Were Mary and Joseph refugees?

I saw this on facebook last week. I've actually seen quite a few memes and posts saying the Mary & Joseph were refugees. “See, they were refugees, therefore it would be hypocritical of you to offer anything less than all-out support for refugees today.” My point today is not to debate or discuss whether or not we should support refugees or how many etc. Instead, I’m asking, Were Mary and Joseph refugees? Is it biblically correct to refer to them as refugees? 

First, let’s refresh ourselves with the story from Luke 2:1-7

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed... And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Next, let’s define refugee. Here is a definition offered by Merriam-Webster:

ref·u·gee
noun
: someone who has been forced to leave a country because of war or for religious or political reasons
: one that flees; especially : a person who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution

And in order to be thorough, let’s define immigrant and homeless as well

immigrant : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence

homeless : having no home or permanent place of residence

Is there anything in the story of Jesus’ birth to indicate the family were refugees? Let’s see, they weren’t fleeing anything or anyone; they didn’t leave one country and enter another seeking safety; they weren’t relocating at all. The government decree called for them to temporarily travel to Bethlehem. They didn’t even go to a place with a different culture. They went from Nazareth to Bethlehem, 70-90 miles apart, two cities within the same country.

Therefore, they were not refugees – they had not been forced to leave their country and go to another because of war or politics. They were not immigrants - not only did they not leave one country for another, this was merely a temporary inconvenience. They weren’t even homeless. Since they were seeking lodging in an inn, I would say Joseph was willing and able to pay for accommodations.

What were they then? Inconvenienced travelers. Were they “squatters” who “wrecked a barn”? No. These are all details added to the story. As far as we know, Joseph paid his own way the whole trip. The truth is, while the story mentions no room at the inn and the birth in the manger, no emphasis is placed on either detail. It’s almost as if, while unusual, this was not all that uncommon.

So calling them refugees is nothing more than sloppy sentimentalism (akin to making the innkeeper gruff and uncaring), an attempt to capitalize on general biblical illiteracy to promote an agenda. Let me hasten to repeat, this is not about whether supporting refugees is a biblical mandate or not. I am simply stating that it is quite incorrect to use the nativity to say it is.

There is another incident that tells a different story. Matthew 2:13-23

13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.  
14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:  
15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.  
19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,  
20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.  
21 And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.  

This time the holy family clearly were refugees – fleeing their own country in order to escape government persecution. I don’t know how long they were in Egypt but this was obviously a temporary stay, until I bring thee word. They weren’t immigrating. Were they homeless and penniless during their stay in Egypt? There is nothing to indicate that. Did they “wreck” things while they were there? Again, there is no evidence. Were they part of a mass migration from Judah to Egypt? No. They stayed briefly and then returned to Judah.

All this talk of refugees and immigrants reminds me of the time Israel fled Egypt and wandered up to the land of Canaan. They were refugees. They were immigrants. Wait, didn’t they take over Canaan?

Back to the real question, Does the Bible teach us to support refugees and immigrants? Whether it does or not, these two incidents in the life of Jesus do not speak to it or illustrate it. If anything, it would encourage us to offer assistance to inconvenienced travelers.

Were Mary and Joseph refugees? No.