From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain the Gospel of
Luke Return to
Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2015
All reproduction of
text in paper, electronic, or computer
form both permitted and encouraged so long as
authorial
and compiler credit is given and the text is
not altered.
CHAPTER
TWO:
Verses
1-24
Books utilized codes at end of chapter
2:1 Translations
Weymouth: Just at this
time an edict was issued by Caesar Augustus for the registration of the whole
Empire.
WEB: Now it
happened in those days, that a decree went out from
Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled.
Young’s: And it came to pass in
those days, there went forth a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world
be enrolled --
Conte (RC): And it happened in
those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, so that the whole world
would be enrolled.
2:1 And
it came to pass in those days. About the time of the birth
of John and of Christ. [11]
that there
went out a decree. A law,
commanding a thing to be done. [11]
An
imperial order. [4]
from Caesar Augustus. This was the Roman emperor. His first name was Octavianus. He was nephew of Julius Caesar, and obtained
the empire after his death. He took the
name "Augustus"--i.e., august or honorable--as a compliment to his
own greatness; and from him the month "August," which was before
called Sextilis, received its name. [11]
that all the world. Of course the known world. And as the Roman empire
now embraced the largest part of that which was in any way civilized, it
proudly claimed this style. [4]
Lit., the inhabited (land). The phrase was originally used by
the Greeks to denote the land inhabited by themselves, in contrast with
barbarian countries; afterward, when the Greeks became subject to the Romans, the
entire Roman world; still later, for the whole inhabited world. In the New Testament this latter is the more
common usage, though, in some cases, this is conceived in the mould of the
Roman empire, as in this passage, Acts xi.28; xix. 27. Christ uses it in the announcement that the
Gospel shall be preached in all the world
(Matt. xxiv. 14); and Paul in the prediction of a general judgment (Acts xvii.
31). Once it is used of the world to
come (Heb. ii. 5). [2]
should be taxed. Our
word "tax" means to levy and raise money for the use of government. This is not the meaning of the original word
here. It means, rather, to enroll, or
take a list of the citizens with their employments, the amount of their property,
etc., equivalent to what was meant by census.
[11]
I was once at a court sermon (saith Melancthon) on the Nativity
day, and this was the text: but the
preacher, instead of discoursing on Christ’s incarnation, spent the whole hour,
on a very cold day, in persuading the people to obey magistrates, and to give
them as much money as they call for.
This is the guise of court parasites.
[54]
In depth: On the
historicity of the taxation [56]. The registration (apographe)
did not necessarily involve a taxing (apotimesis),
though it was frequently the first step in that direction. Two objections have been made to the historic
credibility of the decree, and both have been fully met.
1. It is said “that there is no trace of such a
decree in secular history.” The answer
is that (a) the argumentum e silentio is here specially invalid because there happens to be a singular
deficiency of minute records respecting this epoch in the “profane”
historians. The history of Nicolaus of Damascus, the flatterer of Herod, is not
extant. Tacitus
barely touches on this period (Ann. I. I, “pauca de Augusto”). There is a hiatus in Dion
Cassius from A.U.C. 748-752. Josephus
does not enter upon the history of these years.
(b) There are
distinct traces that such a census took place. Augustus with his own hand drew up a Rationarium of the Empire (a sort of Roman Doomsday
Books, afterwards epitomized into a Breviarium),
which included the allied kingdoms (Tacitus, Ann.
I. ii; Suetonius, Aug. 28), and appointed
twenty Commissioners to draw up the necessary lists.
2. It is said “that in any case Herod, being a rex
socius (for Judaea was
not annexed to the Province of Syria till the death of Archelaus,
A.D. 6), would have been exempt from such a registration.” The answer is that (a) the Clitae were obliged to furnish such a census though they
were [under] an independent prince, Archelaus (Tacitus, Ann., VI. 41; cf. I. 11, regna). (b)
That Herod, a mere creature of the Emperor, would have been the last
person to resist his wishes (Josephus, Antiquities, XIV. 14.4; XV. 6.7;
XVI. 9.3). (c) That this Census,
enforced by Herod, was so distasteful to the Jews that it probably caused the
unexplained tumults which occurred at this very period (Josephus, Antiquities,
XVII. 2.4; Wars of the Jews, I. 33, 2).
This is rendered more probable by the Targum
of Jonathan on Hab. iii. 17, which has, “the Romans
shall be rooted out; they shall collect no more tribute (Kesooma
= census) from Jerusalem.” That the Emperor could issue such a decree for Palestine shews that the fulfillment of the Old Messianic promises
was near at hand. The scepter had
departed from Judah; the Lawgiver from between his feet.
As
regards both objections, we may say
(i) that Luke, a writer of proved carefulness and accuracy,
writing for Gentiles who could at once have detected and exposed an error of
this kind, is very unlikely (taking the lowest grounds) to have been guilty of
such carelessness.
(ii)
That Justin Martyr, a native of Palestine, writing in the middle of the second
century, three times appeals to the census-lists made by Quirinus
when he was first Procurator, bidding the Romans search their own archives as
to the fact (Apol. I. 34.46; Dial.
c. Tryph. 78), as also does Tertullian
(Adv. Marc. IV. 7.19).
(iii)
If Luke had made a mistake it would certainly have been challenged by such able
critics as Celsus and Porphyry;--but they never
impugn his statement.
On every ground therefore we have reason to trust
the statement of Luke, and in this as in many other instances what have been
treated as his “manifest errors” have turned out to be interesting historic
facts which he alone preserves for us.
For more detailed argumentation, see the
extracts in the introduction to the book.
2:2 Translations
Weymouth: It was the
first registration made during the governorship of Quirinius
in Syria;
WEB: This was
the first enrollment made when Quirinius was governor
of Syria.
Young’s: this enrolment first came to pass when Cyrenius was governor of Syria --
Conte (RC): This was the first
enrollment; it was made by the ruler of Syria, Quirinius.
2:2 And this taxing was first
made when Cyrenius. This is the Greek form of the name Quirinus. All that
we know of him is that he was of obscure and provincial origin, and rose to the
consulship by activity and military skill, afterwards earning a triumph for his
successes in Cilicia.
He was harsh, and avaricious, but a loyal soldier; and he was honoured with a public funeral in A.D. 21 (Tacitus, Ann. II. 30, III. 22, 48; Suetonius, Tib. 49,
etc.) It is certain that in A.U.C. 753 Quirinus conquered the Homonadenses
in Cilicia, and was rector to Gaius
Caesar. Now it is highly probable that
those Homonadenses were at that time under the
jurisdiction of the propaetor of the Imperial
Province of Syria, an office which must in that case have been held by Quirinus between B.C. 4-B.C. 1. [56]
was governor of Syria. Syria was then a province of the Empire, extending from the Mediterranean
to the Euphrates, east and including Phoenicia and Judea. It was under a Roman proconsul, who resided
at Antioch, and to him the procurator of Judea was responsible. [8]
2:3 Translations
Weymouth: and all went
to be registered--every one to the town to which he belonged.
WEB: All went
to enroll themselves, everyone to his own city.
Young’s: and all were going to be enrolled, each
to his proper city,
Conte (RC): And all went to be
declared, each one to his own city.
2:3 And all went to be
taxed.
The Jews, having had
experience in the Old Testament for daring to number themselves
and currently being subject to the distant power of Rome, were hardly likely to
have done this without considerable grumbling.
What unrest may have occurred we are not told. Whether it was fully carried out and over
what period of time we are not told.
