Fr. Stephen:

Now, there was one, Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, and had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity.

So, it’s not just St. Simeon, it’s not sort of St. Simeon is the one lone still faithful guy, right? We’ve now got another person. We’ve got a woman. She had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity, meaning she got married as a virgin, probably around the age of 13. She was married to him for seven years. And then we find out here:

This woman was a widow of about 84 years, who did not depart from the temple but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.

So if we take seven years on top of 13, she would have been about 20. Now, she’s been a widow for 84 years. That means she’s about 104. She’s about 104, doing that math. So, a very elderly woman, but note where she is. She’s living in the temple. She’s there day and night. Remember what we talked about when we talked about Mary, how there were women who were dedicated to the temple, who lived there?

Mary had to leave because she reached puberty and the purity laws. But the intent would have been, as we said, that later on in her life she would have returned. And that’s what Anna did. Anna is obviously, not to be too graphic about it, but she’s post-menopause, so the purity issues are not a concern anymore. So, since then she’s been devoted to the temple and living there.

And coming in that instant she gave thanks to the Lord, and spoke of Him to all those who look for redemption in Jerusalem.

So notice once again she knows who Jesus is instantly. Instantly, no question. And notice again, we’re told by St. Luke that “she spoke of Him to all those who look for redemption in Israel.”

So first of all, there’s a big group, those looking for redemption. Those are the faithful people. Even in Jerusalem, which has gotten pretty bad, there’s a group of people who are still righteous and still trying to follow God, right? And St. Luke reminds us she went and told them and some of them told St. Luke. That’s how he knows about [inaudible].

So again, he’s not only pointing out that there are these righteous people, but he’s effectively calling them as witnesses. “Here’s some more testimony that I’ve lined up. Here are some more witnesses to what happened and who Jesus is.”

So when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth. And the Child grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. Where are the wise men? Where’s Herod killing all the babies? They’re over in St Matthew’s Gospel. They’re not here. So, again, this is a place where we have two different accounts of Christ’s birth that give us different information. They give us different information and they’re trying to make different points, right?

The Church, when we canonized four Gospels, which happened very early; it happened by the middle of the second century. We had the four Gospels. Those were the only four Gospels we were reading in church. We were aware that there were two different stories of Jesus birth and that they didn’t give all the same details.

So, first off, it’s only very recently that this has been seen as a problem, that you will see it presented as a problem. Since we’re coming up on Christmas, invariably, we’ll get a Newsweek story, we’ll get another round of documentaries on the History Channel and Nat Geo and other stations, right? And I guarantee you that if you watch any of them, as soon as they start talking about the birth of Jesus, someone, probably Bart Ehrman, but it might not be him, will pop up and say, “Well, we have two stories of Christ’s birth. And they conflict with each other, and they disagree,” because the assumption there that they never want to discuss is that if God had really inspired the Scriptures, if God had really inspired four Gospels, they would all four have to be identical, right? I mean, that’s the presupposition. If they’re not identical, well, that means God didn’t inspire them because they’re not identical. Which then, of course begs the question, well, if they’re going to be identical, why would he inspire four? Right? There would just be one, right?

So, if you catch my argument, it’s a circular argument, because they’re assuming what they’re trying to prove. They’re trying to prove that the Bible isn’t true and that the Bible isn’t inspired by God. But in order to do that, they’re assuming that the Bible isn’t true and that the Bible wasn’t inspired by God.

Interlocutor: Well that’s sort of a counter-reaction, because people’s chief proof to someone who doesn’t believe in the Bible already is its internal consistency.

Fr. Stephen: But that in and of itself is a very modern argument.

Interlocutor: Of course it is!

Fr. Stephen: When we get to the Book of Acts, you’re not going to see any of the apostles holding up their copy of the Old Testament, which they didn’t own, but pointing the Old Testament and saying, “I can prove that this is inspired by God because of its internal consistency and the archaeological data behind the Book of Exodus.”

