Introduction
This statement from Luke 2:7 provides the framework for the birth of Jesus.
Luke tells us in chapter 2, verse 1, the reason for Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem:
In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register.
Mary’s betrothal, Joseph, was from the line of David. Matthew provides the genealogy of Joseph (Matthew 1:1-16) and Luke (3:23) provides the ancestry of Mary. Although he does not mention Mary by name, he shows that her father Heli, came from David’s line. Therefore, Mary provided the biological connection between King David to Jesus Christ and Joseph provided the legal connection. And David was born in Bethlehem as shown in 1Samuel 17:12.
Now David was the son of the Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah, whose name was Jesse, and he had eight sons. And Jesse was old in the days of Saul, advanced in years among men.
This is the reason why Joseph and Mary had to go to Bethlehem for the census. Incidentally, the Seed of the Woman from Genesis 3:15, the Messiah, was prophesied to be born in Bethlehem by Micah (5:2).
Caeser Augustus thought that he was a big shot, but he was only a pawn in the hand of the Almighty using him to bring about His eternal plan.
Scandal in Nazareth.
One can only imagine the scandal in the little religiously conservative town of Nazareth when one of their teenage girls became pregnant during her betrothal and claimed that she was impregnated by God Himself. As far as the townsfolk were concerned, Mary had brought shame upon herself and upon them. With her pregnancy being the only proof needed of her guilt, the pressure would have mounted for Joseph to avenge his good name by having her stoned, but he would not and took her with him to Bethlehem. It seems quite clear that after the angel told Joseph to take Mary home as his wife (Matthew 1:20) he did, and presumably paid her father the betrothal money.
The inn, where there was no room for them
The picture we are presented with in school and Sunday school plays where children act out the scene of Joseph with a heavily pregnant Mary who was just about to give birth, being turned away by an uncaring inn keeper when they requested lodging, and that he finally relents and points them to a tumbledown stable for Mary to give birth to her baby. A close examination of the scriptures shows this is incorrect. Luke records the event in verse 4 to 7 of chapter 2.
4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who had pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
Please note the phrase, While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, So Joseph took his betrothed to Bethlehem and while they were there, the time came for the baby to be born. Joseph was obviously caring and did not take his heavily pregnant wife on such an arduous journey.
So where did they stay?
Luke made a simple one-line statement (Luke 2:7) which has generated much discussion over the intervening centuries. It hinges on the Greek word, kataluma, which has been translated as inn in most and particularly older Bibles. An inn is a place that provides lodgings for a fee. But Luke uses the Greek word kataluma. [Strong’s Greek Dictionary 2646. κατάλυμα katalyma (katályma) from G2647; properly, a dissolution (breaking up of a journey), i.e. (by implication) a lodging-place:—guestchamber, inn]. A guest chamber is more appropriate to first century Israel as most houses were equipped to accommodate travelling relatives.
While Romans and other foreign travellers often stayed in roadside inns, Jews stayed in the homes of relatives or other Jews when travelling to avoid contact with pagan foods and customs (see Leviticus 11:1-47). This is a good reason why Joseph would not seek paid accommodation in an inn. Another reason for doubting that they sort shelter in an inn is that, for commercial reasons, inns were situated on the major trading routes, and no such route passed through the little town of Bethlehem.[1]
Luke does use the Greek kataluma, in chapter 22, verses 11-12 and it is clearly a guest room and translated as such.
….and say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ He will show you a large room upstairs, all furnished. Make preparations there.”
Furthermore, when an inn, that is a place that provides accommodation for a price is referred to, the Greek word pandokheion is used. This is shown in the parable of the Good Samaritan Luke 10:34.
He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn (pandokheion) and took care of him.
So, a better translation of Luke 2:7 would be, “There was no room for them in the guest room.”
Jewish houses of the first century
Although there was some variation in floor plan, peasant houses in Jesus’ day generally catered for the family’s livestock as well as the people, all under the one roof. Often the family’s living area was just slightly raised from the area for their livestock. Sometimes it was on a second story. When they could afford it, a guest room (kataluma) was added, either to the side or above the family’s quarters. There was usually a manger (feeding trough) for the animals towards the end of the living room floor next to the lower level where the animals were kept. The animals were brought in at dusk, then let out first thing in the morning and their area cleaned-out for use by the family during the rest of the day. The image is taken from reference 1 and used with gratitude.
It is not clear of what form the census took. Luke tells us that, everyone went to his own town to register (verse 3). It may have been simply going to one’s hometown and having your presence recorded in some manner and then being free to leave. If this was the case, people would be coming and going all the time, so family guest rooms would becoming vacant on a regular basis. But Joseph would have needed accommodation until the baby was born; a few weeks maybe.
There seems to be two possibilities of why there was no room for them. One, is that there was no room in the guest room of a relative’s house and Joseph and Mary were relegated to the area where the animals were kept. Quite possibly, because of large numbers of descendants of king David were travelling to Bethlehem. Hence, baby Jesus was placed in an animal feeding trough (manger). Or, more likely, they were refused accommodation in the house because the owner did not want to bring disgrace onto his household, and they 
were directed to an animal shelter away from the house. Remembering the punishment for adultery was death by stoning.
The animal shelter may have been a cave. Early Christian writers prior to the age of Constantine (Roman emperor from AD 306 to 337), write about a cave near Bethlehem that was regarded as the place where Jesus was born. Justin Martyr (AD 100-165), Dialogue, 78.5-6;
since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger,
Origin, Against Celsus, 1.51 (AD 248) and Jerome (A.D 325) Eusebius, Proof of the Gospel, 3.2.97) (AD 312).
Above are pictures of the Church of the Nativity and inside the grotto marking the place, which is believed to be where Jesus was born. The images are thanks to Wikimedia commons.
[1] Anita, https://blog.renewal.asn.au/2020/04/25/a-child-is-born
[2] Jordan J Ryan, Biblical Archaeology Review, Winter 2024, vol. 50 No 4, page 41-49.
