Luke 1:27

A virgin. See on Matt 1:23. The fact that in giving so detailed an account of the circumstances of the birth of Jesus Luke makes no mention of Mary’s parents, suggests that they may have been dead at this time, and that Mary may have been living with some of her relatives (see DA 144, 145). Almost without exception, Jewish writers identified those of whom they spoke, as the sons and daughters of certain named persons.

Espoused. See on Matt. 1:18. The sequence of events here is significant. The angel made the announcement of the birth of Jesus following Mary’s engagement. To be told at a time when no plans had been laid for marriage that she was to bear a child would no doubt have greatly distressed her. On the other hand, if the announcement had followed her marriage to Joseph, even Mary and Joseph would have considered Jesus their own child. Evidence of the virgin birth would have been difficult, if not impossible, to establish. The purposefulness in the sequence of events testifies to the divine plan and overruling providence of God. If Joseph was ready to “divorce” Mary upon hearing that she was “with child” (Matt. 1:18, 19), and was restrained from doing so only by a direct revelation from God (vs. 20, 24), it probably would have been far more difficult to reconcile him to the idea of contracting a marriage with her had she already been found pregnant (v. 19). Divine planning made the situation as easy as possible for both Mary and Joseph. Mary was indeed a “virgin,” but she was betrothed. God had already provided her with a helper and protector before announcing to her the coming birth of Jesus.

Joseph. See on Matt. 1:18. Little is known of Joseph aside from his Davidic descent (Matt. 1:6-16), his poverty (see on Luke 2:24), his trade (Matt. 13:55), the fact that he had four sons (Matt. 12:46; 13:55, 56; DA 87), and that he evidently died before Jesus began His ministry (see DA 145). The last definite event recorded of Joseph occurred when Jesus was 12 (Luke 2:51). The absence of any further reference to Joseph raises a reasonable presumption that he died before Jesus began His ministry (see on ch. 2:51). The fact that Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to John at the cross (John 19:26, 27) is practically positive proof that the death of Joseph had occurred prior to that time.

Home of David. That is, the royal family (see on Matt. 1:1, 20). Opinion differs as to whether the expression “of the house of David” here refers to Mary or to Joseph. The repetition of the word “virgin” in the last clause of the verse implies that the phrase in question refers to Joseph rather than Mary. In any event, Joseph’s Davidic descent is clearly stated in Luke 2:4. But Mary was also “of the house of David” (see on Matt. 1:16; Luke 1:32; DA 44). It was through Mary that Jesus was literally “of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3). That Mary was a descendant of David seems to be taken for granted in Luke 1:32, 69. These and other statements of Scripture would lose much of their force and meaning unless Mary could claim David as an ancestor. The reference in v. 36 to Elisabeth as Mary’s “cousin” cannot be construed as requiring Mary to be of the tribe of Levi, as some have thought (see on v. 36). Mary and Joseph were both of royal descent, as Zacharias and Elizabeth were of priestly lineage (v. 5).

Mary. See on Matt. 1:16. Luke gives the birth narrative of Jesus from the viewpoint of Mary, a fact some commentators take as implying that Luke had personally heard the story from her lips or from someone else who had talked with her (see on vs. 1-3). The great detail and the exquisite beauty of Luke’s narration certainly suggest intimate acquaintance with the facts, either by direct contact with persons who witnessed them (v. 2) or by inspiration. Luke’s mention of “eyewitnesses” implies that both factors were involved — an eyewitness account, safeguarded, of course, by inspiration.