What was important to the narrative of Luke was the fact that it
involved the family of Jesus traveling from their normal dwelling place and His
birth occurring where it would not normally have happened. [rw]
every one into his own city. The usual Roman method was to enroll
everyone in his place of residence, but in deference to the feelings of the
Jews men were enrolled in the place of their birth. [6]
2:4 Translations
Weymouth: So Joseph went
up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judaea,
to David's town of Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,
WEB: Joseph
also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city
of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of
David;
Young’s: and Joseph also went up from Galilee, out
of the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, that is called
Bethlehem, because of his being of the house and family of David,
Conte (RC): Then Joseph also
ascended from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of
David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of
David,
2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee. The journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem is
about sixty miles. [14]
out of
the city of Nazareth into Judaea. Due to his ancestry, he could not be
enrolled for taxation in the city where he lived. Taxpayer convenience yielded to the system
decreed for usage. He had to cross from
one major area of traditional geographic Israel (Galilee), pass through another
(Samaria), and enter into the third (Judaea). [rw]
unto the
city of David.
Bethlehem [was] called the city of David because it was the place of his
birth. [11]
which is
called Bethlehem. A small village six
miles south from Jerusalem. [8]
There Rachel died
(Genesis 35:16); there Ruth and Boaz lived (Ruth 1:22); it was the city of
Jesse, the father of David (1 Samuel 17:12), its only boast was that it had
given birth to David (John 7:42). [6]
[Its
name meant] “House of Bread,” to which the mystical method of Scriptural
interpretation refers such passages as Isaiah 33:16, LXX; John 6:51, 58; [and]
is the very ancient Ephrath (“fruitful”) of Genesis
35:16; xlviii. 7; Psalms cxxxii.
6. [56]
(because he was of the house and lineage of David:). The "house" included the entire
body of ancestors and descendants. The
"lineage" was a direct line of descent. [14]
The
humble condition of Joseph as a provincial carpenter in no way militates
against this. Hillel,
the great contemporary Rabbi, who also claimed to be a descendant of David,
began life as a half-starved porter; and numbers of beggars (c. 1900) in the
East wear the green turban which shews them to be
undisputed descendants of Mohammed. [56]
In depth: A
description of Galilee [55]. The district bounded roughly by the Jordan,
Samaria (that is, the southern side of Esdraelon), and
Phoenicia belonged originally to the Jews, but had remained largely in the
hands of the heathen from the fall of the Northern Kingdom until the times of
the Maccabees.
At the outbreak of the Maccabean revolt it
contained only a few Jews, and these were removed by Judas and Simon to Judea
for safety (163 B.C.).
During the course of the second century before
Christ, however, the territory was gradually conquered and colonized by the
Jewish kings. In the time of Jesus,
therefore, the Jews had really been in Galilee in recent times only about as
long as Americans have been west of the Alleghanies
[as of 1900 A.D.]. The fact that they
were in a measure colonists doubtless in part accounts for the vigor of the
Galileans as described by Josephus (Jewish War, iii, 3, 1-3).
According to Josephus, Galilee had 204 towns and
cities. This would make the population
very dense, a fact corroborated by the ruins, as well as by existing villages
in the land. It is impossible to say
just what proportion of the inhabitants of the country were Gentiles, but
probably it was not small.
The land contained only about 1,600 square miles,
and, exclusive of the Plain of Esdraelon, was
regarded as consisting of two parts—Upper Galilee, which was somewhat
mountainous, and Lower Galilee, which, though hilly, was full of broad
valleys. Both regions were very fertile,
but most fertile of all was the wonderful little Plain
of Gennesaret, on the northwest corner of the Lake of
Galilee. This plain, only three miles
long by one wide, was in the time of Jesus astonishingly productive. Josephus (Jewish War, iii, 10, 8)
describes it as an “ambition of nature,” in which all manner of trees
flourished and fruit ripened throughout the year.
2:5 Translations
Weymouth: to have
himself registered together with Mary, who was betrothed to him and was with
child.
WEB: to enroll
himself with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him as wife, being pregnant.
Young’s: to enrol
himself with Mary his betrothed wife, being with child.
Conte (RC): in order to be
declared, with Mary his espoused wife, who was with child.
2:5 To be taxed with Mary his
espoused wife. But of course she had to be registered
as his wife, and the son that had been promised her, if he was born before the
day of the census, as his own son. [31]
Perhaps, the persons to be registered being
classed in the roll, according to their lineage, Mary might judge it proper on
this occasion to claim her descent from David, in order to [assure] her being
publicly acknowledged as one of his posterity.
Possibly, though, according to the Roman custom, women could be enrolled
without their personal appearance, the emperor may have given particular and exact
orders with regard to the family of David, as it had been the royal family,
and was still talked of as designed to be so, that he might know its number and
strength. [9]
Or: It
is uncertain whether her presence was obligatory or voluntary; but it is
obvious that at so trying a time, and after what she had suffered (Matthew
1:19), she would cling to the presence and protection of her husband. Nor is it wholly impossible that she saw in
the providential circumstances a fulfillment of prophecy. [56]
being great with
child. Her
pregnancy was far advanced. Not
the best time for a substantial journey, but in what age has the tax man been
much concerned with taxpayer convenience?
Even if there had been no obligation of law—or intentional fulfillment
of prophecy?—envolved, the stage of the pregnancy
made separation from her husband the last thing she would be happy
with. Inconvenient and physically
difficult, it still was less than the alternative of remaining behind with a
suspicious and probably hostile community.
[rw]
2:6 Translations
Weymouth: But while they
were there, her full time came,
WEB: It
happened, while they were there, that the day had come that she should give
birth.
Young’s: And it came to pass, in their being
there, the days were fulfilled for her bringing forth,
Conte (RC): Then it happened that,
while they were there, the days were completed, so that she would give birth.
2:6 And
so it was, that, while they were there. We are not informed how
long they had been in Bethlehem before Mary's delivery. Perhaps a short time only elapsed between their
arrival and the event alluded to. [9]
the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. Mary does not seem to have known that
according to prophecy, this must take place at Bethlehem; but a heavenly
Providence guided all, that so it should come to pass. [24]
Her delivery
might well be hastened, or at least facilitated, by her long journey; for it
was no less than four days’ journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem. [54]
2:7 Translations
Weymouth: and she gave
birth to her first-born son, and wrapped Him round, and laid Him in a manger,
because there was no room for them in the inn.
WEB: She
brought forth her firstborn son, and she wrapped him in bands of cloth, and
laid him in a feeding trough, because there was no room for them in the inn.
Young’s: and she brought forth her son -- the
first-born, and wrapped him up, and laid him down in the manger, because there
was not for them a place in the guest-chamber.
Conte (RC): And she brought
forth her firstborn son. And she wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him
in a manger, because there was no room for them at the inn.
2:7 Introduction: birth
of Jesus [28].
The story of the birth of Jesus as related by Matthew is in striking
contrast with that of Luke. Matthew
depicts Jesus as a King and at his birth the reigning Herod trembles on his
throne and the Magi adore him, offering regal gifts. Luke represents Jesus as the ideal Man, and the story is full of human interest. It describes two obscure peasants journeying
from their northern home in Nazareth to Bethlehem and there, excluded from the
inn, placing in a manger their newborn babe, while the first to visit them are
humble shepherds from the neighboring plain.
Their exclusion from the
inn was not due to any lack of hospitality; much less did it express hostility
to Jesus; it was due simply to the crowded condition of the town. However, it is suggestive of the obscurity
and discomfort and poverty of Joseph and Mary.
And she brought forth her first-born son. The expression naturally
implies that the writer believed Mary had other children afterward,
otherwise there would be no just ground for the use of the term. It may be said that Luke employs it with a
view to the account of the presentation of Jesus in the temple as a first-born
son (verses 22ff). But this connection
is out of the question in Matthew 1:25.
