Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 2:3
And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
3. every one into his own city ] This method of enrolment was a concession to Jewish prejudices. The Roman method was to enrol each person at his own place of residence. Incidentally this unexplained notice proves that St Luke is dealing with an historical enrolment.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 3. And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.] The Roman census was an institution of Servius Tullius, sixth king of Rome. From the account which Dionysius of Halicarnassus gives of it; we may at once see its nature.
“He ordered all the citizens of Rome to register their estates according to their value in money, taking an oath, in a form he prescribed, to deliver a faithful account according to the best of their knowledge, specifying the names of their parents, their own age, the names of their wives and children, adding also what quarter of the city, or what town in the country, they lived in.” Ant. Rom. l. iv. c. 15. p. 212. Edit. Huds.
A Roman census appears to have consisted of these two parts:
1. The account which the people were obliged to give in of their names, quality, employments, wives, children, servants, and estates; and
2. The value set upon the estates by the censors, and the proportion in which they adjudged them to contribute to the defence and support of the state, either in men or money, or both: and this seems to have been the design of the census or enrolment in the text. This census was probably similar to that made in England in the reign of William the Conqueror, which is contained in what is termed Domesday Book, now in the Chapter House, Westminster, and dated 1086.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
3. went . . . to his own citythecity of his extraction, according to the Jewish custom, not ofhis abode, which was the usual Roman method.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And all went to be taxed,…. Throughout Judea, Galilee, and Syria; men, women, and children;
every one into his own city; where he was born, and had any estate, and to which he belonged.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Each to his own city ( ). A number of papyri in Egypt have the heading enrolment by household ( ‘ ). Here again Luke is vindicated. Each man went to the town where his family register was kept.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Went [] . The A. V. and Rev., alike miss the graphic force of the imperfect tense, were going. The preparation and bustle and travel were in progress. To his own city. The town to which the village or place of their birth belonged, and where the house and lineage of each were registered.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And all went to be taxed,” (kai eporeuonto pantes apographesthai) “And all went to be enrolled or registered,” because every male Roman subject, fourteen years of age and upward, and every female twelve years of age and upward, was subject to an head tax.
2) “Every one to his own city.” (hekastos eis ten heautou polin) “Each one to his own city.” The city of his nativity of his native father’s, to the city of his ancestors or extraction, where family records seem to have been kept, guarded, Pro 22:1.
GOD OVERRULES
Augustus, while sending forth his edicts to the utmost limits of the East, little knew that on his part he was obeying the decrees of the King of kings. God had foretold that the Saviour should be born in Bethlehem. In order that this might be accomplished He made use of Augustus, and through this prince the order was given for the census of the whole people. At the sight of these wars and revolutions that upset the world you feel inclined to imagine that God no longer governs the world or those in it. You are mistaken, God permits that these awful catastrophes should take place, just for the salvation and perfection of this or that person whom the world knows not.
-De Boylesve
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(3) All went to be taxed.As a rule the practice in a Roman census was to register people in their place of residence; but this was probably modified in Palestine, in deference to the feelings of the people. After the death of Herod and the division of his kingdom, such a method as that implied hero could hardly have been feasible, as the subjects of one tetrarchy would not have been registered as belonging to another, so that here again we have not an error, but a special note of accuracy.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
3. Every one into his own city The census in Judea was doubtless conducted in Jewish modes. The enrolment must be made at the place of the lineage of the head of the family. Mary goes probably under the protection of her husband in her present condition. The journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem is about sixty miles.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And all went to enrol themselves, every one to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the town of Nazareth, to Judaea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, to enrol himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great with child.’
‘All’ went to enrol themselves. This may mean all leaders and people considered to be of importance, or it may have looked wider. Each had to go to his ‘own city’, that is in this case his tribal inheritance. In Joseph’s case he had to go to Bethlehem because he was of David’s line and David’s tribal roots were in Bethlehem, and it was no doubt where Joseph’s family still had land.
This does raise the question as to Joseph’s connection both with Bethlehem and Nazareth. It is true that in Luk 2:39 we are told that Joseph and Mary, with Jesus, ‘returned to their own town Nazareth’. And certainly Nazareth was Mary’s home town from the beginning. And equally certainly it was Joseph’s home town when they came down to Jerusalem when Jesus was twelve years old. But that does not necessarily mean that it was so for Joseph at the time of Jesus’ birth.
