Bible Commentaries
Luke 2

Verses 1-52

11 1-20 Birth of Jesus —After the rough chronological indication of 1:5 (reign of Herod the Great, 37-34 b.c.), Lk here furnishes a more precise date for the birth of Christ, the occasion of a general census of the Roman empire commanded by Caesar Augustus. He adds a qualifying phrase in 2:2 which has given rise to much difficulty. Cyrinus (a Greek form of Quirinius) was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, a Roman official of obscure provincial origin who by his military prowess rose to the consulship. He was certainly governor or legate of the imperial province of Syria in a.d. 6 when a census was made in Judaea preparatory to the incorporation of that kingdom in the province of Syria, an event remembered on account of the Jewish revolt it occasioned. This census is recorded in Acts 5:37 and is therefore not to be confused with that mentioned here. It has been objected that secular history knows nothing of a general census ordered by Augustus or of a census in Judaea about the time assigned to the birth of Christ, 6-4 b.c.; indeed that such a census was impossible because Herod was then the acknowledged king of Judaea. Finally it is denied that Cyrinus was governor of Syria at the time. For a full treatment of the difficulty, cf.* Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem?; Lagr. Luc65 ff.; CE St Luke; Ricciotti, Life of Christ167 ff.; Scripture, vol i77 ff., vol iii76 ff. We may sum up here by saying that historical research tends to confirm the accuracy of Lk. It is certain that Augustus instituted a financial reform especially with regard to taxation abuses in the provinces, and set up a professional civil service for that purpose. He set himself to acquire exact knowledge of the financial resources of the empire of which at his death in 14 a.d. he left a written account ( Tac. Ann. 1, 11; Suet. Aug.28). The only way of obtaining such information was by a census of inhabitants and their wealth, and it was natural that he should begin with the provinces immediately under the imperial control. There was such a census in Gaul in 12 b.c., in Egypt 10-9 b.c. It may be concluded that the case was similar in Syria, the command of which was reckoned highest in rank of all the imperial provinces. It has long been admitted by responsible scholars that Cyrinus twice held authority in Syria, the first time in conjunction with Sentius Saturninus, 9-6 b.c., and there is documentary evidence in’ favour of this (cf. Lagr. S. Luc65-6). Lk does not say that Cyrinus himself conducted the census; if it was begun under Cyrinus it would take long to complete in view of the manner in which it was made. There still remains the objection that Judaea was an independent state until a.d. 6 and not a part of the empire. But the real fact is that Herod was merely a client-king, completely dependent on the goodwill of Augustus, who at first saw in Herod a convenient ruler of a state that formed one of the frontiers of the empire. As Ramsay says, to all intents and purposes Herod’s kingdom was part of the Roman world, and consequently there is nothing improbable in the idea that it was included in the command for a general census. Moreover it does not follow from Lk that the census in Judaea was conducted by Roman officials. A census made by native officials at the command of the emperor need not have caused any great stir, particularly when we remember that in the neighbouring country of Egypt there appears to have been a system of 14-yearly enrolments for taxation purposes (cf. S. H.R. Wallace, Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian). In conclusion it may be said that a writer of proved carefulness like Luke would not have been guilty of such an error as could easily have been detected by those for whom he wrote. Early critics of the Gospel like Celsus never question his statement, while early Christian writers like St Justin (a Palestinian) appeal to the Roman records in proof of it.

1. ’The whole world’, lit. all the habitable (world), a commonly accepted phrase for the empire; cf.Acts 11:28, etc.

2. ’This enrolling was first made while Cyrinus was governor of Syria’. To avoid the difficulty it has often been suggested that the Greek could be iranslated ’this enrolment was ’made before Cyrinus was governor’; cf.John 1:30. But others maintain that such a translation is untenable, and in view of the above there seems no necessity for it.

3. The method of enrolment indicated here was not the Roman method, but it was the custom in Egypt and was allowed by the Romans.

5. Critics object that here again Lk is at fault, since there was no need for the wife to accompany her husband. But it is obvious from Matthew 1:18 ff. that her presence with Joseph would seem advisable, not to speak of the fact that they would see in the circumstances a fulfilment of prophecy.

6. No indication is given of the time spent at Bethlehem, but it would be an anachronism to suppose that the census was conducted with modern efficiency. The impression is that the caravanserai of Bethlehem was full because of the census.