They never say that. So what I would submit is, if you go back to the 18th century, that’s actually a counter argument, that’s a defensive argument, because starting in the 18th century, you start getting people with presuppositions coming into the Bible. So for example, they’ll come and start reading the Gospels and they presuppose, “Miracles don’t happen, supernatural things don’t happen.” And so if you come in with that assumption, if you’re materialist, you say anything that violates the laws of physics can’t happen, right? And then you look at the gospel that says things happen that violate the laws of physics. Like Jesus walking on water, right? You say, “Well, look, this is ridiculous. It violates the laws of physics,” which is, again, circular reasoning. This isn’t true because it isn’t true. And so Christians got on the defensive and started arguing, “No, no, it’s internally consistent”, right? And had to try to smush everything together and make everything work.

And the problem with that defensiveness is that it causes us to lose the richness of what we have. If you smush St. Matthew’s story of Christ’s birth and St. Luke’s story of Christ’s birth, if you just smush them together, you lose the themes, you lose the texture, you lose what’s being said in each of them in favor of, “Well, I’ve proven you can fit them together! Checkmate atheist!” As if that’s the core issue of why someone’s an atheist. As if any atheist has ever, ever said, “Well, I guess you can make those work together. I guess I’ll become a Christian now.” It doesn’t happen.

What have we lost in the process of making that bad argument? We’ve lost what God has given to us, what God has actually inspired, which is two different stories. Two different stories. I’ve mentioned this before as we’ve been going through the Gospels. The only place where I think it’s relevant to bring up what’s in another Gospel, “look at this Gospel” is if the comparison helps you bring out some of the themes of each of them. Some of the themes of each of them.

And so, in this case, remember when we were going through the account and say Matthew’s Gospel, We made the point that St. Matthew, not just in his birth account, is very much trying to connect Jesus to Moses and Jesus to the experience of the people of Israel. Because, for example, where does Jesus go when Herod starts killing all the infants? Egypt, right? Remember St. Matthew quotes that verse “Out of Egypt I have called my son”, if you go back and look up, it’s talking about Israel. He’s connecting Jesus’s experience to the experience of Israel’s experience of Moses. Remember, all the Hebrew infants were being killed by Pharaoh. He’s showing us Herod has become like Pharaoh. So he’s drawing on those Old Testament, Exodus things that Christ is the true deliverer. Moses delivered the people of Israel from Egypt, but they ended up going back into exile and back into slavery again. But Christ is the true deliverer, because once he delivers, he whom the Son sets free is free indeed. He’s the true deliverer. And the fulfillment of those texts,

St. Luke here seems less concerned to hew that closely to the Old Testament text. What might be a reason for that? He’s got a different audience. A lot of the people he’s writing this to aren’t Jewish, so he starts making a lot of allusions to the details of the Torah. They’re not going to make those connections as easily as St. Matthew’s audience made them. But what does St. Luke bring out that St. Matthew didn’t? Well, we’ve already seen a lot about the other nations and the Gentiles. We’ve already seen that Christ’s salvation is coming not just for the Jewish people, but for all humanity. And we’ve already seen these themes in St. Luke, again of the rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, over and over again, the last being first and the first being last, and God establishing his peace and his justice in the world over against Caesar’s. Now, is there anything about the way I’ve just summarized St. Matthew’s themes and St. Luke’s themes that contradicts each other?

They’re different statements about Jesus, but they could both be true. I would say they both are true. So, the key to understanding them both is to understand each one and then see how those things fit together, not to sort of go super through a microscope and try to make all the details fit and figure out what happened in what order. How long was it between when the shepherd showed up and when the wise men showed up? What are you going to gain by knowing that? Even if you figured it out, even if you knew it was 233 days and 8 hours and 3 minutes, what have you gained? If you have two witnesses to the exact same events, they’re going to give you two different accounts because it’s going to come from two different perspectives.

