Eamon Younis: The “Hidden Years” of Jesus (Luke 2:21-52)

By David J. MacLeod [1]

Introduction

Evangelical theologian and Bible teacher, Frederick Dale Bruner, says there are two major lectures or courses that the Holy Spirit would have every Christian hear and understand. The first is on the true deity of Jesus Christ, and the other is on His true humanity. To put this another way, the Holy Spirit has two major works. He first brings Christ down to earth and makes Him real and human for us. And second He lifts Him up and teaches us that He is Lord, that is, that He is God (cf. 1 Cor. 12:3). [2] In the words of the great Creed of Chalcedon (a.d. 451), “We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood: truly God and truly man.” [3]

In an earlier article on the birth of Christ I drew attention to our Lord’s full deity. [4] He is the eternal Son who was sent into this world for our redemption (cf. Gal. 4:4–5). In this present study I want to turn your attention to the true humanity of the Lord as it is seen in His growth during the years of His childhood and youth.

Sometime ago William MacDonald, former President of Emmaus Bible College, sat across a dinner table and said to me, “The Brethren are very jealous of the true deity of Christ.” That is true of the Brethren as it is of every truly evangelical denomination or fellowship of churches. And, as the noted Bible teacher agreed, we should be equally jealous of the true humanity of Christ.

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries most attacks on the person of Christ have centered on His true deity. Many Christians today do not realize that many of the earliest heresies of the Christian church were attacks on our Lord’s true humanity. A summary of some of these early heresies will be helpful in alerting us to a danger that exists in the thinking of some even today:

The Docetists (a.d. 70–170) denied the reality of Christ’s human body. The word “docetist” comes from the Greek word δοκέω (dokeō) which means “to seem,” or “to appear.” Jesus, they said, only appeared to be a man. They were Gnostic in their thinking. The word “Gnostic” comes from the Greek word γνῶσις (gnōsis) meaning “knowledge,” and one element of their secret knowledge was that matter was evil. Jesus, therefore, could not have a material body. His body was phantasmal, leaving no footprints as He walked along the seashore. [5]

The Valentinians, named for the Gnostic theologian, Valentinus (early 2d cent. a.d.), were Docetists. They attributed to Jesus a pneumatic (i.e., spiritual or immaterial) body. From conception to birth our Lord passed through the body of His mother “like water through a pipe,” deriving no part of His humanity from her. [6] As one can see, this view would mean that Jesus is not truly the human son and heir of David. [7]

The Apollinarians were named for Apollinaris (or Apollinarius), Bishop of Laodicea (a.d. 310–390). Apollinaris believed in the threefold division of human nature into body, soul, and spirit. He argued that Jesus did not have a human spirit, which is the seat of the higher rational powers in man. Instead, the eternal Logos or Word of God occupied the place of the human spirit of Jesus. Christians soon realized that this made Jesus an imperfect man, being, in fact, only two-thirds man. If this view were true, then (1) our Lord would not have a true human psychology, and (2) He could not have redeemed our whole human nature but only the parts He assumed. Apollinarianism was soon condemned. [8]

The Eutychians were named for Eutyches, head of a large monastery in Constantinople (a.d. 378–454). He was the founder of the Monophysite heresy. The word “Monophysite” means “only one nature” (from μόνος [monos, “only one”] + φύσις [physis, “nature”]). He denied the integrity and distinctiveness of the two natures of Christ by confusing, mixing, or blending them. In effect, he denied that Christ’s human nature was of the same essence as ours, rendering our redemption through Him impossible. He deified the human nature. The human attributes and limitations of Jesus were obliterated by this heresy, which was condemned at Chalcedon in a.d. 451. [9]

We, too, reject these heresies, not only because earlier generations of Christians condemned them but because they are not true to the revelation about Christ that we find in the Bible.

Having considered Matthew’s account of the birth of Christ we now turn our attention to a brief survey of the years between His infancy and the beginning of His public ministry. These years are traditionally called “the hidden years” of Christ in that the Bible says so little about them. [10]

The Selection of Sources for Information on the “Hidden Years” of Jesus

Misleading Source # 1: The Deceptive Myths of the New Age Movement

When we study the life of our Lord Jesus Christ we need to devote our attention to those documents that will truly help us and not those that will mislead us. In this latter category are the deceptive myths of the “New Age” Movement. The New Age Movement refers to a widely held world view or philosophy of life. It is a religion in that it holds to monism or pantheism, i.e., that idea that everything, including man, is a part of God. It is an eclectic religion in that it combines elements of Gnosticism, Buddhism, and Hinduism as well as occultic practices such as “channeling” or communing with spirits. It goes without saying that such religious ideas are false, and “channeling” is condemned in the Bible as a wicked and demonic practice (cf. Deut. 18:9–13).

Proponents of New Age philosophy appear to speak highly of Jesus, but they actually demean Him. He is a way-shower, not the Savior of the world. He did not come to die for men’s sins but to communicate gnosis (secret knowledge) so that people would become enlightened and save themselves. Many New Age thinkers quote “The Life of Saint Issa,” a work by a Russian war correspondent, Nicolas Notovitch who claims to have found (in 1887) a manuscript in a Tibetan monastery which spoke of Saint Issa or Jesus. [11] According to this manuscript Jesus left Nazareth when he was thirteen and traveled with merchants to India and then Tibet to study the laws of the great Buddha. [12] Notovitch’s story has been completely discredited as a hoax, but it is still cited by New Age propaganda. They like it because it demotes Jesus Christ from His rightful place as God’s only Son and our Savior to the role of just another enlightened guru or religious teacher. It attributes all of His wisdom to Eastern religions and denies His bodily resurrection from the dead.

Other New Age writers cite The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, written by Civil War chaplain, Levi H. Dowling (1844–1911). [13] He claims to have received his information (the “Akashic Records”) from Akasha, an immense spiritual field that surrounds the earth. He, too, says that Jesus went to India where he studied with Brahmins and Buddhists. Again He is not the unique Savior or Son of God. He is merely the prototype of what we can all become, viz., Christ.

Another hero of the New Agers is medium Edgar Cayce (1877–1945). [14] He says that through thirty reincarnations Jesus finally became the Christ. His first incarnation was as Adam who sinned in Eden. Through His many reincarnations Jesus saved Himself by good works. As Jesus He was taught the doctrines of the Essenes, and He then went to Egypt, India, and Persia.

We leave such deceptive myths with a word from Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772), himself something of a mystic and pantheist. [15] He wrote, “When Spirits begin to speak with a man, he ought to beware that he believes nothing whatever from them; for they say almost anything. Things are fabricated by them, and they lie…. They would tell so many lies and indeed with solemn affirmation that a man would be astonished…. If a man listens and believes they press on, and deceive, and seduce.” [16]

Who is behind this New Age Jesus? Douglas Groothuis answers, “The evidence points to an overarching spiritual liar armed with ingenuity and craftiness, commanding a number of subordinates and able to recycle one basic message in an appealing number of versions.” [17]

It goes without saying that there is not a word of support in the New Testament for Jesus’ supposed visits to the Far East. There is no hint that He left Palestine at age thirteen. As a carpenter He had no need to do so. He would later say, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). He never showed any desire to explore the world in search of greater teaching. He often cites the Jewish Scriptures but no others and tells the Samaritan woman, “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22). When we examine the Gospels we find no gaping hole in Jesus’ life — no “lost years” as New Agers put it. Rather many years are summarized before the Gospel writers get to the heart of their story — His public ministry as an adult and His death for the sins of His people. [18]

Misleading Source # 2: The Pious Fictions of the Apocryphal Gospels

During the second and third centuries Christians seem to have been avid readers. They did not confine their reading to the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, but read other stories and sayings about Jesus and His apostles that are not found in the New Testament. These were the religious fiction of their day, and many believers read them out of curiosity about the origins of their faith.

These second and third century Gospels and Acts are not inspired Scripture, nor are they the highly intellectual theological writings produced by the church fathers. They are more sensational, magical, and superstitious than the New Testament Scriptures, and more popular and unorthodox than the theologians. While they tell us something about the reading habits of the Christians of their time, they tell us nothing true about Christ that is not in the New Testament. But they do tell us apocryphal (i.e., false or legendary; not historical) stories that would distort our belief if we accepted them.

The apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas (2:1–5) tells us that the five-year-old Jesus played at a pool and there molded twelve clay sparrows. It was the Sabbath Day, and Joseph rebuked Him for desecrating the Sabbath. Jesus clapped His hands, and said to the clay sparrows, “Be gone!” They immediately flew away chirping. Later (4:1–2) a child ran into Him, hitting Him on the shoulder. Jesus was angry and said, “You shall not go further on your way,” and immediately the child fell down and died. [19] In the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy (40) some boys with whom He was playing hid from Him, so He turned them into little goats. The effect of these and other stories is to portray the child Jesus as an enfant terrible. We are struck less by the piety of the child than by His destructiveness. [20] In short, the Apocryphal Gospels give us no help on the “hidden years” of Christ.

