Chapter Two

1–7. The Birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. – 8–20. Shepherds in the field and at the manger in Bethlehem. – 21–38. The circumcision of the Divine Infant and His presentation in the temple. – 39–40. The return of the holy family to Nazareth. – 41–50. Twelve-year-old Jesus in the temple. – 51–52. Notes on the life of Christ in His parents’ home.

Luke 2:1. In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole world should be enrolled. “In those days” – an indefinite expression, but in connection with the preceding passage it can be assumed that it refers to the time when John the Baptist was born. “A decree went out” – an edict was issued. According to Bogolovskii, the matter here properly concerns the issuance or promulgation of the edict in Judea: it became known in Rome earlier (Bogolovskii, p. 341). “From Caesar Augustus,” that is, from the Roman emperor Augustus (later the name Augustus – “the most sacred” – became the general title of Roman emperors). Originally Augustus was called simply Octavian. “To make a census,” that is, a description of persons and property subject to state taxation (taxes and duties). In this description, as can be inferred from verse 2, where this description is placed on the same level as the census of Quirinius, known individuals subject to taxation were entered into special tax registers. “Throughout all the world,” more precisely: throughout the entire inhabited world (πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην). Here the entire Roman Empire is understood; Roman emperors bore the title “rulers of the world.”

Luke 2:2. This census was the first in the governorship of Quirinius over Syria. That is, this census was the first in a series of subsequent censuses and it took place under Quirinius, when he was ruling Syria. The evangelist evidently wishes to note that in the year of Christ’s birth Judea stood at the extreme degree of humiliation: it represented a country fully subjected to pagans, who collected taxes from it. “During the governorship” (ἡγεμονεύοντος), that is, at the time when Quirinius was the general commander of Syria in the position of proconsul or procurator. “Quirinius.” P. Sulpicius Quirinius (in Latin – Quirin) was procurator of Syria from 6 to 11 AD and died in Rome in 21 AD. But how can this historical testimony be reconciled with the evangelist Luke’s account, according to which this Quirinius ruled Syria just before Christ’s birth? The only suitable conjecture for resolving this difficult question could be the supposition of certain commentators (first of all Zumpt, then Keil, Vigueur, and others), according to which Quirinius was governor of Syria twice: in the 750–753 years from the founding of Rome and in the 760–766 years (Vigueur). The basis for this supposition is an inscription found on a Roman (Tiburtine) monument. In this inscription, rather damaged, there is mention of some governor who ruled Syria twice during the reign of Augustus. There are grounds to believe that this was precisely Quirinius. In that case, he could conduct a census twice: the first time – before Christ’s birth, the second – after this event. Thus, the evangelist Luke does not contradict history.

Luke 2:3. And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. “And all went to be enrolled...” that is, all those who did not live in their native city. Genealogical records among the Hebrews were carefully preserved, as evidenced by the inclusion of Christ’s genealogies in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, as well as the genealogy of Josephus, which this historian provides in his biography.

Luke 2:4. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and line of David, Luke 2:5. to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was pregnant. “Went up” – more precisely: went up (ἀνέβη). “From Nazareth” (see Matt 2:22-23). It is supposed that Joseph lived in Nazareth temporarily: there was work for him there. When the ancestors of Mary settled in Nazareth – is not known. “The city of David,” that is, the city where David was born. “Of the house and line of David.” The tribes descended from the sons of Jacob were called tribes (φυλαί), branches from the sons of these patriarchs – clans (or ancestries – πατριαί), and individual families in such clans – houses (οἷκοι). Joseph, consequently, was from a family descended from David, and belonged to the same branch to which David belonged. “With Mary.” This expression depends on the verb “went,” not on the verb “to be enrolled...” Joseph could record Mary in the number of taxpayers if needed, but he could do so alone. “His betrothed.” The evangelist Luke uses this verb with the intention of making it clear to readers that even in marriage Joseph was not the husband of Mary in essence, in reality: She continued only to enjoy his care and was only considered his wife. “Who was pregnant.” This is the true reason why Joseph took Mary with him: He could not leave Her, pregnant, alone for a long time, because the journey to Bethlehem could indeed be extended for a long time. Mary would have remained defenseless in Nazareth.

Luke 2:6. When they were there, the time came for Her to give birth; Luke 2:7. and She gave birth to Her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. “Gave birth to Her Son...” From the fact that Mary did not use anyone’s assistance in this, but Herself wrapped the Infant – first, according to custom, having washed Him and salted Him with salt (Ezek 16:4) – the holy fathers conclude that Her delivery was not accompanied by the usual pains of childbirth. “Firstborn” (see Matt 1:25). “In a manger.” From this mention of a manger, into which food for cattle is placed, it is evident that the Most Holy Virgin and Joseph lodged in a livestock enclosure at the inn. The rooms in the latter were all occupied, and staying in the common hall was inconvenient in view of Mary’s imminent labor. According to ancient tradition, this enclosure was arranged in a cave (Justin Martyr. “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew,” 78, 5; Origen, “Against Celsus,” I, 51), which was located not in the city itself, but near it. Over this cave, indicated by tradition, Queen Helena built a church in honor of the Mother of God Mary.

