Luke #10a-2.1-20

Luke #10a-2.1-20-19971228

Having started a study in the gospel according to Luke, we have brought ourselves to Luke 2:1-20 on this Lord’s Day morning. In most churches, this would be a purposed collision of texts with events. However, with us it merely is the providential circumstance that we began a study of Luke and find ourselves studying the birth of Christ on that occasion when the world is so enamored by it. We also have before us a text which is so well known that it breeds and even begs for contempt. We’ve heard it, and perhaps can recite it without too much difficulty. There’s at least nothing there that any of us are reading for the first time, and I thought that it might be well for us to have moved by this rather quickly, but in the course of my study upon it, I find that not only can we not move by it quickly, but I doubt that we’ll be able to consider all of the passage that was read in your hearing on this Lord’s Day morning. We’ll do it best we can, and then continue and finish, considering this passage, God willing, next Lord’s Day morning. We read:

Luke 2:1-20 Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

There are a lot of incidental, or ancillary, historical pieces of information which I could supply to either embellish or fill in the blanks about Caesar Augustus, for example, about the nature of this tax, which probably wasn’t after all a tax at all, but a census, which perhaps had a small head tax attached to it, the controversy that exists about exactly when this tax took place. There were many who stood against the historical accuracy of Luke at this point, saying that there was no such tax at this time, and have been embarrassed lately in finding that new evidence and historical information have arisen in showing that there was a tax at this time, but that always seems to happen, and is never of particular interest to us. I find that those kinds of theories come and go quite readily.

We’ll confine ourselves, rather than just repeating the obvious and without delving too much into background information, to trying to observe certain practical observations, that which we can learn from this passage. I told you it would be difficult to finish this morning. I have 16 observations, at least at this point, from verse 1 to verse 20. We’ll try to consider about 8 of them this morning.

The first thing that we may learn from this passage is that apparently random and self serving circumstances answer the immediate and eternal purpose of God. Caesar Augustus decrees that the whole world, at least the whole world under his sway, which was in fact the majority of the inhabited earth, was to be censused and to be taxed. This appears to us on the historical scene to be the apparently random whim of a Roman emperor. It seemed also to be his self serving interest to fill his coffers and to extend his authority to every man, woman, and child that lived on the face of the earth, and it was, but we want to notice that this also at the same time, and ultimately as it’s primary intention, filled the immediate and eternal purpose of God, and that was to bring Joseph and Mary to Jerusalem. As Joseph Hall has said, “Caesar meant to fill his coffers. God meant to fulfill his prophecies.” The apparently random and self serving event answered in fact the immediate and the eternal purposes of God. I trust you are aware of what it says in:

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.

It was foretold in the Old Testament that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Joseph and Mary were both of the city of the house and lineage of David. It was necessary for this census for them to return to the house of their lineage, the house of their fathers, in order to be counted and taxed. This apparently random tax on the part of Caesar brought these 2 persons to Bethlehem just at the time that Mary was to give birth, and so, the Lord Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem. “Caesar meant to fill his coffers. God meant to fulfill his purposes.”

Consider for a moment the words of J C Ryle. He said: “A true Christian should never be greatly moved or disquieted by the conduct of the rulers of the earth. He should see with the eye of faith the hand overruling all that they do to the praise and glory of God. He should regard every king and potentate, an Augustus, a Quirinius, a Darius, a Cyrus, a Sennacherib, as a creature who, with all his power, can do nothing but what God allows, and nothing which is not carrying out God’s will.” I know that we all tend to complain about the misfeasance and malfeasance of our rulers, and we are discouraged by their behavior. We are sometimes disgusted with their lifestyle, and their lack of morality. We are discouraged and disheartened by their poor decisions and lack of foresight, but Ryle is correct. Caesar is no better than most and no worse than many. Caesar here is taxing the world, and yet, ultimately, this is the work of God’s providence, fulfilling his immediate and eternal purpose. Consider this morning that even taxes may fulfill a deep design of God. We all hate taxes. We always see them going up, and never down, but even taxes at this point we see fulfilled the purpose of God. So, apparently random and self serving events, events seemingly with no meaning, except perhaps to frustrate our intentions, do in fact always answer the immediate and eternal purpose of God.

Again from verses 1 through 4, we begin to read at verse 2:

Luke 2:2-4 This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 And all went to enroll themselves, every one to his own city. 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David.

Consider in the second place that providence, while it is presently unfolding, is read only with great difficulty. I think you can only imagine, probably without much doubt, believe that your imagination is correct what went through Joseph’s mind, as he was moving 90 miles or so, from Nazareth to Bethlehem, with a wife who was great with child, having at that particular time, a seemingly inappropriate time to move all that way, to go to all that expense to enroll himself: that he wondered what on earth could possibly be the meaning and significance of what he was being forced to do.

