Jesus of Nazareth, child prodigy.

Synopsis §12, “The Boy Jesus in the Temple”: :Luke 2.41-52.

2.41 Καὶ ἐπορεύοντο οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ κατ᾿ ἔτος εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ	His parents went yearly to Jerusalem
τῇ ἑορτῇ τοῦ πάσχα.	to the Pesachα festival.
2.42 Καὶ ὅτε ἐγένετο ἐτῶν δώδεκα,	When He was 12 years old,
ἀναβαινόντων αὐτῶν κατὰ τὸ ἔθος τῆς ἑορτῆς	they had gone up,β as usual, to the festival,
2.43 καὶ τελειωσάντων τὰς ἡμέρας,	and once its days were completed,
ἐν τῷ ὑποστρέφειν αὐτοὺς	they were to return;
ὑπέμεινεν Ἰησοῦς ὁ παῖς ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ,	the boy Yeshuaγ stayed behind in Jerusalem,
καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ.	and His parentsδ didn’t know.
2.44 νομίσαντες δὲ αὐτὸν εἶναι ἐν τῇ συνοδίᾳ	Thinking Him to be in the group,
ἦλθον ἡμέρας ὁδὸν	they went on the road for a day,
καὶ ἀνεζήτουν αὐτὸν	and were looking for Him
ἐν τοῖς συγγενεῦσιν καὶ τοῖς γνωστοῖς,	among family and people they knew.
2.45 καὶ μὴ εὑρόντες ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ	Not finding Him,ε they returned to Jerusalem,
ἀναζητοῦντες αὐτόν.	looking for Him.
2.46 καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ ἡμέρας τρεῖς εὗρον αὐτὸν	It was three days until they found Him:
ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ	in the temple,
καθεζόμενον ἐν μέσῳ τῶν διδασκάλων	seated in the middle of the teachers,
καὶ ἀκούοντα αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπερωτῶντα αὐτούς·	listening to them and putting questions to them.
2.47 ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες οἱ ἀκούοντες αὐτοῦ	Everyone who heard Him was shocked
ἐπὶ τῇ συνέσει καὶ ταῖς ἀποκρίσεσιν αὐτοῦ.	at His intelligence and responses.
2.48 καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν ἐξεπλάγησαν,	Seeing Him, His parents were panicked,
καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ·	and His mother told Him,
τέκνον, τί ἐποίησας ἡμῖν οὕτως;	“Boy, why did You do this to us?
ἰδοὺ ὁ πατήρ σου κἀγὼ ὀδυνώμενοι ἐζητοῦμέν σε.	Look, Your father and I suffered in finding You.”
2.49 καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς·	He told her,
τί ὅτι ἐζητεῖτέ με;	“Why is it that you looked for Me?
οὐκ ᾔδειτε ὅτι ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου δεῖ εἶναί με;	You hadn’t known that it was necessary for Me to be in My Father’s stuff?”
2.50 καὶ αὐτοὶ οὐ συνῆκαν τὸ ῥῆμα	They didn’t understand the message
ὃ ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς.	which He spoke.
2.51 καὶ κατέβη μετ᾿ αὐτῶν	He went down with them,
καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς Ναζαρὲθ	and went to Netzaret.ζ
καὶ ἦν ὑποτασσόμενος αὐτοῖς.	He was placing Himself under them.
καὶ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ διετήρει πάντα τὰ ῥήματα	His mother carefully kept all these words
ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῆς.	in her mind.η
2.52 Καὶ Ἰησοῦς προέκοπτεν [ἐν τῇ] σοφίᾳ	Yeshua excelled in wisdom,
καὶ ἡλικίᾳ καὶ χάριτι παρὰ θεῷ καὶ ἀνθρώποις.	manhood, and grace with God and people.

I’ve heard this story this way: Jesus, now that He was old enough to take to the temple, went there with His parents for Passover. Afterwards, He stayed behind and had an interesting discussion with the rabbis. Meanwhile His unwitting parents got about halfway home before they realized their son was missing; they turned back, and found Him talking shop in the temple. When Mary rebuked Him, saying, “Your father and I were worried about You,” His response was, “I was busy doing the work of My real Father.” But, in order to maintain appearances—pretending to be a human boy instead of a God boy in disguise—He went with them to Nazareth and behaved Himself appropriately, quietly waiting… for His time to come.

Yeah, that version’s got problems.

I had always wondered about that idea of this being the first time Jesus was old enough to go to Jerusalem with the folks. Eleven isn’t old enough? Or—if He had to be an adult before He could properly participate in the worship—since when is 12 considered adulthood in the Jewish culture? He would have been 13. I’ve actually heard pastors fudge around this problem by telling me, “Well… maybe Luke got his years mixed up.” (Just a suggestion: If you’re gonna claim you believe in inerrancy in order to get a pastoring job, yet you personally don’t believe in it, this is not how you hide your hypocrisy.)

Fact is, Jesus likely went to Jerusalem for Passover, with His parents, every year of HIs life. Passover had to be celebrated in Jerusalem because the temple was the only place you could offer your Passover sacrifice. (Dt 16.5-6) Nowadays, there’s no temple and no sacrifices, which is why Passover isn’t solely done in Jerusalem. The other thing is that the dinner custom—practiced even back then—was that the youngest person there had to ask the Four Questions—“Why do we eat only matzo tonight, instead of bread and matzo? Why do we only eat bitter herbs tonight, instead of all kinds of herbs? Why do we dip our herbs twice, when ordinarily we don’t dip at all? We are we eating lying down instead of sitting?”—so that the host could answer them. You needed a little kid to be there for dinner; part of the point of Passover is to teach the Exodus story to the kids. So reasonably, this was not the first time Jesus had been to Jerusalem for Passover. This is just the first time He went missing.

Nearly everyone in Nazareth likely went to Jerusalem for Passover, and—thanks to the lack of Highway Patrol, and tons of highwaymen—people tended to travel in caravans. Every family loaded up the wagon and the tent, and off they’d go. Same as now, there were likely lots of kids saying, “Can I ride with my friends?” and swapping seats, and so it’s understandable that a parent might lose track of their boy in the crowd.

Thing is, realizing Jesus was missing had to have thrown His folks into an absolute panic. This is, after all, the Messiah we’re talking about. Have you any idea how much trouble you’d be in with God if you lost the Messiah? Yeah, He’d forgive you, but He’d put you in the bible so that people could mock you as a bonehead for the rest of human history. Remember Jonah? You don’t want to be Jonah.

This sort of panic—which Luke describes them as in v48—is ultimately what Jesus was rebuking in v49. Considering how carefully God was watching out for Him—you do recall that angel warning Joseph about anything that might happen to the boy—one should realize that if God hadn’t given you any warning, there likely wasn’t anything worth freaking out about. But you know, sometimes when we let our emotions run away with us, we stop listening to anyone, God in particular. Had they listened to God, He would have told them the very thing that Jesus was surprised they didn’t know already: He has to be at His Father’s.

Different bible versions have it that Jesus is at His Father’s business (KJV), or His Father’s house (NIV). But there’s no word at the end of that sentence; literally it’s “in that of the Father of Me.” The only translation that gets it right is The Message: “Didn’t you know that I had to be here, dealing with the things of my Father?” I rendered it, “In My Father’s stuff,” which is about as vague as Luke has it. Part of the reason His parents didn’t understand what He meant is because they didn’t understand what stuff He was talking about.

But look at what He was doing in the temple. Traditionally it’s depicted as if Jesus has dropped in on a graduate-level seminary course with a few questions of His own for the rabbi, and when the rabbi answers His questions wrong, Jesus corrects him. This is what interpreters mean when they talk about how Jesus is here “teaching the teachers.” But it’s not an accurate interpretation of what was going on. In v46, Jesus was “seated in the middle of the teachers.” In the first century, only the teacher sits. The students stand up, listen, and answer the teacher’s questions. That’s what Jesus was doing. He wasn’t dropping in on a class and taking it over. He was teaching. Teaching, not seminary students, but seminary teachers. All of whom recognized that here was a 12-year-old boy that was smarter than all of them put together.

Imagine that your kid wanders off in the shopping mall, and when you find him a few days later, he’s at the local university explaining to the physics department how they were all wrong about string theory, and they’re taking notes. That’s about how weird Jesus’s parents probably felt right then. But again—emotions got in the way; they were too distraught about losing the Messiah to notice that here the Messiah was, doing exactly what a Messiah would be doing.

Messiah or not, Jesus was still a little kid. So yeah, it was mainly for their sake—and ours, ’cause Jesus is our example—that He stopped the lesson, went home with them, and went back to being a kid. A really awesome kid, though.

Anyway. The traditional rendering of this story tries to insert a little drama where there isn’t any, assumes a few ignorant things, and overlays an arrogance upon Jesus that’s completely inappropriate to who He is. Joseph and Mary forgot who He is, which is why they were so freaked out; we forget who He is whenever we mangle His history. But we are only surprised by that which we don’t understand. If we know Jesus’s character, His behavior doesn’t startle us, or scare us, or throw us into a panic. We don’t run away from it, or even try to fight it. It might be unexpected, but we can deal with the unexpected, because we trust Him.

α. Passover.

β. Lit. “having gone up.” Textus Receptus (TR) adds “to Jerusalem.” Jerusalem is higher in altitude than the Galilee.

γ. Jesus.

δ. TR has “Joseph and His mother.”

ε. TR has “Him.”

ζ. Nazareth.

η. Lit. “heart.”

How Jesus became Jesus of Nazareth.

Synopsis §11, “The Childhood of Jesus at Nazareth”: Matthew 2.22-23, Luke 2.39-40.

