The Bible Says
Luke 2:1-2 Meaning

There are no apparent parallel gospel accounts of Luke 2:1-2.

Luke 2:1-2 sets the stage for and establishes the timeframe of Jesus’s birth by describing how a decree from Caesar Augustus ordered a census of the entire Roman world, during which time a registration took place while Quirinius was governing Syria.

After describing the birth, circumcision, childhood and the prophetic importance of John the Baptist (Luke 1:57-80), Luke resumes his narrative of the life of Jesus.

He does this by stating an important political event. This event provides historical context for when Jesus’s birth took place and how it influenced where Jesus would be born.

Luke writes:

Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city. (vv 1-2).

Luke’s inclusion and detailed description of this imperial decree is a practical application of his stated purpose in the prologue, which was:

“to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order.”
(Luke 1:1-3)

Luke’s meticulous approach would have greatly appealed to his primarily Greek audience, who more than the Jews (Matthew’s audience) or the Romans (Mark’s audience) valued chronological precision. His orderly, well-researched account grounded in eyewitness testimony and historical detail anchored the life of Jesus in verifiable history for them (and us) so that his readers “may know the exact truth about the things [we] have been taught” (Luke 1:4).

The expression Now in those days describes the period just before Jesus was born.

Before Jesus was born, the Roman emperor, Caesar Augustus, issued an imperial decree. This decree went out to all the inhabited earth. This expression appears to indicate that this decree went out to everyone and to each city across the entire Roman Empire.

Caesar’s decree would have been a massive undertaking.

Caesar Augustus’s empire stretched across vast territory, encompassing lands from Britain in the northwest to Egypt in the southeast, and from Spain in the west to the edges of Mesopotamia in the east. It encompassed most of the known Mediterranean world-covering parts of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East-including Judea. Caesar’s dominions were the largest and most organized empire of its time.

The vastness of the Roman Empire meant that this decree from Augustus would impact numerous people groups-including the Jews-across thousands of miles.

Historians estimate that the total population of the Roman Empire at this time was between 45-60 million men, women, and children who were counted as citizens, subjects, or slaves. Joseph and Mary, the stepfather and mother of Jesus, were two of these subjects.

This decree that was sent out from Caesar was a census.

A Roman census, like the one issued by Caesar Augustus, was a governmental registration used primarily for taxation and military conscription (though Jews were typically exempt from military service). These censuses aimed to gather detailed information about the empire’s population, property ownership, and social status. Individuals were usually required to register in their ancestral hometowns.

Such was the case with this census from Caesar Augustus, as Luke writes: everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city.

Registration could involve disclosing:

• Name and family lineage
• Land or property owned
• Occupation and dependents
• Marital status and household members

Because it was such a colossal undertaking, Roman authorities often worked with local rulers to carry out a census to accommodate the sensibilities and circumstances particular to each province. The process was burdensome and deeply resented by many Jews, because it reminded them of their subjugation to Roman rule.

There is rich irony beneath Luke’s framing of the historical setting for Jesus’s birth as he writes: a decree went out from Caesar Augustus.

Caesar Augustus was the title of Gaius Octavius, better known as “Octavian,” the first emperor of Rome.

Caesar was a family name. Octavian was the adopted heir of Julius Caesar.

Julius Caesar was the Roman general who used his army to capture Rome (49 B.C.), defeat his rivals, and have the Senate declare him dictator for life. But before Julius could implement his reforms, he was assassinated by Rome’s Senators in the Forum to prevent him from becoming king (44 B.C.).

In the bloody wars that followed, the victorious Octavian continued to accrue power until he emerged as the undisputed leader of Rome’s government and military.

Octavian shrewdly crafted a brand image for himself by deliberately retaining his benefactor’s name. He took the name Caesar to associate himself with his famous uncle. He then actively worked to have his assassinated benefactor officially deified (declared a god) by the Roman state. The Roman Senate formally recognized Julius Caesar as “Divus Julius” (i.e. the Divine Julius) in 42 B.C.

