The Birth of Jesus in Bethlehem: Mary and Joseph travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem to register for the census under Caesar Augustus’s decree. While there, Mary gives birth to her firstborn son and wraps Him in cloths. With no room in the inn, they lay the newborn Jesus in a manger.
There are no apparent parallel gospel accounts of Luke 2:3-7, however Matthew 1:18-25 describe Jesus’s conception and birth.
In Luke 2:3-7, Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem for a Roman census. While there, Mary gives birth to her firstborn son, Jesus the Messiah, in humble circumstances. She wraps Him in cloths and lays Him in a manger because there was no lodging available.
Luke continues his narration of the birth of Jesus. In the previous verse, Luke informed his readers of a major political event that immediately preceded Jesus’s birth—an imperial census from Caesar Augustus that was sent across “all the inhabited earth” (Luke 2:1). Luke specifies that this was the first census administered during the governorship(s) of Quirinius over Syria (Luke 2:2). Based on the information we have from the Bible and other ancient sources, this census was likely issued between 8 and 7 B.C.
Luke’s introduction (Luke 2:1-2) helps us to better know when Jesus was born. But it also helps explain how it was that Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem.
Many Old Testament prophecies, starting with 2 Samuel 7:12-6, foretold that the Messiah would come from the line of King David (Isaiah 9:6-7, 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:9, 33:14-15, Ezekiel 34:23-24,Hosea 3:5,Amos 9:11,Zechariah 3:8, 6:12-13).
David was from Bethlehem (1 Samuel 16:1, 17:12).
And one of the Messianic prophecies explicitly predicted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem:
“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.” (Micah 5:2)
It was largely from Micah’s prophecy that the Jews expected the Messiah to be born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:4-6,John 7:41-42).
How was it that Jesus the Messiah (Luke 1:30-33) came to be born in Bethlehem, instead of Nazareth where His mother and adoptive father were from?
The answer to this question is provided by Luke—it was because of the census issued by Caesar Augustus from his palace in Rome (Luke 2:1).
God used the lineage of Jewish peasants (Joseph and Mary) and the tax code of a Roman emperor (Caesar) to quietly bring about the fulfillment of Micah’s prophecy about the Messiah’s birth in Bethlehem.
And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his owncity (v 3).
The pronoun—everyone—includes all the male citizens and/or free subjects of the Roman Empire at that time.
One of the requirements for this census was that everyone had to register for it in his ancestral city. This meant that everyone who did not live in the city of his ancestors—his own city—had to travel to it and be on his way to register there.
Joseph, a Jewish subject of the Roman Empire, had to comply with this ordinance.
Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child (vv 4-5).
Joseph was the betrothed husband of the virgin Mary, who was then pregnant with Jesus the Messiah and Son of God (Luke 1:27-35—Matthew 1:18).
Joseph lived in the city of Nazareth which was located in the northern part of Israel in the district of Galilee. But his ancestor was King David.
Joseph was of the house and family of David, this meant he was a descendant of King David (Luke 1:27—Matthew 1:16-17).
Therefore, Joseph’s ancestral home—his own city—was not Nazareth where he lived or was from but rather was Bethlehem which was where his family lineage was from.
Joseph was of the house and family of David; this meant he was a descendant of King David (Luke 1:27—Matthew 1:16-17).
Because David his ancestor was originally from Bethlehem, it is called the city of David. In Hebrew, the name Bethlehem means “house of Bread.” Fittingly, Jesus, the “Bread of Life” (John 6:48) would be born in Bethlehem.
Joseph had to therefore leave his home which was the city of Nazareth, and travel south to the district of Judea, where Bethlehem was located, in order to register for the census. We can imagine that the tax collectors and registrars would organize to gather in various ancestral cities at specific times, to cover the entire population. This is why Joseph would have journeyed to Bethlehem even though Mary was pregnant. This would mean that in addition to using Caesar’s decree as His instrument, God used the schedule of tax collectors as His instrument as well.
Luke writes that Mary, who was engaged toJoseph, went along withhimto Bethlehem. This suggests that this was only a census of males. Luke also tells us that Mary was with child at this time—that is, she was pregnant with Jesus the Messiah and Son of God. Luke does not specify why Mary came with Joseph to Bethlehem; he only states that she came along with him. Perhaps she wanted to be with her husband (who was likely one of the few who believed her and the significance of her child) if and/or when she delivered her son.
According to Jewish custom, a child is not officially named until their eighth day of life—the day when male babies are circumcised. Luke, in keeping with this custom, does not refer to Jesus by name until His circumcision. The lone exception was Gabriel’s command to Mary, that her son be called “Jesus” (Luke 1:31).
Instead, until the child is named, Luke refers to Jesus as child, son (v 7), Him (v 7), “a baby” (Luke 1:12), etc. And Mary and Joseph obeyed the angel’s command and named the baby Jesus on the eighth day after His birth (Luke 2:21).
According to maps, approximately 70 miles separate Nazareth and Bethlehem. But in the first century, it would have typically taken three to five days to travel. It would have been closer to five days if Joseph and Mary took the usual route around Samaria which was in between the districts of Galilee and Judea. This route would have been closer to 100 miles.
The reason Luke says that Joseph and Marywent up from Nazareth to Bethlehem even as they traveled south, was because Bethlehem, situated near Jerusalem, was significantly higher in elevation than Nazareth. Bethlehem sits at approximately 2500 feet elevation while Nazareth sits at approximately 1200 feet.
The expression up from Nazareth to Bethlehem could also indicate that they took the longer route around Samaria and up from the Jordan river valley. Rising from the city of Jericho, situated in the Jordan river valley at 850 feet below sea level, the 25—mile road climbs up an impressive 3350 feet on its way to Bethlehem.
