Comentarios bíblicos

Luke 2:1. And it came to pass in those days — That is, about the time in which John the Baptist was born, and Christ conceived, in the manner related in the preceding chapter; there went out a decree from Cesar Augustus, the Roman emperor, that all the world should be taxed — the word οικουμενη, here rendered world, “means strictly the inhabited part of the earth, and therefore, πασα η οικουμενη, all the world, in the common acceptation of the phrase. But it is well known that this expression was, in ancient times, frequently employed to denote the Roman empire. It was probably a title first assumed through arrogance, afterward given by others through flattery, and at last appropriated by general use to this signification. That it has a more extensive meaning in this place is not pretended by any. But there are some who, on the contrary, would confine it still further, making it denote no more than Judea and its appendages. Of this opinion are several of the learned; Beausobre, Doddridge, Lardner, Pearce, and others. In support of it they have produced some passages in which this phrase, or expressions equivalent, appear to have no larger signification. But, admitting their explanation of the passages they produce, they are not parallel to the example in hand. Such hyperboles are indeed current, not only in the language of the evangelists, but in every language. In those cases, however, wherein they are introduced, there rarely fails to be something, either in what is spoken or in the occasion of speaking, which serves to explain the trope. For example: the term, a country, in English, denotes properly a region, or tract of land, inhabited by a people living under the same government. By this, which is the common acceptation, we should say that England is a country. Yet the term is often used without any ambiguity in a more limited sense. Thus an inhabitant of a country town or parish says to one of his neighbours, speaking of two persons of their acquaintance, ‘All the country says they are soon to be married;’ yet so far is he from meaning by the phrase, all the country, all the people of England, that he is sensible not a thousandth part of them know that such persons exist. He means no more than all the neighbourhood. Nor is he in the smallest danger, by speaking thus, of being misunderstood by any hearer. But if he should say, ‘The parliament has laid a tax on saddle-horses, throughout all the country,’ nobody could imagine that less than England was intended by the term country, in this application. Here the term must be considered as it stands related to parliament; in other words, it must be that which, in the style of the legislature, would be named the country. In like manner, though it might not be extraordinary that a Jew, addressing himself to Jews, and speaking of their own people only, should employ such an hyperbole as, all the world, for all Judea; it would be exceedingly unnatural in him to use the same terms, applied in the same manner, in relating the resolves and decrees of the Roman emperor, to whom all Judea would be very far from appearing all the world, or even a considerable part of it. Add to this, that the Syriac interpreter (as also all the other ancient interpreters) understood the words in the same manner: all the people in his (the emperor’s) dominions.” — Campbell. The chief, if not the only objection to this sense of the expression is, the silence of historians. But what Grotius observes, greatly lessens the force of that objection; “I do not so understand the evangelist,” says he, “as if a census were made through the whole Roman world, at one and the same time; but when Augustus wished thoroughly to know the whole power of the Roman empire, he appointed a census to be made through all the kingdoms and provinces subject to it, at one time in one part, and at another in another. Thus Dion, επεμψεν αλλους αλλη, τα τε των ιδιωτων και τα των πολεων απογραψομενους, he sent some persons one way and some another, who might take an account of the property, as well of private persons as of cities. Of the census made through Gaul by order of Augustus, Claudius, in an oration which is preserved at Ancyra, the abbreviator of Livy, and Dio, have made mention.”