This act served Octavian’s political purposes. As the adopted son of a now-deified figure, Octavian proudly assumed the title “Divi Filius” (i.e. “Son of the Divine”). This title gave him religious prestige and moral authority over his rivals and became a cornerstone of his brand image as a man favored by the gods and destined to lead Rome.

Later, Octavian made a shrewd symbolic gesture by offering to resign his extraordinary powers and restore authority to the Senate and Roman people, knowing they would refuse. This political move was a masterstroke. In response to Octavian’s “modesty,” the Senate granted him the title Augustus-a term with religious overtones meaning “majestic,” “exalted,” and/or “consecrated.”

The carefully manicured image of Octavian’s title-Caesar Augustus-depicted him as the majestic and exalted son of the divine Caesar.

Luke subtly subverts Roman imperial propaganda by mentioning Caesar Augustus as he sets up the moment of the birth of Jesus-the true Son of God.

While Octavian styled himself as the “son of the divine” and accepted honors to appear majestic and godlike, Luke presents Jesus-God’s actual Son-being born in obscurity and laid in a manger (Luke 2:6-7). The contrast could hardly be more striking. The one whom Rome exalted sits on a throne, while the One heaven exalts enters the world in poverty and humility. By placing these two figures side by side, Luke highlights the irony that true majesty does not come from imperial titles or Senate decrees, but was revealed in a child born in anonymity and whose quiet arrival went unnoticed by the rulers of the age (1 Corinthians 3:19).

In this baby, divine power took on human weakness. Unlike Caesar, this Jesus’s authority came from heaven, not men. And His kingdom would outlast every earthly throne-including Rome.

Luke’s setup for the birth of Jesus is in some respects a second beginning to his gospel account. The first beginning to his account announced and described the birth of John the Baptizer. From this perspective, the scope of Luke’s larger project of Luke-Acts goes from Rome to Judea with Caesar’s decree and from Judea back to Rome as the Apostle Paul awaits his appeal before Caesar (the emperor Nero) (Acts 28:16-31).

Caesar Augustus issued multiple censuses from time to time throughout his reign.

Luke makes an effort to point out that this census was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria (v 2).

Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was a Roman senator and military leader who likely served as governor (legate) of Syria two times. According to the ancient historian Josephus, Quirinius had served multiple offices, including one of the highest Roman offices-Consul (Josephus. “Antiquities of the Jews.” 18.1.).

Quirinius’s first term likely occurred around 6 B.C. to 4 B.C., during which he would have overseen provincial registration in Judea under Herod the Great, in connection with Caesar Augustus’s empire-wide census referred to by Luke.

Quirinius’s second term as governor of Syria is better documented by ancient writers. It was from A.D. 6 to A.D. 9, during which time he conducted another census of Judea (Josephus. “Antiquities of the Jews.” 18.1). This is also most likely “the census” referred to in Acts 5:37.

Quirinius had earlier distinguished himself as a commander in Roman campaigns, including a successful war against the Homonadenses in Asia Minor, for which he was awarded honors. According to Tacitus (Annals 3.48), Quirinius later was an advisor to Tiberius and was buried with distinction, though not popularly admired.

Luke’s remark-this census was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria-was a timestamp that would have indicated which decree and census he was referring to. It would have meant more to his original readers, some of whom may have even been old enough to remember this specific census, than it does to modern readers.

Luke specifies that he is referring to the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

The fact that Luke says it was the first implies that there were additional censuses issued while Quirinius was governor of Syria. As we will see there appear to have been two censuses taken during Quirinius’s governorships, and Luke is clarifying for his audience that he is referring to the first census and not the second census.

There is a lively discussion about Quirinius’s census and Luke’s historical marker for the birth of Christ.

THE DEBATE ABOUT THE TIMING OF QUIRINIUS’S CENSUS IN THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

The census of Luke 2:1-2 is his historical marker for the birth of Jesus.

This debate has arisen because of a difficulty reconciling three historical claims. These three claims are:

1. Matthew’s Gospel account explicitly describes Jesus as being born during Herod the Great’s reign over Judea (Matthew 1:25-2:19). Herod the Great died in 4 B.C.
   
