Bible Question: Is there any positive proof that our Lord Jesus was born on Christmas Day, Dec. 25th, and if so where can it be found?

Answer:—There is nothing to prove that Christ was born December 25th, but the evidence is clear and strong that the time of His birth was about October 1st. It is generally recognized that Jesus was crucified on Friday, April 3d, A.D. 33. The fact that His crucifixion occurred at the close of the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, and that this date rarely falls on Friday, but did so in the year A.D. 33 substantiates that date so thoroughly even Usher, who adopted B.C. 4 as the date of Jesus' birth, was forced to admit that His crucifixion was A.D. 33. Our Lord was thirty years of age when He began His ministry, and it is clear that His ministry was for three and a half years only. This generally conceded fact is proved by Daniel's prophecy (Dan. 9:25-27) concerning Christ's cutting off in the middle of the seventieth week of Israel's favor. The "seventy weeks" (A day for a year—490 days, or 490 years—Eze. 4:6) dating from 454 B.C. terminated A.D. 36. In the "midst" of that last week of seven years, the "seventieth week," Christ was "cut off" —crucified—April 3d, A.D. 33. As the Lord Jesus was thirty-three and a half years old when He died, we have only to measure back that length of time to the date of His death to ascertain the date of His birth, which would be about Oct. 3d, B.C. 2. It is certain that the midwinter date, December 25th, does not well agree with the statement of the Scriptures, that at the time of our Lord's birth the shepherds were in the fields with their flocks.

Bible Question: Christmas - proper month and year Jesus was born?