John Flavel has said, “Providence is like the Hebrew language. You have to read it backwards to make any sense of it.” While we’re going through it, it doesn’t seem to make any sense. “Why should I have to go, at this point, to Bethlehem, when my wife is about to bring forth her firstborn child?” Providence was unfolding, but they could not read it except with great difficulty. Providence goes on and moves right by us without our ever noticing it, and it’s only, as Flavel has said, when we read it backwards that we can begin to make any sense out of it.

I am reminded of this past September when Janie and I went to Yellowstone, and we went to see the Teton Mountains, which are, aside from the Olympics, some of the most beautiful mountains in the world, and as we drove 50 or 60 miles down the whole length of the mountain range, we never saw a thing. It was a foggy, misty, rainy day, and there were no mountains to be seen. Now, we knew they were there, but we could not see them. A couple of days later we saw them, without a cloud in the sky, but it reminds me, and I’ve thought of that ever since: it’s a lot like providence. The fact that we did not see the mountains did not mean they were not there, but it was difficult for us to see them. Providence is just that way. While it is unfolding, we may be passing right by it, and yet it’s only with great difficulty that we’re able to read its significance.

“It may be offered as a conjecture,” says Matthew Henry, “that this great exactness,” that is, that you had to go to the city of your fathers, “was used only with the family of David.” I’ve never thought of that before, and I’ve never read anyone else that’s suggested it, but it makes pretty good sense. It didn’t mean that everyone in the entire world had to go to the city of his nativity, or the city of his fathers. It probably and possibly only meant that you only had to do this if you were of the house and lineage of David. Everyone else could do it wherever they were, unless you were of the house and lineage of David. Henry says it may be offered as a conjecture that this great exactness was used only with the family of David, concerning which it is probable that the emperor gave particular orders, it having been a royal family and still talked of as designed to be so that he might know its number and strength. He goes on to say, from concluding this, “Diverse ends of providence were served by this.” It’s altogether possible, although it is a conjecture, that only those who were born in Bethlehem of the house and lineage of David had to do this. Joseph may have said to himself, “Cursed be the day that I was born into the house of David. Nobody else has to do this, but now I have to travel all this way with my wife.” Providence, while it is presently unfolding, is difficult to read, and it probably was for Mary and for Joseph as well. It’s true also for us.

The third thing we mark in looking at verse 5 where we read:

Luke 2:5 to enroll himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great with child.

Consider that God may place his people in circumstances which the world cannot understand, and which they themselves can barely interpret. He comes to enroll himself with Mary his betrothed who is great with child. Let us note that there are those who have thought there is a good deal of contradiction between Matthew’s account of the birth of Christ and Luke’s, and part of it is a failure to understand the breadth of the meaning of this word in this verse translated “betrothed.” In our culture there is usually a time of engagement, followed by a wedding, and this couple is married. Now, that’s not untrue of 2000 years ago in Palestine, except that the word “betrothed” had a meaning which was much broader than our idea of engagement. To be betrothed was literally to be so promised to be married that it wasn’t the casual engagement idea that we have today that they can be broken and all the rest, and in fact, the same word that means betrothed also equally means to be married.

Now, it doesn’t always mean just the same thing, but probably that’s what it means here, because when they come it is fairly evident that Joseph had at some point in the interim married his wife Mary. In fact, probably he had married her after her return from the house of Elizabeth. She was there after conception for 3 months, which means that Mary and Joseph had now been married for 6 months, and the word here “betrothed” probably ought to be translated “his wedded wife.” A T Robertson points out that it was necessary for them to have been married, because otherwise they would not have travelled together to Bethlehem. That would not have been acceptable in the culture. Unmarried people did not travel together, and so, they were, at this point, married and had been for about 6 months.

We’re also told that women were not required to appear for this census. Only men were required to appear as the head of their family, and they would, on behalf of their wives and their children, arrive for the census and appear for the tax. Mary, however, in spite of her condition, being great with child, comes with him. Joseph could not leave her alone in Nazareth. You cannot leave a woman who has been married for 6 months, and is about to bear a child, alone in and with the people of Nazareth. You can imagine the uproar that would have caused, and did cause, and he could not leave Mary alone to endure that, not only the birth of a child, but to endure the travail of living in Nazareth and with what everyone was going to say. Remember that people can count. They had been married for 6 months and the child was about to be born, which ordinarily takes 9.