The Trustworthy Source: The Careful (but Sketchy) Narrative of the Word of God

It is not to the fabrications of New Age religion or to the legends of the 2d and 3d centuries that we turn for information on the “hidden years” but to the inspired records of the New Testament. Instead of the non-existent, fabricated manuscript of Nicholas Notovitch, we have the 5,336 ancient Greek New Testament manuscripts that speak of Jesus Christ’s life and work. Instead of the channeled messages of modern mediums we have the carefully researched record of Dr. Luke. We turn our attention, then, to the second chapter of Luke, which may be fairly looked upon, says the great Princetonian, B. B. Warfield, “as an express history of the development of the man, Christ Jesus.” [21]

A Consideration of the Narrative of Luke on the “Hidden Years” of Jesus

The Faithful Parenting of Mary and Joseph, Luke 2:21-52

The Circumcision of Jesus, v. 21

The Lord Jesus was “born of a woman, born under the Law” (Gal. 4:4), says the Apostle Paul. The Jewish Law stipulated that there be three ceremonies following the birth of a male child. [22] The first of these was circumcision; the OT instructed that any son of Abraham be circumcised on the eighth day after his birth (Lev. 12:3; cf. Gen. 17:11–12). On that day the child was named, and this child was given the name “Jesus,” which means “Yahweh [i.e., the Lord] is salvation” or “Yahweh saves.” [23] This name points to the truth that “He…will save His People from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). His parents, then, obeyed the Law. They did what every devout Jew would do with a Jewish son. [24] The circumcision points to His humanity in its removal of a piece of His flesh, [25] and it points to His Jewishness. It was as an Israelite, and heir of the Abraham promises, that He would live out His human existence. [26]

The Redemption of the Firstborn, v. 23

After the circumcision came the second rite prescribed by the Law. In the case of the firstborn son a redemption price of five silver shekels had to be paid. This could be done any time after the first month. Five shekels was about two ounces of silver and amounted to about five months’ pay for the average laborer in biblical times (Num. 18:15–16). [27]

It is believed that originally all firstborn sons had a priestly role. Certainly God lays special claim to the firstborn in the Old Testament (Exod. 13:2, 12, 15; 34:19). But under the Jewish theocracy all priestly functions had been transferred to the tribe of Levi (Num. 3:12). That one tribe took the place of the firstborn males of all the other families of Israel in performing the priestly tasks.

Although the firstborn males of the other tribes no longer performed priestly work, the Lord desired to keep alive a feeling of His rights to their worship and service. To keep this feeling alive, God fixed a redemption price to be paid for every firstborn male. [28]

The Law did not say that they had to bring the child along, but Joseph and Mary did so. [29 ]Our text says they “brought Him up to Jerusalem.” Literally, they went down, for Bethlehem stands higher than Jerusalem. [30]

The Purification of His Mother, vv. 22, 24

The third rite does not involve Jesus but only His mother. The Law stipulated that a mother was ritually unclean for seven days after the birth of a son. After one week she was bathed as a symbolic means of purification. There was a secondary level of impurity for another thirty-three days, during which she could touch nothing holy — she was disqualified for public worship. [31] She then presented an offering and resumed her life in the worshipping community. This ritual of impurity was, no doubt, intended to emphasize the importance of childbirth and to provide the young mother a time of seclusion for matters of delicacy (cf. Lev. 12:1–8). [32]

Verse 22 speaks of “their purification” (τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ αὐτῶν, tou katharismou autōn). This should not be taken to suggest that the child was viewed as unclean. Luke is here obviously summarizing. He compresses the account and runs together the redemption price of the son and the purification offering of Mary. [33] The Law required that the mother bring a lamb to the priest at the sanctuary for the completion of her purification. If she was poor, she could bring “two turtledoves or two young pigeons” (Lev. 12:6–8). That Mary offered two birds suggests that she and her husband were not well-to-do, but were poor. [34]

(The Flight to Egypt, cf. Matt. 2:13-23)

Sometime after Joseph and Mary brought their infant son back to Bethlehem, they received the visit from the Magi recorded in Matthew 2. The holy family was by then living in a house in the city (v. 11). [35] The Magi announced to King Herod that they were seeking the newly born “King of the Jews…to worship Him.” Herod, old, suspicious, and opposed to Jewish independence, was “troubled” and immediately determined to destroy this royal child (vv. 1–3, 8, 16). Meanwhile the Magi came to the home of Mary and Joseph and worshipped Christ and presented Him gifts (v. 11).

When the mysterious visitors from the East left, Joseph was warned by an angel that Herod the Great would seek to murder his son. Obeying the divine instructions, he fled with Mary and the baby to Egypt (vv. 13–14). The canonical Gospels tell us nothing of the trip to Egypt, but the apocryphal Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (18–24) adds imaginative details. [36] Dragons come out of a cave, but Jesus gets down from His mother’s lap, and they worship Him — as do lions and panthers who meet them in the desert. Jesus also miraculously shortens the trip through the desert from thirty days to one. In Egypt Mary goes into a temple with the child and all the idols prostrate themselves and are shattered before them. Such things are not recorded in the inspired record, and they show a tendency to downplay the reality of our Lord’s human existence.

Where they lived in Egypt Matthew does not say. There was a thriving Jewish population in that country of about a million Jews. The chief city was Alexandria, which had a Jewish quarter with a population as large as Jerusalem. [37] The language spoken by the Jews there was Greek and not the day-to-day Aramaic spoken in Palestine. If they stayed until Jesus began to speak, his first words may have been in Greek, the international language of the day. [38]

His Childhood in Nazareth, vv. 39-40

Matthew says that they were in Egypt until Herod died (4 b.c.). Sometime later they returned to Israel. Instead of returning to Bethlehem, however, they moved to Nazareth to avoid Herod’s family. Luke is again compressing his account and omits the visit of the Magi and the flight to Egypt.

The Visit to Jerusalem, vv. 41-50

The next few years are passed over, and we next see Jesus at the age of twelve. A Jewish boy at that time would become obligated to observe the Torah (i.e., the Law) when he was thirteen. At the age of twelve he went through a period of rigorous instruction in preparation for this rite of passage. Many pious Jews would take their sons at an earlier age than thirteen to get them used to the obligation. [39] The devotion of Jesus’ parents to God and His Torah again comes to the fore. The OT Law required that Jewish men attend three of the annual festivals: Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles (Exod. 23:14–17; 34:22–23; Deut. 16:16). [40] About women the Law says nothing. [41] That Joseph and Mary went to Passover “every year” (κατ᾿ ἔτος, kat’ etos) indicates they were faithful adherents of the traditional faith.

Passover takes place on Nisan 14 (March or April) and celebrates the miraculous deliverance of the nation of Israel from Egypt in the days of Moses. The celebration in Jerusalem lasted for seven days. [42] Pilgrims to the festival traveled in caravans due to highway robbers. This caravan was so large, including people from Nazareth and neighboring villages, that it took Joseph and Mary a day to look through it when seeking their missing son. [43] The trip from Nazareth to Jerusalem, bypassing Samaria, would be about eighty miles and would be a three-or four-day affair, as the caravan would make around twenty miles a day. [44]

Although some of the pilgrims celebrated Passover and then returned home after two days, verse 43 (“the full number of days,” καὶ τελειωσάντων τὰς ἡμέρας, kai teleiōsantōn tas hēmeras) suggests that Joseph and Mary stayed for the full seven days. The length of their stay reveals their devotion to the worship of God. [45]

The day came to leave, and the caravan departed for Nazareth. Joseph and Mary no doubt assumed that Jesus was with the other children or with relatives and friends. That evening they discovered He was not there. The next day they traveled a day’s journey back to Jerusalem, and on the next day they found Him in the temple. For “three days” He has been out of their sight.

There He was, as custom would dictate for pupils, sitting on the ground. The Rabbis were probably sitting in a semicircle on benches with this unusual boy in the middle. [46] Luke says that He was “listening to them, and asking them questions.” We should note that he puts “listening” first. Jesus was there as a learner. The usual mode of instruction was that a pupil should ask as well as answer questions.

We should not read too much into verses 46 and 47. [47] The Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas (19:2) has Jesus’ comments silencing the teachers. The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy (50–52) pictures Jesus instructing them in the statutes of the Law and the mysteries of the Prophets as well as in astronomy, medicine, physics, and metaphysics. [48] Such portraits are simply not intended here. Rather, Luke portrays Jesus as a boy with a thirst to discuss and understand spiritual questions, and His insights astonish the crowd. As New Testament scholar, Everett F. Harrison, wrote, “There is no suggestion that this was due to omniscience [49] on Jesus’ part such as is attributed to Him in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas. [50] Nor is there any of that impertinence which mars the apocryphal account.” [51] As Laurentin succinctly remarks, there is “neither mythomania nor megalomania.” [52]

His parents find him and they are “astonished” (v. 48). Luke’s expression probably implies amazement and relief. Mary addresses Him and speaks of their anxiety (v. 48). He has caused them pain. [53] Her question sets the stage for a key teaching about Jesus’ identity. Verse 49 contains Jesus’ very first recorded words. He is surprised — not at their coming back for Him, but at not knowing where to find Him. When left behind in a strange city, where was He to go? [54] The home of a child is the home of His father. [55] There is a gentle rebuke here. She has said, “Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.” He says, and here I am paraphrasing, “Where should a child be but in his father’s house? [56] and My Father is God.” [57]

Even Mary and Joseph must come to fully understand His nature and mission. [58] Our Lord’s unique sonship to God will lay upon Him duties which may call Him from His parents, and even cause discord in their feelings toward Him. [59] These very first words of Messiah are an expression of His divine sonship. [60] These words are the heart of this whole paragraph and the reason Luke has recorded it.

