Challenge: Matthew and Luke contradict each other. Matthew says Judas hung himself (Matt. 27:5), but Luke says that “falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out” (Acts 1:18).
Defense: The accounts preserve different aspects of the event but do not contradict each other.
Both agree Judas died shortly after the Crucifixion. Matthew says Judas hanged himself after returning the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests, while Luke has Peter speaking of the event during the period between the Ascension and Pentecost (between forty and fifty days after the Crucifixion). The fact they agree on the timing, but describe the death differently, shows independent traditions in circulation that affirmed Judas’ death very shortly after the Crucifixion. That indicates Judas did die at this early date.
Judas probably began accompanying Jesus while in his twenties (Jesus himself began his ministry when about thirty; Luke 3:23). This suggests Judas died a sudden and remarkable death (i.e., not an ordinary death due to old age). Matthew’s report of his suicidal hanging accounts for this, leaving us to explain Luke’s reference to him falling and bursting open.
The earliest explanation is found in the second-century historian Papias, who wrote around A.D. 120. His works are lost but partially preserved in other writers. According to the fourth-century writer Apollinarius of Laodicea, Judas survived the hanging by being cut down before he choked to death, but he quotes Papias as saying Judas suffered severe swelling (edema) of the head and body, eventually causing him to burst open (see Monte Shanks, Papias and the New Testament, chapter 4, fragment 6). We now know that edema of the neck and body can be a consequence of strangulation, so Papias’s account may be based in fact.
Others have proposed that Judas remained hanging on a tree branch until his body began to decompose and swell due to the gases decomposition produces. The rope then broke or slipped, causing his body to burst from the force of impact.
Some have noted that the traditional site of Judas’s death features trees along a high ridge where strong winds occur. The winds may have caused the rope to slip, and the height of the ridge may have added to the force of impact, causing the body to burst.
Day 23: Who Bought the Field of Blood?
Challenge: Matthew and Luke contradict each other. Matthew says that the Jewish priests bought the field of blood (Matt. 27:7-8), while Luke says Judas Iscariot did (Acts 1:18-19).
Defense: Matthew and Luke are in fundamental agreement, and there are multiple ways the different attributions can be explained.
Both authors agree that Judas Iscariot’s betrayal led to a field in the area of Jerusalem becoming known as the field of blood. Both also say that this field was paid for with the money that the chief priests had given Judas to betray Jesus. Both are thus agreed about the basic facts. How, then, can we account for the different way the two authors describe the purchase of the field?
One proposal is that the reference in Acts (“Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness”) is meant to be ironic rather than literal. It occurs in a speech that Peter is making, and it has been suggested that Peter merely meant that Judas got his just deserts. The money he originally meant to spend on himself ended up paying for a graveyard.
This is possible, but as we observe elsewhere (see Day 124), the biblical authors sometimes omit the agents who perform an action in order to bring out the significance of the principal figures with respect to whom the action is performed.
Thus, we read that Moses built the tabernacle (2 Chron. 1:3) and Solomon built the temple (1 Kings 6:1-38), though in reality both were built by workmen acting on the leaders’ behalf (Exod. 38:22-23; 1 Kings 7:13-45). Sometimes the agents get mentioned and sometimes they don’t.
It is therefore possible that Matthew chose to mention the role of the priests: They were the agents who actually bought the field. By contrast, Luke wants to bring out the significance of the fact it was Judas’s money, without going into the mechanics of how the transaction was made. He thus omitted reference to the priests and only mentioned Judas.
Or this choice may have been made by someone earlier in the chain of tradition than Luke, who simply reported the tradition as he had it. Either way, it would be in keeping with the known practice of omitting agents to bring out the significance of the principals.
Day 35: How Did the Field of Blood Get Its Name?
Challenge: Matthew and Luke contradict each other. Matthew says that the field of blood got its name because it was bought with blood money (Matt. 27:6-7), but Luke says it was called this because people knew Judas died a gruesome death there (Acts 1:18-19).
Defense: Names can have more than one significance, and the two explanations are compatible.
The fact that Matthew and Luke record different expressions of the tradition regarding Judas’s fate indicate that both were in circulation.
Some people—aware of Matthew’s tradition—knew the priests bought the field and called it “field of blood” because it was bought with blood money. Others—aware of Luke’s tradition—knew about Judas’s bloody fate and called it “field of blood” for that reason. Some Jerusalemites may have been aware of both versions—like modern readers are—and called it “field of blood” for both reasons.
There are parallels to this elsewhere in the Bible. The biblical authors and their audiences often saw a single name as having more than one significance.
For example, the name of the city Be’er-sheva can mean “Well of the Seven” or “Well of the Oath,” and the author of Genesis preserves more than one tradition regarding its significance. He notes that at this location Abraham dug a well, gave Abimelech seven lambs, and swore an oath with Abimelech (Gen. 21:30-32). He also notes that Isaac later dug a well and swore an oath with Abimelech there (Gen. 26:31-33). Ancient readers of Genesis were thus aware of both traditions and saw them as complementary explanations for the name of Be’er-sheva: It was called that for both reasons.
Similarly, the field of blood was so called both because it was bought with blood money and because of Judas’s death. (Note that Luke says Judas bought a field, that he died a bloody death, and that people thus called the place “field of blood,” but he doesn’t say Judas died there. He may or may not have.)