And so, he did not leave her there, and I think, although there have been a great deal of things said about Mary over the years, many of them greatly exaggerated and extravagant, there ought to be something said about Joseph, who was not an unwise nor an unkind man, and although it was difficult to take Mary along, he really had no choice as a husband than to take her to protect her from living and remaining in Nazareth. We need to notice carefully with what care and propriety the Scriptures insist upon the virgin birth. In Luke 1:34, Mary pleads the impossibility of her being with child, because she says, “I know not a man.” In Matthew 1:18, we read, “She was found with child before they came together,” and in Matthew 1:25, we read that Joseph married Mary, “and knew her not until she brought forth her first born son.” God had placed Joseph and Mary in circumstances which the world cannot understand. In fact, he placed them in circumstances in which even they themselves could barely interpret. If you were listening to Joseph’s thoughts, he might have said to himself, travelling toward Bethlehem, “This is a real mess. I can’t leave my wife in Nazareth. I have to take her to Bethlehem at the worst possible time, and I can hardly interpret what God possibly would mean in all of this.” The world cannot interpret it, and understand it, and even the people of God can barely interpret it.

The fourth thing we observe this morning is that providence, much to our perplexity, orders both events and their timing. Again, in verse 6 we note,

Luke 2:6 And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered.

They were not at home. They were far away from home. They were not at ease, because there was no room for them at the inn. They seemed to have no relatives or friends in the area that would put them up. They were alone in a strange place. It’s not only the events that perplex us about providence, but many times it’s the timing of the events. “I could take all of this if it had happened at a more leisurely time, but this is the worst possible time for this to happen.” Have you ever said something like that? “I could deal with these if they would just come one at a time.” Now, we have all these things upon us at once. “It came to pass while they were there that she began to be in labor and the child was born.” Our perplexity is not only the events of providence, but the timing of those events, which we reckon are usually mistimed, coming either too soon, or too late, or too all at once.

However, consider the timing of this event. Unbeknownst to Mary and Joseph and anyone else in the world, it brought them to Bethlehem. Whereas Caesar was endeavoring to fill his coffers, God was fulfilling his prophecy. In fact, notice that when Augustus decrees to tax the world, God deigns to enter the world.

Just on another thought before we proceed: consider that there’s a great deal made of Mary and Joseph being in a stable, that is, where the animals were usually kept as being the only place where they could find some shelter and warmth for that evening, and it was there that Mary brought forth a child. You need to consider that inns of the day were public houses. They were not private rooms like you would think of a motel, or a hotel. They were large public rooms with mats on the floor and people stacked up like cordwood, especially since they all had to come in to the census. That would have been no place to bring forth a child. Mary couldn’t be left in Nazareth. That’s the worst place, with all the gossips and all the goings on there, knowing that she was giving birth too soon. She couldn’t really have spent the night in a public inn. All of this is the providence of God. It wasn’t that bad of a place. At least there seems to have been some privacy there in order for her to bring forth a child, but regardless, we notice in the fourth place that providence, to our perplexity, orders both events and the timing of those events.

In the fifth place, let us learn, and let us beware, of inventing miraculous circumstances where ordinary means apply. In verse 6, we read,

Luke 2:6-7 And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered. 7 And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Let us beware of inventing circumstances where ordinary means apply. There’s a great deal of mythology that has risen up around the birth of Christ. It is a most remarkable event in and of itself. In fact, it was the most remarkable event in the history of the world up to that point, a virgin birth, the Son of God coming to dwell in flesh. The Bible says in 1Timothy, “Great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh.” It is a miraculous and remarkable enough occasion without us inventing mythological details. We read that, although Mary conceived in a miraculous manner, the baby went full term, and “the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered,” that is, 9 months later, “and she brought forth her first born son.” Although there was a virgin conception, it is followed by a full term pregnancy, and a normal delivery. What I’m saying is: don’t invent miraculous circumstances when ordinary means are applicable.

Why should I even say that, because who would invent anything here? The answer is: Rome. Rome invented the idea that Mary brought forth her Son without any labor pains. Further, they invented the idea that she was a perpetual virgin, but notice it doesn’t say her only begotten son. It says her “first born son,” and it’s very evident, it’s patent, from the remainder of the gospel accounts, that she went on thereafter to have several others, both daughters and sons. Let’s beware of inventing miraculous circumstances where ordinary means apply. There’s always the tendency to do that, to embellish, since it’s a miraculous situation, to heap some more miracles up beside it, but there’s nothing miraculous about this birth. It’s a full term pregnancy, and a normal delivery, with all that attends that sort of action.