Matthew 2.22-23. 2.22 Ἀκούσας δὲ ὅτι Ἀρχέλαος βασιλεύει τῆς Ἰουδαίας Having heard that Arkhela’osα reigns over Judah ἀντὶ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἡρῴδου in place of his father Horodos,β ἐφοβήθη ἐκεῖ ἀπελθεῖν· heγ feared to go there. χρηματισθεὶς δὲ κατ᾿ ὄναρ Having talked it over in a dream-vision,δ	Luke 2.39-40. 2.39 Καὶ ὡς ἐτέλεσαν πάντα Once they completed everything τὰ κατὰ τὸν νόμον κυρίου, that was according to the Lord’sζ law,
ἀνεχώρησεν εἰς τὰ μέρη τῆς Γαλιλαίας, he went to a part of the Galilee. 2.23 καὶ ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν He came to dwell	ἐπέστρεψαν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν they returned to the Galilee,
εἰς πόλιν λεγομένην Ναζαρέτ· in a city called Netzaret ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν so that he could fulfill the message through the prophet,	εἰς πόλιν ἑαυτῶν Ναζαρέθ. to their city, Netzaret.
ὅτι Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται. that He will be called a Netzari.ε	2.40 Τὸ δὲ παιδίον ηὔξανεν The little boy was growing up, καὶ ἐκραταιοῦτο πληρούμενον σοφίᾳ, and was becoming strong, full of wisdom, καὶ χάρις θεοῦ ἦν ἐπ᾿ αὐτό. and God’s grace was on Him.

Luke skipped the trip to Egypt completely, making it sound as if Joseph never intended to stay in Bethlehem. That’s where people get this idea that Joseph was from Nazareth, and wonder why he had to register for Augustus Caesar’s census in Bethlehem. Nazareth became their city, and Matthew explains why: because Bethlehem wasn’t safe from the Herods.

Herod I—the maniac who had killed all the little boys in Bethlehem—was known for killing anyone who might threaten his rule. Though there’s no other reference to the massacre in ancient literature, people believe this story because it was typical behavior for him; he had killed his wife and her entire family, 45 nobles who had opposed his earlier attempts to rule, his brother-in-law, and his three oldest sons, all because he feared they’d overthrow him.

Upon Herod’s death in 4BCE, his final will—written five days before his death—bequeathed his realm to his son Archelaus. Since Caesar had never ratified it, Herod’s other sons contested the will. After some legal haggling, Caesar made Archelaus the ἐθνάρχης/ethnárkhis. Literally this means “head of a people-group,” and though modern-day translators render this as “governor,” our governors are elected. Probably a better translation would be “duke.” He wasn’t king, but he answered to no one but Caesar, who might promote him to king in time.

Some Jews tried to take advantage of this instability and revolt. Archelaus’s response was, like his father, to kill a lot of people. That, combined with his marriage to his former sister-in-law Glafira, and the constant legal challenges by his brothers Antipas and Philip, eventually led Caesar to fire and banish him in 6CE.

It was somewhere during this 10-year reign that the angel contacted Joseph in Egypt and told him to return to Israel, which he promptly did. Trouble was, he returned in the middle of this madness; hardly the safest place for Jesus to be. Remember, God had told a lot of people that the Messiah had been born, and the Messiah’s return to Israel would have been the perfect opportunity for various revolutionaries to get ahold of Him and use Him as their figurehead. It wasn’t just Archelaus that Joseph had to worry about.

There are two ways one can interpret Mt 2.22. Joseph either figured, “Okay, God said to return to Israel; Judah isn’t the only part of Israel, so maybe we can settle in the Galilee, and that’d be fine with God.” In other words, he stretched the interpretation of what the angel had told him, and went with a convenient understanding of it. That’s one way to look at it, and that’s typical human behavior too.

The way it’s traditionally interpreted is that the angel appeared to him again and told him, “Move north.” As if Joseph couldn’t figure that out for himself. Again, this goes back to the traditional understanding of Joseph as this dumb schmuck who unwittingly got saddled with Jesus, rather than being personally chosen by God to be His father.

The interpretation I’m going with—which you can see in the translation—comes out of the word χρηματίζω/hrimatídzo, which is usually translated “being warned [by God].” It actually means to haggle. Χρῆμα/hríma, its word-root, means an object of value; the idea is that you’re negotiating over it. When you have big decisions such as this one, you talk it over with God, and that’s my understanding of what Joseph did here: the next time God’s angel showed up in his dreams, Joseph worked out with God where they were to go next.

I don’t believe Joseph was ignorant of the prophecies about the Messiah coming from Bethlehem. I expect he wanted Jesus to grow up in Bethlehem for that reason. It makes sense: five kilometers away from the temple, access to the best schools, right in the center of power. According to most folks’ understanding of what the Messiah was supposed to be, Bethlehem was the ideal location to raise Jesus. According to God’s understanding, it wasn’t at all. Likely God had to get it through Joseph’s thick skull that Bethlehem wasn’t part of His plan.

Contrary to popular belief, visions aren’t one-way communication, where God tells you how things are going to be, and you just passively receive it. That’s not how any of the visions took place in the scriptures. Visionaries responded to their visions, and talked back to God or God’s angels in them. Sometimes they freaked out, sometimes they objected, sometimes they had questions. We Christians tend to talk about our visions as if we’re dumbstruck fools, so awed by the fact that God is talking with us that we forget that God likes to talk with us. God wants a relationship with us, and relationships require interaction. Joseph had a relationship with Him where he could negotiate with God. We should aspire to the same thing.

Here’s where this “He will be called a Netzari” line comes up. (Mt 2.23) The word means a citizen of Nazareth, and eventually Jesus did become known as Yeshua Netzari, Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus the Nazarene—and His followers became known as Nazarenes as well. But this line isn’t found anywhere in the scriptures. There are no prophecies that refer to Nazareth at all; the city didn’t exist until probably the first century BCE.

Scholars figure the reference to a prophecy about Nazareth must therefore be a bit of Hebrew wordplay: that it’s from ‏נָזִיר/nazír, a person especially dedicated to God (Nu 6) or ‏נֵצֶר/natzér, a sprout, which Isaiah used poetically to refer to a branch from “the stump of Jesse” (Is 11.1) that would be the Messiah. It’s frequently said that Hebrews were big fans of puns and wordplay—though personally I suspect it’s ’cause interpreters, just as they do nowadays, like to stretch a text until it means what they want it to mean, and this sort of abuse was so common that it’s treated as if it’s okay. But I am loath to say that this is what Matthew was doing.

There’s a more recent interpretation that “Netzari” was first-century slang for “scum of the earth,” and that Nathanael’s comment, “Is any good to come from Nazareth?” (Jn 1.46) was a common saying that indicated how low Nazareth was in most folks’ esteem. The thinking is that the Messiah was meant to be despised, (Ps 22, Is 53) and so Jesus’s identification with a despised town would fulfill such prophecies. I have a hard time, though, thinking that Joseph would be receptive to this interpretation: “Hey, move to this sucky town with a lousy reputation, because your boy is destined to be shunned.”

Nah. The fact is that we really don’t know where Matthew got this quote, and are spinning our wheels trying to justify it. My theory is that Matthew—or Joseph—got it from some extra-biblical prophet. I have no trouble with that idea, ’cause I don’t believe you have to be published in the bible in order to be a valid prophet. The important thing is that God led Joseph to move the family to Nazareth, and this is how Jesus got the last name, “of Nazareth.”

α. Archelaus Herod, son of Herod I.

β. Herod I.

γ. Meaning Joseph.

δ. Usu. “being warned in a dream.” Can also be, “Having negotiated according to the dream-vision.”

ε. Nazarene.

ζ. Or “Master’s.” The Jews used ‏אֲדֹנָי/adona’i, “my Lord,” to refer to Yahweh without saying His holy name.

When God tells you to break the rules.

Synopsis §10, “The Flight into Egypt and Return”: Matthew 2.13-21.

