Nativity

Luke 1: 1-25 Many people have tried to tell the story of what God has done among us.

Mary

Jesus' mother was named Mary. Despite the interest of the Gospel writers in the role of women in the Christ-event, references to this Mary are actually sparse, apart, naturally, from the “birth narratives”. The final NT mention has her in Jerusalem during the waiting period between Jesus’ death and resurrection and his sending of his replacement (the Holy Spirit).

They all came together regularly to pray. The women joined them too. So did Jesus’ mother Mary and his brothers (Acts 1:14, NIRV).
Surely she was still there (as was John) for the momentous Day of Pentecost (Acts chapter 2).

There were other Marys in the NT report of Jesus. So, at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion there must have been at least three present in that ugly, though commonplace, scene:

Standing near the cross were Jesus’ mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary (the wife of Clopas), and Mary Magdalene.  When Jesus saw his mother standing there beside the disciple he loved, he said to her, “Dear woman, here is your son.”  And he said to this disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from then on this disciple took her into his home.  (John 19:25-27, NLT).

Interestingly, the three Synoptic Gospels mention the other women, and more, at the cross, but not specifically Mary the mother of Jesus. John alone makes her presence clear, though (remarkably) nowhere in his Gospel does he use her name. (He also refers to himself as the loved disciple but does not name himself.)

In the early chapters of Acts we see John in Jerusalem closely associated with Peter in the period after the Day of Pentecost. Where was John’s home? How long did Jesus’ mother Mary remain in Jerusalem after Jesus’ execution and resurrection?  Was she with John? Did she ever return to Galilee? As part of his researches, did Luke find her in Galilee to hear her special story? When did she die? How did Matthew get his information about the birth? These are questions for which the NT provides no direct answers. Other crucial information we do have, courtesy of these two books..

Mary enters the story of Jesus very early in the accounts of Luke and Matthew.

The chronological first mention is with incredible news:

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth,  to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.  And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”[a] But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. (Luke 1:26-29, NRSV).

Hardly surprising that Mary should be confused and disturbed, perplexed or even afraid at this moment. Who was it – did she know?  What did he mean? That she was favoured by God must have been good to hear, but  - coming from an unknown angelic visitor? How could she interpret that experience which presumably and surely was unprecedented? Still there was more:

And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.  And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.  He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,  and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:30-33, ESV) !

Mary is presented as a recipient of God’s favour (see post,“Grace”). She will be the mother of the Son of the Most High. Her role in the Jesus’ event is by the favour of God. This about-to-be pregnancy must have been shocking news for Mary if she understood it literally. How could Mary integrate concepts of the Davidic Kingship and an eternal rule for her own offspring? These were ideas fraught with danger; a deadly secret in an era of bloody solution to succession questions. (Many interpreters insist Mary was very young, maybe even pre-teen. I have not found evidence to support that assertion, although apparently Rabbis had set the female marriageable age at 13 years. Seems to me an open question.)

What of the processes of human reproduction? Egg fertilization and embryonic development are well-known today in ways undreamed of all those generations ago. Nonetheless, Mary was not ignorant:

Mary asked the angel, “But how can this happen? I am a virgin.”
The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the baby to be born will be holy, and he will be called the Son of God.  What’s more, your relative Elizabeth has become pregnant in her old age! People used to say she was barren, but she has conceived a son and is now in her sixth month.  For the word of God will never fail.[a]”  Mary responded, “I am the Lord’s servant. May everything you have said about me come true.” And then the angel left her (Luke 1:34-38, NLT).

Mary had not been shielded from knowledge of the universal process of conception. What the angel told her would happen seemed naturally impossible for a virgin. She knew to have a baby she would need to have “known a man” (as the old Bible puts it). Now though, the power of the Holy Spirit brings her a different and unimagined possibility.

Mary would surely have heard of the “Most High” and the “Lord”. In reference to God, from Psalm 61 and particularly Isaiah 63, she could have encountered the less frequent expression, “the Holy Spirit”.  (An expression that is also used in the comparably ancient Qumran texts.)  

Mary would well know her community attitudes to pregnancy outside of marriage. Was she concerned about Joseph’s predictable reaction once she began to “show”? How did Mary feel about being “volunteered”, unmarried, for morning sickness and motherhood just then? We readily recognise her surprise and confusion. But, did she feel reluctant or disappointed or repelled? I wonder. However it was that she felt in the moment, we see that she saw herself as the Lord’s “servant” (– the Greek word covers slavery). She will readily align with what God says.

Mary was “engaged” – to Joseph.  We read about his response in Matthew chapter 1.

This is how Jesus Christ was born. A young woman named Mary was engaged to Joseph from King David’s family. But before they were married, she learned that she was going to have a baby by God’s Holy Spirit.  Joseph was a good man[a] and did not want to embarrass Mary in front of everyone. So he decided to quietly call off the wedding.
While Joseph was thinking about this, an angel from the Lord came to him in a dream. The angel said, “Joseph, the baby that Mary will have is from the Holy Spirit. Go ahead and marry her.  Then after her baby is born, name him Jesus,[b] because he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:18-21, CEV).

Joseph, a man determined to be faithful to the Law, was also considerate of Mary and her situation. He was faced with “obligation” in contrast with kindness and care. Fortunately Joseph too was able to receive an unprecedented direct message from God and fit in with God’s plan.