7. The bare record of the fact of the birth of Jesus; Lk ’with indescribable appropriateness and delicacy draws’ a veil over the most sacred mystery’ (Edersheim). In this he is worlds away from the apocrypha which have none of his reserve; they introduce a midwife to bear witness to the virginity of Mary and the miraculous birth. Lk’s only indication of anything exceptional is that Mary herself ’brought forth her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling clothes’, the normal clothing for a new-born infant with which she had come prepared. The constant tradition of the Church has always been that neither the conception nor the birth of Jesus was in any way detrimental to the perpetual virginity of Mary. Lk does not indicate anything different in his use of ’firstborn’, which represents the Hebrew be?or, a word suggesting not so much later children as the Mosaic legal obligations connected with a firstborn son. He already has in mind what has to be said about the Presentation, 22 ff. Moreover he carefully avoids all reference to the ’brothers’ and ’sisters’ of Jesus found in Mt and Mk. There is no trace in the Church of growth in the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary. For a treatment of the question see under Matthew 1:25, Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 6:3; Lagr. Mc 3:32. 8. Bethlehem is a centre for shepherds; Lk may have in mind 1:51-53, for shepherds were ’under the ban of Rabbinism on account of their necessary isolation from religious ordinances and their manner of life which rendered strict legal observance unlikely’ (Edersheim); cf.John 7:48-49. In the OT frequent divine manifestations are made to shepherds, like Abraham and Moses; these shepherds prove docile to the voice from heaven like those of old, very different from the Rabbis. 10. ’Behold I bring you tidings of great joy’; compare Greek with 1:19. ’ The Glory of the Lord’, 9, which shone around them recalls 1:78-79 and Isaiah 9:1-2.11. ’A saviour who is Messias lord’; as there in no article in Greek before Lord, we may perhaps understand’ Messias Yahweh’. Were Lord used as a common name we should expect it before Messias. Adverse critics are reduced to the suggestion that Lk has here mis-translated a hypothetical Aramaic document which had ’the Messias of Yahweh’. But why has he not mistranslated in 2:26? 13. The angels’ song recalls Job 38:7 and Isaiah 6:3, both significant texts. In Job the angels sing at Creation; the birth of Christ is the beginning of a new world, as we shall be reminded again in 3:21 ff.; cf.John 3:3, John 3:5.14. Three possible renderings: (1) as in DV; (2) ’Glory to God in the highest and on earth: peace to men of good will’; (3) ’Glory to God in the highest; peace on earth; good will to men’. (3) is possible only if e?d???a ’good will’ is in the nominative in the Gk text, as was the common reading among the Greek Fathers. But the strength of MS evidence (I+05D0 B A D W) is on the side of the reading e?d???a? bonae voluntalis is as in Vg. Hence the choice is between (1) and (2). It is objected that the order of the Gk excludes (2), but that is questionable. If we divide the words after ’earth’, the angelic song forms a distich, each line of which begins with the significant word ’glory’ to God, ’peace’ to men. There is much to be said for the traditional English rendering which divides the words after ’highest’. In this case the angelic song forms a distich in which each term has its parallel, heaven opposed to earth, glory opposed to peace, God opposed to men. Who are the ’men of good will’? Apparently those well disposed towards God. But two objections are raised against this interpretation: first, although Lk makes it clear that good dispositions are required for entering the Kingdom of God, yet the spirit of the Gospel, here especially, is that the good tidings are for all; secondly, it is maintained that e?d???a is always used of God’s will in the Scriptures (but cf.Romans 10:1; Philippians 1:15). It is probable then that the meaning is ’peace to men who are thus made the objects of divine favour’. 17. The shepherds ’made known the word’; DV follows Vg which mistranslates ??????sa? as ’they understood’. 19. Here and 51 are the only indications of Lk’s sources of the Infancy Narrative.