2.13 Ἀναχωρησάντων δὲ αὐτῶν ἰδοὺ	Once they’d left,α look,
ἄγγελος κυρίου φαίνεται κατ᾿ ὄναρ τῷ Ἰωσὴφ	the Lord’sβ angel appeared in a dream-vision to Yosef,γ
λέγων· ἐγερθεὶς παράλαβε τὸ παιδίον καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ	saying, “Wake up.δ Take the little boy and His mother.
καὶ φεῦγε εἰς Αἴγυπτον	Flee to Egypt.
καὶ ἴσθι ἐκεῖ ἕως ἂν εἴπω σοι·	Be there until I tell you otherwise.
μέλλει γὰρ Ἡρῴδης ζητεῖν τὸ παιδίον τοῦ ἀπολέσαι αὐτό.	For Horodosε is about to seek the little boy’s destruction.”
2.14 ὁ δὲ ἐγερθεὶς	Having been woken up,
παρέλαβεν τὸ παιδίον καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ νυκτὸς	he took the little boy and His mother by night
καὶ ἀνεχώρησεν εἰς Αἴγυπτον,	and left for Egypt.
2.15 καὶ ἦν ἐκεῖ ἕως τῆς τελευτῆς Ἡρῴδου·	He was there until the end of Horodos’s reign,
ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου	so that he could fulfill the Lord’sβ message
διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος·	through the prophet, saying,
ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου.	“I called My Son out of Egypt.”
2.16 Τότε Ἡρῴδης	Then Horodos,
ἰδὼν ὅτι ἐνεπαίχθη ὑπὸ τῶν μάγων	seeing that he was mocked by the magi,
ἐθυμώθη λίαν,	was extremely angry.
καὶ ἀποστείλας ἀνεῖλεν	His agent killedζ
πάντας τοὺς παῖδας τοὺς ἐν Βηθλέεμ	all the children who were in Beit Lekhemη
καὶ ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ὁρίοις αὐτῆς	and in all its countryside,
ἀπὸ διετοῦς καὶ κατωτέρω,	from two years old and under—
κατὰ τὸν χρόνον ὃν ἠκρίβωσεν παρὰ τῶν μάγων.	according to the time which he found out from the magi.
2.17 τότε ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν	Thus he fulfilled the message
διὰ Ἰερεμίου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος·	from the prophet Yiremyahu,θ saying,
2.18 φωνὴ ἐν Ῥαμὰ ἠκούσθη,	“In Ramah, a voice called,
κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὀδυρμὸς πολύς·	mourning and greatly lamenting:
Ῥαχὴλ κλαίουσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτῆς,	Rakhel,ι mourning her children.
καὶ οὐκ ἤθελεν παρακληθῆναι,	She doesn’t want to be comforted
ὅτι οὐκ εἰσίν.	because they aren’t.”
2.19 Τελευτήσαντος δὲ τοῦ Ἡρῴδου	Upon the end of Horodos,κ
ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος κυρίου φαίνεται	look, the Lord’sβ angel appears
κατ᾿ ὄναρ τῷ Ἰωσὴφ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ	in a dream-vision to Yosef in Egypt,
2.20 λέγων· ἐγερθεὶς παράλαβε τὸ παιδίον καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ	saying, “Wake up.δ Take the boy and His mother.
καὶ πορεύου εἰς γῆν Ἰσραήλ·	Go to the land of Isra’el.
τεθνήκασιν γὰρ οἱ ζητοῦντες τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ παιδίου.	Those seeking the life of the little boy are dead.”
2.21 ὁ δὲ ἐγερθεὶς	Having been woken up,
παρέλαβεν τὸ παιδίον καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ	he took the little boy and His mother
καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς γῆν Ἰσραήλ.	and entered the land of Isra’el.

Joseph really doesn’t get enough credit for being Jesus’s father. Whenever I refer to Joseph as His father, people seem to feel obligated to remind me, “Joseph is His foster father.” Which isn’t true. Who the hell started this trend of referring to Joseph as a foster parent? “Foster parent” means the kid is a ward of the state, and the foster parents are state representatives. There was no such system in the first century. You were either a parent or you weren’t.

Biology didn’t matter; what mattered was that you claimed the kid as yours. And as we just saw, Joseph was at Jesus’s circumcision—he was the guy who stated what Jesus’s name would be. The only person that got to do that was the father. If the biological father was dead, it would therefore be whatever man was stepping in to take the father’s place—grandfather, uncle, stepdad—and that person would be the kid’s legal father. That’d be Joseph.

Jesus isn’t biologically Joseph’s son—and, for that matter, there’s a better than average chance He’s not biologically Mary’s son, as I explained when I discussed how parthenogenesis works. But parentage made absolutely no difference in their relationship. Joseph was the leader of His family, the decision-maker, the chief provider, and the spiritual head. Imagine being the spiritual head for the Messiah; it’s an intimidating responsibility.

Christians frequently treat Joseph as an afterthought in God’s plan: Mary was picked to be His mom, and she just happened to have a fiancé named Joseph, who had to be convinced to go along with the plan, ’cause it would have been really inconvenient for her if he hadn’t. Quite a few Christian myths depict him as a clueless schmuck who has no idea what sort of kid he was raising—that Jesus would frustrate the bejeezus out of him by being smarter than His teachers, or by creating sparrows on the Sabbath, or being inexplicably omniscient, or otherwise being a holy pest. And he couldn’t turn to Mary for help, because she was the very same way. In these myths, Joseph is the comic relief while Jesus and Mary are the unruffled, faith-filled, magical beings who always know their way around.

Joseph was picked to be Jesus’s dad, same as Mary was picked to be Jesus’s mom. True, God didn’t ask him, but technically He didn’t ask Mary either. He told Joseph to take Mary as his woman because she hadn’t cheated on him; Jesus was no bastard, but holy. (Mt 1.20)

As I mentioned at that time, Joseph heard this in a dream-vision, and the fact that he paid attention to it indicates that these dream-visions were not a new thing for him. Likely he had been having such visions all his life. And that is one of those indications that Joseph was not an afterthought. Who better to have as the father of the Messiah than a prophet, who heard from God, knew he heard from God, and unquestioningly obeyed Him? Really, it would be monumentally dumb to pick anyone else. Any other guy than Joseph would have sat on his skeptical ass in Bethlehem, whining, “I don’t know whether it was really God or not,” right up until the time Herod’s assassin came knocking.

You see, Joseph had to know he was hearing from God, because the directions the angel gave him to flee to Egypt (v13) violated the scriptures. Specifically this bit:

You’re going to establish a king, whom your god Yahweh is choosing from you, from among your brothers, to put as king over you. You may not set a foreign man, who is not your brother, as king over you. He may not collect many horses. He may not send people back to Egypt to acquire many horses. Yahweh tells you, “Don’t ever again return that way.” (Dt 17.15-16)

There was a whole controversy in Jeremiah when, during the Babylonian occupation, the locals wanted to escape to Egypt. God, through Jeremiah, told them no; that He was going to destroy them if they did. They decided to ignore Him and listen to other prophets who told them what they wanted to hear; and dragged Jeremiah off with them; (Jr 43-44) and wouldn’t you know, their settlements were soon after destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar.

Yes, there were Jewish settlements in Alexandria by this point in history. But they existed outside of God’s instructions that His people weren’t to return to Egypt. And now here Joseph was… getting instructions to go to Egypt.

Not to settle, of course. It was temporary. When the Hebrews had gone to Egypt in the past, it was to settle. Abraham went there because of a famine, and quite possibly would have stayed if he hadn’t alienated the Egyptians. Israel and his family moved there during a later famine, and stayed so long that the Egyptians enslaved them. The Jews in Jeremiah’s day went there to hide from the Babylonians, and it really didn’t look like they were leaving. The Jews in Jesus’s day had come to hide from the Seleucids, and they didn’t leave.

So that may be the important difference in God’s instructions to Joseph. God wasn’t telling Joseph to settle, but hide until He brought the family back to Israel.

Now, a legalistic sort would immediately respond, “No, Lord; You told us to never return that way.” But Joseph knew this was God, and knew God well enough to know He wasn’t testing him. And that shows two different kinds of spiritual maturity in Joseph: the ability to recognize when it’s God, and a spiritual development that’s got beyond the ridiculous childishness of legalism.

If there’s any question about whether Joseph would have made a good spiritual head for the Messiah, we see some strong evidence here that he was a solid guy for God to pick. (But of course, God knew this already.)

What I pull from this, naturally, is Joseph’s good example. I need to be at the point where I’m following God with Joseph‘s level of faith and maturity. I need to be at a point where I can discern the difference between the voice of God and my own silly literalistic, and even legalistic, tendencies. Thus, when God tells me to “break the rules,” I’ll recognize whether it’s really breaking the rules or not, and follow God accordingly.

α. Lit. “[After] they, having left.”

β. Or “Master’s.” The Jews used ‏אֲדֹנָי/adona’i, “my Lord,” to refer to Yahweh without saying His holy name.

γ. Joseph.

δ. Usu. “Get up,” but this is a passive participle; it’s what people said to wake one another up.

ε. Herod I of Judah.

ζ. Or. “Having sent out, he killed.”

η. Bethlehem.

θ. Jeremiah.

ι. Rachel.

κ. Lit. “[After the] ending of Herod.”

Telling everyone what God is up to.

Synopsis §9, “The Circumcision and Presentation in the Temple”: Luke 2.21-38.

