Chart of Galatians

The book of Galatians is a defense of the truth of justification by faith, which is the heart of the gospel of grace. It presents a defense of Paul, his message, and the believer’s liberty in grace. It deals with two main problems: (1) The so-called lack of the authority of Paul. (2) Circumcision, representing legalism and the Law.

The structure of the book is somewhat simple. It could be outlined as such:

Salutation 1:1-10	Defense of Paul’s Authorship 1:11-2:21	Defense of the Message of Grace 3:1-4:41	Defense of Our Liberty in Grace 5:1-6:10	Conclusion 6:11-18
	Independent Revelation 1:11-12	Gospel of Grace Vindicated 3:1-29	Liberty apart from the Law 5:1-12
	Independent Apostleship 1:13-2:21	Gospel of Grace Illustrated 4:1-20	Warning: Liberty is not License 5:13-25
			Liberty is Life in the Spirit 5:16-26
			Liberty to Service 6:1-10

Studies in Colossians #34

Servants and Masters 3:22-4:1

                              

This speaks of household servants. Slavery has in the last 150 years all but vanished in western society. However, this is timely, especially in the light of boss and employee relationships and responsivity. Modern readers need to keep that in mind when reading this verse.

As we read this verse we cannot help but see the parallel with verse 21. Children are to “obey” / “in everything” just as are the servants. In each case the same Greek words are used (hypakouo / kata panta). The word obey is a present middle imperative, indicating continual obedience, and is the action of the servant (as well as children). This obedience is to encompass all things. The section makes up Colossians 3:22-4:1, and the majority of instructions are directed toward the servant. The masters are addressed only in 4:1.

Moo brings out that while this may seem to uphold the status quo, it delicately challenges it in the following ways:^[1]

• It is significant that they are addressed, implying they are not only a part of the assembly, but they need to choose the kind of behavior spoken of.
• It relativizes the status by reminding both slave and master that both are responsible to obey the Lord.
• Paul never endorses slavery as an institution, only how one should conduct themself when they are in the institution.
• Paul instructs that Onesimus is to be received as no longer a slave, but a brother (Phlm 16). Pao observes, “the status of this slave is consistent with the trajectory one finds throughout Colossians.”^[2] 

Whom servants are to obey is their masters on earth. The KJV has the longer translation of “according to the flesh (more literal).” How they are to serve is given in a negative and positive manner.

• Negative— “not with external service, as those who [merely] please men…” (3:22 cf. Eph. 6:6).  This speaks to the manner in which they serve. The phrase speaks of earthy service only to curry favor with them while they are watching. But with no loyalty or respect toward the master. This is clear from the negative phrases. It is not to be external service (ophthamodoulia). The Greek literally means eye-service, service given under a watchful eye. Harris points to three characteristics of the word:^[3] (1) it is concerned with what can be observed; (2) service only when watched; (3) Service performed only to impress the master. The word is unique to Paul. We have all seen and worked with these types of people who look busy only while the boss is watching. They serve only for their advantage. They do only the minil; there in no heart or respect in their service. What effort they put in is simple to please the boss.  
• Positive— “but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord” (3;22). This is a phrase of contrast, as seen by the word but. In contrast to insincerity of heart or singleness of heart (KJV). The word translated sincerity is a cognate adjective indicating singleness of purpose of mind (cf. Matt. 6:22). A purpose that is sincere, pure in motives, and exercised conscientiously. The reason of our sincerity is the fear of the Lord, i.e. Christ. Fear here speaks more of reverence or in awe of Christ. It speaks of the true manner of service. In using the last part of the phrase Paul seems to be doing two things: (1) giving the basis of our service and (2) providing a transition to our motivation of service.

The transition denotes an exhortation: “Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men” (3:23). This is an exhortation that explains our service in threefold way :

• Ordinary service (Whatever you do). This does not signify special service, but the daily routine; working in the ordinary; the mundane; and the normal task. All work is service to the Lord. We are called to serve in the ordinary. Some limit the service as only that which meets the Christian standard. That is hardly the case for two reasons (1) The word whatever applies to everything we do. It places no limits on what we do. (2) The results may include punishment (3:25). This clearly indicates that some service is not up to par. It falls short, and we will be held accountable for it.

