25 Christmas Myths and What the Bible Says (Myths 3 & 4)

The Gospel of Luke Is Reliable About the Census

But many of the Bible stories and verses we think we know, we don't. When we understand the text is an online Bible ministry committed to teaching sound doctrine and exposing the faulty. From now through Christmas, Pastor Gabriel Hughes will be introducing chapters from his latest book, 25 Christmas Myths and What the Bible Says.

Coming this month through our website www .tet .com in print, e-book and audio formats. With another Christmas myth, here's Pastor Gabe.

Christmas myth number three, the Gospel of Luke is wrong about the census. Luke 2, 1 -5 reads, In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth to 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, who was with child. Growing up, I never knew that there were any doubts about this passage. My dad read it and explained it to me and my siblings every Christmas.

I heard it read in every Christmas cantata and Christmas Eve service. I had no reason to question it. As the old saying goes, the Bible says it, that settles it. Not until I attended college did I learn Luke's account of the birth of Christ is apparently fraught with problems.

One university professor wrote, There is no record of Caesar Augustus' decree that all the world should be enrolled. The Romans kept extremely detailed records of such events. Not only is Luke's census not in these records, it goes against all that we know of Roman economic history.

Roman documents show that taxation was done by the various governors at the provincial level. The property tax was collected on site by traveling assessors, thus making unnecessary Joseph's journey away from what little property he must have owned.

Yes, the Romans kept excellent records, but we have not retained all of those records. According to ancient historian and classical scholar Tenny Frank, the census figures for Rome are given for almost every lustrum, or every five years.

But after the reigns of Tiberius and Gaius in the 2nd century BC, the census was not always taken, and sometimes the statistics have been lost to us. Frank showed that during the time of Augustus, three censuses were taken, all ten or more years apart.

It's reasonable to believe that there was another census or two we simply don't have record of. The most important information that was to be acquired from a Roman census was the registration of citizens and their property.

Contrary to what critics might say about Luke's account, some census decrees did require citizens to return to their homes. This did not mean a mass movement of people throughout the Roman Empire since most landowners lived on or near their property.

However, lands in Judea were often possessed by tribe or family. Joseph went to the place of his lineage, to bear witness with the rest of his family regarding the lands that belonged to their tribe. We know that upon arriving in Bethlehem, Joseph and Mary lived with family.

More on that in the next two chapters. But these are not really the biggest problems critics have with Luke's story of Christ's birth. As anyone with Google who can look up someone else who did all the research for their skepticism knows, the Jewish historian Josephus records that Quirinius wasn't governor of Syria until 86.

King Herod the Great, who in Matthew's account tried to kill the baby Jesus, died in 4 BC. The two weren't even ruling at the same time. Luke is off by a decade. So the Bible's wrong. Show's over, everyone pack up your Christmas decorations and have a happy winter solstice.

But hang on. Why should we assume that the problem is with the biblical record? Why isn't Josephus wrong? Josephus wrote that Herod the Great was made king at the age of 15. But scholars have rejected this erroneous claim, as Herod was actually 25.

Why that's a mistake of 10 years. Furthermore, Josephus says that Herod received the kingdom having obtained it on the 184th Olympiad, when Caius Domitius Calvinus was consul the second time and Caius Ascinius Polio the first time.

But those two consuls were not appointed until the 185th Olympiad. Whoops. Josephus was not some infallible historian. For years, scholars have been critical of the dates we've come to accept thanks to Josephus.

Nevertheless, the traditional dates associated with the Christmas story remain popular. The problem is with wrong dates and then trying to get Luke's accurate record to line up with them. The problem is not with the Bible.

Perhaps you remain unconvinced by that answer. Then permit me to propose a much simpler solution to this riddle. You don't have to be a historian, understand Greek, or possess an encyclopedia of biblical archaeology to understand this explanation.

All it takes is a careful analysis of the text. Luke's gospel is addressed to a man named Theophilus. It seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, Luke wrote, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught, Luke 1, 3, and 4.

