Gospel according to Saint Luke, commented on verse by verse

CHAPTER 2

Luke 2:1-20 = Matthew 2:1

Verses 1 and 2 contain a historical note intended to explain why Jesus was not born in Nazareth, where his mother and foster father lived, but in Bethlehem, far from Galilee. These lines have been the subject of renewed discussions, numerous systems, and, in the rationalist camp, passionate accusations against the authenticity or veracity of this passage from St. Luke. cf. Strauss, Life of Jesus, § 31, vol. 1, p. 232 ff. It is not possible, in a commentary, to treat such a complicated question in depth; we will at least indicate the best principles for a solution, and we refer the reader to H. Wallon, On Belief Due to the Gospel, Paris, 1858, pp. 296-339.

Luke 2.¹ In those days a decree was issued by Caesar Augustus for a census of all the earth. – 1. In those days. This date, vague in itself (cf. Matthew 3:1 and the explanation), is clarified by the context: 1:26, 36, 56; 2:6 and 7; it leads us back to verse 79 of chapter 1, therefore to the days following the birth of John the Baptist. The edict came from Caesar Augustus, nephew of the famous Julius Caesar and the first of the Roman emperors. Its purpose was to take a census of the entire world. This expression sometimes represents Palestine alone in the Bible, but it is not possible to give it this restricted meaning here with Paulus, Kuinoel, Hug, etc.: the way in which it is linked to the name of Augustus precludes such an interpretation. It therefore truly refers to the Roman Empire, which the Latins proudly called the "disc of the earth." The hyperbole was, moreover, not too exaggerated, since most of the known world was then subject to Roman law. By "census" we must understand the act of registering in civil records the name, age, status, wealth, and homeland of all the inhabitants of a region. cf. Polybius 10:7. The evangelist therefore did not intend to speak of a simple cadastral survey, as Kuinoel, Olshausen, Ebrard, Wieseler, etc., believed. – The fact so clearly stated by the evangelist in this first verse already raises serious difficulties because, we are told, 1) the Latin and Greek historians of the time remain completely silent on this edict of Augustus; 2. Even if the decree had been issued, it could not have applied to Judea, which was not yet a Roman province at the time of Jesus Christ's birth, since it was governed by Herod. Let us consider these two objections in turn: 1) Even if secular history were entirely silent on the edict mentioned by St. Luke, its silence would constitute only negative proof, which could not invalidate the evangelist's very clear testimony. Contemporary annalists similarly omit the censuses previously conducted by Julius Caesar, and yet their existence is beyond doubt. Moreover, how is it that Celsus and Porphyry, those implacable enemies of the ChristianityThose who took malicious pleasure in pointing out the supposed contradictions or errors in the Gospels, have raised no objection to this passage from St. Luke? But we have more compelling reasons to offer. As today the most distinguished archaeologists, jurists, and historians (Savigny, Huschke, Ritschl, Peterson, Marquardt, etc.) acknowledge, the compilation of reports and statistical documents is one of the distinctive features of Augustus's policies. Important documents, of which we possess at least some fragments, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the first Roman emperor must have carried out several operations during his reign similar to the one St. Luke mentions. At his death, we read in Suetonius, Aug. C. CI., three protocols were found bound to his will. "Of the three volumes, one is devoted to the arrangements for his funeral; The other was to be an account of his accomplishments, to be engraved on bronze tablets placed before the mausoleum; the third a summary of his reign.” A famous copy of the “index rerum gestarum” exists, engraved at the entrance to the temple of Ancyra in Galatia, which had been erected in honor of Augustus: it expressly mentions three censuses, one of which took place in the year 746 of Rome, that is, shortly before the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ (see Wallon, 1cp 300 ff.; Bougaud, Jésus-Christ, 2nd ed., p. 158 ff.). The “Breviarium imperii” has been lost. We know from the summaries given by Tacitus and Suetonius what subjects it dealt with: “It was a picture of public power: it showed how many citizens and allies were under arms, the number of fleets, kingdoms, and provinces, the state of tributes and tolls, an overview of necessary expenses and rewards” (Tacitus, Annals, 1.11). Is it not evident that, to gather all this information, it had been necessary to conduct censuses throughout the empire and even among allied peoples? Finally, let us add that later historians confirm the data of St. Luke in the most positive way, and certainly from sources independent of the Gospel, since they add the most minute details. “Caesar Augustus,” writes Suidas, “having chosen twenty of the most excellent men, sent them to all the regions of the subjugated peoples and had them register the men and their possessions.” “Likewise, St. Isidore of Seville, Cassiodorus, etc. See Wallon, loc. cit., p. 305 ff. – 2) At the time of the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Judea, it is true, was not yet a Roman province, and Herod the Great, who governed it, held the title of “Rex socius”; but this appearance of freedom did not prevent the country and its leader from being humble vassals of the empire, as Jewish history of those times proves. The independence of the theocratic nation was then purely nominal, and one cannot see what would have prevented Augustus from taking a census of the people of Israel if that had been his intention. Who does not know that in practice Herod never ceased to act as a very obedient servant of Augustus?” One day, when he had shown some inclination to free himself from this absolute subjugation, the emperor did not hesitate to write to him that if "until then he had treated him as a friend, henceforth he would treat him as a subject." (Flavius Josephus, Ant. 16, 9, 3). Moreover, a positive example, that of the "Clitae," a small people of Cilicia (Tacit. Ann. 6, 41), teaches us that the Romans sometimes forced allied nations to undergo a census.