   
2. Luke’s Gospel account (Luke 2:1-6) explicitly describes Jesus as being born during the implementation of a census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.
   
   
3. Ancient historians such as Josephus and Livy and inscriptions found on other ancient artifacts indicate that Quirinius became governor of Syria sometime around 6 A.D.

Obviously, Jesus could not have been born both before 4 B.C. and ten years later in 6 A.D.

There is a way for all three of these claims to be reasonably reconciled. In fact, when everything is considered, there is actually more evidence supporting a reconciliation of all three claims than there is supporting a Biblical contradiction.

Sadly, some have hastily concluded from these apparently conflicting reports that the Bible is wrong. That is, they have doubted the accuracy of Luke’s claim and tried to use their doubt as grounds to not only discredit this single statement, but to reject the entire Bible.

Before we assess the various factors leading to this wrong and tragic conclusion, it needs to be acknowledged that such skeptical reaction is based far more on eagerness to reach a particular conclusion than a careful attention to reconciling available data.

The argument for disbelieving Luke’s claim is based on two factors.

1. An apparent discrepancy between the external historical evidence we currently have for when Quirinius was governor of Syria and when the Bible indicates Quirinius was governor of Syria.
   
   
2. A disposition to disbelieve that the Bible and its claims are accurate and true.

The first factor concerns an apparent discrepancy of fact.

The second factor is purely a matter of faith, in this case faith that the Bible is not true.

This commentary will address both factors. And it will show how instead of casting doubt upon the accuracy of Luke’s account, his claim not only holds up to intense scrutiny, it also bolsters the validity of Biblical record and its eternal claims.

The Factor of an Apparent Discrepancy of Fact-and the Governorship(s) of Quirinius.

The apparent discrepancy is:

• Matthew clearly depicts Jesus as having been born and being a young child during the reign of King Herod (Matthew 1:25-2:1).

• Herod died in 4 B.C.

• Luke writes that Jesus was born during the implementation of the first census while Quirinius was the governor of Syria.

• Ancient historians such as Josephus and Livy and inscriptions found on other ancient artifacts indicate that Quirinius became governor of Syria sometime around 6 A.D.

Mary delivered the baby Jesus either sometime before 4 B.C. or she delivered Him at 6 A.D. Jesus was not born at both times.

So, how could Jesus have been born before Herod’s death as described by Matthew and have also been born during the governorship of Quirinius as described by Luke?

There are three rather simple solutions to this question:

1.  Perhaps the most likely solution is that Quirinius served more than one tenure as governor of Syria.

According to this solution, Luke wrote about Quirinius’s first tenure as governor of Syria which coincided with Herod’s reign over Judea in 8-4 B.C. The writings of Josephus, Livy, and the other extra-biblical historical documents that we currently have describe Quirinius’s second term as governor of Syria, which started in 6 A.D.

We have historical evidence to support the claim that Quirinius had more than one tenure as governor of Syria. This historical evidence is fragmentary and incomplete, so it is inconclusive.

This evidence is called “The Lapis Tiburtinus” i.e. “The Tivoli Inscription.”

The Tivoli Inscription is a fragmentary Latin inscription from a tomb in Tivoli, Italy that was discovered in 1764 A.D.

There is no name on the fragment of the tombstone, but there is an epitaph of the individual the tombstone commemorates. The epitaph refers to an unnamed official who governed Syria twice-“legatus iterum”/“twice legate”-and received high honors. While the fragmentary epitaph does not name Quirinius, (or anyone else), some scholars tentatively identify him as the subject, based on parallels with his career.

The Tivoli Inscription is too fragmentary to be conclusive. The unnamed governor could be Quirinius or it could be another person. The tombstone is not definitive proof that Quirinius served more than one term as governor, but it highly supports the idea that he may have and thus provides important evidence to support Luke’s claim that Quirinius was governor of Syria when Jesus was born.

While the identification is uncertain (and even if it turned out to not be Quirinius), the inscription lends plausibility to Luke’s account by showing that multiple governorships were not unprecedented or implausible in Roman administration.