One explanation would have originated first, but both were in circulation in the first century, and both contributed to why people called the field what they did.
Opponents/rejecters of the early widespread acceptance of infant Baptist in the early church often (mis)cite late second-third century Christian apologist Tertullian in their favor. In this short post, we will quote the relevant section of Tertullian’s writing on this issue to show that he is being misrepresented and misused. All bold emphasis is ours.
Chapter 18. Of the Persons to Whom, and the Time When, Baptism is to Be Administered
Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
But they whose office it is, know that baptism is not rashly to be administered. Give to every one who begs you, has a reference of its own, appertaining especially to almsgiving. On the contrary, this precept is rather to be looked at carefully: Give not the holy thing to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine;Matthew 7:6 and, Lay not hands easily on any; share not other men’s sins. If Philip so easilybaptized the chamberlain, let us reflect that a manifest and conspicuous evidence that the Lord deemed him worthy had been interposed. Acts 8:26-40 The Spirit had enjoined Philip to proceed to that road: the eunuch himself, too, was not found idle, nor as one who was suddenly seized with an eager desire to be baptized; but, after going up to the temple for prayer’s sake, being intently engaged on the divine Scripture, was thus suitably discovered — to whom God had, unasked, sent an apostle, which one, again, the Spirit bade adjoin himself to the chamberlain’s chariot. The Scripture which he was reading falls in opportunely with his faith: Philip, being requested, is taken to sit beside him; the Lord is pointed out; faith lingers not; water needs no waiting for; the work is completed, and the apostle snatched away. But Paul too was, in fact, ‘speedily’ baptized: for Simon, his host, speedily recognized him to be an appointed vessel of election. God’s approbation sends sure premonitory tokens before it; every petition may both deceive and be deceived. And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary — if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given to him that asks. For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred — in whom the ground oftemptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom — until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation. (On Baptism)
NOTE: Tertullian does NOT deny the REALITY of infant baptism. He says it is PREFERABLE to DELAY this. But, his position was undeniably ODD. He also believes that EVERYONE SHOULD delay baptism!
“…even age, OF EACH INDIVIDUAL, the delay of baptism is PREFERABLE, principally, however in the case of little children.”
NOTE: Since Tertullian was so afraid that one would die in mortal sin, he therefore recommended most delay baptism, NOT just infants. The very same Tertullian says:
“For no less cause should the unmarried also be deferred [from baptism], in whom there is an aptness to temptation, …until either they are married or are better strengthened for continence. Anyone who understands the seriousness of Baptism will fear its reception more than its deferral.”
Tertullian reasoned since children were still viewed as innocent, and not accountable for sin, it is therefore better to wait till they reach maturity (e.g., accountability) so that they could have their sins washed by the regeneration caused by the Holy Spirit through water baptism.
Therefore, though Tertullian’s position is unique among the early Christians his statements are NOT a denial or prohibition of infant baptism occurring during that period.
The Gospel of Luke describes the timing of Jesus’ birth as follows (Luke 2:1-6):
1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled.
2 This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria.
3 And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city.
4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5 to be enrolled with Mary his betrothed, who was with child.
6 And while they were there, the time came for her to be delivered (RSV).
Skeptics have claimed that this passage reveals historical error on Luke’s part. It has been claimed:
Augustus never instituted a worldwide census.
Quirinius conducted his census in A.D. 6, but Jesus was born around 7-6 B.C., meaning Luke is off by a decade.
People were not required to go to their ancestral cities in Roman censuses—much less the city where an ancestor like David had lived a thousand years earlier.
Each of these claims has straightforward answers. In fact, there are multiple answers.
The problem is not knowing how to respond, because we have an embarrassment of riches here in the form of numerous responses. The actual challenge is figuring out which of the many possible answers are the most likely.
Here we will look at only some of the responses that have been proposed. There are numerous others.
Did Augustus ever decree a worldwide enrollment?
How should we understand Luke’s statement that “a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled”?
“All the world” means the Roman world—i.e., the Roman empire.
And many take Luke’s statement to mean that there was a single legal document issued by Augustus that commanded a worldwide enrollment, and this is possible.
As we will see below, there is evidence of a worldwide enrollment occurring in 3/2 B.C.; it just wasn’t a tax census.
On the other hand, the term that the RSV translates “decree” (Greek, dogma) can also mean things like “decision” or “command” (cf. BDAG, s.v. dogma).
Understood in this way, Luke would not be referring to a single legal document but just to a decision or command issued by Augustus. In other words, Augustus decided the whole empire needed to be taxed, and so it needed to be enrolled for those purposes.
This would tell us nothing about how the decision was implemented, just that the decision was made.
And this corresponds to the historical facts as they are known to us. Historian Paul L. Maier writes:
The three celebrated censuses conducted by Augustus in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14—Achievement No. 8 in his Res Gestae—are apparently enrollments of Roman citizens only, although they may have involved censuses in the provinces also, since some Roman citizens certainly lived outside Italy.
Luke rather intends here a provincial census of noncitizens for purposes of taxation, and many records of such provincial registrations under Augustus have survived, including Gaul, Sicily, Cilicia, Cyrene, and Egypt. Among these were client kingdoms such as that of Herod the Great; for example, Archelaus (unrelated to Herod), client king of Cappadocia, instructed a subject tribe “to render in Roman fashion an account of their revenue and submit to tribute.”