[13]
Alternate interpretation: A son is so called because none were born
before him, not because others
were born after him. [24]
The first child was
called first-born, by the Jews, whether an only child or otherwise. The great majority of the Christian world has
repudiated the notion that other children were born to Mary. [4]
The
word has no bearing on the controversy as to the “brethren of Jesus,” as it
does not necessarily imply that the Virgin had other children. See Hebrews 1:6, where first-born =
only-begotten. [56]
and wrapped
him in swaddling clothes. This wonderful infant was to be
treated like others. "In all things
it behoved him to be made like unto his
brethren" (Hebrews 2:17). [8]
Ezekiel 16:4. In her poverty she had none to help her, but
(in the common fashion of the East) wound the babe round and round with swathes
with her own hands. [56]
and laid him
in a manger.
The word "manger," in the
English language, means "the box or trough in which provender is placed
for horses or cattle." This is not
the meaning of the word here. It means
simply the stable or the place where the cattle or camels lodge. There was no room at the inn and they were
obliged to lie in the stable or barn and it was there that the child was
laid. Their being there was no proof of
poverty. It was a simple matter of
necessity. There was no room at the
inn. [11]
Did
this stable form part of the hostelry? or was it, as all the apocryphal writings and Justin
(Dialogue with Trypho, c. 78) allege, a cave near the
city? In the time of Origen
("Contra Celsum," i.
11), a grotto was shown where the birth of Jesus took place. It was on this place that Helena, the mother
of Constantine, built a church. The text
of Luke would not be altogether incompatible with this idea. But probably it is only a supposition,
resulting on the one hand from the common custom in the East of using caves for
stables, and on the other from a mistaken application to the Messiah of Isaiah
33:16, "He shall dwell in a lofty cave," quoted by Justin. [13]
The origin of the “trough” interpretation of the text: If the
Received Text were correct it would be “in the manger,” but the article
is omitted by [various major manuscripts].
Phatne is sometimes rendered “stall”
(as in Luke 13:15; 2 Chronicles 32:28, LXX); but “manger” is probably right
here. It is derived from pateomai, “I eat” and is used by the LXX for the
Hebrew [word translated] “crib” in Proverbs 14:4. Mangers are very ancient, and are to this day
[c. 1900] sometimes used as cradles in the East. The ox and the ass which are traditionally
represented in pictures are only mentioned in the apocryphal Gospel of
Matthew, 14, and were suggested by Isaiah 1:3 and Habakkuk 3:2, which in the
LXX and the ancient Latin Version (Vetus Itala) was mistranslated “Between two animals thou shalt be made known.”
[56]
because there
was no room for them. Many people assembled to be enrolled, and the
tavern was filled before Joseph and Mary arrived. [11]
in the inn. Only here, ch. xxiii. 11; Mark xiv.
14. In both these passages it is
rendered guest-chamber which can hardly be the meaning here, as some
have maintained. [2]
In depth: The possible nature of the inn of Bethlehem [9]. In
the East there is built, in or near to a town, generally with a stable
attached, a caravanserai or khan, in which a person who comes to
the town and has no friends to receive him into their homes, may seek
accommodation, stay as long as he pleases, generally without payment, but is
only provided with lodging for himself and beast, if he has any, and with water
from a well on the premises. The people
of Bethlehem, in order to prevent their hospitality from becoming oppressive by
reason of the numerous visits of strangers, built a khan in or near the
town. To this large structure Joseph and
Mary repaired for accommodation. That
they did so would seem to imply that they really were strangers in this the
native seat of the family to which they belonged, or that, as they clearly came
very late, they may have found the friends they had at Bethlehem already
overburdened with guests
In depth introduction:
The possible dating of the birth [56]. There is a reasonable certainty that our Lord
was born B.C. 4 of our era, and it is probable that He was born
(according to the unanimous tradition of the Christian Church) in winter. There is nothing to guide us as to the actual
day of His birth. It was unknown
to the ancient Christians (Clem. Alex, Strom.,
I. 21). Some thought that it took place
on May 20 or April 20. There is no trace
of the date December 25 earlier than the fourth century, but it is accepted by Athanasius, Jerome, Ambrose, etc. [56]
In depth: Estimating
the calendar year of Jesus’ birth [55]. It
is impossible to fix this date exactly because of the small amount of
information at our command, but it lies within narrow limits.
(1)
Jesus must have been born before the death of Herod I, according to
Matthew 2:1 and 19; that is, before March or April, 4 B.C.
(2)
Just how long before cannot be stated with precision, but certainly not
more than two or three years, for he was “a young child” on his return from
Egypt (Matthew 2:19, 20), and the age of the children Herod ordered killed
(Matthew 2:16) must have been about that of Jesus at the time.
We can safely say, therefore, that
Jesus was born 6-4 B.C.
This conclusion is confirmed by a
comparison of Luke 3:23 and John 2:20, where the “forty-six years” brings us
probably to 27 A.D. If about a year
previously, when he began to preach, Jesus was about thirty years old, then
clearly He must have been born about 4 or 5 B.C. But unfortunately we do not know exactly
how near Jesus was to thirty years of age.
Again, if we knew exactly when the
census under Quirinius (or Cyrenius)
was made, we should know when Jesus was born (Luke 2:1, 2), but the only census
made by Quirinius that we know certainly about was in
A.D. 6. It is possible,
however, that Quirinius was legate to Syria
twice. If so, his first term of office
would probably have been about B.C. 9, since there is a break in the list of
legates at that time. Recent investigations
have also made it appear likely that a census was taken under Herod I at about
that date. But even if we should never
know the precise day when Jesus was born, we know that he was born, and
this is the one fact in which we are really interested.
In depth: Competing estimates of
the calendar month and day of Jesus' birth
[9]. Fabricius
gives a catalogue of no less than one hundred and thirty-six different opinions
concerning the day of Christ's birth. It
has been placed in every month of the year.
The Egyptians
place it in January—
Wagenseil and Wiesler in February—
Rochart and Paulus in March—
Some mentioned
by Clement of Alexandria, and Greswell and Alford in April—
the Alexandrian
Church in May—
Epiphanius speaks of
some who placed it in June—
Lichtenstein
places it in July or December—
Strong and
Lardner place it in August—
Lightfoot,
Webster and Wilkinson place it in September—
Scaliger, Casaubon
and Calvisius and Archbishop Newcome
in October,
Others in November.
Dr. Robinson
places it in autumn; Clinton in spring; and Andrews between the middle of
December, 749 to the middle of January, 750 A. U.
The fixing of
the nativity of Christ on the 25th of December, was really done at Rome, and
was transmitted from thence over the Eastern Church. "Pope Julius I," says Dr. Adam
Clarke, "was the person who made this alteration, and it appears to
have been done for this reason: The sun
now began his return toward the northern tropic, ending the winter, lengthening
the short days, and introducing the Spring.
All this was probably deemed emblematical of the rising of the Sun of
Righteousness on the darkness of this world, and causing the day-spring from on
high to visit mankind."
The widely conflicting
views which have been stated as to the day of our Saviour's
birth, are most manifestly attributable to the absence
of all certain evidence as to the precise date of that event. Revelation is silent on this point. The
tradition of the Church is widely diverse and discrepant. There are no data upon which any calculations
may be based, and hence everything rests on mere conjecture. The question is one of little importance,
even for those who observe the day, as the celebration of a public event is not
necessarily confined to the day of the year on which it occurred.
It is happy
for us that the particular day on which Jesus was born, is not necessary to be
ascertained in order to our salvation, nor at all material to true
religion. It is sufficient for us to
know that, in the fullness of time, just when He was most needed, and
when the Jewish and Gentile world was fully prepared for this central fact and
turning point in history, the Saviour was born, was
made flesh, and dwelt among us, assumed our nature, and in consequence thereof
is become an all-sufficient Saviour and Redeemer, in
whom whosoever believeth with a right faith shall not perish, but
have eternal life.