To be sure, neither side of the debate can use the Trivoli Inscription to claim 100% historical certainty that the epitaph was for Quirinius or not. But its presence strongly favors those who suggest that Quirinius served more than one term. And Luke’s documented historical record in verse 2 appears to confirm that conclusion.

The relatively recent discovery of the Tivoli Inscription is a reminder that there is much that we still do not know about the ancient world-including the relatively well-documented Roman world-and that we should not doubt the Biblical account based on the partial knowledge we have from historical evidence. Our factual reasons to have confidence in the veracity of the biblical text is many times greater than any available fact-based that supports the veracity of any other textual source.

Moreover, we have Luke’s historical account that specifically stresses how this was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. The fact that he emphasizes it as the first census strongly implies that there was at least one other census administered while Quirinius was governor.

We know of two Roman censuses that occurred in the years before and after Jesus’s birth. The dates for these two censuses are in 8 or 7 B.C. and 6 A.D. Both of these censuses would have been issued in the days of Caesar Augustus.

The first census (of the two just mentioned)-the census of 8-7 B.C. is described by Caesar Augustus in his autobiographical record of his accomplishments-“Res Gestae Divi Augusti” (“The Deeds of the Divine Augustus” that was published shortly before his death in 14 A.D.,

“In my sixth consulship [28 B.C.], with the cooperation of Marcus Agrippa, I conducted a census of the people... I conducted a second census alone in the consulship of Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius [8-7 B.C.].”
(Caesar Augustus. “Res Gestae Divi Augusti.” §8.)

The “second census” which Augustus refers to is the first census while Quirinius was governor of Syria that is referred to in the Gospel of Luke.

In 6 A.D. after Quirinius began serving what was likely his second term as governor of Syria, he conducted his own census of Judea. This census is detailed by Josephus (Josephus. “Antiquities of the Jews.” 18:1). Interestingly enough, the 6 A.D. census is also mentioned by Luke in Acts 5:37. (For readers who are interested we will detail this connection at the end of this commentary).

But as Luke is describing the birth of Jesus, he is not referencing the second census; he explicitly clarifies that he is referencing the first census while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

The book of Matthew suggests that Jesus was around two years old when Joseph and Mary fled Judea for Egypt (Matthew 2:16). Matthew also reports that Herod was in Jerusalem at this time-when the magi visited him (Matthew 2:3).

This is significant, because according to Josephus, Herod relocated to the city of Jericho from Jerusalem near the end of his life. This relocation took place in 5 B.C.

According to Josephus, the reason Herod moved to Jericho was to seek relief from the terrible pain inflicted upon him from God’s judgment for his sins. Here is an extended and quite graphic description of what Josephus had to say about Herod’s last days:

“But now Herod's distemper greatly increased upon him after a severe manner, and this by God's judgment upon him for his sins; for a fire glowed in him slowly, which did not so much appear to the touch outwardly, as it augmented his pains inwardly; for it brought upon him a vehement appetite to eating, which he could not avoid to supply with one sort of food or other. His entrails were also ex-ulcerated, and the chief violence of his pain lay on his colon; an aqueous and transparent liquor also had settled itself about his feet, and a like matter afflicted him at the bottom of his belly. Nay, further, his privy-member was putrefied, and produced worms; and when he sat upright, he had a difficulty of breathing, which was very loathsome, on account of the stench of his breath, and the quickness of its returns; he had also convulsions in all parts of his body, which increased his strength to an insufferable degree. It was said by those who pretended to divine, and who were endued with wisdom to foretell such things, that God inflicted this punishment on the king on account of his great impiety; yet was he still in hopes of recovering, though his afflictions seemed greater than any one could bear. He also sent for physicians, and did not refuse to follow what they prescribed for his assistance, and went beyond the river Jordan, and bathed himself in the warm baths that were at Callirrhoe, which, besides their other general virtues, were also fit to drink; which water runs into the lake called Asphaltiris [the Dead Sea]. And when the physicians once thought fit to have him bathed in a vessel full of oil, it was supposed that he was just dying; but upon the lamentable cries of his domestics, he revived; and having no longer the least hopes of recovering, he…came again to Jericho, where he grew so choleric, that it brought him to do all things like a madman.”
(Josephus. “Antiquities of the Jews” 17.6.5-Whiston numbering; See also Josephus. “The Wars of the Jews” 1.33.647-659-Whiston numbering)

It was while Joseph, Mary, and Jesus were in Egypt that Herod died in 4 B.C. (Matthew 2:19).

