bethlehem, and his wife Mary, a descendant of both the royal and priestly families, would certainly have fallen into the category of potential rivals, and therefore it would have been important for them to register and take such an oath of allegiance.

As I said before: I am not an expert on any of this. But those discrepancies some people are so fond of pointing out are not quite as clear cut or definitive as some people would have us believe. When you look at the whole, big picture, the details point more and more to a birthdate for Jesus Christ in the year 3 BC. Which I'm pretty sure is exactly what happened.

He Did As He Was Told

Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep,

did as the angel of the Lord commanded him

and took to him his wife,

and did not know her

till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.

And he called His name JESUS.

Matthew 1:24-25, NKJV

This is one of those instances where I have a certain picture in my head about what happened, and I'd like to share it with you. Then when we all get to heaven, we can compare it what really happened and have a good laugh about it.
There were apparently long-standing marriage traditions among the people of Joseph and Mary 2000 years ago, traditions that were guarded as sacred practice, strictly adhered to. Everyone in the community was in on it. They had been from the very beginning of the relationship. They had watched Joseph watching Mary, and Mary watching Joseph, and the parents watching their children. Now everyone was watching for a completely different reason.

The general order of things went like this: Boy finds girl. Boy talks to his father. Father sends his servant to find out all the details and discover if girl's family is interested in talking. The men in the families meet to negotiate the details such as the bride price and the contract guaranteeing the bride's rights. Boy comes to girl's house with the bride price, the contract, an engagement ring and a bottle of wine. Girl accepts the betrothal by accepting the bride price. Boy places ring on her finger. They drink from the same bottle of wine. Trumpets are blown, announcing the betrothal to the community. And then boy leaves.

As he goes, he makes girl a promise: Let not your heart be troubled. I go away to prepare a place for you. And if I go away, I promise I will come again and receive you to myself, that where I am, there you may be also.

Boy goes back to his father's house and begins to build a bridal suite where he will live with his bride and consummate their marriage. Girl begins preparations for the wedding. She is baptized in an act called sanctification. She assembles the wedding party of ten virgin girls to assist her in her preparations. Boy sends his best friend as a go-between, carrying messages from boy to girl, and from girl to boy.

And under normal circumstances, nine to twelve months after the betrothal is sounded by the first trump, boy's father gives the bridal suite a final inspection, approves it, and tells boy to go get his bride. Several things happen in quick succession: The father blows the trump again--it's called the last trump--to call the community to the wedding feast. The boy takes off running calling the girl's name. And the friend of the bridegroom runs ahead shouting, "The bride groom cometh! The bridegroom cometh!"

But these are far from normal circumstances.

Because the bride is pregnant, the child in her womb not of her betrothed husband's making. The groom is struggling with this dilemma, wondering what to do about her perceived transgression against him. And the community is waiting for the outcome. Then the angel shows up and tells Joseph what to do. And the Bible says Joseph got up and did it. Aroused from sleep, he got up immediately and did as he was told.

Perhaps he woke his parents up. Perhaps his brother too. And he explained to them that he had received his answer from an angel sent by God, as good as a telegram on the end of a flaming sword. Perhaps there was understanding in that household. Perhaps there was a little consternation, a little apprehension. Perhaps there was a little shame involved if his parents didn't fully accept his explanation or understand its meaning. But the Bible says Joseph did as he was told.

I'd like to think old Jacob, Joseph's father, went to the porch with his shofar and began to blow it, the long loud blasts of the trumpet that called the neighborhood to attention.

I'd like to think Joseph's brother Clopas started running down the street toward the house of Joachim and Anna shouting to the rooftops, "The bridegroom cometh! The bridegroom cometh!"

And I'd like to think that Joseph, full of faith and power and confidence and hope and assurance and love, threw his tousled head back, cupped his callused carpenter's hands to his mouth as a megaphone, and cried at the top of his lungs, "MAAAARRRRRRYYYYYY!" And then he took off running.

I'd like to think that little Mary, wrapped tightly in her blanket, face buried in a tear stained pillow, and trembling in fear of the dawn heard the sound. I'd like to think that she heard the trumpet blast, the call of her Joseph's friend, and the cry of his heart as he called her name. I'd like to think she hesitated only a moment before she heard it again and scrambled into action.

I'd like to think her sisters, the other Mary and Salome, were roused from their own slumber and came to help with her dress. I'd like to think the lamp was already burning in the window, and that they took their little lamps and lit them as well. Perhaps the rest of the wedding party, neighbor girls, cousins and friends, came with their lamps to light the way to the bride.

