Luke 2

CHAPTER II

When we are reading the opening verses of this chapter we should not suppose that Luke intends to give us the date of the birth of Jesus. A glance at 3:1, 2 shows how Luke proceeds when he is fixing an important date. As far as the date is concerned, we are still governed by 1:5. Herod is still king of Palestine, and something like fifteen (nine plus six) months have passed since the event recorded in 1:8, etc. Matt. 2:1 states that Herod was living when Jesus was born, and Matt. 2:19 places his death somewhat later. Luke is concerned about dating the beginning of the work of John, with which the great new era began (3:1, 2), and cares far less about dating the birth of Jesus. So in 2:1–3 he does not intend to fix a date but offers only an explanation as to how it came about that, although Mary lived in Nazareth (1:26), her son was not born there but in Bethlehem, not in Galilee but in Judea.

Luke 2:1

1 Now it came to pass in those days there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus that all the inhabited world be enrolled for taxing.

On ἐγένετο followed by a finite verb see 1:8; with δέ the story simply progresses. “In those days” necessarily takes in time enough for the issuance of the imperial decree and its execution in Palestine. All that Luke is concerned about is to indicate how this imperial decree affected the birth of Jesus. Falling into the time in which this decree was put into effect in Palestine, the birth occurred in Bethlehem, not in Nazareth. If such a decree had not been issued, Joseph and Mary would not have been compelled to go to Bethlehem just at this time. Luke alone among the evangelists mentions the names of Roman emperors, and he states them correctly: Cæsar Augustus but Tiberius Cæsar (3:1). Luke connects sacred with secular history. He alone informs us about this imperial decree which included “all the inhabited world.”

Because Greek and Roman historians reported nothing about this great innovation that was inaugurated by Augustus, the critics seized upon Luke’s testimony and attacked his veracity regarding this decree and all else connected therewith. Until a few years ago the critics had things pretty much to themselves, and all one could do was to trust to the reliability of Luke. But now a mass of papyri and several inscriptions have reversed the situation. The evidence is now at hand that Augustus did issue the decree of which Luke speaks, that it was a new, epoch-making measure, and that it inaugurated a periodic enrollment in the empire which continued for over two centuries at intervals of fourteen years. See the writings of W. M. Ramsay.

After ἡοἰκουμένη (feminine participle) we supply the feminine noun γῆ. When critics stress this word of Luke’s so as to include more than the Roman Empire they are answered by Acts 17:6 and 19:27, where others than Luke use this word in the same sense although with far less justification. The noun ἀπογραφή (v. 2) appears again in Acts 5:37 and must have the same sense that the verb ἀπογράφεσθαι has in v. 1. Does it signify only a census as so many think? In Acts 5:37 it includes also the levy of the tax, and that is enough to fix its meaning here. Luke does not make a distinction between ἀπογραφή as a mere enrollment and ἀποτίμησις as the valuation of the property and the levying of the tax. The enrollment was made for purposes of taxation.

The present tense of ἀπογράφεσθαι is worth noting. If only one world taxing were referred to, we should have the aorist; the present tense suggests a continuous series of enrollments for purposes of taxation. This corresponds exactly with the new discoveries of a periodical, fourteen-year taxing which, in the case of Egypt, the papyri carry back as far as A.D. 20. Luke’s passive (R. 809) epexegetical (R. 1086, stating the contents of δόγμα) infinitive means that a regular system of periodical world taxing was inaugurated by Augustus (of course, in conjunction with the Roman Senate); a decree to that effect was issued and put into effect in Palestine at a time that compelled Mary to go to Bethlehem when her child was to be born. An imperial world measure was inaugurated to bring about the fulfillment of the prophecy regarding the place of the Savior’s birth. God moves emperors and empires, if necessary, to bring about a single, apparently small point in his gospel plan.

Luke 2:2

2 This, a first enrollment for taxing, occurred while Quirinius (this is the proper spelling) was governing in Syria.

This simple statement of Luke’s has had to bear the brunt of attack, and it did seem as if Luke might have erred. Quirinius was the governor of Syria in A.D. 6 and made an enrollment for taxation at this time, the one mentioned by Luke himself in Acts 5:37 and by Josephus in Antiquities 18, 1, 1. Luke was charged with misdating this enrollment by erroneously transferring it and the governorship of Quirinius from A.D. 6 to B.C. 8. What helped the matter were the mistaken statements of Josephus (on which see Zahn in his commentary on Luke). The word of the renegade Jewish priest Josephus, born as late as 37 or 38 A.D., was accepted in preference to the word of Paul’s faithful assistant, the inspired writer Luke, who was an active member in the church at Antioch as early as the year 40. Recently discovered inscriptions vindicate Luke.

Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was the regular governor in Syria during A.D. 6, when, after the death of Archelaus, a census for taxation was made, which treated Palestine as an ordinary Roman province and thus caused the formation of the militant Jewish party of Zealots, to whom the apostle Simon “the zealot” once belonged (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). This party continued until the fall of Jerusalem; the fate of its founder is recorded in Acts 5:37. But Quirinius functioned in Syria during B.C. 7 and after that date, not indeed as regular governor of the province but in a governing capacity. We do not translate ἡγεμονεύοντος “being governor,” i.e., having that ordinary office, but “governing,” i.e., acting in a governing capacity. In other words, at the time of Jesus’ birth somewhere near the year 6 B.C. Varus, who was afterward so thoroughly defeated by the Germans, was the governor of Syria and administered its regular affairs.

Let us remember that Herod the Great died in the spring of 4 B.C., and that Jesus was born a year or two before his death (Matt. 2). While Varus was governor, Quirinius controlled the armies and directed the foreign policy of Syria. It was thus that he supervised the enrollment for taxation also in the kingdom of Herod. When Tertullian makes Sentius Saturnius the governor of Syria (B.C. 9–6) instead of Varus, this is a mistake since all indications point to a delay in the execution of the imperial decree in Palestine so that the work began in this part of the realm when Varus held the governorship.

The genitive absolute, “Quirinius governing in Syria,” is not so much a date as a statement regarding the control of the enrollment for taxation. Acting in a governing capacity in Syria, and having broader powers than those of the regular governor, Quirinius managed the enrollment also in Herod’s domain. Herod’s standing with the emperor was not that of a rex socius. He was not king in his own right but was dependent on the φιλίαΚαίσαρος, was one of the amici Cæsaris who were dependent on the amicitia of the emperor. How easily Herod might have forfeited the emperor’s favor is shown by Josephus, Antiquities 16, 9, 3, where the emperor reprimands Herod for his war with the Arabians and tells him that he formerly used him as a friend (φίλος) but will now use him as a subject (ὑπήκοος). The view that no personal representative of the emperor could supervise the taxing in Herod’s domain is an unwarranted conclusion.

We do not know what delayed the matter in Palestine. Some think of a reluctance on Herod’s part, and others suppose an alacrity on Herod’s part because he desired the emperor’s favor. It is not safe to guess. Whether we omit ἡ and read: “this as the first enrollment,” or retain it: “this first enrollment,” makes little difference; but “first” means, not that other enrollments followed, but that nothing of the kind had ever been decreed in the past.

Luke 2:3

3 And they were all proceeding to go to be enrolled for taxing, each to his own city.

This verse is to be connected with both of the preceding verses though it is often connected only with the first verse, the second being regarded as a parenthesis. The movement of the people, each to his own city, was due to the imperial decree (v. 1) but likewise to the administrative orders in each province which put that decree into effect (v. 2). Verse one deals with the whole empire; verse two narrows down to Syria and thus to Palestine; and it is here that we see the movement that is described by the imperfect ἐπορεύοντο, all the Jews go to the enrollment, each (ἕκαστος, partitive apposition, R. 746) to his own city. This intends to say that the Jews followed their own system of enrollment, each person’s name, standing, property, etc., being entered in the family record that was kept at the place which was considered the family seat. To follow this system of enrollment for taxation entailed much travel and inconvenience as we see in the case of Joseph and Mary. But the fact remains that this system was followed and not the far easier Roman way of recording each man’s data where he happened to be living.

Until recently it was supposed that the Jews alone enrolled in family centers, but a number of Egyptian papyri have now been found that have the heading ἀπογραφὴκατʼ οἰκίαν, which indicates that a similar method was followed in that country. The empire included so many different peoples that one method could not have been carried through among all of them.

Luke 2:4

4 Now there went up also Joseph from Galilee out of the city Nazareth unto Judea to David’s city, which is called Bethlehem, for the reason that he was of David’s home and parentage, to get himself enrolled for taxation with Mary who had been betrothed to him, she being pregnant.

We have already met Joseph as being the betrothed of Mary in 1:27. There we learned that Mary lived in Nazareth, and we now find that this is true also of Joseph; but this fact is now expressed by a simple phrase (compare the more elaborate wording in 1:27). For the information of Theophilus it was necessary to mention that Nazareth lay in Galilee and Bethlehem in Judea. The location of Nazareth would not need to have been repeated from 1:27, but it is added here because the new place, Bethlehem, had to be located as lying in a different locality, namely Judea. Just as Nazareth is introduced with some formality in 1:27, so the same is now done with Bethlehem, only in a greater degree: “unto Judea to David’s city, which is called Bethlehem.” The name, “House of Bread,” is often treated allegorically, but Luke is not thinking of the composition and meaning of the name.

Διὰτό with the infinitive states the reason why Joseph at this special time made the journey to Bethlehem: “for the reason that he was of David’s house and parentage.” It is well to note that Luke would be repeating himself if “of David’s house” in 1:27 were to refer to Joseph and not to Mary as is asserted by those exegetes who find no repetitions in their authors. This proper canon applies here: Luke does not twice in close succession say that Joseph is “of David’s house.” What he does say is that Mary is of David’s house, in 1:27, and now that Joseph, too, is of the same house. A second term is added in the case of Joseph: of David’s house “and parentage,” πατριά, because Luke is speaking of the enrollment and thus emphasizes the point of descent.

Luke 2:5

5 Because he came from David’s line, Joseph had to report for the enrollment at the headquarters of his family connection, at Bethlehem, which is for this reason called “David’s city” in v. 4. The middle infinitive ἀπογράψασθαι is not merely reflexive: “to enroll himself,” but more fittingly causative: “to have himself enrolled,” although R. 807 and 809 wavers. It is surprising to be told that σὺνΜαριάμ cannot modify the infinitive to which it is attached: “to have himself enrolled with Mary,” but must be construed with the first word in the sentence, ἀνέβη, “there went up Joseph … with Mary.” The usual reader will connect the words as they stand. Joseph undoubtedly had to state in the enrollment whether he was single or married. Even a common census would require that datum, much more would a listing for taxation do so. Thus “with Mary” means that he had himself enrolled with her as his wife. Whether Mary, if she were still single, would have been compelled to have herself recorded we do not know since the details of the law on this point are not known to us.

