Jesus: earliest days (v3)

Jesus : the early years - by Luke (1&2); +

 

Embryo; newborn; infant; boy: Reading Luke is a good starting point to know Jesus.

The text of the opening of Luke’s Gospel follows in order below, interrupted by my comments. (The text is unique to Luke.) Unique contribution from Matthew then follows below. This post will inevitably overlap and duplicate earlier posts of mine. However, my approach this time is different.

Pre-natal

Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples.[a] Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write an accurate account for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught.
(Luke 1:1-4,  NLT)

Many, then. were the early accounts of Jesus. Many more were the oral eyewitness reports. That, Luke knew. He did not discount all other efforts. Luke was not to know it, but we ended up with his document and Matthew, Mark and John. (Claiming attention even today there are old fanciful documents which present Jesus as a prodigy.) Luke wants to ensure his reader has the facts straight and is reassured about what he has heard. What had he heard? Things were fulfilled among those who became followers of Jesus and their community. The task had been completed but the results remained - and still do. There were events, events that carry meaning. Final words from God were heard.
To read on in the text with prayerful attention is to participate in what God did in sending Jesus. Luke will take care in his compilation of pericopes from the eyewitnesses. Maybe he drew on the then available written sources? As we would have guessed, oral eyewitness accounts were being shared from the outset to explain Jesus and his doings and to explain and evoke trust in him. (Of Luke himself we read a little more in Acts.)

So, we begin the account....

In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest of Abijah’s division named Zechariah. His wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. Both were righteous in God’s sight, living without blame according to all the commands and requirements of the Lord. But they had no children because Elizabeth could not conceive, and both of them were well along in years. (Luke 1:5-7, CSB)

Herod (the Great) died in 4 BCE in our calendar - thus contributing to a nativity date estimate. Herod the king (Roman appointed) was long remembered - and he is still.

Names from Jewish antiquity begin to appear in the narrative: Abijah, Aaron, priests; well known to the Jews of the time. (More to come.) The elderly couple, Zechariah and Elizabeth, as we will see, would typify many of the Jews of their day (but certainly not all). There is a reason these were in the Jesus reports. I think we can see why the matter of John and his parentage was given space by Luke…

Now while he was serving as priest before God when his division was on duty, according to the custom of the priesthood, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense. And the whole multitude of the people were praying outside at the hour of incense. And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And Zechariah was troubled when he saw him, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb. And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.” (Luke 1:8-17, ESV)

Enter the Jerusalem (Second) Temple, centrepiece of then Jewish religious practice, with a glimpse of the routine followed there. Luke assumes his reader is familiar with the Jewish priesthood, which ceased to function after the Romans removed their Temple in 70 CE. Priests no doubt valued their chance to be in the holy place. All was routine and predictable in that role - but not the appearance of a messenger. Zechariah’s prayer had been heard - I presume here “heard” means granted. It has happened. Was Elizabeth already pregnant? That would fit. We are not told what he had prayed for... A child actually seems unlikely. Perhaps there is a clue to his prayer in the words he spoke over his 8 day old son (below; 57-80). Zechariah's prayer was answered in ways he could not have anticipated.

The (amongst the Jews) well-known name of Elijah appears in the narrative. He was expected to lead a national revival and set up the scene for their Messiah (the Christ). Many would rejoice to hear of John. John-Elijah was to go before - the Lord their God. By John’s work many hearts would be turned - they needed turning and encouraging to be ready for Jesus. It is all too easy to be good at religion, but detached from God. Disobedience is a fatal problem, apart from salvation. Many but not all would be turned. (I wonder what percentage of the Jewish population of Judea and Galilee, etc, were positively impacted…). "to the children": Were contemporary parents routinely dismissive of children? Certainly Jesus was not. Later he would rebuke followers who wanted to turn children away. The passage strongly reflects Old Testament (OT) words from Malachi (4:5-6). This was important news, longed-for good news.

Apparently Zechariah could have recognised this troubling speaker was the direct messenger of God. I wonder how? Probably it is to do with manner of the Angel's extraordinary appearance beside the altar. (As to angels in general - more than once they are mistaken for another human - I reject the Christmas card depictions. Even here fearful Zechariah carries on a person-to-person conversation.)