Reconstructing these dates, a plausible timeline of events surrounding the birth of Christ might be:

• 8/7 B.C.
  Caesar Augustus issues the census.
  (Luke 2:1)

• 7/6 B.C.
  Jesus is born in Bethlehem during the implementation of the census while Quirinius served his first term as governor of Syria.
  (Matthew 1:25, Luke 2:1-6)

• 6/5 B.C.
  The magi visit Herod in Jerusalem.
  The magi visit Joseph, Mary, and Jesus in Bethlehem.
  The angel warns Joseph to escape with his family to Egypt.
  Herod slaughters the males two years old and younger in Bethlehem.
  (Matthew 2:1-17)

• 5/4. B.C.
  Herod moves from Jerusalem to Jericho. Jesus is in Egypt.
  (Josephus. “Antiquities of the Jews,” “The Wars of the Jews”)

• 4 B.C.     
  Herod dies, and the angel tells Joseph to return to Israel.
  (Matthew 2:19-21)

In summary, there is no required contradiction between the Gospels of Luke and Matthew and the historical evidence of the era. Luke records the first census while Quirinius was governor of Syria during his first term and Josephus records a later census while Quirinius was governor of Syria (from his second term).

2.  A second solution to the Quirinian dilemma is that Luke’s statement could be translated as: “the census before Quirinius was governor of Syria.”

Instead of translating the Greek adjective πρώτη (“prōté”) as first, it could be translated as “before.” This would change the meaning of the statement from This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria to This census taken before Quirinius was governor of Syria.

In this case, instead of the adjective “prōté” modifying the census, it would modify Quirinus’s tenure as governor.

If this is correct, then Luke is not saying that the census was given while Quirinius was governor of Syria at all. He is referring to a period earlier than Quirinius’s tenure. If so, then there is no conflict with the Biblical record and the known historical record whatsoever.

However, it should be noted that while verse 2 certainly can be translated as “before” in Luke’s statement, most translators do not favor this translation. Most translators favor Luke to mean the first census.

3.  Finally, a third possible solution to this question is that there was more than one governor of Syria who was named Quirinius.

Under this theory, the governor of Syria whom Luke mentioned was the Quirinius who governed Syria during Herod’s reign of Judea. And the census that sent Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem when Jesus was born was issued during the first Quirinius’s term as governor.

Then approximately ten years later, there was another governor of Syria also named Quirinius. The second Quirinius’s governorship is described by ancient writers such as Josephus and Livy.

If so, Luke was not describing the later Quirinius, but rather he was describing the first Quirinius when he wrote his gospel account.

This possibility is based purely on conjecture. There is no current evidence to suggest that there were two different men named Quirinius who governed Syria during this time frame. Moreover, if there were, it would seem reasonable that Luke would have made this distinction.

Therefore, this solution is possible, but unlikely. One of the first two solutions is the more likely resolution to the apparent discrepancy between the gospels and the historical evidence.

The Factor of Faith-Luke’s claim is not believed because some people desire for Luke to be wrong.

The doubt of Luke’s claim for many is animated from a perspective that is predisposed to disbelieve the Bible. This perspective has a preconceived bias that influences judgment against the Bible and the truth of assertions.

Our perspective is one of the three things that are in a person’s control.

The three things a person can control are:

1. Who we Trust (God or something other than God)
2. What Perspective we will take (God’s perspective or someone else’s perspective)
3. What Actions we will take (Godly actions or our own).

We must decide if we will trust God’s word or not. And whether or not we trust God’s word will greatly influence which perspective we take on everything we experience and think about.

The Bible claims to be God’s word revealed to humanity (Psalm 12:6, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21).