How well did Mary grasp the course of a pregnancy and childbirth? (I suppose it was everyday in her society.) Mary did have “mentoring” available from a respected pregnant relative:  In those days Mary set out and went with haste to a Judean town in the hill country,  where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-40, NRSV) Interesting that Mary spent this time (her first three months) in Judea – a place which was to play a larger part in her pregnancy.

In Luke chapter 2 we see Joseph taking Mary to Bethlehem.

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,  to be registered with Mary, his betrothed,[b] who was with child.  And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth.  And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.[c] (Luke 2:4-7, ESV)

Luke does not let us forget the awkward personal situation this (young?) couple experienced. Joseph takes responsibility for a Mary who is heavily pregnant – had they been living together?
Why did Mary go with Joseph? My reconstruction - which has only the value you give it - the wedding had taken place. There may have been a possibility they would not return to Nazareth. Did Mary in any case have no happy alternative? Were community attitudes harsh? What of Mary's own mother or siblings? Was she just entirely alone, apart from Joseph (and God!).
(By the way, there may not have been any kind of stable involved [nor donkey]; feed boxes were found within dwellings. For sure there was no guest room available…)

Things came “thick and fast” for Mary, even unknown shepherd visitors.

So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph and the baby. The baby was lying in the manger.  After the shepherds had seen him, they told everyone. They reported what the angel had said about this child.  All who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them.  But Mary kept all these things like a secret treasure in her heart. She thought about them over and over. (Luke 2:16-19, NIRV)

She had a great deal to think about and there was more to come. I dare say Mary or someone very close to her was one of the sources Luke consulted in writing his Gospel – how else could he know such things? (I am not pausing here to consider Matthew’s source for the “Joseph” account; certainly a lot of time and energy has gone into the general question of sources for that book.)

Luke includes a little more information about the early years. Various women and men in Jerusalem played a role and gave the parents something to think about. One particular individual, otherwise unknown, was amongst those looking for things to change in his society. He said amazing and alarming things about this baby:

In Jerusalem there was a man named Simeon. He was a good and godly man. He was waiting for God’s promise to Israel to come true. The Holy Spirit was with him. The Spirit had told Simeon that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah. The Spirit led him into the temple courtyard. Then Jesus’ parents brought the child in. They came to do for him what the Law required. Simeon took Jesus in his arms and praised God. He said,

“Lord, you are the King over all.
Now let me, your servant, go in peace.
That is what you promised.
 My eyes have seen your salvation.
You have prepared it in the sight of all nations.
It is a light to be given to the Gentiles.
It will be the glory of your people Israel.”
The child’s father and mother were amazed at what was said about him. Then Simeon blessed them. He said to Mary, Jesus’ mother, “This child is going to cause many people in Israel to fall and to rise. God has sent him. But many will speak against him. The thoughts of many hearts will be known. A sword will wound your own soul too” (Luke 2:25-35, NIRV).

What was Simeon doing in the temple that memorable day? However that may be, it is clear his words had impact on Joseph and Mary. Simeon has seen Jesus – the child God has sent. Simeon has now seen God’s promised salvation! This salvation is in the open view of everyone and the salvation is intended not only for Israel but specially for non-Jews. Gentiles will look with gratitude to the Messiah from the ancient people. This salvation is the pinnacle of ancient Israel’s purpose. He (Jesus, Saviour) will impact his people but there will be division in the responses. Mary will suffer heavy consequences out of all this.

At this point I will (somewhat arbitrarily) insert Matthew’s reference to part of the early years. Visitors (men?) came via Jerusalem to the house to worship and give gifts. This brought danger to light.  
When the men went into the house and saw the child with Mary, his mother, they knelt down and worshiped him. They took out their gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh[c] and gave them to him.  Later they were warned in a dream not to return to Herod, and they went back home by another road.
After the wise men had gone, an angel from the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up! Hurry and take the child and his mother to Egypt! Stay there until I tell you to return, because Herod is looking for the child and wants to kill him.”
That night, Joseph got up and took his wife and the child to Egypt,  where they stayed until Herod died (Matthew 2:11-15, CEV)

That escape story ends with a return, but not to Judea(!):

When Herod died, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said,  “Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child’s life are dead.”  Then Joseph[k] got up, took the child and his mother, and went to the land of Israel.  But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee.  There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be called a Nazorean” (Matthew 2:19-23, NRSV).

Luke (see above) had previously placed Joseph and Mary in Nazareth. Maybe they had expected being in the “thick of things” in Judea? Whatever, Nazareth would be their locality.

The final report on Jesus’ childhood is about an unusual family discord when he was age 12. It happened on an annual visit to Jerusalem Passover (from Nazareth) when Jesus remained behind.

When his parents found him, they were amazed. His mother said, “Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been very worried, and we have been searching for you!”
Jesus answered, “Why did you have to look for me? Didn’t you know that I would be in my Father’s house?”[j]  But they did not understand what he meant.
Jesus went back to Nazareth with his parents and obeyed them. His mother kept on thinking about all that had happened (Luke 2:48-51, CEV).

Mary thought about all that happened - more than I have included - and you can read more in Luke’s account, chapter 2.