There are a number of possible scenarios. Joseph may have been living in Nazareth, where he courted Mary, but with his father and other family living in Bethlehem. He himself may have been living in Bethlehem and simply have come up to Nazareth on hearing of his betrothed’s condition, marrying there and returning to Bethlehem speedily because of the enrolment. Or he may have had business interests in both Nazareth and Bethlehem and have moved often between the two (as Aquila and Priscilla appear to have done in Acts between Rome and Corinth), sharing his time between Bethlehem and Nazareth.
While the fact that they ‘returned to their own town Nazareth’ (Luk 2:39) may be seen as militating against the idea that he lived in Bethlehem all the time, that verse is a very summarised explanation as to how they were in Jerusalem for the purification and were in Nazareth for Jesus’ visit to Jerusalem twelve years later, at which point it was their home town. It may not mean that they went there immediately or lived there all the time. They ‘returned’ may simply refer to the fact that they had previously left it together for the enrolment.
Thus it could be that at the time of the birth Joseph lived in Bethlehem at the family home, and Mary lived at Nazareth. Then that on hearing that she was pregnant he went to Nazareth, where God put her in the clear in his eyes, after which they married rather hurriedly, and that that was why he was there when the enrolment call came, which explains why they came together to Bethlehem, in order to enrol and possibly live there. This would also explain why they were still in Bethlehem after forty days. It further explains adequately why Mary accompanied Joseph even though she was pregnant. Then after the visit of the Magi they fled to Egypt, and when they finally returned from Egypt they ‘returned’ to Nazareth where they had married which now became ‘home’ to Joseph as well as Mary. From then on it was seen as ‘their own town’ (Luk 2:39). That is one possible scenario. Another is that Joseph was more closely connected with Nazareth for reasons given earlier.
Whatever way it was what a come down this was for the house of David. He who should have been God’s firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth (Psa 89:27) was trudging slowly along the dusty roads to pay allegiance to another. Such were the consequences of Israel’s disobedience. He took with him his betrothed wife who was at the time pregnant. It is possible that she was required to be ‘enrolled’ as well, which did sometimes happen, although we do not know one way or the other for sure. It may simply be that they wanted their firstborn to be born in their tribal portion, or that they were returning to Joseph’s home. Whether they knew of the prophecy in Mic 5:1 we do not know. God certainly knew. Furthermore they may have been escaping disapproval from some more staid people who frowned at their having (in other people’s eyes) conceived a baby while still only betrothed. And the kindly Joseph may have wanted his child bride to be where he could protect her from such calumniations.
It would appear that they then settled down in Bethlehem, for the appearance of the wise men and the slaughter of the children (Matthew 2) occurred some time after the birth (it must have been after the forty days of purification). And in fact it was only the warning from an angel that later caused them not to return to Bethlehem, but to go back to living in Nazareth, when they returned from taking refuge in Egypt (Mat 2:22-23).
So this does raise the question as to where Joseph actually lived. As we have already seen it is quite possible that in fact he normally lived at the family home in Bethlehem, but that he had gone to Nazareth when he heard that Mary was pregnant so as to divorce her (or he may have gone after he learned the truth). On learning from God that her story was actually true he may then have stayed with her for a time in a supportive role, during which time they were married. The marriage would probably have been a quiet one due to the bride’s condition, and it was unconsummated. But the demands of the census may then have meant that he had to cut short his visit and return to Bethlehem, naturally taking his wife with him. When they arrived back at the family home it may have been crowded out because of the census so that the guestroom was full, which would explain why, in spite of Mary’s condition, they had to sleep on the ground floor where the domestic animals were also kept. This might well have been where Joseph was used to sleeping anyway, and was quite regularly used for sleeping in. If his father was still alive he, and his wife, would merit the use of the main ‘guestroom’.
Luke probably still uses the term ‘betrothed’ in order to indicate that they had not yet consummated their marriage (although some witnesses have ‘wife’ or ‘betrothed wife’). He is technically aware. As far as he is concerned they were not yet fully married. Matthew tells us that a marriage ceremony had taken place although Joseph did not consummate the marriage until after Jesus was born (Mat 1:24-25). It is, however, unlikely that she would have accompanied Joseph if the wedding had not taken place. The distinctions are only technical.