Luke 2.² This first census took place while Quirinius was in command of the Syria. – This census was the first of those carried out by Cyrinus: the sacred writer thus distinguishes several censuses carried out by Cyrinus (cf. Acts 5:37), and he affirms that the one he is currently referring to was the first. Governor of Syria. There Syria was then a Roman province (bounded to the north by the Taurus Mountains, to the west by the Mediterranean Sea, with Antioch (for capital); or; to be the head of a province was to be a "proconsul." Such was therefore the official title of the person whom the Vulgate calls Cyrinus, and whom it would be more accurate to call "Quirinus," for that was his true Latin name. Cf. Suetonius, Titus 49; Tacitus, Annals 3, 48. Publius Sulpicius Quirinus, born in Lanuvium to obscure parents, rose through his martial zeal and his skill in affairs to the highest offices of the state. He was consul in 742 (UC), some time later obtained the honors of a triumph for having subdued the fierce mountain tribes of Homona in Pisidia, accompanied the young Gaius Caesar to Armenia in 755 as an advisor, and governed the Syria from 759 to 764. But it is precisely this last date that creates the greatest difficulty for the exegete in this passage, since, according to St. Luke, Quirinus would have been proconsul of Syria the very year of the Savior's birth, whereas, according to Roman historians, he did not become so until six years later. The more moderate rationalists conclude from this that St. Luke's account is "obviously erroneous." Others cry myth, legend, even deception. How to resolve this problem? Among the many proposed systems, some are particularly weak, for example, those of Venema, Valckenaer, Kuinoel, Olshausen, etc., who would remove verse 2 as an interpolation, and in general, all those that consist of introducing some modification into the text. The perfect authenticity of verse 2 is too well demonstrated to allow for such arbitrary conjectures. But there is no shortage of serious hypotheses. 1° Herwart, Bynaeus, Périzonius, Father Pétau, D. Calmet, Huschke, Wieseler, Ernesti, Ewald, Haneberg, and other critics translate: This census took place before Quirinus was governor of the SyriaThey believe they can justify their opinion with numerous examples taken from both sacred and classical authors. 2. According to Lardner and Münter, the title of governor was given to Quirinus in anticipation (this first census took place under the direction of Quirinus, who later became proconsul of Syria), or 3° it would not designate the proconsulship itself, but extraordinary powers by virtue of which Quirinus would have presided over the census of 75° (Casaubon, Grotius, Deyling, Sanclemente, Neander, Hug, Sepp, Schegg, etc.). This explains how Tertullian, Adv. Marcion. 4, 19, attributes to Sentius Saturninus, governor of Syria Some time before the birth of Jesus, the census mentioned in this place by St. Luke, while St. Justin says several times that it was directed by Quirinus (Apol. 1, 34, 46; Dial. c. Tryph. 78). Our two ecclesiastical writers would be correct, since, in this system, Saturninus and Quirinus had jointly presided over the census. 4. The census would have actually begun around 750 under the orders of the proconsul of that time; but, interrupted soon after by the death of Herod, it would not have been resumed and completed until the government of Quirinus, when Judea completely lost what little independence it still possessed (Paulus, J.P. Lange, van Oosterzee, Hales, Wallon, etc.). To give more force to this opinion, several of its defenders change the text, which becomes, by combining the verses... 1 and 2: At that time, Caesar Augustus issued an edict ordering a census of the entire empire; but the full implementation of this decree in Judea did not take place until the proconsulship of Quirinus. 5. Calculations as learned as they are ingenious by Mr. Zumpt (lc) have rendered entirely plausible the hypothesis that Quirinus was proconsul of Syria On two occasions, first between P. Quinctilius Varus and M. Lollius, precisely around the time of the Nativity of the Savior, and a second time from 759-764. The rationalist E. de Bunsen himself admits the possibility of this (Chronology of the Bible, 1874, p. 70). Moreover, St. Justin states very formally in one of the passages cited above (Apol. 1, 46) that Jesus was born "under Quirinus," that is, under the rule of Quirinus. Certainly, none of the preceding systems completely eliminates the difficulty we have pointed out, since none of them is entirely certain; at least they all provide a very reasonable solution, especially the last three. In any case, they suffice to demonstrate that St. Luke was not mistaken and that he did not distort history. But let us admire the extraordinary demands—we do not mean the bad faith—of the rationalists with regard to sacred writers. “If we were to find in Zonaras, or in Malalas, or in some other Byzantine compiler information analogous to that which the third Gospel provides us here, we would simply regard it as a precious resource for historical science, as a complement to the ancient sources, so often incomplete. Why then should St. Luke be treated any less favorably?” (Aberle, loc. cit., p. 102; cf. Wallon, loc. cit., p. 298, and the Gospel according to St. Matthew). We have said enough to show that between St. Luke, a contemporary of the events he recounts, and the critics who judge these same events so many centuries later, a reasonable person has no difficulty in making their choice.

Luke 2.³ And everyone was going to be counted, each in their own town. After mentioning Caesar Augustus's edict (v. 1) and naming the imperial commissioner tasked with its execution (v. 2), Luke briefly explains how the census took place in the Jewish lands. Indeed, it is to Palestine that we must, according to the context, restrict the application of verse 3. "Each to his own city." Among the Jews, a person's proper city was neither that of their birth nor that of their residence; it was the one where the family to which they belonged had been founded (see verse 4). Every Israelite was therefore considered to belong to the city or town originally inhabited by their ancestors. Moreover, the family records were kept there, and there, for this reason, each citizen came to have their identity verified when a census was taken. It is true that, according to Roman law, official inscriptions of this kind took place either in the city of origin or at the current residence, and rationalists have not failed to accuse our evangelist of inconsistency and inaccuracy here as well; but, to refute this new objection, it suffices to recall that the Romans, for political reasons, often deferred to the particular customs of the peoples they had subjugated in non-essential details. It was therefore in accordance with the ancient customs of Israel that the present edict of Augustus was executed. See Wallon, 11, pp. 334 ff.