After explaining the census and the journey Joseph and Mary took from Nazareth to Bethlehem, Luke tells us that the time came for Jesus to be born:
While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth (v 6).
The pronouns they refers to Joseph and Mary; there refers to Bethlehem, the city of David; and her refers to Mary.
It was while Joseph and Marywere registering in Bethlehem for Caesar’s empire—wide census, that Mary’s days were completed for her to give birth—i.e. she came to full term—and Jesus was born. Matthew’s Gospel affirms that “Jesus was born in Bethlehem” (Matthew 2:1a).
After stating that the days were completed for Mary to give birth, Luke details the incredibly humble circumstances of the Son of God’s birth.
And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn (v 7).
There is a lot packed into this verse, so this commentary will discuss each phrase one at a time.
Verse 7a: And she gave birth to her firstborn son
The first of these four phrases is the simplest, and also the most important.
Luke’s description—And she gave birth to her firstborn son—is so mundane it is both easily overlooked and shocking.
Mary gave birth to herson.
On one hand, Luke’s comment is utterly simple and unremarkable—a mother gave birth to her son. It could hardly be more commonplace. There is no mention of angels singing, no comment on divine intervention in this sentence—just the humble reality of a woman delivering her child. Any mother in any time or culture could resonate with this moment. Such a remark could not be a more ordinary comment of human experience.
And it is precisely the plainness of the description that is so shocking, for Luke’s simplicity hides a wonder beyond comprehension—this was no ordinary baby.
This was the birth of the eternal Son of God in time and space—in a city called Bethlehem. God had entered the world not in fire and thunder but in flesh and blood, through the painful and messy struggle of labor and birth.
Luke’s account—And she gave birth to her firstborn son—is wrapped in human normalcy that contains the most staggering truth in all of history:
“the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.” (John 1:14)
Luke’s simple description stands in sharp contrast to the Apostle’s cosmic declaration. John’s language is lofty, philosophic, and majestic. John boldly emphasizes Jesus’s divinity. John stresses the eternal preexistence and divine nature of the One who became incarnate.
By contrast, Luke uses the plain vocabulary of a historian or biographer. Where John begins in eternity past (John 1:1) and describes the paradox of the ultimate Being becoming human, Luke begins in earthly circumstances—a political census, a journey from Galilee to Bethlehem, a woman in labor, giving birth to her firstborn son.
John emphasizes the divine. Luke emphasizes what is human. Yet, the approaches of both gospel accounts describe the same reality: the eternal Son of God was born human.
Luke’s unadorned description reflects one of the core themes of his gospel narrative—the humanity of Jesus. Jesus lived a real, genuine, actual human experience. Luke’s account emphasizes Jesus’s compassion, wisdom, strength, and moral excellence in the messy middle of all that’s human.
Writing for a Greek audience in pursuit of philosophical ideals such as the “Perfect Man” and how to live the “Good Life,” Luke presents Jesus as the most perfect and complete human to ever live. And he begins that narrative by making it clear that Jesus is an actual human who was born from a real woman in the normal manner of birth, after a full—term pregnancy.
And in revealing Jesus to be the ideal of all humanity, Luke shows that the Good Life—the life the Greeks enthusiastically debated and sought—is not attained through rhetoric, Stoic detachment, riches, or political power. But rather, the Good Life is found in following the example and the teachings of Mary’s firstborn son, who trusted God’s wisdom in all circumstances, lived without sin, died sacrificially, and rose triumphantly from the dead.
By emphasizing Jesus’s humanity—even at His birth, Luke makes the Son of God more approachable for us to know, relate to, and follow.
Besides being Luke’s statement to declare that Jesus, the Son of God was born, his description of Jesus being her firstborn son could mean one or more of the following four purposes:
Her firstborn son could allude to Jesus’s right to inherit the throne of David.
Jesus descended from King David (Matthew 1:1, 1:17). Joseph was the rightful heir, and as Joseph’s adoptive first son Jesus was the rightful successor. The angel Gabriel declared that “the Lord God would give [Mary’s son] the throne of His father David” (Luke 1:32b).
Her firstborn son could indicate that Mary had more children and sons later in her life.
Jesus had half—brothers who were also born of Mary (Matthew 13:55,Mark 6:3,John 7:3-5). Joseph was the father of Mary’s other children. Jesus was conceived through the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35—Matthew 1:20).
Her firstborn son could anticipate and prime the reader for Luke’s account of Jesus’s presentation in the temple (Luke 1:21-24).
Luke points out how Joseph and Mary fulfilled the Mosaic requirement by offering a sacrifice (Luke 1:24) for “every firstborn male that opens the womb” (Luke 1:23).
Her firstborn son could also indicate how Jesus was the prototype.
The Greek word that is translated as firstborn in this verse is πρωτότοκος (G4416 — pronounced: “prō—tó—to—kos”). This word is a compound of “protos” (“first”) and “tiktō” (“to give birth” or “to bring forth”). It can mean first in time or first in rank. Importantly, our English word “prototype” comes from this root idea.
A prototype is the original or first model after which all others are patterned or judged. In biblical usage, “prōtótokos” often refers not just to chronology but to status, authority, and centrality.
Jesus lived a perfect life, free from sin. He was the perfect human. And He came to redeem all humanity. In this regard, Jesus is God’s prototype for all human beings—which is a key theme of Luke’s Gospel.
This idea of Jesus as the prototype—the firstborn —is further explained in the New Testament:
As “firstborn among many brethren” (Romans 8:29), Jesus is the leader and example we are to follow and into whose likeness we are predestined to become conformed.
Jesus is the original and perfect pattern and supreme model of all humanity.