Should be taxed — Greek, απογραφεσθαι, enrolled: that is, that all the inhabitants, male and female, of every town in the Roman empire, with their families and estates, should be registered. Many of the modern translations, particularly those into Italian, French, and English, have rendered the word taxed: and as registers were commonly made with a view to taxing, it may, no doubt, in many cases, be so rendered with sufficient propriety: but, “as in this place there is some difficulty, it is better to adhere strictly to the import of the words. For though it was commonly for the purpose of taxing that a register was made, it was not always, or necessarily so; and in the present case we have ground to believe that there was no immediate view to taxation, at least with respect to Judea. Herod, called the Great, was then alive, and king of the country, and though in subordination to the Romans, of whom he may justly be said to have held his crown, yet, as they allowed him all the honours of royalty, there is no ground to think that, either in his lifetime, or before the banishment of his son Archelaus, the Romans levied any toll or tribute from the people of Judea. Nay, we have the testimony of Josephus, that they did not till after the expulsion of Archelaus, when the country was annexed to Syria, and so became part of a Roman province.” — Campbell. The reader will observe, such a census, or account, as that here spoken of, “used to be taken of the citizens of Rome every fifth year, and they had officers on purpose appointed for it, called censors. Their business was to take an account, and make a register, of all the Roman citizens, their wives and children, with the age, qualities, trades, offices, and estates of them all. Augustus first extended this to the provinces. He was then at work on the composure of such a book, containing such a survey and description of the whole Roman empire, as that which our Doomsday-book doth of England. In order whereto, his decree for this survey was made to extend to the depending kingdoms, as well as the provinces of the empire: — however, taxes were only paid by the people of the provinces to the Romans; and those of the dependant kingdoms to their own proper princes, who paid their tributes to the Roman emperors. Three times during his reign he caused the like description to be made. The second is that which St. Luke refers to. The decree concerning it was issued out three years before that in which Christ was born. So long had the taking of this survey been carrying on through Syria, Cœlo-Syria, Phœnicia, and Judea, before it came to Bethlehem. No payment of any tax was made (on this survey) till the twelfth year after. Till then Herod, and after him Archelaus his son, reigned in Judea. But when Archelaus was deposed, and Judea put under the command of a Roman procurator, then first were taxes paid to the Romans for that country.” — Prideaux.

Luke 2:2. And this taxing (rather this enrolling) was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria — According to the Jewish historian, Josephus, Cyrenius was not governor of Syria till ten or twelve years after our Saviour’s birth, after Archelaus was deposed, and the country brought under a Roman procurator; yet, according to our translation of Luke here, he was governor before the death of Herod, the father and predecessor of Archelaus, and in the same year when Christ was born. Now as, on the one hand, it cannot be supposed that a writer so accurate as Luke (were he considered only as a common historian) should make so gross a mistake as to confound the enrolment in the reign of Herod with that taxation under Cyrenius, which happened many years after; so, on the other hand, it is hard to conceive that Josephus should be mistaken in an affair of so public a nature, so important, and so recent when he wrote his history. To remove this difficulty, 1st, Some have supposed a corruption of the original text in Luke; and that, instead of Cyrenius, it ought to be read Saturninus, who, according to Josephus, was prefect of Syria within a year or two before Herod’s death. 2d, Others have thought it probable, that the original name in Luke was Quintilius; since Quintilius Varus succeeded Saturninus, and was in the province of Syria when Herod died. But all the Greek manuscripts remonstrate against both these solutions. Therefore, 3d, Mr. Whiston and Dr. Prideaux suppose, that the words of the preceding verse, In those days there went out a decree, &c., refer to the time of making the census; and the subsequent words, This enrolment was first made, &c., to the time of levying the tax. “When Judea,” says the latter, “was put under a Roman procurator, then taxes were first paid to the Romans — and Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, who is in Greek called Cyrenius, was governor of Syria: so that there were two distinct particular actions in this matter, done at two distinct and different times: the first was making the survey, and the second the levying the tax thereupon. And the first verse here is to be understood of the former, and the second only of the latter. And this reconciles that evangelist with Josephus; for it is manifest from that author, that Cyrenius was not governor of Syria, or any tax levied on Judea, till Archelaus was deposed. And therefore the making of the description cannot be that which was done while Cyrenius was governor of Syria; — but the levying the tax thereon certainly was.” In accordance with this interpretation of the passage, Dr. Campbell reads the verse, This first register took effect when Cyrenius was president of Syria, observing that, by this translation of the words, divers objections are obviated. “The register,” says he, “whatever was the intention of it, was made in Herod’s time, but had then little or no consequences. When, after the banishment of Archelaus, Judea was annexed to Syria, and converted into a province, the register of the inhabitants formerly taken served as a directory for laying on the census, to which the country was then subjected. Not but that there must have happened considerable changes on the people during that period. But the errors which these changes might occasion, could, with proper attention, be easily rectified. And thus it might be justly said, that an enrolment which had been made several years before, did not take effect, or produce consequences worthy of notice, till then.” Dr. Hammond and Dr. Lardner, however, give what many think a still easier solution of this difficulty, rendering the words thus: This was the first enrolment of Cyrenius, governor of Syria, supposing that Cyrenius (afterward governor of Syria, and at the time Luke wrote well known by that title) was employed in making the first enrolment of the inhabitants of Judea in the reign of Herod; to which purpose Dr. Hammond quotes Suidas as relating, on the authority of an ancient author, that “Cesar Augustus, desiring to know the strength and state of his dominions, sent twenty chosen men, one into one part, another into another, to take this account; and that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius had Syria for his province.” The reader will of course adopt the interpretation which he judges most probable.