Zechariah asked the angel, “How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years.”
The angel said to him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words, which will come true at their appointed time.”
Meanwhile, the people were waiting for Zechariah and wondering why he stayed so long in the temple. When he came out, he could not speak to them. They realized he had seen a vision in the temple, for he kept making signs to them but remained unable to speak.
When his time of service was completed, he returned home. After those days his wife Elizabeth conceived, and for five months she remained in seclusion. She said, “This is what the Lord has done for me when he looked favorably on me and took away the disgrace I have endured among my people.” (Luke 1:18-25, NIV)

We hear the name, “Gabriel”. This name appears in (OT) Daniel 8 and 9. We meet this messenger again further on. Zechariah had been “good newsed” by the messenger - the announcement of good tidings. But Zechariah is sceptical, he knows their history and the facts of life - he wants to know how he could be expected to accept such a message? How could he come to know it was true? Perhaps the good news of Jesus may meet a similar response. Certainly it was so in that day. (There were no more recorded instances of the loss of speech.) I wonder why Elizabeth kept that low profile? Maybe it was too risky to be public?

 

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. The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him 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 ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”[b] The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born[c] will be holy; he will be called Son of God. And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren. For nothing will be impossible with God.” Then Mary said, “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her (Luke 1:26-38, NRSV).

 

Again we have Gabriel, and the connection with that John. John’s mother is a relative of Mary, Jesus’ mother. John was thus just about 6 months older than Jesus. Now, another baby is coming into the world with really huge consequences, even bigger consequences with no end.

I note the future tenses: will conceive; will bear; will come upon; will overshadow. So it was possible for (presumably young) Mary to turn this down, for Jesus' conception had not taken place. Mary had a choice to make. She was invited to be a unique and key part of God's salvation plan for us and the world. God invites.

Jesus’ ancestor was David, famous in their history. Jesus shares the name of Joshua, meaning “The LORD is Salvation”. This deliverer, Jesus, however, will reign for always in the Davidic kingdom over “the house of Jacob”. Notice, the promise appears to be unconditional and invokes the entire Israelite people. (I think we will see the extent of the kingdom is even greater than the messenger apparently said.)

Mary’s confusion is natural - evidently she knew how conception happened but she had no experience of sexual intercourse. She was "engaged" - a legally binding commitment. Surely she is to continue as she has done up till that point? What did it mean? The rest of that incredible message she simply accepted. She accepts that Jesus’ conception is by the direct action of God. No biological human father for Jesus.

 

In those days Mary set out and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judah where she entered Zechariah’s house and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped inside her, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Then she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and your child will be blessed![a] How could this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For you see, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped for joy inside me. Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill what he has spoken to her!”

And Mary said:

My soul magnifies the Lord, 
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
 because he has looked with favor
 on the humble condition of his servant.
 Surely, from now on all generations
 will call me blessed,
 because the Mighty One
 has done great things for me,
 and his name is holy.
 His mercy is from generation to generation 
on those who fear him.
 He has done a mighty deed with his arm;
 he has scattered the proud 
because of the thoughts of their hearts;
 he has toppled the mighty from their thrones
 and exalted the lowly.
 He has satisfied the hungry with good things 
and sent the rich away empty.
 He has helped his servant Israel,
 remembering his mercy 
to Abraham and his descendants[b] forever,
 just as he spoke to our ancestors.

And Mary stayed with her about three months; then she returned to her home (Luke 1:39-56, CSB).

 

Perhaps Mary felt she needed wise counsel? Did Mary not have anyone closer? She went. So we see that the home of Zechariah and Elizabeth was closer to Jerusalem than the homes of Mary and Joseph.  Elizabeth’s reaction to Mary was by the work of the Holy Spirit - the same Spirit who was the cause of Mary’s pregnancy. This was a unique moment! Elizabeth knows that Mary has believed God’s message - unlike her mute husband, priest Zechariah.  Mary’s "song" is striking - was it also inspired by God at that very moment or was it from later? She rejoices in God’s mighty act, seeing the usual order of things turned upside down and the ancient promises fulfilled in her yet unborn son. She may be, and was, a humble village lass of no special importance. God has no problem with Mary’s lack of status!

The household - Zechariah, Elizabeth and Mary - must have had many a conversation in that three months. There was a lot to discuss, but Zechariah had to listen and use notes. I wonder how patient he was. Mary's return would coincide, I think, with her beginning to "show". What was the response of her community? Did Joseph hear of scandal? Could Mary not alert him? As Matthew, chapter 1, tells us (see below), Joseph was disturbed!