We talked before how by having multiple accounts of Jesus, we get multiple perspectives on Jesus. I made the comparison, I think, at one point, toÖ did anybody have a View-Master when they were a kid? I not only had a View-Master, I had my grandma’s old stereoscope. Did anybody have one of those with the card on the little slider? Yeah, with the two pictures. And what happens? You’ve got two flat pictures, right? You’ve got two flat pictures. You’ll look at one with one eye and one with the other eye. But when you bring those two perspectives together, it gives you at least the illusion of three dimensions. It’s the same kind of thing in terms of the four Gospels. We’ve got four different perspectives, and so it gives us three dimensions of who Jesus is. Not just one flat perspective, but several.

Interlocutor: Father Stephen, is there anything that you have read, is there anything that reflects how long Mary, Joseph and the Christ Child stayed in that cave? The reason I’m asking the question, is that I’ve been told that star had shone there for three years, is there anything that you’ve read that validates that?

Fr. Stephen: I would guess that that is based on a tradition as to how long it was—remember, the star wasn’t in St. Luke’s Gospel, but that’s based on a tradition as to how long it took the wise men to get there and that the wise men would have taken a three-year journey, and so that means the star must have been shining for three years to lead them there.

Interlocutor: Wasn’t it also the case that Herod killed all the young boys at three years of age or younger? I don’t know if that ties into that or not.

Fr. Stephen: Yeah, that might be related. He was looking for a time frame so he likely would have asked how long did it take to give him a ballpark and he probably expanded a little bit on that ballpark to be safe, knowing Herod. Now we’re not told explicitly but because they’re identified as Magi it’s usually considered that’s a reference to a particular class of astrologers basically in Persia at that time, Persia and parts of what was Babylon, so it would have been from what’s now the eastern part of Iraq or Iran they would have traveled the course basically on foot. So getting from there to Bethlehem would have taken some considerable amount of time.

Interlocutor: They probably left before the day of His birth, the probably visited Him towards the end of their journey.

Fr. Stephen: Well yeah, we don’t know exactly what the timing was.

Interlocutor: What I mean was the Star of Bethlehem didn’t suddenly appear on that day.

Fr. Stephen: Right. We don’t know either here from St. Luke, of course, he’s not working with the Magi in the first place but we know He was circumcised on the 8th day. It doesn’t say where he went. Presumably they were still in Bethlehem at that point because they probably would not have tried to perform a circumcision while in transit somewhere. And of course when they’re dedicating Christ at the temple it’s in Jerusalem and then we’re told now that they return to Nazareth.

Interlocutor: Is there a representation in the Church of the sword piercing Mary’s heart?

Fr. Stephen: I have not seen that visually in Orthodox icons. I know the Immaculate Heart of Mary in the Roman Catholic tradition has the sword. You will sometimes see an Orthodox-ish icon that has that that was sort of under the influence of Western art incorporating that. However, there are a class of hymns in the Orthodox Church called theotokia. One is called a theotokion which is a hymn to the Theotokos and one of those comes at the end of most—for example in Vespers, at “Lord I have cried” we have the verses that we read and after the “Both now and ever” we have a theotokion every time and at the end of the Aposticha, after the “Now and ever” we have a theotokion. So there are several times where we have a hymn to the Theotokos at the end, that’s called theotokia. There are particular theotokiathat are used on Wednesdays and Fridays and in Holy Week that are called Stavro-Theotokia from Stavros that’s “the cross”. And those hymns of the Theotokos are particularly meditations on, because those are days when we remember Christ’s crucifixion, those are meditations on Mary as she stood and beheld her son dying on the cross. And so those, I’m not going to say always, but about 85% of the time make reference to this. So in the musical element, in the hymnography this is a major theme, not necessarily in the visual iconography.

Interlocutor: Is that included in the Advent services?

Fr. Stephen: The Wednesday and Friday ones, yes.

Interlocutor: The Theotokos “Softener of Evil Hearts” has the swords.

Fr. Stephen: Yes and that’s one that’s a little later and had a little influence. I’m not saying that it’s a negative thing like that’s a bad icon, I’m just saying it reflects theÖ yeah, I don’t want to go off on too much of a tangent, but several of the miracle working icons in the Orthodox Church don’t follow the rules of iconography in the Orthodox Church, which is one of those interesting things where God isn’t limited by our rules. The rules are made for us for our sakes. God isn’t bound by the rules. God can do what he needs to do.