Answer: Early Christians regarded the birth of Jesus with heartfelt appreciation for God's great goodness toward us. However, the story of Jesus' birth did not become an event that organized religion observed as a festival until the 4th century. Roman favor was so sweet to the church after so many years of persecution, that they were ready to make religion anything to suit the views of their new half-pagan friend Constantine. The festival date was chosen to coincide with the pagan festivities connected with the winter solstice, and the rationale at the time was probably to win over converts to Christianity by substituting the pagan festivities with Christian meanings. Since 274 AD, under the emperor Aurelian, Rome had celebrated the feast of the "Invincible Sun" on December 25.
It is generally understood among Christian scholars that the true date of Jesus' birth was around October 1st and that the announcement to Mary was closer to the December date. (To be covered in a future issue.) But, the precise date for paying a tribute of respect to the birth of the King of kings is not significant, and we join with others whose hearts are in the attitude of love and appreciation toward God at this or any time of the year.
During the Middle Ages, the pagan custom of tree worship was popular. Again, Christianity compromised by incorporating existing pagan traditions. Germans adapted the tradition as a "paradise tree" in their homes at Christmas time and decorated it with wafers (emblematic of the Eucharist), and later cookies, candles, and other ornaments. By as early as the 17th century, German settlers had introduced this Christmas tradition into North America.
Today groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses deplore the custom of having Christmas trees, by claiming these become "idols that are worshiped." We would agree that any item that becomes an idol is to be avoided, but would also recommend that we do not legislate "laws" for our fellow Christians that would presume to judge their motives.
Most of what we see celebrated during the Christmas season is based upon such traditions. Jesus spoke against the people conforming their lives to traditions, not because the traditions themselves were evil, but because they added unnecessary burdens on the people, and caused them to lose sight of God's goodness. We would not criticize any for their desire to celebrate the birth of Jesus, but we encourage all to place proper emphasis when doing so upon the true cause for which Jesus came into the world - to bear witness to the truth of the "good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people." Let us resolve then, that this season, we will not allow the frenzy of the world and the traditions of men to darken the great light that our God has graciously given. "The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light..." Isa. 9:2
In the sixth century the Church began to reckon time
from the birth of our Lord, and fixed the date A.D. as it
now stands; namely, 536 years after the first year of Cyrus, king of Persia.* Whether they placed it correctly or not does not affect the chronology as just given, which shows that the six thousand years from the creation of Adam ended with A.D. 1872; because it is eighteen hundred and seventy-two years since the year designated A.D., and the first
*The year A.D. was fixed upon as early as the sixth century by Dionysius Exiguus, and other scholars of that period, though it did not come into general use until two centuries later. The year of Cyrus was five hundred and thirty-six years before that year (A.D.), whether it was the year of our Lord's birth or not. We cannot, perhaps, explain this better than by the time-worn illustration of a line with a star upon it—thus:
B.C._____________________*____________________A.D. Let the line represent the six thousand years of earth's history from the creation of Adam to 1873 A.D.; and let the star represent the turning point between B.C. and A.D. To move that point either way would not alter the length of the entire period, though it would alter the names of the years. To move the A.D. point backward one year would make the B.C. period one year less, and the A.D. period one year more, but the of the B.C. and A.D. years would still be the same; for the amount taken from the one is always an addition to the other. Nevertheless, let us briefly examine the date of our Lord's birth, as it will be found useful in our subsequent studies.
It has become customary among scholars to concede that
our commonly accepted A.D. is incorrect to the amount of
four years—that our Lord was born four years previous to
the year designated A.D., that is, in the year B.C. 4. And
this theory has been followed by the publishers of the common version of the Bible. We cannot agree that B.C. 4 was the true date of our Lord's birth. On the contrary, we find that he was born only one year and three months before our common era, A.D., namely, in October of B.C. 2.
The general reason with most of those who claim that
A.D. should have been placed four years earlier to correctly
mark the Savior's birth, is a desire to harmonize it with certain statements of the Jewish historian Josephus, relative to the length of the reign of Herod the Great. According to one of his statements, it would appear that Herod died three years before the year reckoned A.D. If this were true, it would certainly prove that our Lord was born in the year B.C. 4; for it was this Herod, that issued the decree for the slaying of the babes of Bethlehem, from whom the infant Jesus was delivered. (Matt. 2:14-16) But is this statement of Josephus reliable? Is it true that Herod died four years before the year A.D.? No, we answer: Josephus alone is not sufficient authority for such a decision, as he is known and admitted to be inaccurate in his record of dates. But this notion has prevailed: the date B.C. 4 has been generally accepted, and historical events and dates have been somewhat bent to fit and support this theory. Among other supposed proofs that B.C. 4 was the proper date, was an eclipse of the moon, said by Josephus to have occurred a short time before the death of Herod. All that is known of that eclipse is as follows: Herod had placed a large golden eagle over the gate of the Temple. Two notable Jews, named Matthias and Judas, persuaded some young men to pull it down. They did so, were arrested and executed. To make the matter clear, Josephus relates that there was at that time another Matthias, a high priest, who was not concerned in the sedition. He then adds: "But Herod deprived
this Matthias of his high priesthood, and burnt the other Matthias who had raised the sedition, with his companions, alive, and that very night there was an eclipse of the moon."
This is recorded as one of the last prominent acts of Herod, and is given a date which might correspond with B.C. 4 by Josephus, who marks the date by the eclipse mentioned.
But since at times as many as four eclipses of the moon
occur in one year, it is evident that except under very peculiar circumstances the record of such an occurrence proves nothing. Where the time of the night, the time of the year and the amount of obscuration are all given, as has been done in several instances, the record is of great value in fixing dates; but in the case under consideration, there is nothing of the kind; hence absolutely nothing is proved by the record, so far as chronology is concerned. Josephus does mention a fast, as having been kept before the event, but what fast, or how long before, is not stated. As it happens, there was only one eclipse of the moon in B.C. 4, while in B.C. 1 there were three. The eclipse of B.C. 4 was only partial (six digits, or only one-half of the moon being obscured), while all three in B.C. 1 were total eclipses—the entire moon was obscured, and of course for a longer time causing the event to be much more noticeable. Hence if the eclipse theory has any weight it certainly is not in favor of the earlier date, B.C. 4.
Unfortunately, the time of Herod's death is not given by
a reliable historian. Josephus gives some important periods