There are few other references to this Mary. In one poignant moment she was part of a family “delegation” to try to get things back to “normal” (Joseph not mentioned):

Then Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him. They stood outside and sent word for him to come out and talk with them.  There was a crowd sitting around Jesus, and someone said, “Your mother and your brothers[f] are outside asking for you.”
Jesus replied, “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?”  Then he looked at those around him and said, “Look, these are my mother and brothers.  Anyone who does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mark 3:31-35, NLT)

Was that statement hard for Mary to hear?

John (alone) recounts an early incident directly involving Mary, which makes puzzling reading:

On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.  Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples.  When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”  And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”  His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.[a] Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim.  And he said to them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.” So they took it.  When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom  and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.”  This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.
After this he went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brothers[b] and his disciples, and they stayed there for a few days (John 2:1-12, ESV).

What was Mary’s connection to their host? It seems Mary was drawing their problem to the attention of Jesus. What did she expect of him? How is his reply to be interpreted? How did Mary interpret what Jesus said? All of the available information is there in the pericope and I think we can draw our own conclusions.

Another time the crowd pointed to Mary’s ordinariness to bolster their unwillingness to give credibility to Jesus. The account supports the idea that Mary was still resident in Nazareth with some family; again no mention of Joseph.

Jesus left there and went to his hometown of Nazareth. His disciples went with him.  When the Sabbath day came, he began to teach in the synagogue. Many who heard him were amazed.
“Where did this man get these things?” they asked. “What’s this wisdom that has been given to him? What are these remarkable miracles he is doing?  Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son? Isn’t this the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” They were not pleased with him at all.  Jesus said to them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own town. He doesn’t receive any honor among his relatives or in his own home.”  Jesus placed his hands on a few sick people and healed them. But he could not do any other miracles there.  He was amazed because they had no faith.
Jesus went around teaching from village to village (Mark 6:1-6, NIRV).

Yes, this is Mary’s son. And he is so very much more. He looks for each to trust him as he is and take him at his word. Mary was true to her promise and, despite any adversities or mis-steps, played her part in God's plan for salvation. Her son, Jesus, yet offers the alternative to the so easy destruction. He invites individuals into the mercy of God and calls them to God's purpose for life.

Did Paul meet Mary? (It is not recorded in the NT.) Without using her name, Paul has this neat encapsulation of the way of divine deliverance and adoption of individuals into God's family, though I (and possibly, most readers) was(were) not captive to the OT Law in the same way as the original recipients. (But, yes, we share the very same flawed humanity with need of the better way.)
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children.  And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our[b] hearts, crying, “Abba![c] Father!” So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God.[d] (Galatians 4: 4-7, NRSV).

Joseph had been told to name him Jesus (="Saviour"). Shepherds had been told there was a new-born Saviour to find in Bethlehem. Simeon had rejoiced to see the longed-for salvation of God (Jesus). Here was ground for rejoicing by all the people and all people. The priceless gift of eternal adoption will today bring anyone (you?) into family relationship with God.

Mary certainly had much to think of and she was firmly numbered with the followers. How much did trusting Mary know, not only of who this Jesus is but of why and what his coming meant?  There is a modern song (may be a little challenging) which asks the question, "Mary did you know?" - it is available via YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifCWN5pJGIE

Addendum

As a side issue: People may find the “birth narratives” or "virgin conception" hard to take seriously. There are no such traditions in the reports of Mark and John. They have no hint of these stories. In a weighty passage replete with ESV marginal notes, John does tell us the truth about this man:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own,[b] and his own people[c] did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son[d] from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.[e] For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God,[f] who is at the Father's side,[g] he has made him known (John 1:1-18, ESV).

Solid stuff there! (Other translations may be explored but the challenge will remain: Who, then, is this?)

If, in those early days, as seems likely, each Gospel document was originally and independently associated with a specific ancient location, then it would follow that there were early followers of Jesus who did not know the birth/childhood reports and they were simply left to live with the mystery of a man who was also so much more – their Saviour and Lord, the Lamb of God and Word of God. As the four Gospels became widely available, in time the picture would be filled out by Matthew and Luke. (Then, do Mark and John point a way ahead to anyone who struggles over the “virgin conception”?) Nonetheless, John presents an unavoidable challenge, as does Mark really, if read in totality, I think.

Separate and independent Gospel books? This is a complex question for commentators and books on NT Introduction. (Although I try to avoid speculation and external sources, I may in time put up a specific post.) At this stage I envisage a development something like this: Early disciples were “scattered” far and wide. They would have been quite independent, taking the news about Jesus and freedom from fear wherever they went. They were inspired, equipped and guided by the Holy Spirit. For resource they had the oral account of Jesus and the Greek OT, especially the prophets. To which places they first took that account is a fact largely lost in history. (The best way to get a glimpse of this period is to read the book of Acts.) In time, with Jesus’ return “delayed”, the meticulous oral records were turned into writing – which we know as the four Gospels. Successors would eventually need to adjudicate the role of rival documents - some of which are available today.

Scripture quotations marked (CEV) are from the Contemporary English Version Copyright © 1991, 1992, 1995 by American Bible Society, Used by Permission.

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NIRV) are taken from the Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL READER'S VERSION®.Copyright © 1996, 1998 Biblica. All rights reserved throughout the world. Used by permission of Biblica.

Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright ©1996, 2004, 2007, 2013 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NRSV) are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Bible text by copy and paste, courtesy

Bluelellerbible.org

BibleGateway.com

AL 22/10/24

Grace

Long ago, Mary of Nazareth was jolted by the arrival of Gabriel, God’s messenger, telling her she was to bear a son to be named Jesus. A son who would rule forever. She was assured that she had no need to be afraid. God had favoured her and was holding her in that favour.
And he came to her and said, ‘Greetings, favoured one! The Lord is with you.’[b] But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. The angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. (Luke 1:28-31, NRSV)

The word “favour“ in this passage is also translated by the word “grace”, or by “blessing”, or by “kindness”. The word we know as “grace” is found over 100 times in the NT.

Faith (v2)

Jesus encountered responses to himself which he judged as "faith".

When Jesus returned to Capernaum, a Roman officer^[b] came and pleaded with him, “Lord, my young servant^[c] lies in bed, paralyzed and in terrible pain.”
Jesus said, “I will come and heal him.”

Master

I am focussing this post on “Master”, a particular word from from Luke’s Gospel. The old English translations made frequent use of “Master” as address to Jesus. The KJV Gospels include the word 67 times. In the English of today that word is less frequent and raises issues of translation.

However, the name by which we know the Saviour of the World (Jesus) is not really the central issue.

Teacher

And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes. (Matthew 7:28-29, ESV) 

Lord (Edn2)

Lord/LORD

This very day in King David’s hometown a Savior was born for you. He is Christ the Lord. (Luke 2:11, CEV)

This sentence announcing the birth of Jesus is very familiar to many, although the version is a little different. I am using it to introduce that final word, “Lord”. This word is an example of one which requires translators and publishers to interpret for us.

An interaction from the last days of Jesus’ time on earth contains the same word used twice but with a difference.

Then, surrounded by the Pharisees, Jesus asked them a question: “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”
They replied, “He is the son of David.”
Jesus responded, “Then why does David, speaking under the inspiration of the Spirit, call the Messiah ‘my Lord’? For David said,
‘The LORD said to my Lord,
Sit in the place of honor at my right hand
    until I humble your enemies beneath your feet.’[a]
Since David called the Messiah ‘my Lord,’ how can the Messiah be his son?”
No one could answer him. And after that, no one dared to ask him any more questions. Matthew 22:41-46 (NLT)

Almost word for word, all three synoptic Gospels include Jesus quoting the Psalm (110), as part of a conversation between himself and Pharisees in Jerusalem during that final week. In that moment at least, that particular quotation, as Jesus used it, was a conversation stopper! Nothing more to be said! Surely that was an unforgettable and loaded moment.*

The three Gospels also have Jesus publicly introducing the inflammatory “Christ” word at that time. (The NLT translators have rendered that word, and pronouns, as “Messiah” - on which, see previous post re “Christ”).

I suppose then the moment was one in which you could “hear a pin drop”. Did they “hold their breath” waiting for what Jesus would say next about their “Messiah”? Was he hinting at a claim? This was Jerusalem at the time of the festival. How much would it take to get the people roused against the Romans (and the Jewish elite)? Did the governor (Pontius Pilate) have ears listening and reporting? (Very likely - how could he not?) Was there a sigh of relief as the “Christ” topic lapsed for a while until Jesus’ trial? (Then, at that juncture, despite the brevity of the account, does not Pilate appear informed on the political?)

The Psalm quotation brings up the “lord” word. The Greek Old Testament (OT) of the Psalm, known as the Septuagint (LXX), uses in both instances the one Greek word, “kurios/kyrios”. The Hebrew Psalm 110 text has different words. The first Hebrew word may be transliterated and perhaps represented by the unpronounced (see footnote) consonants “YHWH” (no vowels). The second word is the Hebrew equivalent of “lord”.

Two (at least) issues now come up. In over 6,000 places the translators of the old King James Bible represented the YHWH by “LORD”. (For example, Jeremiah includes the word over 600 times; Deuteronomy 438 times.) It is true that Exodus 6:4 says that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did not know God by God’s special name (“YHWH”) - see chapters 3-6 of Exodus. However, starting from 2:4, Genesis has the “YHWH” word 141 times; note especially 12:8. Superficially at least there is a conundrum here which can yield a fertile field for exploration and theorising.

In the NT (Jesus') quote from the Psalm above, the NLT, like the King James Version, retains the approach of representing the Hebrew Psalm’s word, “YHWH”, by LORD, even though the Greek (LXX and NT) uses the one and the same “kyrios” word (twice). We know this Greek word as “lord”. The “lord” word is used in differing ways, as for sir/Sir in English.

Here are two simple examples of words sharing the notion of subservience but used differently: “Yes, sir”, and, “Sir Dick Jones”. The word “lord” (“kyrios”) is similarly used differently and it requires thought as applied to Jesus. Leaving aside the matter of doing full justice to the OT LORD, notice that the use (or not) of capitalisation (Lord/lord) is interpretative - no help there in the original.

Jesus' contemporary, the powerful Roman "General" we know as Augustus reportedly would not allow the (Latin) word for "Lord" to be addressed to him.  He preferred "Caesar". This was in keeping with the public picture of his "first citizen" role being by "consent of the governed", or even desire of the citizens. (Despite expert opinion, I actually think it unlikely Augustus discouraged that word from slaves.)

Jesus brought up the word "Lord": Was there a tension at that time due also to that word?