This meaning of Jesus as the firstborn is closely connected to Paul’s description of Jesus as the “second Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45).
Just as the first Adam represented the old humanity and brought sin and death, Jesus—the second Adam—represents a new, restored humanity and brings righteousness and eternal life. In this way, firstborn perhaps most clearly captures Jesus’s role as the prototype human.
As the “firstborn of all creation,” (Colossian 1:15) Jesus is preeminent over all creation.
Firstborn in this context does not mean “first made,” but “supreme over.” Paul, Luke’s ministry partner and the author of Colossians, is not suggesting that Jesus was the first being ever created.
As the Son of God, Jesus was eternal and had no beginning (Micah 5:2,John 1:1, 8:58, Hebrews 13:8,Revelation 22:13). Jesus existed before creation and holds the highest rank above it. Therefore, Paul clarified Jesus’s eternal and sovereign role as the Creator immediately after describing Jesus as “the firstborn of creation” (Colossians 1:15) when he wrote:
“For by Him all things were created… and in Him all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:16-17)
Rather, “the firstborn of creation” (Colossians 1:15) points to Jesus as the source, sustainer, and sovereign over all creation. As God, Jesus is not created, but as man He was born into creation. And as the firstborn of creation, Jesus is Lord over all creation.
As “the firstborn of the world” whom “all the angels of God worship” (Hebrews 1:6) Jesus is the sovereign ruler of heaven and earth.
This depicts Jesus the supreme heir and ruler over not just earth, but heaven also. The fact that angels are commanded to worship Jesus reveals His divine status and eternal Sonship and the fact that He is no mere creature but the exalted, eternal Son of God.
As “firstborn from the dead,” (Revelation 1:5) Jesus is the forerunner and pattern of what resurrected humanity will become.
Once again, as the firstborn, Jesus is the beginning of God’s new order—He is the prototype of redeemed mankind.
And “prōtótokos” describes how Jesus was the first to rise from the dead never to die again. He holds authority over death and resurrection. Jesus’s resurrection as firstborn is a guarantee of the future resurrection of those who trust in Him—thus, He leads both creation and new creation.
Moreover, Luke’s use of firstborn/“prōtótokos” son of Mary is an interesting compliment to the Gospel of John’s description of Jesus as God’s only begotten Son (John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18).
The Greek term translated as “only begotten” in these verses is μονογενής (G3439 — pronounced: “mono—gen—ace”). It means “one—of—a—kind” or “uniquely born.”
John emphasizes Jesus’s divine nature and eternal relationship with the Father: “the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18) “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14b). Luke shows us a baby laid in a manger—fully human, born into the world as a firstborn son of Mary.
Luke’s term (“prōtótokos”) highlights Jesus’s true humanity, focusing on His earthly birth, while John’s term (“monogenace”) emphasizes Jesus’s divinity.
There is an incredible amount of meaning packed into this simple phrase: And she gave birth to her firstborn son. It is possible that Luke had all of these ideas and/or purposes in mind when he described Jesus as her firstborn son:
The firstborn heir to David’s throne
The firstborn and the oldest of Mary’s sons
An anticipation of Luke’s account of Jesus’s presentation in the temple as a firstborn son
The firstborn/“prōtótokos,” the prototype of humanity:
of many brothers (Romans 8:29);
of the creation (Colossians 1:15);
of the cosmos (Hebrews 1:6);
and of the dead (Revelation 1:5).
Verse 7b—and she wrapped Him in cloths,
The statement that Mary herself wrapped Him in cloths describes the moment when the mother wrapped her newborn baby to keep Him warm. This intimate detail likely came from the eyewitness testimony of Mary herself (Luke 1:2). Mary’s maternal love for her baby son is evident and appears to be similar to the natural yet intense affection any mother has for her child. The humanity of this profound moment is both radiant and tender.
In this act, we see Mary not only as the favored one chosen by God (Luke 1:28), but as a first—time mother doing what mothers have done for millennia—caring for and clothing her newborn child.
Luke’s account of Mary wrapping her baby sonin cloths and laying Him in a manger is one of the most profound testimonies to the Son of God’s humanity.
Jesus was fully God and He was fully human. Jesus’s humanity did not diminish His divinity, and His divinity did not inhibit His finite human nature. Paradoxically, Jesus was fully God and fully human. This paradox is foundational to the Christian faith.
The eternal Word (John 1:1) had become flesh (John 1:14), and now lay in the arms of a young woman in a forgotten corner of Judea. The Son of God was a helpless baby needing to be cared for by His mother. He was, at the same moment, holding the entire world together (Colossians 1:17).
It was self—humbling that the Lord of all Creation and King of the Universe did not arrive in regal splendor but was gently wrapped by His mother. Jesus’s arrival in this way was a significant moment in His full participation in the human condition, including birth, infancy, and need.
When the Son of God came to earth, He set aside Divine right and did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped (Philippians 2:.6-7). We might say in modern syntax that Jesus did not “consider Himself to be entitled to remain in comfort” but rather chose to take on the exceedingly difficult task He was assigned by His Father. In taking this action, Jesus was following His own teaching, where He stated that the full experience of life comes through taking a difficult path that is found after entering a narrow gate (Matthew 7:13-14).
This moment where He was wrapped in cloths by Mary was among the first of many other countless instances where Jesus, as the Son of God, did not claim or rely on His divine identity or powers. It would not be the last.
The phrase wrapped Him in cloths refers to what is sometimes translated as “swaddling clothes.” The Greek term that Luke uses for cloths is σπαργανόω (G4683—pronounced: “spar—gan—ah—ō”). This word describes long strips of cloth, rather than a shirt or blanket—much less a royal robe for the Messiah, King of Kings, and Son of God. The cloths were not luxurious fabrics. And its strips indicate the poverty of Jesus’s family.