We have the same perfect participle μεμνηστευμένη, “having been betrothed,” that was used in 1:27. Some texts add “wife,” which seems to be an addition that was made for the sake of clearness. There was, of course, no reluctance about calling Mary Joseph’s “wife” since Matthew does this already before the consummation of her marriage (1:20, 24). “Having been betrothed” (the perfect connoting “and being in this condition”) is entirely clear in 1:27 and in the present connection, but we should understand the betrothal in the Jewish and not in the American sense. It was virtually marriage and lacked only that the bridegroom take his bride to his home. The vows of marriage were made at the betrothal, which was always public, and none were needed when the groom took away his bride. Between 1:27 and 2:5 there lies Matt. 1:24, and so we see Mary in the company of Joseph, “having been betrothed to him” in a betrothal that was now consummated.

The participial phrase οὔσῃἐγκύῳ, “she being pregnant,” is best understood in the causal sense: “since she was pregnant.” For this very reason Joseph took her along. But not because her pregnancy necessitated her enrollment because of the expected child; or because Joseph and she wanted the child to be born in David’s city and not in Nazareth. The matter is more intimate. Joseph took Mary away from Nazareth in order to shield her against slanderous tongues, and in order to give her all the protection and help that she needed in her condition, and not to leave her in the care of others. Mary herself must also have greatly desired to leave Nazareth with Joseph. Providence so shaped events that the two left Nazareth just at this time.

Luke 2:6

6 Now it came to pass while they were there the days were fulfilled for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swathing clothes and laid him down in a manger because there was no room for them in the stopping place.

For ἐγένετο plus a finite verb, which is used repeatedly by Luke, see 1:8. The importance of what is now narrated is indicated by this circumstantial expression. In accord with it (again see 1:8) is ἐντῷ with the infinitive which is so often used for designations of time. The phrase reads as if Joseph and Mary were “there,” in Bethlehem, at least several days before the child was born. In 1:74 and 77 the infinitive with τοῦ expresses purpose, but here it modifies a noun: “the days of her giving birth,” the aorist infinitive to express the single act. The entire sixth verse is a circumstantial introduction to the first clause of v. 7.

Luke might simply have written: “And while she was there Mary gave birth to her first-born son.” But the fact is too great for even the sacred writer to be put into so few words. The statement as made by Luke conveys the thought that without any planning on the part of Joseph or of Mary her time came just after they had been in Bethlehem for a time.

Luke 2:7

7 The birth itself is related without an unnecessary word: καὶἔτεκετὸνυἱὸναὐτῆςτὸνπρωτότοκον. Jesus was born in the natural way. Birthpains set in, and the child passed through the mouth of the womb just as any normal child is born. The older supposition that Jesus was born clauso utero, “with the womb closed,” the child passing miraculously through the walls of the womb (Concordia Triglotta, 1004, 100), is to be rejected in toto.

The addition of τὸνπρωτότοκον to τὸνυἱὸναὐτῆς by means of a second article makes the adjective emphatic, R. 776. Those who claim that the ἀδελφοί of Jesus were his half-brothers, who were born to Joseph and Mary after Jesus, find support for their exegesis in this statement. R., W. P., for instance, says: “The expression naturally means that she afterwards had other children, and we read of brothers and sisters of Jesus.” The “first-born” is then understood in a modern and not in the Biblical sense. Why should Luke want to imply that Mary also had other children later on? Was Theophilus to think that they, too, were conceived miraculously?

Was he to expect an account of these other children in Luke’s book? One sees how misleading “first-born” becomes when it is understood in the modern sense. It is quite specious to assert that πρωτότοκος is never μονογενής, “only-begotten,” for no one claims that the terms are equal.

“First-born” should be understood in the Old Testament sense of Exod. 13:2, 15; 34:19, and other passages. Instead of looking forward it looks backward, and “first-born” means that no other child had been born before this one. C.-K. 1075. This meaning stands in spite of the objection that Mary’s virginity had already been established by 1:25. As far as the virginity is concerned, this is a minor matter in “first-born”; the real point is in the child, that it is the first to come from the mother. It is thus the child that implies something about the mother.

Moreover, “first-born” applies to such a child the moment it is born just as Luke calls Mary’s babe “first-born” at the moment of its birth. If Mary had died during the birth, Jesus would still have been her “first-born.” There is no waiting when a child is called “first-born” to see whether or not other children will be born of the mother; so that if none are born later, the one that was born could not be called “first-born.” A “first-born son” is such the moment he is born.

The Old Testament view of this term includes also Num. 18:15, etc., to which Luke 2:23, etc., refers, the sanctity of the first-born son and the necessity of redeeming him with a sacrifice. The objection that “first-born” should then have been inserted in 2:23, etc., in a form that would offer the necessary explanation, is rather presumptuous; for the way in which Luke did write is so satisfactory that no improvement could be offered. In v. 7 we have “first-born” and in v. 23 the law about the first-born. “First-born” is properly mentioned in connection with the birth and should not limp along forty days later.

Finally, “first-born” implies the rights of the first-born son (Gen. 25:31; 2 Chron. 21:3); and in the case of Jesus these were great indeed as 1:32 shows. It makes no difference whether Mary had children by Joseph or not. We have every reason to think that she lived in the normal marital sexual relation to Joseph. The point is that the New Testament furnishes no conclusive proof that Mary bore more children. “First-born” neither denies nor asserts that other children were born—it leaves us wholly uncertain on that point.

We are not so ready to say that the expression “she wrapped him in swathing clothes” means that no other woman was present with Mary at the time of the child’s birth. Why conceive of the situation in so abnormal a way? Mary had pieces of cloth in which to “enswathe” the babe, and we need not think that she was forced to do this with her own hands. If no other woman had been present, Joseph would have washed and wrapped the child. Luke’s brevity should not lead us to extreme conclusions. This is also true with regard to placing the babe in a manger. Luke writes that Mary “laid him down in a manger,” but this is surely to be understood in the sense that she had others to do this for her, and that she consented to such a cradle for her baby.

The little word “manger” is illuminating because it places us into a stable of some kind. Luke adds that the reason for using a manger was the absence of room in the κατάλυμα. This latter word is made equal to πανδοχεῖον, a khân, caravanserai (Luke 10:34), “an inn.” The word really means Absteigequartier and in Luke 22:11 is used with reference to a single room, which in this case proved to be a large, fine one. We should cease to think of an Oriental khân or inn. R., W. P., describes it: “There would sometimes be an inner court, a range of arches, an open gallery round the four sides.

On one side of the square, outside the wall, would be stables for the asses and camels, buffaloes and goats. Each man had to carry his own food and bedding.” But if there was no room for Joseph and Mary in “the inn” thus described, where was this manger? Outside, along the wall, where the asses, etc., were? We do not think that mangers were provided there—all the beasts ate from the ground. It is also a guess that this supposed khân was filled up, which left no room for Joseph and Mary because of the crowds that had come for the census.

This was not the day of Joseph’s and Mary’s arrival, several days have already passed (“while they were there”). Where did Joseph and Mary spend this time? How had Mary come from Nazareth? Joseph had surely provided an ass, he should not be made beggarly poor. As an artisan he earned money, and when he betrothed himself to Mary he certainly had sufficient means to set up a household. These are the natural things to suppose.

And so they found a κατάλυμα or “stopping place,” surely with some relative of Joseph’s in the town. The house was small and perhaps had only one or two rooms and a shed for an animal or two. The only accommodation that could be offered to Joseph and to Mary was this shed. Here they slept, and when the time came, the baby was born here with only a manger in which to sleep. This manger may have been located on the stable floor. Joseph’s ass may have been tied here with any other animal that belonged to the house-owner. The shed would be roomy enough.

This description adheres closely to all that Luke indicates. Besides, it utilizes what the author saw in the Holy Land, for instance, the house of one of the guides that was built of heavy stones (like all houses in Palestine) and had two rooms and a stone side room. It was entered only from the outside and was partly filled with a small heap of alfalfa and wheat. A strange couple could have been placed only in this out room. Because we are told of shepherds and sheep later on, some have thought of a sheep stable, one that was now empty because of the season, the sheep being watched in the open all night. But sheep need no mangers. The safe thing is to think of a side room in which asses could be kept—we say asses because they are commonly kept even by poor people—fodder, utensils, and the like.

The view that Jesus was born just before Joseph and Mary reached Bethlehem is an apocryphal legend which is probably patterned after Gen. 35:16–20. This led to the idea that a cave which was used as a stable was the place for the birth. Some of the fathers then interpreted Luke as saying that Joseph could find no room in the village and had to resort to this cave. The cave and the manger were exhibited already in Origen’s time. Under Constantine, at the urging of his mother Helena, a basilica was erected over the cave. We saw the place in 1925; the town had grown out to the place and now surrounded it as quite a city.

Five sects own the church; in the cave there is shown the place of the manger, the one where the Wise Men knelt, and a silver star marking the place of the birth. Here there is shown the underground cell where Jerome is said to have lived; his tomb is in an adjacent chamber, opposite that of the French sisters who supported him. In the passageway that leads out they showed us what purports to be Josephus’ tomb! In the adjacent Catholic church they show a place where Joseph had his dream, and where the bodies of the children that Herod slew were thrown. Everything is arranged to please the credulous.

Luke 2:8

8 And there were shepherds in the same region camping in the open and keeping guard at night over their flock.

The question is still asked skeptically as to why these shepherds should have been selected for the angel’s announcement. The answer is as simple to the believer as it ever was: because God found them the kind of people to whom he could communicate such news. We think of the country as being some distance away from Bethlehem, and being entirely open and fit only for grazing. Several shepherds had their flock here and remained with it day and night. The two participles are not to be construed with ἦσαν to make periphrastic imperfects but modify the subject. After telling us that there were shepherds in that same country (a statement that is quite complete), the participles bring the additional information that they camped out in the open and that they guarded their flock at night (φυλακάς is merely the cognate object).

It is fancy to think that they had to stay in the open because the town was full of people who had come for the enrollment. The shepherds were out in the open because of their flock, and the probability is that they did not live in the town at all but somewhere in a valley in the hills. The place shown to tourists should deceive no one. So also the deduction that Jesus could not have been born in December, which is fortified by Talmudic notices to the effect that some time between April and November must be referred to. This conclusion is valueless, for in a climate such as Palestine has sheep could be kept out-of-doors all winter. While December 25 is only traditional and goes back to the celebration of the nativity at Rome on that date in the fourth century, it is at least traditional and better than deductions that have no basis and only assail the old date without furnishing even the inkling of a new one. Only one conclusion is sound, namely that Jesus was born at night—otherwise the angel would not have appeared to the shepherds “at night.”

Luke 2:9

9 And an angel of the Lord came upon them, and glory of the Lord shone around them, and they feared with great fear.

As is the case throughout the first chapter, Κύριος is the Greek term for Yahweh and as a genitive with unarticulated nouns forms one concept with them: “Jehovah-angel,” “Jehovah-glory.” The shepherds were drowsing as they kept guard when a glory of heaven suddenly shone all around and over them with beaming radiance. It was Jehovah’s angel who came upon them like a flash (ἐπέστη, used thus repeatedly) during the night. No wonder the shepherds were terrified (φόβον, the cognate accusative like φυλακάς in v. 8). Since Gabriel appeared to both Zacharias and Mary in connection with the present events, we see no reason for refusing to assume that he was the angel also in this case. When Nebe justifies his faith in angels with a tone of apology he is making a mistake. Our faith in angels is part of our faith in God’s Word and revelation, for which we offer no apology or justification to any man.