in his history and the dates of some events, but these dates are not trustworthy. Some of them would teach that Herod died B.C. 4, but others cannot be reconciled with that date. For instance, his death is said to have been at the age of seventy. He was made governor of Galilee B.C. 47, at which time Josephus says he was twenty-five years of age. (Ant. 14:9:2) This would date his birth B.C. 72 (47 plus 25). His death at seventy would then be B.C. 2 instead of B.C. 4. In this connection it may be well to note the conflict of opinion among learned men, relative to the exact date of Herod's death, that thus it may be apparent to all that there is no well founded reason for accepting B.C. 4 as the only date in harmony with Matt. 2:14-16. Faussett's Bible Encyclopedia gives Herod's age when made governor at about twenty years. This would make his death, at seventy years, A.D. 2. Chambers' Cyclopedia and Smith's Bible Dictionary give his age at that time as fifteen years, which would place his death A.D. 7. Appleton's Cyclopedia, article Chronology, says: "Josephus also gives dates, but he is altogether too careless to be taken into account." We now proceed to offer the Scriptural evidence relating to this subject, which more nearly agrees with the common era, and shows that our Lord's birth occurred only one year and three months prior to January, A.D. 1. It is as follows:
Our Lord's ministry lasted three and a half years. The
sixty-nine symbolic weeks of years (Dan. 9:24-27) reached to his baptism and anointing as Messiah, and there the last or seventieth week (seven years) of Israel's favor began. He was cut off [in death] in the of that seventieth week— three and a half years from the beginning of his ministry. He was crucified, we know, at the time of the Passover, about April 1st, whatever the year. The three and years of his ministry, which ended in April, must consequently have begun about October, whatever the year. And October of some year must have been the true month of his birth, because he to begin his ministry as soon as he was thirty, and could not, according to the Law (under which he was born and which he obeyed), begin before he was thirty. As we read, "Now when Jesus about thirty years of age " etc. John the Baptist was six months older than our Lord (Luke 1:26,36), hence he was of age (thirty years, according to the Law—Num. 4:3; Luke 3:23, etc.) and began to preach six months before our Lord became of age and began his ministry. The date of the beginning of John's ministry is clearly stated to have been the "fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar," the third emperor of Rome. (Luke 3:1) This is a clearly fixed date of which there can be no reasonable doubt. Tiberius became emperor at the death of Augustus Caesar, in the year of Rome 767, which was the year A.D. 14.
But those misled by the inaccurate statements of Josephus
relative to Herod, and who place the birth of Jesus
at B.C. 4, in order to harmonize with him, run across a difficulty in this clearly stated date given by Luke, and endeavor to make it also harmonize with their B.C. 4 theory. To accomplish this end they make the claim that Tiberius began to exercise authority some three or four years before Augustus died, and before he was fully constituted emperor. They claim that possibly his rule might have been reckoned from that date. But such suppositions will be found baseless, by any who will investigate the matter on the pages of history. It is true that Tiberius was exalted to a very important position by Augustus, but it was not years before Augustus' death, as their theory would demand, but years before, in A.D.
4. But the power then conferred upon him was only such as
had been enjoyed by others before his day. It was in no
sense of the word imperial power, and in no sense of the
word can his "" be said to have begun there: he was only the heir-apparent. Even in the most exaggerated use of language, his "" could not be said to have commenced before Augustus' death and his own investiture in office at the hands of the Roman Senate, A.D. 14.
History says, "The Emperor, whose declining age needed
an associate, adopted Tiberius A.D. 4, his tribunian power." Article TIBERIUS, Rees' Cyclopedia.
"He [Augustus] determined accordingly to devolve upon
him [Tiberius] a share in the government....This formal
investiture placed him on the same footing as that enjoyed
by the veteran Agrippa during his later years, and there can be no doubt that it was universally regarded as an introduction to the first place in the empire....The programme was significantly shadowed out: Tiberius had been ordered to assume his place at the head of the Senate, the people, and the army....The , which took place at the same time, is dated June 27 (A.U.C. 757)—A.D. 4." Merivale's History of the Romans (Appleton's), Vol. IV, pp. 220,221
Thus there is conclusive proof that the first year of the
reign of Tiberius Caesar was not three or four years before
Augustus died; and that the honors referred to as conferred during Augustus' reign were conferred ten, and not four, years before Augustus' death, and then were in no sense imperial honors. We may, therefore, consider the date of Luke 3:1 not merely the only one furnished in the New Testament, but an unequivocal one. There can be no doubt about it in the minds of any who have investigated it. Tiberius began to reign in A.D. 14. The fifteenth year of his reign, would therefore be the year A.D. 29, in which year, Luke states (3:1-3), John began his ministry. Since our Lord's thirtieth birthday and the beginning of his ministry were in October, and since John's birthday and the beginning of his ministry were just six months earlier, it follows that John began his ministry in the spring, about April first—just as soon as he was of age; for God's plans are always carried out on exact time. So, then, John was thirty years old in A.D. 29, about April first, consequently he was born B.C. 2*, about April first. And Jesus' birth, six months later, must have been B.C. 2, about October first.
Again, there is clear, strong evidence that Jesus was crucified on Friday, April 3rd, A.D. 33. The fact that his crucifixion occurred at the close of the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, and that this date rarely falls on Friday, but did so in the year A.D. 33, substantiates that date so thoroughly
*For the benefit of readers not much accustomed to calculating dates, we call attention to the fact that in the beginning of the year A.D. 29, only 28 full years had elapsed: the twenty-ninth was only beginning. that even Usher, who adopted B.C. 4 as the date of Jesus' birth was forced to admit that his crucifixion was A.D. 33. Compare Usher's dates in the margin of the common version Bible at Luke 2:21 and Matt. 2:1 with those at Matthew 27 and Luke 23. The date of the crucifixion being A.D. 33, it follows that if Jesus had been born B.C. 4, he would have been 36 years old when he died; and his ministry from his thirtieth to his thirty-sixth year would have been six years. But it is clear that our Lord's ministry was three and a half years only. And this generally conceded fact is proved by Daniel's prophecy concerning Messiah's cutting off in the of the seventieth week of Israel's favor.
Thus, it is again proven that Jesus' birth was about one
year and three months before our common era, A.D. 1; for,
his ministry ending when he was thirty-three and a half
years old, April 3rd, A.D. 33, the date of his birth may be
readily found by measuring backward to a date thirty-three
and a half years prior to April 3rd, A.D. 33. Thirty-two
years and three months before April A.D. 33 would be
January 3rd, A.D. 1, and one year and three months further
back would bring us to October 3rd, B.C. 2, as the date
of our Lord's birth at Bethlehem. The difference between
lunar time, used by the Jews, and solar time, now in common use, would be a few days, so that we could not be certain that the exact day might not be in September about the 27th, but October 1st, B.C. 2, is correct. Nine months back of that date would bring us to about Christmas time, B.C. 3, as the date at which our Lord laid aside the glory which he had with the Father before the world was [made] and the taking of or changing to human nature began. It seems probable that this was the origin of the celebration of December 25th as Christmas Day. Some writers on Church history claim, even, that Christmas Day was originally celebrated as the date of the annunciation by Gabriel to the virgin Mary. (Luke 1:26) Certain it is that a midwinter date does not well agree with the declaration of Scripture, that at the time of our Lord's birth the shepherds were in the fields with their flocks.