Let us notice in the sixth place that God’s covenant faithfulness is not impeded by man’s unfaithfulness. You need to remember that the birth of Christ is a covenant work of God. He is fulfilling his covenant of redemption that he has made with his Son on behalf of sinners. The fact that Christ came was God’s covenant work. God is here executing his faithfulness to his covenant, and man’s unfaithfulness does not impede that progress, and I find that in the last part of verse 7. It says: Luke 2:7 “because there was no room for them in the inn.” Joseph Hall aptly says, “If the house of David had not lost all mercy and good nature, a daughter of David could not, so near the time of her travail, have been destitute of lodging in the city of David, but she was.” Consider that there’s an inn, or there are rooms to be had, or homes to be opened for people, and yet a woman great with child about to give birth that very evening could not find and was not allowed any dwelling place at all. I think Joseph Hall was correct, “the house of David had lost all mercy and good nature,” and yet, it was to the house of David that the Messiah was sent. God’s covenant faithfulness is not impeded by man’s unfaithfulness, and it’s a good thing that’s true.

Just look ahead for a moment. In verse 12, the shepherd’s are instructed as to how they might find this baby that was born: Luke 2:12 “And this is the sign (the angels say to them) unto you: Ye shall find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, and lying in a manger.” We may note from this information that no other woman was to be found in these circumstances anywhere in Bethlehem. Otherwise, how would the angels find them? In other words, if there were 15 women in the same circumstances in Bethlehem, how would the shepherds have found the one to which the angels were referring? No. Mary was the only woman giving birth that night in these circumstances in the city of Bethlehem. God fulfills his covenant faithfulness, and he is not impeded by the unfaithfulness of man.

Consider in the eighth place, and coming to verse 8, where we read about these shepherds, and by the way, Matthew does not record the angel’s visit to the shepherds. He completely leaves them out of the picture. On the other hand, Luke says nothing whatsoever about the wise men, and so, usually we associate these 2 groups, although even Matthew tells us that the wise men did not arrive until much later, and the idea of them standing around the stable is certainly not a biblical notion, but these 2 groups are summoned to observe the newborn child. Matthew does not mention the shepherds. Luke does not mention the wise men, but Luke does make a good deal of this visit of the angels to the shepherds, and then the shepherds’ visit to see the newborn child. Let’s consider these shepherds, and we will be doing that for the next several observations.

The seventh thing that we would learn this morning is that whereas the Bible does not celebrate poverty it often summons good people in lowly circumstances. There is no particular piety. There is no righteousness which attaches itself to being poor. In fact, most of the time being poor is a result of sloth. It is well deserved. It is not congratulated at all by the Word of God, but there are many people who are poor, and hardworking nonetheless. The Bible does not celebrate poverty, but notice how often it finds good people in lowly circumstances. Of all the people in the world that we might consider being privy to the announcement that the Christ was being born, you’d think it could have been the priestly caste, even the high priest. It could have been to the king, to Herod, to the Emperor Augustus, or name whoever you like, but to who was this birth announced? To shepherds in the field.

I’m going to make another observation later on, but let me just suggest it to you now. Have you ever noticed that the 2 doctrines most emphatically emphasized in the story of the birth of Christ are those same 2 doctrines that mankind hates most? The doctrine of total depravity, “There was no room for them in the inn,” and the doctrine of unconditional election. To whom does God announce this birth? To shepherds out in the field. Isn’t it remarkable that men now seem to love what ultimately we know they hate the most when they celebrate the birth of Christ?

Be that as it may, consider that the Bible does not celebrate poverty, but it finds and summons good people in lowly circumstances. These shepherds evidently had a great deal more in common than their common employment. It wasn’t just because shepherds were particularly attentive, or they were the only ones awake in the middle of the night, or any of that kind of business. The reason that the angels were sent to these shepherds was that they, like Simeon, were among the very few in Israel who were looking for the Consolation of Israel. You can imagine. Think about these shepherds. They weren’t just normal shepherds. They weren’t the only shepherds in their field that night. They were a few of the only people in all of Israel who were looking for the Consolation of Israel. In other words, they had not only their job in common, but they must have had good fellowship with one another, waiting all their lives for the Consolation of Israel, and consider the goodness of God in deigning to come and to speak with the host, an army of angels, to come and to visit them. These lowly individuals, the objects of God’s election, few as they may be, to them comes the announcement that a savior is born, who is Christ the Lord. God summons good people in lowly circumstances.