Luke 2:10

10 And the angel said to them, Stop being afraid! For lo, I am announcing as good tidings to you great joy which shall be to all the people: that there was born to you today a Savior, who is Christ, the Lord, in David’s city.

The present imperative means to stop an action already begun as it does in 1:13, 30; R. 851, etc. The fright that came upon the shepherds as poor mortal men who came in contact with the Lord’s glory and his angels in the dead of night is to cease, for it is blessing, yea, the absolute, supreme blessing for mortal man that is thus revealed to these shepherds. The gospel for sinners must always begin with “fear not,” for it removes sin and fear. The angel justifies the command with γάρ and exclaims at the greatness of this justification with ἰδού. But he states first the effect and then the cause, first the joy and then the birth that produces the joy.

The verb εὐαγγελίζομαι is used in the same sense as it was in 1:19 with reference to the bringing of good tidings irrespective of the contents of the tidings. In this case we may, of course, say that they constitute the gospel, but the verb itself is not yet used in the specific sense of preaching the gospel. Its present tense describes the act as being in progress. The “great joy” is the antidote for the “great fear.” “To all the people,” which has the noun λαός, is generally used as a designation for the Jewish people and was meant and understood only in this sense: “to all Israel”; but to all Israel because God was now fulfilling his great promise to Abraham and to Israel (1:55), a promise, indeed, to Israel alone, yet one that would extend salvation to all nations through the Seed of Abraham. The future ἔσται, is prophetic to indicate the coming spread of the gospel as the bearer of this great joy to all the people.

Luke 2:11

11 We regard ὅτι as epexegetical, as stating, not the reason for the great joy, but the contents of the angel’s announcement: “that there was born to you,” etc. The Greek states the simple past fact as such, ἐτέχθη, “was born”; we prefer a reference to the present time, “has been born” (i.e., just recently) or even “is born,” our versions. Since the Jews begin the day with sunset, “today” means this very night, only a little while ago.

There follow the great titles for the child’s work which explain why an angel has appeared to announce the glad tidings of his birth and of the joy that shall flow to all Israel from it. “There was born to you Σωτήρ, a Savior.” The absence of the article does not make the term indefinite since the relative clause adds the definiteness. When this is understood, we may say either a or the Savior. There is only one who is “Christ, the Lord.” Compare 1:77, “salvation in connection with remission of their sins.” Mary gave this name to God in 1:47, and it is used with reference to him in both Testaments. When this name is now applied to the babe, his deity is implied. He is “Savior” in the same sense as God is (Isa. 45:15, 20; Luke 1:47; Hab. 3:18; Ps. 79:9). “Savior,” like “to save” and “salvation,” refers to the mighty act of rescue and its result, the condition of safety that follows. “Savior” on an angel’s lips recalls all that is said in the Old Testament about salvation as it is attributed to God and thus leaves far behind the pagan use of this title for the emperors. Even in later years “Savior” on a Christian’s lips differed so immensely from any imperial “Savior” title that the two were hardly ever compared in the Christian’s consciousness.

See C.-K. 1035, correcting Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, and others. Note incidentally that “Savior” is the meaning of the name “Jesus,” Matt. 1:21.

The relative clause makes “Savior” definite although it has no article in the Greek. But this clause is not merely grammatical but descriptive. “Who is Christ, the Lord,” intends to say that as the Savior this babe is both “Christ” and “Lord.” Χριστός, the verbal from the ceremonial verb χρίω, is the Greek for the Hebrew Mashiach or “Messiah,” “the Anointed One,” and was understood (the angel spoke Aramaic) by every Jew as a designation of the great Deliverer who had been promised to Israel by God. The angel could not have used a clearer term.

Up to this point in his narrative Luke has used Κύριος a number of times with reference to God, as the translation of Yahweh, the last two times in v. 9. Now he all at once uses Κύριος as a designation for the child, the Savior, and in a combination, ΧριστὸςΚύριος, that is not found elsewhere in the Scriptures (only in the LXX’s translation of Lam. 4:20 and in the so-called Psalms of Solomon). The cue to the combination is found in Acts 2:36: “God hath made that same Jesus whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ.” The titles are, therefore, to be considered separately, not as personal names, but as appellatives. And Κύριος is the translation, not of Yahweh, but of ’Adon (not ’Adonai) in the sense of “divine Lord.” It is so used with reference to Christ in Ps. 110:1: “Yahweh said unto my ’Adon,” and so the description runs in Mic. 5:2, “ruler of Israel” born in Bethlehem Ephratah. The reason Κύριος is not Yahweh in the present connection is due to the fact that the Scriptures never use Yahweh with reference to Jesus. When the angel said ’Adon, the shepherds understood just as perfectly as when he said Mashiach. See C.-K. 648 for a fuller discussion.

“In David’s city” is vastly more significant to the shepherds than “in Bethlehem” would have been, for the king’s name and his ancient home recall all the Messianic promises made to David. While it modifies the emphatic verb at the head of the sentence the phrase, which is placed entirely at the end, is equally emphatic. Born is the Savior, Christ, and Lord in David’s city. To be sure, that was plain to these plain-thinking shepherds. One is, therefore, surprised at R., W. P. who offers six different English translations of ΧριστὸςΚύριος and declares, “It is not clear what it (the combination) means.” He views the combination in the abstract, and his six renderings are, therefore, not very helpful. Even to say that Luke loves to say Kurios whereas the other evangelists say “Jesus” is misleading, for Luke quotes the angel who did not say “Jesus” whereas in Matt. 1:21 he most surely did—apart from any evangelist.

Luke 2:12

12 And this to you the sign: You shall find a babe having been wrapped in swathing clothes and lying in a manger.

Not “a sign” but positively “the sign,” the sure and certain sign. The future tense “you shall find” takes for granted that the shepherds will seek this most wonderful babe in David’s city and assures them of their finding it. But “the sign” is the very feature about this babe which the shepherds would least expect after the high titles they have heard from the angel. That is, however, what makes this feature “the sign.” Some other babe had perhaps been born in Bethlehem this night; but this divine babe will be discovered “having been wrapped in swathing clothes (still thus wrapped, or we may say enswathed) and lying in a manger.” Both participles are predicative to βρέφος and state what shall be found as distinguishing the babe. Both participles form “the sign,” and both are such together. They repeat clearly what is expressed by finite verbs in v. 7.

Where in all the neighborhood would an enswathed babe be lying in a manger—hence in a stable, not in the house proper, and even in the stable not in anything like a bed but on hay or straw in a manger? So great the babe, so lowly its condition. Even David’s city had only a manger for David’s eternal Heir.

Luke 2:13

13 And suddenly there was with the angel a heavenly army host, praising God and saying:

Glory in highest places to God,

And on earth peace,

On men good pleasure!

Although ἐγένετο does not say outright that the angels were visible it says it as certainly as did ἐπέστη in v. 9 regarding the one angel. This host of angels appeared suddenly around the one angel who had made the announcement. “A heavenly army host” attempts to reproduce the absence of the articles. A πλῆθος is a great number, and this host is part of the heavenly army, which is so vast as to be able to send out hosts. Thousands of angels appeared and filled the expanse of the sky. All this, indeed, for only a handful of poor shepherds! It is the way of God. Στρατιά, “army,” is a fitting term because the angels are mighty spirits, giborim, “that excel in strength,” Ps. 103:20.

Bengel writes that an army here announces peace. We may add that we can here see what Jesus meant when he said that at his word twelve legions of angels (about 120, 000) would come to his aid. Αἰνούτων and λεγόντων are plurals and modify the singular στρατιᾶς. They are construed ad sensum, “army” being a collective. Luke says, “praising God and saying,” which does not state whether they sang or shouted. The fact that the words are poetry also decides nothing, for both Mary and Zacharias spoke verse and did not sing their poetical lines. But in either case the fact as stated is simply overawing.

Luke 2:14

14 As indicated above, we prefer to arrange the angels’ statement in three poetical lines instead of two. This is due to our interpretation over against those who have two lines. The stress is on the three nouns, “glory”—“peace”—“good pleasure.” The second line is in contrast with the first, and the third is in coordination and explanation of the second. That is why no καί introduces the third line; since “and” connects the contrasting lines, a second “and” to connect the appositional line would be disturbing. Note the plainness of the contrast: “in the highest places”—“on earth”; also the appositional coordination: “on earth”—“on men,” the two belong together.

This praise of God, which is based on the birth of the Messiah, is not a wish, much less a prayer, but a most positive assertion. “Glory” is the radiant shining forth of any or of all the divine attributes—here of the truth (in keeping his promise), power, (1:35), and grace of God in sending the Messiah. But in the mouth of the angels this “glory” is ascribed to God as it is recognized, confessed, and praised by the angels. “In the highest places” (neuter plural as in 19:38) is the same substantivized adjective that is used in the singular as a designation for God: “the Highest” in 1:32, 35, 76; 6:35. The highest places are heaven, and the phrase is to be construed with “glory,” not with “God,” as the English versions seem to construe. All heaven declares the glory of God as shining forth in the incarnation of his Son.

“Earth” is placed beside heaven. If the incarnation fills heaven with God’s glory it does so because it pours out “peace on earth.” The εἰρήνη (1:79) is “peace” as the fruit of the incarnation, the condition in which God’s wrath is turned away and his grace extends to men; “peace” objectively as “made through the blood of the cross,” Col. 1:20, and as in the Word “preaching peace by Jesus Christ,” Acts 10:36. It is for men to accept and enjoy and thereby to enter into a new relation to God; but whether they do so or not, the babe in Bethlehem means “peace on earth.” It is argued in vain that “on earth” means, not the whole earth, but only places on the earth. The peace brought by Christ is universal. “In the highest” also does not mean here and there in heaven but in all of heaven. So many unwarranted assertions are still made regarding these words of the angels and thus destroy the unity of interpretation.

Some state that textually εὐδοκίας, the genitive, is the assured reading. This is claimed especially by those who prefer this reading, but he who examines the texts will find that εὐδοκία, the nominative, is equally well attested. Thus textually the reading is undecided, and internal reasons must decide. The cancellation of ἐν is textually ruled out, and whether we have it or not makes no difference interpretatively. Εὐδοκία is regularly used in the Scriptures to designate the “good pleasure” of God, his free determination to save men and every part of that determination; for instance in Matt. 11:26; in Eph. 1:5, 9, with βουλή as the parallel in 11. This word is never used with reference to a moral quality (C.-K. 354) in God or in men, which rules out the Vulgate: homines bonæ voluntatis, “men of goodwill,” i.e., whose will is good. Zahn goes back to this old Latin translation but without saying so.

The worst feature about this idea is the fact that men are by nature supposed to fall into two classes, those of goodwill who seek God, and those of evil will who reject God—all before the gospel reaches them. So the angels sing of peace only for the former: “on earth peace among men of goodwill.” It is in vain to bolster up this view to add that peace is after all the possession of only few men. The angels are speaking objectively of the peace that has been won for the whole earth and is intended for all men, and not subjectively only of those who finally attain this peace. Moreover, ἄνθρωποι is never connected with a qualitative genitive in either Testament; ἀνὴρἐλέους (Sirach 44:10, 24) is not an analogy (contra C.-K. 354), for in that passage the genitive characterizes an individual man (Hebrew ’ish) and not the generic term for man (Hebrew ’adam, German der Mensch, ἄνθρωπος.) This applies also to 2 Thess. 2:3: “the man of the sin.”