The chiasmus brings out that the stress is finally on the fact that Jesus was of the house and family of David, and that He therefore had to be born in Bethlehem because of His Messiahship. There is as yet no evidence that the Jews were actually previously expecting the Messiah to be born in Bethlehem. It may well be that the discovery by the ‘wise men’ of Jerusalem in Mat 2:5 was the first recognition of the fact. But Luke’s readers would certainly know it, and would recognise that the Scriptures had said it.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
v. 3. And all went to “be taxed, every one into his own city.
v. 4. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem;
(because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
v. 5. to be taxed with Mary, his espoused wife, being great with child. All the statements of the evangelist are made with such obvious care and accuracy that there is no reason to doubt his record, aside from the fact that the inspiration makes the text correct. It happened, came about, in those days, the days of Herod the Great, king of Judea. There went out an order from the Emperor Augustus, who reigned from 30 B. C. to 14 A. D. , that the entire world, the whole Roman Empire under his jurisdiction, which practically comprised the entire known world, should be entered into lists, all the people that belonged to the empire were to be registered, probably for the purpose of taxation, or for general statistical objects. Censuses of this kind were often taken in those days, in individual countries and provinces as often as once a year. The census here referred to was an unusual one, since it extended over the entire empire, over kingdoms as well as provinces. The time is fixed still more exactly by the statement that this enrollment was made, was actually executed, as a first one of its kind, when Cyrenius or Quirinius was governor of Syria, a Roman province, to which Judea belonged after the death of Archelaus. When the order was posted or proclaimed in Palestine that all people should be registered in the manner prescribed in the decree of Caesar, the inhabitants prepared to carry out the command. They went, everyone to his own city, to the city from which his forefathers hailed. Among those that made ready for the registration was also Joseph, of the city of Nazareth in Galilee.
Since he was of the house and family of David, the great king of Israel, he made the journey over the hills up to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem. And he did not go alone. Sometime before, he had celebrated his marriage with Mary, a virgin of the same city of Nazareth, to whom he had been betrothed. She is here, with great exactness, called his betrothed wife, for though the wedding has been celebrated, the consummation of marriage has not taken place, Mat 1:24-25. Mary was about to become a mother, but the order of the emperor had to be carried out, and therefore they risked the journey to Bethlehem. Note: According to the prophecy of Hag 2:6-7, all the nations were to be shaken when the Desire of the world was to be born. And the decree of Augustus had to be formulated so that both Joseph and Mary were present in Bethlehem at this time, since the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, Mic 5:2. A fitting name for the birthplace of the Redeemer, Bethlehem, the house of bread, since the Bread of Life came to earth in that little city, Joh 6:35.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Luk 2:3. And all went to be taxed When the census was made in any country under the dominion of the Romans, the inhabitants were obligedto attend in the cities to which they belonged. See Livy, lib. 42. 100: 10. The reason was, that without a precaution of this kind, the census would have been excessively tedious, and people who were abroad might have been omitted, or set down among the inhabitants of other cities, where they would not have been found afterwards; or they might have been enrolled twice, which would have bred confusion in the registers. Herod, who, it is probable, executed the census in his own dominions by the appointment of Augustus, seems to have made a small alteration in the mode of it; for instead of ordering the people to appear, as usual, in the cities where they resided, or to whose jurisdictions the places of their abode belonged, he ordered them to appear according to their families; perhaps, because it was the ordinary way of classing the Jewish people, or because he desired to know the number and strength of the dependants of the great families in his dominions. But on whatever account the alteration was made, it appears to have been owing to a providential interposition; for otherwise Christ might not have been born at Bethlehem, his mother and reputed father having long resided at Nazareth, and having no other cause for changing their situation when Mary was so near her time, unless on some such necessity. We may just observe further, that this obedience of the Jews to the decree of Caesar, is a plain proof that they were now dependant on the Romans, and that the sceptre was departing from Judah. See Lightfoot’s Harmony, and compare Gen 49:10 and Numbers 24.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Luk 2:3 ff. ] in the Jewish land, for which Luk 2:2 has prepared, and see Luk 2:4 . Obviously only all those are meant, who did not dwell in their ; is a distributive apposition (Ameis on Homer, Od. x. 397).
. ] the more precise definition is furnished by Luk 2:4 . This statement, too, does not suit a census proper; for to this every one was required to subject himself at his dwelling place , or at the place where he had his forum originis (see Huschke, p. 116 ff.), whereas in our passage the Jewish principle of tribe is the basis. And if the matter were not a census, but a mere registration (see above), there was no reason for departing from the time-hallowed division of the people, or for not having the matter carried out in Jewish form . The actual historical state of the case shines here through the traditional dress of a census.
.] The city where David was born, 1Sa 17:11 .
] see on Mat 2:1 .
. .] The tribes proceeding from the sons of Jacob were called ( ); the branches proceeding from the sons of these patriarchs, ( ); the single families of such a tribal branch, ( ). See Kypke, I. p. 213; Winer, Realwrterb. s.v. Stmme; Gesenius, Thes. I. p. 193, III. p. 1463. Joseph was thus of the family descending from David, and belonged to the same branch of the tribe to which David bad belonged. A circumstantial designation of this important relationship. As to , moreover, see on Eph 3:15 .
