And it came to pass, &c.— At that time an edict was published by Caesar Augustus, that all the provinces of the Roman empire should be registered or enrolled,—as in the margin of our English version. Heylin. This was the enrolment of the census, first practised by Servius Tullus, the sixth king of Rome, who ordained, that the Roman people, at certain seasons, should upon oath give an account of their names, qualities, employments, wives, children, servants, estates, and places of abode. By this institution, Servius designed to put those who had the administration of public affairs in a condition to understand the strength of every particular part of the community; that is, what men and money might be raised from it; and, according to those assessments or estimates, men and money were levied afterwards, as occasion required.
Our version extends this enrolment to all the world; that is, agreeable to Dr. Heylin's explanation, to all the province's of the Roman empire; but it seems most probable, according to Dr. Lardner's ingenious observations, that the word 'Οικουμενη is to be taken in a more limited sense,—as it is plainly, chap. Luke 21:26 and in other places,—for the land of Israel only. The Evangelist observes, that the emperor's edict extended to the whole land, to shew that Galilee, Joseph's country, was comprehended in it. That this was an enrolment of the inhabitants of Palestine only is probable, because no historian whatever says that Augustus made a general enrolment of the empire: whereas, if any such had happened, they would scarcely have failed to gratify their readers with an account of the numbers of the persons, &c. that being a particular which every one must have been curious to know. But their silence concerning a particular enrolment of the land of Israel only, is not surprising, as there must have beensurveys of provinces, which the Greek and Roman historians now extant had no occasion to notice. There is frequent mention of the census at our Lord's nativity, in the most early apologies of the fathers; and as some of these apologies were addressed to the Roman emperors themselves, such appeals to a public fact imply that it was a thing well known; and would be, if need were, a sufficient confirmation of this fact. At this time Augustus was much incensed against Herod, and probably ordered this census as a token of his displeasure, and as an intimation that he intended soon to lay the Jews under a tax: Herod, perhaps, regaining the emperor's favour, prevailed with him to suspend his intention; and this possibly, together with the disgracefulness of the thing, may have been one reason why the census was passed over in silence by Nicholas of Damascus, one of Herod's servants and flatterers, in the history that he wroteof his affairs. It might likewise be the reason why Josephus, who copied from Nicholas, omitted the mention of it, or at best represented it simply by the taking of an oath, rather than by the offensive name of a census, (see Antiq. lib. 17. 100: 2 sect. 6.) supposing it to have been at this enrolment that the oath which Josephus speaks of was imposed, which the whole Jewish nation, except six thousand Pharisees, took, to be faithful to Caesar and the interests of the king. Now, that this oath was imposed at the time of the enrolment, appears probable, because the events which followed it are the same which happened aftertheenrolment.The Pharisees who refused to swear, from the imagination that the law, Deuteronomy 17:15 forbad them, were fined; but the wife of Pheroras paid the fine for them; and they in return predicted that God had determined to put an end to Herod's government, and that the kingdom should be transferred to her family; proceeding farther to characterize the new king by the expression, that "all things should be in his power," a characteristic of the Messiah. The disturbances which happened in Jerusalem after this, and the slaughter made in Herod's family, were all on account of the birth of this new king. The persons who predicted the birth of this king were the Pharisees, according to Josephus: in the Gospel they are called the chief priests and scribes, who, from the ancient prophesies, informed Herod that his rival king was to be born in Bethlehem. Indeed the whole affair is but slightly handled by Josephus; but it must be remembered, that Josephus, being a Jew, would consult the reputation of his country; and being also an enemy to Christianity, it cannot be supposed that he would relate at large such particulars as had any strong tendency to support it. The reader desirous of entering more fully into this subject, will meet with ample satisfaction in B. 2. 100: 1 of Lardner's Credibility; where the point is discussed with equal learning and accuracy. It maybe proper just to add, that this affair of the taxing is mentioned by St. Luke, not so much to mark the time of Christ's birth, as to prove two things; first, that he was born in Bethlehem; secondly, that his parents were at that time known to be branches of the royal family of David. The importance of ascertaining these points arose hence, that they were fixed by the prophets as express characters of the Messiah; Hath not the scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? John 7:42. By the particular destination of Providence, therefore, while Joseph and Mary were attending the enrolment at Bethlehem, Mary brought forth her Son.