Those who see this drop the interpretation that men whose will is good are here referred to and adopt that found in the R. V.: “men in whom God is well pleased,” i.e., men of (God’s) good pleasure. But this is self-contradictory. Men in whom God is already well pleased need no peace, they already have it—otherwise how could God be pleased with them? They need no Savior; having God’s good pleasure, they are already saved. But this would be the doctrine which Calvin himself calls “horrible,” that Christ came only for certain people in whom God is pleased and not for the rest from whom he withheld his good pleasure. Nor can the two views be combined as is done by R., W. P.: “Those who are the subjects of God’s goodwill, who are characterized by goodwill toward God and man.”

The eudokia is God’s “goodwill” or “good pleasure” toward all men; the great joy the angel came to proclaim is “to all the people” (v. 10) already now before they have ever heard of it. The eudokia expresses the voluntas Dei antecedens, his original will to save (“God so loved the world,” John 3:16) as distinguished from the voluntas consequens, the will that sets in when men either believe or disbelieve (Mark 16:16), according to which he both saves and damns. The ἐν, which some are ready to yield, is vital linguistically, being caused by εὐδοκία (C.-K. 354); ἐν demands the nominative as its complement: God’s saving goodwill (good pleasure) rests in or on men, all men. His Son’s birth is the supreme evidence for this eudokia. Peace is for the earth because God’s goodwill is now evidenced for all men. This divine Babe is the whole world’s Savior.

The A. V.’s translation is just about correct: “goodwill toward men.”

Luke 2:15

15 And it came to pass (see 1:8) when the angels went away from them into the heaven, the shepherds said to each other, Let us go through at once to Bethlehem, and let us see this thing that has come to pass, which the Lord made known to us. And they went, hastening, and discovered Mary and Joseph and the babe lying in a manger.

The angels did not merely disappear, they went into heaven, the abode of God, the angels, and the saints, whence they had come. Luke’s words read as if the angels, surrounded by heavenly light, receded upward until they were hid from sight. The two subjunctives are hortative: “let us go through and let us see.” We have no English word for the urgent particle δή which indicates that the shepherds could not wait, so we use “at once” partially to convey the sense. Διά in the verb implies that the shepherds had to pass through some territory before they came to Bethlehem, “David’s city,” as the angel called it. “This thing,” ῥῆμα, is used as it was in 1:38, 65, and the modification τὸγεγονός has its usual present implication: “has occurred and is now to be seen.” Κύριος is again the translation of Yahweh.

Luke 2:16

16 So the shepherds left their sheep and hurried away; the aorist participle is coincident with the action of the aorist verb: “they went, hastening.” Not at once but after some search they found what the angel had told them, Mary, Joseph, and, strange to say, “the babe lying in the manger.” The two articles are those of previous reference: the child, the manger of which the angel had spoken in v. 12. “Lying in the manger” was only the sign, and this sign verified the truth of all that the angel had said about this child, and all that the host of angels had sung about his birth.

Luke 2:17

17 Now after having seen they made known about the thing spoken to them about this child. And all who heard wondered at the things spoken to them by the shepherds.

Comment is hardly necessary. The shepherds told the whole story about the angels. Note that Luke writes: “about the thing spoken,” and again uses ῥῆμα.

Luke 2:18

18 In this verse the περί phrase has no ῥῆμα but the plural τῶνλαληθέντων. In v. 17 it is the chief thing that the shepherds report, but the people wondered at every word they heard. Thus many besides Mary and Joseph heard about the angels’ message.

Luke 2:19

19 Mary, however, continued guarding all these, things closely, continuing to ponder them in her heart.

The rest just wondered, not so Mary who had heard Gabriel’s annunciation. The matter went far deeper with her. Some are surprised that we hear nothing about Joseph’s reaction. We may be sure that his was much like Mary’s, but Luke is telling Mary’s story, most probably as he had heard it from Mary herself. It is Matthew who tells Joseph’s side of it. We now have the plural πάντατὰῥήματαταῦτα (1:65), which means not merely “all these sayings” (R. V.) but the things themselves (A. V.) that had been said.

“She continued guarding” is the imperfect, which stands out among all the aorists; Mary’s impressions were enduring, and note the perfective force of σύν in the verb: “guarded closely.” She said nothing—it was all too sacred, too miraculous for her. But in addition to holding them closely she “continued pondering them in her heart,” the present participle with its durative sense matches the durative imperfect verb. The idea in the participle is that of throwing things together, comparing, letting one explain and add to another. We catch a glimpse of the depth of Mary’s character, it was calm and deep, spiritually receptive and strong, steady and persevering in grace. The Greek conceives the heart as being the seat not merely of the emotions but of the entire personality, will, mind, and emotions. Mary’s entire personality was involved.

Luke 2:20

20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they heard and saw even as it was spoken to them.

They went back to their flocks but did so with deep, new emotions. Like the angel host, they continued glorifying and praising God (the latter participle is from the verb used in v. 13). What they began has continued ever since. The dative οἵς is attracted from the accusative to the case of its antecedent. “Heard and saw” goes together. The latter takes in what they saw in Bethlehem, and the καθώς clause points out that this was exactly what was told them by the angel. The Greek is content with aorists as stating the past facts as such; we should use past perfects: “had heard and seen.”

Luke 2:21

21 And when the eight days for circumcising him were fulfilled, his name was called Jesus, the one called by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

The fact that the child was circumcised is only implied, somewhat as in John’s case in 1:59. This means that Luke puts the stress on the giving of the name, a custom that was connected with the rite of circumcision. Although this emphasis on the bestowal of the name is evident, Luke by no means makes the circumcision a minor act. He mentions “eight days,” the number prescribed by the law, and in v. 39 adds the statement that Joseph and Mary completed “all things according to the law of the Lord.”

The act of circumcision made Jesus a member of the covenant people and thereby placed him under the law, Gal. 4:4. It was legally performed on the eighth day (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3). So Jesus was formally obligated to fulfill the divine law. No ordinary Jew could fulfill that obligation because he sinned often and thus required the sacrifices to remove his sins and to keep him in the covenant. But Jesus fulfilled all the requirements of the law perfectly, not for himself, as is sometimes supposed, but in order to redeem (buy free) us who are under the law and cannot fulfill it. The view that his active obedience concerned his own person does not see far enough. It stops with the bare fact that he was circumcised, it does not ask why he was born and thus subjected to circumcision.

We here see the Lawgiver make himself subject to that law. Moreover, circumcision was a part of the ceremonial law and as such an arrangement that was connected with the Abrahamitic covenant. Jehovah could have used some other covenant sign. Jesus receives the sign chosen by Yahweh, not as one who needed that covenant and that sign for himself, but as the one who would fulfill, bring, and dispense what that covenant and that sign promised. The circumcision is thus on a par with the baptism of Jesus. The infinitive with τοῦ is hardly one of purpose but an ordinary genitive that specifies to what the eight days refer.

The καί merely marks the beginning of the apodosis in Hebraic fashion (B.-D. 442, 7) and is untranslatable for this reason. The passive ἐκλήθη hides the persons who called the child by this name, but they were Mary (1:31) and Joseph (Matt. 1:21). The name “Jesus” is explained in 1:31. The participial modifier to τὸκληθέν refers to the two passages indicated.

Luke 2:22

22 And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord even as it has been written in the Lord’s law, Every male opening a womb shall be called holy to the Lord; and to give a sacrifice according to what has been said in the Lord’s law, a pair of turtledoves or two young of doves.

The ὅτε sentence is built like the one occurring in v. 21, which shows that Luke wants them to be viewed as being parallel. He adds the phrase “according to the law of Moses.” In v. 21 no such addition was needed because Theophilus knew that circumcision was required by Moses’ law, but in v. 22 he had to be told that these rites, too, were legal requirements. It is misunderstanding Luke to say that he writes as if “their purification” included also the presentation of the child to the Lord; Luke does this as little as he confuses the circumcision with the naming of the child in v. 21. What Luke says is that Joseph and Mary attended to the presentation of the child at the time when the days for her purification had come.

According to Lev. 12:1, etc., a woman who had given birth to a son was unclean for seven days or until the circumcision of the child and then for 33 days more dared touch no hallowed thing or come into the sanctuary. Then after 40 days she had to come to the Temple to be purified in the prescribed way. “Their purification,” as is indicated by the implied subject of ἀνήγαγον, refers to Joseph and Mary and not to the child. Joseph is included because as the head of the house he had to see to it that this purification of his wife was duly carried out; he also provided the necessary sacrifices for her.

So it was in connection with this levitical act that they brought the child to Jerusalem “to present him to the Lord,” i.e., Yahweh, Κύριος being used in this sense throughout these first chapters of Luke. The expression παραστῆναιτῷΚυρίῳ, “to present him to the Lord,” is quite exact to indicate what was done: every first-born son had to be presented to Jehovah as belonging to him in a special sense, namely to be a priest of the Lord, but since the priesthood had been allotted to the tribe of Levi, the first-born sons were to be redeemed or bought back from the Lord for the price of five shekels, about two dollars and a half in our money. This redemption of the first-born sons was a memorial of the sparing of the first-born of the Israelitish families in Egypt the night that the first-born of all the Egyptians were slain. Exod. 13:13, 15; Num. 8:16, etc.; 18:15, etc. The aorists, main verb and infinitive, imply that Joseph paid the money. Although he was poor, we must by no means imagine that this carpenter was a pauper. The law included the first-born of clean animals, the reference to which is not necessary here.

Luke 2:23

23 Luke adds the provision of the law for the sake of Theophilus and quotes from Exod. 13:2 and adds “every male” from v. 12, “the males.” The term is neuter, “every male thing opening the womb,” i.e., for the first time, and includes the first-born of animals as well as of men. “Shall be called holy” is the future tense in legal phraseology, “called holy” because it is holy in fact, and “holy” is used in the sense of being separated unto the Lord, hence we have the dative: holy “to the Lord,” to Yahweh.

Luke 2:24

24 As Luke states it, the chief thing for which Joseph and Mary went to Jerusalem was this presentation of Jesus to the Lord. It was done, as the temporal clause in v. 22 states, when the time came for Mary’s purification. So Luke adds another infinitive: “and to give a sacrifice according to what has been said in the Lord’s law.” Τοῦδοῦναι parallels παραστῆναι in v. 22, both express purpose; and in the Old Testament style τοῦ is often added to the second infinitive for the sake of clearness (B.-D. 400, 6). By quoting what the law states in regard to the first-born in v. 23 Luke makes clear that the infinitive used in v. 24 refers to Mary’s purification and no longer to the presentation of the first-born.

“Has been written in the Lord’s law” is the regular formula for introducing a quotation whereas “has been said (εἰρημένον) in the Lord’s law states only in general what is contained in the law. Hence “a pair of turtledoves,” etc., should not be printed as a quotation as is done in our versions. Joseph and Mary came to give only “a pair of turtledoves or two young doves,” which cost about 16 cents, and not a lamb and a turtledove or a young dove, which would amount to two dollars (Exod. 12:6, 8). They could not well afford the latter. The one dove was to serve as a burnt sacrifice instead of the lamb, the other as a sin offering. Luke is not instructing Theophilus about these Jewish rites; he writes only as much as is necessary to describe how Joseph and Mary came to take the child to the Temple where they received a new attestation of the divine nature and office of the child.

