« Luke 1:67-80 | Main | Luke 2:8-20 »
Luke 2:1-7
By J.D. Myers | April 30, 2009
The first chapter of Luke revealed some of the great Messianic expectations. The Messiah, it was believed, would overthrow enemy occupation, restore righteousness and justice on the earth, set right all wrongs, and remove oppression from the land. The Messiah would then rule and reign over all the earth from the throne of David in Jerusalem, thus fulfilling the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants.
Chapter two, however, begins to reveal that the life of Jesus the Messiah would not exactly fit the expectations. The circumstances surrounding His birth were certainly not kingly. Instead, it was a humble, lonely event. These circumstances were somewhat caused by the exercise of power from a selfish and greedy foreign emperor. It was just this sort of abuse of power the Jewish people expected the Messiah to stop, and yet when Jesus was born, He and His family experienced troubles as a result of this ruler. Later, after his birth, the people who visited him and pronounced prophecies about Him also begin to show that all will not be exactly as expected with this Messiah.
So while this may not have been the birth which the Jewish people expected for their Messiah, it shows that even from birth, the Messiah suffered along with His people, and experienced the same hardships as they. If deliverance came, it would come from one who suffered among them, not from a rich and pampered king, who knew nothing of pain and hardship.
2:1-2. As with the beginning of chapter 1 (1:5), this second chapter begins with an historical time reference. This helps validate the historical accuracy of the events Luke records. The events take place during the reign of Caesar Augustus. Caesar Augustas was the first Roman Emperor, and reigned from January 16, 27 BC to August 19, 14 AD. At birth, he was named Gaius Octavius Thurinus, and became the adopted son of Julius Caesar. When Julius Caesar died, Octavius became emperor, and became Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, or Octavian Caesar for short. Through a series of military and political maneuvers, he introduced the “Peace of Rome” (Pax Romana) across all conquered lands, and became the sole ruler and emperor over the Roman empire. As a result of his accomplishments, he took on the title “Augustas” which is a religious title meaning “Majesty” or “Illustrious One.” It is a name of divinity, and carries the idea of being “of the gods.” He also described himself as “Emperor Caesar, son of divinity” (imperator Caesar divi filius) and “the firstborn head” of the Senate gathering (primum caput).
During his reign, he began requiring Roman citizens to pay homage to him, not only through taxation, but also through pledging their allegiance with the phrase “Caesar is Lord.” After his death, all Roman Emperors followed these practices.
Luke records that Caesar Augustas made a decree…that all the world should be registered. There is much debate about the historical accuracy of Luke’s statement. Luke writes that this decree first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. Historical documents from that time period reveal that Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6/7 AD, and began his rule by carrying out the census commanded by Caesar Augustas. However, Matthew records that the birth of Jesus took place during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt 2:1). The problem is that Herod the Great died in 4 BC, roughly ten years before Quirinius become governor and carried out the Roman census. Numerous theories have been proposed, ranging from historical error by Luke or Matthew, to alternate translations of Luke 2:1-2 (e.g., “this was the first census, before Quirinius became governor of Syria”), or even an earlier governorship by Quirinius.
The best option is to believe that there is no error, and that we do not yet have all the historical facts about what occurred when. We can believe that a census did take place for the purpose of taxation. Prior to the census, the Jewish people paid taxes to the King, who in turn, paid tribute to Rome. But the result of a census would be direct taxation of the Jewish people to the Roman Emperor, who had set himself up as God. This would be viewed by the Jewish people as essentially equal to slavery, and nearly identical to idol worship.
2:3. As a result of the decree, all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. The fact that Luke records this proves that there are historical circumstances of which we are ignorant. The census by Quirinius in 6/7 AD did not require people to return to their ancestral home. Some hypothesize then that this was an earlier census carried out by Quirinius in Judea when Herod the Great was king, and which followed the Israelite custom of requiring families to return to their ancestral home for registration. This was due to the fact that in Israel, land was tied to the family.
But again, whatever the historical events, the point is that this event would be seen by the majority of Jewish people as a terrible inconvenience, all for the purposes of having to pay more taxes to an occupying government.
