Structure and Literary Form
CHAPTER 6 Luke 2:1 – 21
IV. The earthly reaction to the birth (2:15 – 20)
A. The shepherds' reaction of faith in seeking the child (2:15 – 17) B. The shepherds' announcement to others of what had happened
(2:18)
C. Mary’s reaction of treasuring what had happened (2:19)
D. The shepherds' reaction of giving glory and praise to God (2:20) V. The circumcision and naming of Jesus (2:21)
Explanation of the Text
2:1 It happened in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the entire world should be registered [on tax lists] ( ). Herod’s reign served as the chronological marker for John’s birth (1:5); so now Caesar Augustus’s reign is the chronological marker for Jesus' birth. The mention of these rulers is a painful reminder that Israel was still in captivity even in their own land. Herod’s heir, Herod Antipas (identified by Luke only as
“Herod the tetrarch” in the narrative) will put John to death (3:19 – 20; 9:7 – 9). Caesar’s governor, Pontius Pilate, will put Jesus to death (23:24). At the beginning and end of the gospel, the Romans are introduced doing the two things most hated by their subjects: taxation and crucifixion.
The census is mentioned four times. This imperial decree need not mean that it refers to a specific census that Augustus ordered. It is simply “part of a coordinated empire-wide policy of Augustus.”3 The statement sets up a comparison between the presumption of Caesar’s worldwide authority and that of the newborn child laid in an animal’s feeding trough but declared by an angel from highest heaven to be Savior, Christ, and Lord. It also shows how God uses an unwitting Caesar to accomplish divine purposes so that the child is born in the town of David.
The emperor mentioned here was born Gaius Octavius. Julius Caesar adopted his grandnephew and made him his heir. After Octavius defeated Mark Antony at Actium and brought an end to civil war, the senate honored him in 27 BC with the title “Augustus” (“majestic”). Luke uses the Latin title as if it were a personal name, even though he knows and uses the Greek translation “his majesty the emperor” ( ; Acts 25:21, 25).
“Augustus” avoids the Greek term that had a sacred connotation for a Greek audience.4
2:2 This registration was before Quirinius governed Syria ( ). This statement is often translated, “This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria” (NRSV), which raises questions
about Luke’s historical accuracy. Josephus (Ant. 18.1.1 2 – 4) reports that when Herod’s son Archelaus was deposed in AD 6, the Romans decided to rule Judea directly instead of through another Herodian client king. They sent their own governor, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, to administer the province directly. He was legate to Syria for only a short time in AD 6 – 7.
He administered a census, since direct rule necessitated direct taxation, and it also symbolized Judea’s subjugation to Rome. To avoid the chronological discrepancy, some argue that Quirinius had served as legate earlier during the time of Herod the Great.5 The evidence, however, is inconclusive. Also, the census ordered by Quirinius in AD 6 registered only those in Judea, not Galilee, which remained under the control of Herod Antipas.6
The translation offered here avoids this historical problem by rendering the superlative adjective “first” with a comparative sense “before.”7 Fitzmyer dismisses this view as a “last ditch solution to save the historicity involved,”8 but valid arguments commend it. The translation “first” is odd because no sequence of other known censuses follows. Why does it need to be identified as the first? The structure of the phrase is also similar to the usage in John 1:15, 30 with the adjective “first”/“before” ( ) followed by the genitive — in this case, the genitive absolute (
).9
This translation fits historically. Pearson shows that the census under Quirinius was not the first that the Jews had undergone. Herod, whose charge as a client king of Rome was to Romanize his territory, had a “well- organized system of taxation and … he needed to, and did, exercise social control over his people.”10 This census would have been one of many conducted by Herod according to the Roman example.
Why, then, would Luke cite the census of Quirinius that occurred later?
Pearson answers, because it was “more memorable than the continual process of census and taxation that Herod practiced, if for no other reason than because it caused a rebellion!”11 Josephus considered the census of Quirinius to be a watershed event that was the impetus for the rebellion led by Judas of Galilee. That rebellion sowed the seeds for the Zealot movement that burgeoned into a pattern of sedition and conflict and culminated in the revolt against Rome and Jerusalem’s destruction (Josephus, J.W. 2.8.1 §§117 – 18; 2.9.1 §167; Ant. 17.3.5 §§354 – 55;
18.1.1 §§1 – 9).
Pearson makes the case that the censuses and taxation under Herod, hated as they were, at least appeared to be under the auspices of a Jewish state even though they were in the Roman style. The census under Quirinius, however, was “the first taste of direct, immediate rule by the Romans.”