Luke 2:25

25 And lo, there was a man in Jerusalem, to whom as a name Simeon, and this man righteous and devout, expecting Israel’s Consolation, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.

Luke introduces the remarkable story of Simeon with the interjection “lo.” He is introduced as being just “a man.” There is nothing great and wonderful about him; he has no high office, standing, or power. It is fancy to make him the president of the Sanhedrin in the year 13 and a son of Hillel and the father of Gamaliel. He lived “in Jerusalem,” whither Joseph and Mary had gone (v. 21), and thus away from Bethlehem where the shepherds had spread the story of what they had heard and seen (v. 18). Even here in Jerusalem, the center of Jewish religious corruption, there lived some of God’s true people. His name “Simeon,” which was quite common, is introduced as were the name Nazareth and the name Joseph in 1:26, 27, unlike that of Zacharias and of Elisabeth in 1:5. He is described as being “righteous” in the same forensic sense as were Zacharias and Elisabeth in 1:5—see the full explanation there and the mistake of eliminating the forensic sense by translating “upright.” Note Gen. 7:1, Noah; Gen. 17:1, Abraham; 1 Kings 9:4, where the term includes “the integrity of the heart.”

Luke alone uses εὐλαβής (here and in Acts 2:5; 8:2; 22:12), “taking hold well” and thus reverently, circumspectly “devout” or “devoted” like Paul in Acts 23:1; 24:16. He was “righteous” as God judged him, “devoted” as his life appeared to men; he was far more than just “churchly” but was in very truth a genuine son of Abraham. In full accord with these two terms is the participial addition “expecting Israel’s Consolation,” παράκλησις (Matt. 5:4; Luke 16:25; Isa. 40:1; 61:2). This term is by no means indefinite, “a consolation for Israel,” but is made decidedly definite by the genitive “Israel’s Consolation,” the one promised to Israel in and through the Messiah, it is hence worthy to be capitalized. The abstract term does not mean the concrete Consoler (Messiah) although, as the following context shows, this Consolation would come through the Messiah. Παράκλησις is not used in the active sense (from παρακαλεῖν, to call to one’s aid) but in the passive sense regarding a consolation that was extended to Israel, the genitive being objective. When Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as being “another Paraclete” (Comforter) he calls himself the first Paraclete who brought to Israel the παράκλησις that is here mentioned as being expected by Simeon.

There is no political sense in the term. The context rebels against such a view. “Of Israel” is used in the sense of Jesus’ word to the Samaritan woman: “salvation is of the Jews,” namely the salvation for all nations (v. 32). Simeon is one of those characters, who were rare at this time, who fully apprehended the spiritual promises of the Old Testament.

ΠνεῦμαἍγιον, without articles, is used exactly as it was in chapter one with regard to the third person of the Godhead (1:15, 35, 42), it is a proper noun that needs no articles. The fact that Simeon had the Holy Spirit resting upon him is not an explanation of his spiritual condition as just described, which would require γάρ, but an addition (καί) to what has been said about his person, which explains in advance what is now to be told about him.

Luke 2:26

26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit not to see death before he should see the Lord’s Christ.

The impersonal ἦνκεχρηματισμένον is followed by the infinitive μὴἰδεῖν in indirect discourse; the form is the periphrastic past perfect passive, and the development of the meaning of χρηματίζω may be seen in the dictionaries. The passive came to be used for receiving an answer or a direction from pagan oracles and in the LXX and in Josephus for orders from God, which is the sense here. In πρὶνἤ with the subjunctive after a negative verb Luke has the classic idiom; he might have changed to the optative in the indirect discourse as he does in Acts 25:16 (R. 997); these two examples stand alone in the New Testament.

The verb “see,” ἰδεῖν, is used twice in the same sense of actually to see death (by dying) and actually to see the Lord’s (Yahweh, Κύριος in this sense throughout these two chapters) Christ (Χριστός, appellative, is used in the same sense as it was in v. 11, the Anointed One, the Messiah). The term designates the office and work to which the anointing set apart and consecrated. As it was in v. 11 (which see), the term is proleptic, Jesus received the anointing when he was thirty years old. With a passive verb the agent is regularly introduced by ὑπό. No one knows just how the Holy Spirit made this revelation to Simeon; the text hints at no dream or vision but rather at a direct communication. If one may hazard a guess, it was in connection with the Word, with passages such as Gen. 49:10 which tell of the coming of Shiloh and the departing of the scepter from Judah and Daniel’s reckoning of the 72 weeks. This opinion of Luther’s may be near the truth although God’s Spirit never has any difficulty in communicating what he desires.

27, 28) And he came in the Spirit into the Temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus in order that they do according to what has been established as the custom of the law, he, too, received it into his arms and blessed God and said, etc.

In v. 25 ΠνεῦμαἍγιον has no articles, but in v. 26 and 27 the articles appear and refer back to the unarticulated name used in v. 25. “In” means “in connection with” the Spirit, that Spirit moved Simeon to go to the Temple at this very time. Luther thinks that the Spirit told Simeon that he was now to see the Lord’s Christ, but the phrase itself does not say that much. The τὸἱερόν is the entire Temple area and in this connection the court of the women beyond which Mary and Anna could not go. Luke uses ἐντῷ with the infinitive freely as a temporal clause and the infinitive with τοῦ as a purpose clause. The aorist “in the bringing in the child” is punctiliar to designate the moment when Jesus was brought in—at that very moment Simeon was there to see the child.

When Luke writes “the parents,” only unbelief will use this word as a prop to defend the actual fatherhood of Joseph. Luke is not elucidating even incidentally the fatherhood of Joseph but is describing the event in progress; the fatherhood of this wonderful child has been fully and clearly set forth in an earlier section. It is unwarranted to assume that Luke copied that account and this one from different sources and let the contradictory statements stand as they were. That denies even the intelligence and good sense of Luke. Joseph faithfully filled a father’s part toward his wife’s child and did this so well that he was popularly supposed to be the real father. “Parents” takes in Joseph as the foster-father.

“In order that they do,” etc., denotes only the purpose of the parents’ coming and does not intend to say that Simeon comes upon the group at the time when the priest receives the doves for the sacrifice and the five shekels as the redemption money and at that moment recognizes the child. The aorist ποιῆσαι is punctiliar as including all that has been indicated in v. 22–24. The neuter perfect participle εἰθισμένον designates what has become and is still the customary thing.

Luke parallels the two acts, bringing in the child and Simeon’s receiving it (αὐτό) into his arms and then praising God. We picture the scene as taking place before a priest approached them. While it occurred in the public court, not many saw or heard it; we are told only of Simeon and Anna. Other parents and their babes were there, bent on the same errand as Joseph and Mary, waiting for the priests to come to receive their offerings. The remarkable, unexplained points are that Simeon knew at once that this was the heavenly child, and that, when he stretched out his arms, Mary gave him the babe to hold. This was not due to “the lofty form of Mary” since there were other stately women with babes in the court.

Nothing whatever distinguished either the mother or the child. The only inference left is the directing power of the Spirit. It all seemed so natural and yet was all directed supernaturally. Simeon “blessed God,” first on his own behalf and then on behalf of the whole world.

Luke 2:29

29Now art thou releasing thy slave, Supreme Master,

According to thy utterance, in peace;

Because my eyes did see thy saving gift,

Which thou didst prepare before the face of all the peoples

As a light for revelation of Gentiles

And as a glory of thy people Israel.

“The spirit of rhapsody here shown is due to the Spirit of God moving the heart and stirring the highest impulses of the soul.” R. 1199. Yet this is not enough. The words are a prophecy and reach beyond Simeon’s soul, and, like those that flow in a grand stream from the lips of Zacharias, are inspired by the Spirit and reveal all that Jesus was to be for all the people and nations of the world. The six poetic lines are one sentence. They are usually called the Nunc Dimittis from the first two words in the Latin translation. They constitute a psalmlike adoration of praise to God for what he is doing for Simeon on the basis of what he did for the whole world. It is probably best to make no division at all.

“Now” is the blessed moment that Simeon has reached as he holds the Savior in his arms. It is the climax of his life—nothing higher can he reach. We should note that all three words, ἀπολύεις, δοῦλος, δεσπότης belong to the same figure, that of a master manumitting his slave. The verb ἀπολύω is common to denote this act and in the present connection cannot mean “let die” as Zahn shows. The supposition that Simeon was a very old man and near his death is not supported by the text. He is called only an ἄνθρωπος, and nothing is said about his great age as is done in the case of Anna. Tobit 3:6, 13; 2 Macc. 7:9; the passive in the LXX’s translation of Gen. 15:2; Num. 20:29 cannot apply because they lack the correlative terms “master” and “slave” which are used by Simeon.

The figure is misunderstood when the idea of service is stressed in the word “slave” as if Simeon rejoiced at now being freed from his service to his Supreme Master. The cue for the correct idea lies in προσδεχόμενος occurring in v. 25: the time of Simeon’s expectation and longing for the fulfillment of God’s Messianic promises is now at an end. He has the actual fulfillment in his arms, and it is thus that he declares that he is like a slave who is set free by his great master Δοῦλος is “slave” and not merely servant; and δεσπότης (from which we have “despot”) which is companion to Κύριος, though it is infrequently used with reference to God, denominates him according to his unlimited power and authority just as we say “Almighty God” (compare Acts 4:24). Simeon uses this designation for God because he has in mind not only Israel, for which Yahweh (Κύριος) would have been the proper name, but also all the Gentile nations.

Simeon also says τὸῥῆμάσου, “thy utterance,” not λόγος, “thy word”; he refers to what his Supreme Master spoke with his own lips in the ancient promises: God’s very utterance has now become fact. It is thus that Simeon is set free “in peace,” which here expresses the feeling of his heart, perfect contentment which seeks no more. The picture we thus get of Simeon is one that permits him to live on for an indefinite number of years, testifying to many, like Anna, of the thing that had come to pass for him. The application of his words to the death of a faithful (not necessarily aged) Christian remains, but only as an application: our time of expectation and waiting for heaven ends in a manumission, when the Supreme Master calls us home to glory. Far closer is the application to us as having the actual and complete salvation in Jesus for the rest of our lives.

Luke 2:30

30 With ὅτι Simeon states the reason for declaring himself released from his long expectation: his very eyes did see that which brings salvation, the substantivized neuter adjective τὸσωτήριον, “the saving thing,” not the usually used noun σωτηρία, “salvation.” He refers to the birth of this child, the beginning in which all the glorious future lies as in a bud. By looking at this babe his own eyes saw the thing God as the Almighty Lord had done to save the world. He uses the aorist εἶδον to express the fact whereas the English prefers the perfect “have seen” to refer to an act just past (R. 842). The birth of the babe which Simeon is now holding to his breast is the ocular demonstration of the saving gift that the great God vouchsafed to him.