2:8 Translations
Weymouth: Now there were
shepherds in the same part of the country, keeping watch over their sheep by
night in the open fields,
WEB: There
were shepherds in the same country staying in the field, and keeping watch by
night over their flock.
Young’s: And there were shepherds in the same
region, lodging in the field, and keeping the night-watches over their flock,
Conte (RC): And there were
shepherds in the same region, being vigilant and keeping watch in the night
over their flock.
2:8 And there were in the same country. Round about Bethlehem.
[11]
Tradition
says that they were natives of the little village Beth-zur
(Joshua 15:58; Nehemiah 3:16). They were
feeding their flocks in the same fields from which David had been summoned to
feed Jacob, God’s people, and Israel His inheritance. [56]
shepherds. Luke's Gospel is the gospel of the poor and
lowly. This revelation to the shepherds
acquires additional meaning as we remember that shepherds, as a class, were
under the Rabbinic ban, because of their necessary
isolation from religious ordinances, and their manner of life, which rendered
strict legal observance well-nigh impossible.
[2]
Now, among the Jews at
that period shepherds were held in low estimation among the people. In the Talmud (treatise 'Sanhedrin') we read
they were not to be allowed in the courts as witnesses. In the treatise 'Avodah-Zarah'
no help must be given to the heathen or to shepherds. The Mishna (Talmud)
tells us that the sheep intended for the daily sacrifices in the temple were
fed in the Bethlehem pastures. This
semi-sacred occupation no doubt influenced these poor toilers, and specially
fitted them to be the recipients of the glad tidings. [18]
abiding in the field.
Abiding in the field, both day and night, whether in tents or in the
open air is uncertain, but the word abiding seems to indicate that near
by the fold were temporary tents or booths, for the convenience of the
shepherds. [9]
This
does not prove, as some have supposed, that the Nativity took place in spring,
for in some pastures of Palestine the shepherds to this day bivouac with their
flocks in winter. [56]
keeping watch.
That is, taking watch by turns. [14]
The expression seems to indicate that they
were stationed at various posts, and perhaps relieved one another. The original word may be more literally rendered
watching the watches of the night, i.e., each one keeping watch (which ordinarily
consisted of three hours) in his turn.
The sheep were not confined under a covered fold by night, it being
regarded more conducive to the excellence of the wool to let them remain under
the open sky by night as well as by day.
It was necessary to watch the sheep in the field, to guard them against
the wolves, foxes, and other beasts of prey common there. As Abraham, David and Moses, to whom the
promise of the Messiah was first made, were shepherds, so was the completion of
this promise first revealed to shepherds.
[9]
over their flock by
night. Sheep
normally sleep in short patches at varying times around the clock. Hence though it had turned dark, the flock
still needed to be kept an eye on lest the sheep wander off. [rw]
2:9 Translations
Weymouth: when suddenly
an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the glory of
the Lord shone round them; and they were filled with terror.
WEB: Behold,
an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the glory of the Lord shone around
them, and they were terrified.
Young’s: and lo, a messenger of the Lord stood
over them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they feared a great
fear.
Conte (RC): And behold, an Angel
of the Lord stood near them, and the brightness of God shone around them, and
they were struck with a great fear.
2:9 And, lo. The
phrase often introduces some strange or memorable event. [56]
the angel of the Lord. No
particular angel is specified. [14]
came upon them. Just
another night of sheep watching for the poor shepherds (they certainly weren’t
likely to be anything else!). And then
suddenly everything is lit up by this supernatural aura that appears as the
angel does. Many things in the ancient
world might be “misinterpreted,” but this sequence of events would have
surely shaken to the core any one who was
present: it cried out supernatural for
there was certainly nothing natural that would have produced it! [rw]
and the glory of the Lord shone round about them. The Schekinah
(Acts 26:13), the token of the divine presence in the Tabernacle and in the
Temple (1 Kings 8:10-11; Isaiah 6:1-3), appeared to poor men engaged in a
[lowly] occupation according to Jewish ideas.
[6]
and they were sore [greatly, rw] afraid. They had probably faced wild animals in
their day and knew how to proceed. But this
was beyond all human experience and they reacted the very way we would expect
them to, with fear. What they would
shortly learn was that this was not an angelic messenger who was a threat to
them or bringing other bad news, but one bringing them the very opposite. [rw]
2:10 Translations
Weymouth: But the angel
said to them, "Put away all fear; for I am bringing you good news of great
joy--joy for all the People.
WEB: The angel
said to them, "Don't be afraid, for behold, I bring you good news of great
joy which will be to all the people.
Young’s: And the messenger said to them, 'Fear
not, for lo, I bring you good news of great joy, that shall
be to all the people --
Conte (RC): And
the Angel said to them: "Do not be afraid. For, behold, I proclaim to you
a great joy, which will be for all the people.
2:10 And the angel said
unto them. The
shepherds needed an explanation for what was going on: Was the appearance a sign of retribution or
of good news? Whatever it was, it
was so far out of the norm that concern and alarm would be the natural
reaction. [rw]
fear not. The
same introductory dismissal of fear as Gabriel addressed first to Zacharias and then to Mary.
[14]
The
real reason of the revelations of God in the Bible, particularly the New
Testament, is [not directly] to remove fear from the human heart. It aims rather to kindle a love which casts
out fear, by not only showing God reconciled, but bringing us to
reconciliation. [52]
for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy. It was not only good news, but it was of
such vast importance that it should stir a strong, positive reaction from
them. This was not what hard
working shepherds expected as they faced another of their many long
nights! [rw]
which shall be to all people. To
all the people of Israel, and to other nations only through
Israel; but to the whole people, and therefore revealed to the poorest
class first of all. [6] For
they were the group most likely to be ignored in any country. [rw]
2:11 Translations
Weymouth: For a Saviour who is the Anointed Lord is born to you to-day, in
the town of David.
WEB: For there
is born to you, this day, in the city of David, a Savior, who is Christ the
Lord.
Young’s: because there was born to you to-day a Saviour -- who is Christ the Lord -- in the city of David,
Conte (RC): For today a Saviour has been born for you in the city of David: he is
Christ the Lord.
2:11 For unto you. Broadly speaking, the “you” encompasses the
entire Jewish people of which they were part.
By speaking of “you,” however, the language also stressed the importance
of the subject not just to the people in general, but also to them in
particular. The message of
redemption was for the “little” and “unimportant” folk just as much as anyone
else. [rw]
is born
this day. Since the sunset which closed yesterday. [52]
in the city of David.
This refers the shepherds to the prophecy now fulfilled (Micah
5:2). [8]
born . . . a Saviour. Not One who shall be a Saviour, but "born a Saviour." [16]
Saviour. Too high a
title for a mere man. [14]
It is a curious fact
that “Saviour” and “Salvation,” so common in Luke and
Paul (in whose writings they occur forty-four times), are comparatively rare in
the rest of the New Testament. “Saviour” only occurs in John 4:42; 1 John 4:14; and six
times in 2 Peter and Jude; “salvation” only in John 4:22, and thirteen times in
the rest of the New Testament. [56]
which is Christ the Lord. “Christ” is equivalent to “anointed.” This may accordingly be taken as anointed
Lord, which view Westcott and Hort indicate in their
form of the Greek text, though the sense before given is probably correct. Either way, the Saviour
is declared to be the Messiah. [52]
“God hath made that same
Jesus whom ye crucified both Lord and Christ,” Acts 2:36; Philippians
2:11. “Christ” or “Anointed” is the
Greek equivalent of Messiah. In the
Gospels it is almost invariably an appellative, “the Christ.” But as time advanced it was more and more
used without the article as a proper name.