Luke 2:3. And all went to be taxed, (enrolled,) every one to his city — “When the census was made in any country, the inhabitants were obliged to attend in the cities to which they belonged, Livy, 50. 42. c. 10. The reason was, without a precaution of this kind, the census would have been excessively tedious, and people who were abroad might have been omitted, or registered among the inhabitants of other cities, where they would not have been found afterward, or they might have been enrolled twice, which would have produced confusion in the registers.” In the dominions of Herod, however, probably by his order, a small alteration seems to have been made in the method of executing the census. For instead of the people being directed to appear, as usual, in the cities where they resided, or to whose jurisdiction the places of their abode belonged, they were ordered to appeal according to their families; every one in his native city, or the place where his paternal inheritance lay, to be there enrolled; a circumstance wisely ordered by Providence to verify the truth of ancient prophecies; for thus the parents of Christ were providentiatly brought to Bethlehem, the place where the Messiah was to be born, without leaving any room to suspect them of artifice and design. And thus, also, by their coming to be registered among the subjects of the Roman empire, the subjection of the Jews to the Romans was very remarkably manifested.

Luke 2:4. And Joseph also went up from Galilee — Being thus obliged by the emperor’s decree; out of the city of Nazareth — Where he then dwelt; into Judea — Properly so called; unto the city of David, called Bethlehem — The town where his ancestors had formerly been settled; because he was of the house, &c., of David — Notwithstanding, he was now reduced so low as to follow the trade of a carpenter. To be enrolled with Mary — Who also was a descendant of David: his espoused wife — The propriety of this expression appears from Matthew 1:25, where we are told that Joseph knew not his wife till she had brought forth her firstborn son. Being great with child — It may seem strange that Mary, in this condition, should undertake so great a journey. Perhaps the order for the census required that the wives, as well as their husbands, should be present. Or, the persons to be registered being classed in the roll, according to their lineage, Mary might judge it proper on this occasion to claim her descent from David, in order to her being publicly acknowledged as one of his posterity, and the rather as she knew herself to be miraculously with child of the Messiah.

