Luke 2:4Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Holding this understanding of the inseparable union, we declare the Holy Virgin to be the Mother of God, for the Word of God became incarnate (John 1:14) and assumed human nature, thereby accepting the physical form that originated from her. In this manner, we recognize that the two natures exist in an indissoluble union within Him, perfectly united yet distinct. The flesh remains flesh, not divine essence, even though it became the flesh of the Lord; conversely, the Word is God, not flesh, though He incorporated flesh through the act of creation. While the natures that combine to form the one Christ are indeed distinct and unequal, the One who emerges from them is unified: we should not separate the Lord Jesus Christ into two distinct entities of man and God but rather acknowledge that Christ Jesus is one and the same, recognizing the unique natures without allowing their essence to merge or blend in our understanding.

The reason Mary accompanied Joseph seems tied to the decree that only the heads of families were to register. If everyone went to their hometown, the movement would have been overwhelming, causing significant chaos. There are suggestions that Mary, being an orphan and potentially with no siblings, had to represent her household or lineage. This practice is rooted in Jewish law that stipulates a married woman or an orphaned girl must stand for her family (Num. 36:8). The term ‘suppliant’ here reflects the status of being left alone. A woman in Mary’s position had to marry within her own tribe to prevent her inheritance from becoming mixed. Tradition holds that her parents were both elderly, likely leaving her as their sole child.

However, there may have been other motives for Mary’s journey to Bethlehem alongside Joseph. Observing the ways of Divine Providence is fitting here. The prophets had proclaimed that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). The prophet, discussing current affairs, suddenly highlights Bethlehem’s significant role, saying: you are small and seem insignificant among the clans of Judah, yet a leader will emerge from you. This tendency for prophets to connect present occurrences to future events is common.

How could this prophecy be brought to fruition? It might seem evident to explain this to Joseph and Mary simply. However, that would lead to a human interpretation of fulfillment. Divine Providence chose that a decree from Augustus should be issued, prompting all Jews, including Joseph and Mary, to travel to Bethlehem, thereby fulfilling the prophecy. Though the means appear vast, God is orchestrating it, making it the most fitting approach. This conveys the essence of this narrative.

Augustus, no doubt, had his reasons, possibly driven by curiosity or political motives, especially after Herod had murdered two of his sons. Yet, ultimately, the divine will was at work. While many likely speculated about this major event, the ultimate reason remained hidden. Such occurrences can often unfold in life, where profound deliberations and observations fail to reveal the true cause behind significant events. Thus, in civic matters—despite how unreasonable they may seem—one should not lose hope or complain excessively, as a higher hand governs all for a greater purpose.

Why was the Holy Virgin led to Bethlehem in this particular manner? Why did it please the Savior of humanity to enter the world during a global census? Origen provides insight: a king is born, and a new kingdom is initiated; hence it was essential to account for the subjects. The Savior arrives; thus, a census is required for those who will receive salvation. This reflection arises as we read the Gospel accounts surrounding the earthly life of Jesus Christ and His Nativity.

1. What was the census referred to by the evangelist as encompassing the entire world? 2. How could this have taken place in Judea under the authority of Augustus, considering Herod was king there? 3. How could Quirinius, the governor of Syria, conduct a census in Judea when he was appointed after both Herod and his son Archelaus had concluded their reigns? 4. Why does Josephus remain silent on this census?

1. The census that took place toward the end of Herod’s reign—whether it was merely a counting of individuals or included tax assessments, as was typical with Roman censuses—did not encompass the whole earth as understood within the Roman Empire and its dependencies. Although Suetonius mentions three censuses during Augustus’ rule, these only applied to Roman citizens. The entirety of the Roman populace was counted. Furthermore, historical records affirm that none of these censuses can be equated with the one around the time of Christ's birth. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that this census was limited to Judea; this does not contradict the Evangelist's description of it being throughout the whole land, πασαν τήν οίκουμένην. The term οίκουμένη can denote the Roman Empire in a broader sense and might also specifically refer to Judea as noted in Luke (Acts 11:28) and Josephus (8:13, 5). The term πάσαν may have been employed by the Evangelist to indicate that all regions of Judea, including Galilee, were accounted for in this census, a detail the Evangelist likely recognized since later Judea was divided into several independent territories.