Our Lord was “anointed” with the Holy Spirit as Prophet, Priest and
King. [56]
the Lord. In the lower
sense the word is used as a mere title of distinction; in the higher sense it
is (as in the LXX) the equivalent of the Hebrew “Jehovah”—the ineffable
name. “We preach Christ Jesus the Lord,”
2 Corinthians 4:5 (see Philippians 2:11; Romans 14:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6; “No
one can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost,” 1 Corinthians
12:3). [56]
In-depth: The contextual argument for “Lord” as an
affirmation of Jesus’ Deityship [36]. That by the title
of Lord, here given to Christ by the Angel, is to be understood the ineffable
and incommunicable name Jehovah, or Lord, in its most exalted and
transcendental sense, appears by the context in the Gospel, and the form of the Angel's speech to the shepherds,
when the term "Lord," being thrice
repeated, without any note of distinction or
difference, must necessarily refer to, and signify, the
same Divine Being (Verse 9, "The Angel of the Lord'—"The glory
of the Lord"). And what reason can be assigned, why Christ,
whom the same Angel here calls the Lord is not to be understood of the same Jehovah, whose glory shone around them, and
whose this Angel was?
The Angel calls Him,
not Christ, your Lord, as if the title
related only to men, but Christ the Lord, in
an absolute and supreme sense, as Lord of the whole
creation, even the Lord of Hosts,
that most known and peculiar title of the Most High
God. Having, then, the
confession of these heavenly Spirits, that
Christ is both "their Lord and ours," and consequently their God, as
well as ours, we may well conclude with S. Peter,
that "He is Lord of all;" and with S. Paul, that " He is over all, God Blessed for
evermore;" and every true Christian may say to Him with S. Thomas, "My Lord and my God!" Acts 10:36;
Romans 9:5; John 20:28.— Wogan.
2:12 Translations
Weymouth: And this is
the token for you: you will find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying
in a manger."
WEB: This is
the sign to you: you will find a baby wrapped in strips of cloth, lying in a
feeding trough."
Young’s: and this is to you the sign: Ye shall
find a babe wrapped up, lying in the manger.'
Conte (RC): And this will be a
sign for you: you will find the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying
in a manger."
2:12 And this shall be a sign
unto you. I.e., the statement which I will now make is
a token by which you can test the verity [accuracy] of my announcement. [52]
Ye shall find. The sign was not itself a miraculous
one, but the prediction of it was so.
The thing which they would find would be such a verification of the prediction
as to attest itself true and show that the real Christ
was found. [14]
the babe
wrapped in swaddling clothes. "Swaddling clothes," were
long bands of cloth, in which then as now in the east a babe was tightly
wrapped, arms and all, for the first forty days after its birth. [22]
lying in a manger. This was to be the sign. On that night there would, perhaps, be no
other children born in the Bethlehem village; certainly the shepherds would
find no other newly born infant cradled in a manger. [18]
2:13 Translations
Weymouth: And immediately there was with the angel a multitude of the
army of Heaven praising God and saying,
WEB: Suddenly,
there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army praising God, and
saying,
Young’s: And suddenly there came with the
messenger a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God, and saying,
Conte (RC): And suddenly there
was with the Angel a multitude of the celestial army, praising God and saying,
2:13 And suddenly. As if only waiting till their fellow had done
[speaking]. [16]
there was with
the angel. Just as
unexpectedly and just as “out of nowhere” also came the voices of a vast
chorus. [rw]
a multitude. Myriads of angels: 1 Kings 22:19; Psalm 68:17; Revelation
5:11. [7]
of the heavenly host. Or army. With reference to the number of His angels,
Jehovah is called the Lord God of Sabaoth [Hosts /
Armies]. They are called a host as a
convenient way of indicating a vast number—not a confused throng—but in ordered
ranks, and, perhaps, with leadership of well-adjusted grades. [52]
One of the glorious
titles by which the eternal King was known among the chosen people was
"Lord of sabaoth," equivalent to "Lord
of hosts." In several passages of
the Scriptures is the enormous multitude of these heavenly beings noticed; for
instance, Ps. lxviii. 17, where the
Hebrew is much more expressive than the English rendering; Dan. vii. 10,
"Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him" (see, too, the Targum of Palestine on Deut. xxxiii., "And with him ten
thousand times ten thousand holy angels;" and "The crown of the Law is his [Moses'],
because he brought it from the heavens above, when there was revealed to him
the glory of the Lord's Shechinah, with two thousand
myriads of angels, and forty and two thousand chariots of fire," etc.).
[18]
praising God,
and saying. What
had happen was because of God bringing to fruition His long-term plan to
bring a Messiah-Redeemer to earth and hence He is praised for having done this
and for its long range impact on those of the human species willing to take
advantage of the Christ’s redemptive role:
“on earth peace, good will toward men” (verse 14). [rw]
2:14 Translations
Weymouth: "Glory be to God in the highest Heavens, And on earth peace among
men who please Him!"
WEB: "Glory
to God in the highest, on earth peace, good will toward men."
Young’s: 'Glory in the highest to God, and upon
earth peace, among men -- good will.'
Conte (RC): "Glory to God
in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will."
2:14 Glory to God. Praise be to God; or honor be to God. [11]
in the highest. In the highest heavens.
Commentators understand this as a reference to the Jewish threefold
heavens. This glory ascends to the
"highest." This glory among
the highest is placed in contrast to the peace on earth. [14]
and on earth peace.
Christ comes as the Prince of Peace, and brings to men the offer of
peace. God is in Christ reconciling the
world unto Himself, not imputing to men their trespasses. Besides, His Gospel brings peace on earth as
it changes the condition of society. [8]
good will toward men. To
sinners who have merited ill-will and wrath.
Heaven comes down to earth with good-will to men, who have deserved the opposite. [8]
God and heaven are
reconciled in Christ. He
who saw all men wandering in sin and ignorance, would now show forth His mercy,
in raising up and perpetuating a kingdom of saints. [4]
A bare majority
of the old authorities read here, "On earth peace among men of good
will;" in other words, among men who are the objects of God's good will
and kindness. [18]
2:15 Translations
Weymouth: Then, as soon
as the angels had left them and returned to Heaven, the shepherds said to one
another, "Let us now go over as far as Bethlehem and see this that has
happened, which the Lord has made known to us."
WEB: It
happened, when the angels went away from them into the sky, that the shepherds
said one to another, "Let's go to Bethlehem, now, and see this thing that
has happened, which the Lord has made known to us."
Young’s: And it came to pass, when the messengers
were gone away from them to the heavens, that the men, the shepherds, said unto
one another, 'We may go over indeed unto Bethlehem, and see this thing that
hath come to pass, that the Lord did make known to us.'
Conte (RC): And it happened
that, when the Angels had departed from them into heaven, the shepherds said to
one another, "Let us cross over to Bethlehem and see this word, which has
happened, which the Lord has revealed to us."
2:15 And it came to
pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven. Even the most important of angelic
appearances came to an end and since they had the implicit command to seek out
the child (verse 12), they had to depart to allow the shepherds to do what they
had been instructed. [rw]
the shepherds
said one to another, Let us now go. There was no debate about the matter.