Luke 2:8. In that region there were shepherds living in the fields, keeping watch over their flocks at night. Luke 2:9. And suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were terrified with great fear. Luke 2:10. And the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people: Luke 2:11. for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord; Luke 2:12. and this will be a sign for you: you will find a Child wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger. “In that region.” According to some passages of the Talmud, the Messiah was believed by the Jews to appear in the “Tower of the Flock,” which was located near the city of Bethlehem, on the road to Jerusalem. The flocks that grazed here were designated for temple sacrifices, and consequently the shepherds who guarded them were not ordinary shepherds. These flocks grazed year-round, for they are mentioned as being in the fields even thirty days before Passover, that is, in February, when rains in Palestine are very significant. It is understandable that these shepherds, as standing in some relation to the temple, were familiar with the idea of the Messiah and awaited Him with as much fervor as other Jews. Perhaps in the fact that the angel announces the birth of the Messiah first of all to these shepherds, a special work of Providence is evident: the shepherds are given to know that now the time has come when they will no longer need to drive animals to the temple for slaughter, that now the sins of all humanity are taken upon Himself by the born Messiah, who will once and for all offer a sacrifice satisfying Divine Justice... “Keeping watch at night,” that is, they had the duty to guard the flocks at night. From this it can be concluded that Christ was born at night. The month and day of His birth cannot be determined from the Gospels. Tradition, however, sets this as either January 6 or December 25. Our Church has adopted the latter date. “The glory of the Lord” – something like a bright cloud in which God appears (cf. Acts 7:2). “And they were terrified with great fear,” that is, they were very frightened. “Do not be afraid.” See verses 13–14. “For all the people,” that is, for the entire Israelite nation (παντὶ τῷ λαῷ). “A Savior” (see Matt 1:21; Luke 1:68). “A sign” – not a miraculous sign, which might serve to strengthen the shepherds’ faith in the angel’s gospel (the shepherds did not doubt the words of the angel), but simply a mark by which they could recognize the newborn Messiah: at that time there could be other newborn infants in Bethlehem. But it was hardly possible to find another child in a manger... “An infant” – specifically a newborn (βρέφος).

Luke 2:13. And suddenly there appeared with the angel a great multitude of the heavenly host, praising God and saying: Luke 2:14. “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men! “A great multitude of the heavenly host” – literally: “a multitude, mass (πλῆθος) of the heavenly host,” that is, angels, who in the Old Testament also appear surrounding the throne of God (1 Sam 22:19; Ps 102:21; Dan 7:10). “Glory to God in the highest” – now, at this very moment, the verb “is” is implied, not “will be.” For the gift of the Messiah to the world, God is glorified “now” in heaven by the angels: the angels have just descended from heaven and are explaining to the shepherds how the news of the Savior’s birth was received there (“in the highest”) (cf. Matt 21:9). “And on earth peace.” By “peace” they understand not only the tranquility that appears to have been established on earth with the birth of Christ, but also the whole salvation, whose bearer is the Newborn (cf. Luke 1:79). “Goodwill toward men.” Some manuscripts read as our Slavic and Russian texts do – ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία, others – ἐν ἀνθρώποις εύδοκίας. Both readings have their basis. It is better to recognize our reading as correct, because in that case three separate clauses result, completely equal in size (a new “threefold holy,” according to the expression of Edersheim, p. 240).

Luke 2:15. When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let us go now to Bethlehem and see this thing that has taken place, which the Lord has made known to us. Luke 2:16. So they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the Child lying in the manger. With full faith in the words of the angel, the shepherds set out for Bethlehem and found everything in accord with what had been announced to them about the Child born. They probably first of all went to the inn, at which, according to custom, a lamp was burning. To other houses at night they would not dare to turn, of course, asking about a newborn Messiah...

Luke 2:17. When they saw this, they made known what had been told them about this Child. Luke 2:18. And all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds told them. Luke 2:19. But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart. The shepherds’ account of the appearance of the angel amazed not only Joseph and Mary, but also all those who happened to be in Bethlehem at that time, to whom – perhaps the next day – the shepherds also told of what had happened to them. “Pondering them in her heart” – more precisely: “comparing, putting together (συμβάλλουσα)” with what had been revealed to Her herself by the angel. In these words the evangelist himself indicates whose accounts he followed in describing the first days of the Savior’s life – these were, of course, above all the memories of Mary.

Luke 2:20. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told to them. The shepherds then returned to their flocks, telling various people along the way of what had happened to them. They undoubtedly told of this event in Jerusalem, when they drove animals there for sacrifice, and many joyfully received this news. At least it is very probable that Simeon and Anna, who met the Lord at His presentation in the temple, had already been prepared for this appearance of the newborn Messiah by the shepherds’ accounts.