When Elizabeth’s son was born, her neighbors and relatives heard how kind the Lord had been to her, and they too were glad.
Eight days later they did for the child what the Law of Moses commands.[a] They were going to name him Zechariah, after his father. But Elizabeth said, “No! His name is John.”
The people argued, “No one in your family has ever been named John.” So they motioned to Zechariah to find out what he wanted to name his son.
Zechariah asked for a writing tablet. Then he wrote, “His name is John.” Everyone was amazed. Right away, Zechariah started speaking and praising God.
All the neighbors were frightened because of what had happened, and everywhere in the hill country people kept talking about these things. Everyone who heard about this wondered what this child would grow up to be. They knew that the Lord was with him.
The Holy Spirit came upon Zechariah, and he began to speak:
Praise the Lord, the God of Israel!
He has come to save his people.
 Our God has given us a mighty Savior[b]
 from the family of David his servant.
 Long ago the Lord promised
by the words of his holy prophets
 to save us from our enemies 
and from everyone who hates us.
 God said he would be kind to our people 
and keep his sacred promise.
 He told our ancestor Abraham
 that he would rescue us from our enemies.
 Then we could serve him without fear,
 by being holy and good as long as we live.
You, my son, will be called 
a prophet of God in heaven above.
 You will go ahead of the Lord
 to get everything ready for him.
 You will tell his people that they can be saved
 when their sins are forgiven.
 God’s love and kindness will shine upon us
like the sun that rises in the sky.[c]
 On us who live 
in the dark shadow of death
 this light will shine
to guide us into a life of peace.

As John grew up, God’s Spirit gave him great power. John lived in the desert until the time he was sent to the people of Israel (Luke 1:57-80, CEV).

 

People somehow got a fright. This was not the only time awareness of God at work caused fear to people. The "Law of Moses" was carefully followed by many an observant Jew. This particularly refers to the first five books of the OT.  The people, and we, hear a remarkable word from John’s father, Zechariah. He has taken in the significance of Mary’s story and Elizabeth’s response. Zechariah has understood what God was doing in the coming of Jesus. Mary’s pregnancy had about 6 months to run but Zechariah sees the bigger picture. He knows that a Mighty Saviour is at hand. That peace would be - from war, or, with God?

Notice that Zechariah told his newborn son: You will tell his people that they can be saved
when their sins are forgiven. God's forgiveness is the key; that forgiveness is directly available through Jesus. Salvation is the gift of God. (See also - https://www.jesussaviour4unme.com/2015/11/save.html ). The message to Joseph was: Then after her baby is born, name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:21, CEV).

That word "sin" is frequent in the Bible. Over 25% of the NT instances are in the Gospels including more than 40 in Luke (NRSV count by computer).  However, it is important the word is not simply read as "sex". (See also https://www.jesussaviour4unme.com/2017/09/sinners-friend.html)

No doubt we can assume the growing John was informed by his parents of his role and the nature of his young relative. "In the desert" looks to be a significant statement. 

(Why named "John"? Did John have connection with the Qumran community? When did John and Jesus first actually meet, I wonder? Was it prior to John’s campaign in the Jordan valley?)

About that time Emperor Augustus gave orders for the names of all the people to be listed in record books[a]. These first records were made when Quirinius was governor of Syria[b].
(Luke 2:1-2,CEV)

Luke again gives a dating note. The roles and operations of Quirinius would be prominent in community knowledge at the time. We note the typically grandiose language ascribed to Augustus - all the people to be listed. The purpose of this census would be future taxation.

Assuming Luke is accurate, the date is not available to us. Quirinius is known as governor in Syria in 6 CE. That does not fit with the estimates for Jesus’ birth. (It would be foolish to assert complete Roman administrative details have been handed down to our day.) Some of the Bible versions tell us that the “when” may be translated otherwise. Luke’s point becomes clear as we read on.

 

Birth

 

So everyone went to be registered, each to his own town. Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family line of David, to be registered along with Mary, who was engaged to him[c] and was pregnant. While they were there, the time came for her to give birth. Then she gave birth to her firstborn son, and she wrapped him tightly in cloth and laid him in a manger[d], because there was no guest room available for them.