Luke 2:6-7. And while they were there, the days were accomplished, &c. — Whatever views Mary might have in going up to Bethlehem, her going there was doubtless by the direction of Divine Providence, in order that the Messiah might be born in that city, agreeably to the prophecy of Micah 5:2. And she brought forth her firstborn son — Τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον, her son, the firstborn; that excellent and glorious person, who was the firstborn of every creature, and the heir of all things. See note on Matthew 1:25. And wrapped him in swaddling-clothes — By her doing this herself, it is thought her labour was without the usual pangs of childbearing. And laid him in a manger — Though the word φατνη, here used, sometimes signifies a stall, yet it is certain it more frequently signifies a manger, and certainly the manger was the most proper part of the stall in which the infant could be laid. As to the notion of Bishop Pearce, that not a manger is here meant, but a bag of coarse cloth, like those out of which the horses of our troopers are fed when encamped; and that this bag was fastened to the wall, or some other part, not of a stable, but of the guest- chamber, or room for the reception of strangers, where Joseph and Mary were lodged; this odd notion is amply confuted by Dr. Campbell in a very long note on this passage. Tradition informs us that the stable, in which the holy family was lodged, was, according to the custom of the country, hollowed out of a rock, and consequently the coldness of it, at least by night, must have greatly added to its other inconveniences. Because there was no room for them in the inn — The concourse of people at Bethlehem being very great on this occasion. It seems there was but one principal inn at Bethlehem, now but a small village, and that when Joseph came thither it was full, so that he and Mary were obliged to lodge in a stable, fitted up as a receptacle for poor travellers, in which they, and the animals that brought them, were meanly accommodated under the same roof. Now also there is seldom room for Christ in an inn. It will not be improper to observe, on this humiliating circumstance of our Lord’s birth in a stable, how, “through the whole course of his life, he despised the things most esteemed by men. For though he was the Song of Solomon of God, when he became man he chose to be born of parents in the meanest condition of life. Though he was heir of all things, he chose to be born in an inn, nay, in the stable of an inn, where, instead of a cradle, he was laid in a manger. The angels reported the good news of his birth, not to the rabbis and great men, but to shepherds, who, being plain honest people, were unquestionably good witnesses of what they heard and saw. When he grew up he wrought with his father as a carpenter. And afterward, while he executed the duties of his ministry, he was so poor that he had not a place where to lay his head, but lived on the bounty of his friends. Thus, by going before men in the thorny path of poverty and affliction, he has taught them to be contented with their lot in this life, however humble it may be.”

Luke 2:8. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field — Here we see, that as Abraham and David, to whom the promise of the Messiah was first made, were shepherds, so the completion of this promise was first revealed to shepherds. Keeping watch over their flocks by night — Which it was necessary they should do, to guard against the wolves and other beasts of prey, common there. The original words, φυλασσοντες φυλακας της νυκτος, may be more literally rendered, watching the watches of the night. These watches were four; the first is mentioned, Lamentations 2:19; the second and third, Luke 12:38; and the fourth, Matthew 14:25; being the morning watch. It seems there was a considerable number of the shepherds together here, for the expression implies that they watched by turns according to these divisions of the night. “As it is not probable,” says Dr. Doddridge, “that they exposed their flocks to the coldness of winter nights in that climate, where, as Dr. Shaw (Trav., p. 379) has shown, they were so very unwholesome, it may be strongly argued from this circumstance that those who have fixed upon December for the birth of Christ have been mistaken in the time of it.” The birth of Christ has been placed in every month of the year. The Egyptians placed it in January — Wagenseil, in February — Bochart, in March — some mentioned by Clement of Alexandria, in April — others, in May — Epiphanius speaks of some who placed it in June — and others who supposed it to have been in July — Wagenseil, who was not sure of February, fixed it probably in August — Lightfoot, on the 15th of September — Scaliger, Casaubon, and Calvisius, in October — others, in November. But the Latin Church, being infallible in judgment, and supreme in power, has settled the matter by declaring that he was born on the 25th of December. See Labbæi, Concil. Fabricii, Bibliot. Antiq., cap. 10. It is happy for us that the particular day and hour, or even year, in which he was born is not necessary to be ascertained in order to our salvation; nor at all material to true religion. It is sufficient for us to know that he was born, was made flesh, and dwelt among us, assumed our nature, and in consequence thereof is become an all-sufficient Saviour and Redeemer, in whom whosoever believeth, with a right faith, shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Luke 2:9-12. And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them — Επεστη αυτοις, stood over them, that is, appeared in a visible form, standing in the air over their heads; and the glory of the Lord shone round about them — Not only a great