Luke 2:31

31 The relative clause states the vast extent of this “saving thing” that Simeon saw: “which thou didst prepare before the face of all the peoples.” He again uses an aorist to denote the recent fact whereas we should use a perfect, and “didst prepare,” didst set in readiness, includes the special thought, care, and effort of God as well as the blessed result attained. The emphasis is on the κατά phrase, the preposition that is used with πρόσωπον in the sense of angesichts, “in the face of.” Simeon sees God’s saving act in the birth of this child as being wrought with its preparation of salvation “before the face of all the peoples,” to see it as he sees it and to embrace it as he does. It was prepared not as a mere show for the peoples to marvel at but for them to appropriate and thereby to be saved. This is plainly universal salvation. In v. 10 the angel used only the singular παντὶτῷλαῷ, “joy to all the people,” namely the people of Israel; Simeon has the plural πάντωντῶνλαῶν, “before the face of all the peoples.” And the fact that this plural does, indeed, include every people on earth is brought out in the next lines.

Luke 2:32

32 In the fashion that is customary to the Jews, Simeon divides “the peoples” into “Gentiles,” ἔθνη, and “thy people Israel,” λαόςσουἸσραήλ. This saving thing that God prepared is intended for both, and equally for both. Yet there is a difference between them as is indicated already by the use of the two names; the Gentiles are not called God’s people, they have no covenant name such as “Israel.” They are only ἔθνη, nations of people, and as such live far from the true God, in the night of human darkness. Ἔθνος means a crowd, then a nation, and then, in the plural, the nations other than Israel, who are called “Gentiles” by us from the Latin gens, a tribe or nation.

For them this saving thing prepared by God comes “as a light.” We regard φῶς and δόξαν, not as appositions to τὸσωτήριον, but as predicative to ὅ: “which thou didst prepare as a light … as a glory.” Εἰς expresses purpose: “for revelation of Gentiles.” The genitive ἐθνῶν, which is often regarded as objective, can be neither objective nor subjective. The verb idea in “revelation” is “to reveal,” and the sense is not, “to reveal the Gentiles” (objective genitive), nor that “the Gentiles reveal” (subjective). The words form one concept: “for Gentile revelation,” and the genitive is adjectival or qualitative: a revelation befitting Gentiles. That is the kind of “light” the Gentiles needed, one that would reveal their dreadful condition and would show them God’s grace in Christ for deliverance from sin and death. Simeon’s words re-echo Isa. 9:2; 42:6; 49:6; 60:1–3.

Parallel with φῶς is δόξαν; it is not dependent on εἰς. The genitive “of thy people Israel” is plainly possessive. Only rarely is Israel called an ἔθνος, the term that is used to designate it is λαός, originally a great mass of people. “Israel” is added in order to bring out the covenant relation in which this “people” stood with God. Hence also we have “thy” people Israel, owned by God in a peculiar sense. The distinctive thing in the saving act of God which brought about his Son’s birth was that this constituted “glory” for Israel. It is this people that gave birth to the Messiah. To the end of time “salvation is of the Jews,” John 4:22. No nation on earth has such a glory.

There is no chiliasm in Simeon’s words although he is thought to say that, after converting the Gentiles, Christ will glorify his people Israel by the final conversion of the Jewish nation. There is no such “after”; Simeon has the aorist tense “didst prepare,” and “light” and “glory” are simultaneous, having already been prepared when Simeon spoke. We may add that the holy family returned to Bethlehem, and that shortly afterward the Magi from the East came to see and to worship the child.

Luke 2:33

33 And his father and his mother were wondering at the things spoken concerning him.

In v. 27 Luke wrote “the parents,” and he now in the same sense writes “his father and his mother,” knowing that his reader will understand in what sense “his father” is to be understood. Each parent is named separately instead of saying merely “his parents” wondered. The one was astonished as much as the other. How did this man know the mystery of the child? How did he single out their babe? More than that, their wonder was this that he should say such astounding things about the child.

Simeon’s words went beyond Matt. 1:21; Luke 1:32, 33; 2:10, which referred only to Israel; Simeon included all the Gentile nations in the salvation that this child was bringing—reason, indeed, for astonishment at this new revelation! Whereas ἦν is singular because it is construed with Joseph, the participle is plural because it includes Mary and is masculine, which includes the feminine “his mother,” as is the case in all such constructions.

Luke 2:34

34 And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: Lo, this one is set for a falling and a rising up of many in Israel and for a sign spoken against. Moreover, also through thine own soul shall a great sword go. In order that there may be revealed out of many hearts (their) thoughts.

The blessing which Simeon pronounced was intended for both parents. While this is not recorded, we may guess that it referred to their having this wondrous child in their care. When Simeon now turns to Mary alone and leaves out Joseph, this is done because of the prophetic insight that Joseph will no longer be among the living when the things that are now stated shall come to pass. Joseph died long before Jesus began his ministry.

The wonder of what Simeon says is indicated by the exclamatory “lo”; and κεῖται is used as the passive of τίθημι: “this one is set,” i.e., by God himself, for the double purpose indicated by the εἰς phrase: “for a falling and a rising up of many in Israel,” to which is added another εἰς phrase in elucidation: “and for a sign spoken against.” It is God’s intention in placing Jesus among Israel that he shall cause many to fall and perish and many to rise up and be saved. This is the so-called voluntas consequens that rests on the infallible foreknowledge and takes into account the effect of grace in men’s hearts. When men reject that grace in unbelief they fall, and it is God’s will that they perish (Mark 16:16; Isa. 8:14; Matt. 21:42, 44; Rom. 9:33). On the other hand, when God’s grace in Christ wins men and makes them rise up from sin and death in a spiritual resurrection (Eph. 2:5, 6), this is again the effect of his consequent will but at the same time the execution of his voluntas antecedens which, disregarding all else, took into account only man’s fallen estate and sent grace and a Savior for all alike (John 3:16; Rom. 9:33b; Acts 4:12).

Simeon is speaking to Mary of what she shall herself witness, hence he says “of many in Israel” and speaks only of her people and of what she shall see many do. But when he adds: “for a sign spoken against” again and again as the present participle indicates, we see that he intends to tell Mary in advance that whereas some shall, indeed, accept her son as the Messiah, the bulk of the nation will only speak against him and completely reject this their Messiah. Simeon calls Jesus “a sign,” for his person and his work shall signify salvation for Israel as, indeed, also for all men (v. 32). Israel shall see this “sign” and all it signifies for them but shall raise only objection to it. This is dreadful and inexplicable but a fact nonetheless. Unbelief is the height of irrationality, and no reasonable explanation can be given for an unreasonable act. Men fall solely by their own guilt (Acts 7:51, 52; 28:25–27); men rise up solely by grace (Eph. 2:4–9).

Luke 2:35

35 Simeon adds (καί) another thing (δέ), namely what Mary shall experience in her own heart when the climax of this rejection of her son by Israel shall be reached in his death on the cross. Her pain and grief shall be extreme, like the passing of a great sword through her soul. The term ῥομφαία denotes a great broadsword such as the barbarians, especially also the Thracians, used; in 1 Sam. 17:51, LXX, it is the sword of Goliath, in Ps. 35:3 it is translated “spear,” it is also used for any sword; M.-M. leave the word indefinite: a Thracian weapon of large size. Nothing is gained by calling it a lance or a javelin. The figurative use is plain, for this “great sword” shall go through Mary’s own soul. Some interpret the figure with reference to painful doubt on Mary’s part regarding the deity and the Messiahship of her son, but doubt cannot be pictured by a sword’s piercing the soul.

Simeon is speaking of Mary’s fearful experience beneath the cross of her son, John 19:25: stabat Mater Dolorosa. We see no reason for dropping δέ as a few of the texts do as being misleading by causing a wrong parallel between Jewish unbelief and Mary’s pain; this connective only adds her pain as something different from that contradiction of the sign.

The purpose clause introduced with ὅπωςἄν belongs to all that precedes; all of it is to reveal “out of many hearts” (the “many” already mentioned in v. 34) such “thoughts” or reasonings as control them and to which they yield. The idea is that when Jesus comes to a man with his grace and salvation, his contact with that man will produce and reveal to men certain thoughts of a decisive nature, either those of unbelief, when a man rejects Jesus and loves darkness more than light (John 3:19), or those of faith, when a man has been brought to love truth and comes to the light with his deeds wrought in God (John 3:21).

Hitherto Mary (and Joseph) had heard only the glorious part of Jesus’ work, now she hears also the painful part, which is almost unbelievable and yet sure to come, for by the Spirit Simeon spoke true words of revelation and prophecy, they were uttered under divine inspiration.

Luke 2:36

36 And there was Anna, a prophetess, daughter of Phanuel, of Asher’s tribe. This one had gone far forward in many days, having lived with a husband seven years from her maidenhood and herself as a widow up to eighty-four years, who continued not to withdraw from the Temple, with fastings and petitions worshipping night and day.

This woman is introduced more circumstantially by far than Simeon. He is called merely “a man” but she “Anna, a prophetess.” To explain how “a man” like Simeon could speak prophetically as he did we were told that the Spirit was upon him, and he spoke thus only this one time; but Anna had the gift of prophecy, was known and honored for that gift, the title “prophetess” being a part of her name. In this respect she resembled Philip’s daughters (Acts 21:9), and she used her gift in a similarly quiet way. The title does not mean that she constantly foretold the future, or that she put herself forward publicly, but that she knew and interpreted the Word and the will of God for edification as 1 Cor. 14 describes this so valuable charisma. To indicate her importance Luke adds the name of her father and of the tribe to which she belonged, and we see incidentally how completely he was informed.

He also adds the data about her great age and uses the same perfect participle that he employed in 1:7, 18 but adds “many” in the phrase “had gone far forward in many days,” i.e., she was far older than Zacharias or Elisabeth. Luke did not discover just how old she was, but he did know that she had lived for seven years as a married woman and then as a widow (χήρα is appositional to αὐτή: “herself as a widow”) up to eighty-four years. If she was married at about 15—Jewish maidens married young—she was about 105 years old. Some take Luke’s words to mean that her total age was only 84. But this would not have been remarkable—Zacharias and Elisabeth may have been that old; nor would a writer like Luke first tell us that she was very aged, then add how long she was married, and finally speak of her widowhood, if all he intended to convey was the fact that she had attained only 84 years; he would then at once have mentioned 84 years and been done. By writing ἕως Luke says that she had already reached 84 years of widowhood and was on the way to adding still more years. It is probably best to supply ἦν with προβεβηκυῖα and thus secure a finite sentence instead of having a rambling modification; this also fits the Subject αὕτη.

Luke 2:37

37 The relative clause describes her character. The imperfect οὐκἀφίστατο, “continued not to withdraw” from the Temple, i.e., from its courts, states that she practically spent her life there. Luke reports nothing about Simeon’s age and tells us that he was away from the Temple, and that the Spirit moved him to come for this special occasion. Of Simeon we hear that he was righteous and devout, but of Anna we are told that she “engaged in worshipping with fastings and petitions night and day,” λατρεύουσα, durative, the same verb as that used in 1:74, which is used regarding the service all are to render to God as distinct from the official service of priests. Hers were not Pharisaical, formal fasting but voluntary abstinence from food in order to spend more time in the Temple; and Luke writes “petitions,” asking things from God, not merely “prayers,” which include all devotions, also praise and thanksgiving. The use of this term seems to indicate that Anna begged God for the fulfillment of his Messianic promises. In this regard she was like Simeon who expected God to send Israel’s Consolation and thus certainly also begged for its coming. “Night and day” (the accusative to express duration) is to be construed with “worshipping”; as far as the Temple was concerned, she could not spend the nights there but only the days until the gates were closed.