So, let’s pick up here in verse 41:

His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast.

So, we’re jumping ahead about 11.8 years from where we were before.

When they had finished the days, as they returned, the Boy Jesus lingered behind in Jerusalem. And Joseph and His mother did not know it;

How do you lose a kid? So, they go for the Passover, this was common, right? Especially if you were somewhere in Palestine where you could make the journey, if you could, especially for Passover, which was the Feast of Feasts then and still is now, you go to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast. And it says when the days are over, this is, of course, because the Passover is celebrated over close to a week, over several days. So they travel down there.

We look at things from our modern perspective, so when we think of a family and we haven’t been helped by certain Western pictures of “The Holy Family”, right? We think of mom, dad, kids, right. Nuclear family. Family in the first century in Palestine was not mom, dad, kids, right? Family was half the village. This was your grandparents, your cousins, your nieces and nephews, your aunts and uncles. This is the whole clan. This is the whole tribe, the whole extended family. And so you traveled as a group, right? This is a long journey; it’s several days, right? So you’re going on the road, you’re going to bring food with you, you’re going to be cooking on the road. It’s sort of a caravan. You’re going to be cooking on the road, you’re going to be eating on the road.

And so, you’ve got a picture sort of this big extended family moving in this big caravan. So, if you don’t see some particular person for a day or two, you figure, oh, well, they must be back further, and then they must be hanging out with their cousins or they must be here or there. But eventually it gets to the point where you start to say, “It’s been an awful long time since I’ve seen that person.” So they’ve picked up the family, picked up the caravan to head back to Nazareth, head back up north, and they’ve set out, and they don’t know that Jesus stuck around in Jerusalem.

but supposing Him to have been in the company,

That’s what that’s referring to, the company. He’s referring to this caravan.

they went a day’s journey and sought Him among their relatives and acquaintances.

So, it’s been a day, they haven’t seen Him. They go and they start talking to, “Hey, is he with you? Is he with you guys? Is he back in theÖ?”

So when they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking Him. Now, so it was that after three days, they found Him in the temple.

Now, this doesn’t mean they spent three days searching Jerusalem, we have to do a little math here, right? They went one day’s journey, they had to turn around and come back. So that takes another day. And then they spend a day looking for Him all over the city of Jerusalem, trying to find their Son. So that’s how it ends up being three days that he’s been gone.

But though St. Luke doesn’t make a big example, note that Jesus is gone and then back after three days. They find Him after three days. So there is some subtle foreshadowing going on here in the way St. Luke presents.

Now so it was that after three days, they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.”

This is probably a very polite version. I was not received with that much politeness when I wandered off in the mall. And it wasn’t three days before my mom found me. [Laughter]

But he’s gone. he’s twelve years old. He’s twelve years old, which means not an adult yet, right? By Jewish standards, still a kid. A big kid, but still a kid. And he’s sitting there with the teachers of the law, the rabbis. These guys were not Sunday school teachers, okay? These guys were the instructors of people training to be other rabbis. These are like the seminary professors. These are the tenured professors at your local university. And Jesus at twelve, remember how poor he is, there was no public education at this time, meaning he hasn’t gone to school a day in his life. But he’s sitting there conversing with them, asking them questions, talking to them about the Torah, right? They’re sort of all going, “Who is this kid?” He’s sort of the rabbinical Doogie Howser, right? You see all this stuff? “How does he know all these things? How is he conversing with us at this level?”

But notice, of course, when Mary and Joseph, they’re less concerned with the, “Wow, we got a really smart kid!” and more concerned with “Where have you been for three days? Why are you doing this to us? We were scared out of our minds.”

Interlocutor: Is he mentioning that He was 12 years old, is this Jesus’s bar mitzvah? Because they went to the temple, perhaps they went to the temple because this was His bar mitzvah services?