Luke 2.⁴ Joseph went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, called Bethlehem, because he was of David's house and family, – From the Roman emperor, from the proconsul of SyriaFrom the census of the Jews, we arrive, through increasingly narrow circles, at St. Joseph and at Married. “To go up” was, in Jewish literature, the established expression for a journey to Jerusalem and the surrounding area, because, from whatever direction one came, one had to go up before arriving there. See Matthew 20:17. The following words, of Galileo… Bethlehem, indicate the starting point and the end of the journey of the holy couple. From Galilee, Joseph and Married they went to Judea; from the city of Nazareth they came to the city of David, called BethlehemThe journey was long and arduous: moreover, it hardly differed from the one the Mother of God had made a few months earlier (see note 1, 39), to visit her cousin Elizabeth. BethlehemSee the Gospel according to St. Matthew, p. 49. It was called Bethlehem The "City of David" because the founder of the most famous of the Jewish dynasties was born there and spent his youth there. Cf. 1 Samuel 16:1; 17:12. He was from David's house and family. cf. 1, 27. The words House And family are roughly synonymous in this passage: nevertheless, it is possible to establish a slight difference between them, if one refers to the ancient organization of the Jewish people. Family appears to correspond to the major branches into which the tribes were divided; House This would designate, by metonymy, the subdivisions of these branches, that is to say, the families. The meaning of the first of these names (family) would thus be broader than that of the second (house). St. Luke obviously associates them to show that St. Joseph was connected in the strictest way to the lineage of David.

Luke 2.⁵ to be counted with Married his wife, who was pregnant. – To register with Married his wife. Married Was she therefore required to appear in person at Bethlehem Many exegetes have thought so, following several Church Fathers. She was, they say, an only child and heiress, and in that capacity, she should have come herself to register. According to others, she had freely accompanied St. Joseph to BethlehemUnderstanding that "Providence thus arranged events and that it wanted Jesus Christ to be born in Bethlehem "To fulfill the prophecies that had thus marked her" (Dom A. Calmet, hl), she had generously set out, abandoning herself without reservation to God's guidance. The words his wife describe with exquisite delicacy the current condition of MarriedShe was now the wife of Joseph, their marriage having been celebrated some time after she returned from Hebron (cf. Matth) but she had remained a virgin like a bride: hence this surprising association of ideas.

Luke 2.⁶ But while they were in that place, the time came for her to give birth. – Apparently, the holy couple had come to Bethlehem For a trivial reason, like humble citizens obeying an emperor's decree; but God uses the free actions of men to accomplish his great designs. Without realizing it, Augustus was serving the interests of the Kingdom of Heaven. His signature at the bottom of an edict had contributed to the fulfillment of an ancient oracle. Cf. Bossuet, Elevations on the Mysteries, 16th week, 5th Elevation. The days when she was due to give birthSee 1:57 and the commentary. Everything suggests, from the narrative as a whole, that the birth of Married took place during the first night following his arrival at BethlehemThen, in the magnificent expression of St. Paul, Galatians 4:4, the fullness of time arrived. “When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, under the law.”

Luke 2.⁷ And she gave birth to her firstborn son, wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. – Antiquity unanimously agrees that the birth of Jesus was prodigious and supernatural, as was his conception. Married She gave birth to him without pain and without ceasing to be a virgin. “Virgin before childbirth, during childbirth, and after childbirth.” St. Augustine, Sermon 123. On the word “firstborn,” cf. Matthew. As St. Cyril noted, Jesus is called firstborn from two points of view, as the son of God and as the son of Mary; he is therefore the only son in the second case just as well as in the first. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes.Before leaving Nazareth, Married She had equipped herself with everything she would need for the divine Child she was expecting. And laid him in a mangerIn the care that the Virgin Mother herself lavished on her son, with an ineffable mixture of reverence and tenderness, we like to see, following the ancient Catholic exegetes, proof of his miraculous birth. "From this text, a not insignificant argument is drawn to confirm the teaching of the Catholic Church, namely that..." Married "gave birth without making an incision and without pain." Maldonat. It follows in any case from this passage that Christ was born in a stable. What a place of origin and what a cradle! But, as Bossuet remarks in the 6th Elevation of the 17th week, "a worthy retreat for him who, in the course of his life, was to say: 'Foxes have their dens, and the birds of the air, which are the most wandering families in the world, have their nests, while the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head…' And literally, from his birth, he had nowhere to lay his head." A worthy cradle, we would add, for him who was to die on a cross. Jesus enters the world as he will leave it, in poverty and in humiliation. It has often been thought that Jesus was born in a stable determined by the context, that is, in the one belonging to the inn mentioned below. Today, it is in a cave (surmounted by a rich basilica that Saint Helena built in 327) that the moved pilgrim is shown the place consecrated by the birth of the God-Man; and Protestant writers, usually so disrespectful of what they call "monastic traditions," are forced to recognize that the so-called Nativity crypt has real claims to our venerationThis grotto is mentioned as early as the second century by St. Justin Martyr, adv. Tryph. 78. Origen also mentions it, contra Celsus 1, 51; likewise Eusebius, Demonstr. Evang. 7, 2, Vita Const. 3, 43; likewise St. Jerome, letter 49 to Paul, who spent the last years of his life in a nearby grotto; likewise the Protoevangelium of St. James, ch. 18. The small chapel of the Nativity is entirely clad in precious marbles. In front of the altar, on a white slab, adorned with a silver star and surmounted by numerous lamps that burn constantly, one reads these words: "Here was born Jesus Christ of the Virgin Mary." Blessed are those who have knelt in this blessed place. As for the ox and the donkey so often depicted near the manger of Jesus, it is perhaps permissible to see in them only an allegorical application of various passages from the prophets, notably Isaiah 1:3 and Habakkuk 3:2 (according to the Septuagint and the Itala: "You will be known in the midst of two animals"), and therefore a pious and naive legend. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that several Fathers, and among the most authoritative, affirm in formal terms the presence of these two animals, for example, St. Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 156, 159; St. Jerome, Epistle to Eustochius 108, paragraph 27, 10; St. Paulinus of Nola, Epistle 31, paragraph 11, to Severus, etc. (cf. The Apocryphal Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, chapter 14); 2. That the ox and the donkey appear on the most ancient monuments of Christian art. Cf. Bottari, Roma sotterran. 22, 85, 86, 143. “It has not yet been possible to identify any of these effigies prior to the second century in which the two animals were absent.” Surely such an ancient and constant tradition is not without value. Nothing was more natural than the presence of an ox and a donkey in a stable. – On the Nativity scene preserved in Rome in the church of Santa Maria Maggiore, see Rohault de Fleury, Mémoire sur les Instruments de la Passion de Notre-Seigneur Jésus-Christ, pp. 278 ff. Because there was no room for them… The evangelist indicates, through this reflection, both simple and poignant, why Married and Joseph had to take refuge in a stable. For noblemen, one might have hesitated to make room for them; but none of the original inhabitants wanted to sacrifice their comforts for strangers of such humble appearance, and thus Jesus found no other shelter at birth than a stable, even in the land of his royal ancestors. Moreover, in that same region, Ruth And hadn't David led the humblest of lives, gleaning his bread in the fields of Boaz? Ruth, 2, 2 and following, this one tending his family's flocks, 1 Samuel 16, 11? – In the hotel industryUnder this expression, a Westerner's imagination conjures up a proper inn, with the varying degrees of comfort one can expect for one's money; but we are in the Orient, and the Orient, especially at that time, scarcely knew of this type of establishment. It is therefore the kahn, or caravanserai, that the traveler almost always finds in Eastern towns, and where he is provided free of charge, not with provisions, which he must provide for himself, but with shelter, that is to say, a simple refuge. A caravanserai usually consists of a fairly large, low, single-story building, crudely constructed, which soon becomes unsanitary. Each traveler settles in as he pleases; in case of crowds, the last arrivals make do as best they can, and it is easy to understand that on the eve of a census, the public inn of Bethlehem teeming with foreigners. – Before going any further, let us admire the simplicity of St. Luke's account. Just a few lines to tell of the birth of the Messiah. Is this how one would have written a myth or a legend? Read the apocryphal Gospels and you will see the difference. It is like comparing a beautiful summer night, softly lit by the moon, to a theatrical set illuminated in the Chinese style. And yet, despite this extreme concision, what beauty, what freshness, what picturesqueness, what truly divine charm! There is, as has often been said, clear proof of authenticity and truthfulness.