2.21 Καὶ ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ τοῦ περιτεμεῖν αὐτὸν	After eight days, His circumcision was performed,α
καὶ ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦς,	and Yeshuaβ was declared His name,
τὸ κληθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀγγέλου	which He was called by the angel
πρὸ τοῦ συλλημφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ.	before His conception in the womb.
2.22 Καὶ ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ αὐτῶν	Once their purification days were fulfilled,
κατὰ τὸν νόμον Μωϋσέως,	according to Moshe’sγ law,
ἀνήγαγον αὐτὸν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα	they took Him to Jerusalem
παραστῆσαι τῷ κυρίῳ,	to present Him to the Lordδ
2.23 καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν νόμῳ κυρίου	—just as it’s written in the Lord’s law
ὅτι πᾶν ἄρσεν διανοῖγον μήτραν	that every male which opens a uterusε
ἅγιον τῷ κυρίῳ κληθήσεται,	will be called holy to the Lord—
2.24 καὶ τοῦ δοῦναι θυσίαν	and to give an offering
κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ κυρίου,	according to what had been said in the Lord’s law,
ζεῦγος τρυγόνων ἢ δύο νοσσοὺς περιστερῶν.	a yoke of turtledoves, or two young doves.
2.25 Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος ἦν ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ ᾧ ὄνομα Συμεὼν	Look, a person named Shimon was in Jerusalem.
καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος δίκαιος καὶ εὐλαβὴς	This person was fair and religious,
προσδεχόμενος παράκλησιν τοῦ Ἰσραήλ,	welcoming any supportζ for Isra’el,
καὶ πνεῦμα ἦν ἅγιον ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν·	and the Holy Spirit was with him.η
2.26 καὶ ἦν αὐτῷ κεχρηματισμένον	A deal had been made with him
ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου	by the Holy Spirit:
μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον	He was not to see death
πρὶν [ἢ] ἂν ἴδῃ τὸν χριστὸν κυρίου.	before he’d see the Lord’s Messiah.
2.27 καὶ ἦλθεν ἐν τῷ πνεύματι εἰς τὸ ἱερόν·	He went, in the Spirit, to the temple.
καὶ ἐν τῷ εἰσαγαγεῖν τοὺς γονεῖς τὸ παιδίον Ἰησοῦν	As the little boy Yeshua’s parents brought Him in
τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτοὺς κατὰ τὸ εἰθισμένον τοῦ νόμου περὶ αὐτοῦ	to do to Him as the Law requiredθ about Him,
2.28 καὶ αὐτὸς ἐδέξατο αὐτὸ εἰς τὰς ἀγκάλας	he took Him in his armsι
καὶ εὐλόγησεν τὸν θεὸν καὶ εἶπεν·	and blessed God and said,
2.29 νῦν ἀπολύεις τὸν δοῦλόν σου, δέσποτα,	“Now, you despot, you can release Your slave,
κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ·	according to Your word, in peace.
2.30 ὅτι εἶδον οἱ ὀφθαλμοί μου τὸ σωτήριόν σου,	For my eyes saw Your rescue,
2.31 ὃ ἡτοίμασας κατὰ πρόσωπον πάντων τῶν λαῶν,	which You prepared in the face of all the peoples:
2.32 φῶς εἰς ἀποκάλυψιν ἐθνῶν	light for revelation to the goyim
καὶ δόξαν λαοῦ σου Ἰσραήλ.	and brilliance for your people Isra’el.”
2.33 καὶ ἦν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ θαυμάζοντες	His fatherκ and mother were surprised
ἐπὶ τοῖς λαλουμένοις περὶ αὐτοῦ.	at this saying about Him.
2.34 καὶ εὐλόγησεν αὐτοὺς Συμεὼν	Shimon blessed them
καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς Μαριὰμ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ·	and said to His mother Miryam,λ
ἰδοὺ οὗτος κεῖται	“Look, this is laid outμ
εἰς πτῶσιν καὶ ἀνάστασιν	for the downfall and resurrection
πολλῶν ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ	of many people in Isra’el.
καὶ εἰς σημεῖον ἀντιλεγόμενον—	This contradictory sign—
2.35 καὶ σοῦ [δὲ] αὐτῆς τὴν ψυχὴν διελεύσεται ῥομφαία—	and a sword will slice through your very life—
ὅπως ἂν ἀποκαλυφθῶσιν ἐκ πολλῶν καρδιῶν διαλογισμοί.	is so that every mind’sν thoughts might be revealed.”
2.36 Καὶ ἦν Ἅννα προφῆτις, θυγάτηρ Φανουήλ, ἐκ φυλῆς Ἀσήρ·	Hannah bat Penu’el, from the tribe of Asher, was a prophet.
αὕτη προβεβηκυῖα ἐν ἡμέραις πολλαῖς,	This woman was an elder of many days,
ζήσασα μετὰ ἀνδρὸς ἔτη ἑπτὰ ἀπὸ τῆς παρθενίας αὐτῆς	living with a manξ seven years after her virginity,
2.37 καὶ αὐτὴ χήρα ἕως ἐτῶν ὀγδοήκοντα τεσσάρων,	and a widow herself up to her 84th year,
ἣ οὐκ ἀφίστατο τοῦ ἱεροῦ νηστείαις	who never left the temple for fasts,
καὶ δεήσεσιν λατρεύουσα νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν.	ministering with prayer, night and day.
2.38 καὶ αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐπιστᾶσα	Coming over at that time,
ἀνθωμολογεῖτο τῷ θεῷ	she was acknowledging God,
καὶ ἐλάλει περὶ αὐτοῦ πᾶσιν	and speaking about Him to everyone
τοῖς προσδεχομένοις λύτρωσιν Ἰερουσαλήμ.	who supported the rescue of Isra’el.

Various Christians have taught that God’s revelation comes in stops and starts. Dispensationalists, in particular, teach that God talked to people back in bible times, but doesn’t now—and didn’t during the “400 silent years” between when Malachi finished his prophecy and when Paul wrote Galatians.

Of course, this is all crap. God has never stopped talking, and there have always been prophets. In ancient Israel, a great number of them hung out at the temple. Stands to reason; that’s what the temple was created for. God had Moses construct the tabernacle, also called the ‏אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד/Ohel Mo’ed, the Appointment Tent, so that those who wanted to meet with and speak to God could do so at the tabernacle. Moses met with Him there rather than on Sinai; people worshipped Him there because His immediate presence was focused there. Stands to reason that prophets made themselves available there too; people came to the tabernacle, and later the temple, to interact with God, and if you sucked at hearing God for yourself, the prophets were the next best thing.

Shimon and Hannah were two of them. Hannah was a regular, (v37) but Shimon “was in Jerusalem,” (v25) which suggests he wasn’t, and had to be specially prompted by the Holy Spirit to be there. (v27) He surprised Jesus’s parents, (v33) which suggests that they weren’t expecting a prophet to be there either.

Shimon’s back story is sorta interesting: There was an arrangement between him and the Spirit that he wasn’t going to die until he saw the Messiah. (v26) We have no idea how this was worked out. I have, in fact, taught a bunch of times that God doesn’t do deals—though what I’m usually talking about is the sort of deal where we pray, in desperation, “God, do this for me and I promise I’ll…” and then we offer to do something for Him that we really ought to be doing for Him anyway. As if we can pay God back for anything that He gives us. God doesn’t do that sort of deal. That is, He doesn’t do the human-initiated sort.

The sort of deal God does make is the God-initiated sort: He gives us some tasks to do—like follow commands—and in exchange He blesses us in one way or another. More than likely this is the sort of deal God had with Shimon. Especially since Shimon literally calls God a δεσπότης/despótis, a despot, and himself a slave. This doesn’t mean “evil king,” which is what we usually mean by “despot” nowadays; it means a guy who is absolutely in charge. God created the terms of their deal.

Shimon’s prophecy was nothing Jesus’s parents hadn’t heard before: Jesus was to save Israel. But there was one statement that was entirely different: Jesus was a light of revelation for the goyim. The foreigners. The Gentiles.

Isaiah had made reference to a light for the goyim, twice. (Is 42.6, 49.6) Both statements, though, didn’t appear to be referring to Jesus, but to the nation of Israel as a whole. And yet Jesus is foreshadowed in them. Israel is meant to enlighten the world, but Israel sucked at it, so a perfect, representative Israelite—Jesus—did it for them.

This was all part of the plan, Shimon explained to Mary; Jesus would make it so “every mind’s thoughts might be revealed.” (v35) Certainly He triggered a strong reaction in hypocrites. But that’s getting ahead of the story.

Luke didn’t record Hannah’s prophecy, though more than likely it just confirmed Shimon’s. The point of including her was let you get the idea that Shimon was some solitary nut. Hannah saw the same thing in Jesus; and she was a regular at the temple, had been hanging out there for probably six decades, and was a known quantity.

The point of this story is, naturally, to confirm who Jesus was through the well-established prophets of the day. Jesus wasn’t just revealed in special angelic visitations, or to special revelations to Zechariah and Mary, or as part of the usual dream-visions of Joseph, or even to obscure Zoroastrian magi. God, as I’ve said before, was not hiding what He was doing. He wanted everyone—except Herod, anyway—to know that His Messiah had come, and what His Messiah was for. He was blabbing it to temple prophets and everything.

For some reason we Christians get secretive and obscure about what God is doing among us, or in our own lives. I know lots of churches where the people in them don’t know what God’s been doing with the other people in them; heck, they don’t know if God’s doing anything with anyone, anywhere. It’s sad. But it’s all too common. When you don’t share testimonies, you get a totally wrong picture of what God is doing. (And in many cases it tends to work backwards—into your theology, into the way you read the bible, until next thing you know, you’re a dispensationalist, teaching that God didn’t do anything back in bible times either.)

God doesn’t hide what He’s up to. If we’re going to follow Him, we need to mimic this behavior and let everyone know what He’s doing in and through us. He wants, as Shimon said, to ultimately reveal the thoughts of everyone; we need to help, not hinder.

α. Lit. “Eight days fulfilled His circumcision.”

β. Jesus.

γ. Moses’s.

δ. Or “Master.” The Jews used ‏אֲדֹנָי/adona’i, “my Lord,” to refer to Yahweh without saying His holy name.

ε. Usu. “womb.” The word I translated “womb” in v21, κοιλία/kilía, refers to a person’s internal organs, not specifically a uterus. On the other hand, this word, μήτρα/mítra, does.

ζ. Lit. “coming alongside.”

η. Or “[the] Spirit was holy with him.”

θ. Or “as the Law’s customs [were].”

ι. Textus Receptus (TR) has “his.”

κ. TR “Joseph.”

λ. Mary.

μ. Usu. “this child is laid out.”

ν. Lit. “heart’s.”

ξ. There is no ancient Greek word for husband.

ο. Lit. “heart.”

The sort of folks who were told about the baby Jesus.

Synopsis §8, “The Adoration of the Infant Jesus”: Matthew 2.1-12, Luke 2.8-20, John 7.41-42.