That's the intended audience. And that's the reason for writing. The setting is in Judea, beginning in the days of Herod, verse 5. Luke starts with the birth of John the Baptist, and then he tells of Gabriel's appearance to Mary, announcing that she will be with child.

Then we get to Luke 2, 1, which begins, in those days. That's a very unspecific period of time. It's way more general than saying, in the same year of Christ's birth. Then Luke says, a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.

Again, we don't know exactly when this decree went out, or even if such a registration was successfully completed in Judea when it was decreed. The Jews had a rough history when it came to censuses. A thousand years earlier, King David pridefully wanted to see how many people were in his kingdom.

He ordered a census to be taken, despite wise objections from Joab, his most trusted official who loathed the idea. David also did not follow the law of God when it came to the proper procedure for conducting a census in Israel.

Because of David's sin, God sent pestilence against the land, and 70 ,000 people died. This was embedded in the history of the Jews, who refused to conduct a census unless the command were to come from a prophet of God.

Add to this their contempt for the Romans. A group of Jews known as the Zealots strongly opposed the Roman census. According to Acts 5 .37, which, by the way, was also written by Luke, Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and rallied many people to follow him.

Though a census was decreed, it was not carried out in Judea without aggressive opposition. What census taker would want to go town to town counting people and asking about their property at the risk of their own lives?

So Caesar Augustus brought an enforcer, and Quirinius, who had a decorated war record, was just such a guy. Quirinius was made governor of Syria and Judea, which by Roman standards had been unsuccessfully overseen by the Herods, and it was brought under Quirinius' authority.

In Luke 2 .2 we read, this was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. All Luke was pointing out was that these events were part of the same drama. He was not saying that they all happened at the same time.

Again, this was all in those days, verse 1, which is an unspecific passing of time. Sometimes Luke does get very specific, as in Luke 3 .1, where he says, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, but Luke 2 .1 -2 is not written to be that exact.

A popular argument in defense of Luke 2 .2 is that Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, citing certain though scant historical evidence to back up this claim. It might be true, but the argument is unnecessary.

Such a claim does more to defend Josephus' flawed dates than it does to clear Luke of any possible discrepancies. Luke's gospel is an account given by eyewitnesses, and his information and attention to detail are impeccable.

Josephus was born after Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. It's foolish to insist that we take Josephus' word over Luke's. Josephus has been shown to be wrong on numerous occasions, but the Bible is proven true time and time again, fulfilling the very claim that Scripture has made about itself.

Every word of God proves true. Proverbs 30 verse 5. The author of the Bible is not merely the men who wrote it, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1 .21. It would do well for us to take the word of God over the word of any man, for his word is the word that leads to everlasting life.

Mary and Joseph Were Not Turned Away by an Innkeeper

Christmas myth number 4. Mary and Joseph were turned away by an innkeeper. Picture this. A young couple just traveled 100 miles to arrive at their destination in the middle of the night. The wife is clearly pregnant.

She could give birth any minute. Her frantic husband knocks on the door of the local inn, and an old innkeeper slowly opens the door. Please, sir, the husband says, my wife is pregnant and about to give birth.

We need a room right away. The innkeeper's eyes widen. At this time of night? He asks. Don't you know there's a census? I've got people here from everywhere. There are no rooms left. Nothing at all? The husband says.

I'm sorry, replies the innkeeper. He starts to close the door, but the husband puts his hand out and stops him. Please, the husband begs. We're desperate. I'll take anything. Anything you have. The innkeeper rubs his beard.

He felt sorry for the young man and his pregnant wife, but what could he do? He couldn't turn away a pregnant woman to have her baby in the middle of the town square. Finally, he comes up with a solution.

Well, there's the barn in the back, he says. You'd have to share it with the animals. It's not the best, but it's all I've got. We'll take it, the husband says. He escorts his wife on their donkey to the rear of the inn, where there's a stable full of cows, sheep, donkeys, and goats.