Provincial enrollments are also well attested in Dio Cassius (53:22) and Livy (Epistles 134ff.; Annals 1:31, 2:6). There is also an epigraphic mention of a census by Quirinius at Apamea in Syria (an autonomous “client” city-state).
In view of such provincial enrollments, Mason Hammond concludes that Augustus began “a general census of the whole Empire for purposes of taxation” in 27 B.C.
It thus may be a mistake to suppose that Luke is referring to a single legal document issued by Augustus rather than a general policy established by Augustus to enroll the empire.
The latter better corresponds with the facts as they are known.
How Long Did Enrollments Take?
The Roman empire was a big place, and the Romans did not have rapid transportation or communication by today’s standards. As a result, censuses took time.
They often were performed in stages, the first stage being known as the descriptio prima (Lat., “first enrollment/registration”), which involved getting a list of everybody that needed to be taxed and their resources.
The taxation itself would come at a later stage, which added time to the process.
Subjects of the Roman empire also didn’t like being taxed—especially since so many of them were living in conditions of poverty—and Roman censuses often met with resistance, including violent uprisings.
Putting down these uprisings or otherwise getting stubborn locals to comply with the census process further added time to the procedure.
This could result in a census taking much longer than you might expect. Today, the United States conducts a population census once every ten years, with the survey period occupying a year.
However, we know of one case in this period when a Roman census in Gaul (France) took 40 years to complete! (I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke at 2:3).
Consequently, if the enrollment of Jesus’ birth was a tax census, Luke could be referring to an early phase of it—such as the descriptio prima—occurring at the time of his birth, but the census itself may have stretched into the first decade A.D., leading it to become associated with the later administration of Quirinius.
What year was Jesus born/What year did the enrollment occur?
Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. A common view is that Herod died in 4 B.C., and since Matthew indicates that Jesus was born up to two years before this (Matt. 2:16), it has been common to date Jesus’ birth in 7 or 6 B.C.
Despite its popularity, this view is inaccurate. As recent scholarship has indicated, Herod the Great actually died in 1 B.C. (see Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology [2nd ed.], Andrew E. Steinmann, From Abraham to Paul).
We thus should look for the enrollment occurring in 3/2 B.C.
What was the nature of the enrollment?
Many people assume that the enrollment was a census. Historically, censuses have been used for a variety of purposes.
Today in America, they are used for determining things like the apportionment of government representatives and funding. However, in history they were used for other purposes, like assessing the size of an army one could muster or raising tax revenues.
Many interpreters have assumed that the census Luke is referring to was a tax census, and this is possible.
However, it is not the only alternative, since he does not say that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole world be taxed. Instead, he says that the whole world should be “enrolled” and that an “enrollment” occurred.
The Greek word Luke uses for the act of enrollment—apographô—does not mean specifically “to take a census.” It is more general than that and means “to enroll,” “to transcribe,” “to inventory,” “to list,” “to register.”
So, any kind of empire-wide registration in 3/2 B.C. might be in view.
And it so happens that we know of one.
An Enrollment of Loyal Subjects?
There is an inscription composed by Augustus known as the Res Gestae Divi Augusti (Latin, “Acts of the Divine Augustus”), in which he states:
In my thirteenth consulship the senate, the equestrian order and the whole people of Rome gave me the title of Father of my Country (Res Gestae 35).
Augustus’s thirteenth consulship was in 2 B.C., and as the people of Rome were scattered over the empire, declaring him Father of the Country involved an empire-wide enrollment.
The historian Orosius states:
[Augustus] ordered that a census be taken of each province everywhere and that all men be enrolled.
So at that time, Christ was born and was entered on the Roman census list as soon as he was born.
This is the earliest and most famous public acknowledgment which marked Caesar as the first of all men and the Romans as lords of the world, a published list of all men entered individually. . . .
From the foundation of the world and from the beginning of the human race, an honor of this nature had absolutely never been granted in this manner, not even to Babylon or to Macedonia, not to mention any lesser kingdom (Seven Books of History Against the Pagans 6:22).
Josephus appears to refer to this enrollment, stating that a group of more than six thousand Pharisees refused to swear the loyalty oath to Augustus:
When all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good will to Caesar, and to the king’s government, these very men did not swear, being above six thousand; and when the king [Herod the Great] imposed a fine upon them, Pheroras’s wife paid their fine for them (Antiquities 17:2:4[42]).
For this to work, records would have had to have been kept for who did and did not swear goodwill toward Augustus, meaning an enrollment was made of those who did swear.
Since the proclamation of Augustus as Father of the Country by “the whole people of Rome” occurred in 2 B.C.—coinciding with Jesus’ birth—it is possible that the attestation of loyalty to him was the enrollment to which Luke refers.
What is the relation of the enrollment to Quirinius?
Luke 2:2 contains a clarifying comment to help the ancient reader identify which enrollment Luke is referring to. The RSV renders the verse this way:
This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria
This statement contains two parts, the first of which says it was the “first” enrollment and the second relates it to the Roman official Publius Sulpicius Quirinius.
“First” or “Before”?