Luke 2:21. After eight days had passed, when it was time to circumcise the Child, He was given the name Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived. “After eight days had passed” (see the commentaries on Luke 1:59). “To circumcise.” The Lord accepted circumcision as the first institution of the law of Moses, and that He had to obey the law, the apostle Paul speaks of as an undoubted fact (Gal 4:4). If He had not accepted circumcision, no one would have recognized in Him the promised Messiah, the descendant of Abraham. Circumcision in this case also foreshadowed the blood that Christ would later shed on Golgotha. “Given by the angel...” (see Matt 1:21; Luke 1:31).

Luke 2:22. When the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord, Luke 2:23. as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male shall be designated as holy to the Lord”, Luke 2:24. and they offered a sacrifice according to what is stated in the law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons. When was the presentation of the Lord in the temple completed – before or after the visit of the Magi? Undoubtedly – before the visit. The following considerations support this supposition. The flight of the holy family to Egypt followed immediately after the worship of the Magi, as is clearly seen from verses 13–14 of chapter 2 of the Gospel of Matthew. From this it can be concluded that the holy family could not go down to Jerusalem after the arrival of the Magi. Besides, Herod had already been informed by the Magi about the birth of the King of the Jews and had to take measures to find this new “king.” Moreover, if at that time Simeon and Anna had also testified to the birth of the Messiah, the situation of the holy family would have been further worsened. Finally, both the tone of Simeon’s speech and the accounts of Anna about the birth of the Messiah as an event just becoming known compel us to date the presentation of Christ in the temple to a time preceding the visit of the Magi (Bogolovskii, p. 360–361). “The time of their purification” (see Lev 12:2-8). A woman who had given birth to a male child was considered unclean for seven days and for thirty-three more days could not go to the temple and participate in public worship. “Their,” that is, of the Jews. The matter does not concern Joseph here, because a husband did not need purification, and Christ was born pure and sinless... “According to the law.” Here there is an indication that in this case the period specified in the law was observed – 40 days. “They brought” – more precisely: they took Him up (ἀνήγαγον). “To present Him to the Lord.” All firstborn sons among the Israelites, before Levites were chosen for the service of God (Num 8:14 and following), as the property of Jehovah, were designated for service in the tabernacle and temple. But for five shekels, that is, roughly four rubles, they had to be redeemed, freed from service in the temple. According to the law, it was not required to bring the child to the temple to perform the redemption, nor could the mother necessarily be present in the temple when the sacrifice of purification was offered for her. But devout women usually came to the temple themselves, and at the same time the redemption of their children was completed, whom they also brought with them on this occasion. So it was with Mary and Her Son. Jesus Christ was probably only presented to the priest, who performed two brief prayers over Him: one – for the law of redemption, another – for the grant of a firstborn son. For Mary, the established sacrifice for sin was performed, which in all cases was a turtledove or a young pigeon. Besides, as a poor woman, She also offered a turtledove or a young pigeon as a whole burnt offering (wealthier women offered a lamb). When doing this, the Most Holy Virgin had to place money for the sacrifice in a special large box (“tube”), which was located near the elevated platform where women prayed separately from men. Then, of course, She was placed among the other women receiving purification on top of the fifteen steps that led from the court of women to the court where the altar of burnt offering stood, from which it was possible to see what was happening at the altar of burnt offering (Edersheim, p. 248 – 251). Thus Mary offered “the sacrifice of the poor.”

Luke 2:25. Now there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; this man was righteous and devout, looking forward to the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Spirit rested on him. Luke 2:26. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah. Luke 2:27. Guided by the Spirit, Simeon came into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for Him what was customary under the law, Luke 2:28. Simeon took Him in his arms and praised God, saying, A certain man named Simeon (from Hebrew “hearing”), under the special action of the Spirit of God, came to the temple at that time and, taking Jesus in his arms, praised God. “Righteous” (see the commentaries on Luke 1:6). “Devout” (εύλαβής), that is, one who has fear of God and a pure conscience in his soul (cf. Heb 5:7 and following). “The consolation of Israel.” In the Talmud the Messiah is often called consolation (“Menachem”). Here also, evidently, this term means the Messiah. “The Holy Spirit rested on him.” Evidently the evangelist sees in Simeon a prophet, because the Holy Spirit dwelt in the prophets (2 Pet 1:21). This Spirit inspired Simeon that he would not see death, that is, would not die, until he saw the Lord’s Messiah, that is, the Anointed of God. According to a tradition, though reported by a rather late church historian (14th century), Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus (Historia ecclesiastica, lib. I, cap. XII), Simeon, who was among the 70 translators of the Old Testament, received this promise from the Holy Spirit at the moment when doubt overcame him regarding Isaiah’s prophecy about the birth of Emmanuel from a Virgin. Although, of course, he could not have been among those 70 translators who translated the Bible from Hebrew to Greek in 271 BC and to whom the aforementioned historian attributes him, nevertheless he could have participated in the translation of prophetic books, which, according to scholarly investigation, were translated into Greek shortly before Christ. “Guided by the Spirit,” that is, by the special impulse of the Holy Spirit dwelling upon him. “The parents.” Although Joseph could not bear this name in relation to Christ, nevertheless the evangelist calls him and her “parent” of Christ, following the usual designation which Joseph and Mary were given among the people. “To do for Him what was customary under the law” – more correctly: “to do according to the custom, as the law commanded to be done (about Him – περὶ αὐτοῦ refers not to the word “Jesus,” but to the expression τοῦ ποιῆσαι – to do).” “He” (verse 28) – more precisely: “and he on his part (καὶ αὐτός)”: the mother also held Jesus in her arms. Therefore, from ancient times Saint Simeon has been called the Receiver of God. “Praised God,” that is, thanked Him for allowing him to see the Messiah, whom he recognized in the temple, of course, by the special illumination of the Holy Spirit dwelling upon him.