• Energetic service (do yours work heartily). The word work means to energize or produce, in thee present tense, indicating a constant energy. This energy is to come from the heart or soul. It indicates our work is to be done out of the depth of our heart or soul (cf. Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37). It can indicate the motivation of our service, but more than likely it refers to the totality of commitment.^[4]
•  Direct service (as for the Lord rather than for men). Our true master is the Lord. Our service is for Him, not simply men. It has been noted that the exhortation in designed to prevent any possibility of a mechanical perfunctory obedience.^[5] The phrase shifts the believer’s focus from an earthly master to the heavenly one. Paul redefines master as the true Lord—Jesus Christ! That is who we serve, rather than man.

The basis or reason for such service is clear, its origin is our knowledge (3:24), The word knowing has the idea of sense you know. The word that is the Greek word speaks of a specific and knowable knowledge.^[6] In this case there is a twofold exhortation:

• Reward— “from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance” (3:24). This is the first aspect of our knowledge. It should be pointed out that this is eschatological knowledge, which is affected by the present life. One will received from the Lord a reward—for they serve the Lord. The word receive has the meaning of receive what is due, or to receive in full. That which is receive is “the inheritance.” Johnson points out two thoughts that are bound up in the word:
• “In the first place, the word implies that the reward of grace. The verb may be rendered received as your due. If the is the thought of the word, the reward is considered to be debit in the sense that God has promised it.
• In the second place, there is a paradox involved in the word. A slave in pictured as receiving the reward of an inheritance! The slave is not an heir!”^[7]

It needs to be pointed out that all believers will receive an inheritance based on God’s grace, not our works (cf. Rom. 5:2, 9; 8:1, 31-39; Thess. 1:10; 4:13-17, 1 Pet. 1:9). However, it appears that the faithful will receive even more of an inheritance (cf. John 12:26; 1 Cor. 3:8, 14; 3:14-15; 9:16-18; Gal, 5:21; Eph. 5:5).

The exhortation reiterates the fact that our service is to the Lord. It reinforces the key concept that our true object of our service is to the Lord (3:22-24),

• Retribution— “For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality” (3:25). The Greek phrase who does wrong speaks of one who continually does wrong. It is a habitual act. It is primarily talking to slaves and against injustice and wrong they do against their master. However, it also goes beyond the physical to the spiritual and eternal. This is clearly seen in the phrase “without partiality.” It implies the heavenly master—the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Eph. 6:9; Rom. 2:1; Acts 10:44).  This does not speak of the loss of salvation, but a loss of rewards before the judgment seat of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 3:11-15).

Here is the instruction to the earthly masters— “Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master  heaven” (4:1). Up to this point the main focus has been on the slaves. Note the double use of the word knowing (3:24; 4:1). The slaves are to know that they serve more than just the earthly master; the masters know they serve the same Master in heaven. This knowledge should affect their ethical behavior as to how they are to treat their slave. “Give” it the compound word papa and exw; meaning to hold out, to confer, render, or provide, Dunn notes that it is in the middle form which means to grant.^[8] Paul gives a command earthly masters are to grant two things to their service.

• Justice. The word for justice is the Greek word dikaios meaning right, just, or equitable. It speaks of the treatment they are to give to their slaves and corresponds to the righteousness of God.
• Fairness. O’Brien observes the “second term reinforces the first denoting the spirit of equity as distinct from the letter of obligation.”^[9] It speaks of how to lay out justice on an equal basis.

Masters are to treat their slaves on a just and fair basis.

The reason is clearly defined: “knowing that you too have a Master in heaven” (4:1). This puts masters and slaves on the same level. Each answer to a higher authority. Both are subject to the higher Master (Eph. 5:24). Yet, believers are to be subject to their earthly status before God. By being obedient to their earthly masters, they are obedient to the heavenly Master.  

---

[1]  Moo, PNTC: COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON, 308.

[2]  Pao, ZECNT: COLOSSIANS & PHILEMON, 284.

[3] Harris, EGGNT: COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON, 157.

[4] Pao, ZECNT: COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON, 273.

[5]  S Lewis Johnson Jr, “New Man in the Old Relationship,” BIBIOTHECA SACRA, April 1964, 114.

[6] According to Harris, EGGNT: COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON, 159; The Greek word opi speaks of a well-known fact that indicates basis of exhortation.

[7] Lewis Johnson Jr. “The Man in the Old Relationships, BIB-SAC, 114.