Another well-known if unrecognised example of the use of the Greek “kyrios” to represent the OT’s “YHWH” had come in the quotation on the start of Jesus’ final week. Matthew 21, verse 9 includes words from Psalm 118:

 Jesus was in the center of the procession, and the people all around him were shouting,
“Praise God[a] for the Son of David!
    Blessings on the one who comes in the name of the LORD!
    Praise God in highest heaven!”[b] (NLT)

Once again translations take different approaches to the “kyrios”. NLT retains their Psalm rendition, though the Matthew text does not (can not) make the distinction.

Consider also this extract from the resurrection scene:

As soon as Mary said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there. But she did not know who he was. Jesus asked her, “Why are you crying? Who are you looking for?”
She thought he was the gardener and said, “Sir, if you have taken his body away, please tell me, so I can go and get him.”
Then Jesus said to her, “Mary!”
She turned and said to him, “Rabboni.” The Aramaic word “Rabboni” means “Teacher.”
Jesus told her, “Don’t hold on to me! I have not yet gone to the Father. But tell my disciples that I am going to the one who is my Father and my God, as well as your Father and your God.” Mary Magdalene then went and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord. She also told them what he had said to her. (John 20: 14-18, CEV)

The same “kyrios” (lord) word is translated as “sir” (to the supposed “gardener”) and as “Lord” - the one whom she had seen. Now look a little further on:

Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.” (John 20:28-29, NRSV)

That same “kyrios” word is given greater weight in the speech of the convinced Thomas. A title for Jesus - yes - but Thomas is making a personal commitment. This same commitment with Jesus’ blessing is open to you today.

Like in the case of “Christ”, the word “Lord” was closely identified with the person of the (risen) Jesus. The newly convinced Cleopas rushed back to Jerusalem with his friend to share their news.

And within the hour they were on their way back to Jerusalem. There they found the eleven disciples and the others who had gathered with them, who said, “The Lord has really risen! He appeared to Peter.[e]” (Luke 24: 33-34, NLT)

A report from the day of Jesus’ resurrection gives one clear New Testament (NT) use of “Lord” meaning “Almighty God”, or “The God of Heaven”. In Matthew 28: 2 we have:

There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. (NIV)

There was a time (or period) of ambivalence about the meaning of “Lord”, as addressed to Jesus. Here is a report from a highly significant moment:

From then on, Jesus began telling his disciples what would happen to him. He said, “I must go to Jerusalem. There the nation’s leaders, the chief priests, and the teachers of the Law of Moses will make me suffer terribly. I will be killed, but three days later I will rise to life.”
Peter took Jesus aside and told him to stop talking like that. He said, “God would never let this happen to you, Lord!”
Jesus turned to Peter and said, “Satan, get away from me! You’re in my way because you think like everyone else and not like God.” (Matthew 16: 21-23, CEV)

Peter is using the title “lord” (or, “Lord”) but - he rejects what Jesus has said and corrects him!

After the resurrection it is impossible to imagine Peter taking such an attitude. The truth about Jesus was plain to see - if one had eyes to see, that is. Still today, those with eyes to see can know him.

Here is Peter speaking for himself (post resurrection and post Pentecost):

Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah,[a] this Jesus whom you crucified.” Acts 2:36 (NRSV).

The book of Acts contains similar statements of conviction, as do almost all the other NT writings.

A convinced, dedicated, energetic and able man (Saul) was sincerely wrong and determined to overthrow any idea that Jesus was Lord, or Messiah, or Saviour.  He experienced an astonishing confrontation (Acts 9) and later as Paul was able to write of Jesus that he had been truly Servant and is indeed truly Lord (LORD) - see following. By reading the Gospels you may understand Jesus as the Servant of the Lord and the Lamb of God, humbly giving his life for your redemption and mine. I see the contrast between Jesus and the late Augustus' political "humility" and final end (still dominant). I wonder if Paul did not know of the Caesars' ways.

... Jesus Christ, who

though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,

but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.

And being found in human form,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.

Therefore God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,

so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:6-11 (NRSV)

ADDENDUM

Here now are two reports in which Jesus has severe words for community service under his “brand”, however intentioned, or even lip-service, and he has no time for trading on his title. (The same word “Lord” occurs in both places.) First see this grim warning contains a more central issue than questions about titles actually uttered…

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’  (Matthew 7:21-23, NRSV)

And we may compare Luke’s brief question:

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I tell you? (Luke 6:46, NRSV)

Luke’s comparable passage has similar context but is clearly not identical. We can hardly miss the similarity. (Do you know any substantial reason to exclude the possibility of Jesus saying similar things at different points in the chronology?)

The name you or I use for Jesus fades into insignificance beside what you or I "do with" him, what you or I do about what he said, what relationship you or I have with him (e.g., my Saviour, or, the Saviour?).

Footnote
The Unpronounced Name of God
The old translations understood JHVH to represent the Hebrew. Vowels (pointings) of another substituted Hebrew word (for "Lord") were attached (in the text) to the consonants. (This indicated the word to be pronounced.) Using those vowels and the consonants our translators later created our word “Jehovah”, though they included the word sparingly. More recently the representation is YHWH and the researchers believe the vowels needed are provided by rendering the name as “Yahweh”. Wld Mss rcgns tht wrd f prnncd b n f s d nt knw nd dbt thr s n wy t tll. = Would Moses recognise that word if pronounced by one of us? I do not know and doubt there is any way to tell.