Luke 2:29. “Master, now you are dismissing your servant in peace, according to your word; Luke 2:30. for my eyes have seen your salvation, Luke 2:31. which you have prepared in the sight of all peoples, Luke 2:32. a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel. Simeon poured out his gratitude to God in a brief hymn of praise, which in its thoughts and expressions recalls certain passages from the book of the prophet Isaiah (Isa 11:10; Isa 60). “Now,” that is, since I have seen the Messiah. “You are dismissing.” Simeon conceives his life as wholly permeated by the expectation of the coming of the Messiah. Now the time of waiting has ended: he has seen the Messiah and can calmly die. “According to your word” (see verse 26). “In peace” – more precisely: “in peace” (ἐν εἰρήνῃ), that is, in a state of joy from a fulfilled cherished desire. “Your salvation,” that is, messianic salvation, which is conceived as already having begun with the birth of the Messiah (cf. Luke 3:6; Acts 28:28). How Simeon understood this salvation – is seen more clearly from his following words. “Which you have prepared,” that is, which you have accomplished. “In the sight of all peoples.” Salvation will be accomplished openly and all peoples will now be witnesses of it – both Jews and Gentiles. “A light for revelation to the Gentiles.” Before there was talk of the opening of salvation. Now it is indicated that all peoples will participate in this salvation and in the benefits it brings. First of all, for the pagan world the light brought by the Messiah will serve for revelation. According to ancient prophecies (Isa 2:2 and following; Isa 11:10 and following), the Gentiles should come to Mount Zion and submit to the Old Testament theocracy. Simeon, as an Old Testament man, represents the Gentiles as existing in the darkness of religious ignorance (Isa 60:2), whom, consequently, need the light of God to shine upon them, to enlighten their minds and hearts. The Jews were in a different position – the people of God. “And for glory to your people Israel.” According to Jewish concepts about the Messiah, the work of the Messiah toward the chosen people should consist in that He would crown all true Israelites “with glory” for their faithfulness to the law. The Messiah from the standpoint of contemporary Judaism was not a redeemer from sins, but only a King, who would directly call into His Kingdom all the best part of the chosen people. Consequently, salvation for Israel is salvation not from sins, but only from the abnormal condition in which the Israelite people found themselves at the time of Christ’s coming. Why some commentators (for example, Edersheim, p. 253) assert that in these words of Simeon “there was nothing Jewish” and that “the Jewish character distinguished only the first words of Simeon” – this remains completely unclear...

Luke 2:33. And his father and his mother marveled at what was being said about him. The fact that Joseph and Mary wondered at the words of Simeon does not at all speak against the reality of the revelations they had received from the angel earlier. Indeed, how could they not marvel that some completely strange old man knows about the newborn Messiah and even speaks of Him much more than was known about Him to His parents? (It had not yet been revealed to Joseph or Mary what the Messiah’s significance would be as an enlightener of all peoples.)

Luke 2:34. Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother, “This child is destined for the falling and the rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be opposed – Luke 2:35. and a sword will pierce your own soul too – so that the inner thoughts of many will be revealed. “And blessed them,” that is, the parents. The blessing itself should be understood as a prayer for the bestowal of God’s mercies. “And said to Mary, his mother.” The evangelist Luke does not say that Simeon “in spirit” perceived Christ’s extraordinary conception by Mary without a husband. It is more probable to suppose that Simeon addresses only Mary as being more interested in the fate of Her Son, since a mother feels more keenly the misfortunes that befall her child. “Behold.” Here I see – as it were Simeon says. “Is destined” – that is, such is His purpose. “For the falling...” – Simeon, in accordance with the prophet Isaiah (Isa 8:14; cf. Matt 21:42), evidently has in mind here the judgment (John 3:19 and following) that should be executed on people as a result of the appearance and activity of the Messiah. Many, by Divine decision, should be scandalized concerning the Messiah and fall or come through disbelief into hardness and destruction, and many others should rise through faith in Him to a new, better life. All this will take place in Israel, that is, Simeon for now has in mind only the activity of Christ Himself, which, as is known, proceeded in the preaching of the Gospel only among the Israelite people (the stay and preaching in Samaria – John 4 – was an exception). “And to be a sign that will be opposed” – more precisely: “a sign concerning which there will be much dispute” (εἰς σημεῖον ἀντιλεγόμενον). Although the appearance of Christ was indeed miraculous in itself and was undoubtedly a sign or mark of the fulfillment of Divine promises, nevertheless it met strong opposition from the world (cf. Rom 10:21), which was resolved in the crucifixion of Christ (Heb 12:3). “And a sword will pierce your own soul too.” Simeon has just spoken of the fate awaiting Jesus. Now he turns his gaze to the Mother of Jesus and sees how She will suffer and grieve in her soul when Her Son becomes such a subject of opposition, especially when She sees His mortal agony, which He will endure on the cross (Zigabenus). The sensation She will receive at this moment will be as painful as when a sword pierces the heart. “So that the inner thoughts of many will be revealed.” The purpose that God had in designating Jesus Christ for such a ministry, in which disputes should arise among the people, which in turn should bear heavily on His Mother, was that from many hearts (cf. Matt 15:19) there should come forth, be revealed, previously hidden thoughts. The revelation or disclosure of thoughts will occur when one must stand either on the side of Christ or – against Him.