[8]  Dunn, NIGTC: COLOSSAND AND PHILEMON, 259,

[9]  O’Brien, WBC: COLOSSIANS, PHILEMON, 232.

Studies in Colossians #33

Children and Parents (Col. 3:20-21)

Paul now turns to the child-parent relationship (3:18-19). This, like the instruction to the wife and husband, falls into two main imperatives—one for the children, the other is directed toward the father as head of the household.

To the children, “be obedient to your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing to the Lord” (3:20). There are a number of observations that can be made of this imperative:

First, the word children is the Greek words ta tekna, which indicates a child which is still a dependent. Under Roman law, they were legal property.

Second, the word obey is upakouete, a compound word meaning to hear under, which denotes submissiveness and obedience to the head. Ephesians 6:1 gives the same instruction. Children are to listen and obey their parents. Paul quotes the commandment of the Law in light of this injunction— “Honor your father and mother” (Eph. 6:2). This injunction is a quote from the Law. Thieleman points out that there are three reason why children are to obey:[1] (1) It is conduct expected in a Christian family. (2) It is “right” or proper and fair. (3) The Scriptures command it, and the children who obey will live long successful lives (cf. Exodus 20:12).

Third, this obedience is to be all encompassing— “in everything.”

Fourth, the basis for this obedience is that it is well-pleasing to the Lord. The idea of well-pleasing is acceptability. Paul uses the concept in Rom. 12:1; 14:18; Phil. 4:18. These verses bring out four elements that are well-pleasing to God: obedience, sacrificial living, service, and giving. The phrase to the Lord, justifies Paul’s call to the children for obedience. An act beyond the obedience to their parents, to the Lord Himself. 

To the Fathers: “do not exasperate [ provoke—KJV] your children, so that they will not lose heart” (3:21 cf. Eph. 6:4). This is a special instruction to fathers in accordance with the norm of Roman society. The Roman patria potetas (household authority) “gave the father unlimited power over his children and the law exercised a considerable degree of influence in Hellenistic culture.”[2] The word exasperate is the Greek word erethizo, meaning to provoke; to stir up; or excite. Here it is used in the evil sense.[3]  It is to lose your cool or patience with the child. In his blog, Paul Tautges listed 25 things to provoke your child:

Lack of marital harmony;

Establishing and maintaining a child-centered home;

Modeling sinful anger;

Habitually disciplining in anger;

Scolding; Being inconsistent with discipline;

Having double standards;

Being legalistic;

Not admitting you’re wrong and not asking for forgiveness;

Constantly finding fault;

Parents reversing God-given roles;

Not listening to your child’s opinion or taking his or her ‘side of the story’ seriously;

Comparing them to others;

Not making time ‘just to talk’;

Not praising or encouraging your child;

Failing to keep your promises;

Chastening in front of others;

Not allowing enough freedom;

Allowing too much freedom;

Mocking your child;

Abusing them physically;

Ridiculing or name calling;

Unrealistic expectations;

Practicing favoritism; and Child training with worldly methodologies inconsistent with God’s Word. 4]

To this I would add not to be unkind, nor overprotect them.

We must be warned not to go to the extreme in discipline, which can be an act of physical or psychological abuse. It is an act of sin and an exercise of carnality (1 Cor. 3:3; Gal. 5:20). This goes against the admonition of Colossians 3:12-13. It breeds bitterness and resentfulness in the child. It kills the child’s self-esteem. Our focus of being a father is to love our child and to aid in reassuring and building up their character. C is to be used, but it is not to be overbearing.

A father’s responsibility is to act in such a way that the result will be that they do not lose heart. The KJV uses the word discouraged. The Greek word is athumeo (used only here in the NT) a compound word of not and spirit or courage, denoting feelings. It is a purpose clause. This type of clause is often used of a situation that is to be avoided (cf. Matt. 7:1; 17:27; Rom. 11:25; 15:20; 1 Cor. 4:6; 8:13; Eph. 2:9).[5] Our purpose is to prevent the child from losing heart or courage. We are to build them up, and not to destroy them.

---

[1] Frank Thielman, BECNT: EPHESIANS, [Grand Rapids MI, Baker, 2010], 395.

[2]  O’Brien, WBC: COLOSSIANS, PHILEMON, 225.

[3]  Vine, EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY, 3:228.

[4] Paul Tautges, 25 Ways to Provoke Our Children to Anger, counselingoneanother.com /2011/07/21/.