(Luke 2:3-7, CSB)

Luke tells us how pregnant Mary came to be away from home for her time to deliver. Seems to be an emphasis on her “condition”, although we well knew that already. Her delivery room - what was that like? Did Luke know? The details are not given except for the one word, “manger”. This version gives “feeding trough”, another version gives “bed of hay”. I think we get the idea, as we note the little family could not be accommodated where they probably expected to be. Where did they expect to be? They may have looked forward to a guest-room (see 22:11 for the same word). No definitive answer on that. Then, where were they? They were wherever you could find that manger! Rather than in a human space the birth was in an animal space where they found refuge. I see an early instance of how Jesus
“but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form”.., (Philippians 2:7, NRSV), as Paul the apostle put it for us. There was even more to it. It would all take time for realisation to dawn; for there to be progressive understanding of the Son of God, his having taken perishable human flesh.
The details of Mary’s confinement are regularly and routinely recounted amongst us - by guesswork. The traditional depiction is well known. There are groundless sentimental reconstructions, like the hymn's "how silently the wondrous gift is giv'n". Impossible to imagine that Mary could silently give birth to her first-born - (https://hymnary.org/text/o_little_town_of_bethlehem ); and, if the little newborn actually made no crying, that would be alarming!

And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear. And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.” And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!”[d] When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us.” And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger. And when they saw it, they made known the saying that had been told them concerning this child. And all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them. But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them.

(Luke 2:8-20, ESV)

It seems shepherds occupied one of the lowest rungs in their society. (That contrasts with Jesus later describing himself as “Good Shepherd” and with the OT image of God as shepherd of his people, and so on.) Well, it should come as no surprise that bottom-rungers could be the first to hear the incredible news of the arrival of the Saviour. We have already seen that God involved the lowly in this event. Ordinary people occupy the centre-stage, starting with Zechariah and Elizabeth. Much more so this is true of Mary. None of the “mighty ones” are seen, though there were some in the well-to-do who belonged to God. Jesus took the form of a slave. His contemporaries had no doubt that he was a man, just a man, and many were annoyed that he got “above himself”. (Their problem lay in their “just”.)

The Judean shepherds may have been the first to hear - why them? If Luke knew he does not tell us. A Saviour was born, the shepherds were told. He did not only come to seek, it was to save he came, and when we call him Saviour, then we call him by his name. (So runs an old song.)

The announcement was convincing! No "permanent record" of this birth, which was ordinary and symbolic of the status of this infant. I can not imagine the messenger (angel), nor imagine the heavenly host. Of course they want glory to God, for see what God is doing, has done, will do. God's glory is shown in Christ coming into this life, for us and for our salvation. Among us humans they wish our great need - peace.

No surprise the shepherds went to see for themselves. What happened to the flock? Hopefully it was safe! Did the shepherds take a gift to the little family? Seems unlikely. Surely there were people about who had heard the "goings-on" and could direct the shepherds to the right place.

Mary and Joseph and other people were given the story by the shepherds. People were impressed about the nature of the announcement and the possible significance of the tiny human now in Judea. I guess there followed much speculative talk about that visiting family. However, the shepherds would surely be speaking with people of “their own kind”. I see no reason to think the “great ones” would hear.
Mary (and Joseph perhaps) have even more to think about. They must have talked about the things they had seen and heard.
At this juncture Jesus is a new-born in an unidentified address on an unspecified date. The town we know, but 2,000 years on nothing would remain. (In actual fact a grim fate then lay some decades ahead - see below.) I think it is just as well the actual spot, and even date, is shrouded in uncertainty. There is enough sentimental stuff as it is and the point is not made by sweet thoughts or happy travel. Look again at the announcements.
The shepherds knew the point! They gave thanks to God and praised God as they went back to their flock. One element to their rejoicing was what they had seen with their own eyes - a baby boy in a manger. That would have been so unexpected for the Christ prior to that night; baby yes, manger no! Very likely the shepherds continued all their days to tell anyone who would listen.

Post-Natal

On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived. When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord” ), and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”

(Luke 2:21-24, NIV)

For the first time visiting Jerusalem comes into the narrative. We see a little family obedient to the message they had been given and humbly acting in accordance with the directions of their Bible. They are numbered amongst the poor who make offering, or they numbered themselves in that group. If they went from Bethlehem, that was conveniently close. Now there are three in the party. We will read a little more of the family travels to Jerusalem before Joseph passes from the picture. (During all of this period Herod’s building and site works were continuing. That whole project must have been completed before Jesus’ final visit.)