Fr. Stephen: Most likely not for a couple reasons. Bar mitzvah is generally done at 13, so this would have been just before. So I think that he’s twelve means he’s almost an adult, but not really yet. And I think that’s part of the point that St. Luke is making. It’s not that he’s a young adult who’s doing these things, he’s still a kid and he’s carrying on these conversations. Also whether there was a formal bar mitzvah and what form that took in the first century is debatable. Most people think there was something. But you also have to remember that marriages at this time were arranged and when you hit 13 and became an adult, you were generally married off pretty much immediately. So there’s some debate as to whether there was really a second ceremony at this time or whether that just sort of happened at your wedding: “Today, you’re a man, here’s your wife” kind of thing, right? “And this is how you know you’re a man, you’re married.” So, yeah, there’s some debate surrounding that. So I don’t think we should conjecture that here in terms of this passage, because if that were the case, that would kind of take away some of the surprising nature of it.

Interlocutor: Well I was wondering, maybe that’s the reason He got to be with the people at the temple?

Fr. Stephen: But you also noticed this isn’t the first place Mary and Joseph looked. They spent a whole day looking for Him and finally found Him there. Whereas if that was something that they had planned, that probably would have been the first place they’d gone.

And He said to them, “Why did you seek Me?”

Not the response parents like to hear. [Laughter]

“How could you do this to us? We were worried sick!”

“Well why were you looking for me?”

“Why did you seek me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?” But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them.

So He saysÖ what’s He saying? He’s saying this should have been the first place you looked. Remember that angel? Remember what he told you? You’ve had all these prophecies. Remember who I am supposed to be? Where do you think the Messiah would be? At the temple. Right?

But notice also He says He’s there for His Father’s business, meaning at twelve, Jesus is already aware of who He is. Jesus is already aware of who He is. This sort of flies in the face and removes all theseÖ you’ll see occasionally these weird movies, right? Where Jesus at some point in His life finds out He’s the Son of God or something like Superman finding out he’s from Krypton, He’s a teenager, He’s minding His own business. And suddenlyÖ or even worse, at His baptism when He’s 30, He suddenly finds out, “Oh, hey, I’m the Messiah!” Like He never knew before, right?

That’s not, again, how Scripture is presented. He’s twelve years old. He knows who He is. He knows what His business is, He knows why He’s there. He knows an awful lot about the Torah for somebody who’s never had any education, already at age twelve.

So to quote the famous Christmas hymn “Jesus was Lord at His birth”, even while He was laying in that manger. But notice Mary, Joseph, even though they’ve received these prophecies and all this, they don’t quite click to what He’s saying. Notice also the question, “Your Father and I have sought you.” “I’m here doing my Father’s business.” It’s also a reminder, “Remember who my real Father is.”

He’s not being disrespectful to Joseph, but again to say “You of all people, My mother should know who I am. And so, you should have thought, ‘Oh, He’s going to be at the temple’”. And of course, He doesn’t mean He’s there trying to sell handicrafts for Joseph in the bazaar.

And so then the chapter ends:

Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them, but His mother kept all these things in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men.

So again, we keep hearing Mary kept all these things in her heart. Mary kept all these things in her heart. Why? St. Luke is tipping us off, that he talked to her, right? “Treasure all these things in her heart” means she remembered these things. She committed these things to memory. And St. Luke is telling us where he got these things. Well, how do you know about that? How do you know about Jesus getting lost and His parents having to take a day? How do you know about that? Well, because Mary remembered all these things, so she was there for him to ask.

Notice also that important clause in there: “He went down with them and came to Nazareth and was subject to them.” Meaning He’s the Lord of the universe. He’s God incarnate, but He obeyed His parents. He obeyed His mortal human parents. And this is again St. Luke emphasizing Christ’s humility. Christ’s humility.

Interlocutor: I used to do this with my kids, try to point this out to them, if Jesus did it, so can you. [Laughter]

Fr. Stephen: You think you’re better than Jesus? Not in this house.

OK, so this is probably time wise and since we just hit the end of a chapter, a good place to stop this evening. So, we’ll pick up at the beginning of chapter three next week. Could have timed this a little better so we’re reading Luke 2 right around Christmas, but oh well, close enough. So now when we get to the Nativity services, you’ll know what to listen for in the hymns, to look for in the themes.