Luke 2.⁸ In the surrounding area, there were shepherds who spent the night in the fields, watching over their flocks. The first witnesses, the first worshippers of Christ, were humble and poor, like his mother, like his adoptive father, like the humble place where he was born. Jesus did not call members of the Sanhedrin, priests, scribes, or doctors to his manger, but shepherds. «But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong… so that, as it is written, »Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.«» 1 Corinthians 1:27ff. cf. Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21. The representatives of paganism at the cradle of the Christ Child would nevertheless be nobler and more illustrious. But there were so many proud prejudices within the Jewish nation concerning the Messiah, and the Lord wanted to combat them from the outset. – We have no details about the fortunate shepherds in whose favor the first manifestation of Christ took place. There is no doubt, however, that they were among those faithful souls who were then awaiting with holy impatience "the consolation of Israel." See verse 38. Legend supposes that there were four of them and that their names were Misael, Achaeel, Cyriacus, and Stephanus. In the vicinitythat is to say, in the vicinity of BethlehemAccording to a very venerable tradition, it was in the territory of the present-day village of Bet-Sahour, in a small, pleasant, warm, and fertile plain, filled with excellent pastures where flocks destined for temple sacrifices were once fattened, and situated at the foot and east of the hill on which rises Bethlehem, where the pastors were standing when the angel appeared to them. – Qwho spent the night in the fields. The ancients observed four divisions of the night (from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., from 9 a.m. to noon, from noon to 3 a.m., and from 3 a.m. to 6 a.m.): the shepherds therefore took turns keeping watch and probably replaced each other every three hours. This picturesque detail from the evangelist, which shows us shepherds and flocks in the fields in the heart of Christmas night, has often served as the starting point for sometimes quite violent attacks against the traditional date of December 25th. We have explained elsewhere (General Introduction, Chronology of the Gospels) what to think about this date: but the present objection is without merit, for it is evident from observations made by numerous travelers that, following the first rains, Palestine frequently experiences mild and pleasant temperatures towards the end of December and the beginning of January. The grass begins to grow, and even at night, one encounters many flocks in the fields.

Luke 2.⁹ Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the radiance of the glory of the Lord surrounded them, and they were filled with great fear. – An angel of the Lord. This angel, as several ancients believed, was probably St. Gabriel, whom we saw earlier constantly involved in the mystery of the Incarnation. The word appeared It indicates the suddenness and rapidity of the appearance. Cf. 24:4; Acts 12:7. A divine light shines forth The vivid and mysterious radiance that almost always accompanies theophanies formed a dazzling halo around the angel. They were seized with fear : the impression so often mentioned in the Holy Books when they show us man in immediate contact with the divine.

Luke 2.¹⁰ But the angel said to them, «Do not be afraid, for I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. After reassuring the shepherds with the customary phrase, the angel announces to them the Good News par excellence. The Gospel will truly resound throughout the world for the first time, for while the Prophets, speaking of Christ, frequently cried out: He will be born, now it can be said: He is born. This is why the heavenly messenger announces to the shepherds that the news he brings will be a source of great joy, not only for them, but for all the Jewish people, to whom they belonged, and to whom the Messiah had been specifically promised. This restricted meaning of the words to all the people is required by the context.

Luke 2. ¹¹ For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.– He was born to you…This pronoun is emphatic. Isaiah had once said something similar in anticipation, 9:6: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given.” Jesus was born for all people and for each one of them in particular. He was therefore born for the shepherds of Bethlehem. – A Savior. The angel did not reveal the name of the divine Child to the shepherds; he designated him to them at least by an equivalent expression, since Jesus means Savior. Who is Christ the Lord?. “Magnificent Name,” Bengel, Gnomon, hl rightly exclaims. Christ the Lord, this indeed means “Christ YHWH,” consequently “Christ God.” cf. Act 236. As we can see, the angel's words to the shepherds, like Gabriel's words previously to MarriedChapters 1, 31-32, contain a popular definition of the Messiah: they announce the Savior and the Lord par excellence, who was born, as the prophets had foretold, in the city of David. Even shepherds could understand, and they did, as the rest of the narrative will tell.