Luke 2:36. There was also a prophetess, Anna, daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, Luke 2:37. and then as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the temple but served God there with fasting and prayer night and day. Luke 2:38. At that moment she came, and began to praise the Lord and to speak about the child to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem. “There was also” – more correctly: “and there was” (καὶ ἦν) – “a prophetess Anna,” that is, a woman endowed with the ability to compose sacred hymns (cf. Exod 15:20) or simply one who received this name for her devout life. “Of the tribe of Asher.” She belonged to the tribe which did not return from captivity to Palestine. Perhaps her father, Phanuel, alone returned to his homeland. “From her marriage.” That is, she had only one husband. “And then as a widow.” This expression is connected with the preceding and should be translated thus: “lived with her husband: and now being a widow (καὶ αὕτη χήρα) of 84 years old” (cf. Matt 18:21 and following). “She never left.” These words relate to the expression “and there was Anna a prophetess,” and the words between them constitute an introductory clause. “Never left the temple,” that is, she showed special devotion to public worship (cf. Luke 24:53). There is no hint here that she lived in the temple, although Josephus mentions buildings at the temple designated for women and maidens devoted to piety. It was not allowed for anyone to remain in the temple itself for a long time (Edersheim, p. 254). “With fasting and prayer...” While at home she spent days and nights in fasting and prayers to please God. “At that moment” – more precisely: at that very hour (αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ), when Simeon was speaking with Mary. “She came” – that is, came forward to speak (ἐπιστᾶσα). “Praised God” – more precisely: “spoke in response to the hymn of praise of Simeon” or unfolded on her own the same thoughts that had been expressed by the elder. “And spoke about the child,” that is, about Christ, “to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem...” Anna repeatedly spoke about the coming of the Messiah: this is indicated by the imperfect past tense λαλέω – ἐλάλει – “was speaking.” “The redemption of Jerusalem” (λύτρωσιν) – first of all political deliverance (cf. Luke 1:68).

Luke 2:39. When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. Luke 2:40. The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him. After the presentation of Jesus in the temple, His parents did not immediately go to Nazareth, but first returned to Bethlehem and from there departed to Egypt. Only after the death of Herod (Matt 2:19 and following) did Joseph and Mary return to Nazareth. Consequently, Luke before verse 39 omitted everything that is told by Matthew in verses 1–19 of chapter 2. “The child grew and became strong in spirit.” This is a literal repetition of what is said about John the Baptist (Luke 1:80). “Filled with wisdom.” Here, evidently, there is talk of the human development of the mind, heart, and will of the Divine Infant. Gradually He assimilated – of course, mainly from the teachings and example of His Mother – the qualities and habits of true Israelite piety, which among the Hebrews was denoted by the word “wisdom” (“hokma” – σοφία; cf. Prov 9:1 and following). The details of Christ’s initial education in Nazareth are sometimes depicted very vividly by those who write His history (see, for example, Edersheim, p. 287–297), but, of course, one cannot say where the truth is and where the inventions of the author are... The Gospel deliberately, as it were, draws a veil over these first years of Christ’s life, and only on the basis of the Gospel can one assert – that Christ during this time was not under the influence of any Jewish school or sect. His enemies later directly declared that He received His systematic instruction nowhere (John 7:15). Even Edersheim himself, having depicted so thoroughly the education which Christ supposedly received, concludes by saying: “We do not know with full certainty whether such a school system existed in Nazareth. We also do not know whether the above-described order and method of instruction were adopted everywhere at that time” (p. 295). “And the favor of God was upon him,” that is, the love of God was manifested over the Child Jesus, but in what – is not said.

Luke 2:41. Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover. From the history of Jesus Christ’s life up to the age of 30 the evangelist Luke provides only the history of His journey to Jerusalem, when He had completed twelve years. Three times a year, on the greatest festivals – Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles – every Israelite, according to the law, was obliged to come to Jerusalem (Exod 23:14 and following; Exod 34:23; Deut 16:16). Women and children could remain home, but devout Israelite women nonetheless visited Jerusalem. Such was Mary. She, together with Joseph, went every year to the greatest festival – Passover. On the celebration of Passover see the comments on Matt 26:2. She did not, however, apparently, take Her Son with Her before now.