At that time there was a man in Jerusalem named Simeon. He was righteous and devout and was eagerly waiting for the Messiah to come and rescue Israel. The Holy Spirit was upon him and had revealed to him that he would not die until he had seen the Lord’s Messiah. That day the Spirit led him to the Temple. So when Mary and Joseph came to present the baby Jesus to the Lord as the law required, Simeon was there. He took the child in his arms and praised God, saying,

 “Sovereign Lord, now let your servant die in peace,

 as you have promised.

I have seen your salvation,

which you have prepared for all people.

He is a light to reveal God to the nations,

and he is the glory of your people Israel!”

Jesus’ parents were amazed at what was being said about him. Then Simeon blessed them, and he said to Mary, the baby’s mother, “This child is destined to cause many in Israel to fall, and many others to rise. He has been sent as a sign from God, but many will oppose him. As a result, the deepest thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your very soul.” Anna, a prophet, was also there in the Temple. She was the daughter of Phanuel from the tribe of Asher, and she was very old. Her husband died when they had been married only seven years. Then she lived as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the Temple but stayed there day and night, worshiping God with fasting and prayer. She came along just as Simeon was talking with Mary and Joseph, and she began praising God. She talked about the child to everyone who had been waiting expectantly for God to rescue Jerusalem. (Luke 2:25-38, NLT)

If Luke wrote in Greek he said Simeon was expecting to see the Lord’s Christ. Was Simeon expecting to see a baby? Note the specific reference to God’s Spirit at work. This man’s experience was unique. Now he had seen Jesus - so he had seen God's salvation. What's more - he has seen the fulfilment of the ancient plan and promises, for he has seen - Jesus.

Who was Simeon? We do not need to know more. His message to Mary in particular was a warning of what was to come in about 30 years. Or, was it even sooner - when Jesus began his preaching and antagonism would become fierce. Simeon knows his own time is done - perhaps he was very old. He had seen the One he longed to see. He has seen a very young infant, but he is sure he has seen the promised salvation and the expected destiny of God's people. What did people need the longed-for saving from? Rome? Corruption? Hatred? Violence? Evil leaders? Warped religion? God's Judgement?

Simeon knew that Jesus’ coming was for the world. Jesus can make God known everywhere.

Anna’s insight is unexplained - it seems as if she heard Simeon and recognised his role? There were other people willing to listen to her. Not everyone. There were those looking to see God act - to see Jerusalem freed or rescued. Perhaps they were thinking of God getting rid of the government for good? They had such a complex history with God, which would prove a hindrance to their understanding Jesus as Saviour. Certainly they wanted to see God act. (The OT prophet had warned that the Day of the Lord is not to be taken lightly; Amos 5:18, etc.)

When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. 

The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him. 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 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?” 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, and in divine and human favor.

(Luke 2:39-52, NRSV)

Again the point that these people took God's directions seriously. Looks to be a bit of an emphasis on the relocation to Galilee, to their own town, but what was the chronology? (This does not obviously fit with Matthew’s account of the family having to flee to Egypt.)

Clear it is that there was a regular visit to Jerusalem as the years passed. It is also clear that Joseph and Mary had great confidence in their boy, Jesus. They no doubt realised they did not fully understand him.

Who made the mistake? Jesus seems oblivious to the worry he gave his parents. Looks very childlike to me. He had some growing and developing to do still. He was just a boy. I see no grounds to put adult "perfections" on his young shoulders or to imagine him as exempt from natural things like soiled clothing or mistakes.

I deduce that Joseph and Mary had confidence in their boy. Was their astonishment due to where he was and what he was doing? Was there a mistake on both sides - parents and child? It does happen!

Other people were greatly impressed by this boy. Was he teaching the teachers? Does Luke really say that? Jesus wanted to know about God. He just had to learn. A glimpse into the mysterious early life of the one come to be Saviour. Perhaps this is a glimpse of Jesus’ early self-consciousness. His destiny was known but for then his task was clear and he applied himself diligently. Did he play games with other kids, skin his knees, and get really hungry? He apparently was a popular lad - in favour with all or most people.