An angel appeared and you did what you were told; if you didn’t you
would have been almost literally “spitting in the face of God.” Given an opportunity not given to anyone
else, not doing as instructed would have shown utter contempt. [rw]
They did not
reason nor debate with themselves (saith Bishop
Hooper, martyr) who should keep the wolf from the sheep in the mean time; but
committed the sheep to Him whose pleasure they obeyed. So let us do now that we be
called; commit all other things to Him that called us. He will take heed that all shall be
well. He will help the husband, comfort
the wife, guide the servants, keep the house, preserve
the goods. [54]
even unto Bethlehem. Hence
it may be inferred that the shepherd's home was not at Bethlehem, but in some
locality between which and Bethlehem was the region where they watched; [cf.] verse
20. [24]
A way of speaking which implies that it was a considerable journey
for them to undertake. They would
not stop short of the very spot. [52]
and see this thing
which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. They had heard the words, their decision to go
showed belief in the words, but personal observation would show them the
baby himself that would grow up to become the Savior. [rw]
2:16 Translations
Weymouth: So they made
haste and came and found Mary and Joseph, with the babe lying in the manger.
WEB: They came
with haste, and found both Mary and Joseph, and the baby was lying in the
feeding trough.
Young’s: And they came, having hasted, and found
both Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in the manger,
Conte (RC): And they went
quickly. And they found Mary and Joseph; and the infant was lying in a manger.
2:16 And they came with haste. This expresses the ardor and earnestness of
their following the divine direction, and going after the infant Saviour. [8]
and found. As it had been promised (verse 12). [8]
The word implies found after diligent
seeking. [6]
The
lamp hung from the centre of a rope would guide them to the khan, but among a
crowd it would not be easy to find the new-born babe of the humble
travelers. [56]
Mary,
and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. There is no hint that the parents were
forewarned of the shepherds coming. The
story the shepherds’ conveyed of the angelic appearance would have reinforced
their confidence in the importance of their newborn son. [rw]
2:17 Translations
Weymouth: And when they
saw the child, they told what had been said to them about Him;
WEB: When they
saw it, they publicized widely the saying which was spoken to them about this
child.
Young’s: and having seen,
they made known abroad concerning the saying spoken to them concerning the
child.
Conte (RC): Then, upon seeing
this, they understood the word that had been spoken to them about this boy.
2:17 And when they had
seen it, they made known abroad [widely
known, NKJV]. That is, they related at
Bethlehem the appearance of the angels and the prediction by which they had
been induced to visit the place where the infant Jesus was. It does not appear that the shepherds
narrated the facts [to any wider audience].
Herod and his court at any rate seem not to have so far been informed of
it as to be aroused to any alarm at the birth.
It was not until the arrival of the Magi explicitly inquiring for the
new born king that the palace at Jerusalem was disturbed. [14]
the saying which
was told them concerning this child. It
would surely have impressed those willing to listen. And it could be safely told at this point
because the child was still a mere infant and no matter how political an
interpretation some would have wanted to put on “savior,” no infant was going
to be capable of leading them to their desired political “redemption.” Such would have to lie many years in the
future. For the time being, they could
only ponder and wonder. [rw]
2:18 Translations
Weymouth: and all who
listened were astonished at what the shepherds told them.
WEB: All who
heard it wondered at the things which were spoken to them by the shepherds.
Young’s: And all who
heard, did wonder concerning the things spoken by the shepherds unto them;
Conte (RC): And all who heard it
were amazed by this, and by those things which were told to them by the
shepherds.
2:18 And all they that heard it. The Bethlehemites wondered at these statements of the angelic
ministrations related by the shepherds. [14]
Until this [information]
from the shepherds, we have no reason to suppose that any person there, except
Joseph and Mary, knew that anything out of the way of nature had taken
place. [52]
wondered at those
things which were told them by the shepherds. How? When?
By what means would this “salvation” occur? These were surely some of the questions they
“wondered” about the answer to. [rw]
2:19 Translations
Weymouth: But Mary
treasured up all these things, often dwelling on them in her mind.
WEB: But Mary
kept all these sayings, pondering them in her heart.
Young’s: and Mary was preserving all these things,
pondering in her heart;
Conte (RC): But Mary kept all
these words, pondering them in her heart.
2:19 But Mary kept. The word signifies not merely to
guard, but to keep, as the result of guarding. Hence the compound verb is very
expressive: kept with or within
herself: closely. [2]
all these things. She
could have no idea where all this was headed.
But she knew the impossibilities that had already occurred--the fact
that God had caused her to become pregnant when she couldn’t, while her
relative Elizabeth was pregnant in her old age when she couldn’t
either. When angels had spoken of how
both sons would play major roles to benefit the nation. She knew the “outcome,” so to speak, but
nothing of the details or the “how.” So
it was natural that every word be carefully considered as to what it might hint
or imply. [rw]
and pondered.
Brought them together--compared, collated--as we say, "put this
thing and that thing together."
These acts of the shepherds confirmed her faith: and she laid up these things in her memory
and in her warm feelings. [8]
Kept them in active remembrance, compared
them, reflected upon them. This is the way in which sermons should be
heard, and the Bible should be read. We
should not listen to sermons, that they may amuse, or merely entertain us (Ezek.
xxxiii. 31-32). Neither should we listen
to God's Word as a person looks in a glass, and then goes away and forgets what
he has seen (James i. 24). Such hearers soon lose the good impressions
they have received, and continue worldly-minded and ungodly. See Ps. i. 2.) [9]
them in her heart. Not comprehending clearly yet what it was to
have borne the Messiah. [52]
The word suggests that
she did not share with others (except Joseph one must assume) what she thought
and what wondered. How could she? Unless one was there that night, it could
only arouse mockery as a tall tale from a poorer member of their society who
wished for something greater. [rw]
2:20 Translations
Weymouth: And the
shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all that they had heard and
seen in accordance with the announcement made to them.
WEB: The
shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they
had heard and seen, just as it was told them.
Young’s: and
the shepherds turned back, glorifying and praising God, for all those things
they heard and saw, as it was spoken unto them.
Conte (RC): And the shepherds
returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard
and seen, just as it was told to them.
2:20 And the shepherds returned. To their flocks. [11]
glorifying and praising God. Giving honor to God and celebrating His praises. [11]
for all the things
that they had heard and seen. Others
had not been blessed with this opportunity—only their small group. To not have been exuberant over what
they had seen would have been to not show gratitude and appreciation. Jesus
would encounter many during His life that would be of that mentality, but not
in this case! [rw]
as it was told
unto them.
As to be expected, what
they had been told had turned out to the reality. Faith was confirmed by evidence. [rw]
2:21 Translations
Weymouth: When eight
days had passed and the time for circumcising Him had come, He was called
JESUS, the name given Him by the angel before His conception in the womb.
WEB: When
eight days were fulfilled for the circumcision of the child, his name was
called Jesus, which was given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
Young’s: And when eight days
were fulfilled to circumcise the child, then was his name called Jesus, having
been so called by the messenger before his being conceived in the womb.
Conte (RC): And after eight days
were ended, so that the boy would be circumcised, his name was called JESUS,
just as he was called by the Angel before he was conceived in the womb.
2:21 And when eight days
were accomplished for the circumcising of the child. Here only recorded, and even here merely
alluded to for the sake of the name then given to the babe, "Jesus"
or Saviour (Matthew 1:21; Acts 13:23). Still the circumcision of Christ had a profound
bearing on His own work--by few rightly [understood]. For since "he that is circumcised is a
debtor to do the whole law" (Galatians 5:3), Jesus thus bore about with
Him in His very flesh, the seal of a voluntary obligation to do the whole Law. [16]
Doubtless
the rite was performed by Joseph. Christ
suffered pain thus early for our sake to teach us that, though He ordained for
us the painless rite of baptism, we must practice the spiritual
circumcision—the circumcision of the heart.