Luke 2:42. When he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem as usual for the festival. Luke 2:43. When the festival was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. But his parents did not know it; Luke 2:44. supposing him to be in the group of travelers, they went a day’s journey. Then they started looking for him among relatives and friends. Luke 2:45. When they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem to search for him. “Twelve years old.” From this time Hebrew boys usually began to learn the law, to become accustomed to being present at worship, to observing fasts, and so forth. “When the festival was ended” – an expression added in the Russian translation. Scholars of Jewish antiquities maintain that only during the first two days of the Passover festival was it necessary for all worshipers to be personally present in the temple. With the third day began the so-called semi-festive days, when it was possible to return home. Many, undoubtedly, took advantage of this provision. Therefore, Joseph and Mary could have left Jerusalem on the third day of the festival. And the “teachers” usually engaged in conversations with worshipers precisely on these remaining semi-festive days, when they had nothing to do in the temple and there were no sessions of the temple sanhedrin (Edersheim, p. 312). “Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem.” An irresistible yearning for the divine announced itself powerfully in Christ’s soul during His first visit to Jerusalem and compelled Him to return to the temple when His parents were going home with Him. “His parents did not know it.” Perhaps the caravan of worshipers in which Joseph and Mary were traveling was so large that it was impossible to immediately notice the absence of Jesus. It is probable that in this caravan there were relatives of Mary and Joseph, and the boy Jesus could first have gone with some relatives who also had children – youths of His age, which was permitted by His parents. But then the Boy returned imperceptibly to Jerusalem, to the temple. “A day’s journey” – an indefinite expression. In all probability, the caravan of worshipers in the course of a day covered a small distance. A stop, of course, was made with the onset of night, so now all of Joseph and Mary’s companions who were lagging behind gathered in one place.

Luke 2:46. After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions; Luke 2:47. and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. “After three days” – probably after his departure from Jerusalem. The first day was spent on the road, the second – in the return journey to Jerusalem, and the third – in searching for Jesus in the city. “In the temple.” It is more probable that the conversation of the “teachers” took place near the entrance to the temple, in the outer court, or “the Court of the Gentiles” – a place convenient and accessible to all: both men and women. There was a luxurious gallery there, but without benches: listeners sat on the floor. But to sit was allowed to the students even in the presence of the most important teachers. Therefore, the apostle Paul says that he was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, that is, sat on the floor when the latter spoke (Acts 22:3). “Among the teachers.” Curiosity prompted the Boy to move as close as possible to the rabbi who was speaking, and He thus found Himself in the midst of a circle of other rabbis, who sat beside their colleague, listening to his words. “Listening to them and asking them questions.” From time to time other rabbis entered the conversation. Jesus listened attentively to their speeches and, when He found something unclear in them, asked them for clarification, which was permitted by custom. “All who heard him,” that is, not only the common people, but even the rabbis themselves. “Were amazed” – were struck with amazement (ἐξίσταντο). “His understanding and his answers” – his intelligence (ἐπὶ τῇ συνέσει) and specifically His readiness in answers to those questions with which the rabbis usually addressed their listeners after they had finished explaining some point of doctrine.

Luke 2:48. When his parents saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, “Child, why have you treated us like this? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great anxiety. Luke 2:49. He said to them, “Why were you searching for me? Did you not know that I must be in what belongs to my Father? Luke 2:50. But they did not understand what he said to them. “And when his parents saw him they were astonished” – of course, Joseph and Mary saw Him – “and were amazed” – precisely that Jesus was in the temple and moreover among the teachers, to whose conversation He, according to the understanding of his parents, had not been prepared. “And his mother said.” Maternal feeling is more vivid than paternal feeling, and comes out more readily. “Your father.” The Most Holy Virgin apparently had never yet told Her Son that Joseph was not His father. She left it to God Himself to reveal the mystery of Jesus’ birth. “With great sorrow.” The Greek word here (ὀδυνόμενοι) denotes both physical and spiritual pain. It can be rendered as: “we were tormented, searching for you.” “Why were you looking for Me?” There is no reproach here toward the parents, only an expression of bewilderment about their anxiety. “Or did you not know...” that is, surely you well knew My purpose. Here there is an allusion to those revelations which Joseph and Mary received from the Angel about Jesus. It is remarkable that Christ speaks here of the mystery which, evidently, until now Mary and Joseph had hidden from Him...” “Must be about My Father’s affairs?” Some interpreters see here a reference to the temple as a place of God’s special presence, while others understand Christ’s words as indicating Christ’s calling to fulfill the will of the Heavenly Father: “in the matters that belong to My Father.” Of these interpretations, we prefer the first, because Christ answers precisely in response to the parents’ “search for Him.” He wishes to say that there was no need for them to search long: it would have been most natural for them to go directly to the temple, where Christ felt Himself to be closest to His Father. If one understands here “the works of the Father,” then Christ could have performed these works not in the temple. But in what sense does Christ call God His Father here? Some see here an indication of the feeling of extraordinary filial love, which kindled in Christ’s heart, as an Israelite, under the impression of those memories awakened in each soul by the Passover celebrations. Christ, they say, was one of the best sons of Israel and felt His closeness to God as the Benefactor of Israel more ardently than other Jews. But such an interpretation cannot be accepted. First of all, it is already clear that the words “My Father” represent an answer to Mary’s not entirely accurate expression: “behold, your father,” that is, Joseph. Christ wishes to remind His Mother that He has only one Father — God. Then Christ says “My Father,” not “our Father,” as He would have said if He had in mind His relation to Jehovah as Father of Israel in the general sense of the word. Finally, the evangelist’s remark that Joseph and Mary “did not understand His words” also speaks against such an interpretation. What would be unclear in the fact that the Child, raised in love for God as the Father of all Israel, now expresses consciousness of that close communion with God in which He felt Himself, being for the first time at the Passover festival in Jerusalem? Therefore we consider more natural such an interpretation that sees in this utterance of Christ consciousness of His higher, metaphysical unity with God — He is conscious of Himself as the Son of God by nature, by essence: God is His Father in the proper sense of the word. “But they did not understand the words He had spoken.” In the revelation received from the Angel by Joseph and Mary, nothing was said about how the development of the Divine Child would proceed. They were given only a description of Christ’s activity as the Messiah. Therefore, their bewilderment at the statement Christ had just made is natural: what, then, will His parents now do? Will Christ henceforth obey them, as He had done until now? Or perhaps, now that He knows the mystery of His birth, He should be given complete freedom in His further development?