] does not belong to (Paulus, Hofmann, Ebrard), but to . beside which it stands: in order to have himself enrolled with Mary, etc. But that Mary had of necessity to share the journey with him (which was not requisite in the case of a census, when only the names of the women and children had to be specified, Dion. Hal. iv. 14; see Strauss, I. p. 235, and Huschke, p. 121, in opposition to Tholuck, p. 191) is the less to be supposed, as in the main the form of the execution of the was the Jewish one, Luk 2:3 . Nevertheless, wives (in this case Mary as one betrothed, who according to Jewish law was placed on the same footing as the wife) had to be likewise entered in the register, which must have been a matter of Roman enactment, but for which it was not necessary that they should come personally with their husbands to the spot. We have consequently to abide by the view that Mary undertook the journey with her husband voluntarily, according to her own and Joseph’s wish, in order to remain under the protection of her betrothed (not exactly on account of the troublous times, an idea which Ebrard imports). There are various arbitrary hypotheses, such as: that she travelled with him on account of the poll-tax (Huschke); that she wished still as a maiden to represent her father’s house, and longed after Bethlehem in the theocratic feeling of maternity (Lange); that the command for the taxing extended also to the children and contained a definite point of time, just about which Mary expected her delivery (von Gumpach). And the hypothesis that Mary was an heiress, who had an estate in Bethlehem (Michaelis, Kuinoel, Olshausen; with hesitation Bleek and Khler), is utterly unfounded as regards Luke in particular, since he has not the smallest trace of any earlier connection with Bethlehem and makes Mary in her travail not find even friendly lodging there.
. ] Thus, according to Luke, she was still only his betrothed (Luk 1:27 ; Mat 1:18 ), and the marriage was not yet completed. At variance with Mat 1:24 . A different form assumed by the tradition of the virgin birth. Evasive suggestions are resorted to by Beza, Grotius, and others, including Schegg and Bisping (that Luke expresses himself thus, because Joseph had only conducted himself as one betrothed towards Mary).
] not: because she was pregnant (von Gumpach), but: who was pregnant (Act 24:24 ; Rom 1:16 , and frequently). The observation forms the transition to what follows.
REMARK.
From Mary’s sharing in the journey we are not to conclude that she likewise was of the family of David (Grotius, Kuinoel, and others). She journeyed voluntarily with Joseph as his future wife, and Joseph journeyed as a member of the house of David. If Luke had had in his mind the thought that Mary shared the journey as a descendant of David, he must have written, and that at the end of Luk 2:5 , . . . But comp. on Luk 1:36 , and on Mat 1:17 , Remark 2.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
Ver. 3. And all went to be taxed ] To pay a certain small sum of money in token of fidelity. I was once at a court sermon (saith Melancthon) on the Nativity day, and this was the text: but the preacher, instead of discoursing on Christ’s incarnation, spent the whole hour, on a very cold day, in persuading the people to obey magistrates, and to give them as much money as they call for. This is the guise of court parasites, princes, trencher flies.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
3 5. ] There is a mixture here of Roman and Jewish customs, which is not at all improbable, considering the circumstances. In the Roman census, men, women, and children were all obliged to go and be enrolled. Dion. Hal. iv. 15, ( ) , , , . But then this census was made at their dwelling-place , not at that of their extraction . The latter practice springs from the Jewish genealogical habits, and its adoption in this case speaks strongly for the accuracy of the chronology . If this enrolment was by order of Augustus, and for the whole empire, it of course would be made so as to include all , after the Roman manner: but inasmuch as it was made under the Jewish king Herod , it was done after the Jewish manner , in taking this account of each at his own place of extraction .
Mary being apparently herself sprung from the lineage of David (see ch. Luk 1:32 ), might on this account go to Bethlehem, being, as some suppose, an inheritress; but this does not seem to be the Evangelist’s meaning, but that, after the Roman manner, she accompanied her husband .
No stress must be laid on ., as if she were only the betrothed wife of Joseph at this time; she had been taken to his house before this: the history in our text happening during the time indicated by Mat 1:25 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Luk 2:3 . : not all throughout the world, but all in Palestine the execution of the decree there being what the evangelist is interested in. (or ., W.H [22] ). Does this mean to the city of his people, or to the city of his abode? If the former, what a stir in Palestine, or in the world if be taken widely! A regular “Vlkerwanderung” (Holtzmann in H. C.). Sensible of this, some (Hahn, e.g. ) take the reference to be to the place of residence (Wohnort not Stammort), implying that Bethlehem was for Lk. as for Mt. Joseph’s home, and that they merely happened to have been living in Nazareth just before. But Luk 2:7 implies that Joseph and Mary had no house in Bethlehem. Feine quotes, with a certain amount of approval, the view of Schneller ( Kennst du das Land ) that Joseph was not a carpenter but a mason, and that Bethlehem was therefore his natural home, being the headquarters of that craft then as now. On this view, Joseph had simply been in Nazareth building a house, not at home, but away from home for a time as an artisan.