I'd like to think that Mary was standing at the top of the stairs, waiting as Joseph bounded up them, taking two at a time to claim his bride. And one look into his eyes told all there was to tell. He knew, and that was all that mattered. In that moment, Mary would know too, know that she was secure, from all harm safe in his sheltering arms as he lifted her from the rooftop and carried her away to that place he had prepared for her. And there he took her, shutting himself in with her as a husband should do, though he probably slept at the foot of the bed. The child growing in her was Holy, and she herself was Holy, and that which had conceived the child was absolutely Holy.

And content with the answer he had received, Joseph did just as he was told, and he waited for the day when he would hold that Holy Child in his own hands and say, "You're name...is Jesus!" And you shall save us from our sins.

Immanuel

So all this was done that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophet, saying:
"Behold, the virgin shall be with child,
and bear a Son,
and they shall call His name Immanuel,"
which is translated,
"God with us."
Matthew 1:22-23, NKJV

All this was done.

A virgin Jewess conceived a child by the power of the Holy Spirit. Her righteous husband took her to his home, thus preserving both mother and child.

And this was done that a single verse of Scripture, one sentence spoken by Isaiah in 7:14 of his book, would be fulfilled. Isaiah was talking to King Ahaz about the destruction of his enemies, and he said to Ahaz: "Choose a sign for yourself. Ask God to do anything to prove that He's telling you the truth." But Ahaz refused. "I'm not gonna put God to the test." And Isaiah, under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, said, "Fine, then I'll name the sign. The virgin shall conceive and give birth to a son who will be called, Immanuel, for God is with us."

Isaiah may have been speaking about Ahaz's wife conceiving prince Hezekiah. Or he may have been speaking about his own wife--using virgin to signify the young woman. For the prophesied defeat of Ahaz's enemies would happen before the child was old enough to know right from wrong. And yet his prophecy had far more application than that, far reaching application!

God was about to put an end to all of HIS enemies through the birth of the virgin-born Immanuel. God was about to show up in person, in the flesh, and in that flesh defeat sin, sickness, satan, and selfish humanity for all eternity. He was about to become, quite literally, God with us. And what a sign it would be to that generation! Jesus was going to be like no other man ever born or made, the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy, and of the oldest Messianic prophecy in history, a promise made to the first mother of us all: "Your seed shall crush the serpent's head."

The seed of the woman, the virgin's son, this would be God with us.

Remember, God always knows what He's saying, and He always knows what He's doing.

This Might Explain Alot

My great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother—one of 128 women to hold that distinction nine generations ago—was Sarah Clark, the product of an intricate and very interesting series of intermarriages among the Woodward, Gates, and Clark families of colonial Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut.

Sarah Clark was born 04 April 1769 in Shaftsbury, Bennington, Vermont, the seventh of eight children born to Jeremiah Clark and his wife, Susanna Clark. She married Nathan Robinson 28 Jul 1791 in Shaftsbury, and gave birth to five children—Clark, Aurilla, Amos, Jesse and Sarah—before her death at the age of 32, on 21 Nov 1801 in Shaftsbury.

Jeremiah Clark was a major in the American Revolution, commanded troops in the Battle of Bennington, and served his community and state in a variety of public offices, the final one being that of judge.

Jeremiah Clark was the son of James Clark and Thankful Woodward. Susannah Clark was the daughter of Benjamin Clark and Sarah Gates.

James and Benjamin Clark were half-brothers, both sons of Benjamin Clark, whose father Walter and grandfather Jeremiah Clarke served as early colonial governors of Rhode Island. So Jeremiah & Susannah Clark were first-cousins through their fathers.

Thankful Woodward was the daughter of Daniel Woodward Jr. and Thankful Gates. When they married, Daniel was barely seventeen, Thankful was thirteen and a half. Thankful Gates was the daughter of Stephen Gates III and Jemima Benjamin, and her younger sister was Sarah Gates. So Jeremiah and Susannah Clark were first-cousins, once removed through their mothers.

Daniel Woodward Jr. was the son of Daniel Woodward Sr. and Elizabeth Dana. Stephen Gates III was the son of Stephen Gates Jr. and Sarah Woodward. Daniel and Sarah Woodward were the children of George Woodward and Mary Gibson. So Daniel Woodward Jr. and his wife Thankful Gates were first cousins, once removed through their fathers.

And to make it even more interesting, George Woodward was the son of Richard and Rose Woodward. Stephen Gates Jr. was the son of Stephen and Anne Gates. After the deaths of Rose Woodward and Stephen Gates Sr., widower Richard Woodward married widow Anne Gates.

And to be honest, this isn’t even the most convoluted branch of my family tree. The noble Irvins of Scotland and the Huckins-Heath intermarriages in New Hampshire also make interesting charts. Of course, this could also explain some of my interesting relatives.