The details of daily life are not given but from Matthew (below) we know the family had a period as refugees in neighbouring Egypt. I suppose they may have made Jerusalem visits from there before ultimately returning to Nazareth. Joseph doubtless pursued his trade and taught Jesus as his "apprentice". Jesus was not raised to a life of privilege. The household came to include more children - the natural meaning of that is that Mary had further pregnancies. (That probability is disputed.) 

People thought well of Jesus and smiled to see him. I wonder what Jesus increasing in favour with God means? One version puts it that God was pleased with Jesus (CEV). We saw above, of the tiny Jesus: The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him. I can understand that he continued and loved to learn his Bible and live it out. His growth pattern and intellectual development must have been according to his genes or DNA. It is impossible to comprehend the childhood of the Son of God made flesh. The observation was he increased in wisdom and in years, and in divine and human favor. (Years are easy to increase!) This is mysterious territory. Compare the moment some years on, when, following his baptism by John,  God says to Jesus: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” (See Luke 3:22, NIV). Favour with God surely indicates that Jesus continued to centre himself on God and with God’s will. Perhaps Luke's language was reflecting the optimistic ancient words from Proverbs, chapter 3 (NLT):

My child,[a] never forget the things I have taught you.
 

Store my commands in your heart.


If you do this, you will live many years,
    

and your life will be satisfying.


Never let loyalty and kindness leave you!


Tie them around your neck as a reminder.


Write them deep within your heart.


Then you will find favor with both God and people,


and you will earn a good reputation.
Trust in the Lord with all your heart;


do not depend on your own understanding.


Seek his will in all you do,


and he will show you which path to take.

Young Jesus was actually about his Heavenly Father’s business, but still a boy of Nazareth. People did know there was more to be said, much more.

(This post originally dealt only with Luke chapter 1. Chapter 2 added above.)

Jesus: The early years - by Matthew

(adapted from previous posts)

The birth of Jesus Christ came about this way: After his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, it was discovered before they came together that she was pregnant from the Holy Spirit. So her husband, Joseph, being a righteous man, and not wanting to disgrace her publicly, decided to divorce her secretly.

But after he had considered these things, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, don’t be afraid to take Mary as your wife, because what has been conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:

See, the virgin will become pregnant
and give birth to a son,
and they will name him Immanuel,

which is translated “God is with us.”

When Joseph woke up, he did as the Lord’s angel had commanded him. He married her but did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son. And he named him Jesus (Matthew 1:18-25, CSB).

 

Joseph's initial question was resolved. He knew he was not the father but his path was clear.  Did Joseph wonder about how Mary's son would save his people from their sins? Seems likely to me.

 

Jesus means saviour. That is his name. What Jesus would do was clear; in time the plan for salvation was revealed, even though questions can remain.

 

Visitors (men?) came, via Jerusalem, to the house to worship and give gifts. This brought danger to light. 

 
Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men[a] from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose[b] and have come to worship him.” When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:
“‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
 

are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;


for from you shall come a ruler
 

who will shepherd my people Israel.’”
Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star had appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, “Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may come and worship him.” After listening to the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy (Matthew 2:1-10, ESV).

The star "rose"; it was seen in the east. In those days, "The East" was seen by "The West" (ie, Rome, and its minions), as the source of threat (seem familiar?). Did the visitors come from the east, the south east (as per carol), or the north east? Unknown! The King (Herod) held his Jerusalem throne at the pleasure of Rome. He has an unsavoury and bloodthirsty reputation and was not mourned at his death in 4 BCE. Herod and co. would not tolerate any suggestion of a rival, with or without the rival being supported by powerful "foreign" influences. He had to be specially wary of "the east".

How did these foreigners get to locate little, insignificant, Bethlehem? We saw that they depended on the advice they were given. The Bible's Micah had the critical information. (I wonder if the chief priests and scribes took that part of the Bible seriously?).

The wise ones were overcome when that star again impacted them on their mission. Matthew seems to run out of words to describe their response. (Verb, noun, adjective and adverb, together.) I do not imagine a "starlight" shining down on the house. The "seeing" was critical, whatever that meant.  (I have seen an elaborate book by an astronomer who set out to demonstrate the star as a specific astronomical event.) So they could find the infant they sought, though I would not rule out local people giving them directions. The event was surely known and talked about.