[5] Pao, ZECNT: COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON, 271.

Review: Syntax Guide by Irons

A SYNTAX GUIDE FOR READERS OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT by Charles Lee Irons [Grand Rapids MI, Kregel Academic, 2016] 629 pages.

This is a syntax guide, not one consisting of a manuscript variants. It does not deal with variants, although a few significant ones are pointed out. He generally accepts the critical text—the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece—as written.  Facts about this guide:

1.       Its purpose is to providing brief explanations and syntactical and translation features of the text.

2.       The notes are brief and concise and in some cases limited.

3.       It is not written to compete with or replace larger works on the subject.

4.       It is designed to encourage the reading of the Greek text.

5.       The translation is from taken from the modern translations, not the King James Version. A weakness I believe.

6.       It endeavors to show various ways the Greek text, especially particles and preposition can be taken.

7.       He admits that he uses at times his own terms for the usual ones (p. 10).

8.       A helpful index is included at the end, to show where certain parts of speech are used in the text (i.e. accusative, etc).

9.       He refers to additional resources in some text.

In using it with the Greek text, first I must acknowledge that the critical text is not my first choice of the Greek texts (although I used it at times). In going though John here are some personal observations:

·         It generally was helpful as a guide. But is more of a quick reference.

·         It was too concise at times with no resources given for those who want more explanation of the options (cf. Jn 1:3). Although He does give options without comment. Which is normally the case.

·         Those verses in which additional information is pointed to are older works, omitting the newer ones [i.e. Mounce].

·         However, it does touch on the key issue of syntax with various degrees of help.  

Much of what I found is already available in other works and/or a good lexicon. While this work may be helpful to the beginning Greek student, it fails to be ready helpful or meet the needs of the more advance student or Pastor. At times, it is difficult to understand. If you have Wallace, Mounce, or even good exegetical commentaries, I would past on this volume. In my opinion it is not needed, nor does it fully meet it purpose.

I was given a review copy by the publisher Kregel Academic in exchange for a fair and honest review.

Studies in Colossians #32

Practicing Christian Living at Home 3:18-4:1

During the time of Paul, a typical household consisted of relationships between husband and wife; parents and children; and family and slaves (servants). The section explodes suddenly into the context of the epistle without the marks of a transition from what went before in the text. It marks a switch from that spiritual family to the physical one.^[1] It has been inferred that this has been borrowed from outside sources and Christianized.^[2] It seems that most hold that the background is the Roman household code.^[3] This may be, but so what? There are common areas of ethics in the world. However, there seems to be no clear consensus as to the background of the injunctions. They are not Christianization of worldly ethics, if anything they are an overlapping of ethics.

This section of responsibility. Gromacki points this out clearly:

Corporate oneness (ein) position does not abrogate individual responsibility and function. Racial, social, and sexual distinctions remain, even though there is equality in Christ.^[4]

Responsibility begins at home. The home is the oldest institution on earth. It was established in the garden before the fall with Adam and Eve.

This section consists of three subsections centered around members of the household: (1) Wives and husbands, (2) children and fathers, and (3) slaves and masters. A number of things can be observed:

• Each section deals with a member of a household.
• In each case Paul deals with the secondary member first and then the one in authority.
• This Colossians 3:18-4:1 is one self-contained unit with three pairs of reciprocal exhortations.^[5]
• It is a series of admonitions addressed to six members of the household.
• They deal with mutual or reciprocal obligations,^[6] and are not one- sided.
• Ephesians 5:22-6:9 is an parallel to these admonitions.

Wives and husbands 3:18-19

This subsection is made of two commands—one to wives, the other to the husbands.

• To the wives: “be subject to your husbands as is fitting the Lord” (3:18). The word subject is a compound word mean to arrange under. It carries the idea of submission or subordinate, but not subjection. This has nothing to do with women being inferior to man. It is in the middle voice, indicating a voluntary act by the wives. As an imperative it could be translation “freely submit yourselves.” It is a military word where the soldiers are under order or directions of an officer.^[7] To Paul, submission between husband and wife is a two-way street. The great example is in sexual relations where one is not to forbid the other, rather is to grow out of mutual consent (1 Cor. 7:3-6). Dunn makes an important observation “that wives and not women generally who are in view” in contrast to 1 Cor. 14:34.^[8] However, Scripture does not warrant that women are to be subject to all men. This passage qualifies the submission in two ways:

First, it is restrictive in that it is dealing exclusively with the husband-wife relationship.

