Debate has begun over the birthplace of Jesus. Due to the identification of a second city by the name of Bethlehem not far from Nazareth, some scholars have taken the position that Jesus was born not in Judea but in Galilee. “If Jesus were born in the City of David,” they argue, “why is he called the Nazarene?” Even early Christians were called Nazarenes and Christianity was known as the Nazarene Sect.

They continue to frame the birth of Jesus in Judea as implausible by regarding the travel of 90 miles by a very pregnant Mary impossible, not to mention unnecessary as the census (if there was one) would have been of men only. After all, they argue, women of the day were only one step above slaves. Finally, Mark 6.1 and John 7.41-.43 claim Jesus’ birthplace is Nazareth.

Could it be that Jesus was born nearly 100 miles north of where historic Christianity has claimed? Unlike yesterday’s article referring to the location of Solomon’s temple, this theory is easily disproven.

Let’s start at the top with the title, “Jesus the Nazarene.” Jesus did grow up in Nazareth as attested to by both Mark and John. However, we know from Luke that after Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem his parents stayed there until Jesus was about 2 years old! At that time the wise men showed up and after their departure Joseph was warned to take his family and flee to Egypt. So Jesus was likely at least 4 years old before he entered Nazareth, the city his step-father called home. In fact the passage referred to in support of Jesus being born in Nazareth simply shows that the people of that city were familiar with Jesus from a very early age.

We also know from our recent study in the book of Acts that nearly anyone can be a Nazarene by taking the Nazarene vow. Paul likely did so, as have many devout Jews before him. One who took such a vow was called a Nazarene during their time of service to God.

As a side note, those arguing Jesus was born in Nazareth suggest Bethlehem was not a “functioning town” at the time of Jesus’ birth, which is a complete fiction. Of course the City of David, Bethlehem, also called Zion was a functioning city as it was inside the walls of Jerusalem and was (likely) where the temple was located (see yesterday’s article for details).

Moving along, the notion that women were severely repressed and not much better than slaves is also completely wrong. Again, from our study in Acts we come across “prominent women” who owned their own businesses, homes and even employed servants. Lydia and Priscilla leap immediately to mind as examples of just how affluent women could be. Since the census being taken was for taxes, women would have been included as well as men.

As for Mary making the trip while pregnant, this would not have been problematic as Mary was not in Nazareth when she and Joseph went to Bethlehem. Luke 1.39 tells us that she left Galilee and went to see her relative Elizabeth “in Judea”. The exact location of this home is uncertain, however it was a good deal closer than Nazareth would have been and evidently within range of Mary’s ability to travel at the time.

It may seem petty to argue about the location of Jesus’ birth, but the Scriptures are very clear (Micah 5.2) that the promised Messiah would be born in the City of David. If Jesus were born anywhere else, he would not be the promised Messiah. Certainly there is nothing “petty” about that!

This holiday season there will be many “Christmas specials” on the newsstands and on TV and we hope that, should you chose to read or watch them, you will not be taken in by fine sounding arguments and instead Think Biblically.