Where was Jesus born?

The place of Christ’s birth. Micah, a contemporary of Isaiah, tells us that Bethlehem was to be the place of Christ’s birth (chap. 5:2). Luke 2 tells us how the whole world was taxed by Caesar Augustus, making it necessary for Joseph to go up to Bethlehem, the city of David, because he was of David’s house and lineage. And there, in the stable of the inn, the blessed Saviour of mankind was born, fulfilling Micah’s prophecy in a wonderful way.

City of Judah, also called BETH-LEHEM-JUDAH (Judges 17:7-9). It is first mentioned in connection with the death and burial of Rachel. Gen. 35:19. The history of Ruth is also connected with Beth-lehem. Ruth 1:1-22; Ruth 2:4. David was anointed in the house of Jesse the Bethlehemite, so that apparently it was the place of David's birth, 1 Sam. 16:4; 1 Sam. 17:12, 15; and this accounts for its being called in Luke 2:11 the 'city of David.' It was also the birth-place of Jesus: though it was "little among the thousands of Judah," it the better agreed with His humiliation. Beth-lehem, signifying 'house of bread,' is a very appropriate name for a place whence the Saviour should proceed as a man — He who was the living bread that came down from heaven.

“Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king” (Matt. 2:1).

Joseph was a just man and he fulfilled every lawful obligation in regard to circumcision, purification, and the keeping of the Passover, and when Caesar Augustus had decreed a census, Joseph took Mary with him to Bethlehem, where they were inscribed in the census roll, for “he was of the house and family of David” (Luke 2:4). There Jesus was born, and the great prophecy of Micah 5:2 was fulfilled.

We have had the forerunner of Jesus and the announcement of the birth of Jesus. But now this chapter opens with a providential event which we find nowhere else in the Gospels, and yet which explains a fact that is found in the first Gospel as well as in the third. Jesus was born in Bethlehem. His parents were in the habit of living in Galilee. How, then, if the ordinary residence of His parents was at Nazareth, which was at one extremity of the land, could he be born at Bethlehem, which was almost at the other?

44 Luke 2:3. — "Own city." Observe that the same expression is used for Nazareth in verse 39 as here for Bethlehem, which should restrain criticism that, since at least the time of Schleiermacher, has sought to set this Evangelist at variance with Matthew. Thus, after German writers (e.g., Soltau, p. 18), the article by Gardner in the "Encyclopaedia Biblica," in which it is said to be "historically probable that Jesus was born at Nazareth." Now, Matthew starts with Bethlehem, but not so as to imply that the habitual residence of Joseph was there; Mark speaks only of Nazareth; and then Luke deals with both, taking Nazareth as his starting point (ἄνωθεν). Matthew discloses that Joseph thought of settling at Bethlehem on his return from Egypt, but was divinely restrained. In introducing mention of Nazareth he describes it, just as one would expect on the first occasion, in the same way as Luke the first time. Matthew, as John, shows how Messiah was rejected in Judea before, as an infant, He was in Galilee at all. Cf. Godet, i., pp. 217 ff., with O. Holtzmann ("Life of Jesus," p. 65). Bethlehem is about five miles south of Jerusalem.

He is not only David’s SON, however, and his Heir with full legal rights through Joseph and Israel’s Messiah Jehovah, but actually DAVID’S SEED as we have just seen. Moreover, He is ABRAHAM’S SEED, bringing for faith the blessings of righteousness according to unconditional promise (Gal. 3:16-19; Rom. 4:1-3). Again, the defeat of Satan was to be brought to pass through the WOMAN’S SEED (Gen. 3:1), so Jesus took part in blood and flesh that through death He might annul him in regard to the terror of death, setting the children of God free from its bondage, although this brings us also to the truth of the Son of Man in Hebrews 2 (the only place Paul so names the Lord), for it there says, “He does not indeed take hold of angels (by the hand). but He takes hold of the Seed of Abraham” (v. 16, N.Tr.). This also brings us to the truth of Christ’s Priesthood as the following verses show. Israel’s high priest must be of Aaron’s line, and that is the only earthly priesthood recognized of God. Even Christ’s priesthood could only be established in resurrection (Heb. 8:4), but because of who He is, the order of Melchizedek’s priesthood belongs to Christ (see Ps. 110:4; Heb. 5:6; 7:1-17). He is truly THE ANOINTED, THE CHRIST. This One was to be raised up in Israel—among that people exclusively, though universal blessing results, The KING was to be from among Israel’s brethren (Deut. 17:15) not a stranger. The PRIEST likewise (18:2), also the PROPHET (v. 18). He came to Israel with full credentials. God’s words were in His mouth, and the signs and works He did showed who He was. Some said, “This is truly the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. Others, Does then the Christ come out of Galilee? Has not the Scripture said, the Christ comes of the Seed of David, and from the village of Bethlehem, where David was”? (John 7:41-42, N.Tr.). We have seen the answer. Jesus was truly Mary’s Son, born in Bethlehem of Judea, not Nazareth of Galilee, though brought up there Israel’s eyes will be opened soon; but, meanwhile, faith again sings on her glad song of anticipation; “Kings shall fall down before Him, And gold and incense bring; All nations shall adore Him, His praise all people sing.”