Luke 2:38

38 And having come up at this very hour, she went on returning thanks to God and went on speaking concerning him to all those expecting Jerusalem’s ransoming.

Anna was in the women’s court at the time, but it was God’s providence that she approached the little group at this very hour (R. 686). Perhaps she saw Simeon take the babe in his arms and, hurrying to his side, heard him speak as he did. At any rate, she, too, understood fully about this child and “went on making acknowledgment to God” (ἀνθομολογέομαι is to be understood in this sense, C.-K. 691) and thus “returning thanks.” Her words are not preserved, but their substance was thanksgiving for the fulfillment of her petitions and of the expectation of herself and of others. The imperfect tense may well mean that she continued her thanks also after Joseph and Mary had gone to Nazareth.

She also went on to spread the news “concerning him,” the newborn Savior, not, indeed, generally but, as befitted her, among those who, like Simeon, were “expecting Jerusalem’s ransoming” (the same participle is used here that was employed in v. 25). So there were others who were as spiritually-minded as Simeon and Anna right here among the Pharisees and Sadducees with their perversion of Israel’s hope. These genuine Israelites—why say that they were old?—looked for the Messiah as God had promised him. They hoped for “Jerusalem’s ransoming.”

As far as “Jerusalem” is concerned, this is simple in view of Isa. 40:1, 2; the capital is named instead of the nation. But λύτρωσις deserves more attention; read the comment on 1:68. The term has a passive sense, the genitive “of Jerusalem” is objective: Jerusalem is to be ransomed, and the ransomer is God (C.-K. 706). It is true, Anna belongs in the Old Testament, and this word is used as it is in the LXX, but this does not make the term political. It is wholly spiritual. Even in the varied connections in which λυτροῦσθαι is used in the Old Testament the idea of a ransom is never lost and comes out prominently in many instances.

There is always a cost that is paid. Westcott is right: “The idea that the redemption costs much is everywhere present.” Warfield, Biblical Doctrines, 351 (read the entire most valuable chapter). The word “redemption” has grown pale as a rendering of λύτρωσις. Simeon and Anna saw in the babe Jesus the great Ransomer who would pay the ransom to release Jerusalem from her spiritual bondage. The fact that this required more than the expenditure of power was plain from the nature of the bondage in which the people lay. The Jewish sacrifices had long taught the ransom by sacrifice and blood.

We cannot discover how clear all this was to Anna and to those minded like her, but the effort to deny her the idea of a divinely provided ransom in this child is untenable in every way. The real meaning of λύτρσωις can no longer be obscured.

Luke 2:39

39 And when they finished all the things according to the law of the Lord they returned to Galilee, to their city Nazareth.

Luke emphasizes the fact that every requirement of the law was fully attended to in the case of Jesus. One would expect a statement like this to appear in Matthew’s Gospel which was written for readers of Jewish extraction by one of their number; but here a Gentile Christian writes this for a Gentile reader so that he may understand how Jesus was in no way to be exempted from the law. The statement is general and thus includes everything from the circumcision onward. Even the purification of Mary must be included, for Jesus could not have had a mother who transgressed a plain provision of the law and remained ceremonially unclean. The Greek is satisfied with the aorist in the subordinate clause and does not care to mark the relation of time to the main clause as the English does by using the past perfect: “when they had finished,” etc.

Luke summarizes. He omits the events recorded in Matt. 2 and any others that occurred during this early period and intends to tell us only that Jesus grew up, not in Bethlehem where he was born, but in the Galilean Nazareth. The fact that Nazareth lies in Galilee was stated already in 1:26, and so Galilee might have been omitted here as far as mere geography is concerned. Its mention intends to say that Jesus grew up, not in the neighborhood of the Holy City in the genuinely Jewish land of Judea, but in the despised half-heathen territory of Galilee, and there in the obscure town in which Joseph and Mary were living when the story of Luke’s Gospel began.

Luke 2:40

40 Now the child kept on growing and kept on gaining strength by being filled with wisdom; and God’s grace was on it.

We naturally compare what Luke says about the child with what he states about John in 1:80 and note both the similar bodily and mental growth and the difference in what is added about wisdom and God’s grace being upon Jesus. The verbs are imperfect and denote continuance, and this includes also the participle. We refer ηὔξανε to physical growth and ἐκραταιοῦτο to mental and spiritual increase in strength, for it would be superfluous to add a second verb to tell of the physical development and to leave only a participle for the mental and spiritual growth. The Savior of the world, God’s Son incarnate, grew up physically in the most normal way with nothing to mar his bodily development. He grew mentally in the same way and attained more and more strength of mind, understanding, and reason. But a modifier is necessary here (in 1:80 it is πνεύματι in the case of John) lest we think only of mere intellectual strength: “by being filled with wisdom,” the participle modifying the verb and its subject.

The participle is passive (not middle, R. V. margin) and durative and describes the process of filling. The young lad attained more and more wisdom, σοφία (the genitive after a verb of filling) in the Biblical sense as the right knowledge of God and his salvation coupled with its application to life. In the case of Jesus this included the realization of his own relation to God in connection with the saving thoughts of God. A clear view of this wisdom of Jesus flashes out in v. 49.

It is impossible for us to penetrate the mystery of this development in Jesus—body and soul untouched by sin, unchecked and unretarded by any result of sin, his mind and his soul absorbing the wisdom of God’s Word as a bud drinks in the sunshine and expands. His mind and his soul, which were truly human indeed, grew in strength and in the range of wisdom but in perfection and in power beyond anything that is possible to sinful mortals. His development was absolutely normal, that of all others is to a great degree abnormal. We see his mind and his soul in full action during his ministry, a mind and a soul that are vastly beyond those of mere man. He sees through every error and deception, all truth is his glorious possession, he is master of every situation. This came to him by degrees, but every degree of the growth was perfect.

When Luke adds that God’s grace was upon the child (αὐτό instead of τὸπαιδίον) he aims to say that this was evident from the way in which the child developed. The word χάρις is used in the wider sense of God’s favor, not in the narrower sense of undeserved favor for sinners. As a man Jesus was under God and dependent upon him for all things just as we are; but because he was sinless, God’s favor never turned from him to discipline and chastise him. From his childhood onward he lived in the undimmed sunshine of God’s blessed favor.

Luke 2:41

41 And his parents kept going year by year to Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover.

The imperfect is iterative (R. 884), and κατά is distributive (R. 608); we may regard τῇἑορτῇ as the dative of time (R. 523, the locative of time). During the childhood of Jesus Joseph and Mary regularly attended the Passover festival at Jerusalem. Every male was originally expected to appear in Jerusalem at the Passover, at Pentecost, and at Tabernacles, Exod. 23:14–17; 34:23; Deut. 16:16; but the dispersion rendered this impossible. Godly Jews, however, made it a point to attend at least the Passover. Women were not required to attend, yet many did, nevertheless, and Mary belonged to this class. We see the devoutness of the parents of Jesus, the kind of a home in which he grew up. See the Bible dictionaries on the nature of the Passover.

Luke 2:42

42 And when he became twelve years old, they going up according to the custom of the festival and having completed the days, while they were returning, there remained behind Jesus, the boy, in Jerusalem, and his parents did not realize it but, having supposed him to be in the caravan, went a day’s journey and began making thorough search for him among their relatives and their acquaintances and, not having found him, returned to Jerusalem, making thorough search for him.

The high points of this elaborate sentence are the four main verbs ὑπέμεινεν, οὐκἔγνωσαν, ἦλθον, and ὑπέστρεψαν, and it is interesting to note the relation of the other verb forms to these four.

Jesus had reached the age of twelve (ἐτῶνδώδεκα, the ordinary predicative genitive), when as a Jewish boy he became “a son of the law,” who was obliged to learn and to observe its provisions. The supposition that Jesus now began to wear the phylacteries would make him a Pharisee, which is certainly wrong. The present participle ἀναβαινόντων in the genitive absolute is perfectly in place and should not be called a loose construction which places what occurred after their going up into the time while they were going up. The present tense is used because “they going up” includes the entire journey in both directions (Zahn) during which all that follows happened; hence we also have no addition such as “to Jerusalem,” the verb is used in an absolute sense. “According to the custom of the festival” means in accord with what the Jewish custom of the annual festival required. As they had always done, they again made the journey.

Luke 2:43

43 The second genitive absolute with its aorist participle places us at the completion of the seven days of the festival (Exod. 12:15; Lev. 23:6; Deut. 16:3). While some pilgrims left after the two chief days, this was not the case with Joseph and Mary who returned with the full caravan. Luke loves ἐντῷ with the infinitive (see 1:8), here he has the present tense to denote the return journey as being in progress. And now we have the two main verbs, aorists to designate the two facts that Jesus remained behind in Jerusalem, and that his parents did not know this. The separation must have occurred in an entirely natural way. Although the writer does not intimate how it occurred, we see that the parents did not worry about the boy’s absence but started on the return journey. Heretofore he called Jesus παιδίον, but Luke now writes παῖς, “boy.” The supposition that this was the first time that Jesus had been taken to the festival, and that he was thus astonished and captivated by what he saw, is not tenable.

Luke 2:44

44 The aorist νομίζαντες, which is usually followed by the accusative with the infinitive, states why the parents started out without any uneasiness about the absence of the boy. They thought that he was somewhere in the travelling company which was strung out along the road and consisted of hundreds who were going northward. They passed the first day thus. At nightfall, when camp was made, and the boy had not appeared, the parents at last started on a thorough search, ἀνά in the verb and in the participle in v. 45 lends this added force, but the imperfect tense implies that their efforts were in vain. They made their search where they supposed the boy would most likely be found, “among their relatives and their acquaintances,” most of whom camped together, and the boys in the party travelled in their own company during the day. Tissot has a painting of the boys marching in ranks with locked arms in the great Temple court, shouting Hosanna for Jesus, and thus shows how the boys went together at these times.

Luke 2:45

45 Not having found the lad that night, nothing was left but to turn back the next morning to Jerusalem and to make a careful search all along the way and in the city where they had had their lodging.

Luke 2:46

46 And it came to pass after three days they found him in the Temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both hearing them and inquiring of them. Now all hearing him were in amazement at his understanding and answers.

See 1:8 on ἐγένετο with a finite verb to mark importance. Not until the evening of the third day from the time when the parents had left Jerusalem did they find him and in the place they least expected and visited last of all, in the Temple, and there not at play with other boys but sitting in the midst (ἐνμέσῳ, an idiomatic phrase) of the teachers, listening to them and inquiring of them. How R., W. P., arrives at the idea of a terrace, of members of the Sanhedrin teaching while the feast was still going on, and of these rabbis sitting in a circle on benches, is hard to say. These were ordinary rabbis who were ready to teach at any time; they sat cross-legged on the floor like their pupils (4:20; 5:3; said of rabbi Jochanan, “sitting and teaching in the shadow of a temple house”); there was no terrace, the teaching took place in one of the many Temple halls that were open to all and were used for this purpose.