These strips of cloths were used to wrap the newborn Messiah tightly to restrict movement and provide warmth and protection.
Interestingly, some have associated such linen strips as those used for burial in the ancient world.
That Jesus was wrapped in cloths at birth foreshadows how He would again be wrapped in linen after His death. Joseph of Arimathea “took [the body of Jesus] down and wrapped it in a linen cloth” (Luke 23:53)
The parallel between Jesus’s birth and death garments is both symmetrical and symbolic.
How fitting that He who is “the Lamb who has been slain” (Revelation 13:8) and who “was foreknown before the foundation of the world” (1 Peter 1:20) should, at the moment of His birth, be swaddled and wrapped in a type of cloth similar to that which would shroud His body in burial.
From the very beginning, Jesus’s mission was to die in order to save mankind (Luke 19:10).
The symbolism embedded in this moment—being swaddled in cloths similar to burial wrappings—serves as a quiet declaration that this child was born to die, and in doing so, to bring life to many.
Verse 7c—and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
The facts in these statements provide sparse details but important information that readers of Luke’s Gospel can use as they visualize and understand the scene of Jesus’s birth.
First, Luke writes that Mary laid her baby sonin a manger. A manger is a feeding trough for animals. This was strange place for a mother to lay her newborn baby, so Luke immediately follows up with an explanation: because there was no room for them in the inn.
Perhaps it is easier to explain these two clauses in reverse order, because the first clause: and laid Him in a manger—is the consequence of the second clause: because there was no room for them in the inn.
The inn refers to the public lodging space for travelers in Bethlehem.
Mary and Joseph, who were from Nazareth in Galilee, were multiple days’ journey from home in the city ofBethlehemto register for Caesar’s census. Their compliance with the earthly authority was part of God’s providential plan. It placed them exactly where prophecies had foretold that the Messiah would be born (Micah 5:2).
Most towns in Judea would have had a small public “kataluma”—the Greek word translated as inn (G2646). It likely was not a commercial inn as we might imagine today, but rather a simple shelter near a main road, water source, and pasture for animals. The kataluma was far from luxurious. They were typically no more than a room or two with minimal to no furnishing that would accommodate all travelers who did not have a home to stay in.
These inns served as free lodging for travelers and were rooted in the Jewish value of hospitality commanded by the Law of Moses (Exodus 22:21,Leviticus 19:33-34,Deuteronomy 10:18-19, 24:19-21). Occasionally, a local would act as a caretaker for the inn and might charge a small fee for food or care, as illustrated in “the Parable of the Good Samaritan” (Luke 10:34-35).
Given Mary’s obvious state of labor, it is highly probable that Joseph sought lodging and was refused. Since most katalumas housed multiple unrelated travelers, her delivery would have disrupted the entire space and displaced everyone else. It also would have made the place ceremonially unclean (Leviticus 12:2).
Rather than displace every traveler in the inn, or subject Mary to public shame, Joseph likely accepted a more private and far humbler alternative—a secluded shelter used to house animals. In Judea at that time (and still to this day) livestock were sheltered in enclosed caves. These caves would protect the livestock from predators and elements. The caves often included a manger where they could be fed and watered.
Being turned away from the inn at such a stressful moment likely tested Mary and Joseph’s faith. With few options to turn to for assistance, they were experiencing both an emergency and a predicament. This was not likely what they envisioned when the angel told them that they would be the mother and adoptive father of the Messiah. And yet here they were in a different town, days away from home, and Mary’s child was coming into the world when they had no place to stay.
Joseph and Mary’s rejection at the kataluma of Bethlehem was not merely circumstantial. It was emblematic of the rejection and lack of recognition Jesus would experience throughout His ministry as the Messiah.
The Son of God, through whom the world was made (John 1:3), was turned away at the moment of His birth. He who deserved the highest honor was met with closed doors and no room. As John later wrote, “He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him” (John 1:11).
This moment foreshadows Jesus’s life of rejection and suffering (Isaiah 53:3), and it magnifies the wonder that though He was rich, yet for our sake He became poor (2 Corinthians 8:9). The King was born not in splendor, but in obscurity. And His poor birth was the opening note of a life of poverty and divinely extravagant sacrifice.
We do not know the exact place the couple went because Luke does not tell us. He only says she laid Him in a manger. As mentioned above, a manger is a feeding trough used to hold hay or grain for animals. If you have the good fortune to visit Bethlehem you can see examples of the sorts of caves in which Mary would have given birth at a place called the “Shepherd’s Fields.” The traditional site of Jesus’s birth is also a cave that has been hollowed out and retrofitted for tourists. It sits under a church that was constructed to honor the site.
That Jesus was placed in a manger implies the humble conditions of Mary and Joseph, who could not afford better lodging for the birth of the child. This pictures Jesus humbling Himself in obedience to His Father. We can imagine that Mary would have made the best of it. Perhaps she fluffed some straw for Jesus’s comfort and wrapped Him in strips of cloth for warmth and to protect him from being pricked by the straw.
As previously mentioned, contrary to modern portrayals of wooden barns, animal shelters in Judea were most often caves with stone enclosures. Early Christian tradition and archaeology suggest that the site of Jesus’s birth may have been such a cave. These areas were dirt—floored homes for animals, not places where a royal birth would be expected. And yet it was here, in the least expected place, that God’s plan unfolded. The One who holds all things together (Colossians 1:17) was placed in a trough for animals.
Again, there is deep irony in this setting. The Creator of the universe, who deserved a palace and praise, entered the world in a space fit for animals. His mother was a poor teenage girl (Luke 1:48), His earthly father a working—class craftsman (Matthew 13:55), and His first bed was a feedbox for livestock.