Matthew 2.1-12. 2.1 Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ γεννηθέντος Yeshuaα having been born ἐν Βηθλέεμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας in Beit Lekhem,β Judah, ἐν ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου τοῦ βασιλέως, during the time of King Horodosγ—	Luke 2.8-20.	John 7.41-42.
ἰδοὺ μάγοι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν look, magi from the East παρεγένοντο εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα came to Jerusalem 2.2 λέγοντες· ποῦ ἐστιν saying, “Where is ὁ τεχθεὶς βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; the newborn king of the Jews? εἴδομεν γὰρ αὐτοῦ τὸν ἀστέρα ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ For in the East,δ we saw His light in the sky.ε καὶ ἤλθομεν προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ. We came to pay homage to Him.”	2.8 Καὶ ποιμένες ἦσαν ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ τῇ αὐτῇ Herdersθ were in that country, ἀγραυλοῦντες καὶ φυλάσσοντες φυλακὰς τῆς νυκτὸς staying outdoors and keeping the night-watch ἐπὶ τὴν ποίμνην αὐτῶν. over their flocks. 2.9 καὶ ἄγγελος κυρίου ἐπέστη αὐτοῖς The Lord’sι angel stopped them καὶ δόξα κυρίου περιέλαμψεν αὐτούς, and the Lord’sι brilliance shone on them.
2.3 ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἡρῴδης ἐταράχθη Having heard, King Horodos was stirred up— καὶ πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ, and all Jerusalem with him.	καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν. They ran awayκ in great fear. 2.10 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ ἄγγελος· The angel told them, μὴ φοβεῖσθε, “Don’t run away!κ
2.4 καὶ συναγαγὼν πάντας τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς Having gathered all the head priests καὶ γραμματεῖς τοῦ λαοῦ and scholars of the people, ἐπυνθάνετο παρ᾿ αὐτῶν ποῦ ὁ χριστὸς γεννᾶται. he was asking them, “Where is Messiah to be born?” 2.5 οἱ δὲ εἶπαν αὐτῷ· ἐν Βηθλέεμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας· They told him, “In Beit Lekhem, Judah.” οὕτως γὰρ γέγραπται διὰ τοῦ προφήτου· For this is how it was written through the prophet: 2.6 καὶ σὺ Βηθλέεμ, γῆ Ἰούδα, “You, Beit Lekhem, land of Judah. οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα· You certainly aren’t the least of Judah’s leaders. ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος, For a leader will come from you ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου τὸν Ἰσραήλ. who will shepherd My people, Isra’el.”	ἰδοὺ γὰρ εὐαγγελίζομαι ὑμῖν For look, I announce good news to you— χαρὰν μεγάλην great joy! ἥτις ἔσται παντὶ τῷ λαῷ, It is for all the people 2.11 ὅτι ἐτέχθη ὑμῖν σήμερον σωτὴρ that a Rescuer was born today to you, ὅς ἐστιν χριστὸς κύριος who is the Master, Messiah, ἐν πόλει Δαυίδ. in David’s city.	7.41 ἄλλοι ἔλεγον· Other people said, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστός, “This is the Messiah.” οἱ δὲ ἔλεγον· They said, μὴ γὰρ ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας “It isn’t from the Galilee ὁ χριστὸς ἔρχεται; the Messiah comes. 7.42 οὐχ ἡ γραφὴ εἶπεν Don’t the scriptures say ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ that out of David’s seed, καὶ ἀπὸ Βηθλέεμ and from Beit Lekhem, τῆς κώμης ὅπου ἦν Δαυὶδ the village which is David’s, ἔρχεται ὁ χριστός; the Messiah comes?”
2.7 Τότε Ἡρῴδης λάθρᾳ καλέσας τοὺς μάγους Herodos secretly summoned the magi ἠκρίβωσεν παρ᾿ αὐτῶν τὸν χρόνον to find out from them the exact time τοῦ φαινομένου ἀστέρος, of the light in the sky’sε appearance. 2.8 καὶ πέμψας αὐτοὺς εἰς Βηθλέεμ εἶπεν· Having sent them to Beit Lekhem, he said, πορευθέντες ἐξετάσατε ἀκριβῶς περὶ τοῦ παιδίου· “Go search carefully for the little boy. ἐπὰν δὲ εὕρητε, ἀπαγγείλατέ μοι, Whenever you find Him, report it to me ὅπως κἀγὼ ἐλθὼν προσκυνήσω αὐτῷ. so that I might also go pay homage to Him.”	2.12 καὶ τοῦτο ὑμῖν τὸ σημεῖον, This sign is for you: εὑρήσετε βρέφος ἐσπαργανωμένον You will find an infant who had been swaddled, καὶ κείμενον ἐν φάτνῃ. and laying in a trough.” 2.13 καὶ ἐξαίφνης ἐγένετο σὺν τῷ ἀγγέλῳ Suddenly there became, with the angel, πλῆθος στρατιᾶς οὐρανίου a multitude of the heavenly army αἰνούντων τὸν θεὸν καὶ λεγόντων· praising God and saying, 2.14 δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ “The brilliance of God, the Highest, καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη and peace on earth ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας. for His beloved humans.”λ
2.9 οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες τοῦ βασιλέως ἐπορεύθησαν Having heard the king, they left. καὶ ἰδοὺ ὁ ἀστήρ, Look, the light in the sky,ε ὃν εἶδον ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ, προῆγεν αὐτούς, which they saw in the East,δ appeared to them ἕως ἐλθὼν ἐστάθη ἐπάνω οὗ ἦν τὸ παιδίον. until it came to stand where the little boy was. 2.10 ἰδόντες δὲ τὸν ἀστέρα Having seen the light in the sky,ε ἐχάρησαν χαρὰν μεγάλην σφόδρα. they rejoiced very much, with great joy.	2.15 Καὶ ἐγένετο It was, ὡς ἀπῆλθον ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν οἱ ἄγγελοι, once the angels left them in the universe,μ οἱ ποιμένες ἐλάλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους· the herders were saying to one another, διέλθωμεν δὴ ἕως Βηθλέεμ “We could go through Beit Lekhem καὶ ἴδωμεν τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο τὸ γεγονὸς and see if this word has come true ὃ ὁ κύριος ἐγνώρισεν ἡμῖν. which the Lordν revealed to us.”
2.11 καὶ ἐλθόντες εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν Having gone into the house, εἶδον τὸ παιδίον μετὰ Μαρίας τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, they saw the little boy with His mother Miryam.ζ καὶ πεσόντες προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ They fell down, paying homage to Him. καὶ ἀνοίξαντες τοὺς θησαυροὺς αὐτῶν Having opened their treasures, προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ δῶρα, they presented Him gifts— χρυσὸν καὶ λίβανον καὶ σμύρναν. gold, incense, and perfume.η	2.16 καὶ ἦλθαν σπεύσαντες Hurrying, they went καὶ ἀνεῦραν τήν τε Μαριὰμ καὶ τὸν Ἰωσὴφ and found both Miryam and Yosef,ζ καὶ τὸ βρέφος κείμενον ἐν τῇ φάτνῃ· and the infant laying in the trough. 2.17 ἰδόντες δὲ ἐγνώρισαν περὶ τοῦ ῥήματος Having seen this, they revealed the word τοῦ λαληθέντος αὐτοῖς which was spoken to them περὶ τοῦ παιδίου τούτου. about this little boy. 2.18 καὶ πάντες οἱ ἀκούσαντες ἐθαύμασαν Everyone who heard it were awestruck περὶ τῶν λαληθέντων about the sayings ὑπὸ τῶν ποιμένων πρὸς αὐτούς· from the herders to them. 2.19 ἡ δὲ Μαριὰμ πάντα συνετήρει τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα Miryam collected all these words, συμβάλλουσα ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῆς. putting them together in her mind.ο
2.12 καὶ χρηματισθέντες κατ᾿ ὄναρ Having been dealt with by a dream μὴ ἀνακάμψαι πρὸς Ἡρῴδην, not to return to Horodos, δι᾿ ἄλλης ὁδοῦ ἀνεχώρησαν they went back on another road εἰς τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν. to their country.	2.20 καὶ ὑπέστρεψαν οἱ ποιμένες The herders returned, δοξάζοντες καὶ αἰνοῦντες τὸν θεὸν honoring and praising God, ἐπὶ πᾶσιν οἷς ἤκουσαν καὶ εἶδον for everything they heard and saw καθὼς ἐλαλήθη πρὸς αὐτούς. was just as it was told them.

Again, these stories aren’t really parallel stories. But you might notice a common story structure between Matthew’s story of the magi and Luke’s story of the herders.

• The scene: the time of Herod, (Mt 2.1) or the herders at work. (Lk 2.8)
• Someone showed up: the magi appeared and said, “Hey, where’s the King of the Jews?” (Mt 2.2) or the Lord’s angel appeared and glowed like a space alien. (Lk 2.9-12)
• The response: Herod freaked out, (Mt 2.3) and Jerusalem with him, ’cause Herod had a tendency to kill people when he freaked out. The herders fled in terror, (Lk 2.9) ’cause you know how those space aliens are.
• A bit of explanation: Herod goes to the priests and scholars to find out about Messiah and where He was expected to be born, (Mt 2.4-6) and the angel gave the reason for its appearance. (Lk 2.10-11) John also referred to where Messiah was to be born, (Jn 7.41-42) which is why that bit appears here in the synopsis.
• People are sent to find baby Jesus: Herod told the magi to go find Him for him, (Mt 2.7-8) and the angel told the herders what they’d see when they saw Him. (Lk 2.12)
• Off they went: The magi followed the light in the sky until it pointed them directly to Jesus’s house, (Mt 2.9-10) and the herders went through Bethlehem looking for kids in the feed troughs. (Lk 2.15)
• They found Jesus: The magi paid Him homage and gave Him stuff, (Mt 2.11) and the herders basically told everyone about what the angel said to them. (Lk 2.16-19)
• They went home. The magi bailed on Herod, (Mt 2.12) and the herders went back to herding. (Lk 2.20)

These stories don’t take place at the same time, of course, regardless of the Nativity crèches you might see around Christmastime. The herders’ story in Luke obviously took place at the same time as Jesus’s birth; by the time the herders found Jesus, He was still in the trough. The magi’s story in Matthew took place, we estimate, about two years later. (Mt 2.16) Jesus was out of the trough by then, and apparently Joseph had got the family a house. (Mt 2.11)

What I found interesting in both stories are the sort of people God had the birth of the Messiah announced to. People like to contrast them—rich magi and poor herders. Thing is, they did have something in common between them. They weren’t Pharisees.