21-24 Circumcision and Presentation of Jesus and Purification of Mary —The Saviour just given to Israel now comes forward as the appointed heir of the promise made to Abraham, confirmed in the institution of the rite of circumcision. Here, as in the case of his birth, the narrative is marked with great simplicity. The precise prescriptions of the Law are followed; Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3. As the firstborn, Jesus is God’s property, consecrated to God as a sacrifice. Parents could redeem, i.e. buy back, such a child from God at the price of five shekels of silver; Numbers 8:15; Exodus 13:2, Exodus 13:12; Leviticus 12:4 ff.; Lk makes no reference to this part of the ceremony but indicates that instead of the lamb prescribed to be offered as a sacrifice by the mother, Mary offers what was known as ’the poor woman’s offering’. Mary seeks no exemption from the Law although, as Catholic tradition teaches, there was no cause for Levitical purification in her case (cf. ST, III, 37:3, 4). The subjection of Christ to the Law recalls Matthew 3:15; Galatians 4:4-5; Romans 8:3; Hebrews 2:14-17.

22. ’He purification’; here DV follows Vg, but the Greek has ’their purification’, which is difficult. As neither Jesus nor Joseph needed purification, the explanation must be that Lk is thinking rather of the Levitical ceremony of presentation and redemption than of Mary’s purification, which is mentioned only because of the Presentation. There was no need for a woman to make a special journey to the temple for purification.

25-35 Holy Simeon. The Nune Dimittis. Forebodings of Opposition —A man after the type of Zachary and Elizabeth, aged, pious, looking for the fulfilment of God’s promises in the true spirit of the OT. All such, Lk points out, are under the special influence of the Spirit of God, and through that influence it is Simeon’s office to welcome the Lord to his temple, Malachi 3:1, and to acknowledge Jesus as the promised Messias.

25. ’The consolation of Israel’, abstract for the concrete; Na?ham or ’Consolation’ of Israel was a traditional idea associated with the Messias, Mašîa? ha- Menahem, God’s ’Anointed Comforter’. 26. ’The Christ of the Lord’, i.e. the Messias (the anointed one) of Yahweh, a common expression of the OT for the kings chosen by God to reign over Israel. This title is paralleled in the Nunc Dimittis by ’thy salvation’, i.e. the child Jesus, the Saviour. Here, as already in 1:41 ff., 67 ff., Lk seems to indicate that the Holy Spirit gives light regarding the divine mystery; Simeon recognizes the Christ of the Lord despite the circumstances which run counter to current Jewish Messianism. Lk shows no hesitation, after what he has said, in using the words ’parents’, ’father and mother’. It follows from the narrative that Joseph has assumed legal parenthood of Jesus, a thing that Mt declares more explicitly.

29-32. The Nunc Dimittis, a third canticle preserved for us by Lk alone, and like the former ones used daily in the liturgy. This closes the Church’s day, as it closed Simeon’s day. Simeon sees further than Zachary; salvation is prepared not only for Israel but for all nations, according to the promise to Abraham, and the light is already shining in their face. The Nunc Dimittis starts where the Benedictus leaves off with the idea of light shining in the darkness. This canticle too breathes the spirit and echoes the words of the OT; cf.Genesis 15:15; Genesis 46:30; Tob 3:6; Isaiah 9:2; Isaiah 42:6; Isaiah 49:6.33. The wonder of Mary at least can hardly be surprise, if Lk is to be interpreted as an intelligent author, after 1:26 ff. Some suggest it is surprise that Simeon seems so well informed; but it is more likely that it is simply the Lucan style of recording astonishment at the manifestation of the supernatural; cf. 1:63; 2:18, 33; 4:22; 8:25, etc., and in Ac frequently. Or is it anticipatory of 34-35, which is the first hint of opposition? So far all has been on a note of joy and welcome; now there is a promise of tragedy, strife and the sword. Simeon thus gives a more complete picture of OT predictions. Note ’is set’ (?e?+^ta?) is preordained; perhaps he has in mind such texts as Isaiah 8:14; Isaiah 28:16; Psalms 117:22; cf.Matthew 21:44. Some have put 35a in parenthesis for fear of attributing anything derogatory to Mary; Origen and some of the ancient commentators, thinking of Mark 3:21, interpreted the words as foretelling that she would be tempted to doubt her Son. But it seems more probable that 35b applies to all the preceding; as Jesus will later say, contact with him reveals all hearts, i.e. the dispositions of soul in each one. There can be no neutrality; everyone must come to a decision. The same idea is in the Magnificat. But it is only natural that the heart of Mary will be pierced with sorrow by the opposition shown to her Son. Tongues of enemies are like a sharp sword, Psalms 56:5; Psalms 63:4.