Luke 2.¹² And this will be a sign to you: you will find a newborn baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.»– Likewise MarriedThe shepherds receive a sign without having asked for it. Ancient exegetes often debated the nature of this sign. Was it a means by which the shepherds could verify the angel's veracity (Euthymius, Maldonatus, Schegg, etc.), or a note that would serve to distinguish Jesus from all the other children (Jansenius)? It was both signs at once, we will answer with Luke of Bruges: "The angel gives here an ambiguous, but nonetheless distinctive, sign." But what a contrast between this clue and the new information above. You will find a newborn This child will be laid in a manger. From his first worshippers, Jesus demands faith, as he will demand it from all those who follow. The sign given by the angel was, moreover, quite sufficient to distinguish the son of MarriedThat night, probably no other child was born in the small town of Bethlehem ; surely only one was born in a stable and rested in a manger.

Luke 2.¹³ At that very moment, a multitude of the heavenly host joined the angel, praising God and saying: – No sooner had the angel finished speaking than the cry "Glory to God," sung by a multitude of other celestial spirits, resounded through the air. The first messenger did not disappear; a troop of the heavenly army joined him, forming a choir of which he was the leader. Praising God. The angels They had sung of the first creation (Job 38:7); it was only right that they should sing of the second, all the more so since the Lord had given them an express commandment to do so (Hebrews 1:6). Moreover, their Christmas is no less a heavenly feast than an earthly one; that is why the angels express their joy with a hymn of praise. 

Luke 2.¹⁴ «"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will."»The song of the heavenly host is remarkably expressive in its brevity. It is a sublime doxology, admirably summarizing the benefits of the Incarnation of the Word. Like the song of the Seraphim before the throne of God (Isaiah 6:3), it consists of two notes, one addressed to the Lord, while the other concerns the earth. First note: Glory to God in the highest. To Him who dwells in the upper regions of heaven, the birth of Christ will bring glory, a glory perfectly commensurate with His infinite greatness. Second note: And on earth peace to men… To those who live on earth, the nativity of Jesus brings peacethat is, happiness for this world and the next. cf. 1:79. It had long been foretold that the Messiah would give peace to our poor, troubled earth (cf. Isaiah 2, 4; 9, 6-7; 11, 6-9, etc.); the writings of the New Testament state in formal terms that these divine oracles have been fulfilled (cf. John 1427; Ephesians 2, 14, 17; Colossians 120; Romans 5, 1, etc.). However, not all men will enjoy peace messianic; it will truly be granted only to men of good will, and these two words must be understood as divine good will, benevolence, the Lord's love for us, and not human good will, the holy dispositions of men toward God. cf. Psalm 5:13; 50:20; Philippians 2:13. The expression "men of good will" is therefore opposed to "children of wrath" (Ephesians 23); it designates, as Bossuet says, the men cherished by heaven. – There reigns between the two parts of the angelic symphony a perfect parallelism: “peace” corresponds to “glory,” “on earth” to “highest heavens,” “men of good will” to “God.” Maldonat has in his commentary an excellent explanation of the canticle of the angels.

Luke 2.¹⁵ When the angelsAs they ascended to heaven, having left them, the shepherds said to one another: "Let's go on to Bethlehem Let us consider this event that has occurred and that the Lord has made known to us.» – After their celestial concert, the angels They disappeared as suddenly as they had appeared. But their manifestation had produced the effect God intended, and the evangelist, returning to the shepherds, shows them to us full of faith, admirably docile to grace, and urging one another to leave with all haste for the city to see the divine Child born to them. From the plain where the shepherds lived (see the note to verse 8), it took about twenty minutes to reach the hill that overlooks Bethlehem.

Luke 2.¹⁶ They went there in haste and found Married, Joseph and the newborn baby lying in the manger.Without delay, they carried out their plan: they arrived in the town, found the stable, and in the stable, the divine Child lying in a manger as the angel had foretold, and surrounded by Married and of Joseph. According to others (Olshausen, etc.), the shepherds went straight to the stable, guided by a secret grace.

Luke 2.¹⁷ After seeing him, they recounted the revelation that had been made to them concerning this Child. – After finding things as they had been foretold, the shepherds “discovered in reality that the things that the angels had told them” (Maldonat), and they recognized their Savior in the little child in the manger. The shepherds of Bethlehem become the first preachers of the Gospel. "It was necessary," says Bossuet, 11th Elevation of the 16th week, "for him who was to choose fishermen to be his first disciples and the future doctors of his Church. Everything is, so to speak, of the same nature in the mysteries of Jesus Christ."

Luke 2.¹⁸ And all who heard them were amazed at what the shepherds told them. The humble circle to whom the shepherds recounted the wonders God had revealed to them was naturally filled with astonishment and admiration. Many undoubtedly believed and went in turn to visit the Christ Child. Everything suggests, however, that their number was very small, since the memory of Jesus seems to have soon faded. Bethlehem, just as he later faded into the background in Jerusalem despite the extraordinary events that accompanied the Presentation (vv. 25-38).

Luke 2.¹⁹ Gold Married He carefully preserved all these things, pondering them in his heart.– St. Luke inserts here, in relation to Married, a precious and delightful detail, which opens up vast horizons for us on this admirable soul: Married She kept all these things (so many amazing things she witnessed, or the stories she heard from the shepherds). It's a splendid portrait in a few words. The Blessed Virgin did not lose her inner peace amidst the great events happening around her. Collected in God, she observed attentively miracles of every kind that took place concerning her Son and in her Son: no fact, no word escaped her, and from her recollections she composed a sacred treasure which she later transmitted to the disciples, perhaps directly to St. Luke (see the Preface § 3). Combining the smallest circumstances, she was, in a way, creating a philosophy of the history of Jesus. What depth there would be without her serene contemplations! But the evangelist does not say that she spoke, although she had so many miracles to reveal. For "her mouth was chaste like her heart" (St. Ambrose), and "the great things that God does within his creatures naturally bring about silence, awe, and something divine that suppresses all expression" (Bossuet, 11th Elevation).