“Well, that’s a good thing, right?” might be your response—if you make the all-too-common mistake of thinking that a Pharisee is a bad person. To most Christians nowadays, “Pharisee” means “self-righteous hypocrite.” Sorta like “Puritan” to a lot of people. Neither is accurate. Pharisees were the Jews who actually followed the Law and worshipped God. Non-Pharisees were what we’d today call “secular Jews”—descendants of Abraham who didn’t bother to follow the God of Abraham, and were no better than pagans. (Yes, there were other denominations of Jews—those we know of are the Sadducees, Essenes, Samaritans, and the Qumran sect. But the Pharisees seem to be the only folks who were solid enough for Jesus to critique.)

The herders were likely ethnic Jews. It is entirely possible, due to how close Bethlehem is to Jerusalem, that the animals they were raising were specifically for sacrifice in the temple. However, herders had an awful reputation in ancient Israel. Think cowboys in the Wild West—real cowboys, not the cowboys in the movies. Sure, some of them were God-fearing people, but the bulk of them were the scum of the earth, watching cattle because their obscene behavior made them unfit for much else. The herders weren’t far different.

These would not be the people we might expect God to talk to first when it came to announce the birth of the Messiah. But they are.

Next the magi. What are magi? Well, contrary to the Christmas carol, they’re not kings. Most Christians who know a little something about history tend to call them “wise men,” or even go so far as to say “Persian astrologers”—then quickly point out that people back then didn’t know the difference between astrology and astronomy, so they can be forgiven their ignorance; they were basically the ancient world’s version of scientists.

But that’s all junk. Magi are Zoroastrians.

Zarathushtra was an Iranian prophet who lived at roughly the same time as King David, in the 11th or 10th century BCE. Maybe even earlier. There are a lot of strange Greek and Christian myths about him, but put those aside. The religion that came from his teachings, Zoroastrianism, teaches there are two gods: the good creator, Ahura Mazda, and the evil destructive principle, Angra Mainyu, whom Ahura Mazda will inevitably defeat. People need to join Ahura Mazda’s side of truth and order, and actively pursue good thoughts, words, and deeds.

There’s a really good chance that Zoroastrian ideas were incorporated into the ancient Hebrew religion as a result of the Babylonian captivity, when the Hebrews were exposed to Zarathushtra’s teachings in the schools. Daniel, fr’instance, was more than likely taught a bit of it. In the bible, we don’t much about the Adversary, about resurrection, and about angels that are specifically in charge of nations, until after the Babylonian captivity. Not that these things didn’t exist before; it just appears as though the Hebrews didn’t know about them till they encountered what the Zoroastrians had to say about them.

This idea bothers a lot of Christians. We believe Jesus is right. But we inaccurately come to the converse conclusion: that pagans are all wrong. Pagans are not entirely wrong. They are just wrong enough for us to need to hear from Jesus. Many things they get right. There’s a great deal of Buddhism that is exactly right; a great deal of ancient Greek philosophy that accurately depicts the world; and a whole lot of Zoroastrianism that properly describes God.

How, if they’re pagans, could they possibly have arrived at the truth? Well, it’s not too hard to figure: All truth is God’s truth; all truth comes from God. They got it from God. “But they’re pagans.” Yes, they are. So what? They still got it from God.

Now, your average Christian has no trouble with the angels appearing to the herders because even though the herders were terrible Jews, they were still Jews. Out of hand, we tend to reject the idea that God only appears to special, extra-holy folks, ’cause there are so many stories in the bible and Christian history of God appearing to whomever He wants. But deep down, we still have a problem with the idea that God would talk to pagans. And yet it’s biblical. Noah wasn’t a Jew. Abraham, when God first spoke to him, was a pagan. Balaam was a pagan, and an unrepentant evil prophet-for-hire pagan at that, but God talked to him anyway. Cornelius was a pagan—a God-fearing pagan, but still a pagan.

It’s understandable that we’re anxious about the idea. We don’t want to give people the idea that you can be saved without Jesus. ’Cause you can’t. Catholic theologian Karl Rahner came up with an interesting idea, which I largely agree with, that there are some pagans who are “anonymous Christians”—thanks to God’s grace, He has credited them with righteousness just as He did Abraham (Ro 4.3) and Jesus has saved them, even though they don’t know it’s Jesus who saved them. He did so “anonymously.” While there’s a very good biblical basis for saying there’s something to Rahner’s idea, we Christians don’t want to make the mistake of thinking that every good pagan might somehow be an “anonymous Christian.” It’s not for us to say who the “anonymous Christians” are; we have to do our job and keep proclaiming Jesus.

But we don’t want to go to the opposite extreme and say God doesn’t talk to pagans. Obviously He does. After all, how are pagans gonna ever come to God if He never talks to them?

What we have done, unfortunately and stupidly, is whitewashed what the magi are. The thinking was that if we obscure their religion, we won’t encourage people to try it out, and in so doing fall away from Jesus. And what has ironically happened as a result is that many Christians have tried out astrology. After all, the magi did it, and by golly, astrology pinpointed where baby Jesus was! So there must be something to it. Right? And in so doing, Christians fell away from Jesus; I mean, why read a bible to find out God’s general will when the planets will give you a much more specific answer?

In obscuring who the magi are, we largely eliminated the whole idea that God might—and in fact does—talk to pagans just as much as He talks to Christians. God talks to everybody. He’s not just the God of the Christians, remember? He’s the God of everybody. To the pagans, He encourages them to follow Him. To the Christians, He encourages us to follow Him. Sometimes He gets specific. Usually He just pokes us in the conscience whenever we’re violating it—though He has been known to make appearances and intervene from time to time.

But to say that He only appears to the “right” people? That’s simply not God. As demonstrated when He announced the most important thing ever: the birth of the Messiah.

α. Jesus.

β. Bethlehem.

γ. Herod I of Judah.

δ. Or “at its rising.” I translated it literally.

ε. Usu. “star.” But ἀστήρ/astír refers to any light in the sky—stars, planets, comets, etc.—smaller than the moon.

ζ. Mary.

η. Usu. “myrrh.” But it could be any resin used for perfume.

θ. Usu. “shepherds.” But ποιμήν/pimín can also refer to a goatherd, and “flocks” in this verse can likewise refer to goats.

ι. Or “Master’s.” The Jews used ‏אֲדֹנָי/adona’i, “my Lord,” to refer to Yahweh without saying His holy name.

κ. Usu. “feared.” But the passive form means “fled in fear.”

λ. Lit. “to humans of His good favor.”

μ. Or “went from them to the sky,” or “into heaven.”

ν. Or “Master.” See note θ.

ξ. Joseph.

ο. Lit. “heart.”

Jesus our Immanu’el?

Matthew 1.22-23, Isaiah 7.10-17.

Color-coding: Matthew+Isaiah LXX.

Matthew 1.22-23. 1.22 τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν “All this has been done ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου so that the Lord’s saying may be fulfilled διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· through the prophet who said,	Isaiah 7.14 LXX. 7.14 διὰ τοῦτο Because of this, 7.14 διὰ τοῦτο δώσει κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον· the Lord Himself will give you a sign:	Isaiah 7.14 BHS. 7.14 ‏לָכֵן For this, 7.14 ‏לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא לָכֶם אוֹת my Lord Himself is giving you a sign:
1.23 ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει ‘Look, the virgin will have a child in the womb	ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει Look, the virgin will have a child in the womb	‏הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה Look, a pregnant maiden
καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, and will give birth to a son. καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ, They will declare his name Immanu’el.’ ”	καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, and will give birth to a son. καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ· You will declare his name Immanu’el.	‏וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן gave birth to a son. ‏וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ She declared his name
ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός. This is translated, “God with us.”		עִמָּנוּ אֵל׃ “God to us.”

When the Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament was published in 1952, it caused a giant ruckus because the translators dared to render Isaiah 7.14 with “Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman’u-el.” Well, if you’re translating from the Hebrew, ‏עַלְמָה/almah literally refers to a teenage girl. It was reasonable back then to assume a God-fearing teenage girl would be a virgin until she was married, which is why the translators of the Septuagint (traditionally abbreviated LXX) rendered it “virgin.” But it was likewise reasonable to assume a God-fearing teenage girl, after marriage, would not be a virgin. That’s why it’s not very responsible to translate ‏עַלְמָה/almah as “virgin.” Responsible translation means you don’t read anything into the text—and include footnotes wherever you’re pushing it. (I push it all the time, which is why I sometimes load up on the footnotes.)

The translation “virgin” of course made Isaiah 7.14 hugely relevant to Matthew’s depiction of the birth of Jesus. After all, here’s a verse that refers to a virgin conception. True, it’s a bad translation—kind of embarrassingly bad, because it implies that parthenogenesis (a virgin spontaneously conceiving a child) has happened before.

Wait, what?

Yeah; people are so hung up on the “Isaiah 7.14 proves the virgin birth of Jesus” idea that they forget this verse is part of a larger, and entirely different, story. In roughly 735 BCE, Syria and northern Israel (“Ephraim”) joined together to invade southern Israel (“Judah”) as part of the first campaign of the Syro-Ephraimite War. God sent Isaiah to the king of Jerusalem, Akhaz ben Yotam, to encourage him, and tell him that they wouldn’t succeed.

