from serving in the Roman army, they were not excused from taxes. The decree in 2:1 might refer to an overarching imperial order, so that Roman officials could use Augustus’s edict to justify their regional or provincial censuses.
Although it cannot be ascertained if the census that affected Joseph and Mary was the one Quirinius conducted in 6 CE, that census was especially infamous as the census of shame and coerced loyalty. It marked the turning point at which Judea fell under the direct control of Rome without the buffer of a Jewish client kingdom. The Herodian monarchs were cruel, corrupt, and pro-Rome, but they were still not Romans. Paying taxes to Herod stung less than paying taxes to Caesar. But with the deposition of Herod Archelaus, Quirinius’s census signaled the definitive defeat of the Jews, putting an end to any lingering vestige of Jewish autonomy. This was a difficult pill to swallow.53
Precisely because Augustus and Quirinius represented Israel’s subjugation under Roman hegemony, their naming in Jesus’ birth narrative (2:1–2) is central to Luke’s daring literary strategy. Mary is pregnant as she embarks on this journey to Judea (2:5–6). The couple returns to Joseph’s city of origin, “the city of David called Bethlehem” (2:4). Luke’s interest in David and Joseph lies primarily in their blood ties (1:27). Bethlehem, about five miles south of Jerusalem, is “the city of David” insofar as it is where David was born and where Samuel anointed him as king (1 Sam 16:1–13; 17:12, 58).54 Through Joseph, Jesus can legitimately be considered a Davidic Messiah, a king born and anointed in the city of David (1:32; 2:11; cf. 3:23, 31). As perfect timing and location converge, even powerful Augustus becomes an unwitting instrument of the divine plan. The census that signifies oppression serves to locate the mother of Jesus in the right city at the right time, so that Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem fulfills the prophecy of Micah: “But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, . . . from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel” (Mic 5:2; cf. Matt 1:6).
After a journey of about three days, Mary and Joseph arrive in Bethlehem. At this point the typical scene in a modern-day Christmas pageant of one heartless innkeeper after another turning away a desperate Joseph with a wife in labor in the thick of night requires a major re-envisioning. A close reading of Luke reveals a scene that is less chaotic and a point that has more to do with status reversal than with inhospitality and rejection.
Mary goes into labor (2:6), but “there was no place for them in the inn (katalyma)” (2:7c NRSV). The translation of katalyma as “inn” is misleading, for the word has a wider range of meaning, from an inn to a guest room of a house. Since Bethlehem is not located on any main travel thoroughfare, that small town may not even have a commercial lodging place. Later in the narrative Jesus sends his disciples to a guest room (katalyma) to make preparations for the Passover meal (22:11). But a different word, pandocheion, is used to denote an inn with an innkeeper (pandocheus) with whom the Samaritan in Jesus’ parable leaves the injured man (10:34–35). It seems likely that Joseph and Mary have found shelter at the home of a relative, not that they have been going from inn to inn looking for vacancy.55
Modest peasant homes in the ancient world consisted of one large room for living and sleeping, with an adjacent area at a lower level under the same roof where animals were kept when brought in for the night. A cave could also be used to shelter animals. Perhaps, due to overcrowding, the host family has run out of guest quarters and the only place the relatives can offer Mary and Joseph is space with the animals (2:7c). The couple is not turned away—as implied in many Christmas plays—but is shown hospitality in spite of the humble circumstances. A manger (phatnē), or more crudely, a feeding trough, is improvised as a crib for the baby Jesus. Mary wraps her infant in long strips of bandages to keep his arms and legs from moving and to provide a sense of warmth and security (Wis 7:4). While a baby bound in swaddling cloth is a common sight, one sleeping in a manger is not. This unusual combination makes an effective sign for the shepherds to recognize the Messiah (2:7b, 12, 16).
The child is Mary’s firstborn son (2:7a). This particularity signifies birth order as well as responsibility and status. The law stipulates that the firstborn of human beings and animals are to be dedicated to God (2:23; cf. Exod 13:2, 12; 34:19–20). The firstborn son is also entitled to a double portion of his father’s inheritance (Deut 21:15–17). Similarly, Israel is identified as God’s firstborn on the basis of their election (Exod 4:22; Jer 31:9; Sir 36:17). Therefore, it is fitting for Mary’s firstborn, the Son of God and Davidic Messiah, to rule over and represent Israel, God’s firstborn, with all its privileges and obligations.
From one humble situation to another, the author moves the spotlight from the manger to the open fields where some shepherds are “keeping watch over their flock by night” (2:8). Shepherding was a despised profession in the ancient world. Shepherds were often poor peasants who hired themselves out to earn supplemental income to support their families.56 They worked in teams and took turns keeping watch at night, being on the lookout for wolves and thieves. The angel’s appearance to these shepherds echoes the theme of status reversal already sounded in Mary’s song (1:48, 52). The first to hear of Jesus’ birth will not be the religious and political powerbrokers in Jerusalem, but a group of forgotten and lowly hired hands in the lonely fields of a small town.
It may be worth noting that David started off as a shepherd caring for his father’s sheep in Bethlehem (1 Sam 16:19; 17:15; Ps 78:70–71). In the OT, shepherd is a metaphor for describing God’s care and oversight of his people (Pss 23:1; 80:1; Ezek 34:12–16; Mic 7:14). Furthermore, Israel’s kings and religious leaders were also tasked to shepherd God’s flock. Since many failed to do so properly (Jer 23:2; Ezek 34:8), God said he would remove the bad shepherds and send a replacement shepherd, that is, the Messiah, to rule over Israel on his behalf (Ezek 34:23; 37:24). These connections make the announcement to shepherds, rather than farmers, day laborers, or other forms of peasantry, especially poignant. The proclamation that these shepherds are about to hear pertains to God’s eschatological shepherd, a king from the line of David, who may also be found, like themselves, in a humble state, lying in a manger in a peasant home.57
Dazzling brightness signifies the presence of God’s glory when an angel appears before the shepherds (2:9). The scene enacts the conclusion of Zechariah’s hymn, literally and spiritually: “The dawn from on high will break upon us, to give light to those who sit in darkness” (1:78–79). When light pierces through darkness, it is sudden, illuminating, and terrifying. The shepherds’ frightened response is expected as the angel greets them with the same words spoken to Zechariah and Mary: “Do not be afraid” (2:10a; cf. 1:12–13, 29–30). Then he continues, “For behold, I am bringing you good news (euangelizomai) of great joy for all the people” (2:10b). The same verb, euangelizō, is used in Isaiah to denote the good news of God’s salvation (Isa 52:7; cf. 40:9; 61:1–2). The phrase, “for all the people,” foreshadows the expansion of God’s saving horizon from the Jews to the gentiles (2:30–32; 3:6; Acts 1:8). Israel’s good news is destined to be good news for the whole world.
The content of the good news is focused on one figure: “to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord” (2:11). The wait is over. God’s promise to Israel’s ancestors has come to fulfillment with the arrival of the Davidic Messiah. Savior, Messiah, and Lord—these three titles encapsulate the function and status of Jesus. He is the “horn of salvation” in Zechariah’s hymn (1:69–71); he shares the title “Savior” and “Lord” with YHWH;58 he is also the Messiah, the anointed king born in “the city of David” who belongs to the house of David and will sit on the throne of David forever (1:32–33, 69). Luke’s readers already know this Messiah is God’s divine Son. Paradoxically, the sign that verifies the truth of the angel’s words is “a child wrapped in bands of cloth and lying in a manger”