Second, although authority is the underlining principle, it is not an overbearing authority over the wife. It is a voluntary acceptance of authority on the part of the wife, not an enforced one by the husband. There is no evidence that submission to Christ is a forced submission.

The means or basis of the exercise of submission by the wife is not controlled by the husband, but the Lord. It is governed by “as is fitting in the Lord” (3:18). We should note the following observations:

First, it notes the object of appropriate submission is the Lord. The word fit or fitting is a compound word in the Greek (aneko) made up of the words up and come, therefore to come up to, that which is becoming, or what is proper. It speaks of a standard, in this case the standard behavior of the wife.

Second, it marks the manner of submission to the husband and the will of God.  Campbell clearly notes:

It is of course understood that believing wives are to arrange themselves under their husbands not to do that which is contrary to the will of God (cf. Acts 4:9).^[9]

The submission to the standard of Christ outweighs the wrongful authority or commands of the husband.

Third, it speaks of the idea of duty.

 Fourth, it disarms the idea to behave in accordance with the common social order, but goes beyond that to the higher order of the Lord.

• To the husband: “love your wives and do not be embittered against them” (3:19). This injunction is not in contrast to the above injunction, but given a counterpart with it. The implication is that submission is gained by love. There is a natural connection between the two. This injunction to the husband is twofold—positive and negative.

First, the positive: “love your wives.” The word for love is the Greek word agapao, the highest form for love. Campbell gives us five ways in which the word is used in the New Testament:^[10]

1.       There is a direct correlation between love and the willingness to forgive (cf. Luke 7:47).

2.       Love causes one to give of himself for the others, even to the point of death. It is a sacrificing love (cf. John 3:16), We could call it a Calvary love.

3.       Love is not transient but permanent (cf. John 131).

4.       Love shows itself in grace and mercy (Eph. 2:4).

5.       Love disciplines and trains a person to be more like the Lord (Heb. 2:6).

He goes on to note:

As we apply these meanings to the husband’s relation to his wife we have something that is very tangible.  Husbands who love their wives will always be ready to forgive them, to give themselves for them, to be steady and unchangeable in their love, to show mercy toward them, and to help train them to be more like the Lord.^[11]

Love is to be continuous and enduring in all circumstances. It is to be eternal in quality. It forgives, cleanses, and sanctifies. It is the love of Christ for His Church (Eph. 5:26-27).

Second, “do not be embittered against them” (3:19). The word embittered means sour, bitter, or harsh. It is a word which reflects a sinful inclination (cf. Acts 8:23). The conjunction “and” which connects the two injunctions, is an exegetical conjunction, giving a meaningful example of what love entails. Paul instructs us “to put away” all bitterness (Eph. 4:31). Notice in the context this is put away by forgiveness (Eph. 4:32). Paul is arguing that bitterness is overcome by love and the power of the Holy Spirit, which is displayed by forgiveness. The practice of which is to begin with our relationship with our wives. There is no room for harshness in our relationship with our wife, others, and the church.

To be continued…

---

[1]  Moo, PNTC; COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON, 293,

[2] E. Glenn Hinson, “The Christian Household in Colossians 3:18-4:1,” REVIEW AND EXPOSITORY, Electronic media, date unknown.  

[3] Dunn, NIGTC: COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON, 244; THEOLOGY OF PAUL, [Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1998], 666-667; Moo, PNTC: COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON, 294-296; Harold W. Hoehner, EPHESIANS: AN EXEGETICAL COMMENTART, [Grand Rapids MI, Baker, 2002], 720-729,

[4] Gromacki, STAND PERFECT, 146.

[5]  O’Brien, WBC: COLOSSIANS, PHILEMON, 219.

[6] Barclay, DSB: COLOSSIANS, 192.

[7]  Gromacki, STAND PERFECT, 147.

[8]  Dunn, NIGTC: COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON, 247.

[9] Campbell, COLOSSIANS & PHILEMON, 159.

[10]  Ibid, 160.