Language is a multi-faceted phenomenon and other language direct equivalence and correct pronunciation are difficult. Even for those with English as their first language spoken English can be hard - ever heard someone with an impenetrable “accent”? A Scot speaking may be hard for me to understand, but if the same words are sung (eg, in a hymn) - no problem.

I find no hint in the NT that Jesus or his followers spent any time on the (puzzle of the) unpronounced name. As shown above, in their translated form, words which originally were of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are used of Jesus. 

Do not misuse my name. I am the LORD your God, and I will punish anyone who misuses my name. (Exodus 20:7, CEV)

How and when did the “unique” name of Exodus 3 become unpronounced? A puzzle indeed, to which answers are given. But, would ceasing to pronounce “God” or “Lord”, and instead using another substitute word, enable the sanction to be avoided? Is there more to it?

God is wanting those who will give their trust to communicate directly with God.

*Aramaic? IF the Aramaic language was used between Jesus and the Pharisees, that could make a different question. However, although there are trace Aramaic words in the Greek New Testament, no Aramaic version has yet been published. Our oldest version of the New Testament documents are Greek. They are represented in vary large quantity; far, far, more I think than any other writing from the era.

Scripture quotations marked (CEV) are from the Contemporary English Version Copyright © 1991, 1992, 1995 by American Bible Society, Used by Permission.

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright ©1996, 2004, 2007, 2013 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NRSV) are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

AL

16/08/24

The Augustus Connection (Edn 2)

The Augustus (AVGVSTVS) Connection

In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. (Luke 2:1, NRSV).

This line about events relating to the Lucan account of the birth of Jesus refers to the “princeps” of Rome, Gaius Julius Caesar Octavian. He was born 23 September 63 BC (BCE) as Gaius Octavianus, otherwise known as Octavian (and, from January, 27 BC, as Augustus). Jesus’ birth, on any reckoning, came long after the Senate had granted the honour (Augustus) to Octavian.

Christ

Christ

(edited5)

Matthew 16:13-23 (ESV) has this account of a week of special significance to the Biblical understanding of Jesus:
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”  And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”  He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”  Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Carpenter

The Carpenter who was Different

This is good and pleases God our Savior,  who wants everyone to be saved and to understand the truth.  For, there is one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus.  He gave his life to purchase freedom for everyone. This is the message God gave to the world at just the right time. I Timothy 2: 3-6 (NLT)

We could read this passage as “wants humans to be saved … reconcile God and humans – the human Christ Jesus”. The same word, used in either the plural or singular form, thus gives an “incidental” emphasis on the definite humanness of Jesus, who is, nonetheless, the Christ. It would surely be a stretch to think that in one part of the sentence the “human” refers to beings like us, but carries a different meaning when applied to Jesus. (Of course there is more to it, much more. No other human can reconcile God and humanity. No one else could purchase our ransom.)

Ruins of Synagogues (Capernaum) - see below

In the letter to the Romans, in his explanation of the new destiny for humans, Paul draws on Jesus’ being a human:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned—  sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law.  Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come.  But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man’s trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many.  And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification.  If, because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.  Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.  For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.  But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,  so that, just as sin exercised dominion in death, so grace might also exercise dominion through justification[f] leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. 5: 12-19 (NRSV)

Adam is clearly portrayed as a man. That man, Adam, is put in parallel with the man, Jesus. Once again, there is more to it – a lot more – but at the base two humans are compared and contrasted. (And - how different the inheritance available in Christ.)

What did his contemporaries think of “The Man”, that is, Christ Jesus? My previous post, on the (non-Biblical) word “Christmas”, explored the reality of his being in our world like us (though, unlike us, he truly was “sent” and “came”). Prior to Jesus’ resurrection from the dead it must have been a particular kind of challenge to understand who he was; there is some information available in the NT. (After the resurrection it was a different challenge.)

How today to get to know the “real Jesus”? I advocate quite simply reading the Gospels as a whole; then read them again! Let the books speak to you. (You can now click off here and go to the text.)

Still with me? Well then, I can focus on some of the Gospel pericopes.

Like Paul and for all observant male Jews, Jesus was circumcised. We find in the birth account:

Eight days later Jesus' parents did for him what the Law of Moses commands.[e] And they named him Jesus, just as the angel had told Mary when he promised she would have a baby. Luke 2:21 (CEV)

From further on we have Luke chapter 2: 41-52 (NRSV):

Now every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover.  And when he was twelve years old, they went up as usual for the festival.  When the festival was ended and they started to return, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but his parents did not know it.  Assuming that he was in the group of travelers, they went a day’s journey. Then they started to look for him among their relatives and friends.  When they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem to search for him.  After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.  And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.  When his parents[a] saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, “Child, why have you treated us like this? Look, your father and I have been searching for you in great anxiety.”  He said to them, “Why were you searching for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?”[b]  But they did not understand what he said to them.  Then he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them. His mother treasured all these things in her heart.  And Jesus increased in wisdom and in years,[c] and in divine and human favor.