The RSV translates the initial part of the clarification as “This was the first enrollment.”
If that is the correct understanding, Luke may be indicating that the enrollment taking place when Jesus was born took place earlier than some later enrollment.
Such a later enrollment would presumably be more famous, and so Luke may be specifying that this was the first one to keep his readers from confusing it with the later, better-known one.
However, there is another option. Some commentators have pointed out that the word that the RSV translates “first” (Greek, prôtê) also could be rendered “before.”
In this case, the passage would be rendered “This was the enrollment before Quirinius was governing Syria.”
Consequently, Luke would again be contrasting the enrollment of Jesus’ birth with a later, better known one.
On the other hand, it also has been suggested that Luke’s phrase apographê prôtê (“first enrollment”) may be a translation of the Latin phrase descriptio prima, which was a technical term for an initial registration of people prior to taxation.
In that case, Luke would be clarifying that it was a preliminary listing of the population to get them on the books for later taxation.
Was Quirinius Governor of Syria at This Time?
The RSV translates the second part of Luke’s clarification as “when Quirinius was governor of Syria.”
However—as commentators have widely noted—this is not a literal translation of the Greek.
The Greek noun hêgemôn can be used as a technical term for a Roman prefect. It also can be used in a more general sense to mean “ruler” or “governor,” without indicating a specific rank.
However, Luke does not use a noun in this verse. Instead, he uses the participle hêgemoneuontos, which would be translated “ruling” or “governing.”
As a result, commentators have pointed out that a more literal translation of Luke’s statement would be “Quirinius being in charge of Syria” (J. A. Fitzmyer, Anchor Bible, The Gospel According to Luke (1-9) at 2:2).
This means that the text does not tell us that Quirinius was specifically the prefect of the Roman province of Syria but just that he had some important governmental function there at the time of the enrollment.
When Was Quirinius Governor of Syria?
Like many Roman officials, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius had a long and varied career, in which he held many different positions.
And, unfortunately, we do not have a complete account of what he was doing in each year of it. I. Howard Marshall provides a summary of what historians generally believe to be the case:
After holding a military command against the Marmaridae (in N. Africa?), Publius Sulpicius Quirinius became consul in 12 BC. At some point during the next 12 years he subjugated the Homonadenses, a race of brigands on the south border of Galatia. He acted as guide and supervisor of the young prince Gaius Caesar in Armenia, AD 3–4, and he was legate of Syria, AD 6–9; he died in AD 21 (The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text at 2:2).
As you can see from this, we don’t know a great deal about what Quirinius was doing in the first decade B.C., when Jesus was born. We know that he subjugated a group of brigands at some point, but that’s it.
It also is generally thought that he was legate (governor) of Syria in A.D. 6, but Roman officials could hold posts more than once, and historian Jack Finegan gives the following as “the usually accepted sequence of governors of Syria” (Handbook of Biblical Chronology [2nd ed], §519):
10-9 B.C.
M. Titius
9-6
C. Sentius Saturninus
6-4
P. Quintilius Varus
3-2 (?)
P. Sulpicius Quirinius
1 B.C.-A.D. 4
C. Caesar
A.D. 4-5
L. Volusius Saturninus
6-7
P. Sulpicius Quirinius
This table is based on the work of historian Emil Shurer, and it includes an initial period in which Shurer concluded that Quirinius likely served as governor of Syria in 3-2 B.C.—the time when we know on other grounds that Jesus was born.
In his History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Shurer writes:
During the period B.C. 3-2 there is no direct evidence about any governor of Syria. But it may be concluded with a fair amount of probability from a passage in Tacitus, that about this time P. Sulpicius Quirinius, consul in B.C. 12, was appointed governor of Syria. . . .
Quirinius led the war against the Homonadensians as one who had been consul. Now, one who had been a consul was never sent to a praetorian province, which was administered by one who had been a praetor. The only conclusion then that remains is that Quirinius at the time of the war with the Homonadensians was governor of Syria.
But since this governorship belongs to the period before the year A.D. 3, that is, to the period before he had been appointed counsellor to C. Caesar in Armenia, it cannot be identical with the one of A.D. 6, referred to by Josephus. The only date, therefore, that we can assign it to is the interval between Varus and C. Caesar, that is, B.C. 3-2 (1:1, p. 351-353).
We thus have reason to think that Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, and the first occasion coincides with the correct time frame of Jesus’ birth.
Was There a Census in A.D. 6?
The common claim that Quirinius performed a census in Roman-occupied Palestine in A.D. 6 is based on statements by the Jewish historian Josephus.
However, there is a problem with the data in Josephus. As historian Andrew E. Steinmann notes in his book From Abraham to Paul:
There is another approach that is more likely—that Josephus misdated Quirinius and the census. This argument was made a century ago by Zahn, Spitta, Weber, and Lodder and has most recently been revived by Rhoads. . . .
In close proximity with Quirinius’ presence in Judea, Josephus also noted a rebellion led by a man named Judas. In fact, in Antiquities Josephus recounts three rebellions led by an insurgent or insurgents named Judas.
The details of these three rebellions overlap in ways that suggest Josephus is actually giving three different accounts of the same event.