The husband makes a comfortable place for his bride in a bed of hay. He apologizes about it not being the Hilton. Lovingly, she says it's wonderful. That night she gives birth to her firstborn son. They wrap him in swaddling cloths and lay him in an animal's feed trough, because there was no room for them in the inn.

No one was willing to give them a place to stay, not realizing that they had just turned away the Savior of the world. What I've just described to you is the Christmas story, right? Nope, it's a figment of our imaginations.

That's not at all how the birth of Christ took place. In Luke 2, 7 we read,. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

This one verse, taken out of context, has led to three very common Christmas myths. Mary and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem at the last minute. They were turned away by an innkeeper. So Mary gave birth to the Savior of the world in a barn.

But none of that is accurate. It was because of the census decree that Joseph brought his pregnant wife Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem to be registered for the census. The picture we're often given is that they traveled alone, with Mary on the back of a donkey.

They could also have ridden by horse, camel, or on a wagon pulled by draft animals like oxen. Whatever they traveled by, it is unlikely that they traveled alone. As mentioned in the previous chapter, this registration was a family affair and Joseph and Mary likely traveled with other members of their tribe.

The journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem was about 100 miles, or 150 kilometers, which they would have been able to cover in a week between two Sabbaths. In Luke 2 .44, we're told the family traveled as part of a group when they left Jerusalem after the Passover.

Traveling alone was not safe. In Luke 10, Jesus told his famous parable about the Good Samaritan. At the start of the parable, he said,. A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead.

That was a common danger for lone travelers. Of course, the Lord protected Joseph and Mary wherever they went, but it's still more likely that they journeyed with others. Upon arriving in Bethlehem, Mary was not in the throes of labor pains.

Luke 2 .6 says,. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. So they had been in Bethlehem for a while. Joseph wouldn't have dragged his wife from Nazareth nine months pregnant, risking that she would have gone into labor while they were on the road.

But that still doesn't explain why Luke 2 .7 says that Mary wrapped her baby in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. If they lived in a residence, why is Jesus in an animal's feed trough?

And why did Luke mention an inn? I'll talk about the manger in the next chapter, but for now, let's focus on this word inn. We might think of an inn as being like a motel, but the word inn can describe any place of lodging.

Keep in mind that the New Testament was originally written in Greek, only later to be translated into English. The Greek word for inn is katalouma, and it's commonly translated guest room. The word comes up again in the Gospel of Luke, in chapter 22 verse 11, to describe the upper room where Jesus and his disciples had their last supper.

There were no commercial inns in first century Bethlehem. Misunderstanding the word inn has led many to insert another character into the Christmas story, one that Luke doesn't even mention. An innkeeper.

Every Christmas, there are preachers who deliver entire sermons about this non-existent figure. Some pastors have even dressed the part and given a first-person account of the Christmas story from the perspective of the innkeeper.

The moral of the story is often that we have a Christian duty to help those in need, and if we don't, we could very well be rejecting the Savior himself, just like the innkeeper did on that first Christmas night.

It's not exactly heresy to do this, but there are better ways to teach others to love your neighbor without adding to the Bible or turning the Gospel into a tale of moralism. The Christmas story is not a story about how we need to help those in need.

We're the ones in need, and Jesus is our help. The Bible says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and the wages of sin is death. But the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord, Romans 3 .23 and 6 .23.

God sent His Son from heaven to this earth, where He lived the perfect life we could not live, and died the death we were supposed to die, taking the wrath of God upon Himself for our sins. All who believe in Him will not perish, but we will have everlasting life.

One of my favorite Christmas carols is, O Come, O Come, Emmanuel. The writer is unknown, but it's translated to English from the Latin hymn, Veni, Veni, Emmanuel. There's a verse that goes like this, O come, thou rod of Jesse free, thine own from Satan's tyranny, from depths of hell thy people save, and give them victory o 'er the grave.

Rejoice, rejoice, Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel. True Israel are the followers of Jesus Christ, who has saved His people from the depths of hell and given victory over the grave to everyone who believes in Him.

We're the ones in need. Jesus is our Savior. That's the story of Christmas.