What stirred Judas and Saddok to foment revolt was not that God’s people were being assessed and taxed but was driven by “the status which such an assessment carried with it.” They were under indirect Roman rule before under Herod, but this census made it crystal clear that they “were now under direct Roman rule.”12 Luke knows of the connection of the revolt led by Judas and the census and cites it in Acts 5:37 as a memorable event.
Luke connects this earlier census under Herod involving Jesus' family to the more infamous one conducted by Quirinius as a “prominent chronological signpost.” Pearson explains, “Time keeping in cultures with limited literacy is accomplished not necessarily by reference to a calendar on the wall or a watch on the wrist, but rather by significant events.”13 It also serves other purposes. First, Jesus' family, like Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37), was also from Galilee, but they peaceably complied with the requirement to be registered rather than rebelled (see 23:2). Second, a census was not simply a means of organizing the tax rolls but was also “a means of demonstrating control of the world.”14 Luke’s mention of the infamous census sets up the opposition between the proud, formidable empire of Caesar and God’s eternal reign. The child born in Bethlehem to parents subjected to Roman tyranny will ultimately challenge the existing political order and create an astonishing reversal of authority and power, not through violence but through obedience to God and the giving of his life.
2:3 – 5 And all went to be registered, each one to his own town.
Joseph went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea to the town of David called Bethlehem, because he was from the house and family line of David, to be registered with Mary, who was betrothed to
him and pregnant (
). We need not envision a mass movement of people. Pearson cites the historical observation of Ramsay:
We in modern time make the census for one fixed and universal moment, catching our migratory population at the given instant, as if
by an instantaneous photograph. The Romans tried to cope in another way with the difficulty of numbering people who might be far from home, viz., by bringing them at some time during the enrolment-year to their proper and original home; and they permitted them to come for enrollment at any time during the year.15
What is important for Luke is Jesus' connection to the house of David through Joseph and Bethlehem, the town of David, which was prophesied to be the birthplace of the “one who will be ruler over Israel,” the Messiah (Mic 5:2).16 It keeps in the forefront the promise to Mary that “the Lord God will give to him the throne of David his father” (1:32). Augustus’s decree causes Jesus to be born in Bethlehem. His reign will end with his death in AD 14. Jesus' reign will have no end (1:33).
The reversal theme emerges subtly in this verse. The word order of the sentence has Joseph rising from Galilee to go to Judea and the “town [ ] of David”; this expression would lead those familiar with Scripture and with the prevailing identification of Jerusalem as the of David17 to expect that Joseph travels to Jerusalem. “Bethlehem” as the of David would come as a surprise. The of David one would expect to be the center of Israel politically and religiously, but there is a deliberate contrast with Bethlehem.
Jesus is the legitimate Davidic ruler of Israel who comes out of lowly Bethlehem, the town of David, in fulfillment of Mic 5:1 – 2; he stands in contrast to the Davidic kings in the great city of Jerusalem. This Micah prophecy itself contrasts the present Davidic king who relies on military power and is subsequently defeated with the coming Davidic ruler from Bethlehem, who will rely on God and will triumph and “his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth” (Mic 5:4).18
Mentioning again Mary’s betrothal to Joseph suggests that the marriage has not yet been consummated and underscores that she has not become pregnant in the normal way.19 The unit’s conclusion (2:21) reinforces the virginal conception by harking back to the angel’s visit to Mary and the announcement of the child’s conception and name (1:31). Luke is silent about why Mary went with Joseph, but one might presume that she needed to be registered with him as part of a poll tax or that with the birth at hand
they wanted to be together. Luke does not share their personal feelings or thoughts about this imposed journey.
2:6 – 7 It happened that while they were there, the days for her to give birth were fulfilled; she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in bands of cloth and laid him in a feeding trough because there was no place for them in the guest room (
). Noting that Jesus is
“the firstborn” ( ) recalls God’s claim on those who open the womb (Exod 13:2) and the right of inheritance (Deut 21:15 – 17). Being the firstborn may reinforce the idea that Jesus is to be the heir to David’s throne (2 Chr 21:3).20
At birth, a baby was normally wrapped in bandage-like strips to keep the legs and arms still. It provided some warmth and may have been presumed to provide the newborn a sense of security. Since it is mentioned three times, what is its significance? First, it reveals parental care for the child (see Ezek 16:4 – 5). Second, though Jesus has been divinely conceived, it reveals that he shares the lot of all mortals. Solomon says: “I was nursed with care in swaddling cloths. For no king has had a different beginning of existence; there is for all one entrance into life, and one way out” (Wis 7:4 – 6). At the end of his life, Jesus will be wrapped in a linen death shroud (23:53).