However, they occur at different points in Josephus’s narrative, suggesting either (1) that Josephus was bringing together multiple sources that dated the rebellion differently, or (2) that Josephus misunderstood what his sources were saying, or (3) that Josephus changed his mind about when the event should be dated and later re-inserted it into his narrative. Based on this, Steinmann concludes:
In summary, it is likely that Josephus misplaced the arrival of Quirinius in Judea and, therefore, misdated the census. The initiation of the census in Judea should be dated to the spring or summer of 3 BC. That census prompted Judas’ rebellion. Once again the date of Jesus’ birth must have been sometime in late 3 BC or early 2 BC.
The entire basis of the objection to Luke 2’s accuracy thus may result from a confusion on the part of Josephus.
Did enrollments require people to go somewhere special?
Luke 2:3 says that, in response to Augustus’s mandate, “all went to be enrolled, each to his own city.”
Some have questioned whether this would really have happened. Did people need to go someplace special to be enrolled?
The answer is not difficult to see: If you were already in your “own city,” you didn’t need to go anywhere. You were already there.
Luke is referring to the situation of people who—for one reason or another (travelers, merchants, migrant laborers, people with more than one home)—were away from their place of legal residence.
This is not unexpected, as many processes historically have required people to be in their place of residence. Until very recently, people in America were required to be in their place of legal residence in order to vote, and people still need to file their state and property taxes where they live.
With modern mail and the internet, we have more flexibility, but those didn’t exist in history, and people needed to be in a stable place—such as their place of legal residence—in order to participate in various enrollments.
Thus, in A.D. 104, the Roman governor of Egypt, Gaius Vibius Maximus, issued a decree in which he stated:
Since registration by household is imminent, it is necessary to notify all who for any reason are absent from their districts to return to their own homes that they may carry out the ordinary business of registration and continue faithfully the farming expected of them (lines 20–27; in Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 268).
Returning to one’s place of residence was especially significant if one owned property there, because the property one owned needed to be assessed for purposes of taxation.
Why did Joseph go to Bethlehem?
Luke 2:4 states that “Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David.”
This tells us that Joseph was staying in Nazareth but traveled to Bethlehem for the enrollment, and thus that Bethlehem has a claim as his primary residence for purposes of the enrollment.
Luke then adds the comment that this was “because he was of the house and lineage of David.”
If the enrollment was for purposes of taking a loyalty oath to Caesar, Josephus may have been specially required to go to Bethlehem because of his Davidic descent.
It was well known that Jews regarded the descendants of David as the stock from which legitimate Jewish kings must come—and that from them would come the hoped-for Messiah.
It could make sense for the authorities to demand that, as part of the enrollment, all the descendants of David come to Bethlehem—David’s own city—and there swear loyalty to Caesar.
This would be a dramatic act to head off future rebellions, both because the descendants themselves had sworn allegiance to Caesar and because the fact that they had done so (in Bethlehem itself!) would deter others from following them in a rebellion, as they could be viewed as Roman collaborators who had sullied the memory of David.
On the other hand, Joseph likely regarded Bethlehem as his legal residence anyway, for other reasons.
Keeping land within tribes and families was especially important in Israel. In fact, land was not supposed to be sold to outsiders. Instead, it could be effectively leased, but the legal title reverted to the family every fiftieth year in the Jubilee celebration (see Lev. 25).
It is not at all unlikely that Joseph had property in Bethlehem as a result of such arrangements. He may have even grown up in Bethlehem before moving away for work.
And so, although he was a carpenter in Nazareth for his income, his natural pride in his Davidic ancestry—and his being part- or full-owner of property in the clan’s ancestral home in Bethlehem—may have naturally led him to think of the latter as his proper legal residence, with Nazareth being a residence of economic convenience.
This could be the case whether the enrollment was for purposes of a loyalty oath or whether it was a tax registration.
If it was the latter, the fact Joseph owned property in Bethlehem would make his presence there necessary for purposes of assessment. (He also may have been assessed in Nazareth if he owned property there as well.)
And we have independent evidence of Joseph owning property in Bethlehem, for Matthew records that, as much as two years later, Joseph and Mary were living in a house in Bethlehem when the magi arrived (cf. Matt. 2:16).
Conclusions
We have surveyed only some of the responses that scholars have proposed to the challenges made regarding Luke 2:1-6.
Factors we have seen include:
While Augustus did not (so far as we know) issue a single legal document mandating a tax census of the empire, Luke does not say that he did; all the text requires is that Augustus made a decision to tax the empire, and he definitely did that.
The enrollment that Luke speaks of may not have involved a tax census but a loyalty oath, and we have evidence pointing to such an oath being administered empire-wide in 3/2 B.C., the year of Jesus’ birth.
Luke in some way relates the enrollment to Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, but Luke’s language is ambiguous: (1) he may say this was the “first” enrollment, before the more famous one later performed by Quirinius, (2) he may say that this enrollment occurred “before” the later, famous one by Quirinius, and (3) he may have indicated this was the “first registration” (Lat., descriptio prima) that preceded the actual taxation later carried out by Quirinius.
Luke does not say that Quirinius was the governor of Syria but that he had some kind of leadership role there, and Quirinius’s career is only partially known from our surviving sources.
There is evidence that Quirinius governed Syria twice—in 3-2 B.C. and again in A.D. 6-7.
