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.