Luke 2:51. And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was in submission to them. And His Mother kept all these words in her heart. Luke 2:52. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and with men. But Joseph’s and Mary’s bewilderment lasted only briefly. Christ calmly followed them to Nazareth, where He remained in subsequent times in complete submission to His parents, as an ordinary Jewish child and then youth. The manifestation in Him of consciousness of His divine sonship did not prevent, but rather only furthered, His going by the path of self-emptying to His great goal. And one of the manifestations of such self-emptying was complete submission to the will of His parents. “And His Mother kept all these words in her heart.” By this the evangelist indicates the source from which he obtained information about what happened in Jerusalem. His words about His relation to His Father — God — particularly stayed in her heart. It is evident that the Most Holy Virgin herself did not immediately grasp all the greatness that surrounded her Son: only by means of constant reflection on all that happened to Him did She come to a full and clear understanding of what, properly speaking, should be the work for which the Son of God, born of her, was destined. “Jesus, however...” These words recall the words from the First Book of Samuel about the development of the prophet Samuel (1 Sam 2:26). Some interpreters see here an indication that Christ developed more and more in mental respect and at the same time grew physically (ἡλικία) — became intelligent and well-formed, a tall young man. Others see here an indication that as He grew older, the higher, divine wisdom increasingly manifested itself in Jesus: “With the advance of the body there advanced in Him, for those who saw, the manifestation of His Deity” (St. Athanasius the Great. Vol. 19 of the Works of the Holy Fathers, p. 455). It will be more correct to say that the development which the evangelist has in mind here was “theanthropic,” since Divinity and humanity dwelled in Christ indivisibly and unconfusedly. But to grasp this union and understand how the development of the theanthropic nature proceeded — this is impossible for us. Therefore, all attempts to depict the history of Christ’s gradual development must be recognized as completely lacking any foundation. “And in favor” (see the commentary on verse 40). “And with men.” Since the evangelist here speaks already of the 12-year-old Child, not of the Infant as above (verse 40), he mentions also the relation to Jesus of outsiders. This indicates that Jesus was loved by all who surrounded Him and, consequently, in nothing differed from the type of Israelite children that was considered ideal at that time. One can point out, on the basis of accurate, especially evangelical, data, how Christ spent His life in Nazareth from the age of 12 to 30. First of all, it should be noted that Jewish life at that time, especially in such remote places as Nazareth, was marked by extreme simplicity. They ate usually three times a day — in the evening somewhat more than in the morning and at noon. The clothing worn was equally simple — an inner tunic, an outer cloak — a simple piece of cloth, and a small turban on the head, made of cloth. Jesus adopted the craft of His father (Mark 6:3) — every Jew was obliged to know some craft. In the home life of Jesus, there appears to have been nothing gloomy or dark. He loved, it seems, however, to be more in communion with nature, whose beauties He so vividly depicts in His teachings. He observed the life of people — sowers and vinedressers, the life of cattle and the habits of shepherds and even the habits of the fox, hiding in its secret den. But He also knew the joys, sorrows, needs and sufferings of the laboring population. He observed bridal processions, funeral rites, injustices and oppressions, the relations between debtors and creditors, the life of aristocrats, the conduct of tax collectors, the actions of judges. He was familiar also with the religious-political ideas that animated the Judaism of His time, but He Himself strictly adhered to what was written in Scripture, not joining any party (Edersheim, p. 317–322).