I translate the familiar “manger” ( ) as “feeding trough.”21 The word could refer to a stall (13:15), but it makes more sense that Mary wrapped her baby and “laid” him in something that can function as a crib.
The trough would be in a stall. The point is, “the child lies outside the human dwelling in an unusual place where there are only animals.”22 The
“manger” has been sanctified and glorified over the many years of Christmas celebrations, and this stark translation deliberately diminishes that aura of dignity. No one sings “Away in a feeding trough,” which is just the point. The Savior who dies on a shameful cross was placed in a lowly trough for barn animals when he was born: “his head rests where cattle have fed.”23
The text is unclear whether this takes place in a separate stall attached to a house, an enclosure in the open, or a cave.24 It is more likely that the stall was part of the dwelling. Luke uses that same word that is frequently translated “inn” ( ) in 22:11 (Mark 14:14) to refer to “the guest room” where Jesus and his disciples eat the Last Supper. Luke does not use here the word for “inn” ( ), which appears in 10:34 in the parable of the good Samaritan. Peasant homes normally consisted of two rooms, with one used exclusively for guests (see Matt 5:15, where the lamp on the lampstand gives light to all in the house; cf. also Luke 15:8).
The family “cooked, ate, slept, and lived” in the main room, and any animals were also brought in for the night and kept at the lower level of the living room, where the feeding trough would be.25 The picture in 13:15 of the synagogue audience untying an ox or donkey from the stall on the Sabbath to lead it away to water implies leading them out of the house.
Bailey observes, “Were animals kept in a separate stable, the head of the synagogue could have saved face by asserting firmly, ‘I never touch the animals on the Sabbath.’ But if he tried to claim that he leaves the animals in the house all day, the people in the synagogue would ridicule him with laughter!”26
The noun translated “guest room” ( ) refers to a guest chamber attached to the home. Jesus' family stayed in an ordinary home, as would be expected. Because of his lineage, Joseph “belonged” in this village, and room would have been made for him and his wife. Bailey notes that Joseph could have announced, “ ‘I am Joseph, son of Heli, son of Matthat, the son of Levi’ and most homes in town would be open to him.”27 It would have been shameful for the entire community had the couple been turned out (see the discussion on expected Oriental hospitality in the commentary on 11:5 – 8).28 The couple stayed in the animal quarters of the home of a relative or acquaintance because someone who “outranked” them occupied the upper room in an overcrowded home.29
This view is confirmed by the chronological note in 2:6. They were already in Judea and “while they were there” Mary gave birth. They did not arrive late at night so that they had to accept whatever emergency shelter might be available. Joseph would have made arrangements by then for lodging his pregnant wife, even if it meant going to the home of her cousin, Elizabeth, in the Judean hill country (1:39). The fiction of a heartless
innkeeper who turns them away is not only a fantasy, it leads away from Luke’s point.
Finding the child wrapped in bands of cloth and lying in a feeding trough is to be a sign for the shepherds (2:12).30 Since every baby was wrapped in bands of cloth, this detail is incidental as part of the sign. What is primary is that this baby’s crib is a feeding trough. But it is no less ambiguous than the sign of an empty tomb at the end of the gospel. Given the importance in the infancy narrative of remembering and interpreting the events through the lens of Scripture, it requires remembering Scripture to interpret its meaning, as the empty tomb will require remembering the words of Jesus (24:6 – 8).
Its sign value is likely connected to Isaiah 1:3: “The ox knows its master, the donkey its owner’s manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand.”31 Isaiah laments that Israel did not know God as their
“manger,” who nourished his people. Heil, among others, interprets “the feeding trough” in which Jesus lies (2:12, 16) to be “the sign by which God makes known to lowly shepherds (2:15) and through them to all the people (2:10, 17) the birth of their Savior, Christ and Lord (2:11), through whom God will feed his hungry people.”32 In Luke’s subtle symbolism, the feeding trough is now made known. Angels announce to the shepherds the news of the birth, but they do not direct them to the place. On their own, the shepherds find their way to “the manger” of the Lord (2:16). They see Jesus, tell others, and then glorify God for what he has done.
2:8 – 9 There were shepherds in the same region living outdoors and keeping the night watch over their flock. Then an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear (
). Heaven’s glory (see Acts 7:55) comes to earth, filling the night sky with light for a gallery of shepherds who were sitting in darkness. The “glory of the Lord” is God’s visible presence in creation and is associated with awesome events in Israel’s past: the giving of manna (Exod 16:10) and the covenant at Sinai (Exod 24:16 – 17). For Isaiah, the revealing of the glory of the Lord is