Luke 2.²⁰ And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had seen and heard, just as it had been told them. – After verses 17-19, which form a kind of parenthesis, St. Luke resumes the story and explains what the feelings of the shepherds were when they left the stable. Glorifying and praising God These words sum up everything that was going on in their hearts. They glorify, that is, they proclaim the greatness that God displayed in the mysteries they had contemplated; they praise, that is, they sing of his equally radiant goodness. Their gratitude was directed toward what they had heard from the angels (according to others, from...). Married and of Joseph), and what they had seen at Bethlehem, a vision so in line with the angelic prediction.

Around the mysteries of Christmas recounted in these twenty verses, visual art, poetry and eloquence have woven an imperishable crown. Let us mention the principal masterpieces. These are, for painting, the paintings of Filippo Lippi, Perugino, Lorenzo di Credi, Albrecht Dürer, Botticelli, Ercole Grandi, Raphael, and especially Correggio (the famous "Notte"); For poetry, the hymns "A solis ortus cardine" by Sedulius, "Jesu, redemptor omnium" by an unknown author, "Quid est quod arctum circulum" by Prudentius, "Agnoscet omne saeculum" by Fortunatus, the graceful sequence "Adeste fideles", a thousand "Christmas" or canticles sometimes simple and naive, sometimes elevated and sublime, the odes of Milton, Pope, Metastasio, Manzoni, etc.; for eloquence, the sermons of Bossuet, Bourdaloue and Massillon.

Luke 2.²¹ When the eight days were completed, for the circumcision of the Child, he was called Jesus, the name which the angel had given him before he was conceived in the womb. As soon as Jesus was born of the woman, as St. Paul says in Gal. 4:4, he was subject to the law. Cf. Romans 8Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 3:17. No sooner is his blood formed than he sheds the first drops for us, awaiting its abundant shedding during his Passion. He was given the name JesusThe evangelist does not directly mention the circumcision of the Savior, to which he attached only secondary importance; the main event for him was the naming, usually associated with this bloody ceremony (see 1:59 and the explanation), and it is on this second point that he particularly insists. Our Lord thus received for the first time the sacred name of Jesus, Yeshua in Hebrew, a name always dear to the Jews, because it reminded them of Joshua, The illustrious captain who conquered the promised land, and the high priest who reclaimed it after the Babylonian exile (cf. Ezra 2:2; 3:2; Zechariah 3:1); a name even dearer to Christians, for whom it is, in the apt words of St. Bernard, "honey in the mouth, melody in the ears, joy in the heart." Philo, on Mutation of the Names, § 21, gives its true meaning: salvation from the Lord. That the angel had given him… cf. 1, 31. – «We Christians have baptism, a rite full of grace and free from all suffering. We must nevertheless practice the circumcision of the heart.» St. Bonavent. Vita Christi, 5. Paintings by Guercino, Barbieri, and Parmigianino.

Luke 2.²² Then, when the days of their purification were completed, according to the law of Moses, Married And Joseph brought the child to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord ²³ according to what is written in the law of the Lord: «Every firstborn male shall be consecrated to the Lord,» ²⁴ and to offer as a sacrifice, as prescribed by the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two small pigeons.– The three verses with which St. Luke opens this new episode of the Savior's childhood summarize, in a somewhat obscure manner due to their conciseness, two distinct laws and ceremonies of Judaism. The first concerned mothers and prescribed for them, after each childbirth, a special purification to deliver them from the legal defilement they had contracted; this is what is referred to in verse 24 and at the beginning of verse 22. The second concerned firstborn sons and enjoined their parents to present them to the Lord and redeem them for a specified sum: this is what is referred to at the end of verse 22 and in verse 23. When the days of their purification were completed. Purification applies to Married Since Jewish law imposed purification on mothers, not children, Joseph was not bound by any ceremonial purification, but it was he, as adoptive father, who was concerned with the presentation of the Child: this is why the evangelist applies collectively to the holy spouses what concerned them individually; he treats them as a moral person. According to the Law of Moses. See Leviticus chapter 12, which deals entirely with this matter. The legal impurity of mothers lasted, strictly speaking, only seven or fourteen days, depending on whether they had given birth to a son or a daughter; but, this time having passed, they still had to wait 33 or 66 days before appearing at the temple. They were therefore not completely purified until the 40th or 80th day, following the religious ceremony. Thus, the "days of purification" mentioned here by St. Luke represent the first forty days that passed after Christmas. They brought him to JerusalemThe distance that separates Bethlehem (from the Jewish capital is about nine kilometers). We now turn to the second law, which concerned the firstborn. According to a previous decree of God, every firstborn male child, as the firstfruits, was to belong to the Lord and serve Him as a priest for his entire life. But later, God modified this law when He entrusted the care of worship exclusively to the tribe of Levi: He required only that the firstborn be offered to Him in the temple, as a sign of His dominion over their entire being, and He allowed the parents to redeem them by offering five shekels, which were thrown into the Levites' treasury. The ceremony of presentation was not repeated for other sons; it was not even performed for the firstborn until he was fit for the priestly office. If he was born with one of the bodily deformities which, according to Mosaic ritual, excluded the Levites themselves from holy functions, he did not have to be presented to the Lord, nor to be redeemed cf. Exodus 32:12-15; Numbers 8:16-18; 18:15-16. The quotation from the law in verse 23 is made in a rather free manner, as sometimes happens with the writers of the New Testament. Consecrated to the Lord : something holy to the Lord. The original meaning of the word Holy is: to set aside, to separate. And to offer as a sacrificeHere, the evangelist brings us back to the purification of Married and to the sacrifice that was to accompany this rite. “The mother shall bring to the tabernacle of the testimony a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young dove or turtledove for a sin offering. She shall give them to the priest, who shall offer them before the Lord and pray for her, and she shall be purified… If a woman cannot afford a lamb, she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering.” Leviticus 12:6-8. This is the complete text of the law. St. Luke quotes only the last part, thereby indicating that the sacrifice of Married was that of the poor. – Is it necessary to add here, following the Fathers and the ancient exegetes, that the two precepts mentioned by St. Luke did not bind either Jesus or Mary? The mother of Christ had given birth outside all the ordinary rules of nature; according to the very terms of Mosaic law, she was exempt from ordinary purification. As for the divine Child, since he was none other than God, the lawgiver of Israel, it is clear that he did not fall under his own decrees (cf. St. Hilary, Hom. 17 in Evangel.). They nevertheless did not hesitate to submit to these humiliating prescriptions. “O depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God! He who is the author of the law as God observed it as a man” St. Cyril (Cat. Graec.). ThehumilityObedience has always been a characteristic virtue of Jesus and of Married.