[11]  Ibid, 160,

THE ROMAN QUIRINIUS, BETHLEHEM & BIRTH OF JESUS

UNDERSTANDING LUKE 2:1-7

The providence of God is active (cf. Prov. 21:1). God is continually active in His creation and the affairs of men. This is to keep creation in existence and to rule and overrule within the outworking of His will in creation (Eph. 1:11). The act of fulfilling His will in the world involves preservation, concurrence, government and intervention. Now God enters the world directly in the person of His Son, the Son of Man. Geldenhuys observes: “Throughout the centuries God had so led the course of history that everything was now prepared for the coming of His Son.”^[1] Paul calls this the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4). It refers to the right time. It has commonly been indicated that God used the Roman Empire to bring about the right conditions. Rome provided universal peace; a highway system that provided access to all parts of the empire; a universal language (Greek); and a widespread monotheistic message by a worldwide system of Jewish synagogues. Judaism was a protected religion. All of this prepared the way for the Son of Man to come and spread His message worldwide. Luke 2:1-20 breaks down into three subsections (1) the birth, 2:1-7; (2) the angelic visit to the Shepherds; and (3) the shepherds visit and testimony. 

There are three parts to this paragraph: the setting in history (2:1-2); the journal to Bethlehem (2:3-5) and the birth of Jesus (2:6-7). The climax of the paragraph is fulfillment of the birth of Jesus, the Son of Man. The phrase “in those days” ties chapter 2 with chapter 1 of Luke.

Luke, the historian, marks accurately the time of this event. The historical setting is revealed by three things:

• Augustus was the Roman ruler (29 BC to 14 AD).^[2] History tells us that his original name was Octavian. He was adopted by Julius Caesar, and eventually became Caesar. He began the line of Julio-Claudian line of emperors, which ended with Nero. He was a very effective ruler, uniting it and his rule brought efficiency, prosperity, great era of construction across the empire, and a strong standing army. He is credited in saving the empire by his defeat of Mark Anthony and Cleopatra thereby becoming the founder and expander of the empire in 27 BC. He was a man of power and absolute authority of a monarch, but maintained the appearance of a republican form of government.  The name Augustus means exalted one.
• The Roman census (2:1). There is debate about when such census took place. Bock calls it “the most significant historical problem in the entire Gospel.”^[3] We know that Rome declared such records started in 6 AD and be retaken every 14 years. 6 AD would be too late for these events recorded by Luke.  Some feel Luke was wrong and mixed it up with the one in 6 AD. This is highly questionable for two reasons: (1) Luke was a first century man and would know that the census in 6 AD, would not be the one taken around the birth of Jesus. (2) It is likely he would have known of an earlier one living so close historically to the event. In fact, we do know a of census in other parts of the empire during this time including the neighboring county of Egypt [see in ancient history of Tacitus]. “There are distinct traces that such a census took place,” observes Farrar.^[4] Augustus is known to have instituted a census during this period. It is not unreasonable think that this decree concerning the whole world would include Palestine although the historical documentation is lost in the halls of history. Such decrees were made for taxation, oaths of allegiance, citizenship, or military conscription.
• A more difficult part of the problem is the governship of Quirinius over Syria (2:2). We know for sure that Quirinius was governor in 6-7 AD, but that is about 10 years after the birth of Jesus. This begs the question, was Luke wrong about the timing of the census and the governship? We do know he had a long distinctive career in the service of Rome that dates back to at least 12 BC.^[5] Thus, Quirinius had an active administrative role from before Jesus was born. The answer to the dilemma is not clear.  There are basically two perspective answers to this problem:^[6]
• First it is exegetical in nature. The phrase “the first census taken” has the Greek word protos primarily means first in time, chief, but can mean prior. Thus, it is possible to translate it before the census. It refers to a census earlier than the one of Quirinius, and not even related to him; although that is unlikely due to the context.
• Second, Quirinius was either governor or acting governor during the last days of Herod. Some claim that the inscription Lalpis Tiburtinus refers to Quirinius. Although that is debated. Between 4-1 BC, he was believed to a legate and suggested that part of his responsibility was to administer the census. There is a gap in governorships during that time. However, some see him as the chosen administrator of the Census that dates back to 6 BC. This makes it possible for an earlier census conducted by Quirinius.

The census was the motivating factor for Mary and Joseph’s going to Bethlehem (2:3-5). There are three elements to the paragraph: requirement (v3), residence (v4), and registration (v5).