And the timing of Quirinius’s census is uncertain because Josephus either changed his mind about when it was to be dated or because he was combining different sources, resulting in him referring to the events at three different places in his narrative.
Roman subjects who were away from their place of legal residence could be required to return there for registrations, as in the Egyptian census of A.D. 104.
And Joseph returned to Bethlehem because he regarded it as his primary legal residence in view of his Davidic heritage and the fact he owned property there. He may have even been specially required to go there, because of his Davidic descent, in order to swear loyalty to Caesar.
Which of these options (and there are others we haven’t mentioned) are the exact ones Luke has in mind is difficult for us to determine, given the state of our surviving historical sources.
However, Luke is referring to events that were publicly known in the first century. That’s his point. He’s helping his first century readers understand the timing of Jesus’ birth based on public events they would have known about. They lived in the first century, and this was still recent history for them. They also had access to numerous sources now lost.
Given the state of our sources today, it’s hard for us to know which precise things Luke is referring to, but he and his audience would have known which ones were under discussion—even if the particulars are hard for us to ascertain two thousand years later.
As Darrell Bock concludes:
In light of this and the various possibilities, it is clear that the relegation of Luke 2:2 to the categor
Further evidence that Christ has always possessed the divine name seeing that has always been God as to his very nature comes from Thomas’ climactic confession after beholding the risen Lord in his glorified, immortal physical fleshly body:
“But Thomas, one of the Twelve, who was called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples were telling him: ‘We have seen the Lord (ton Kyrion)!’ But he said to them: ‘Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will never believe it.’ Well, eight days later his disciples were again indoors, and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and he stood in their midst and said: ‘May you have peace.’ Next he said to Thomas: ‘Put your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and stick it into my side, and stop doubting but believe. In answer Thomas saidTO HIM (eipen auto): ‘My Lord and my God!’ Jesus said to him: ‘Because you have seen me, have you believed? Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe.’ To be sure, Jesus also performed many other signs before the disciples, which are not written down in this scroll. But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and because of believing, you may have life by means of his name.” John 20:24-31
Earlier, Jesus had acknowledged that he truly was/is the Lord and Teacher whom the disciples were to look to:
“You address me as ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord (ho Kyrios),’ and you are correct, for I am such. Therefore, if I, the Lord (ho Kyrios) and Teacher, washed your feet, you also should wash the feet of one another.” John 13:13-14
He now accepts his disciple’s confession of being both the Lord and God of all true believers!
For Thomas to acknowledge Jesus as his very own Lord and God would be a blasphemous assertion if Christ were nothing more than a mere creature who acted as God’s authorized agent. This is because the Hebrew Bible is emphatically clear that the only God that an Israelite can ever confess and worship is Jehovah:
“Then God spoke all these words: ‘I am Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.You must not have any other gods besides me. You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth. You must not bow down to them nor be enticed to serve them, for I, Jehovah your God, am a God who requires exclusive devotion, bringing punishment for the error of fathers upon sons, upon the third generation and upon the fourth generation of those who hate me,but showing loyal love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.’” Exodus 20:1-6
“You must not bow down to another god, for Jehovah is known for requiring exclusive devotion. Yes, he is a God who requires exclusive devotion.” Exodus 34:14
“When Jehovah made a covenant with them, he commanded them: ‘You must not fear other gods, and you must not bow down to them or serve them or sacrifice to them. But Jehovah, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt with great power and an outstretched arm, is the One you should fear, and to him you should bow down, and to him you should sacrifice. And the regulations, the judgments, the Law, and the commandment that he wrote for you, you should always follow carefully, and you must not fear other gods. And you must not forget the covenant that I made with you, and you must not fear other gods. But it is Jehovah your God whom you should fear, as he is the one who will rescue you out of the hand of all your enemies.’” 2 Kings 17:35-39
“You saw it, Jehovah; do not be deaf! Lord (adonay), do not stand aloof from me! Rouse and wake in defense of my cause, my God and Lord (elohay wadonay), in my behalf; Do me justice in accordance with your fairness, my God (elohay) Jehovah, let them not have their joy over me!” Psalm 35:22-24 BYINGTON
Contrast the Greek rendering of v. 23,
“Awake, O Lord, and attend to my judgment, [even] to my cause, my God and my Lord (ho Theos mou kai ho Kyrios mou).” Psalm 34:23 LXX
With that of John 20:28
“In answer Thomas said to him: ‘My Lord and my God (ho Kyrios mou kai ho Theos mou)!’”
In fact, Jesus is not only described as the God of believers, along with his God and Father,
“Jesus said to her: ‘Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.”’” John 20:17
The risen Christ is also said to be the object of reverence who is worshiped by every created being in existence!
“Be in subjection to one another in fear of Christ.” Ephesians 5:21
“so that in the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground—and EVERY TONGUE should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2:10-11
“When he took the scroll, the four living creatures and the 24 elders fell down before the Lamb, and each one had a harp and golden bowls that were full of incense. (The incense means the prayers of the holy ones.) And they sing a new song, saying: ‘You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, for you were slaughtered and with your blood you bought people for God out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth.’ And I saw, and I heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, and they were saying with a loud voice: ‘The Lamb who was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.’ And I heard EVERY CEREATURE in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and ALL THE THINGS IN THEM, saying: ‘To the One sitting on the throne AND TO THE LAMB be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.’The four living creatures were saying: ‘Amen!’ and the elders fell down and worshipped.” Revelation 5:8-14
That Christ is distinguished from every created being shows he is not a creature by nature. Rather, like the Father he is uncreated, beginningless, which is why the whole creation worships him to the same extent and for the same duration that God the Father is worshiped. I.e., the Son is co-equal with the Father in essence, glory, power, and honor.