 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). Was Jesus big enough to take the gifts into his own hands? I wonder. The wise ones had no problem humbling themselves before the infant child of these unremarkable Jewish parents. The fell down before him in worship. I suspect the wise ones knew how unlikely it was that the Romanised King in Jerusalem would do the same.

So it was that people from "the east" were worshippers of Jesus. This is very early in the sequence of events making up the story of Jesus, Saviour. He was relevant to others, beyond that Jewish nation. He is relevant to all, regardless of origin. God may make him known to people far off, even in remarkable and strange ways. Jesus is the Saviour of (for) the world.

 

In recent centuries then (until the Romans), Egyptian rulers had dominated Judea after military victory. Nonetheless God could tell Joseph to head south - I wonder if that direction was a challenge to them? So the little family became refugees in Egypt, escaping violence. But not everyone escaped... 

The visitors from the east "were warned", but did leave a threat hanging over the hapless community. (Perhaps they had some opportunity to pass on a warning?) About what were they warned? That is not told. Their own safety might have been in jeopardy.

Joseph responded to his dream and his family escaped in time. Like any little child, Jesus was depending on his parents for his survival. It would have been easier for the family to depart than it would for the true locals. (Joseph had previous experience of dream communication.)

Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: 


“A voice was heard in Ramah,

weeping and loud lamentation,

Rachel weeping for her children;

she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.” (Matthew 2:16-18, ESV)

Herod regularly killed relatives and those of prominence who displeased him. He would not hesitate to kill Bethlehem's little children, though he commanded a kill squad for his bloody work. They followed their orders, with no records needed. I suppose the slaughter would have been remembered over the decades in the village and region, until Rome eliminated it, with the rest of Judaea. Such evil from the powerful was not unusual, though it would not commonly be actively visited on poor villagers. (I am unable to estimate the number of little boys destroyed - murdered by their  ruler.)

How can this happen? Even today tragic reports come of both harsh neglect and active harm of people at risk, old and young. We are all too sadly aware of evil visited upon children by responsible people; of inhumanity shown (by males in most cases) to girls and boys, women and men. Alcohol and other drugs may be mentioned - are they excuses? What excuse can there be for greed and selfishness?

Would local people have wanted to shelter the little family from the action of their king?  Perhaps. Even if so, the drastic extermination of "all male children" would have been overwhelming and irresistible. How much harm was (and is) visited upon people by those with power (weapons). Perhaps the two year age range of the victims reflects the time the travellers took to get to Jerusalem and then find the house, with a margin. Herod was leaving nothing to chance (so he thought). Did Herod have fairly precise intel on the departure of the wise ones? I suspect it was so.

 
After Herod died, an angel of the Lord 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 trying to take the child’s life are dead” (19-20, NIV).
So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene (Matthew 2:21-23, NLT).

Herod's successor at that moment was not much of an improvement. So, there was a supplementary warning. God may make the truth known progressively. Perhaps it was easier in that way for the little family to come to terms with their "final" situation - three times displaced refugees. Four times if were count the original involuntary relocation of the couple from Nazareth.  Luke (see above) had previously placed Joseph and Mary in Nazareth. Maybe they had expected remaining in the south in the “thick of things” in Judea? Whatever, Nazareth would be their known locality.

 

Clearly the parents lived on in Nazareth with questions unresolved. Honest questions may have humbly to be "in suspension". What about Jesus - did he understand their uncertainty and their need to take care of him? (See above how Luke covered this issue.)

This post is about the earliest part of Jesus' life. The curtain falls, and, when he emerges into view, the understanding is gradually revealed to those willing to understand. He is the Saviour Christ.

An earlier post: https://www.jesussaviour4unme.com/2015/09/salvation_28.html

 

Matthew and Luke give independent witness. One way they may be compared is by use of the BibleGateway app for mobile, in landscape orientation. I have also posted previously my earlier offering:

https://www.jesussaviour4unme.com/2017/12/jesus-infancy.html  

Scripture quotations marked (CSB) are from the Christian Standard Bible. Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible®, and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers, all rights reserved

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 (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.

 

Note: I retain in the publishers' text where they occur the references [ ] to footnotes, but usually not the notes. You can check footnotes out by viewing the text on-line. Often they are replicated in different translations. 

Bible passages accessed via BibleGateway.com 

Images courtesy Pixabay; Holylandphotos.org

last modified 07/01/24