Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 2:5
To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
5. to be taxed ] Rather, to enrol himself.
with Mary ] It is uncertain whether her presence was obligatory (Dion. Hal. iv. 5; Lact. De Mort. Persec. 23) or voluntary; but it is obvious that at so trying a time, and after what she had suffered (Mat 1:19), she would cling to the presence and protection of her husband. Nor is it wholly impossible that she saw in the providential circumstances a fulfilment of prophecy.
his espoused wife ] Or, who was betrothed to him; ‘wife’ is omitted in B, D, L.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 5. With Mary his espoused wife] There was no necessity for Mary to have gone to Bethlehem, as Joseph’s presence could have answered the end proposed in the census as well without Mary as with her; but God so ordered it, that the prophecy of Micah should be thus fulfilled, and that Jesus should be born in the city of David; Mic 5:2.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
5. espoused wifenow, withoutdoubt, taken home to him, as related in Mat 1:18;Mat 25:6.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife,…. Whom also he had married, though he had not known her in a carnal way; she came along with him to be taxed and enrolled also, because she was of the same family of David, and belonged to the same city:
being great with child; very near her time, and yet, though in such circumstances, was obliged by this edict, to come to Bethlehem; and the providence in it was, that she might give birth there, and so the prophecy in Mic 5:2 have its accomplishment: this was an instance, and an example, of obedience to civil magistrates.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
To enrol himself with Mary ( ). Direct middle. “With Mary” is naturally taken with the infinitive as here. If so, that means that Mary’s family register was in Bethlehem also and that she also belonged to the house of David. It is possible to connect “with Mary” far back with “went up” () in verse 4, but it is unnatural to do so. There is no real reason for doubting that Mary herself was a descendant of David and that is the obvious way to understand Luke’s genealogy of Jesus in Lu 3:23-38). The Syriac Sinaitic expressly says that both Joseph and Mary were of the house and city of David.
Betrothed (). Same verb as in 1:27, but here it really means “married” or “espoused” as Mt 1:24f. shows. Otherwise she could not have travelled with Joseph.
Great with child (). Only here in N.T. Common Greek word.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
To be taxed with Mary. We may read either, went up with Mary, denoting merely the fact of her accompanying him; or, to enroll himself with Mary, implying that both their names must be registered. Espoused. Not merely betrothed. See Mt 1:20, 24, 25; also on Mt 1:18.
Great with child [] . See on Chapter Luk 1:24. Only here in New Testament.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “To be taxed with Mary,” (apograpsasthai sun Mariam) “To be enrolled or registered for tax purposes, in joint enrollment with Mary,” in obedience to Roman law.
2) “His espoused wife,” (te emnesteumene auto) “The one (Mary) who was already legally engaged to him,” Mat 1:18.
3) “Being great with child.” (ouse egkou) “Being then pregnant,” or with child, in a great way, nigh time of delivery, before she and her espoused husband, Joseph, “had come together,” Mat 1:18; Mat 1:25. Both Mary and Joseph were of the family of David, were to be enrolled in Bethlehem, Luk 2:3-4.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(5) To be taxed.Literally, to register himself.
With Mary his espoused wife.Many of the best MSS. omit the substantive: with Mary who was betrothed to him. The choice of the participle seems intended to imply the fact on which St. Matthew lays stress (Mat. 1:25). She went up with him, not necessarily because she too had to be registered at Bethlehem, but because her state, as being great with child, made her, in a special sense, dependent on Josephs presence and protection.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
Ver. 5. Being great with child ] Yet could not be excused. This was a cruelty in Augustus (not to spare great-bellied women), but a mercy of God to mankind; for what the better had it been for us, if Joseph had gone to Bethlehem, and not Mary also?
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
with = in conjunction with. Greek. sun. App-104. Not the same word as in verses: Luk 2:36, Luk 2:51, Luk 2:52.
espoused = married. Not merely “betrothed “(Mat 1:20, Mat 1:24, Mat 1:25). See note on Mat 1:18. Compare Deu 22:23, Deu 22:24.
great with child. Compare Luk 1:24. Greek enkuos. Occurs only here in N.T.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Luk 2:5. , to be enrolled [Engl. Vers. to be taxed]) to give in his name. The middle voice.-, , his wife, being pregnant.) This, which was mentioned in the first chapter, is repeated, because it was so set down also in the census-roll, among the records of the Romans.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Deu 22:22-27, Mat 1:18, Mat 1:19
Reciprocal: Mat 1:16 – Joseph Mat 13:55 – is not this Luk 1:27 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5
A wife would not have to leave home to pay her taxes, but she would need to appear in person to be placed upon the enrollment of citizens according to the Roman procedure. His espoused wife is explained at Mat 1:25. Her condition of expectancy though engaged only to Joseph is explained at Mat 1:18-20.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Luk 2:5. With Mary. Even if not required to do so, she naturally accompanied Joseph. In her peculiar condition she would cling to him, especially as all had been cleared up between them (comp. Mat 1:18-25). Perhaps the prophecy respecting Bethlehem (Mic 5:1; comp. Mat 2:6) was in her mind. Some think that she was an heiress, having possessions in Bethlehem, and therefore obliged to appear there to represent an extinct family. But an heiress would not be likely to seek refuge in a stable at such a time.
Who was betrothed to him. It is certainly forcing a difficulty upon the passage to say that it contradicts Mat 1:24. It seems rather to set forth the peculiarity of the case, as there described. The verse sheds no light on the question, whether she too were of the house of David.