The following Evangelical scholars help us understand just how truly significant this confession is seeing that it comes from the lips of a monotheistic Jew:
“On occasion Thomas’s statement has been interpreted as an exclamation that expresses his praise to God for the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus: ‘Praise be to my Lord and my God!’ Fatal to this interpretation is the phrase said to him (i.e. Jesus) (eipen auto), which is clearly parallel to the surrounding verses: ‘He [Jesus] said to Thomas’ (v. 27) and ‘Jesus said to him [Thomas]’ (v. 29). What we have in verse 28 is not an ejaculation made in the hearing of Jesus but an exclamation actually addressed to him. In effect Thomas is saying, ‘You are my Lord and my God.’ He recognized that Jesus, now alive from the dead, was supreme over all physical and spiritual life (‘Lord’) and one who shared the divine nature (‘God’).
“Was Thomas’s cry an extravagant acclamation, spoken in a moment of ecstasy when his exuberance outstripped his theological sense? Not at all. John records no rebuke of Jesus to Thomas for his worship. Jesus’ silence is tantamount to consent, for Jews regarded the human acceptance of worship as blasphemous. Indeed, Jesus’ subsequent word to Thomas, ‘you have believed’ (v. 29 a), implies that he accepted Thomas’s confession of faith, which he then indirectly commends to others (v. 29b). Moreover, John himself has endorsed Thomas’s confession, for it stands as his last and highest affirmation about Christ immediately before his statement of purpose in writing the Gospel (vv. 30-31).” (Murray J. Harris, 3 Crucial Questions about Jesus [Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI 1994], pp. 94-95; bold emphasis mine)
And:
“There is essentially no controversy among biblical scholars that in John 20:28 Thomas is referring to and addressing Jesus when he says, ‘My Lord and my God!’ As Harris says in his lengthy study on Jesus as God in the New Testament, ‘This view prevails among grammarians, lexicographers, commentators and English versions.’ Indeed, it is difficult to find any contemporary exegetical commentary or academic study that argues that Thomas’s words in John 20:28 apply in context to the Father rather than to Jesus. The reason is simple: John prefaces what Thomas said with the words, ‘Thomas answered and said to him’ (v. 28a NASB). This seemingly redundant wording reflects a Hebrew idiomatic way of introducing someone’s response to the previous speaker. John uses it especially frequently, always with the speaker’s words directed to the person or persons who have just spoken previously in the narrative (John 1:48, 50; 2:18-19; 3:3, 9-10, 27; 4:10, 13, 17; 5:11; 6:26, 29, 43; 7:16, 21, 52; 8:14, 39, 48; 9:11, 20, 30, 34, 36; 12:30; 13:7; 14:23; 18:30; 20:28). It is therefore certain that Thomas was directing his words to Jesus, not to the Father. No one, of course, would ever have questioned this obvious conclusion if Thomas had said simply ‘My Lord!’ It is the addition of the words ‘and my God’ that have sparked some creative but untenable interpretations of the text.
“Thomas’s words echo statements addressed in the Psalms to the Lord (Jehovah), especially: ‘Wake up!’ Bestir yourself for my defense, for my cause, my God and my Lord [ho theos mou kai ho kurios mou]!’ (Ps. 35:23). These words parallel those in John 20:28 exactly except for reversing ‘God’ and ‘Lord’. More broadly, in biblical language ‘my God’ (on the lips of a faithful believer) can refer only to the Lord God of Israel. The language is as definite as it could be and identifies Jesus Christ as God himself.