2. The presence of a reigning king in Judea did not inhibit the Roman emperor from conducting a census there. The Romans maintained the Jewish population under their control despite Herod's kingship. Herod lacked true autonomy regarding his inheritance and was obligated to secure the emperor's approval for his reign. Just before his death, Herod acknowledged his tribute to the emperor, evident when his son Archelaus' provinces were managed under a comprehensive disturbance, with relief on a quarter of the tax from the emperor, according to Josephus. To whom did this tax go? Evidently, not to Archelaus. Josephus attributes the onset of Roman domination over the Jews to Pompey's arrival in Judea resulting from a conflict between two brothers.

The various circumstances indicate there was no obstruction to a census ordered by the Roman emperor toward the end of Herod’s reign, even if it involved a tax imposition, similar to a general enumeration of the Jewish subjects following the emperor's mandate.

3. The phrase "Αϋτη ή άπογραφή πράτη έγένετο ήγεμονεύοντος τής Συρίας Κυρηνίου" has been subject to various interpretations. One plausible approach is to read πρώτη (first) instead of προτέρα, resulting in the following genitive cases being dependent on it: ήγεμονεύοντος Κυρηνίου, which would suggest that this census occurred prior to the one enacted by Quirinius, the governor of Syria. The full phrase, according to this understanding, could be expressed as "αϋτη ή άπογραφή πρώτη τής τού ήγεμονεύοντος τής Συρίας Κυρηνίου." Alternatively, it could be that the member τής is omitted, a pattern observed in other instances within Luke (13:1). This approach is reinforced by the evidence of another enumeration taking place in Judea about fourteen years later that was accurately conducted by Quirinius during his tenure as governor, as documented by Josephus and referenced by Luke (Acts 5:37).

4. To address the question of why Josephus does not mention this census, it is essential to consider the events of the latter part of Herod’s reign. In his final years, Herod faced discontent from the Arabian king Hovod, who retained a sum of money from Herod without returning it despite demands. At one point, bands of robbers from Arabia invaded Herod's realm and captured some of his subjects, leading him to seek redress, but these robbers were under the protection of the Arabian king and his minister, Silius. The conflict was escalated to the emperor's officials in Syria, leading to an agreement for both parties to return captured individuals and financial compensation within a set timeframe. When this did not happen, Silius accused Herod in Rome, prompting Herod, with imperial consent, to take military action against Arabia, resulting in significant casualties among the Arabians. Following these events, Augustus questioned Herod's actions and decided to treat him as a subject moving forward.

Faced with this situation, Herod sent Nicholas of Damascus to Rome to clarify his position, which ultimately led to reconciliation with Augustus. However, familial strife erupted soon after, as Herod’s son Antipater formed a conspiracy with his uncle, leading to suspicions and attempts to report the scenario to him. Herod learned about a faction of Jews who resisted the Roman authority, particularly the Pharisees, known for their strict observance of the law and opposition to kings. When the entire Jewish populace swore allegiance to the emperor, about 6,000 Pharisees refused. Sensing potential insurrection, they attracted the attention of various members of the royal household, culminating in Herod’s ruthless action against them, including executions.

In reviewing these last years of Herod's rule, it is evident that the oath Josephus discusses is associated with the census mentioned by Luke, revealing significant overlap with the Gospel narrative of Christ’s birth. According to Luke, “There came a command from Caesar Augustus to take a census of the whole universe.” Josephus describes this allegiance as a pledge to the emperor, with its significance underscored by the fact that the Jewish populace generally complied, barring the 6,000 Pharisees.

As the story of Jesus’ infancy unfolds, we acknowledge the time of His birth remains a vital discussion point. The year of His birth can be determined through a few chronological markers: first, the Evangelists’ records concerning His birth; second, the timeline of Jesus’ baptism; and finally, determining the year of His death. The Evangelists provide several chronological hints regarding Jesus' birth, noting it occurred under Herod shortly before his demise and involving the decree to eliminate infants not older than two years, indicating the Messiah was a child at that time.

The timeline of Jesus’ baptism gives us additional indicators, such as John the Baptist beginning his ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. By assessing the time of Jesus' ministry alongside the three specific historical insights and examining the details provided by Church Fathers, we arrive at various conclusions concerning the actual year of Christ's birth.