36-38 Anna the Prophetess —Another of the little group of people on the threshold of the tomb who ’looked for the redemption of Israel’.

39-40 Return to Nazareth —It is difficult to find a satisfactory reconciliation of Lk with Matthew 2:1-20. If Lk is not ignorant of these events (and he can hardly be if there is any force in the conclusions drawn from 2:19, 51) then we can only suppose that he has deliberately omitted here, as ’elsewhere, in view of his plan and aim. The adoration of the Magi might seem fitted to strengthen his thesis of the universalism of the Gospel; but Lk has a different type of people in view, the poor, the wretched, the sinner. In any case 39-40 in no way denies Matthew 2:1-20, for it is in characteristic Lucan style, summing up the infancy of Jesus before he proceeds to the next event; cf. 1:80; 3:18-20. Note that only to Jesus and Mary has he attributed the grace of God. Catholic theology teaches that the soul assumed by the Word of God was informed by sanctifying grace in all its fullness; that Christ, as the ’author and finisher of faith’, Hebrews 12:2, had all the requisite gratiae gratis datae; and that as Head of the Church he is the source of all the graces given to men ( ST III, 7-8). The Child was also full of wisdom, of which an example will now be given by Lk.

41-52 Jesus In the House of his Heavenly Father —The only incident we are allowed to learn of the hidden life, therefore of great significance in the mind of Lk. Neither women nor children were bound by the precept commanding a triple annual appearance at the temple; cf.Exodus 23:14-17, Deuteronomy 16:16. Boys fell under the obligation when they became ’sons of the Law’ at thirteen, but it was customary to anticipate this age by a year or two. It seems that Lk’s intention is to show this incident as the first appearance of Jesus in the temple since the Presentation. The whole incident is full of mystery. Jesus ’remained’ in Jerusalem of his own accord; no Jewish boy of twelve would easily be lost, but as the pilgrimages were made in village parties, it is not surprising that Jesus was not missed at first especially as the men and women folk perhaps travelled apart; he might have been with either party, cf. 44. It is another indication of Lk’s about the reality of the Incarnation; Jesus behaved as an ordinary boy.

46-47. It was the custom for the Rabbis, especially at great feasts, to give sermons and lessons on the Law and tradition in the surroundings of the temple, as the Moslems do today in mosques. It was among the listeners who readily joined in discussion with the Rabbis that the Child was found, his answers showing such wisdom that all the hearers are ’out of themselves’ with amazement. 48. Mary and Joseph are also amazed—not the same word as above but an even stronger one in Greek, expressing the idea of shock; but Lk gives the reason in 48b: Jesus has never behaved so to Mary before. It is to be remembered that with her, as with others, Jesus had conducted himself as a normal child; his divinity, was to her, as to us, an object of faith and not vision. 49. ’What reason had you to search for me? Could you not tell that I must needs be in the place which belongs to my Father?’ (KNT). An answer surely given with an affectionate smile. The emphasis is on ’search’; where would you expect a child to be but in his father’s house? Lk has here ’in the things of my Father’ ?? t??+^? t??+^ pat??? µ?? which could in other circumstances mean’ my father’s affairs’, but here certainly means ’my Father’s house’ (so the ancient commentators). ’Father’ (God) here is a reply to ’father’ (i.e. Joseph) in 48, and the evident sense is that Jesus at the age of twelve is conscious of his Divine Sonship, a thing that will be confirmed from heaven in 3:22. Another point of importance is the fact that Jesus takes it for granted that Mary and Joseph will know what he means; it is in the light of this plain fact that we must interpret 50; if Mary does not understand, then the events of 1:26-38 lose most of their point. 51b also throws light on the point. ’They learnt only gradually what his Messiahship involved (cf. 2:34-35) and this is one stage in the process. From the point of view of her subsequent knowledge, Mary recognized that she and Joseph had not understood’ ( Plummer ICC on 2:51). 52. Lk ends the Infancy Narrative with a last emphasis on the reality of Christ’s human nature: ’Jesus made progress in wisdom and stature and favour with God and men’. God’s favour is shown by grace, and though Christ had the plenitude of grace from the beginning of the Incarnation, yet as he advanced in life he showed greater effects of the grace that was in him. His human mind advanced in wisdom, because as man he acquired knowledge by experience, as it is proper to man to do.