Luke 2.²⁵ Now there was a man in Jerusalem named Simeon, who was righteous and God-fearing, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.– St. Luke gives no details about the actual purification of the Blessed Virgin and the presentation of Jesus; but, on the other hand, he dwells lovingly on two incidents, no less significant than picturesque, which occurred on that beautiful day. The first incident suddenly places St. Simeon at the center of the picture: Who was this pious inhabitant of Jerusalem? Attempts have sometimes been made to identify him with various figures in Jewish history, who also bore the then so common name of Shimeon, in particular with Rabbi Simeon, president of the Sanhedrin around the year 13 CE, son of the famous Hillel and father of the equally famous Gamaliel. Others have identified him as a high priest, following the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, chapter 16. But all these conjectures are without historical basis. It is, moreover, implausible that St. Luke would have simply designated a high priest or a high president by the word man. A very legitimate tradition, supported by the Gospel text (cf. verses 26 and 29), portrays Simeon as an old man, though not necessarily a decrepit one, as apocryphal literature would have it. Moreover, while the sacred writer tells us nothing of St. Simeon's outward appearance, he sketches in a few lines a magnificent moral portrait of his hero. He was a man righteous and God-fearing, a perfect man from the point of view of the Jewish religion. Above all, he was a man of faith who, amidst the humiliations of his people, had not forgotten either the promises made to the patriarchs or the successive prophecies of the prophets concerning the Messiah: He was waiting for consolation from Israel, That is to say, the great liberator, the ultimate comforter, the one to whom Isaiah 61:1-3 lends these words: «The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me…He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted…To grant to those who mourn in Zion—to bestow on them a garland instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, the garment of praise instead of a faint spirit.» Simeon’s righteousness, piety, and faith had, in a sense, fixed the Holy Spirit in his heart: the Holy Spirit was within him. This imperfect tense, as commentators point out, signifies a permanent indwelling of the Spirit of God, and not merely a temporary sojourn.

Luke 2.²⁶ The Holy Spirit had revealed to him that he would not die before seeing the Lord's Christ. – In one of those moments of intimate and sweet union that often accompany the dwelling of the Holy Spirit in a soul, it was clearly revealed to Simeon that he would have the joy of seeing Christ before he died. The antithesis of the divine oracle is noteworthy: He would not see death before having seen Christ. In the fourth Gospel, 8:51, there is also mention of «seeing death.» Cf. Psalm 88:48. The Christ of the Lord no longer Christ God, as in verse 11, but the Christ of God, that is to say, sent, given by the Lord.

Luke 2.²⁷ So he came into the temple, moved by the Spirit. And as the parents brought in the infant Jesus to observe the legal customs concerning him, He came to the temple, moved by the Spirit, by an irresistible impulse from the Holy Spirit. (cf. Matthew 22:43). The heavenly promise was finally about to be fulfilled for Simeon. As the parents of the child Jesus brought him. Rationalists have claimed that there is a contradiction between the word parents and the earlier thought in the account of St. Luke (1:34 ff.); but the Protestants themselves undertake to refute them. “What criticism! The word ‘parents’ is used simply to designate the quality in which Joseph and Married appeared at that moment in the temple and presented the child” (Godet). When the elderly Simeon joined the holy couple, they were therefore passing through the gate of the temple to offer Our Lord Jesus Christ to the God of Israel and pay his ransom. It follows from this that Married She had first been purified, for access to the temple was forbidden to her until she had been cleansed of the legal stain with which she was presumed to be afflicted, like ordinary mothers. The priest of the week had come to her at the Nicanor Gate, or Eastern Gate, reserved for this kind of ceremony, and had performed the usual rites upon her. Nothing now prevented the mother of Christ from offering her Son herself to the Heavenly Father.

Luke 2.²⁸ He too received him in his arms and blessed God, saying:– Since his Incarnation, Jesus had had various witnesses who had proclaimed his entry into the world and sung of his Redemption: in heaven the angels, on the earth Elizabeth, John the Baptist, Zechariah, the shepherds of BethlehemHe now adds to their number. “All ages and all sexes have faith in miraculous events: a virgin gives birth, a barren woman conceives, a mute man speaks, Elizabeth prophesies…he who is confined in a womb rejoices, the widow is helped, the righteous man waits…”. S. Ambrose, Exposition in Luke. Simeon, in his ecstasy, therefore gently snatched the child from the arms of Married or of Joseph to embrace him. “Blessed hands that have touched the Word of Life, and arms prepared to receive him!” St. Gregory Nyssa in Cato theologica. What a truly divine image! St. Luke depicted it so well that artists had only to copy it, and this is what they have done admirably, among many others: van Eyck, Guido Reni, Rubens, Fra Bartolomeo Philibert de Champaigne, Francia, Veronese, Fra Angelico, Titian, Raphael. See in the apocryphal literature (Infancy Gospel, ch. 6, and Protoevangelium of St. James, ch. 15) curious legends about how Simeon recognized the Messiah. He blessed God and said. Flooded with consolations, enlightened more than ever by the Holy Spirit, Simeon, becoming both prophet and poet, sings his sublime canticle, which was for him his swan song, as has often been repeated.

