Charles Ellicott Commentary Luke 2

There went out a decree. The passage that follows has given rise to almost endless discussion. The main facts may be summed up as follows:

1. The word “taxed” is used in its older English sense of simple “registration,” and in that sense is a true equivalent for the Greek word. The corresponding verb appears in Hebrews 12:23. It does not involve, as it might seem to modern ears, the payment of taxes. The “world” (literally, the inhabited world, οἰκουμένη, œcumenè,—the word from which we form the word “ecumenical” as applied to councils) is taken, as throughout the New Testament, for the Roman empire. What Augustus is said to have decreed was a general census.
2. It may be admitted that no Roman or Jewish historian speaks distinctly of such a general census being made at this time. On the other hand, the collection of statistical returns of this nature was an ever-recurring feature of the policy of Augustus. We read of such returns at intervals of about ten years during the whole period of his government. In 27 B.C., when he offered to resign, he laid before the Senate a rationarium, or survey of the whole empire. After his death, a similar document, more epitomized—a breviarium—was produced as having been compiled by him. There are traces of one around this time made by the Emperor, not in his character as Censor, but by an imperial edict such as St. Luke here describes.
3. Just before the death of Herod, Josephus (Wars, i. 27, § 2; 29:2) reports that there was an agitation among the Jews. This agitation led Herod to require them to take an oath of fidelity, not only to himself but also to the Emperor, and 6,000 Pharisees refused to take it. He does not say what caused this agitation, but the census St. Luke records, which held out the prospect of future taxation in the modern sense, sufficiently explains it.
4. It need hardly be said that Herod's entire policy was one of subservience to the Emperor. Although he retained nominal independence, he was unlikely to resist the Emperor's wish for statistics on the population, or even the property, of the province over which he ruled.
5. It may be noted that none of the early opponents of Christianity—such as Celsus and Porphyry—called the accuracy of the statement in question. Lastly, we may add that St. Luke, as an inquirer writing for men of education, would not have been likely to expose himself to the risk of detection by asserting that there had been such a census in the face of contrary facts.

And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.—Here we come upon difficulties of another kind. Publicius Sulpicius Quirinus (“Cyrenius” is the Greek form of the last of the three names) was Consul B.C. 12, but he is not named as Governor of Syria until after the deposition of Archelaus, A.D. 6, and he was then conspicuous in carrying out a census which involved taxation in the modern sense; and this was the “taxing” referred to in Gamaliel’s speech (Acts 5:37) as having led to the revolt of Judas of Galilee.

How are we to explain St. Luke’s statement so as to reconcile it with the facts of history?

1. The word translated “first” has been taken as if it meant “before,” as it is rendered in John 1:15 and John 1:30. This cuts the knot of the difficulty, but it is hardly satisfactory. This construction is not found elsewhere in St. Luke, and his manner is to refer to contemporary events, not to subsequent ones. It is hardly natural to speak of one event simply as happening before another, with no hint as to the interval that separated them, when that interval included ten or twelve years.

2. Our knowledge of the governors of Syria at this period is imperfect. The dates of their appointments, so far as they go, are as follows:

   • B.C. 9—Sentius Saturninus.
   • B.C. 6—T. Quintilius Varus.
   • A.D. 6—P. Sulpicius Quirinus.

   It was, however, part of the policy of Augustus that no governor of an imperial province should hold office for more than five or less than three years. It is therefore in the highest degree improbable that Varus (whom we find in A.D. 7 in command of the ill-fated expedition against the Germans) should have continued in office for the twelve years that the above dates suggest.

One of the missing links is found in A. Volusius Saturninus, whose name appears on a coin of Antioch about A.D. 4 or 5. The fact that Quirinus appears as a rector, or special commissioner attached to Caius Caesar when he was sent to Armenia (Tacitus, Annales iii. 48), at some period before A.D. 4 (the year in which Caius died—probably between B.C. 4 and 1), shows that he was in the East at this time. We may therefore fairly look on St. Luke as having supplied the missing link in the succession, or at least as confirming the statement that Quirinus was in some office of authority in the East—if not as præses, or proconsul, then as quæstor or Imperial Commissioner.

Tacitus, however, records the fact that Quirinus triumphed over a Cilician tribe (the Homonadenses) after his consulship. Since Cilicia was, at that time, attached to the province of Syria, it is probable that he was actually “governor” in the stricter sense of a term somewhat loosely used.

On this view, St. Luke is as accurate in his history here as he is proved to be in all other points where he comes into contact with the contemporary history of the empire. The true meaning is found by emphasizing the adjective: “This enrolment was the first under Quirinus’s government of Syria.”

St. Luke expressly distinguishes it, i.e., from the more memorable “taxing” of which Gamaliel speaks (Acts 5:37). St. Luke, it may be noted, is the only New Testament writer who uses the word. Justin Martyr, it may be added, confidently appeals to Roman registers as confirming St. Luke’s statement that our Lord was born under Quirinus.

All went to be taxed.—As a rule the practice in a Roman census was to register people in their place of residence; but this was probably modified in Palestine, in deference to the feelings of the people. After the death of Herod and the division of his kingdom, such a method as that implied here could hardly have been feasible, as the subjects of one tetrarchy would not have been registered as belonging to another, so that here again we have not an error, but a special note of accuracy.

Unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem.—St. Luke's way of speaking of the town agrees with that in John 7:42. It would appear to have been common. It had never ceased to glory in the fact that it had been David's city.

Of the house and lineage of David.—Others also—for example, Hillel, the great scribe—boasted of such a descent. What, on one hypothesis, was the special prerogative of Joseph was that the two lines of natural descent and inheritance—that through Nathan and that through Solomon—met in him. (See, however, Note on Luke 3:23.) It is possible that the two nearly synonymous words, “house” and “lineage,” may have been used to refer to this union.

To be taxed.—Literally, to register himself.

With Mary his espoused wife.—Many of the best manuscripts omit the substantive: “with Mary who was betrothed to him.” The choice of the participle seems intended to imply the fact on which St. Matthew lays stress (Matthew 1:25). She went up with him, not necessarily because she too had to be registered at Bethlehem, but because her state, as being great with child, made her, in a special sense, dependent on Joseph’s presence and protection.