“In identifying Jesus as God, Thomas, of course, was not identifying him as the Father. Earlier in the same passage, Jesus had referred to the Father as his God. It is interesting to compare Jesus’ wording with the wording of Thomas. Jesus told Mary Magdalene, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and to your God’ (theon mou kai theon humon, John 20:17). As in John 1:1 and John 1:18, the Father is called ‘God’ in close proximity to a statement affirming that Jesus is also ‘God.’ Here again, as in John 1:18, we do not see the apostle John distinguishing between the Father as ‘the God’ (ho theos) and Jesus the Son as only ‘God’ (theos without the article). In fact, whereas Jesus calls the Father ‘my God’ without the article (theon mou, 20:17), Thomas calls Jesus ‘my God’ with the article (ho theos mou, 20:28)!One could not ask for any clearer evidence that the use or nonuse of the article is irrelevant to the meaning of the word theos. What matters is how the word is used in context. In John 20:28, the apostle reports the most skeptical of disciples making the most exalted of confessions about Jesus, John expects his readers to view Thomas’s confession as a model to follow. Recognizing Jesus as the One who has conquered death itself for us, we too are to respond to Jesus and confess that he is our Lord and God.” (Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ, Chapter 12. Immanuel: God with Us, pp. 142-143; bold emphasis mine)
What makes this rather amusing is that the Watchtower Society itself admits that that when an Israelite says “my God” s/he can only be referring to Jehovah his God:
“In its articles on JEHOVAH, the Imperial Bible Dictionary (Vol. I, p. 856) nicely illustrates the difference between Elohim (God) and Jehovah. Of the name Jehovah, it says: ‘It is everywhere a proper name, denoting the personal God and him only; whereas Elohim partakes more of the character of a common noun, denoting usually, indeed, but not necessarily nor uniformly, the Supreme…. The Hebrew may say theElohim, the true God, in opposition to all false gods; but he never says the Jehovah, for Jehovah is the name for the true God only. He says again and again my God…; but never my Jehovah, for when he says my God, He means Jehovah. He speaks of the God of Israel, but never of Jehovah of Israel, for there is no other Jehovah. He speaks of the living God, but never of the living Jehovah, for he cannot conceive of Jehovah as other than living.’” (Aid to Bible Understanding [Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1971], Jehovah. “God” and “Father” not distinctive, p. 885; bold emphasis mine)
Thus, for a monotheistic Israelite like Thomas to confess Jesus as his Lord God must mean that Jesus is Jehovah Almighty in the flesh. And since the Son is Jehovah by his very nature this means he has always possessed the name that is above every name in existence:
“Let them praise the name of Jehovah, For his name alone is unreachably high. His majesty is above earth and heaven.” Psalm 148:13
Christ is also prophetically called the Mighty God who condescended to become a human child:
“However, the gloom will not be as when the land had distress, as in former times when the land of Zebʹu·lun and the land of Naphʹta·li were treated with contempt. But at a later time He will cause it to be honored—the way by the sea, in the region of the Jordan, Galʹi·lee of the nations. The people who were walking in the darkness Have seen a great light. As for those dwelling in the land of deep shadow, Light has shone on them… For a child has been born to us, A son has been given to us; And the rulership will rest on his shoulder. His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. To the increase of his rulership And to peace, there will be no end, On the throne of David and on his kingdom In order to establish it firmly and to sustain it Through justice and righteousness, From now on and forever. The zeal of Jehovah of armies will do this.” Isaiah 9:1-2, 6-7
“Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galʹi·lee. Further, after leaving Nazʹa·reth, he came and took up residence in Ca·perʹna·um beside the sea in the districts of Zebʹu·lun and Naphʹta·li, so as to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, who said: ‘O land of Zebʹu·lun and land of Naphʹta·li, along the road of the sea, on the other side of the Jordan, Galʹi·lee of the nations! The people sitting in darkness saw a great light, and as for those sitting in a region of deathly shadow, light rose on them.’” Matthew 4:12-16
And since the Hebrew Bible testifies to there being only one Mighty God, namely, Jehovah,
“In that day those remaining of Israel And the survivors of the house of Jacob Will no longer support themselves on the one who struck them; But they will support themselves on Jehovah, The Holy One of Israel, with faithfulness. Only a remnant will return, The remnant of Jacob, to the Mighty God.” Isaiah 10:20-21
This again affirms that the Son is as to his very nature Jehovah God Almighty.
Once again, since the Son has always been Jehovah he must have, therefore, always had the name. There’s simply no way around this revealed fact.
With the foregoing in perspective, we can now focus on the meaning of the texts in question:
“and all my things are yours and yours are mine, and I have been glorified among them.I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one. When I was with them, I used to watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me; and I have protected them, and not one of them is destroyed except the son of destruction, so that the scripture might be fulfilled.” John 17:10-12
As we have seen, our Lord wasn’t denying that he had always possessed the name. Rather, the point he was making was that that he had been authorized by the Father to make known to his disciples the very character and nature of God. This is brought out by the following texts:
“I have made your name manifest to the men whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word… I have made your name known to them and will make it known, so that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.” John 17:6, 26
Christ was essentially saying that the Father would keep believers securely in union with himself due to his nature of being a God who is reliable and faithful to perfectly fulfill all of his promises to those who place their trust in him.
And since the disciples had come to know God’s nature more fully due to the revelation of the Son, they could now rest assured that God would preserve them from ever perishing since nothing in creation could ever severe them from God’s loving and sovereign protection over their lives:
“‘All those whom the Father gives me will come to me, and I will never drive away the one who comes to me; for I have come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me. This is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose none out of all those whom he has given me, but that I should resurrect them on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who recognizes the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day.’ Then the Jews began to murmur about him because he had said: ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven.’ And they began saying: ‘Is this not Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, “I have come down from heaven”?’ In response Jesus said to them: ‘Stop murmuring among yourselves. No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him, and I will resurrect him on the last day.’” John 6:37-44
“My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them everlasting life, and they will by no means ever be destroyed, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. What my Father has given me is something greater than all other things, and no one can snatch them out of the hand of the Father. I and the Father are one.” John 10:27-30
“Who will separate us from the love of the Christ? Will tribulation or distress or persecution or hunger or nakedness or danger or sword? Just as it is written: ‘For your sake we are being put to death all day long; we have been accounted as sheep for slaughtering.’ On the contrary, in all these things we are coming off completely victorious through the one who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life nor angels nor governments nor things now here nor things to come nor powers nor height nor depth nor any other creation will be able to separate us from God’s love that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 8:35-39
Answering Islam Blog 