(Mark 11:10).
38. In Luke, Jesus is called “Lord” by those who exhibit faith in him (5:8; 7:6; 9:54; 10:17, 40; 11:1; 12:41; 13:23; 18:41; 22:33, 38, 49). This may reflect the postresurrection perspective of the author and his audience.
39. Exod 15:1–21 (Moses and Miriam); Judg 5:1–31 (Deborah); 1 Chr 16:7–36 (Asaph).
40. Deut 10:17–18; Prov 3:34; Isa 2:11–12.
41. Evidence of such a practice is found in later Jewish literature (Nolland 1989: 79).
42. Jub. 11:15; Josephus J.W. 5.534; Josephus Ant. 14.10; 20.197.
43. Seth, Moab, Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Onan, and Shelah were all named by their mothers (Gen 4:25; 19:26–37; 29:32–35; 38:4–5).
44. See p. 21, n. 20.
45. Gathercole (2005: 471–85) suggests that 1:78 further emphasizes the heavenly origin of the Davidic Messiah, who is traditionally expected to be a human figure.
46. Strauss 1995: 103–8.
Luke 2
Birth of Jesus (2:1–20)
When Gabriel announced the supernatural births of John and Jesus, Jesus’ superiority over John was already evident in the description of each child’s status and role.47 The same pattern is found in the account of each birth. For instance, the author locates John’s birth “in the days of King Herod of Judea” (1:5), but places Jesus’ birth on a much wider religio-political platform during the reign of Augustus Caesar and the governorship of Quirinius (2:1). Whereas friends and relatives spread the miraculous happenings surrounding John’s birth through the human grapevine (1:65), an angel announces the birth of Jesus (2:9). Over and above the Spirit-filled Zechariah who interprets the significance of John’s birth and prophesies over his newborn son (1:67–79), angelic hosts now declare the heavenly and earthly implications of the coming of God’s Son (1:13–14). Luke clearly elevates the status of Jesus above that of John. He includes details of Jesus’ dedication at the temple and the child’s return twelve years later. While John and Jesus are both key players in God’s plan of salvation, there is no mistaking the lesser as the greater, or confusing the forerunner with the long-awaited Messiah.48
Augustus Caesar, born Gaius Octavian, was the first of twelve Caesars in the Roman Empire of the first century. He was the grandnephew of Julius Caesar, who adopted him and made him his heir. After the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BCE, the Roman Republic crumbled until Octavian persevered over his rivals, unified the empire in 31 BCE, and inaugurated the golden era of the Pax Romana (“Roman Peace”). In 27 BCE, the Roman Senate conferred upon him the honorific title of Augustus, which not only meant eminent and majestic, but was suggestive of something numinous.49 After the posthumous deification of Julius Caesar, Augustus assumed the title Divi Filius (“son of the divine” or “son of a god”), paving the way for his own veneration in the imperial cult. Augustus died in 14 CE and was succeeded by his stepson Tiberius.50
Setting the birth of Israel’s king against the backdrop of Augustus’s reign, Luke makes a bold theological and political statement. There are ample literary, numismatic, archaeological, and inscriptional records to show that the titles “Savior,” “Ruler” (“Imperator”), “Son of God,” and “Father of the Fatherland” had all been used of Augustus.51 For us modern readers, when the angel refers to Jesus as “Savior” and “Lord” (2:11), we are reminded of God as “Savior” and “Lord” in the OT. But in the first century, every proclamation of Jesus in royal and divine terms could be construed as an act of sedition against the Roman emperor.
Excursus: Quirinius’s Census
The account of Jesus’ birth begins with Joseph and Mary traveling to Bethlehem as required by a census under the decree of Augustus (2:1–5). The reference to this census has presented a number of challenges. Although the Romans were known for keeping good historical records, scholars have yet to unearth any evidence of an empire-wide census ordered by Augustus within the time frame in question. In Matthew, Jesus was born before the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE. The census in Luke, however, would have placed the birth of Jesus no earlier than 6 or 7 CE, within a small window of time during which Quirinius served as governor of Syria. Surely Jesus could not have been born both before 4 BCE and after 6 CE! Even if we assume Luke’s date to be erroneous, so that the census was actually conducted earlier under the kingship of Herod the Great and not the governorship of Quirinius, to what extent would Roman practices have influenced the administration of Judea, which at the time of Herod was still a client kingdom not yet annexed into the Roman Empire? Could Quirinius have had a wider realm of authority before his appointment in Syria, so that an earlier Herodian census could have been associated with his office? Could Herod have offended Augustus so that a Roman census was imposed on Herod’s territory to assert Roman dominance? Coming at it from a textual-grammatical point of view, could the adjective pro-te- in 2:2 be understood, not as “the first registration [that] was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria,” as in first among several censuses, but that “the registration [was] taken before Quirinius was governor of Syria” a few years earlier? The second translational option for pro-te-, “before Quirinius,” might resolve the awkward presence of that ten-year stretch between 4 BCE and 6 CE in which Jesus could not have been born, but the question still remains as to whether or not Quirinius administered that census that coincided with the birth of Jesus.
The problem goes beyond a matter of dating to the actual practice of census-taking. The Romans counted people based on principal residency rather than ancestral origin. Could a Herodian census be conducted differently from a Roman census? Did regional customs come into play? That Joseph has to be registered in person in Bethlehem rather than in Nazareth may imply that he owns property in his ancestral town, necessitating his going back there to be counted as head of the household. Even so, is Mary’s presence mandatory? Her accompaniment on the journey may mean that the betrothal period is over, and they are traveling as a married pair. And if not, then being with Joseph may still be preferable to enduring the gossips alone in Nazareth as her pregnancy becomes visible.
Questions abound, and each hypothesis comes with assumptions.52 Due to gaps in historical knowledge, it is doubtful that an airtight reconstruction of the timing of Jesus’ birth that perfectly reconciles the accounts in both Matthew and Luke is possible. The historical questions are interesting, but there must be a more constructive way to honor Luke’s aim at presenting a narrative that proclaims the truth about Jesus without writing him off as an incompetent historian!
Whereas historical questions at this point are difficult to resolve, considering Luke’s storytelling from a theological point of view casts a different light on the account. The census, a negative symbol and painful reminder of subjugation, is mentioned four times in the first five verses. When Augustus