Bible Question: I find in Matthew and Luke what purport to be the genealogies of Christ. Matthew gives His ancestry back to Abraham; Luke goes back to Adam. Between Christ ad David, Matthew gives 27 generations, and Luke gives 42; and none of the names in these two lists are the same. Will you please explain this seeming discrepancy?

Answer:—Our Lord Jesus became related to the human family by taking our nature through His mother Mary. Mary's genealogy, as traced by Luke, leads back to David through his son Nathan. (Luke 3:23.) (Joseph is here styled "the son of Heli," that is, the son of Eli, Mary's father, by marriage, or legally; or as we would say, son-in- law of Eli. By birth, Joseph was the son of Jacob, as stated in Matt. 1:16), while Joseph's genealogy, as given by Matthew, traces also back to David through his son Solomon. (Matt. 1:6-16.) Joseph having accepted Mary as his wife, and adopted Jesus, her son, as though He were his own son, this adoption would entitle Jesus to reckon Joseph's genealogy; but such a tracing back to the family of David was not necessary, because His mother came also of David, by another line. Thus the seeming discrepancy is due to the fact that Luke gives Mary's genealogy while Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph. The difference in the number of generations from David to Christ need not be considered as remarkable. It would be remarkable had they been the same.

Bible Question: Can we say that Jesus is divine and yet not worship Him as deity?

Answer:—The Logos is designated "The Only Begotten Son" of God. The thought conveyed by this expression is that the Logos, the Lord Jesus, is the only direct creation or begetting of the Heavenly Father, while all others of God's sons (angels as well as men), were His indirect creation through the Logos. Hence the propriety, the truthfulness, of the statement, that He is the Only Begotten Son of God. The Lord Jesus has ever been the agency or channel through whom the Divine purposes have been accomplished. As the direct agent of the Heavenly Father it is appropriate that He should be honored even as the Father is honored. And so it is written, "That all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father." (John 5:23.) After the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, He was highly exalted, receiving glory, honor, and immortality, the divine nature. In view of this high exaltation, and of His position of special favor at the right hand of the Majesty an high, it is no cause for surprise that we find it stated that all should bow the knee to Him: "Him hath God highly exalted, and given Him a name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow."—Phil. 2:9.

Bible Question: Was Jesus Christ human and Divine at the same time?

Answer:—The word "Divine" signifies "the nature of God." The Creator, God, is a Spirit Being glorious and immortal, dwelling in light that is inaccessible to mortal man. One possessing the Divine, immortal nature could never die. The human nature is the highest form of the earthly or fleshly nature. The Divine nature is the highest form of the spirit nature. The spiritual nature is one thing and the fleshly nature is another thing. (1 Cor. 15: 44-46.) The blending of the two natures would produce a hybrid nature or being. As to which nature Christ possessed while in the flesh, let the scriptures speak: "The Word (Logos, Jesus) was made flesh." (John 1:14.) "Christ. . . being indeed put to death (A Divine being could not die) in the flesh, but made alive in spirit." (1 Pet. 3:18.) "Since then the children have one common nature of flesh and blood. He also in like manner partook of these; in order that by means of His death He might vanquish him that hath the power of death." (Heb. 2:14; see also Heb. 2:6,7,9.) From the Scriptures it is apparent that the Lord Jesus left His spiritual nature and condition when He became the "Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all." At His resurrection He received the Divine nature and honor and glory as a reward for His obedience to the Father's will even unto death. Nature is simply organism, and varies according to the form or quality of the organism. The element of life is always the same.