2:4. Joseph was one of those affected by the registration, and so he left Nazareth and went south into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem. Most often, Jerusalem is thought of as the city of David[/b] but primarily in reference to David’s reign. [i]Bethlehem is the city of David’s ancestral family. Therefore, Joseph, because he was of the house and lineage of David had to travel to Bethlehem. Matthew 1 contains the genealogical record of Joseph showing this royal lineage. The journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem was about 80 miles.
2:5. Joseph did not go alone, but traveled to Bethlehem with Mary, his betrothed wife. Though not yet officially married, Jewish culture considered betrothed couples to be married in all ways except the physical union. So Mary traveled with Joseph. And of course, she was with child.
2:6. Since so little is known about this type of census, it is also unknown how long Joseph and Mary would have had to remain in Bethlehem. It appears that they were there for quite some time, since Luke writes that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. Many Christmas pageants portray Mary as beginning to have birth pains while on the road to Bethlehem, and once they arrive, Joseph abandons her in a stable while he frantically runs around the village trying to find a warm and clean place for Mary to give birth. Though this makes for a great story, it probably did not happen in exactly that fashion.
Based on what Luke writes, it seems likely that Joseph left Nazareth with plenty of time to get to Bethlehem. The text says that while they were there the time came for Mary to give birth. This seems to indicate that they had been in Bethlehem for some time, a few days at least. Secondly, in an honor-shame culture, hospitality to relatives (and even non-relatives) was expected. If Bethlehem was the town of his ancestors, he certainly would have had relatives in Bethlehem who would have provided housing for Joseph, and his pregnant, betrothed wife.
2:7. Modern readers of Scripture believe that Mary gave birth in a stable “out back” behind an inn because of a misunderstanding of Middle Eastern culture. Though Joseph would have tried to stay with relatives, the text seems to indicate that Joseph and Mary tried to obtain a room in the inn. This is probably best understood as a poor translation. The word Luke uses for “inn” is not the typical Greek word for “inn” (pandocheion, used in Luke 10:25-37), but is kataluma which is best translated “house” or “guest room” (Bailey 2008:32). Luke uses kataluma in 22:10-12 to refer to the upper guest room where Jesus and His disciples would eat the Passover meal.
The average home at this time consisted of one room, with an upper and lower portion. The upper portion was where the family lived, ate, and slept. The lower portion is where the animals stayed at night. This was both to keep them safe, and to provide heat for the family at night. If visitors arrived, they would room with the family in the upper portion of the room. Sometimes, families with more financial means would also have a separate guest room for visitors to stay in, either above or to the side of the main family living area. But whether the family they were staying with had an extra guest room or not, it appears from the text that when Joseph and Mary arrived, the room was already full, probably with other guests who had arrived for the census, and so Mary and Joseph had to stay down below with the livestock (Plummer 1960:54).
Though this is not the lonely and frantic series of events that many Westerners have imagined, the scene is still full of trouble, disappointment, and confusion. Doubtless, this is not the birth location that either Mary or Joseph imagined God would provide for the long-awaited Messiah, the object of all Jewish prophecies and expectations.
This is especially true in light of the other circumstances of the birth. Luke records that when Mary brought forth her firstborn Son [she] wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger. Swaddling clothes were strips of linen which were tightly wrapped around a newborn to make the child feel secure, and to help straighten the limbs (cf. Ezek 30:21 where strips of linen are used to strengthen and straighten a broken limb). Wrapping newborn children tightly with linen was an ancient custom (Ezek 16:4), but is still in use today (Bailey 2004:28). Some have indicated that the same type of cloth used as burial clothes was also used here as swaddling cloths.
The manger that Mary laid Jesus in was an animal feeding trough, most likely made of wood, hewn stone, or a depression in the wall. The point is that the birth of the Messiah was lowly and humble, in stark contrast to Messianic expectations and the life of Caesar Augustas (Kittlel 1974:IX,54). It foreshadows a Messiah who “has nowhere to lay His head” (Luke 9:58).
To comment on this post, please use the forum.
| Check out the Commentary Forum for all the most recent language study and commentary research on this passage.