On the Authenticity and Reliability of Certain Sections of the Second Chapter

Negative criticism tries to show that those sections of the chapter under consideration, in which the discussion concerns mainly miraculous phenomena surrounding the birth and the first days of Christ’s life on earth, did not come from the evangelist Luke, but were inserted by a later hand. But all these attempts are shattered against the clear witness of church tradition, which has long been acquainted with these disputed sections. Thus, St. Justin Martyr mentions the birth and circumcision of Christ (“Dialogue with Trypho the Jew,” 67, 4–6). Tertullian and St. Irenaeus know of the same thing. The answer of the Lord to the parents in the temple is cited in the ancient Syriac translation Peshitta and in ancient Fathers. In general, opponents of the authenticity of the second chapter have no grounds that are at all substantial.

More attacks are made on the reliability of the information reported in this chapter, showing that it contains much that is fictional for the glorification of Christ. But the simplicity with which the evangelist depicts the course of events, as ordinary from the point of view of reason, as well as miraculous, makes us see in him a simple narrator of what actually happened. And besides, it is strange to suppose that all the miraculous that surrounds the birth of the Savior was invented by His followers for His glorification: where then did these very people get the desire to glorify Christ, if He Himself did not manifest Himself before them in all the greatness of His God-manhood? And why must we necessarily consider the evangelist Luke so credulous that he could place all these “inventions” in his work, which, by his own words, he wished to write with an observance of the requirements of sound historical criticism?

As for the mythical theory in its application to the event of Christ’s birth and the miraculous phenomena that took place at it, what was said above can be repeated here with regard to the reliability of the events mentioned in the first chapter (see the remark to the first chapter “On the Authenticity and Reliability of the First Chapter of the Gospel of Luke”).

* * *

Notes

Here it is necessary to give a brief answer to those objections of negative criticism that are directed at shaking the authority of Luke’s Gospel witness. a) They point to the silence of Roman historians generally about the census under Augustus. But first, these historians — Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio Cassius — are considerably later than our sacred narrator — the evangelist Luke. Then, in Dio Cassius, the narrative for the years 745–752 has not survived, and perhaps in that lost section there was an indication of the census at the time of Augustus. In Tacitus, his “Annals” begin directly with Tiberius. Suetonius may not have mentioned the census for some reasons of his own. As for the Jewish historian Josephus Flavius, who does not mention the census of which Luke speaks, he too could have attributed no special significance to this census, which was carried out in accordance with Hebrew customs and was ordered directly by Herod, not by Augustus. The subsequent census, which took place in the 10th year of the Christian era according to Roman custom and crudely offended the Jews, he has already noted. Finally, from Suetonius and Tacitus it is known that after the death of Augustus, his own handwritten account of the government’s receipts and expenses was read in the Roman Senate, with a designation of the quantity of taxes and levies. From this we can conclude that a census was conducted under Augustus. b) They say that Judea at the time of Christ’s birth was only a vassal state in relation to Rome, that it had its own king, who alone had the right to conduct a census of his subjects. But what kind of king was Herod? He was, properly speaking, only a nominal king and received this title from Augustus precisely as an honorable distinction for loyalty to Rome; earlier he had the rank of simply a tetrarch. He could not conclude any treaties with anyone without the consent of the Caesar, could not transfer his throne even to his own son. Therefore, Augustus could order a census even in Judea, granting only some leniency in this case, namely, permission to conduct the census according to Hebrew customs. c) They say also that the lists of the legates of Syria at the time of Christ’s birth are well known: from the year 10 before the Christian era, Syria was governed by Titius Sentius Saturninus and Quincilius Varus, under whom Herod died. Consequently, Christ was born under Varus. But it is quite probable that the first census, being a very important matter, was entrusted by Augustus to a specially authorized person, who could be Quirinius, and Varus remained a legate of Syria. Cardinal Wilhelm Sirletus says: “In ancient monuments there is the name of Quirinus, a consul who was sent to Syria under Augustus as commander” (Biblical Studies 12). For more on this, see Prof. Bogolepov (p. 310–340), who in this case repeats Keil (1879, p. 213–228).

The Greek word κατάλυμα used here has a very broad meaning and can denote any place of rest. But here it is most natural to see a reference to an inn. If the evangelist Luke had meant a room in some house where Joseph and Mary stopped, he would have used the aforementioned Greek word in the plural (ἐν τοῖς καταλύμασιν), showing that a place for Joseph was not found “in houses.” Here, however, the singular is used. Meanwhile, it is difficult to suppose that Joseph asked for shelter in only one house and addressed no one else.

Equivalent to the cost of 80 grams of silver. – Editor’s note.

Our Russian translation incorrectly puts the words: “and a sword will pierce your own soul too,” in parentheses. This cannot be done because the importance of these words of the prophecy addressed precisely to Mary is undoubted. One of the modern text critics, Κῲννεκε, finding it still inconvenient to attach the last expression “so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed” to the preceding — since it would have been more natural to speak first of “the many” and then of “one,” Mary — relocates it to the beginning of verse 35.