167 Now in answering an alleged contradiction, to shew that the facts can be reconciled, is a complete answer. Now both the narratives in this way may be true. Even supposing Luke is speaking of an immediate departure, it is a very probable thing that, being enregistered, and having performed their duty in the temple, they should go home; while the occurrence of such circumstances as accompanied the birth of Jesus would almost naturally bring them back to David's city, with the Jewish feelings they had; and these poor people had nothing to connect them with Nazareth more than another place. They were in that miserable place perhaps from poverty. It was, not, at any rate, a place they had any tie to. If their son was the divinely-sent Heir to David of Bethlehem, whither would such a thought lead them? The circumstantial probabilities connected with the slaying of the infants tend to shew some time had elapsed. The birth of the babe mentioned in Matthew connects itself with the regal title associated with that place in every Jew's mind, and not with the date of the event. The important matter was that He was born there; for so not only prejudice but prophecy claimed; and it is in this connection it is used in Matthew. But the fact is, the "when" in English (which to the simple English reader is a natural note of time) has nothing to answer to it in the Greek, which is merely "Now Jesus having been born in Bethlehem of Judea" Matt. 2:1 - a fact of all importance to His history, and to this passage in particular. There is no note of time more particular than "In the days of Herod the king" — a fact also indirectly material to His history, and which tends to set aside the idea of a more accurate note of time being given in the same passage, and to give a general character to the statement. Hence nothing is more easy than the connection of the facts, while the objection falls to the ground.

If we turn to the Gospel of Luke, we shall see the importance of this. We have there our Lord born, as Matthew shows, in the city of David; but we are told here the circumstances that account for this, for Bethlehem was not the place where Mary and Joseph ordinarily dwelt. It was a village to which they repaired because of the commandment of the Roman emperor, who had sent forth a decree that all the world should be taxed, or enrolled. They, being of the royal family of the Jews, go to Bethlehem, which was the city of David. Thus God brought to pass the accomplishment of the prophecy of Micah through the decree of Caesar Augustus. Nothing was farther from the Roman's thought than the result which his decree was to subserve — the birth of the Messiah in the very place where prophecy demanded it. It appears that the census was not carried out then, but begun, and then stopped for some time. For it is said in Luke 2:2, "And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria," which was several years after. People, not understanding this, have concluded that there was a mistake in Luke. They knew that Cyrenius's government of Syria was subsequent to Christ's nativity, and too hastily inferred that our Evangelist laboured under the impression that the going up of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem took place in his time. But it is they who err, I believe. The decree of Caesar Augustus did not come into full operation or effect till then. It was just sufficiently carried out, when the order for enrolment was given, to induce Joseph and Mary to go up to the city of their lineage; and that was enough. God's object was accomplished. Joseph and Mary went there, and while there her days were fulfilled and she brought forth her firstborn Son, and "wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in the manger." There we have a scene totally different from what we had in Matthew, though this too was at Bethlehem. In all probability they paid more than one visit to the place. It was not far from Jerusalem, and we know that they went there every year to the feast of the passover. I see no reason to doubt that the visit of the Magi took place at another visit on the part of the parents to Bethlehem.

With Caesar Augustus however, it was far different. Even the people of God were placed in servitude; and wonderful to say, the mother of the Messiah was among those, as well as His legal father, who had to pay obedience to the decree of the Roman Emperor. They went up accordingly for the census45 to their own city, the city of David, Bethlehem,44 thus accomplishing the prophecies. And what made it the more remarkable is that, in verse 2, we are told that "the census itself first took place when Cyrenius43a was governor of Syria." It was not effected at the time here in view as proposed, but was sufficiently carried out to call the parents of our Lord from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem, which accomplished not man's census, but God's prophecy. God took care that it should be just fulfilled enough to carry out His purposes. It was not till some years afterwards that Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Then it was carried into effect fully,45 but meanwhile all went up to be enrolled, each to his own city. "The census itself" (αὐτή): so ACLΔ and later uncials, with most cursives. — Edd.: "This (αὕτη) was the first census," after ℵBD.

Therefore "Joseph also went up from Galilee,46 out of the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to David's city, which is called Bethlehem (because he was of the house and family of David), to be enrolled with Mary47 his betrothed wife,47a she being great with child." From the time that a woman among the Jews was espoused, she was considered legally the wife of him to whom she was betrothed. Thus the Lord, while really Son of His mother Mary, was legally of Joseph; and both Joseph and Mary were of the royal line. The Lord Jesus, therefore, represented David on both sides; but as the law required, He was the descendant of Solomon on the legal side. For no matter how unquestionably He might have been the Son of Mary, descended from the Nathan stem, He could not have been according to law the Messiah as long as there was a living representative of the Solomon branch. But the Lord, being the legally-reputed Son of Joseph as well as Mary's child, was precisely so descended as to be in every required respect "David's Son," the Messiah. I say this quite independently of His Divine glory, which was demanded for other and far deeper reasons. "Wife": so AΔ and later uncials, nearly all cursives (including 33, 69) and Amiat. — Edd. omit, after ℵBCpm DL, etc. Syrsin simply "wife" (Mrs. Lewis in Expositor: "under full legal protection of Joseph").

Thus then "while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her first-born son48 and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid him in the manger; because there was no room for them in the inn." Luke always loves to present moral features. Accordingly there is an intimation very instructive for us in the circumstance that it was in the manger Jesus was laid, not in the inn. There was no room for them in the inn. The Lord of glory when born into this world was laid in the manger. What a picture of the state of the world! There was no room for Him who was God in the world! The children of men according to their means found their place in the inn as it suited them. Those who had money could command a place proportioned to what they were willing to pay. But the parents of the Lord were in such poverty as to be thoroughly despised at the inn, and the only place where they could find a shelter for the Babe was a manger. "The": so Δ and later uncials. Edd. omit, after ℵABDLΞ.