The “lost child” episode seems to me natural enough, whether Jesus felt impelled to be about his Father’s business or in his house (alternative renderings).  I think it important not to over-interpret Jesus’ activity in the Temple. What does it show us – a boy who wanted to learn? Then, in passing, as it were, we read that God was pleased by Jesus as he grew, and so, correspondingly, were people.  (How did Luke get to give God’s assessment?  Perhaps his meaning is unclear but has to do with absorption of Scripture.) I think Jesus went on displaying behaviour and interests (including knowledge and understanding of God) appropriate to his age but that he successfully navigated the temptations of youth, etc.  Did he go to “Nazareth Synagogue school”? (Was there a school in tiny Nazareth? The one archaeological find from 1st Century Nazareth I have seen is a stone slab inscribed with death penalty demands for tomb seal breakers or body-snatchers! IBD, p1061)

Along with “The Law", Jesus no doubt learnt his “trade” from his father. The OT  has repeated injunctions on the responsibility of a parent (father), such as: Deuteronomy 6: 1-7

 “These are the commands, decrees, and regulations that the Lord your God commanded me to teach you. You must obey them in the land you are about to enter and occupy,  and you and your children and grandchildren must fear the Lord your God as long as you live. If you obey all his decrees and commands, you will enjoy a long life.  Listen closely, Israel, and be careful to obey. Then all will go well with you, and you will have many children in the land flowing with milk and honey, just as the Lord, the God of your ancestors, promised you.  “Listen, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone.[a]  And you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength.  And you must commit yourselves wholeheartedly to these commands that I am giving you today.  Repeat them again and again to your children. Talk about them when you are at home and when you are on the road, when you are going to bed and when you are getting up. (NLT)

How many “apprentice” carpenters did Joseph train? How many of his “graduates” worked in tiny Nazareth? Many questions of interest simply can not have definitive answers.

Palestine was a “multi-cultural” society and this was reflected in the language mix. An interesting 8th Century BC episode is recorded in Isaiah 36, pointing to the future role of Aramaic. (We see that the Persian commander and Hezekiah's officials spoke both Aramaic and Hebrew, but the ordinary folk understood only Hebrew.)  Aramaic was imposed for more than two centuries under the defunct Persian Empire and it became the vernacular. Post-Alexander, Persian influence was succeeded by Hellenisation (Greek culture, including language) – which had been thrust upon the Jewish community to the point of rebellion. More recently the Romans had taken over and they added their Latin to that society.

To a greater or lesser extent populations were inevitably immersed in the “foreign” tongues, etc.  (As in the case of most of us, immersion in language from infancy - or before! - is seen as an effective means for language acquisition.) Furthermore, some level of impact must follow from interaction with travellers from the widespread Jewish populations in the Empire and beyond. Jesus’ society perforce was multilingual.

Formal Hebrew education was developed in Jewish society as a counter to ‘foreign’ influences.

The Hebrew Bible (OT) was treasured and taught. The Greek Bible (ie, the LXX) was a valued and widely used resource. As well as the vernacular Aramaic (his first language), did Jesus acquire Greek and even some Latin? Could he read Greek, the major language of commerce? They would have been important and useful language skills at that time, especially as he plied his trade (and even more so if he was employed in [Roman] developments like nearby capital city Sepphoris).

To me it seems likely that Jesus used these languages. However, there is no unassailable evidence I have seen. Linguistically interesting NT episodes there are. We find Jesus speaking with a “Greek” Syro-Phonecian woman (Mark 7:24-30), and being approached by Greeks (John 12:20-36). In Acts there is a note related to the issue: Intervening in what was an unintelligible “Hebrew” (Aramaic?) uproar, note the Roman officer being surprised to find that Paul conversed fluently in Greek (Acts 21:37). Maybe the officer had little personal knowledge of Jews?

“The Beginning” and traces of previous life

Within the record of the post-carpenter stage of his life I find echoes or suggestions of Jesus prior. Luke has a brief introductory note (Luke 3:23) which continued on with a lengthy list of ancestors. He tells us Jesus was about 30 years old when he started all this and was thought of as the son of Joseph. (The place of Joseph was a given.) Jesus had “come of age”, but by our reckoning his age is imprecise (perhaps like the stories of indigenous people who have no birth-date record). There is no certainty for the year Jesus left carpentry, nor of Jesus’ birth year and certainly no date of birth. (Seems to me 25/12/0000 is really unlikely to be correct!) Do you think it is significant that there is no date?

One instance of connection with Jesus’ prior life comes at someone’s (a relative’s?) wedding. John 2:3-4 (CEV):

When the wine was all gone, Mary said to Jesus, “They don’t have any more wine.”  Jesus replied, “Mother, my time hasn’t yet come:[a] You must not tell me what to do.” 

This passage presents difficulty and it is given various translations. The CEV has an attractive solution. Whatever translation, tantalising questions must remain: How did Mary get involved? Why did Mary speak to Jesus about a wine shortage? What did Mary expect next? 

Our text has no details on the other years. Some indications suggest earlier life. In Mark, chapter 3: 20-35 (ESV), we find views of Jesus amongst those from “around him”, and amongst those who wanted to be less close to him!