light, but such a glorious splendour as used to represent the presence of God, and was often attended with a host of angels, as here, Luke 2:13. And they were sore afraid — At so uncommon and so awful an appearance. And the angel said — In the mildest and most condescending manner; Fear not — Thus the angel Gabriel had encouraged Zacharias and Mary, Luke 1:12; Luke 1:30. As if he had said, The design of my appearing to you hath nothing terrible in it, but the contrary: for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy — The original expression here is peculiar, ευαγγελιζομαι υμιν χαραν μεγαλην, I evangelize unto you great joy. So the Vulgate. Or, I announce unto you good tidings, which shall be matter of great joy, and that not only to you, and the Jewish nation in general, but to all people, to the whole human race: for unto you, and all mankind, is born this day, this welcome, blessed day, a Saviour — That Isaiah , 1 st, A Deliverer from ignorance and folly, from guilt, condemnation, and wrath, from depravity and weakness, in which the whole human race are involved through the fall of their first parents and their own actual transgressions; in other words, from sin, and all its consequences: 2d, A Restorer (so σωτηρ also means) to the favour and image of God, and communion with him, lost by the same fall: and, 3d, A Preserver, (as the same word also implies,) namely, unto eternal life; one as willing as able to keep such as perseveringly believe in him, through faith, unto final salvation; to keep them from falling, and to present them faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy. Who is Christ — The Messiah, the divinely — appointed Prophet, Priest, and King of his people; their wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption; and who is sufficiently qualified to sustain these unspeakably important offices and characters, because he is the Lord, God as well as man, God manifest in the flesh, the Lord that in the beginning laid the foundations of the earth, &c., Hebrews 1:10; and without whom was not any thing made that was made, John 1:3; Colossians 1:16. The message refers to Isaiah 9:6, Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given. And this shall be a sign unto you — The angel gives them a sign for the confirmation of their faith in this important matter. You shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling-clothes, &c. — Doubtless they would expect to be told that they should find him, though a babe, dressed up in fine robes, and lying in state, in the best house of the town, with a numerous train of attendants: no, you will find him lying in a manger. And surely they might know him by this token, for what other babe could be found in so mean a condition? For the shepherds to have found the Messiah lying in a manger, might have scandalized them. It was therefore very proper that the angel should forewarn them of this circumstance, and make it the signal whereby they should distinguish him. When Christ was here on earth, he distinguished himself, and made himself remarkable, by nothing so much as the instances of his humiliation.

Luke 2:13-14. And suddenly there was with the angel, &c. — The welcome news was no sooner published, than a multitude of heavenly beings were heard celebrating, in songs and hymns divine, the praises of God, on account of his unspeakable mercy and love to men; and saying, Glory to God in the highest, &c. — The shouts of a multitude are generally broken into short sentences, and are commonly elliptic; which is the cause of some ambiguity in these words, which may be understood in different senses. Some read them thus: Glory to God in the highest, that is, in heaven, and on earth peace, yea, favour, toward men. Others understand them as signifying, That the good-will, or favour, which was now shown to men, is the Glory of God in the highest, and is the peace and happiness of those who dwell on earth. This is doubtless an important sense, and what the original will very well bear, but it changes the doxology into a kind of proverb, and destroys much of its beauty. As Dr. Campbell observes; “The most common interpretation of the passage is the most probable.” The words are doubtless to be considered as expressions of rejoicing exclamation, strongly representing the piety and benevolence of these heavenly spirits, and their affectionate good wishes for the prosperity of the Messiah’s kingdom; as if they had said, “Glory be to God in the highest heavens, and let all the angelic legions resound his praises in the most exalted strains, for, with the Redeemer’s birth, peace and all happiness come down to dwell on earth; yea, the overflowings of divine benevolence and favour are now exercised toward sinful men, who through this Saviour become the objects of his complacential delight.” The words, considered in a doctrinal point of view, teach us, what it is of great importance to know, 1st, That the birth of Christ is an event which, above all others, brings glory to God, giving such a display of several of his perfections as had never been made before, particularly of his holiness and justice, in requiring such a sacrifice as was hereby to be prepared for the expiation of human guilt, and his mercy, in providing and accepting it; his wisdom, in devising such a plan for the redemption of lost man, and his power, in executing it. 2d, It brings peace on earth, that is, peace to man, peace with God, through the atonement and mediation of Christ; peace of conscience, as the consequence of knowing that we have peace with God, and peace one with another. 3d, It displays the good-will, the benevolence, the love of God to man, as no other of his works or dispensations ever did, or could do. See 1 John 4:7, &c.; John 3:16.