This humble scene of Jesus’s birth encapsulates the words of Philippians 2:7: “but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond—servant, and being made in the likeness of men.” And because of Jesus’s humble obedience, “to the point of death, even death on the cross” (Philippians 2:8), God would exalt this obscurely born Child and bestow “on Him the name which is above every name” (Philippians 2:9).
The Savior came not in splendor but in abject poverty. This was hardly the spectacular beginning that might be expected for the Messiah. The Divine King of the universe was born in a cave as a poor, helpless, human baby to redeem humanity through His righteous suffering as a human so that we might enjoy eternal life with Him in His splendor and glory (2 Corinthians 8:9).
Luke 2:3-7
3 And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city.
4 Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David,
5 in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child.
6 While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth.
7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
Set to dark mode
Luke 2:3-7 meaning
There are no apparent parallel gospel accounts of Luke 2:3-7, however Matthew 1:18-25 describe Jesus’s conception and birth.
In Luke 2:3-7, Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem for a Roman census. While there, Mary gives birth to her firstborn son, Jesus the Messiah, in humble circumstances. She wraps Him in cloths and lays Him in a manger because there was no lodging available.
Luke continues his narration of the birth of Jesus. In the previous verse, Luke informed his readers of a major political event that immediately preceded Jesus’s birth—an imperial census from Caesar Augustus that was sent across “all the inhabited earth” (Luke 2:1). Luke specifies that this was the first census administered during the governorship(s) of Quirinius over Syria (Luke 2:2). Based on the information we have from the Bible and other ancient sources, this census was likely issued between 8 and 7 B.C.
Luke’s introduction (Luke 2:1-2) helps us to better know when Jesus was born. But it also helps explain how it was that Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem.
Many Old Testament prophecies, starting with 2 Samuel 7:12-6, foretold that the Messiah would come from the line of King David (Isaiah 9:6-7, 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:9, 33:14-15, Ezekiel 34:23-24, Hosea 3:5, Amos 9:11, Zechariah 3:8, 6:12-13).
David was from Bethlehem (1 Samuel 16:1, 17:12).
And one of the Messianic prophecies explicitly predicted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem:
“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.
His goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity.”
(Micah 5:2)
It was largely from Micah’s prophecy that the Jews expected the Messiah to be born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:4-6, John 7:41-42).
How was it that Jesus the Messiah (Luke 1:30-33) came to be born in Bethlehem, instead of Nazareth where His mother and adoptive father were from?
The answer to this question is provided by Luke—it was because of the census issued by Caesar Augustus from his palace in Rome (Luke 2:1).
God used the lineage of Jewish peasants (Joseph and Mary) and the tax code of a Roman emperor (Caesar) to quietly bring about the fulfillment of Micah’s prophecy about the Messiah’s birth in Bethlehem.
And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city (v 3).
The pronoun—everyone—includes all the male citizens and/or free subjects of the Roman Empire at that time.
One of the requirements for this census was that everyone had to register for it in his ancestral city. This meant that everyone who did not live in the city of his ancestors—his own city—had to travel to it and be on his way to register there.
Joseph, a Jewish subject of the Roman Empire, had to comply with this ordinance.
Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child (vv 4-5).
Joseph was the betrothed husband of the virgin Mary, who was then pregnant with Jesus the Messiah and Son of God (Luke 1:27-35—Matthew 1:18).
Joseph lived in the city of Nazareth which was located in the northern part of Israel in the district of Galilee. But his ancestor was King David.
Joseph was of the house and family of David, this meant he was a descendant of King David (Luke 1:27—Matthew 1:16-17).
Therefore, Joseph’s ancestral home—his own city—was not Nazareth where he lived or was from but rather was Bethlehem which was where his family lineage was from.
Joseph was of the house and family of David; this meant he was a descendant of King David (Luke 1:27—Matthew 1:16-17).
Because David his ancestor was originally from Bethlehem, it is called the city of David. In Hebrew, the name Bethlehem means “house of Bread.” Fittingly, Jesus, the “Bread of Life” (John 6:48) would be born in Bethlehem.
Joseph had to therefore leave his home which was the city of Nazareth, and travel south to the district of Judea, where Bethlehem was located, in order to register for the census. We can imagine that the tax collectors and registrars would organize to gather in various ancestral cities at specific times, to cover the entire population. This is why Joseph would have journeyed to Bethlehem even though Mary was pregnant. This would mean that in addition to using Caesar’s decree as His instrument, God used the schedule of tax collectors as His instrument as well.
Luke writes that Mary, who was engaged to Joseph, went along with him to Bethlehem. This suggests that this was only a census of males. Luke also tells us that Mary was with child at this time—that is, she was pregnant with Jesus the Messiah and Son of God. Luke does not specify why Mary came with Joseph to Bethlehem; he only states that she came along with him. Perhaps she wanted to be with her husband (who was likely one of the few who believed her and the significance of her child) if and/or when she delivered her son.
According to Jewish custom, a child is not officially named until their eighth day of life—the day when male babies are circumcised. Luke, in keeping with this custom, does not refer to Jesus by name until His circumcision. The lone exception was Gabriel’s command to Mary, that her son be called “Jesus” (Luke 1:31).
Instead, until the child is named, Luke refers to Jesus as child, son (v 7), Him (v 7), “a baby” (Luke 1:12), etc. And Mary and Joseph obeyed the angel’s command and named the baby Jesus on the eighth day after His birth (Luke 2:21).
According to maps, approximately 70 miles separate Nazareth and Bethlehem. But in the first century, it would have typically taken three to five days to travel. It would have been closer to five days if Joseph and Mary took the usual route around Samaria which was in between the districts of Galilee and Judea. This route would have been closer to 100 miles.