[56]
his name was
called Jesus. The name of the child was bestowed at
circumcision. [56]
which was so named
of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. Thereby explaining why this name was chosen;
as with the Baptist, both were given names that would not normally have been
expected. [rw]
2:22 Translations
Weymouth: And when the
days for their purification appointed by the Law of Moses had passed, they took
Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord--
WEB: When the
days of their purification according to the law of
Moses were fulfilled, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the
Lord
Young’s: And when the days of their purification
were fulfilled, according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to
Jerusalem, to present to the Lord,
Conte (RC): And after the days
of her purification were fulfilled, according to the law of Moses, they brought
him to Jerusalem, in order to present him to the Lord,
2:22 And when the days of her [their,
ESV, NASB] purification. The
reading “her,” of the Received Text is almost unsupported. All the Uncials read “their,” except D, which
probably by an oversight reads, “His.”
Strictly speaking, the child was never purified, but only the
mother. [56]
Among the
Hebrews a mother was required to remain at home for about forty days after the
birth of a male child and eighty for a female; and during that time she was
reckoned as "impure"--that is, she was not permitted to go to the
temple or to engage in religious services with the congregation. Leviticus 12:3-4. [11]
according to the law of Moses were accomplished. Jesus was
“made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem those that were under the Law,
that we might receive the adoption of sons,” Galatians 4:4, 5. [56]
Hence
to fulfill the commands of that Law, Mary and her family came to Jerusalem on
the fortieth day for the required ritual purification. [rw]
they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him
to the Lord. Because the temple was there, and the
ceremony was there to be performed by the Mosaic law. [8]
By the original law,
every male first-born child was holy to the Lord. Ex. xiii. 2. He was to receive the office of priest,
originally exercised by the head of every family, as by Noah (Gen. viii. 20), and Job (Job i. 5). Afterwards God chose the tribe of Levi in the
place of these first-born to be a perpetual priesthood (Numb. viii. 15-20). But as the first-born still belonged to the
Lord by right, since He rescued them from death in Egypt, on the night of the
Passover, they were redeemed in memorial of that event. [4]
In depth: Physical layout of Jerusalem [22]. Jerusalem: Shape.
An irregular quadrilateral, covering five mountains, Acra, Bezetha, Moriah, Ophel, Zion.
Districts. (1)
"Zion" or the "Upper City" on the south, upon Mt.
Zion and Ophel; (2) the "Lower City" on Acra, including the Temple on Moriah. (3) Bezetha, Herod's "New City," farthest north.
Buildings. An ancient writer called it "a city of
marble and gold." The most famous
in Christ's day were (1)
Herod's Temple, covering 20 acres; (2) Herod's Palace; (3) The
Tower of Antonia; (4) the network of pools and subterranean
aqueducts.
Walls. (1) David's, around Zion and Ophel, enclosing the Old Jebusite
city. (2) Hezekiah's, encircling Acra
and Moriah.
(3) Herod Agrippa's, built after
Christ, sweeping northward around Bezetha. (4)
The present wall was built by the Turks, about 400 years ago.
Gates. The ancient city had eight outside gates,
chief of which were (1) "Damascus Gate" on the north,
opening toward Samaria and Galilee;
(2) "Valley" or
"Joppa" gate on the
west, leading to Joppa and Bethlehem;
(3) "Fountain Gate" on
the south, opening on the Pool of Siloam; (4)
"Shushan" or the "Lily
Gate" of the Temple, on the east, leading across Kedron
to Bethany and Jericho.
Valleys. (1) Jehoshaphat or Kedron, running past
the Temple on the east;
(2) Hinnom, on the west and south; (3) Tyropoean, coming through the city from north to south.
In depth: Presentation of Jesus in the temple [22]. The presentation
of the first born male child was made on the forty-first day after the birth
(Lev. 12:1-8), for a two-fold purpose:
(a) for the mother’s purification from legal or
ceremonial uncleanness. If the woman was
rich, she brought a lamb for a sacrifice, if poor either two doves or two
pigeons, each pair costing about 16 cents.
One of these was for a sin offering in view of the ceremonial
defilement, the other for a burnt offering to restore fellowship with the Lord. Mary brought the offering of the poor, which
fact indirectly confirms the view that the Magi with their rich gifts came
after the Presentation.
(b) The child was brought into the temple also
for the purpose of redeeming him from priestly service. When Jehovah destroyed all the first born sons
of Egypt and spared all the first born of Israel, he
ordained that this fact should be kept in everlasting remembrance by the
consecration of the first born son of every Israelite to his own special
service (Ex. 13:2). When later the tribe
of Levi had been especially set apart for the priesthood (Num. 8), he allowed
the first-born of the other tribes to be redeemed from the priestly
service. This was done, first, by the
presentation of the son in the Temple, by which act God's ownership was
recognized and second, by the payment of five shekels (a shekel was variously
estimated at from 50-80 cents) in exchange for the son.
2:23 Translations
Weymouth: as it is
written in the Law of the Lord: "Every first-born male shall be called
holy to the Lord."
WEB: (as it is
written in the law of the Lord, "Every male who opens the womb shall be
called holy to the Lord"),
Young’s: as it hath been written in the Law of the
Lord, -- 'Every male opening a womb shall be called holy to the Lord,'
Conte (RC): just as it is
written in the law of the Lord, "For every male opening the womb shall be
called holy to the Lord,"
2:23 As it is written the law of the
Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be
called holy to the Lord. In Ex. xiii. 2. The
law had been modified, not repealed.
[4]
The
tribe of Levi were sanctified to the Lord in lieu of
the firstborn, and originally all the firstborn in excess of the number of the
Levites had to be redeemed with five shekels of the sanctuary, a rule
afterwards extended to all the firstborn. Exodus
13:2, 22:29, 34:19; Numbers 3:13, 18:15, 16. [56]
the Law of the Lord. Called
“the law of Moses” due to who was the recipient of the Divine law or
“the law of the Lord” due to who gave it, it remained the same system of
laws and ordinances designed to govern the people of Israel in behavior,
government, and morals. [rw]
2:24 Translations
Weymouth: And
they also offered a sacrifice as commanded in the Law of the Lord, "a pair
of turtle doves or two young pigeons."
WEB: and to
offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord,
"A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."
Young’s: and
to give a sacrifice, according to that said in the Law of the Lord, 'A pair of
turtle-doves, or two young pigeons.'
Conte (RC): and in order to
offer a sacrifice, according to what is said in the law of the Lord, "a
pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons."
2:24 And to offer a
sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord. It wasn’t a matter of bringing what you
wanted; it was a matter of bringing what God wanted. That was the purpose of written Law: to assure that the same set of standards was
imposed on all and that when there were to be exceptions the fact was also
known to all. The element of guess work
was removed. [56]
a pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons. The proper offering was a lamb for a burnt
offering, and a pigeon or dove for a sin offering; but for the poor an alternative
was allowed--instead of the more costly present of a lamb, a second pigeon or
dove might be brought. The deep poverty
of Mary and Joseph is shown in this offering.
They would never have put the sanctuary off with the humbler had the
richer gift been in their power. [18]
The
Law of Moses, with that thoughtful tenderness which characterizes many of its
provisions, allowed a poor woman to bring two turtledoves; and since
turtledoves (being migratory) are not always procurable, and old pigeons
are not easily caught, offered the alternatives of “two young
pigeons.” Leviticus 12:6-8. [56]
Books Utilized
(with
number code)
1 = Adam Clarke. The New
Testament . . . with a Commentary and
Critical Notes.
Volume I: Matthew to the Acts. Reprint, Nashville,
Tennessee: Abingdon Press.
2 = Marvin R. Vincent. Word Studies in the New Testament. Volume I:
The Synoptic Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Epistles
of Peter, James,
and Jude. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887;
1911 printing.