Although the paragraph ends with Luke’s affirming Jesus’ obedience to His earthly parents (v. 51), the main point of the account is the assertion of His divine sonship. “His obedience as son toward His heavenly Father transcends even that filial piety and obedience to Mary and Joseph.” [61] His independent conduct here strikes a chord that will be heard again in the Gospel proper (11:27–28).… In other words, for Luke Mary may be ‘the mother of the Lord’ (1:43), but it is much more important that her maternal ties yield to those of Jesus’ heavenly Father.” [62]

When theologians speak of the humanity of Christ, they speak of the commonalities, i.e., those things He has in common with other human beings. They also speak of the peculiarities, [63] those things that are different. First and foremost in this category is Christ’s unique, divine sonship — He has God as His Father. The later church would understand Him to mean His oneness in nature with God. [64]

In any case, this is the high point of the paragraph in which Jesus introduces Himself to the reader for the first time. [65] It was only very gradually that Joseph and Mary would come to understand His identity and mission. This is only one stage in their understanding of His Messiahship, and at this point they don’t understand very much (v. 50). [66] Mary did not take offense at His remark. Rather, according to verse 51, she reflected on it. Mary is most likely the source of Luke’s information at this point.

His Life in Nazareth, v. 51

Lest we get the impression from Jesus’ words in v. 49 that Jesus resented or repudiated His parents’ authority, Luke tells us in verse 51 that Jesus returned home and lived a life of submission to His parents. Children are to be submissive to their parents, and Jesus is a model of this to all His youthful disciples to this very day. [67]

Verse 51 contains the last reference to Joseph (“with them”) in the Gospel. Sometime in the next eighteen years he died. [68] Our Lord stayed at home and ran the family business.

It is significant that the incident at the Temple is the last one mentioned in our Lord’s life until He is “about thirty years of age” (Luke 3:23). This would suggest that for the Gospel writers there are no other events that are doctrinally significant. They were unaware of any unusual or miraculous events that occurred during this time. [69] The impression left by the Gospels is that this period was essentially normal and like that of any other Jewish child, boy, or young man. The normalcy of these years is suggested by three things: [70] (1) The fact that the visit to the Temple at age twelve is the only recorded incident in His life from early childhood to mature manhood suggests that there were no other events that were Christologically significant. (2) The unbelief of Jesus’ family and community also suggests that there were no unique events that would lead them to suspect His unique divine calling and relationship to God (Luke 4:22, 28–29; John 7:5). (3) The wonder or surprise of Joseph and Mary that Luke persistently emphasizes suggests that the unusual events were very rare (Luke 1:34; 2:19, 33, 48, 51). They seem never to have grasped the full significance of His deity.

The great Edersheim wrote:

Christ could not, in any true sense, have been subject to His Parents, if they had fully understood that He was Divine; nor could He, in that case, have been watched, as He ‘grew in wisdom and in favor with God and men.’ Such knowledge would have broken the bond of His Humanity to ours, by severing that which bound Him as a child to His mother…. We can thus, in some measure, understand why the mystery of His Divinity had to be kept while He was on earth. Had it been otherwise, the thought of His Divinity would have proved so all-absorbing, as to render impossible that of His Humanity, with all its lessons. [71]

The Genuine Human Development of Jesus, vv. 40, 52

Three words and two verses in this chapter point to the genuine human development of Jesus. The three words are “baby” (βρέφος, brephos) in v. 16; “child” (παιδίον, paidion) in verse 40; and “boy” (παῖς, pais) in verse 43. One speaks of His infancy, one of His childhood, and one of His youth. [72] The two verses are 40 and 52. Verse 40 looks back over His childhood from infancy to age twelve. “And the Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him.” The expressions, “continued to grow” and “become strong” speak of His physical development. The word “wisdom” speaks of intellectual and moral growth, and like His physical growth, His growth in these areas was real. “The grace of God was upon Him.” He grew spiritually as well. The divine favor was upon Him and He grew in His perception of God’s will. [73]

Verse 52 describes Jesus’ growth into young manhood. He grew in “stature,” i.e., He grew physically. He grew in “wisdom.” This includes knowledge, yet it is more than knowledge. [74] It refers to insight — to intellectual and moral development, to a perception of what God values in this life (cf. Prov. 3:3). [75] He increased “in favor with God.” The word “favor” here is χάρις (charis, i.e., “grace,” “gracious care,” “favor,” “goodwill”). [76] God’s gracious care was upon Him (v. 40), and He grew morally and spiritually.77 He increased “in favor with men.” “An absolutely perfect human being living among men could not fail to be attractive until His public ministry brought Him into collision with their prejudices and sins.” [78] “It is impossible to read Luke’s language and doubt the real humanity of the child.” [79]

Both verses, then, refer to our Lord’s growth as a man. Elsewhere (Heb. 5:8) we read that “He learned obedience.” How are we to explain this divine person with attributes such as eternality (John 17:5; Mic. 5:2), omnipotence (Isa. 9:6; Heb. 1:3), omniscience (Col. 2:3), and omnipresence (Matt. 28:20) who also manifests human qualities and limitations in His lifespan, power, knowledge, as well as the localization of His presence in a human body? [80] The answer of the historic Christian church in her creeds (especially the Chalcedonian Creed of ad 451) and her most learned theologians [81] is found in the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Yes, Jesus Christ was truly the divine Son of God; yet through the miracle of the incarnation He is also a man. And as John F. Walvoord notes, the incarnate state of Christ required the “voluntary nonuse” of the divine attributes in order to carry out His mission. [82] Choosing not to avail Himself of His divine powers, He learned in the same way we do. As a boy He had to learn that two plus two equals four, and as a twelve-year-old He was still learning about various facets of human life. As a twelve-year-old He did not have a thirty-year-old’s understanding of things.

When we read the Gospels it is clear that all of the attributes and limitations of humanity were His. Years ago a young man from California requested that I meet him for lunch. His home church had had a terrible division over the doctrine of the person of Christ. “How could Christ grow in knowledge?” he asked. “Wasn’t He perfect? How could He become more perfect?” I answered with the words I had read in an outstanding commentary on Luke: “At each stage He was perfect for that stage, but the perfection of a child is inferior to the perfection of a man.” [83]

I often ask my students if they think that the infant Jesus had teeth. Some seem almost afraid to answer. I then tell them, “Well, of course, He didn’t have teeth.” Was He therefore imperfect? No, for infants — even a perfect infant — do not have teeth. Now, if He lacked teeth when He was fifteen, then He would not have been a perfect fifteen-year-old. You see, He was perfect at every stage for that stage.

To deny that our Lord grew physically (vv. 40, 52) would be Docetism. To deny that He learned, that He grew intellectually would be Apollinarianism. [84] To deny that He had human limitations would be Eutychianism. [85] We must resist these heresies. We must confess the great historic doctrine of the hypostatic union, i.e., the union of two natures (divine and human) in the one person of Christ. He has two natures, and these two natures must not be confused or mixed. To affirm the reality of the hypostatic union one does not claim to fully comprehend the mystery of Christ’s person. Yet the Scriptures do give us enough information to adequately comprehend our Lord’s person — enough information to cause us to fall, in apostolic fashion, in adoring wonder (Phil. 2:9–11; cf. 1 Tim. 3:16).

When we say that God became a man, some think just that — He became an adult male. They have trouble thinking of Him as growing and developing. It is perhaps better to say He became human, and that He experienced human development. Even when some admit that He had a childhood they are inclined to think of it as a superhuman or celestial childhood. They think of Him in mythical terms — like Hercules, who, while yet a nursing baby in the cradle, squeezed two monster serpents to death with his tender hands. Jesus was not “God in a body,” i.e., a god who had a human costume. No, He is God the Son who assumed a human nature. These two natures are united in one person. He is truly God and truly man — yes truly man! [86]

It is hard to understand, says Warfield, those who will “admit His growth in knowledge during childhood, yet deny as intolerable the hypothesis of a limitation of His knowledge during His ministry.” In Mark 13:32 our Lord Himself tells us that He does not know the time of His coming. [87] Elsewhere He seeks knowledge through questions, e.g., “Who touched My garments?” (Mark 5:30–33). Here in verse 46 He is “asking them questions.” The New Testament pictures Him expressing surprise (Mark 14:33), [88] being tempted (Matt. 4:1–11; Heb. 2:18; 4:15), and being conscious of dependence upon God (John 11:41–42). He was a man of prayer, and He knew that His human will must be subordinated to the will of God in heaven — “not as I will, but as Thou wilt” (Matt. 26:39). He exercised faith (Heb. 12:2; cf. Matt. 27:43), and He learned obedience by the things which He suffered (Heb. 5:8). “He was all that a man — a man without error and sin — is, and must be conceived to have grown, as it is proper for a man to grow, not only during His youth, but continually through life, not alone in knowledge, but in wisdom.… We need not fear,” says Warfield, “that we may emphasize too strongly the true, the complete humanity of Christ.” [89]

F. F. Bruce, the noted New Testament scholar, was a lifelong member of the Brethren; he served, in fact, as an elder in a local assembly. As a boy he heard a preacher express horror because he had heard someone, in an address, take for granted that our Lord in His boyhood had gone to school and learned His lessons from a human teacher. The preacher judged this to be an intolerable attack on Christ’s omniscience, i.e., His perfect knowledge. “He owed nothing to earth,” said the speaker. Bruce said that he felt glad that Luke had clearly stated that “Jesus kept increasing in wisdom.” [90] “All that is true of God may be attributed to Christ,” says Warfield, “and equally all that is true of man.” [91]

The Miscellaneous Details of Scripture

His Home, Luke 2:39, 51

Our Lord’s home for the next eighteen years was Nazareth. From the ridge at the edge of the city, where Jesus as a boy must often have stood, there is a magnificent panorama that includes the Mediterranean Sea to the west, Mount Carmel and the plain of Sharon to the south, the broad valley of Esdraelon, with Mount Tabor on the north. Capping the scene would be glistening Mt. Hermon to the northeast.