As God’s word, the Bible’s statements are absolutely true and its teachings are always right and good. The Bible’s promises will never fail.

The Psalmist testifies:

“The sum of Your word is truth,
And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting.”
(Psalm 119:160)

The Bible’s promises will never fail.

“The grass withers, the flower fades,
But the word of our God stands forever.”
(Isaiah 40:8)

Since the Bible is God’s word, then the Bible’s teachings should have absolute authority over our lives, and our choices and beliefs are accountable to His righteous judgement.

If the Bible was not God’s word, as some foolishly claim, then it would not have such consequence over our lives.

It is far easier for us to feel better about our own wickedness and sin if we deny God’s existence or the Bible’s moral authority over us. This foolish and wicked perspective can be appealing as it covers us in darkness that hides our sin (even from ourselves). And hiding in darkness can be more appealing than coming to the light and having our sin exposed, judged for what it is, and be healed by Jesus (John 3:18-19).

But denying God’s existence or His moral authority does not justify ourselves or our sin.

Only the blood of Jesus justifies us, pays the penalty for our sin, and brings us into harmony with God (Matthew 26:28, John 1:29, 14:6, Romans 5:9, Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 1:20, Hebrews 9:22, 10:19, 1 Peter 1:18-19).

It is foolish to say in our heart that there is no God (Psalm 14:1).

And it is just as foolish to say God’s word is not true, right, or good (Proverbs 14:12, Isaiah 5:20, Jeremiah 17:5, Romans 1:21, 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11).

The Bible is God’s word, so ought to be believed because of that. But in addition, the Bible is factually correct and reliable simply as a matter of recorded history. There is no reason to doubt the historical references. In general, the authors had no reason to distort historical events.

Also, typically, the authors are quite self-effacing. For example, the apostles Matthew and Peter (likely the primary source of Mark) often present themselves as being ignorant, slow, and foolish as compared to Jesus. Further, in Old Testament historical accounts, Israel is documented as the loser as much as the winner. It does not read as a manifesto of imperial bragging as is common with most historical writings. Finally, archeological findings have been consistent with the biblical text to an astonishing degree, to the point that textual examination is, in and of itself, a reason to believe the Bible’s claim that it is the inspired word of God.

All of the Bible’s claims (including its claims about history) are true and inspired by our unfailing God (Psalm 12:6, Isaiah 40:8, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21).

Whenever we are caught between our own understanding and God’s it is always wiser and in our best interest to accept God’s unfailing word on the matter rather than our own finite and error-prone opinions (Psalm 118:8, Proverbs 3:5, Jeremiah 17:7-9, Isaiah 55:8-9, Matthew 7:4, Romans 3:4).

This includes any apparent discrepancy, such as the timing of Jesus’s birth with consideration to the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and the writings of Josephus, etc., as addressed by this commentary.

This commentary would be remiss if it did not point out how there is a measure of faith required to reach any historical conclusion. The bottom line is “We were not there,” so one must believe someone else who was there.

It requires a considerable measure of faith to conclude on scant evidence that Luke 2:1-2 and/or its compatibility with the Bible and what we know of history is wrong when the balance is well-documented. It arguably requires substantially less faith to conclude that Luke 2:1-2 is fully compatible with the Bible and the actual facts of history, were we to actually know them (which we never can in full).

At the end of the day, all knowledge begins with belief. All reason comes down to faith. This too is validated by scripture, as Proverbs 1:7 tells us that the fear of the Lord is “the beginning of knowledge.” This tells us we can’t really know anything unless we first believe that God has created the world with consequences and that we are in great peril if we do not understand those consequences (“the fear of the Lord”).

-For more on faith being a foundation of knowledge, see the TBS article, “Founding Paradox.”

We also see that faith is believing what we cannot see or hold:

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
(Hebrews 11:1)

The Bible assures us that God is greatly pleased when we believe 1) He is and 2) that He has our best interest at heart and has given us His commands for our benefit and reward:

“Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.”
(Hebrews 11:6)

In the next section of scripture (Luke 1:3-7), Luke tells us how this census led to Jesus’s birth in Bethlehem.