The reason Luke says that Joseph and Mary went up from Nazareth to Bethlehem even as they traveled south, was because Bethlehem, situated near Jerusalem, was significantly higher in elevation than Nazareth. Bethlehem sits at approximately 2500 feet elevation while Nazareth sits at approximately 1200 feet.
The expression up from Nazareth to Bethlehem could also indicate that they took the longer route around Samaria and up from the Jordan river valley. Rising from the city of Jericho, situated in the Jordan river valley at 850 feet below sea level, the 25—mile road climbs up an impressive 3350 feet on its way to Bethlehem.
After explaining the census and the journey Joseph and Mary took from Nazareth to Bethlehem, Luke tells us that the time came for Jesus to be born:
While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth (v 6).
The pronouns they refers to Joseph and Mary; there refers to Bethlehem, the city of David; and her refers to Mary.
It was while Joseph and Mary were registering in Bethlehem for Caesar’s empire—wide census, that Mary’s days were completed for her to give birth—i.e. she came to full term—and Jesus was born. Matthew’s Gospel affirms that “Jesus was born in Bethlehem” (Matthew 2:1a).
After stating that the days were completed for Mary to give birth, Luke details the incredibly humble circumstances of the Son of God’s birth.
And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn (v 7).
There is a lot packed into this verse, so this commentary will discuss each phrase one at a time.
Verse 7a: And she gave birth to her firstborn son
The first of these four phrases is the simplest, and also the most important.
Luke’s description—And she gave birth to her firstborn son—is so mundane it is both easily overlooked and shocking.
Mary gave birth to her son.
On one hand, Luke’s comment is utterly simple and unremarkable—a mother gave birth to her son. It could hardly be more commonplace. There is no mention of angels singing, no comment on divine intervention in this sentence—just the humble reality of a woman delivering her child. Any mother in any time or culture could resonate with this moment. Such a remark could not be a more ordinary comment of human experience.
And it is precisely the plainness of the description that is so shocking, for Luke’s simplicity hides a wonder beyond comprehension—this was no ordinary baby.
This was the birth of the eternal Son of God in time and space—in a city called Bethlehem. God had entered the world not in fire and thunder but in flesh and blood, through the painful and messy struggle of labor and birth.
Luke’s account—And she gave birth to her firstborn son—is wrapped in human normalcy that contains the most staggering truth in all of history:
“the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.”
(John 1:14)
Luke’s simple description stands in sharp contrast to the Apostle’s cosmic declaration. John’s language is lofty, philosophic, and majestic. John boldly emphasizes Jesus’s divinity. John stresses the eternal preexistence and divine nature of the One who became incarnate.
By contrast, Luke uses the plain vocabulary of a historian or biographer. Where John begins in eternity past (John 1:1) and describes the paradox of the ultimate Being becoming human, Luke begins in earthly circumstances—a political census, a journey from Galilee to Bethlehem, a woman in labor, giving birth to her firstborn son.
John emphasizes the divine. Luke emphasizes what is human. Yet, the approaches of both gospel accounts describe the same reality: the eternal Son of God was born human.
Luke’s unadorned description reflects one of the core themes of his gospel narrative—the humanity of Jesus. Jesus lived a real, genuine, actual human experience. Luke’s account emphasizes Jesus’s compassion, wisdom, strength, and moral excellence in the messy middle of all that’s human.
Writing for a Greek audience in pursuit of philosophical ideals such as the “Perfect Man” and how to live the “Good Life,” Luke presents Jesus as the most perfect and complete human to ever live. And he begins that narrative by making it clear that Jesus is an actual human who was born from a real woman in the normal manner of birth, after a full—term pregnancy.
And in revealing Jesus to be the ideal of all humanity, Luke shows that the Good Life—the life the Greeks enthusiastically debated and sought—is not attained through rhetoric, Stoic detachment, riches, or political power. But rather, the Good Life is found in following the example and the teachings of Mary’s firstborn son, who trusted God’s wisdom in all circumstances, lived without sin, died sacrificially, and rose triumphantly from the dead.
By emphasizing Jesus’s humanity—even at His birth, Luke makes the Son of God more approachable for us to know, relate to, and follow.
Besides being Luke’s statement to declare that Jesus, the Son of God was born, his description of Jesus being her firstborn son could mean one or more of the following four purposes:
Jesus descended from King David (Matthew 1:1, 1:17). Joseph was the rightful heir, and as Joseph’s adoptive first son Jesus was the rightful successor. The angel Gabriel declared that “the Lord God would give [Mary’s son] the throne of His father David” (Luke 1:32b).
Jesus had half—brothers who were also born of Mary (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, John 7:3-5). Joseph was the father of Mary’s other children. Jesus was conceived through the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35—Matthew 1:20).
Luke points out how Joseph and Mary fulfilled the Mosaic requirement by offering a sacrifice (Luke 1:24) for “every firstborn male that opens the womb” (Luke 1:23).
The Greek word that is translated as firstborn in this verse is πρωτότοκος (G4416 — pronounced: “prō—tó—to—kos”). This word is a compound of “protos” (“first”) and “tiktō” (“to give birth” or “to bring forth”). It can mean first in time or first in rank. Importantly, our English word “prototype” comes from this root idea.
A prototype is the original or first model after which all others are patterned or judged. In biblical usage, “prōtótokos” often refers not just to chronology but to status, authority, and centrality.
Jesus lived a perfect life, free from sin. He was the perfect human. And He came to redeem all humanity. In this regard, Jesus is God’s prototype for all human beings—which is a key theme of Luke’s Gospel.
This idea of Jesus as the prototype—the firstborn —is further explained in the New Testament:
Jesus is the original and perfect pattern and supreme model of all humanity.