7.10 ‏וַיּוֹסֶף יְהוָה דַּבֵּר אֶל־אָחָז לֵאמֹר׃	Again, Yahweh’s word came to Akhaz to say,
7.11 ‏שְׁאַל־לְךָ אוֹת מֵעִם יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ	“Request a sign from Yahweh your God,
‏הַעְמֵק שְׁאָלָה אוֹ הַגְבֵּהַּ לְמָעְלָה׃	made deep as a graveα or made high as outer space.”
7.12 ‏וַיֹּאמֶר אָחָז לֹא־אֶשְׁאַל	Akhaz said, “I won’t ask;
‏וְלֹא־אֲנַסֶּה אֶת־יְהוָה׃	I won’t test Yahweh.”
7.13 ‏וַיֹּאמֶר שִׁמְעוּ־נָא בֵּית דָּוִד	Heβ said, “House of David, hear me, please.γ
‏הַמְעַט מִכֶּם הַלְאוֹת אֲנָשִׁים	It takes little for you to make people tired,
‏כִּי תַלְאוּ גַּם אֶת־אֱלֹהָי׃	because you’re also making God tired.
7.14 ‏לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא לָכֶם אוֹת	For this, my Lord Himself is giving you a sign:
‏הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן	Look, a pregnant maiden gave birth to a son.
‏וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ עִמָּנוּ אֵל׃	She declared his name ‘God to us.’
7.15 ‏חֶמְאָה וּדְבַשׁ יֹאכֵל	He will eat chunky milkδ and honey,
‏לְדַעְתּוֹ מָאוֹס בָּרָע וּבָחוֹר בַּטּוֹב׃	and learn to reject evil and choose good.
7.16 ‏כִּי בְּטֶרֶם יֵדַע הַנַּעַר מָאֹס בָּרָע וּבָחֹר בַּטּוֹב	But before the boy learns to reject evil and choose good,
‏תֵּעָזֵב הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה קָץ	the nations you fearε will be laid waste
‏מִפְּנֵי שְׁנֵי מְלָכֶיהָ׃	before the face of these two kings.
7.17 ‏יָבִיא יְהוָה	Yahweh is bringing
‏עָלֶיךָ וְעַל־עַמְּךָ וְעַל־בֵּית אָבִיךָ	upon you, your people, and your father’s house
‏יָמִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא־בָאוּ לְמִיּוֹם	days which haven’t come since the days
‏סוּר־אֶפְרַיִם מֵעַל יְהוּדָה	when Efrayimζ turned away from Yehudahη
‏אֵת מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר׃	to the king of Ashur.”θ

Those weren’t bad days, by the way. That was when Ephraim had last stopped pestering Judah and both countries had become client states of the Assyrian Empire—back when there was relative peace in the region.

But notice: This prophecy about the young woman giving birth to a son is not about the Messiah. It is about the time frame between when a boy—a specific, literal boy named Immanu’el—was born, went through the terrible twos, and achieved a basic understanding of good and bad. If Immanu’el had just been born, it meant that within the next few years, this war would be done, and Ephraim and Syria would be out of Akhaz’s hair.

And, in fact, this war didn’t go on any longer than four years. Akhaz paid the king of Assyria, Tukultī-apil-Esharra (“Tiglat Pileser,” in Hebrew) to get them off his back, and raided God’s temple in order to pay him tribute. (2Ki 16.5-9) Probably not the way God intended to do it, but Akhaz didn’t have the best track record with God, and figured God helps those who help themselves… thus achieving God’s prophecy in his own way.

Some rabbis have conjectured that the young woman in Isaiah 7.14 is part of Akhaz’s family—the message, after all, is for the house of David—and possibly even one of Akhaz’s wives. In which case, Immanu’el might be another name for Hezekiah ben Akhaz, the next king of Judah. As God’s anointed king, Hezekiah would actually have the title Messiah. This scenario isn’t entirely unlikely; Hezekiah was born in roughly 740 BCE, and since all the dates before the Babylonian Empire are rough, there’s a tiny chance that this prophecy actually refers to that messiah.

Yet even so, this story isn’t referring to our Messiah. So why, then, does Matthew quote this scripture like it’s relevant to his story?

Because Jesus fulfills this scripture. The term “fulfill” confuses a lot of people because they aren’t taught what it means, and consequently guessed it means “to achieve or bring to reality.” (In fact, that’s the definition I get first in my computer dictionary. You realize of course that when everyone uses a word wrong, the wrong definition turns into the right one. Language evolves like that.) But “fulfill,” in its original now-archaic definition, meant “to make full.”

Isaiah’s story has a meaning. But Jesus, because He is greater and more profound than this little Immanu’el from 800 years ago, has a layer of reality to His story that sort of makes this ancient story just a shadow of it. In this story, a “virgin” gives birth to a son—just as the virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus. The son is named Immanu’el, which sorta means “God with us”—and Jesus literally is God with us, God made human. It’s one of those freaky coincidences that are so coincidental that people conclude God is somehow involved in it. And what’s to say He’s not?

Isaiah wasn’t talking about Jesus—in this passage anyway; he does so elsewhere. But Jesus’s life tells this story better than Isaiah does, in a more profound and complete way, and that’s why Matthew quotes Isaiah.

 

If this interpretation personally bugs you, ’cause you’re really fond of saying, “Check this out: Eight hundred years before Jesus was born, Isaiah said a virgin would give birth to a son, foretelling Jesus’s birth exactly!”—I really can’t help it if you’re fond of making ignorant statements. Personally, I hate when I do that. It’s why I look things up. I don’t care to base my faith on flawed data if I can help it.

Now, if you’re okay with that… well, you’ve crossed the line from ignorance, which isn’t your fault, to idiocy, which is. And it isn’t just stupid to say things that aren’t true just because they sound good; it’s fraudulent. It’s bearing false witness about Jesus. I’m quite sure God commanded us not to do that about anyone, much more Jesus.

Jesus is our Immanu’el. Note though: He’s our Immanu’el. Not the original. It’s like saying a ballplayer is “this generation’s Hank Aaron.” Since He’s still alive, He’s sort of everyone’s Immanu’el… which is kind of cool for Immanu’el, to be immortalized by being compared to our Master. Good for him.

α. Or “deep as Hades.”

β. Meaning Isaiah.

γ. Or “now.”

δ. Usu. “curds” or “butter,” but “chunky milk” fits the parallel of evil versus good.

ε. Lit. “the soil which you dread.”

ζ. Ephraim, northern Israel.

η. Judah, southern Israel.

θ. Assyria.

The circumstances of Jesus’s birth.

Synopsis §7, “The Birth of Jesus”: Matthew 1.18-25, Luke 2.1-7.

Matthew 1.18-25. 1.18 Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν. The birth of Messiah Yeshuaα was like this: μνηστευθείσης τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ, His mother Miryam,β promised to Yosef,γ πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εὑρέθη before she was to join together with him, ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου. she had a child in her womb from the Holy Spirit. 1.19 Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς, Her manδ Yosef, δίκαιος ὢν καὶ μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι, being fair, and not wanting her embarrassed, ἐβουλήθη λάθρᾳ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν. wished to secretly divorce her. 1.20 ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδοὺ After he had thought of this, look, ἄγγελος κυρίου κατ᾿ ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ the Lord’sε angel appeared to him through a dream, λέγων· Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαυίδ, saying, “Yosef ben David: μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαρίαν τὴν γυναῖκά σου· You should not be afraid to receive Miryam your wife. τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἁγίου. For the child begotten in her by the Spirit is holy.ζ 1.21 τέξεται δὲ υἱόν, She will give birth to a son. καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν· You will declare His name Yeshua, αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν. for He will rescue His people from their sins. 1.22 τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν All this has been done ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου so that the Lord’s saying may be fulfilled διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· through the prophet who said, 1.23 ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει ‘Look, the virgin will have a child in the womb καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, and will give birth to a son. καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ, They will declare his name Immanu’el.’ ” ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός. This is translated, “God with us.” 1.24 ἐγερθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕπνου After waking from his sleep, ἐποίησεν ὡς προσέταξεν αὐτῷ ὁ ἄγγελος κυρίου he did as the Lord’s angel commanded καὶ παρέλαβεν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, and received his woman.δ 1.25 καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν He didn’t “know”η her ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν· until she birthed a son, καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν. and he declared His name Yeshua.

Luke 2.1-7. 2.1 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις In those days, it was that ἐξῆλθεν δόγμα παρὰ Καίσαρος Αὐγούστου a rule went out from Augustus Caesar ἀπογράφεσθαι πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην. to take a census of the whole civilized world. 2.2 αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο This first census took place ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου. while Quirinius is governing Syria. 2.3 καὶ ἐπορεύοντο πάντες ἀπογράφεσθαι, Everyone went to be counted, ἕκαστος εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ πόλιν. each in his own city. 2.4 Ἀνέβη δὲ καὶ Ἰωσὴφ Yosef also went up, ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐκ πόλεως Ναζαρὲθ from the Galilee, from the city Natzarah,θ εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν εἰς πόλιν Δαυὶδ ἥτις καλεῖται Βηθλέεμ, to Judah to David’s city, which is called Beit Lekhem,ι διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς Δαυίδ, because He was of the house and family of David, 2.5 ἀπογράψασθαι σὺν Μαριὰμ τῇ ἐμνηστευμένῃ αὐτῷ, to register with Miryam his fiancée, οὔσῃ ἐγκύῳ. being pregnant. 2.6 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἐκεῖ While they were there, it was that ἐπλήσθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ τεκεῖν αὐτήν, the time came for her to give birth. 2.7 καὶ ἔτεκεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον, She begot her son, the firstborn. καὶ ἐσπαργάνωσεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀνέκλινεν αὐτὸν ἐν φάτνῃ, She swaddled Him and laid Him in a trough, διότι οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι. because they had no place in the extra room.κ

These stories aren’t really parallel; Matthew’s story largely takes place before Luke’s. But this is how they’re put in Aland’s Synopsis of the Four Gospels, and as you notice, they don’t really overlap. Both are sorta stories about crises.