I also appreciate the comment of J C Ryle in his expository thoughts on the gospel of Luke at this point. He says, “The busy labor of the hands need not prevent a man from being favored with special communion with God. Moses was keeping sheep, Gideon was threshing wheat, Elijah was plowing, when they were severally honored by direct calls and revelations from God. Let us resist the suggestion of Satan that religion is not for the working man, because it is, shepherds at their jobs. God is pleased to pass by everyone else in the world and reveal it to those few who are waiting for the Consolation of Israel. That’s quite remarkable, I think.

And the eighth thing we want to consider this morning is from verse 9, and we read:

Luke 2:9 And an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

We find always when there is an appearance of an angel that man’s first reaction is to be in fear. Have you ever thought of why? Well, of course, it’s unexpected, and it’s unusual. These shepherd’s never had seen an angel before. They never would see one after this, where we can be certain of that. Angelic visits are rare indeed. I think Matthew Henry is correct. The reason that men are always afraid when they see angels is this: “While we are conscious to ourselves of so much guilt, we have reason to fear lest every express from heaven should be the messenger of,” what? “wrath.” “I know that I’m a sinner. If an angel appears, I am probably about to be judged.” That’s the first thing that good men think, that they know that they are not good, and therefore this must be a messenger of wrath and of judgment, because the angel must come, and must say, “Don’t be afraid. That’s not why I’m here, but rather to bring you good tidings of great joy.” But let us observe in general that direct communications from God are both rare and fearful.

The calming interjection of the angel, “Be not afraid,” was calculated not to remove all apprehension, because that could not possibly happen. It was merely to remove enough of the apprehension so that they would comprehend what he was going to tell them. He could not remove their fear altogether. Direct communications from God are both rare and fearful. I think there’s something that we might think from this. If that is true, then every instance we have when there is a direct communication from God brings fear into men’s hearts. They’re both fearful and rare. Let us consider this in the light of those who nowadays claim to enjoy immediate revelations from God.

There are 2 things that aren’t right. #1: these communications are no longer rare, and secondly, those who receive those communications are no longer fearful. There’s something wrong with what we see in abundance today, because direct communications from God are always rare, and they’re always fearful. So, let those who profess that they have angel’s visits and direct revelations from God at least behave themselves like the shepherds.

Let us consider one more observation, and then we’ll leave the rest for next Lord’s Day morning. Let us observe, and quickly, just to note that all the sinner’s hope is bound up in the incarnation.

Luke 2:11 for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.

These are the good tidings of great joy, because all the sinner’s hope is bound up in the incarnation. Now, I’m not contradicting what I said last Lord’s Day. We realize that the incarnation was not itself a redeeming work. We are not saved by the birth of Christ. We’re saved by the obedience of Christ in his life and death, active and passive. The world celebrates Christmas because they think they’re saved by the birth of Christ, but they’re not. The sinner’s hope, however, is bound up in the incarnation. Again, 1 Timothy 3:16 “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness;” Every birth leaves us with the sense that a great miracle has occurred, but this birth was not only that. It was as the Bible says: “a great mystery, God manifest in the flesh.” As Matthew Henry says, “The Everlasting Father became a child of time.”

The angel says “There is born unto you “a” Savior.” Did you notice that? No. He was “the” Savior, but it’s anarthrous, which is merely a term which means it doesn’t have the article.

Luke 2:11 for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savour, who is Christ the Lord.

From the grammar of the New Testament, we recognize that this is an anarthrous, qualitative fact, pointing not to his identity, but he was “a savior, who is Christ the Lord.” The prospect of a savior is suspended on that Savior being born. We are not saved by this birth, but without this birth, we could not be saved. Galatians 4:4 “but when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,” but being born was not his work of redemption, but it positioned him as being both God and man for a redeeming law work. Though ultimately, it is true to say that the sinner’s hope is bound up in the incarnation. Though my hope is not the incarnation, it is bound up in it, and inseparable from it. Had Christ not come as a savior, and had he not been born to take hold of Adam’s race, then we would have no hope. This is good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. All of the sinner’s hope is bound up in the incarnation.

Now then, there is a great deal yet for us to consider, and we will, God willing, continue this and finish it next Lord’s Day morning. The time is gone. Please do remember that we will not be meeting this evening. I trust that God will grant us rest on this the Lord’s Day. Let’s bow together in prayer.

Father in heaven, we pray that you would bless this morning our attempt to understand the Word of God. We pray that you would bless our memory as well as our thinking and meditation upon these things, for we find the world so enraptured with these details. May we have an understanding of them which transcends merely the fever of the holiday. Bless us to understand the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that we would rejoice in it even this morning. Dismiss us then we ask with your blessing, for we ask it in Christ’s name. Amen.