We often think of Jesus growing as a rural lad cut off from city life, living in a country village of 400 or so. That is untrue, for just three miles to the north and 700 feet below was the magnificent new city of Sepphoris, the capital of the kingdom of Herod Antipas for most of Jesus’ life. [92] Sepphoris could be reached in an hour (fifteen minutes by horseback). With a population of about 30,000 it came to be close in size to Jerusalem. [93]

Herod Antipas was born in 20 b.c. At the tender age of twelve he was shipped off to Rome for training that would prepare him to rule. In 5 b.c. he returned to Jerusalem to visit with his dying father, Herod the Great. When his father died he became ruler (“tetrarch,” ruler of one fourth of a nation) over the territories of Galilee and Perea; his brother Archelaus became ruler (“ethnarch,” or ruler of a nation) of Judea and Samaria. [94] In 3 b.c. the Romans had burned Sepphoris to crush a rebellion, but Antipas chose it as his capital. For the next thirty years or so — most of Jesus’ life — a vast construction project took place to build Antipas’ seat of power. Just three miles away from Nazareth was this center of political policy, military strategy, economic regulations, and cultural affairs. It became the largest and most beautiful city in the region.

The Jesus we meet in the Gospels is acquainted with the policies and actions of kings (Matt. 22:1–14; Luke 19:11–27), spends time with government officials like tax collectors (Luke 5:29–32), knows something of wealthy landowners as well as poor peasants (Matt. 20:1–16; 21:33–43), and is familiar with the language of the theater (cf. Matt. 6:5). [95]

One further note on Nazareth should be added. It has sometimes been asked why God did not have the boy grow up in Jerusalem. New Testament commentator, J. P. Lange, says that it was a “master-stroke of divine wisdom that He should have grown up in that town.” Lange’s point is that it was good for Him to be away from the theological doctors who had so admired Him. In Jerusalem He would have been repressed by the deadening traditions of the rabbis. In Nazareth He could search the Scriptures on His own and with the devout Joseph, and commune not with the dead Pharisees but with the ever-living words of the inspired prophets. [96]

His Occupation, Mark 6:3

After He taught in the synagogue, the people asked, “Is not this the carpenter?” Comparing this text with Matthew 13:55 we learn that Jesus, as was the custom, learned the trade of His father. The word τέκτων (tektōn) is best translated “carpenter.” Traditionally this has been understood to mean that Jesus worked in His father’s woodworker’s shop, making furniture (tables, stools, chairs, and beds) and farm implements (plows, forks, yokes, etc.). [97] Possibly He helped build barns, and His teaching illustrations suggest this (Matt. 7:4, “beam,” and Matt. 13:30; Luke 12:18, “barn”). It has also been suggested that He and His father worked on the construction of Herod Antipas’ capital at Sepphoris. [98]

We should note that Jesus’ family, while poor, did not live in abject poverty. No, He was a tradesman who made a living for His family. Sometimes modern writers like to argue that Jesus is a figure in the distant past who has no relevance for us. He was just a “Galilean peasant.” No, He was a skilled craftsman, and not a destitute person. [99] Nor was He a country bumpkin. He lived near — and probably worked as a carpenter in — a Greco-Roman metropolis with its markets, pools, fountains, public baths, ritual baths (mikvaot), residential district, theater, and royal palace. He did not live cut off from the world, but on a major trade route through the Greek-speaking East.

His Family, Matthew 13:55-56

The New Testament tells us quite a bit about Jesus’ family. We know of His mother’s cousin, Elizabeth, and her son, John the Baptist, Jesus’ second cousin (Luke 1:36). We know of His aunt, Salome (“His mother’s sister,” John 19:25), [100] and her sons James and John, His first cousins, the latter probably being His best friend (“the disciple whom He loved,” John 19:26). On Joseph’s side, Clopas was His uncle, [101] three of whose sons (James, Simon and Judas) may well have become His disciples. [102] Our text in Mark 6 also tells us that He had brothers and sisters. The brothers are named in Matthew 13:55 — James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. These were, no doubt, siblings born to Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus. [103]

There is a wonderful practical lesson here. Joseph, as noted above, probably died sometime before Jesus began His public ministry. And so He stayed home and fulfilled the duties of the eldest son. [104] There was a world calling Him, says William Barclay, but He first fulfilled His duty to His mother and to His family.

When his mother died Sir James Barrie could write, “I can look back, and I cannot see the smallest thing undone.” There is real happiness for those who faithfully and ungrudgingly accept the simple duties of life.

One of the great examples of that is the famous doctor and scientist, Sir James Y. Simpson (1811–70), the discoverer of chloroform, the first great modern anesthetic. He came from a poor home. One day His mother took him on her knee and began to darn his stockings. When she finished, she looked at her neat handiwork. “My Jamie,” she said, “mind when your mither’s awa’ [when your mother has gone away, i.e., in death] that she was a grand darner.”

Jamie was the “wise wean, the little box of brains,” and his family knew it. They had their dreams for him. his brother Sandy said, “I aye [always] felt he would be great some day.” And so, without jealousy and willingly, his brothers worked in the bakeshop and at their jobs that Jamie might have his college education and his opportunity. There would have been no Sir James Simpson had there not been simple folks willing to do simple things and to deny themselves so that the brilliant youth might have his chance.

Jesus is the great example of one who accepted the simple duties of His home. He knew what it was to be a working man, to earn a living, to save to buy food and clothes. He was a businessman who knew the critical customer and the man who wouldn’t pay Him for work that He had done. If Christ was to be the sympathetic friend and Savior of His people, He must know what men’s lives were really like. He did not live a protected life; He lived the life that every man must live. In Nazareth, says Barclay, Jesus faithfully performed the lesser task before the greater task was given to Him to do (cf. Luke 16:10). [105]

When young preacher Harold St. John (1876–1957) went down to the slums of London to preach, he dressed in a finely tailored frock coat and a silk top hat. He stood there with his Bible in his hand, but no one would listen. He suddenly realized his problem. He got hold of the oldest suit he could borrow, and put just a few coins in his pocket, and he went to the lodging house where two or three hundred of those poor homeless men would gather to lie or sit on the floor for the night. Young Harold sat where they sat and was bitten by the fleas that bit them. The same bugs that crawled over them crawled over him. There he went night after night striking up friendships with some of them and listening to their needs and woes. Finally one morning, when they were getting something to eat at six o’clock, he began to speak to them, and everyone gave him their attention. He had sat where they had sat, had been dirty as they were dirty, and they felt he understood them. Mr. St. John says that when God sent His Son He didn’t send Him preaching right away. For thirty years He never said a word in public preaching or teaching. For thirty years He sat where men sat and learned their thoughts and experiences. For thirty years He knew hunger, weariness, poverty, and the cares of a home. When He learned these things, He opened His mouth and He began to speak. And all the world listened, and it has been listening ever since. [106]

We should also note that the New Testament says nothing about our Lord being married. Some modern writers have dismissed the silence of the New Testament and have argued that it was normal for Jewish men to marry. It has been asserted with great certainty that He was married to Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, or Salome. The objection against these theories is threefold: (1) There is no mention in the New Testament of a wife of Jesus — other than His bride, the church (cf. Eph. 5:22–32; Rev. 19:7). (2) The absence of any concern for His wife at the time of the crucifixion would be startling in light of His careful provision for His mother (John 19:27). (3) Finally, the argument that it would have been unusual for Him not to be married confronts the objection that He was unusual! [107]

His Appearance, John 8:57

A father and his little girl were looking at a familiar portrait of Jesus in white robe and halo with a lamb tucked under His arm. The father told his daughter that stereotyped picture was just an artist’s description — it was not an authentic description. The little girl carefully examined the picture, noted the lamb, the compassion in Jesus’ eyes, and the serene face beneath the brownish beard. She paused, and then looked up confidently, “Well, it certainly does look like Him!” It’s not likely that this deeply ingrained picture we all have of Jesus will be superseded. [108]

Although the New Testament gives a physical description of John the Baptist, it gives none for Jesus. [109] It is likely, however, that the silence of Jesus’ adversaries gives us some clues about His appearance. [110] The rabbis had very definite standards for the outward appearance of a proper Jew, especially a teacher. They could scornfully criticize if the standards were not met. He must have measured up to these standards for they never attacked Him because of His appearance. According to rabbinical theory, the reflection of the divine presence could only descend upon a man of tall and powerful stature. [111] He must have met the standard, a fact supported by His years of physical labor and His many rugged journeys. He must have had at least average height and physical strength. Certainly His lifelong trade as a carpenter would argue against His being the frail and emaciated Jesus of much pious art.

The color of the Palestinian Jew of antiquity was light brown, the eyes usually brown, although blue eyes were not rare. They were black-haired, and contemporary coins suggest they wore their hair shoulder-length, parted in the middle, combed, and anointed with a thin, fine oil (cf. Matt. 6:17; Luke 7:46). A beard and mustache were also worn. [112]

His style of dress was inconspicuous, neither luxurious nor poor. He would probably wear a sleeveless undergarment with a belt (Mark 6:8; John 19:23), the usual cloak (Luke 8:44), sandals (Mark 1:7; 6:9), and on His journeys He would carry a staff (Mark 6:8). The only special detail we know is that His undergarment was seamless, woven in one piece (John 19:23). He might have worn a white cloth on His head, tied with a string and hanging down behind to the shoulders. Galileans often carried a sword tucked into their belt as protection against highway robbers and wild animals. Jesus probably did not, but some of His disciples did (Matt. 26:51; Luke 22:38).