• “Everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city” (2:3). This statement reflects the requirement for taking the census. People were to report to their ancestral home. Rome rarely required this, but there were occasions where this happened. However, this was more custom among the Jews and was practiced since earliest time (cf. 2 Sam. 24). It was a necessity to do so, especially if one still owned land there. Geldenhuys says it may have been necessary because it was “possible that Joseph and Mary knew that according to Micah 5:1 the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem and that both accordingly decided to go there.”^[7] The census paved the way both by its requirement and timing for the fulfillment of God’s Word.
• “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 of David” (2:4). This declares the following: (1) Joseph and Mary were up to this time living in Nazareth. (2) Joseph’s ancestral home was Bethlehem, the city of David. This was 90 miles from Nazareth. (3) Joseph was a member of the royal household of David. Joseph going to Bethlehem denotes that he was obedient both to the government and to the Word of God (cf. Rom. 13:1). Bethlehem means house of bread. It was in the house of bread that the bread of life was born (cf. John 6:28-29).
• “In order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child” (2:5). It is clear that the trip was one made by Joseph and Mary. Mary came with Joseph, not because she had to register with Joseph for women were not required to register. Mary came probably came along because (1) They had been apart for some time when she went to be with Elizabeth. (2) They were married. The text has them still engaged, but most feel that it was used because Mary was still with child and the marriage had not been consummated (cf. Matthew 1;24-25). The element of her virginity is continued in this statement. (3) The event indicates that Mary was in advanced state of her pregnancy.

During this time, “While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was not room in the inn” (2:6-7). How long after their arrival is not clear but it was early since they were still staying in the stable. The birth is simple stated: “she gave birth.” Jesus’ birth was a mystery— eternal, yet born (cf.  John 8:58); a miracle—He was God/man (Phil. 2:7); and it was a marvel—He was rich but became poor (2 Cor. 8:9). Yet, Luke understates the greatness of the coming of Christ with the simple statement of fact. He is writing from the perspective of a historian, not a theologian. He gives us the historical fact. In the Greek, it is aorist infinitive communicating a single act.^[8] Jesus birth was:

• A natural and normal birth. It was the conception that was the miracle.
• Jesus was her firstborn son. This indicate the first among others. It implies that Mary and Joseph had other children, as we are informed in other scriptures [Luke 8:19-20; Matt. 12:46-47]. Jesus was the firstborn denoting He had the rights of the firstborn, including the legal and regal rights. Jesus had to be the firstborn to inherit the Messianic rights.
• The newborn was wrapped in swaddling clothes, which was custom in those days. These were strips of cloth used to wrap babies, especially their limbs to keep them straight so they would grow correctly.
• It is early in the arrival to Bethlehem that the event occurred. They had no time to fin another accommodation, rather than that of the stable. For there was no room in the inn. Tradition says this was a cave (goes back to Justin Martyr, 100-160 AD; and Origen, 184-253 AD). An "inn" (Gr. katalyma) could have been a guest room in a house (cf. 22:11-12), or any place of lodging. Private residences were divided into two parts: a family residence and another section for the animals, which would have a feeding manger.^[9] It is possible that it was a family inn or residence where this took place. If so, the house was overcrowded and they had to stay in the animal section or stable.
• The innkeeper is presented in tradition as being a mean and heartless person. However, scripture does not match that portrayal.
• Time of the year is not clear in the text. Tradition gives the date as December 25^th, but that is debatable. The fact is that it is not given in Scripture.

---

[1]  Novel Geldenhuys, NICNT: LUKE, 99.

[2]  See S. Angus, A.M. Renwich, “Roman Empire and Christianity,” THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYPLOPEDIA (known as ISBE), [Grand Rapids MI, Eerdmans, 1988], 4:207-221. R.B. Edwards, “Rome,” DICTIONARY OF JESUS AND THE GOSPELS, [Downers Grove IL, InterVarsity Press, 1992], 710-715.

[3]  Darrell L Bock, BECNT: LUKE 1:1-9:50, Excursus 2, 903.

[4]  F. W. Farrar, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE, [Cambridge, University Press, 1905], 62.

[5]  Darrell L Bock, BECNT: LUKE 1:203.

[6]  Ibid, 907-909,

[7]  Norval Geldenhuys, NICNT: LUKE, 101.

[8]  R.C.H. Lenski, THE INTERPRETATION OF ST. LUKE’S GOSPEL, [Minneapolis MN, Augsburg, 1946]. 123.

[9]   Thomas L Constable, NOTES ON LUKE, [electronic media, bible.org, 2015 edition], 42.