This meaning of Jesus as the firstborn is closely connected to Paul’s description of Jesus as the “second Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45).
Just as the first Adam represented the old humanity and brought sin and death, Jesus—the second Adam—represents a new, restored humanity and brings righteousness and eternal life. In this way, firstborn perhaps most clearly captures Jesus’s role as the prototype human.
Firstborn in this context does not mean “first made,” but “supreme over.” Paul, Luke’s ministry partner and the author of Colossians, is not suggesting that Jesus was the first being ever created.
As the Son of God, Jesus was eternal and had no beginning (Micah 5:2, John 1:1, 8:58, Hebrews 13:8, Revelation 22:13). Jesus existed before creation and holds the highest rank above it. Therefore, Paul clarified Jesus’s eternal and sovereign role as the Creator immediately after describing Jesus as “the firstborn of creation” (Colossians 1:15) when he wrote:
“For by Him all things were created… and in Him all things hold together.”
(Colossians 1:16-17)
Rather, “the firstborn of creation” (Colossians 1:15) points to Jesus as the source, sustainer, and sovereign over all creation. As God, Jesus is not created, but as man He was born into creation. And as the firstborn of creation, Jesus is Lord over all creation.
This depicts Jesus the supreme heir and ruler over not just earth, but heaven also. The fact that angels are commanded to worship Jesus reveals His divine status and eternal Sonship and the fact that He is no mere creature but the exalted, eternal Son of God.
Once again, as the firstborn, Jesus is the beginning of God’s new order—He is the prototype of redeemed mankind.
And “prōtótokos” describes how Jesus was the first to rise from the dead never to die again. He holds authority over death and resurrection. Jesus’s resurrection as firstborn is a guarantee of the future resurrection of those who trust in Him—thus, He leads both creation and new creation.
Moreover, Luke’s use of firstborn/“prōtótokos” son of Mary is an interesting compliment to the Gospel of John’s description of Jesus as God’s only begotten Son (John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18).
The Greek term translated as “only begotten” in these verses is μονογενής (G3439 — pronounced: “mono—gen—ace”). It means “one—of—a—kind” or “uniquely born.”
John emphasizes Jesus’s divine nature and eternal relationship with the Father: “the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18) “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14b). Luke shows us a baby laid in a manger—fully human, born into the world as a firstborn son of Mary.
Luke’s term (“prōtótokos”) highlights Jesus’s true humanity, focusing on His earthly birth, while John’s term (“monogenace”) emphasizes Jesus’s divinity.
There is an incredible amount of meaning packed into this simple phrase: And she gave birth to her firstborn son. It is possible that Luke had all of these ideas and/or purposes in mind when he described Jesus as her firstborn son:
Verse 7b—and she wrapped Him in cloths,
The statement that Mary herself wrapped Him in cloths describes the moment when the mother wrapped her newborn baby to keep Him warm. This intimate detail likely came from the eyewitness testimony of Mary herself (Luke 1:2). Mary’s maternal love for her baby son is evident and appears to be similar to the natural yet intense affection any mother has for her child. The humanity of this profound moment is both radiant and tender.
In this act, we see Mary not only as the favored one chosen by God (Luke 1:28), but as a first—time mother doing what mothers have done for millennia—caring for and clothing her newborn child.
Luke’s account of Mary wrapping her baby son in cloths and laying Him in a manger is one of the most profound testimonies to the Son of God’s humanity.
Jesus was fully God and He was fully human. Jesus’s humanity did not diminish His divinity, and His divinity did not inhibit His finite human nature. Paradoxically, Jesus was fully God and fully human. This paradox is foundational to the Christian faith.
The eternal Word (John 1:1) had become flesh (John 1:14), and now lay in the arms of a young woman in a forgotten corner of Judea. The Son of God was a helpless baby needing to be cared for by His mother. He was, at the same moment, holding the entire world together (Colossians 1:17).
It was self—humbling that the Lord of all Creation and King of the Universe did not arrive in regal splendor but was gently wrapped by His mother. Jesus’s arrival in this way was a significant moment in His full participation in the human condition, including birth, infancy, and need.
When the Son of God came to earth, He set aside Divine right and did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped (Philippians 2:.6-7). We might say in modern syntax that Jesus did not “consider Himself to be entitled to remain in comfort” but rather chose to take on the exceedingly difficult task He was assigned by His Father. In taking this action, Jesus was following His own teaching, where He stated that the full experience of life comes through taking a difficult path that is found after entering a narrow gate (Matthew 7:13-14).
This moment where He was wrapped in cloths by Mary was among the first of many other countless instances where Jesus, as the Son of God, did not claim or rely on His divine identity or powers. It would not be the last.
The phrase wrapped Him in cloths refers to what is sometimes translated as “swaddling clothes.” The Greek term that Luke uses for cloths is σπαργανόω (G4683—pronounced: “spar—gan—ah—ō”). This word describes long strips of cloth, rather than a shirt or blanket—much less a royal robe for the Messiah, King of Kings, and Son of God. The cloths were not luxurious fabrics. And its strips indicate the poverty of Jesus’s family.
These strips of cloths were used to wrap the newborn Messiah tightly to restrict movement and provide warmth and protection.
Interestingly, some have associated such linen strips as those used for burial in the ancient world.
That Jesus was wrapped in cloths at birth foreshadows how He would again be wrapped in linen after His death. Joseph of Arimathea “took [the body of Jesus] down and wrapped it in a linen cloth” (Luke 23:53)
The parallel between Jesus’s birth and death garments is both symmetrical and symbolic.
How fitting that He who is “the Lamb who has been slain” (Revelation 13:8) and who “was foreknown before the foundation of the world” (1 Peter 1:20) should, at the moment of His birth, be swaddled and wrapped in a type of cloth similar to that which would shroud His body in burial.