There is an interesting fact mentioned by John (8:57). Jesus was in His thirties, yet the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Apparently He looked as if He was in His forties. “Apparently identification with men in their cares and sorrows left its imprint upon the Man of Sorrows.” [113]

His Education and Scriptural Knowledge, John 7:15

As custom dictated Jesus’ father, Joseph, would teach Him the Torah from a very early age. He would also study in the village school. Three languages were in use in Palestine at that time. The language of everyday use was Aramaic, which He probably spoke with a Galilean accent. [114] He seems to have spoken to Pilate without an interpreter, and it is most likely that they spoke in Greek, the language of commerce. [115] If He worked in the Greek-speaking city of Sepphoris, He would certainly have used Greek. We know He could read the Hebrew Bible, because He read from the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogue (Luke 4:16–22). Like other Jews of that day, Jesus lived in a trilingual environment. [116]

When He taught in the temple the Jews marveled, “How has this man become learned (γράμματα, grammata), having never been educated?” (John 7:15). This same word “learning” (γράμματα) is used by Festus of Paul, “Paul, you are out of your mind! Your great learning is driving you mad” (Acts 26:24). Festus had detected in Paul the knowledge and understanding of a man taught in the professional schools. [117] The Jews detected the same kind of expertise in Jesus in handling the Scriptures, yet He had never studied under the rabbis, i.e., He was not professionally educated. He was living proof of David’s words, “The secret of the Lord is for those who fear Him” (Ps. 25:14). Never had anyone feared the Lord as did He. [118]

Conclusion

Three lessons — two practical and one doctrinal — may be drawn from our study of the “hidden years” of Christ.

Practical Lesson One

The first practical lesson concerns the source of spiritual knowledge and guidance. As we have seen, New Age thinkers and proponents of the Apocryphal Gospels would have us look to their literature for information about the “hidden years” of Jesus. We reject such sources in favor of the Bible, the Word of God.

There are many voices in the world today telling us about Christ. They all have their opinions about who this man is. Yet there is only one voice worth listening to and that is the voice of the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures.

Practical Lesson Two

There is a second practical lesson. It has to do with Christian parenting. Mary and Joseph took very seriously their responsibility as parents to provide for the spiritual well-being of their son. The three old rituals performed at Jesus’ infancy all have in back of them, in addition to their doctrinal significance, the practical conviction that a child is a gift of God. The Stoics had a saying that a child was not given to a parent but only lent. “Of all God’s gifts,” says William Barclay, “there is none for which we shall be so answerable as the gift of a child.” [119]

The Doctrinal Lesson

The doctrinal lesson of our study is its focus on Luke’s emphasis on the true humanity of our Lord. The New Testament lists a number of reasons why God the Son became a man, and our passage suggests two of them. [120] First, He became a man to provide an example for our lives. Peter (1 Pet. 2:21) points to the earthly life of Jesus and says He has left “you an example for you to follow in His steps.” In light of His example it would be good to read Luke 2 — and all of the Gospel record, for that matter — and ask how God the Father brought Jesus to spiritual maturity. Let me suggest four different ways in which Jesus grew: [121]

He grew in the fruit of the Spirit (cf. Gal. 5:22–23). The Gospels provide a number of examples of the Spirit-grown qualities in Jesus’ life of love, joy, peace, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. All are summarized by Luke when he says that “the grace of God was upon Him” and that He grew “in wisdom” (vv. 40, 52).
He grew through the disciplines of life. Our Lord faced severe obstacles in His life as a man of faith. He could speak of His life — especially the time of His ministry as a time of “trials” (Luke 22:28). He was tempted, and He experienced rejection and misunderstanding — even within His own family (Luke 2:48; John 7:5). For a long time His parents did not comprehend His person and calling, yet He showed them humility, love, and obedience.
He grew in obedience (Heb. 5:8). The Apostle Paul saw this as a key to understanding His whole life and death (cf. Rom. 5:12–19). Even when He discovered that His parents were liable to sin “He came to Nazareth; and He continued in subjection to them” (Luke 2:51).
He grew through experience. The author of Hebrews says that Christ became a man that He might be a sympathetic and understanding High Priest (Heb. 4:4–16). He is the God who understands our human grief, trials, and difficulties. He has experienced them Himself. “Every experience of life was tasted in some form by Jesus,” and the author of Hebrews says that “He blazed a Pioneer’s trail of total, wholehearted obedience to His Father” (Heb. 12:2).

What were the means of His growth in grace as a man? Let me suggest three, for He was our example — let us learn from Him: [122] First, He searched the Scriptures. It was through His understanding that Jesus grew in His appreciation of the will of God for His life. As Sinclair Ferguson notes, a single reading of the Gospels makes us realize that Jesus identified Himself with the Old Testament figures of the Suffering Servant and the Son of Man (Isa. 52:13–53:12; Dan. 7:9–14). Second, He found fellowship with God in prayer. He enjoyed meditating on His Father’s greatness and love (John 5:20), and He drew on the resources of God His Father (John 11:41–42). Third, He looked for fellowship with God’s people. As a boy of twelve He engaged in discussion with the teachers of Israel, and as a man He chose twelve disciples “that they might be with Him” (Mark 3:14). The knowledge of God’s Word, communion with God in prayer, and fellowship with God’s people. These were Jesus’ means of growth, and they are the means we must use if we are to grow.

The second reason Christ became man is that He might die for us. Think back to the visit to the temple when Jesus was only an infant. When Mary and Joseph were there they were approached by the old man named Simeon who had a prophecy. He said a number of things about this child (Luke 2:29–35): First, this child would be the means of God’s salvation (v. 30). [123] He would bring spiritual light to the Gentiles and He would vindicate Israel’s special place in God’s program. [124] Second, he says that some will reject Christ, and they are headed for a fall; and there are those who will accept Him, and they are headed for vindication. [125] Finally, he says that great pain and sorrow will come to Mary because of this child. “A sword will pierce even your own soul” (v. 35). [126] He is, no doubt, speaking of her anguish at His sacrificial death.

There is a well-known painting by Holman Hunt (1827–1910) entitled, “The Shadow of the Cross.” [127] The day is fast ebbing away, and the rays of the sun are streaming in through the open door of the carpenter’s shop. The tired craftsman at the carpenter’s bench has just straightened up from his stooped and cramped position, and He stretches for a moment. The sun catches His outreached arms and throws on the wall behind Him the dark shadow of a cross. This was Hunt’s forceful way of stressing that even in the “hidden years” of obscurity His death in Jerusalem was inevitable. “From its opening stages to the eve of its close the cross casts its shadow over the [life] of Christ.” [128]