[22] Westcott and Hort.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
every one, &c. A Papyrus (in British Museum), being a rescript of the Prefect Gaius Vibius Maximus (A.D. 103-4), shows that Herod must have been acting under Roman orders. Vib. Max. was Prefect of Egypt, and wrote: “The enrolment by households being at hand, it is necessary to notify all who for any cause soever are outside their homes to return to their domestic hearths, that they may accomplish the customary dispensation of enrolment, and continue steadfastly in the husbandry that belongeth to them. “There is a large number of Papyri relating to these enrolments. See Deissmann’s Light from the Ancient East, pp. 268, 269.
into = unto. Greek. eis. App-104.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
3-5.] There is a mixture here of Roman and Jewish customs, which is not at all improbable, considering the circumstances. In the Roman census, men, women, and children were all obliged to go and be enrolled. Dion. Hal. iv. 15, ( ) , , , . But then this census was made at their dwelling-place, not at that of their extraction. The latter practice springs from the Jewish genealogical habits, and its adoption in this case speaks strongly for the accuracy of the chronology. If this enrolment was by order of Augustus, and for the whole empire, it of course would be made so as to include all, after the Roman manner: but inasmuch as it was made under the Jewish king Herod, it was done after the Jewish manner, in taking this account of each at his own place of extraction.
Mary being apparently herself sprung from the lineage of David (see ch. Luk 1:32), might on this account go to Bethlehem, being, as some suppose, an inheritress; but this does not seem to be the Evangelists meaning, but that, after the Roman manner, she accompanied her husband.
No stress must be laid on ., as if she were only the betrothed wife of Joseph at this time;-she had been taken to his house before this: the history in our text happening during the time indicated by Mat 1:25.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Luk 2:3. , into his own city) Joseph seems to have left Bethlehem only a short while before.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Reciprocal: Gen 23:10 – his
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
3
His own city. Most countries are divided into smaller units, each with a center of jurisdiction at which the birth lists of citzens are kept on record, such as the county unit in the United States. The Jews had a similar custom of keeping their records according to the family groups to which one belonged, and such records were stored in the city that was attribuated to that family.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Luk 2:3. Every one into his own city, i.e., to the city of his extraction (comp. Luk 2:4). This was not the Roman custom, but was probably adopted as a measure of policy in accordance with the Jewish habits in regard to genealogies.
Roman usage required the enrolment of women, and possibly their actual presence at the place of enrolment. This mixture of Roman and Jewish usage, so likely to occur in an enrolment, made under a Jewish king yet by order of the Roman Emperor, is a strong proof of the accuracy of Lukes account.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Luk 2:3. And all went to be taxed, (enrolled,) every one to his city When the census was made in any country, the inhabitants were obliged to attend in the cities to which they belonged, Livy, 50. 42. c. 10. The reason was, without a precaution of this kind, the census would have been excessively tedious, and people who were abroad might have been omitted, or registered among the inhabitants of other cities, where they would not have been found afterward, or they might have been enrolled twice, which would have produced confusion in the registers. In the dominions of Herod, however, probably by his order, a small alteration seems to have been made in the method of executing the census. For instead of the people being directed to appear, as usual, in the cities where they resided, or to whose jurisdiction the places of their abode belonged, they were ordered to appeal according to their families; every one in his native city, or the place where his paternal inheritance lay, to be there enrolled; a circumstance wisely ordered by Providence to verify the truth of ancient prophecies; for thus the parents of Christ were providentiatly brought to Bethlehem, the place where the Messiah was to be born, without leaving any room to suspect them of artifice and design. And thus, also, by their coming to be registered among the subjects of the Roman empire, the subjection of the Jews to the Romans was very remarkably manifested.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 3
To be taxed; not to pay the money, but to be enrolled, as a step preliminary to actual taxation. The Jews were compelled to submit to these exactions of the Romans, much against their will. Hence the odium in which the publicans, or tax-gatherers, were held; and also the peculiar point of the question put to our Savior, on one occasion,–whether it was lawful to pay tribute to Cesar.