Ultimately, while some calculations differ on the specifics of the birth year, recognizing the amalgamation of both historical insights and scriptural references leads us to a clearer understanding of the timeframe surrounding the Nativity of Christ.

During the census in the time of David (2 Samuel 24:24), those responsible for the count moved from village to village. However, by Herod's reign, such local divisions had ceased to exist, although genealogical records remained intact, encompassing both individual family trees and public registries. Consequently, the census ordered by Herod required everyone to return to their ancestral town according to these public genealogies. The Evangelist notes that Joseph was "of the house and lineage of David," which suggests that the enrollment was primarily necessary for him. Nonetheless, Mary accompanied him as well. Some scholars propose that Mary might have been an hereditary daughter and possessed property in or near Bethlehem, thus making her subject to the census as well. However, this theory fails to clarify why Mary's personal presence was needed for the enrollment, as, upon her marriage, her inheritance would legally transfer to Joseph. Others contend that Mary needed to be registered in the census like any other woman, given that in the Roman Empire women were subject to a general taxation after the age of twelve. Yet, the Jewish customs under which the census was conducted did not mandate her presence for it. A different line of reasoning suggests that Mary’s presence with Joseph in Bethlehem might be inferred from the Evangelist's note regarding her pregnancy; it is postulated that her condition necessitated the support of a close male companion, such as Joseph. While this speculation is plausible, it is important to understand that the Evangelist's remark about Mary's state should not be viewed solely as the rationale for her journey with Joseph but rather as a transitional comment that leads to the events that follow.

Descending from the mountains where Nazareth was located, they took the route through the valley of Jezreel, which might seem desolate today but was once teeming with vibrant industrial activity. Josephus Flavius noted that Galilee at that time was densely populated, boasting 240 towns and villages, each with a minimum of fifteen thousand residents. Even if this account contains some embellishments, it’s clear that the region was highly populated, to the extent that an ancient tale suggests one could traverse it for a year without repeating a night in the same village.

Their path wound through numerous towns, stirring cherished historical reflections for any earnest traveler. Moving past the rounded summit of Tabor, the road continued south to Jezreel, the former capital of the evil King Ahab. East of Jezreel lay the mountains of Gilboa, where the tragic King Saul met his end in a fierce clash with the Philistines; to the right was Dothan, with its fertile pastures, where Joseph had previously visited his brothers and fallen prey to their treachery. The route meandered through lush gardens, vineyards, and fields towards Samaria, recently reconstructed by Herod with such opulence that he deemed it worthy of the name Sebastia, reminiscent of the Latin Augustus, in honor of his esteemed Roman overlord.

However, the righteous couple could not linger in Samaria or its nearby cities, as they were met with the scornful and unfriendly gazes of the Samaritans, whose longstanding animosity toward the Jews was well-known. After perhaps stopping briefly at Jacob's well near Shechem or Sychar, they hastened to leave Samaritan territory and find refuge in the sacred land of Israel. As they ascended the hillside of Akravvim, marking the boundary between Samaria and Judea, they entered Judea and were greeted by sacred memories cherished by every Jew.

Foremost, they beheld the sacred site of Shiloh, where the Tabernacle once stood and where Hannah had come in fervent prayer to express her sorrow. Then they encountered Gilgal, where her beloved son, the revered prophet Samuel, later dwelled. Their journey continued through various towns and historical landmarks until it brought them to the gates of Jerusalem. However, Joseph and Mary aimed for Bethlehem, the birthplace of their royal ancestor, situated about ten versts to the south of Jerusalem.

Bethlehem sprawled across the slope of a steep hill, with narrow winding streets arranged in irregular patterns, offering a breathtaking view of the surrounding hills. On one hill, about five versts to the east, stood Herod’s castle, Herodium, while further east, beyond the Jordan River, the majestic Moab mountains glimmered with exquisite light as the sun rose or set. The mountain of Bethlehem was encircled by steep cliffs that cascaded down into the valleys below, with some areas adorned by vineyards and various fruit trees, including olives, figs, and pomegranates. In the small plain adjacent to the city, the green barley fields, reminiscent of the property once owned by the wealthy Boaz, continued to flourish at certain seasons. This was the same field where Ruth, the great-grandmother of King David, gleaned leftover ears of grain and ultimately found her blessing, securing her legacy in the annals of the chosen people.