From the very beginning, Jesus’s mission was to die in order to save mankind (Luke 19:10).
The symbolism embedded in this moment—being swaddled in cloths similar to burial wrappings—serves as a quiet declaration that this child was born to die, and in doing so, to bring life to many.
Verse 7c—and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
The facts in these statements provide sparse details but important information that readers of Luke’s Gospel can use as they visualize and understand the scene of Jesus’s birth.
First, Luke writes that Mary laid her baby son in a manger. A manger is a feeding trough for animals. This was strange place for a mother to lay her newborn baby, so Luke immediately follows up with an explanation: because there was no room for them in the inn.
Perhaps it is easier to explain these two clauses in reverse order, because the first clause: and laid Him in a manger—is the consequence of the second clause: because there was no room for them in the inn.
The inn refers to the public lodging space for travelers in Bethlehem.
Mary and Joseph, who were from Nazareth in Galilee, were multiple days’ journey from home in the city of Bethlehem to register for Caesar’s census. Their compliance with the earthly authority was part of God’s providential plan. It placed them exactly where prophecies had foretold that the Messiah would be born (Micah 5:2).
Most towns in Judea would have had a small public “kataluma”—the Greek word translated as inn (G2646). It likely was not a commercial inn as we might imagine today, but rather a simple shelter near a main road, water source, and pasture for animals. The kataluma was far from luxurious. They were typically no more than a room or two with minimal to no furnishing that would accommodate all travelers who did not have a home to stay in.
These inns served as free lodging for travelers and were rooted in the Jewish value of hospitality commanded by the Law of Moses (Exodus 22:21, Leviticus 19:33-34, Deuteronomy 10:18-19, 24:19-21). Occasionally, a local would act as a caretaker for the inn and might charge a small fee for food or care, as illustrated in “the Parable of the Good Samaritan” (Luke 10:34-35).
Given Mary’s obvious state of labor, it is highly probable that Joseph sought lodging and was refused. Since most katalumas housed multiple unrelated travelers, her delivery would have disrupted the entire space and displaced everyone else. It also would have made the place ceremonially unclean (Leviticus 12:2).
Rather than displace every traveler in the inn, or subject Mary to public shame, Joseph likely accepted a more private and far humbler alternative—a secluded shelter used to house animals. In Judea at that time (and still to this day) livestock were sheltered in enclosed caves. These caves would protect the livestock from predators and elements. The caves often included a manger where they could be fed and watered.
Being turned away from the inn at such a stressful moment likely tested Mary and Joseph’s faith. With few options to turn to for assistance, they were experiencing both an emergency and a predicament. This was not likely what they envisioned when the angel told them that they would be the mother and adoptive father of the Messiah. And yet here they were in a different town, days away from home, and Mary’s child was coming into the world when they had no place to stay.
Joseph and Mary’s rejection at the kataluma of Bethlehem was not merely circumstantial. It was emblematic of the rejection and lack of recognition Jesus would experience throughout His ministry as the Messiah.
The Son of God, through whom the world was made (John 1:3), was turned away at the moment of His birth. He who deserved the highest honor was met with closed doors and no room. As John later wrote, “He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him” (John 1:11).
This moment foreshadows Jesus’s life of rejection and suffering (Isaiah 53:3), and it magnifies the wonder that though He was rich, yet for our sake He became poor (2 Corinthians 8:9). The King was born not in splendor, but in obscurity. And His poor birth was the opening note of a life of poverty and divinely extravagant sacrifice.
We do not know the exact place the couple went because Luke does not tell us. He only says she laid Him in a manger. As mentioned above, a manger is a feeding trough used to hold hay or grain for animals. If you have the good fortune to visit Bethlehem you can see examples of the sorts of caves in which Mary would have given birth at a place called the “Shepherd’s Fields.” The traditional site of Jesus’s birth is also a cave that has been hollowed out and retrofitted for tourists. It sits under a church that was constructed to honor the site.
That Jesus was placed in a manger implies the humble conditions of Mary and Joseph, who could not afford better lodging for the birth of the child. This pictures Jesus humbling Himself in obedience to His Father. We can imagine that Mary would have made the best of it. Perhaps she fluffed some straw for Jesus’s comfort and wrapped Him in strips of cloth for warmth and to protect him from being pricked by the straw.
As previously mentioned, contrary to modern portrayals of wooden barns, animal shelters in Judea were most often caves with stone enclosures. Early Christian tradition and archaeology suggest that the site of Jesus’s birth may have been such a cave. These areas were dirt—floored homes for animals, not places where a royal birth would be expected. And yet it was here, in the least expected place, that God’s plan unfolded. The One who holds all things together (Colossians 1:17) was placed in a trough for animals.
Again, there is deep irony in this setting. The Creator of the universe, who deserved a palace and praise, entered the world in a space fit for animals. His mother was a poor teenage girl (Luke 1:48), His earthly father a working—class craftsman (Matthew 13:55), and His first bed was a feedbox for livestock.
This humble scene of Jesus’s birth encapsulates the words of Philippians 2:7: “but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond—servant, and being made in the likeness of men.” And because of Jesus’s humble obedience, “to the point of death, even death on the cross” (Philippians 2:8), God would exalt this obscurely born Child and bestow “on Him the name which is above every name” (Philippians 2:9).
The Savior came not in splendor but in abject poverty. This was hardly the spectacular beginning that might be expected for the Messiah. The Divine King of the universe was born in a cave as a poor, helpless, human baby to redeem humanity through His righteous suffering as a human so that we might enjoy eternal life with Him in His splendor and glory (2 Corinthians 8:9).