Notes

Dave MacLeod is a member of the faculty of Emmaus Bible College and the Associate Editor of The Emmaus Journal.
Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, 2 vols., vol. 1: The Christbook (Waco: Word, 1987), 23.
Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols., vol. 2: The Greek and Latin Creeds (New York: Harper, 1889), 62–63.
Cf. David J. MacLeod, “The Virginal Conception of Our Lord in Matthew 1:18–25, ” EmJ 8 (1999): 3-42.
Cf. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (henceforth: ODCC), s.v. “Docetism,” 413.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.7.2, in ANF, 1:325.
Cf. ODCC, s.v. “Valentinus,” 1423.
Apollinarianism was condemned at the Council of Constantinople, a.d. 381. Cf. ODCC, s.v. “Apollinarius,” 72–73.
Cf. ODCC, s.v. “Eutyches,” 484.
Edersheim wrote, “The Gospels furnish a history of the Savior, not a [full] biography of Jesus of Nazareth.” Cf. Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 2 vols. (3d ed., London: Longmans, Green, 1886; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 1:221.
Notovitch published the document entitled “The Life of Saint Issa: Best of the Sons of Men,” within his The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ, trans. J. H. Connelly and L. Landsberg (New York: R. F. Fenno, 1890). According to Groothuis, the publication date of this work is mistaken. Cf. Douglas Groothuis, Revealing the New Age Jesus (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990), 152, 170, n. 6. Violet Crispe’s translation of Notovitch’s work is reprinted in Elizabeth Clare Prophet, The Lost Years of Jesus (Livingston, Montana: Summit University Press, 1984), 91–246.
A full discussion on the New Age Movement’s view of Jesus Christ is beyond the scope of this article. Excellent analyses are to be found in two important works: Groothuis, Revealing the New Age Jesus, 146–73 and passim; Ron Rhodes, The Counterfeit Christ of the New Age Movement (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 27–56 and passim.
Levi, The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ (18th printing, London: L. N. Fowler, 1964).
Cf. Jeffrey Furst, ed., Edgar Cayce’s Story of Jesus (New York: Berkeley, 1976).
Cf. ODCC, s.v. “Swedenborg, Emanuel,” 1327–28.
Samuel M. Warren, A Compendium of the Theological Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg (1875; reprint ed., New York: Swedenborg Foundation, 1974), 618.
Groothuis, Revealing the New Age Jesus, 215. Groothuis (pp. 215-16) explains the sources of channeled messages as fourfold: (1) demonic spirits, (2) conscious fraud, (3) dissociative mental disorders, and (4) conscious or unconscious self-hypnosis.
Groothuis, Revealing the New Age Jesus, 148.
These legends are not only false historically; they are false theologically. Jesus was not anointed with power to perform miracles until His baptism as an adult (Acts 10:38).
J. K. Elliott, ed., The Apocryphal Jesus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 1, 19–21, 30.
Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Human Development of Jesus,” in Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, 2 vols., ed. John E. Meeter (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970), 1:158–66 (esp. p. 158).
Cf. G. B. Caird, Saint Luke, PNTC (New York: Viking Penguin, 1963), 64.
Luke 1:59 and 2:21 are the chief biblical evidence that naming took place at the time of circumcision. Cf. Alfred Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, ICC (5th ed., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1922), 62.
“His circumcision was a first step in His obedience to the will of God,” says Plummer, “and a first shedding of the redeeming blood.” Cf. Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 62. In the NT, however, only the blood shed at the cross is redemptive.
The circumcision of Jesus undermines the Docetic doctrine that Christ’s human flesh was only apparent.
Cf. Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 225.
R. K. Harrison, Numbers, WEC (Chicago: Moody, 1990), 250.
Cf. F. Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 2 vols., trans. E. W. Shalders (5th ed., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1879), 1:136.
Cf. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 235. Bock and others argue that there is another reason for the visit to Jerusalem. They argue that Mary and Joseph desired to dedicate their child to the service of the Lord (cf. 1 Sam. 1:11, 22, 28). Because He was so consecrated no redemption price was paid. Their argument rests on two observations: (1) The firstborn did not have to attend the redemption rite, yet Jesus was there. (2) Luke uses the word παραστῆσαι (“to present”) in v. 22. Cf. Bock, 235; Everett F. Harrison, A Short Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 53; I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 117; B. Reicke, “παρίστημι,” TDNT (1967), 5:840–41.
Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 63.
The periods of impurity doubled for a daughter (14 days and 66 days).
It may also have served as a reminder of the divine penalty associated with childbirth (Gen. 3:16). In the OT purification rites “focused on actions that blur, confuse, contradict perceived boundaries, such as those between one group of animal and another, the threshold leading from one stage of life to another, or the emission of bodily fluids. Childbirth constitutes a primary transformation of status and issues of purity related to it are regulated by the law, which is especially concerned with the matter of postpartum discharges.” Cf. Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 141.
Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 116. Not everyone agrees with Marshall’s view. Edersheim (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1:195, n. 1) takes the plural as a reference to “their, i.e., the Jews’ purification rites.” Others argue that the plural includes Joseph because either (1) he aided in the delivery of the child and was himself ceremonially unclean, or (2) he was included in the redemption process as one of the parents. Cf. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 236.
Other indications that Jesus’ family was poor include: (1) Paul’s statement, “yet for your sakes He became poor” [2 Cor. 8:9], (2) the disdain shown Jesus by the leaders of His day [Mark 11:27–28; Luke 4:22], (3) Jesus’ ease with and concern for the poor [Luke 4:18–19; 14:13, 21], and (4) His burial in another man’s tomb [Matt. 27:57–61]. Cf. Robert H. Stein, Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 84.
On the chronological order of these events, cf. Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 64.
Cf. Elliott, The Apocryphal Jesus, 23–27.
Jeremias estimates that the population of Jerusalem in Jesus’ time was between 25,000 and 30,000, with 20,000 inside the city walls and 5,000 to 10,000 outside. Cf. Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, trans. M. E. Dahl and F. H. and C. H. Cave (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 27, 83–83.
Cf. Steven Hart, “The Savior’s Hidden Years,” Biblical History 1 (June 1987): 42-50 (esp. p. 45).
For documentation, cf. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 126; Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 264. The custom of Bar Mitzvah (“son of the commandment”), common today for Jewish boys, began at a period after the time of Jesus. Cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke 1–9, AncB (New York: Doubleday, 1970), 440. Brown suggests that in some cases the age of making vows was set at twelve. Cf. Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City: Doubleday, 1977), 472–73.
Due to the Dispersion this requirement could not be kept, yet most Palestinian Jews tried to go to Jerusalem at least once a year. Cf. Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 74.
The school of Hillel required that women at least go on the Passover pilgrimage. Mary probably went due to her own piety and not the rule of Hillel. Cf. Godet, The Gospel of St. Luke, 1:146; Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 74.
According to Josephus the population of Jerusalem was quite large during Passover. He estimates that 255,600 lambs were sacrificed and 2,700,000 participated in the meals. These estimates are for the years a.d. 63–66. Cf. Josephus, The Jewish War 6.422, in Josephus, 10 vols., LCL, trans. H. St. J. Thackery et al (New York: Putnam’s, 1928), 3:496–99. Cf. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, 78.
Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 75.
Cf. the discussion in Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 263–64.
Cf. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 264–65. Plummer, however, argues that Joseph and Mary left on the third day because the public instruction described in v. 26 only took place on Sabbaths and festivals. If the seven days of Passover were over then this public instruction would have ceased. Cf. The Gospel According to St. Luke, 76.
Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 76; Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 267.
“There is nothing in the narrative, when rightly understood, that savors in the least of an apotheosis of Jesus.” Cf. Godet, The Gospel of St. Luke, 1:148. Godet’s point is that there is no suggestion in this account of our Lord exercising His divine attributes to confound the Rabbis.
Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 76; Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 267. Cf. The Apocryphal New Testament, trans. Montague Rhodes James (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924), 82.
Harrison did not, of course, deny the deity of Jesus, nor did he deny that He possessed the divine attribute of omniscience. Rather he was seeking to do justice to the apparent paradox of a person who possessed both the attributes of deity and the attributes of humanity. Our Lord was omnipotent in His deity, yet He was weak in His humanity; He was omniscient in His deity, yet in His humanity there were things He did not know; He was omnipresent in His deity, yet in His humanity He was limited to one physical location at a time.
Cf. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas 19 (also chs. 6 and 7), in The Apocryphal New Testament, 54–55 (and pp. 50-51).
Harrison, A Short Life of Christ, 62.
R. Laurentin, Jésus au Temple: Mystre de Pâques et Foi de Marie en Luc 2:48–50 (Etudes bibliques, Paris, 1966), 157. Cf. John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (Garden City: Doubleday, 1975), 117.
Godet (The Gospel of St. Luke, 1:148) detects a slight tone of reproach in the words of Mary. “She probably wished to justify herself for the apparent negligence of which she was guilty.” Cf. also Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 77.
Although his readers may have such questions, Luke is simply unconcerned as to how Jesus spent the nights in between Mary and Joseph’s discovery of Him or where He spent them. These questions are simply beside the point in Luke’s account. Cf. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke 1–9, 438.
Godet, The Gospel of St. Luke, 1:147.
Numerous translations have been offered for the phrase ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός including: (1) “among the things of my Father,” (2) “among those who serve my Father,” (3) “in the domain of my Father,” and (4) “about my Father’s business.” The interpretation of the early Greek and Latin fathers as well as all medieval writers until the thirteenth century favors the view of most modern interpreters, i.e., “in my Father’s house/home.” Cf. McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament, 118–19.
“Jesus must be involved with instruction in divine things [so He is in the temple], since the temple as presented by Luke is above all a place where instruction occurs (Luke 20–21).… [His] parents need to see that Jesus must be about the work of discussing what God desires.” Cf. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 270.