The teaching perhaps began with one rabbi, and then other rabbis and also auditors gathered to make the scene described by Luke. But it is unwarranted to entitle this scene, “Jesus teaching in the Temple”—Luke says not one word about his teaching. He listened and he asked respectful questions (this is the force of the participle). The next verse implies that he also answered questions. The teaching was not mere lecturing but was interspersed with questions both to and from the teacher. We have no unnatural picture of the lad Jesus like that found in the apocryphal gospels.

He is a well-trained boy who knows his place and acts with respect toward these rabbis. But he is indeed intensely interested in all they have to say and eager to elicit more information, for these were more important men than the rabbis he could occasionally hear in Nazareth.

Luke 2:47

47 But even so, all who were listening—and there must have been quite a few who had assembled gradually—“were in amazement,” the imperfect draws the picture (an aorist would state only the fact), this broke out again and again. The verb is very strong and means literally, “they stood out of themselves.” Luke records the two points on which this reaction rested and combines them by one αὐτοῦ: his σύνεσις, the understanding with which his mind grasped and combined thoughts and thus his “answers” with which he replied to the questions addressed to him, which revealed this inner grasp of the truth. These rabbis had never met such a boy. This was not precocity, a mind that was advanced beyond the boy’s age, but something of a far higher quality, a mind that was filled with the heavenly wisdom (v. 40) of God’s Word and truth beyond that of these learned rabbis, yet all unassuming and only eager to learn. It is a priceless picture that Luke has drawn, and our only regret is that he did not draw more of this kind from the early years of Jesus.

Luke 2:48

48 And having seen him, they were struck with a shock, and to him his mother said, Child, why didst thou treat us thus? Lo, thy father and I, being distressed, were seeking thee!

The verb that states the effect upon the parents is still stronger than the one that was used to indicate the reaction of the hearers; they were actually struck as by a blow (second passive aorist) at seeing their boy in this place and so occupied. It is not sufficient to say that parents often fail to perceive the wealth of nature in their children—this was something that was far different from natural wealth. This shocked condition betrays how quietly Jesus had acted up to this time, he had never opened his mouth in the synagogue—and here he sits in the very Temple itself with prominent rabbis all about him, all eyes and all ears are fixed upon him. Their shock had ample reason.

We do not think that the parents broke in on the scene, but that at sight of his parents the boy at once got up and walked away with them. We do not know whether Joseph said anything—no word of his is recorded. It is Mary’s mother heart that speaks for both of them. Note the tender address “child,” not “son” (υἱός), and yet the deep reproach that this child should have treated them so that they had to go on seeking him ὀδυνώμενοι (passive), continuing to be greatly distressed. The imperfect (some texts have the present) dwells on the length of the search. Let us not blame Mary—to lose a child for three days in a strange city is distressful enough.

Luke 2:49

49 And yet this child was not to blame. We have no means of knowing how Jesus conducted himself during the seven festival days, but, judging from his conduct during the following days, Mary especially should have perceived how much the Temple and all that pertained to it meant to her boy. But even after this wonderful answer she failed to understand.

And he said to them: What is this that you were seeking me? Were you not aware it is necessary that I be in connection with the things of my Father?

Jesus cannot understand the action of his parents in seeking him as they did. He does not reproach them, he merely expresses his surprise. Τί is usually translated “why”: “Why is it that?” etc.; but τί is not used thus when ὅτι follows. Nor is Jesus asking for a reason; it is the fact that astonishes him, “this that” (ὅτι) they were seeking him and did not know what would attract and occupy him. Hence we translate: “What (is) this that?” etc. The second past perfect ᾔδειτε is always used as an imperfect: “were you not aware all along?” The question implies surprise at finding his parents ignorant on this vital matter. Δεῖ is used to express all forms of necessity, each case is determined by the context. The necessity is here due to Jesus’ relation to God as his Father.

The phrase ἐντοῖς with the genitive of the person τοῦπατρός should be left under the rule: “The neuter plural is common for the notion of ‘affairs or things,’” R. 767, who adds examples; so we translate “in my Father’s things or affairs.” The A. V.’s “about my Father’s business” is exactly to the point. B.-P. 873 has several examples of τά with the genitive of the person in the sense of “property,” “temple grounds,” or “house,” to which the LXX’s translation of Gen. 41:51 may be added but certainly not any τὰἴδια examples (Zahn), which is an entirely different idiom. Linguistically one might translate “in my Father’s house” as do the R. V., Robertson’s books, and many others. The decision against this rendering is due first to the fact that this idiom would appear only here in the New Testament (it is quoted from only one papyrus); secondly, if Jesus said beth, “house,” in Aramaic, Luke would have translated this, not with τά, but with οἶκος; finally, the thought is against the idea of “house.”

The idea satisfies some that the parents were searching everywhere and only at last found the right place. But Mary does not say: “we were seeking thee everywhere,” she mentions no place at all. Why, then, should Jesus’ reply mention a place? What Jesus says to his parents is that he cannot understand that they would be searching for him, for he thought that they knew that he had to be in connection with the things pertaining to his Father. This thought is far richer and deeper than that of mere place. It takes care also of the place, for his Father’s business would be conducted in the Temple. Yet by not stressing the place the thought includes the fact that the things of his Father may be attended to also elsewhere.

The most remarkable thing is that Jesus calls God “my Father.” The singular “my” over against the plural “our” deserves the greatest attention, for it occurs in every case where Jesus uses the possessive pronoun, and in John 20:17 the distinction is strongly stressed: “ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God.” A treatise has been written on the significance of this pronoun as it was used by Jesus. At the age of twelve he knew most clearly that God was his Father in a way in which he was not Father to anyone else.

Jesus is not referring to his human nature, for that nature has no father of any kind. The view that the Holy Spirit served as a father in the conception of Jesus is a misunderstanding of 1:35. Jesus is speaking as the Son, begotten from eternity by the Father, as the Son to whom this Father is in an absolutely singular relation. In declaring this relation Jesus at once connects it with his mission: as his Father’s Son he of necessity (δεῖ) must be in connection (ἐν) with his Father’s affairs (ἐντοῖς). How did this boy attain this knowledge about himself and his mission? It is as wonderful as are his person and his mission.

We do not think that Mary had told the boy about the mystery of his birth, he arrived at this himself. This is not so strange when we remember that the ἐγώ in him was the second person of the Godhead. The clear consciousness that speaks so early continues throughout the sacred record, and it is Luke who shows us this earliness. This utterance of Jesus was more than a premonition of his Messianic calling or the consciousness of a special relation of love between him and God that was above his relation to Mary and Joseph. These and similar views take away the deity of Jesus. Any godly Jew, Joseph and Mary for instance, could feel conscious of God’s love and the like.

Jesus’ word is misunderstood when it is thought to refuse further obedience to Joseph as Jesus’ earthly father, an idea that is flatly contradicted in v. 51. This obedience was part of his Father’s business. This first word from the Son’s lips is worthy of those lips. No wonder the rabbis and others were astonished (v. 47) at his understanding and his answers.

Luke 2:50

50 And they did not understand the utterance which he spoke to them, the ῥῆμα that he should speak in this way. This inability to understand has been found inexplicable in view of the revelation that Joseph and Mary had received concerning the conception of the child. But this objection misses the point. The implication is that up to this time the boy had never made an utterance like this, and for him now to speak thus about himself passes the understanding of his parents. In fact, to this day the mental and spiritual development of the boy, who was the God-man, lies beyond our psychology and our experience. It is still true: “Never man spake like this man,” John 7:46.

Luke 2:51

51 And he went down in company with them (μετά) and came to Nazareth and continued being in subjection to them; and his mother went on carefully keeping all the things in her heart.

After what Jesus said to his parents it was necessary to report that he at once went back to Nazareth with them (two aorists to express the facts as such) and made no attempt to stay in Jerusalem and the Temple, κατέβη because the Jews always spoke about going up to Jerusalem (v. 42) and on leaving it of going down; this usage indicated a spiritual and an ideal elevation of the Holy City. Significant as these statements are, the periphrastic imperfect which stresses duration, “continued being subjected to them,” says still more. He knew himself as the Son of the Father, knew as a man that his person was divine, and yet, not in contradiction to but in harmony with this knowledge, he went on as a child that was obedient to Joseph and to Mary. This, he realized, was part of his Father’s affairs. His obedience and his subjection according to the Fourth Commandment were thus on a higher plane and far more significant than are those of any other child. God’s Son obeyed these human parents; put under the law (Gal. 4:4), he fulfilled that law in every part. He is an example, indeed, but never that alone but always first and foremost the Redeemer come to redeem them that were under the law that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Nothing further is said about Joseph. From the strong periphrastic imperfect it is fair to conclude that he lived for some years after this occurrence. Since the Gospels report nothing from the next eighteen years, he is not again mentioned as living. Luke tells the story of Mary as we have seen from the beginning; and he may have received the story from her own lips. So he once more tells us (2:19) that she carefully (διά in the verb) treasured “all things” in her heart. Luke is concluding the early history, and so “all things” may include all that he has narrated in these chapters.

Though it closely follows the singular (v. 50, ῥῆμα, “utterance”), the plural must here mean “things,” i. e., all that transpired as in 1:37; 2:15, 19. This reveals the deep nature of Mary and the proper attitude of her heart. The mysteries were beyond her comprehension, yet she treasured them and sought not so much to penetrate as to draw the blessedness from them. Unlike the bold rationalist who disbelieves, rejects, or seeks to explain away what he does not understand about the mysteries of God, Mary regarded them as her dearest treasures.

Luke 2:52

52 And Jesus kept progressing in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and men.

Compare verse 40. “Wisdom” is placed first because Jesus had at twelve already revealed its possession in a high degree; he kept attaining more and more of it. We refer ἡλικία to bodily stature, not to age, for it need not be said that he grew older. Most of the pictures of Jesus are too weak. He must have grown into a strong, impressive, commanding figure. These pale, anemic Christs ought to be abolished from our imagination. The sense of χάρις as it is explained in v. 40 is substantiated here, for it came to Jesus from men as well as from God. He stood in high favor with both. The imperfect tense states not only that this progress continued but, as an open tense, that more is to follow. The three nouns are datives of relation.

When Matthew tells the story of Joseph and Luke that of Mary without either referring to what the other brings, this does not warrant the conclusion that neither knew what the other knew. If Luke could have interviewed Mary, Matthew was certainly often in her company. It is incredible that either evangelist did not know what the other knew about the childhood of Jesus. Mark omits all reference to the childhood, but it would be rash to conclude that Peter had never told him the story, or that he had not heard it from other apostles or even from Mary herself. Whether we are able to say why Mark omitted the early history, why Matthew was content with the story of Joseph and Luke added only the story of Mary, is a minor matter. Acts 1 shows that Luke knew much more than he recorded in Luke 24.

Luke’s account is a distinct addition to Matthew’s, and there is no conflict with it at a single point. Derogatory conclusions about the knowledge and the purpose of any evangelist are presumptuous, considering their course of life, their character, their abilities, and the promise Jesus made to the apostles in John 14:26.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschem Handwoerterbuch, etc.