 

Matthew first. We have Joseph deciding to divorce Mary. In our culture, engaged people do not belong to one another until they’re married; in Joseph’s culture, people belonged to one another as soon as they were promised to one another. So “divorce” is the proper term. The public way was to gather witnesses, publicly accuse Mary of adultery, and end the relationship with her being stoned to death. (Dt 22.21) The Romans had taken the death penalty away from the Jews—not that banning this sort of thing has stopped people nowadays, in various countries, from killing their wives and daughters anyway—so Mary was more likely to suffer public humiliation than death. That’s what Matthew refers to by Joseph “not wanting her embarrassed.”

Joseph instead opted to go to Mary, say, “I divorce you” three times, and that was the end of the relationship. She would stay with her parents—who might send her off to be with Elizabeth or other family in order to hide the out-of-wedlock birth of Jesus.

Once Joseph determined to do this—though certainly before he could talk it over with Mary, for there wouldn’t be any talking it over; he’d just say “I divorce you” thrice—he went to sleep, and dreamed of an angel, who told him to do otherwise.

There’s a lot of misinterpretation about Joseph and the angels in his dreams. Most of it comes as a result of people neither believing in such things, nor believing that God still does this. Left to guessing, some interpreters figure that it wasn’t from God: It was Joseph’s subconscious, telling him what he wanted to hear, that Mary’s preposterous story was true, and he was free to marry her regardless of his religious obligation to divorce her and reject sin. Or they figure it was God, and it was some kind of profound religious experience in which Joseph was so euphoric with revelation that he couldn’t disbelieve the angel.

The reality, most likely, is that Joseph had been experiencing prophetic dreams his whole life. Many of us do. It’s a lot more widespread than people believe—because most tend to ignore them. God doesn’t stick with a method of communication when people are resistant—why phone someone who never picks up? But for those who don’t resist, the ability develops, as it did with Joseph’s namesake in Genesis. (And it stands to reason that having a hero from the bible with the same name as you, who heard from God in his dreams, would tend to make you receptive to developing the same ability.) Three times in Matthew we see Joseph obey dream angels, and I expect there were many other times.

The angel cut right to the real underlying issue in Joseph’s decision: It wasn’t that he was offended by any alleged adultery that Mary may have committed. It was that he was afraid. We don’t know what he was specifically afraid of. He might have been the gossips in the Galilee—who were either speculating that Joseph was the baby’s father, or worse, that someone else was. (Celsus, an anti-Christian philosopher, suggested a Roman named Panthera.) Or it’s possible he even believed Mary’s story, but didn’t feel up to taking responsibility for something as earth-shaking as a baby conceived by the Holy Spirit. In any event, Joseph was freaked out, and it’s entirely understandable. But just as God figured Mary was up to this challenge, He also figured Joseph was up to it too, and the angel’s message essentially tells him to man up and be the boy’s father.

I’ll get to the Isaiah reference another time. The point is that Joseph awoke, obeyed, and claimed Jesus as his own—he was the one to call Him Jesus at His circumcision, and raised Him to be a handyman like himself.

 

Now Luke. The story begins by Luke saying that the reason Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Nazareth, was because of a national census provoked by Augustus Caesar, and taking place while Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was the legate of Syria. The trouble is that this explanation creates more problems than it answers. But I think I can sort them out.

First, there’s the concern about Joseph going to Bethlehem for it. Historians rightly point out that in no Roman census were people required to go to their ancestral homeland for the census. And Luke doesn’t say so either: “Everyone went to be counted, each in his own city.” (Lk 2.3) If you were from Nazareth, you were counted in Nazareth; if from Capernaum, you were counted in Capernaum; if Jerusalem, Jerusalem. Joseph, on the other hand, was not from Nazareth. He was from Bethlehem. What was he doing in Nazareth? Courting Mary, likely—Jews married other members of their clans, and it’s almost certain that Mary was in Joseph’s clan, despite living in northern Palestine rather than Judah. It appears in Matthew that Joseph had every intention of staying and raising Jesus in Bethlehem… until he concluded that Herod Archelaus might be a problem, and decided to move to where Mary’s family was. (Mt 2.22-23) So this census didn’t cause mass displacement; it only caused Joseph’s return home. A mass displacement would have caused the sort of chaos that Romans absolutely hated.

Second, there’s the date of these events. Luke’s reference to Augustus Caesar’s census and Quirinius’s governorship don’t really line up; nor do they line up with Matthew’s storyline.

We know the dates for three of Augustus’s national censuses: 28 BCE, 8 BCE, and 14 CE. Possibly there were others. The only trouble is that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was legate of Syria (Lk 2.2) from 6 to 12 CE. Now, while Quirinius did order a census soon after he took power, it was only a local census, not a national one. It is possible that Luke mixed up Quirinius’s provincial census with Augustus’s national one.

Matthew, however, tells the story of how Herod I of Judah tried to get Jesus killed. (Mt 2.13-18) Herod died in 4 BCE. Quirinius wasn’t appointed legate of Syria until after Herod’s son, Archelaus Herod (whom Joseph moved to Nazareth specifically to avoid, Mt 2.22) managed to botch his job as king and was fired and banished by Augustus in 6 CE. There were nine years between Herod I’s death and Quirinius’s appointment. Now, there’s evidence that Luke also wanted to put Jesus’s birth during Herod I’s reign: Gabriel appeared to Zechariah during it. (Lk 1.5) John’s conception is implied to be fairly soon afterward, and Mary conceived Jesus while Elizabeth was still pregnant. So Quirinius is the historical problem here. It’s a minor discrepancy… but when you’re dealing with the Christians who believe the bible has no errors in it, this is a GIANT problem.

Christians have pitched a few different theories on how to reconcile Matthew and Luke. The most popular one is that Quirinius had been a co-governor or lieutenant governor previously, possibly as far back as 10 BCE. This theory of an earlier term or terms was first pitched in the 1500s by Cesare Baronio, and is more popular than the next most common theory—that someone mixed up Quirinius’s name with Saturninus or Quintilius in one of the earliest copies of Luke, and that’s the version we have.

Well, there’s no evidence that Quirinius ever had an earlier term as legate over Syria. He was too busy ruling Crete, Cyrene, Galatia, and Cilicia, and fighting insurgents. Pretty much the only conclusion I can come to is that “while Quirinius is governing Syria” doesn’t belong here. Without it, there’s no problem with the chronology. With it, Mary was pregnant for about a decade, and all the Herod stories are fiction. Possibly there was another name there; someone who felt he was “fixing” Luke swapped it, and now we have an error in the bible. (I don’t say this so much as a way of defending inerrancy; I just happen to have a lot of respect for Luke’s historicity, and think it less likely that the error was his. But possibly it was.)

Lastly, there’s Jesus’s birth. The movies and Christmas nativity crèches depict this in a stable. There’s no stable in Luke; there’s just a trough. But a stable is implied, ’cause the only other place you’d find a trough would be the courtyard—now there’s a disturbing idea. Traditionally, though, Jesus’s birthplace was a stable made from a cave in Bethlehem, where the Church of the Nativity now stands. It is not, as our Western crèches depict it, a wooden barn; nor is the trough made of wood. Bethlehem didn’t have a lot of wood in it, and possibly the reason Joseph was up north in Nazareth was because he couldn’t find work in the south.

Of course Jesus wasn’t born in the trough, despite the popular saying that He was “born in a manger.” He was swaddled and laid in it.

This was because there was no place in the extra room. Κατάλυμα/katályma is traditionally translated “inn,” but the Greek word for inn is πανδοχεῖον/pandohíon, literally “receiving everyone.” Mary, you may recall, was pregnant before Joseph could properly prepare a place for a new bride, and the result was that they had to rely on the inadequate accommodations of Joseph’s family. Usually extra rooms were put on the roof, and it’s a lot to expect a nine-months-pregnant girl to climb up to the roof every night, or to give birth there. The stable was probably a lot more practical, and roomier, and—hey, there’s a trough; that’ll work as a bassinet. People usually depict these circumstances as evidence of poverty and rejection, but they were probably just practicality.

 

The thing we can usually take away from crisis stories is how God sorts things out in the end. Particularly when He creates the crisis. The birth of Jesus threw Joseph and Mary’s relationship into drastic upheaval, and it’s not like when we obey God there won’t be difficulty—contrary to popular belief, particularly American expectations. And there was difficulty. Joseph and Mary weren’t prepared for marriage, and weren’t provided for at the time their son was born. But God did provide Mary with a husband; God did arrange for them to be relocated to Bethlehem for the birth—far from the Nazareth gossips, at least—and they had someplace to stay; God even incorporated the current events of a pagan emperor into His plan to bring Messiah into the world. If ever you’re wondering how God can bring order to the seemingly out-of-control elements of our daily lives, note how He did it here. True, this is looking at it in hindsight, but that’s where things are clearest.

α. Jesus.

β. Mary.

γ. Joseph.

δ. There are no ancient Greek words for “husband” and “wife.”

ε. Or “Master.” The Jews used ‏אֲדֹנָי/adona’i, “my Lord,” to refer to Yahweh without saying His holy name.

ζ. Usu. “is by the Holy Spirit.”

η. Literal. Of course it implies sex.

θ. Nazareth.

ι. Bethlehem.

κ. Usu. “inn.”