There are several key texts in the NT that outline the divine revelation given to Mary about her Son and her relationship to Him: (1) Luke 1:26–35 and the announcement of her conception of the baby. (2) Luke 2:48–51 and Jesus’ announcement of His unique divine sonship. (3) John 2:1–5 and the encounter at the wedding at Cana. (4) Matthew 12:47–48 and Jesus’ explanation of His new spiritual family. (5) John 19:25–27 and Jesus’ committal of His mother into the care of John. (6) Acts 1:14 and Mary’s presence among the new people of God.
Cf. John Martin Creed, The Gospel According to St. Luke (London: Macmillan, 1930), 44.
Godet (The Gospel of St. Luke, 1:147), reflecting his commitment to kenotic theology, writes, “Is not the freshness of a quite recent intuition perceptible in His answer?” Plummer (The Gospel According to St. Luke, 78) responds, “There is nothing which implies that He had just received a revelation of this relationship.” As Stein notes, “The Gospels do not describe a developmental process in which the baby Jesus gradually came to realize His sonship and unique relationship with God.… What they do tell us clearly is that already at the age of twelve such a consciousness was present” (Jesus the Messiah, 88–89). Walvoord wrote, “It may have taken time for His human consciousness to become aware of His unique Person. But by the time He was 12, when He dealt with the scholars in the temple, He seems to have been fully aware of His role as the Messiah and of His divine and human natures.” Cf. John F. Walvoord, ed., Systematic Theology: Abridged Edition, 2 vols., by Lewis Sperry Chafer (Wheaton: Victor, 1988), 1:241. Luke 2:49 is an important text in answering those who argue that Jesus had no “Messianic consciousness” until His baptism or even later (i.e., at the cross) or that His disciples did not attribute the Messianic office to Him until after the “Easter event.” Although it is true that our Lord was not anointed for the Messianic office until His baptism, He was clearly aware of His unique calling and relationship to God in His early childhood.
Hughes draws attention to a “centuries-old question,” namely, “Was Jesus a disobedient child?” (cf. R. Kent Hughes, Luke: That You May Know the Truth, 2 vols. (Wheaton: Crossway, 1998), 1:101–2). Some have concluded that He was. After all, He knew the caravan was leaving. He was bright and knew the time of day. Yet He was so caught up in the excitement of Passover that He knowingly and willfully rejected the wishes of His parents and stayed behind. We must disagree because such a conclusion ignores the clear teaching of the New Testament that Jesus was without sin, and disobedience to parents is a sin [Eph. 6:1–2]. Jesus later asked His detractors, “Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?” (John 8:46). He also said, “I always do what pleases [the Father]” (John 8:29). The NT writers all agree that “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth” (1 Pet. 2:22). John the apostle could flatly state, “And in Him is no sin” (1 John 3:5; cf. also 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 7:26). Furthermore, it should be noted that Luke’s account nowhere suggests that Jesus had done wrong in staying behind in Jerusalem. In fact, Jesus “expresses disappointment [in His earthly parents because they] have not understood that His relation to His heavenly Father transcends all natural family ties” (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke 1–9, 444). He asserts that He was doing the right thing, and His parents should have known this. He “had to be” in His Father’s house. Significantly He uses the particle δεῖ (“it is necessary”), which He frequently uses in Luke of “His appointed and undertaken course,” i.e., statements about His mission (e.g., Luke 4:43; 9:22; 13:33; 17:25; 19:5; 22:37; 24:7, 26, 44; cf. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, 4 vols., vol. 1: The Four Gospels (1861; rev. ed., Chicago: Moody, 1958), 466; Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 269; Fitzmyer, 443). It was necessary for Jesus to stay behind to pinpoint for Mary and Joseph—and for all His followers—the “primary issue: Who is Jesus’ Father? To whom does He owe primary allegiance?… The point is that He must align Himself with God’s purpose, even if this appears to compromise His relationship with His parents” (Green, The Gospel of Luke, 156–57). In short, Luke indicts Mary and Joseph (albeit gently), not Jesus, for their lack of understanding (v. 50).
Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke 1–9, 438.
Cf. Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 4 vols. (St. Louis: Concordia, 1951), 2:71.
Bock (Luke 1:1–9:50, 271) rightly notes that the text does not speak only of Messianic Sonship, but also of personal or ontological (i.e., essential) Sonship.
Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 271.
Critical scholars have expressed surprise at the difficulty of Mary and Joseph in understanding who Jesus is. Meyer wrote, “The angelic announcements (1:26–35; 2:10–19)…[make it] altogether incomprehensible how the words of Jesus could be unintelligible to His parents (H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Gospels of Mark and Luke [New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884; reprint ed., Winona Lake: Alpha, 1979], 286). As Godet astutely observed, however, “Criticism reasons as if the human heart worked according to logic” (The Gospel of St. Luke, 1:148). It is demanding too much of Mary and Joseph to believe they had a Chalcedonian Christology. They were simple and devout believers trying to understand the implications of all that had been revealed to them (cf. 2:19, 51).
Irenaeus wrote, “He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord.” Cf. Against Heresies 2.22.4, in ANF, 1:391.
There are at least three reasons for this assumption: (1) During the ministry of Jesus, we never read directly of Joseph. (2) The reference to Jesus as “the son of Mary” in Mark 6:3 is difficult to understand if Joseph was alive, because a man was usually referred to as the son of his father. (3) The fact that Matthew and Mark mention Jesus’ mother, brothers, and sisters but not His father suggests that Joseph was no longer living at that time [Matt. 13:55–56; Mark 3:31–35; 6:3]. Cf. Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 84–85.
John explicitly states that the turning of the water into wine at Cana was “the first” of Jesus’ miracles (John 2:11).
Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 81–82, 88; Harrison, A Short Life of Christ, 63–64.
Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1:192.
Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 78; Warfield, “The Human Development of Jesus,” 158.
Cf. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 254.
“Not in knowledge only, but in that instinctive skill in the practical use of knowledge, that moral and spiritual insight, which we call wisdom” (Warfield, “The Human Development of Jesus,” 159). At the risk of stating the obvious, we should note that wisdom is a form of knowledge. It is “knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action.” [It is] “sagacity, discernment, or insight.” Cf. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, s.v. “wisdom,” 1639. As Kelly states simply, “We read of Him in Luke as growing in knowledge as well as in stature.” Cf. William Kelly, An Exposition of the Gospel of Mark (new ed., London: Hammond, 1934), 184.
“We are apt to forget, that it was during this time that much of the great work of the second Adam was done. The growing up through infancy, childhood, youth, manhood, from grace to grace, holiness to holiness, in subjection, self-denial, and love, without one polluting touch of sin,—this it was which, consummated by the three years of active ministry, by the Passion, and by the Cross, constituted ‘the obedience of one man,’ by which many were made righteous.” Alford, The Greek Testament, 1:467. Alford here expresses the Reformed doctrine of the active and passive obedience of Christ.
Cf. BAGD, s.v. “χάρις,” 877.
Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 79; cf. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 274.
Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 79.
Warfield, “The Human Development of Jesus,” 161. Warfield adds (p. 159), “The language is charged, indeed, with suggestions that this was an extraordinary child whose growth we are witnessing, and His development was an extraordinary development.”
The limitations or weaknesses of the man Jesus are those that belong to human nature in a constitutional sense, i.e., they belong to human nature as finite, not as sinful. As Kelly noted, our Lord did not assume humanity in a “fallen and morally feeble state.” Cf. W. Kelly, Christ Tempted and Sympathising (rev. ed., 1906; reprint ed., Sunbury, PA: Believers Bookshelf, 1975), 4.
The serious student is here referred to the classic discussion of W. G. T. Shedd (Dogmatic Theology, 3 vols. [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1889; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.], 2:261–349), as well as the essay of Warfield, “The Human Development of Jesus,” 158–66.
John F. Walvoord, Jesus Christ Our Lord (Chicago: Moody, 1969), 143. It is incorrect to speak of the Son “laying aside” His divine attributes, for this would mean that He ceased to be God.
Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 79. Likewise, Kelly wrote, “While all was perfect and always so, still, that perfection admitted of progress.” Cf. William Kelly, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke, ed., E. E. Whitfield (London: Alfred Holness, 1914), 48.
If, as Apollinaris contended, the Divine Logos was a substitute for the human spirit of Jesus, then an increase in wisdom and favor with God would have been inconceivable. Cf. Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 79; John Pearson, An Exposition of the Creed, rev. W. S. Dobson (London: Scott, Webster, and Geary, 1839), 244.
Buswell notes, “The Eutychian error has been particularly persistent.” On two different occasions, he reports, he has had discussions with able Christian leaders who have (unknowingly) defended Eutychian beliefs to him. Cf. J. Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), 2:51.
Cf. J. J. Van Oosterzee, The Gospel According to Luke, trans. Philip Schaff and Charles C. Starbuck, in Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, 12 vols., ed. John Peter Lange, vol. 8: Matthew -Luke (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), 50.
Commenting on Mark 13:32, the noted Brethren Bible teacher, Harold St. John remarked, “It would be an intolerable impertinence for any one to pretend to possess such a knowledge of the interior workings of the mind of Christ, as to authorize him to affirm that Christ was unable to exclude from His consciousness such a detail as a date!” Cf. An Analysis of the Gospel of Mark (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1956), 141.
In Mark 14:33 Jesus is “very distressed” (AV has “sore amazed”) as He enters Gethsemane. The Greek verb is ἐκθαμβέω, which here suggests a “shuddering awe,” “amazement,” “distress,” “agitation,” or “surprise.” Swete says that our Lord’s “first feeling” as He entered the Garden “was one of terrified surprise.” Cf. Henry Barclay Swete, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1913), 342; Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (2d ed., London: Macmillan, 1966), 552.
Warfield, “The Human Development of Jesus,” 161–62. All that is true of developing childhood was true of Him—breast feeding, teething, learning to walk and talk, “potty training,” weaning, learning the alphabet and to read, learning to handle tools. The only difference between His development and ours is that His was in no way hampered by sin.
