The apparent tension between Matthew and Luke regarding whether Jesus was born during Herod’s reign or during the census of Quirinius is best understood as a historical issue rather than a contradiction in Scripture (Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:1–2). Matthew records Jesus ' birth when Herod was king (Matthew 2:1), whereas Luke references the census of Quirinius’ reign (Luke 2:2). The issue is that Herod died in 4 BC, whereas Quirinius reigned in 6–7 AD. Several reasonable explanations exist as to this questionable aspect of Scripture. First, another Quirinius may have ruled during Herod’s time, though no historical record confirms this, making it speculative. Second, a later scribe may have mistakenly written “Quirinius” instead of “Quintilius,” the governor of Syria when Herod was alive. This, the word translated “first” in Luke 2:2, can mean “before,” in which case Luke was clarifying that this registration preceded Quirinius’ more famous one. Still, both accounts agree on the central truth that Jesus was born into real history under real rulers according to God’s sovereign timing. This reinforces that apparent contradictions often reflect limited human knowledge rather than flaws in Scripture itself. The reliability of the biblical narrative remains intact, supported by the consistency of its manuscripts and the absence of doctrinal confusion. Beyond seeking to reconcile the supposed contradiction, we must rely on the greater truth that God sent His Son into the world for our salvation (John 1:14; Luke 2:10–11).
While not
dismissing the very real question as to how to reconcile the Matthew and Luke
passages, we must never allow such questions to sow seeds of doubt. When we
refer to Scripture being inerrant and infallible, we mean the original
manuscripts. We don’t have those, but we have over 5,000 fragments of copies
and have reproduced the New Testament with near-perfect accuracy. The remaining
textual difficulties are minor and do not affect doctrine. The Bible’s teaching on
God as holy Creator, man as sinner, and Jesus as Savior is perfectly reliable.
In addition to
potential textual issues, our historical knowledge of the first century
BC and AD is not comprehensive. There are many gaps, and it’s improper to act
as if it’s infallible and able to judge a problem passage.
In the end, then,
while questions about the timing of Jesus’ birth are not unimportant, we must
be careful that they don’t sidetrack the central reason Jesus came. God sent
Him because all humanity is sinful (Romans 3:10–18) and unable to
save itself from His wrath (Ephesians 2:1–3). The Son of God, fully divine
(John 1:1), added on a human nature (Philippians 2:6–7) to become like us,
except without sin (Hebrews 4:15). He then died to bear the wrath we deserved
so that all who repent and trust in Him will be saved (Romans 10:9–10).
If you have not
yet been saved, know that this gospel far outstrips questions about when,
exactly, Jesus was born. We encourage you to focus first on your eternity!
If you are
already saved, then know that Scripture, being God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16),
has stood up to two thousand years of scrutiny. It will continue to do so
until Jesus returns because it was given to us by the God who never lies (Titus
1:2).