Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Evening Bible Devotions: July 13
Today is: Saturday, April 20th, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)
Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of July: (Show All Months)
Luk_2:1
It is urged, that from the large expression employed—“that all the world should be taxed,”—Luke clearly means, that Augustus commanded a general census, embracing the whole Roman empire. But no such census is mentioned by the writers of the period, who simply record separate provincial valuations instituted at different times.
Now, the term employed by the evangelist by no means demands the universality ascribed to it. Indeed, the literal sense is impossible, as the Roman power did not embrace all the world; and if one limitation is inevitable, another is allowable. It is true, the Romans applied this phrase popularly to their empire; but it is sometimes used, not of the whole world, nor of the whole Roman empire, but of a particular country, which is the sphere of the individual writer’s statement. It was thus one of those popular phrases by which particular subjects are expressed by universal terms—just as we say, “every body,” when we mean many persons of our acquaintance or neighborhood; or, as the French use the very phrase in question, “all the world,”—tout le monde—in just the same sense. If we were upon the Old Testament, we could point to the fact, that there is but one word in Hebrew for “the earth” and “the land;’ and that “the land,” i.e., of Israel, is very often denoted where “the earth” appears in translations. But in the New Testament we have a different language, to which the same conditions do not apply; yet it is true, that even here the large term, which in Greek denotes “the earth,” ( ἡ ãῆ ), is really restricted to a particular country; as the reader will perceive by a glance at the texts noted below, Note: Mat_5:5; Mat_27:45. Mar_15:33. Luk_4:25; Luk_21:23; Luk_21:35; Luk_23:44. Eph_6:3. Jas_5:17. Rom_9:28; comp. Isa_10:23. in all of which the Greek term for “the earth” is employed to denote the land of Israel. The evangelist may, therefore, be well understood to mean the whole land—that is, all the inhabitants of the land. This is the view we entertain; and with which all the historical circumstances to which we last evening referred seem to be in agreement, pointing as they do to a provincial rather than to a general census. Nevertheless we are not driven to this as our only resource; for, in fact, there are many vindicators of the evangelical narrative who maintain that the census was a general one. Nothing is more futile than to argue from our own ignorance. It is surely most illogical to say, that we do not know from profane history that there was a general census in the time of Augustus, and, therefore, none took place. It is to be observed, that Luke does not say that a census did take place: only that it was decreed; and being only decreed, but not executed, the historians whose remains we possess might well pass it over. Even the census actually executed under Cyrenius is not mentioned by Roman historians; yet those who dare to question the authority of a fact explicitly recorded only by St. Luke, have no hesitation in accepting the testimony of Josephus in regard to a fact which he alone expressly records—thus allowing to that easy-minded historian a weight of authority denied to the inspired evangelist. But further to illustrate the futility of the argument from the silence of history: By the same process of argumentation, it might be denied that any geometrical survey of the Roman empire took place in the time of Augustus; for no such survey is mentioned in contemporary history—while yet the fact that it did take place, is established by the allusions of later and non-historical authors. If the geometrical survey is passed over by contemporary historians, is it any way strange that a census should be left unrecorded? The only authors extant from whom a notice of a general census might be expected, are Tacitus, Dio Cassius, and Suetonius; but the Annals of Tacitus do not commence till the reign of Tiberius. In Dio’s history there is a chasm between the years of Rome 748 and 752, and it is in this interval that the birth of Christ falls. Suetonius certainly makes no mention of a census; and he is thus the only authority on whose silence the lack of evidence from antiquity rests. There are still, however, some traces which indicate the probability of such a census; and it is not unlikely that some distinct mention of it may yet be found. It is, for instance, stated by all the authorities lately named, that Augustus left behind him, written in his own hand, a libellus, or outline of the empire, which contained statements of the public wealth, the number of the citizens, and of allies in arms; how many were the fleets, the kingdoms, the provinces, tributes or taxes, as well as burdens and benefactions. Can a state paper of this character have had any other foundation than a general census or registration of the people, with valuation of fixed property? and may this not, in the highest probability, have been connected with, or formed part of, the same operation which produced the geometrical survey taken in this reign? It is seen thus that even those who allow the largest acceptation of the words of the evangelist, are not to have their mouths stopped by any arguments the gainsayers are able to produce.
It has further been urged, that the transaction, as recorded by St. Luke, has no aspect of a Roman census, but rather of a Jewish one, under which the tribal and family distributions required the persons to repair to the seat of the family where the registers were kept. To this it might be answered, that the Roman functionaries requiring the aid of the native officers, would naturally allow the latter to follow the course to which the nation was best accustomed, and which its internal arrangements made most effectual in their hands for the objects in view. But, in point of fact, this objection is founded on imperfect knowledge; for there was really not such difference between the Roman and the Jewish process as is thus assumed. They were not identical; but the Jewish registration had sufficient resemblance to the Roman census to expose to derision the assertion, that Luke put the customs of a Jewish census into a Roman one, for the purpose of sending Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, that he might be able to show that Jesus was born at that place, in conformity with the prophetic intimations. A learned German author, Note: Huschke. Breslau, 1840. in a treatise on the census, has shown very clearly that it was to the forum originis, which may be freely rendered, “the town hall of his family,” that, during the imperial sway, each citizen was required to repair for the purposes of the census.
It is further objected that, as males only were registered, it could not be necessary that Mary should have proceeded to Bethlehem along with Joseph for that purpose—at a time, also, when, from her condition, travelling must have been irksome to her. Those who think that Luke meant to say that Mary was registered along with Joseph, meet this by alleging that she was an heiress in her own right; and this is really, however some may sneer at it, a solid and sufficient answer on that supposition. Yet Mary may not have accompanied her husband for any such purpose. Luke’s language rather favors a different opinion. Had he meant to say, that both Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem in order to be inscribed in the family registers, he would have used the plural; whereas he limits the remark to Joseph, by the, words, “because he was of the house and lineage of David.” It would seem rather, that her “being great with child,” is assigned as the cause of, rather than the obstacle, to her going. “If her being pregnant was a reason which satisfied Joseph and Mary why the latter should accompany the former on a journey which he was compelled to take, the only parties were satisfied who could judge of what was pleasant or proper in the case. But on an occasion when the whole country would be in movement; when homes were left on every side, and the needful aid and solace might fail to be found when wanted, in Nazareth; when social disturbances were by no means unlikely, and evil-disposed persons might fall on the sick and defenseless who were obliged to keep their homes—there were obviously other very strong reasons—besides their own will and desires—why Joseph and Mary should not be separated, and why she, as ‘being great with child,’ should cleave to the side of her natural protector.” Note: Journal of Sacred Literature. New Series. October, 1851.—“Explanation of the Taxing in Luk_2:1-5” See also Huschke, Ueber den Census, Breslau, 1840; Davidson’s Introduction to the New Testament, i. 206-214; Pictorial Bible, on the text of Luke; Olshausen on the Gospels; Lardner’s Credibility, Book ii. chap. 1, in Works i. 260-345, edit. 1838.