3 = J. S. Lamar. Luke.
[Eugene S. Smith, Publisher; reprint, 1977 (?)]
4 = Charles H. Hall. Notes,
Practical and Expository on the Gospels;
volume two: Luke-John. New York:
Hurd and Houghton, 1856,
1871.
5 = John Kitto.
Daily Bible Illustrations. Volume II:
Evening Series:
The Life and Death of Our Lord. New
York: Robert Carter and
Brothers, 1881.
6 = Thomas M. Lindsay. The Gospel According to St. Luke. Two
volumes. New York: Scribner & Welford,
1887.
7 = W. H. van Doren. A Suggestive Commentary on the New
Testament:
Saint Luke. Two volumes. New
York: D. Appleton and Company,
1868.
8 = Melancthon W. Jacobus.
Notes on the Gospels, Critical and
Explanatory: Luke and John. New York:
Robert Carter &
Brothers, 1856; 1872 reprint.
9 = Alfred Nevin.
Popular Expositor of the Gospels and Acts: Luke.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:
Ziegler & McCurdy, 1872.
10 = Alfred Nevin.
The Parables of Jesus. Philadelphia:
Presbyterian
Board of Publication, 1881.
11 = Albert Barnes. "Luke." In Barnes' Notes on the
New Testament.
Reprint, Kregel Publications,
1980.
12 = Alexander B. Bruce. The Synoptic Gospels.
In The Expositor's
Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Reprint, Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
13 = F. Godet.
A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. Translated
from the Second French Edition by E. W. Shalders
and M. D. Cusin.
New York: I. K. Funk &
Company, 1881.
14 = D. D. Whedon.
Commentary on the Gospels:
Luke-John. New
York: Carlton & Lanahan, 1866; 1870 reprint.
15 = Henry Alford. The
Greek Testament. Volume
I: The Four Gospels.
Fifth Edition. London: Rivingtons, 1863.
16 = David Brown. "Luke"
in Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and
David Brown, A
Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the
Old and New Testaments.
Volume II: New Testament. Hartford:
S. S. Scranton Company, no date.
17 = Dr. [no first name provided] MacEvilly. An Exposition of the Gospel
of St. Luke. New York: Benziger Brothers,
1886.
18 = H. D. M. Spence. “Luke.”
In the Pulpit Commentary, edited by H. D.
M. Spence. Reprinted by Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company,
1950.
19 = John Calvin. Commentary on a
Harmony of the Evangelists,
Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Translated by William Pringle. Reprint,
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
20 = Thomas Scott. The Holy Bible
. . . with Explanatory Notes (and)
Practical Observations. Boston: Crocker and Brewster.
21 = Henry T. Sell. Bible Studies
in the Life of Christ: Historical and
Constructive. New
York: Fleming H. Revell
Company, 1902.
22 = Philip Vollmer. The Modern Student's Life of Christ. New York:
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1912.
23 = Heinrich A. W. Meyer. Critical
and Exegetical Handbook to the
Gospels of Mark and Luke.
Translated from the Fifth German
Edition by Robert Ernest Wallis. N.
Y.: Funk and Wagnalls,
1884; 1893 printing.
24 = John Albert Bengel. Gnomon
of the New Testament. A New
Translation
by Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent.
Volume One. Philadelphia: Perkinpine & Higgins,
1860.
25 = John Cummings. Sabbath
Evening Readers on the New Testa-
ment:
St. Luke. London: Arthur Hall, Virtue & Co,1854.
26 = Walter F. Adeney, editor. The Century Bible: A Modern
Commentary--Luke. New
York: H. Frowdey,
1901. Title page
missing from copy.
27 = Pasquier Quesnel.
The Gospels with Reflections on Each Verse.
Volumes I and II. (Luke
is in part of both). New York: Anson
D. F. Randolph, 1855; 1867 reprint.
28 = Charles R. Erdman. The Gospel
of Luke: An Exposition.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1921; 1936 reprint.
29 = Elvira J. Slack. Jesus: The Man of Galilee. New York:
National
Board of the Young Womens
Christian Associations, 1911.
30 = Arthur Ritchie. Spiritual Studies in St. Luke's Gospel. Milwaukee:
The Young Churchman Company, 1906.
31 = Bernhard Weiss. A Commentary on the New Testament. Volume
Two: Luke-The Acts. New York:
Funk & Wagnalls Company,1906.
32 = Matthew Henry. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Volume V:
Matthew to John. 17--. Reprint, New
York: Fleming H. Revell
Company, no date.
33 = C. G. Barth.
The Bible Manual: An
Expository and Practical
Commentary on the Books of Scripture. Second Edition.
London: James Nisbet and Company, 1865.
34 = Nathaniel S. Folsom. The Four
Gospels: Translated . . . and with
Critical and Expository Notes. Third Edition.
Boston: Cupples,
Upham, and Company, 1871; 1885 reprint.
35 = Henry Burton. The Gospel
according to Luke. In the Expositor's
Bible series. New
York: A. C. Armstrong and Son,
1895.
36 = [Anonymous]. Choice Notes on
the Gospel of S. Luke, Drawn from
Old and New Sources.
London: Macmillan & Company, 1869.
37 = Marcus Dods.
The Parables of Our Lord. New York:
Fleming H.
Revell Company, 18--.
38 = Alfred
Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.
Second Edition. New
York: Anson D. F. Randolph and Company,
1884.
39 = A. T. Robertson. Luke the Historian in the Light of Research.
New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920; 1930 reprint.
40 = James R. Gray. Christian
Workers' Commentary on the Old and
New Testaments. Chicago: Bible Institute Colportage Associat-
ion/Fleming H. Revell Company, 1915.
41 = W.
Sanday. Outlines of the Life of Christ. New York:
Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1905.
42 = Halford E. Luccock. Studies in the Parables
of Jesus. New York:
Methodist Book Concern, 1917.
43 = George
H. Hubbard. The
Teaching of Jesus in Parables.
New
York: Pilgrim Press, 1907.
44 = Charles S. Robinson. Studies in Luke's Gospel. Second Series.
New York:American
Tract Society, 1890.
45 = John
Laidlaw. The Miracles of Our Lord. New York:
Funk &
Wagnalls Company, 1892.
46 = William
M. Taylor. The
Miracles of Our Saviour. Fifth Edition.
New York:
A. C. Armstrong & Son, 1890; 1903 reprint.
47 = Alexander
Maclaren. Expositions
of Holy Scripture: St. Luke.
New York: George H. Doran
Company, [no date].
48 = George
MacDonald. The
Miracles of Our Lord. New
York:
George Routledge
& Sons, 1878.
49 = Joseph
Parker. The People's Bibles: Discourses upon Holy Scrip-
ture—Mark-Luke. New
York: Funk & Wagnalls
Company, 18--.
50 = Daniel
Whitby and Moses Lowman. A Critical Commentary and
Paraphrase on the New Testament:
The Four Gospels and the Acts
of the Apostles.
Philadelphia: Carey & Hart,
1846.
51 = Matthew
Poole. Annotations
on the Holy Bible. 1600s.
Computerized.
52 = George
R. Bliss. Luke. In An American Commentary on the New
Testament. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society,
1884.
53 = J.
W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton. The Fourfold Gospel.
1914. Computerized.
54 = John Trapp. Commentary on the Old
and New Testaments. 1654.
Computerized.
55 = Ernest D. Burton and Shailer Matthews. The Life of Christ.
Chicago, Illinois: University of
Chicago Press, 1900; 5th reprint,
1904.
56 = Frederic W. Farrar. The Gospel According to
St. Luke. In “The
Cambridge
Bible for Schools and Colleges” series. Cambridge:
At
the
University Press, 1882.