Bible Question: What is the Bible reference where it says God cannot look upon sin? My question pertains to Christ's remarks on the Cross when He asked his Father "why have you forsaken me?"

Answer: You are correct in linking the fact that God can not look upon sin with Jesus' words. In Jesus' question, " Why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34) he could feel that Jehovah's communication to him was not there. Jehovah deals only with perfect things, and at that moment, Jesus had become "sin." 2Corinthians 5:21 "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." The word "sin" in this verse is "sin offering" in the original Greek, as Jesus took the place of sinful man at that moment. Another scripture also states "Made a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13)—cut off from life, treated as the sinner, as our substitute. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so was it that the man Christ Jesus would be lifted up upon the cross as our sin-offering.
Deuteronomy 32:4 - He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. As God created man, he was good— "very good" —perfect. (Genesis 1:31 — " And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good...." ) God being perfect, could give only a perfect law for the government of his creatures. That perfect law, in brief, was obedience to his will. God made one penalty for violators of his just law: It was that such being should be deprived of existence— "Dying thou shalt die"—"dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." (Genesis 2:17; and 3:19.) This was not unjust on God's part. We may see, as God does, that anything short of perfect obedience to his perfect will and law, would create trouble and general discord not only to the sinner, but to all associated with him; therefore, it is a merciful provision for the good of all God's creatures, that "the wages of sin is death...." (Romans 6:23)
Adam violated God's law and thus came under the penalty. The scriptures tell us " Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" (Romans 5:12). In Psalms 89:14 we read, " Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; love and faithfulness go before you." (NIV) The penalty could not be remitted, because it was just, and to remit it would be for God to act unjustly. It was not too severe a penalty, for God is too wise to err. But what about love and faithfulness? The quality of love in God's character is exemplified in His plan of redemption which centers upon Jesus. It is expressed in the familiar scripture John 3:16, " For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Both Old and New Testament scriptures assure us that God is faithful - " So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." (Isaiah 55:11) and " Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." (James 1:17)
This plan of redemption is also encapsulated in 1 Timothy 2:3-6, " For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." It is God's plan to have ALL men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. It was His son, Jesus, who paid the ransom for ALL, which will be testified to in due time. That is evidence will be given, clearly proving (see Strong's concordance and Webster's dictionary) that Jesus was the means by which salvation will come to all. We read in 1 Peter 3:18, " For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:" The word " ransom" can be defined as "...price paid for the redemption of a prisoner or slave,...or... the price paid for a forfeited life..." Jesus willingly laid down his life, he paid the price for Adam's disobedience — a human life. The Apostle Paul elaborates upon this point in numerous places — the following are but two:
- 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22 - " For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
- Romans 5:17, 18 — " For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
Jesus shared his Father's plan to "...ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death:..." (Hosea 13:14) Jesus was faithful in his covenant (or promise) unto death and was rewarded by his Father — " Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." (Hebrews 12:2), " thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life." (Revelation 2:10) That faithfulness included experiencing the feeling of alienation from God — as Adam was banished from the Garden of Eden, and no longer enjoyed the fellowship with the Father. God can not look upon sin as we read in Habakkuk 1:13 - " Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity:"

Bible Question: Jesus crucified on a cross, or stake?

Answer: The Greek word is stauro-, staur- (Greek: upright stake; hence, " rood, cross" ; cross-shaped, crosslike, crossed). Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says, "STAUROS denotes, primarily, an upright pole or stake ... Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pole, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two-beamed cross.
The literal word from Vine's definition seems to indicate a stake was used, but it does not negate the possibility of a cross piece being used on that stake since it was the Roman practice.
Roman traditions. They used a stake with a cross piece. Thus the idea of a cross.
We also know that crucifixion was the Roman form of punishment for vile criminals and Jesus was sentenced under Pilate the Roman Governor (at the insistence of the Jewish religious leaders).
John 19:13-18
13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. 14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! 15 But they cried out, Away with [him], away with [him], crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. 16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led [him] away. 17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called [the place] of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha: 18 Where they crucified him, and two others with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.