F. F. Bruce, “The Humanity of Jesus Christ,” in A Mind for What Matters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 254. This essay of Bruce is an important one for preachers and teachers (and other serious students) from among the Brethren to read.
Warfield, “The Human Development of Jesus,” 165. “No danger can possibly arise, of course, from our accepting in the fullest meaning that can be given to them the accounts of our Lord’s earthly development that Luke gives us, and the descriptions of His human traits provided for us by all the evangelists. It is, as we have said, gain and nothing but gain, to realize in all its fullness that our Lord was man even as we are men, made ‘in all things like unto His brethren’” (Heb. 2:17). “Where danger and evil enter in,” Warfield continues, “is when, in order to realize the completeness of Jesus’ humanity, we begin to attenuate, or put out of view, or even mayhap to push out of recognition His deity. For though the Scriptures represent Christ as all that man is, and attribute to Him all that is predicable of humanity, they are far from representing Him as only what man is, and as possessing nothing that cannot, in one way or another, be predicated of humanity. Alongside of these clear declarations and rich indications of His true and complete humanity, there runs an equally pervasive attribution to Him of all that belongs to deity” (pp. 162-63).
Antipas moved his capital from Sepphoris to Tiberias in a.d. 26.
Cf. Richard A. Batey, Jesus & the Forgotten City: New Light on Sepphoris and the Urban World of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 11–28 and passim.
Herod’s son by his wife Cleopatra of Jerusalem, Philip, became tetrarch of the territories northeast of the Sea of Galilee. Cf. Batey, Jesus & the Forgotten City, 52–53.
Antipas built a four-thousand-seat theater in Sepphoris during Jesus’ lifetime. The word “hypocrite” (ὑποκριτής, hypokritēs), used by Jesus (Matt. 6:5, 16) literally means “stage actor,” i.e., one who plays a part or pretends. In Jesus’ day there were theaters in Jerusalem, Jericho, Samaria, Caesarea, and Sidon. Cf. Batey, Jesus & the Forgotten City, 83–103.
John Peter Lange, The Life of the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 vols., trans. Sophia Taylor and J. E. Ryland (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872), 1:317, 324.
Writing in the 2d century, Justin Martyr said that He made ploughs and yokes. Cf. Dialogue With Trypho 88, in ANF, 1:244.
Batey, Jesus & the Forgotten City, 65–82.
Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 85; cf. John Macquarrie, Christology Revisited (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1998), 10.
John 19:25 has been variously interpreted. While some argue that “Mary the wife of Clopas” was the sister of Jesus’ mother, others have argued (correctly, I think) that she is a separate person. Correlating John’s information with that about the women who “were looking on from a distance” (Mark 15:40; Matt. 27:55–56), we might conclude that the sister was Salome, the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Cf. F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) 371.
“Hegesippus records that Clopas was the brother of Joseph.” Cf. Eusebius, Church History 3.11.2, 4.22.4, in NPNF, 1:146, 199.
On the difficult task of identifying Jesus’ family in the NT, cf. John J. Gunther, “The Family of Jesus,” EvQ 46 (Jan. 1974): 25-41; John W. Wenham, “The Relatives of Jesus,” EvQ 47 (Jan. 1975): 6-15.
Traditionally there are three different explanations of the relationship of Jesus to the “brothers” and “sisters” in Matthew 13:55–56: (1) the view of Jerome [Latin, Hieronymus, 4th cent.], i.e., the children were cousins of Jesus, (2) the view of Epiphanius [4th cent.], i.e., they were children of Joseph by a previous marriage, and (3) the view of Helvidius [4th cent.], i.e., they were the brothers and sisters of Jesus, the children of Mary and Joseph. Cf. Gunther, “The Family of Jesus,” 25–41 (esp. pp. 32-33); J. P. Meier, “The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus in Ecumenical Perspective,” CBQ 54 (1992): 1-28 (esp. p. 26). The most natural view is the third. The second view, in particular, raises insuperable problems. If “brothers” refers to Joseph’s sons by an earlier marriage, then Joseph’s firstborn and not Jesus would have been the legal heir to David’s throne. The first view is often linked to the theory that these “cousins” were children of a sister of the Virgin Mary, also named Mary. It’s highly unlikely that two sisters would have the same name. Cf. D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols., ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:299. For fuller discussion, cf. the classic essays by Joseph B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James (3d ed., London: Macmillan, 1913; reprint ed., Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1977), i-lxv; idem., “Brethren of the Lord,” in DB(H), 1:320–26.
“Speculations as to how His father’s death affected Jesus are simply that—speculations. Those who speak of his death as the turning point in Jesus’ life, of the crushing blow that this caused Jesus due to His ‘father fixation,’ are writing creative fiction. Such fictionalized conjectures will always appear to the devout as irrelevant and often irreverent speculations that reveal more about the writers than about Jesus. The only thing we really know is that with the death of Joseph the responsibilities of caring for the mother and family fell on the oldest son—Jesus.” Cf. Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 85.
These illustrations of Sir James Barrie and Sir James Y. Simpson are taken from William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 2 vols. (rev. ed., Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 1:41–42.
Patricia St. John, Harold St. John: A Portrait by His Daughter (New York: Loizeaux, 1961), 13–14.
Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 85–86. For further discussion, cf. Francis J. Moloney, “Matthew 19:3–12 and Celibacy: A Redactional and Form Critical Study,” JSNT 2 (1979): 42-60.
Cf. Batey, Jesus & the Forgotten City, 14.
The Letter of Lentulus, a medieval forgery, purporting to have been written by Publius Lentulus, a Roman Procurator, offered this description: “In these days there appeared, and there still is, a man of great power named Jesus Christ, who is called by the Gentiles the prophet of truth, whom his disciples call the Son of God, raising the dead and healing diseases—a man in stature middling tall, and comely, having a reverend countenance, which those who look upon may love and fear; having hair of the hue of an unripe hazel-nut and smooth almost down to his ears, but from the ears in curling locks somewhat darker and more shining, flowing over his shoulders; having a parting at the middle of the head according to the fashion of the Nazareans; a brow smooth and very calm, with a face without wrinkle or any blemish, which a moderate red color makes beautiful; with the nose and mouth no fault at all can be found; having a full beard of the color of his hair, not long, but a little forked at the chin; having an expression simple and mature, the eyes gray, flashing, and clear; in rebuke terrible, in admonition kind and lovable, cheerful yet keeping gravity; sometimes he has wept, but never laughed; in stature of body tall and straight, with hands and arms fair to look upon; in talk grave, reserved and modest, fairer than the children of men. Cf. Elliott, The Apocryphal Jesus, 58–59. Wirt took issue with this description asserting that if Jesus was human He must have had a sense of humor (cf. the notes of joy in Ps. 126:2; Prov. 15:15; 17:22; Isa. 49:13; Jer. 7:34; Luke 10:17; John 16:20, 22; Rom. 14:17; Heb. 12:2; 1 Pet. 1:8). Cf. Sherwood Eliot Wirt, “The Heresy of the Serious,” Christianity Today (April 8, 1991): 43-44.
I am here following Ethelbert Stauffer, Jesus and his Story (New York: Knopf, 1970), 58–61. Stauffer sought to base his conclusions on his study of the manners and customs of Jesus’ era.
It has been argued by at least one scholar that Jesus was short in stature. Cf. Rendel Harris, “On the Stature of our Lord,” BJRL 10 (1926): 112-26; idem., Twelve Apostles (Cambridge: W. Heffer, 1927), 60–64.
Stein writes, “In the divine wisdom and providence virtually nothing has been preserved concerning the outward form in which the Lord’s Anointed appeared. All we can say is that Jesus was a first-century Jewish male. Probably He was average in size and weight, but that cannot be proven. Clearly the Gospel writers were far more concerned with who Jesus was and what He did than with how He appeared. It would be wise for us to have a similar concern.” Cf. Jesus the Messiah, 85.
S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “The Baptism of Jesus,” BS 123 (July, 1966): 220-29 (esp. pp. 223-24).
A number of Aramaic expressions have been preserved in the Gospels. Cf. Matt. 6:24 (“mammon,” i.e., “wealth”); 5:22 (“raca,” i.e., “fool”); Mark 5:41 (“Talitha cum”); 14:36 (“Abba”); 15:34 (“Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani”); John 1:42 (“Cephas”). Cf. Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 86.
Harrison, A Short Life of Christ, 61.
Robert H. Gundry, “The Language Milieu of First-Century Palestine: Its Bearing on the Authenticity of the Gospel Tradition,” JBL 83 (1964): 404-8. For a defense of the view that on occasion Jesus taught in Greek, cf. Stanley E. Porter, “Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?” TynB 44 (Nov., 1993): 199-235. For a defense of the view that He taught in Aramaic, cf. P. M. Casey, “In Which Language Did Jesus Teach?” ExT 108 (Aug., 1997): 326-28.
Although not formally trained in the rabbinical schools, Jesus was an “educated” man. The evidence is fivefold: (1) He could read [Luke 4:16–21], (2) He could write [John 8:6], (3) He engaged in debate with the intellectual leaders [Mark 2:23–28; 3:1–6; 7:1–23; 10:2–12; 12:13–17, 18–27, 28–34; Luke 11:14–23], (4) He was called “Rabbi” [Matt. 26:25; Mark 9:5; 11:21; 14:45; John 1:38, 49; 3:2], and (5) He taught in the synagogues [Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:21, 39; 6:2; Luke 4:15, 28, 33, 44; 6:6; 13:10; John 6:59; 18:20]. Cf. Stein, Jesus the Messiah, 88.
Johnson, “The Baptism of Jesus,” 224. Cf. G. Campbell Morgan, The Crises of the Christ (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1945), 90–91.
William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (rev. ed., Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 25.
Ryrie lists the following reasons for the incarnation of Christ: (1) To reveal God to us [John 1:18], (2) to provide an example for our lives [1 Peter 2:21], (3) to provide an effective sacrifice for sin [Heb. 10:1–10], (4) to be able to fulfill the Davidic covenant [Luke 1:31–33], (5) to destroy the works of the devil [1 John 3:8], (6) to be able to be a sympathetic High Priest [Heb. 4:14–16], and (7) to be able to be a qualified judge [John 5:22, 27]. Cf. Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton: Victor, 1986), 244–45.
I am here following Sinclair B. Ferguson, Grow in Grace (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1989), 12–23; idem., “How Jesus Grew,” Discipleship Journal 20 (1984): 18-22.
Ferguson, Grow in Grace, 20–23; idem., “How Jesus Grew,” 21–22.
Simeon uses the neuter adjective σωτήριον, lit. “means of salvation.” Cf. Godet, The Gospel of St. Luke, 1:139.
Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 244–45.
Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 246–47.
For a summary of interpretations of this figure, cf. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 248–49; Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke 1–9, 429–30.
Cf. Frederic W. Farrar, The Life of Christ (1874; reprint ed., Portland, OR: Fountain, 1964), 75.
Johnson, “The Baptism of Christ,” 220.

Eamon Younis

Monday, 8 April 2019

The “Hidden Years” of Jesus (Luke 2:21-52)

No comments:

Post a Comment