Then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could not even eat.  And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.” (‘Home’ became Capernaum? When did Jesus move there?) More significantly, the way Jesus was acting now was unexpected and unusual and seemed to his close people (his “friends”, in older renditions, or, “family”) to be symptomatic of something being wrong with him.  I think it became less and less unusual for Jesus to astound, but this moment, reported by Mark alone (!), reflects the reaction of those close to him; people who thought they knew him well. Maybe the rendering ‘friends’ could reflect the importance to Jesus of friends? It gives a passing glimpse of his life as a villager. (Surely the “beside himself” reaction puts to rest any theory that his own people were familiar with Jesus having acted thus in the past. So I say, notwithstanding the episode at the wedding.)

However, others found deadly explanations for this Jesus the inexplicable. (Their attitude would culminate in the death penalty.)

And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.”  And he called them to him and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan?  If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.  And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.  And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end.  But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house.  “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter,  but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” -  for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”(Mark 3:22-30, ESV)

With this atmosphere of controversy and adverse “official” notice it can hardly be surprising that Jesus’ family wanted to extract him from these situations. They wanted to help. (All of the synoptics recount the moment.)

 And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him.  And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers[c] are outside, seeking you.”  And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?”  And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers!  For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mark 3:31-34, ESV)

Relationships had changed – for good. (Joseph does not appear here - do you think that has significance?)

On one remembered occasion Jesus returned to his home town.

Jesus went back to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and as usual he went to the meeting place on the Sabbath (Luke 4:16, CEV).

Presumably Jesus had been in that Synagogue on many a Sabbath. As Luke alone (!) tells us, attendance was in his life pattern, his ethos. (What had it been like there for him, time after time, over those years…?) I suppose there in Nazareth he had plied his trade and had been known favourably. But now times were changing… See how it is reported by Mark: 6:1-6 (CEV):

Jesus left and returned to his hometown[a] with his disciples.  The next Sabbath he taught in the Jewish meeting place. Many of the people who heard him were amazed and asked, “How can he do all this? Where did he get such wisdom and the power to work these miracles?  Isn’t he the carpenter,[b] the son of Mary? Aren’t James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon his brothers? Don’t his sisters still live here in our town?” The people were very unhappy because of what he was doing.

But Jesus said, “Prophets are honored by everyone, except the people of their hometown and their relatives and their own family.”  Jesus could not work any miracles there, except to heal a few sick people by placing his hands on them.  He was surprised that the people did not have any faith. Jesus taught in all the neighboring villages.

What was it that made them so unhappy? Would it have been different if Jesus had come back alone? I wonder how long he had been away from Nazareth. Although Jesus held no illusions about human nature, we see that Jesus could wonder at people – here at their refusal to believe. (The same word expressed Jesus’ wonder at the Roman army officer’s confidence in him – see Luke 7:9.)

Matthew has a variation (13:55, CEV):

Isn’t he the son of the carpenter? Isn’t Mary his mother, and aren’t James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas his brothers?

Note Luke also refers to the scandal of Nazareth (4:22, CEV): All the people started talking about Jesus and were amazed at the wonderful things he said. They kept on asking, “Isn’t he Joseph’s son?”

What was going on? Surely he was a tradesman, not a miracle-worker or trained rabbi.

Nicodemus (a Pharisee) had a very different assessment of Jesus:

After dark one evening, he came to speak with Jesus. “Rabbi,” he said, “we all know that God has sent you to teach us. Your miraculous signs are evidence that God is with you.” (John 3:2, NLT).

Those in the scene at Nazareth looked unwilling to give Jesus the title of Rabbi!

From these sources I see that Jesus was known as a carpenter (worker in solid materials). Probably he had been trained by his earthly father-figure, Joseph. The Nazareth occasion is almost the last mention of Joseph. John has a similar moment (6:41-42, ESV):

So the Jews grumbled about him (Jesus), because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”  They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

John 7:14-16 (ESV) records surprise at Jesus’ “unauthorised” teaching:

About the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and began teaching.  The Jews therefore marveled, saying, “How is it that this man has learning,[a] when he has never studied?”  So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.

These people would not use the title, “Rabbi” of Jesus. It was evidently well enough known that Jesus had not done “rabbinical studies”. Unlike Saul (Paul), Jesus had not advanced beyond the bulk of his cohort!

As you read the Gospels you will find that Jesus used everyday stories and comparisons which made his teaching memorable. Categories include agriculture, household (cleaning, cooking, chores etc), fishing, health, building construction, carpentry, real estate, OT events, employment, courts, religion, current affairs, and armed force. Those illustrations came from his own experience or observation. Perhaps they may give us a glimpse of his earlier days and of his childhood home.

So there is a dearth of biographical detail of the Jesus prior to his "beginning" at about 30 years.  How do you interpret the absence of a record?

Finally, here again is 1 Timothy 2:3-6, this time adapted from CEV:

This kind of prayer is good, and it pleases God our Savior. God wants everyone to be saved and to know the whole truth, which is,

There is only one God,

and Christ Jesus is the only one

who can bring us to God.

Jesus was truly human,

and he gave himself to rescue all of us. 

God showed us this at the right time.

this, then, is the Jesus of whom I write, and whose work is crucial and critical for me and for you.

Bibliography: R. Buth, "Aramaic Language",  Dictionary of NT Background, (Downers Grove, Il: IVP,  2000)

Scripture quotations marked (CEV) are from the Contemporary English Version Copyright © 1991, 1992, 1995 by American Bible Society, Used by Permission.

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright ©1996, 2004, 2007, 2013 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved. 

Scripture quotations marked (NRSV) are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.