Luke 2.²⁹ Now, O Master, you let your servant depart in peace, according to your word, – Now. Nothing now stands in the way of his death, since he has beheld the Messiah. The exegetes rightly point out that the use of the present tense, let, corroborates the idea expressed by the adverb NOW. Simeon speaks of his death as something imminent, the delay of which would have no reason to exist, since the condition for which God had preserved him on earth had just been fulfilled. The verb in the Greek text denotes the release of a prisoner, the act of disbanding troops, of relieving a soldier from his post. It always signifies a happy liberation. Classical writers also use it to refer to death. The pious old man thus speaks like a man for whom this life was now a burden and the afterlife a sweet rest, a fervently desired emancipation. At peace, not only completely reassured about the future of his people (Euthymius), but having his personal desires fully fulfilled.

Luke 2.³⁰ since my eyes have seen your salvation, – Simeon now reveals to us the reason for his peace and happiness: Since my eyes have seen…The happy old man could also have said that his arms had borne Christ; but he prefers to mention the fulfillment of the divine promise, v. 26. Salvation, Messianic salvation given to the world by the Lord in the person of Jesus.

Luke 2.³¹ that you have prepared in the sight of all peoples:This is precisely the catholicity, the universality of Christ's kingdom, clearly contrasted by a Jew with the narrow particularism of his contemporaries. The Israelites of that time, forgetting the very clear prophecies (cf. Isaiah 46:13; 49:6; 52:7-10, etc.) that had announced a Messiah destined to save all peoples without exception, mostly expected only a Savior whose blessings would be limited to the theocratic nation. Simeon breaks free from this petty circle: the Christ he celebrates will not be a partial Redeemer; he will bring about the salvation of the whole world.

Luke 2.³² light to dispel the darkness of the nations and glory of Israel, your people. However, the Messiah will not bless all people in the same way. From the perspective of true religion, humanity was then divided into two distinct categories: Israel and the Gentiles. Simeon concludes his canticle by indicating the special favors that Jesus will bring to each of them. For the Gentiles, he will be a light to enlighten the nations, a light that will illuminate their darkness, that will reveal the truth to them. This image is perfectly suited to the state in which the pagan world then found itself. «Before the coming of Christ,» says St. Athanasius (ap. Cat. D. Thom.), “the nations, deprived of the knowledge of God, were plunged into utter darkness. But Christ, making his appearance,” adds St. Cyril (ibid.), “was the light for those who were in the darkness of error, and whom the hand of the devil had grasped; they were called by God the Father to the knowledge of the Son, who is the true light.” cf. Isaiah 25, 7; 42:6; 49:6; Matthew 4:16. – To the Jews, Jesus Christ will bring a very special glory, because it was to them above all that he had been promised and given directly (cf. Matthew 1:21 and the commentary); glory, because he came from their ranks; glory also because he will live and act personally in their midst. In time and in eternity, their title of brothers of Christ according to the flesh will be for them a subject of legitimate pride. Such is the "Nunc dimittis," a delightful "lyrical jewel," a poem of great richness despite its conciseness, since it summarizes the religious history of all the ages from Christ onward. Like the "Magnificat," like the "Benedictus," it was preserved by St. Luke for the perpetual consolation of the Church; thus, these poems conclude three of the principal liturgical offices each day. The canticle of the holy old man Simeon continues and completes those of Married and Zechariah. It can be said that it opens up broader horizons: these, in fact, were more specifically Israelite, Married Having sung of the Incarnation of the Word only from the perspective of itself and its people, Zechariah also confined himself to praising the Savior of Israel, whereas, as we have just seen, Simeon went further, celebrating in Jesus the universal liberator. – The parallelism of the “Nunc dimittis” is less perfect than that of the two preceding canticles; moreover, it varies in almost every verse. Synthetic in verse 29, antithetical in verse 32, it is simply rhythmic in verses 30 and 31.

Luke 2.³³ The Child's father and mother were in awe of the things that were said about him. – Upon hearing the words of the holy old man, Married And Joseph could not contain their admiration. Not that they learned anything new. To what greater degree would they not have aroused Simeon's astonishment had they repeated to him even a small part of the wonders they had been both perpetrators and witnesses of over the past few months? What they admired were the prodigious circumstances that accompanied each mystery of the divine Child's life. Above all, the way in which the Lord revealed Jesus to hearts as humble as theirs filled them with ever-increasing wonder. "Whenever the manifestation of supernatural things is renewed, so too is the admiration in our minds." (Ap. Catenary of the Greeks)

Luke 2.³⁴ And Simeon blessed them and said to Married, his mother: "This Child is in the world for the fall and the resurrection of a large number in Israel and to be a sign subject to contradiction, – After finishing his song of joy and love, Simeon “blessed” Married and Joseph. Certainly, this is not a blessing in the strict sense: "blessed" here means that he congratulated them, he proclaimed them blessed. But suddenly, he receives new revelations from on high. The light he had so admirably sung of, he sees dimmed by approaching clouds. Then, turning towards Married his mother (the mother, whose affection is more intense and tender; the mother, as opposed to Joseph, who was only the guardian), he said to her with the accent of sorrow: This child is in the world forThese words contain a very important prediction concerning the Christ Child. Jesus was not destined, in the strict sense of the expression, to bring ruin to anyone in the world; on the contrary, he came to save and redeem all people. He will nevertheless be an indirect and unintentional cause of ruin for many. It is easy to understand what kind of ruin Simeon is referring to: spiritual ruin, a moral downfall, whether in this world or the next, for all those who resist Jesus. The resurrection The following is of the same nature: it is, even in this life, the elevation, the regeneration of souls brought low by sin, heavenly glory after death. – An involuntary cause of ruin for some, a direct cause of resurrection for others, the Savior will thereby be a sign of contradiction. Isaiah had foretold this character of the Messiah with no less clarity than Simeon: “He will be a sanctuary, but also a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Many will stumble; they will fall and be shattered; they will be snared and caught.” Isaiah 8:14-15. “Let us turn to the Gospel, and especially to that of St. John, where the mystery of Jesus Christ is revealed more fully: it is the most perfect commentary on the words of Simeon.” Let us listen to the murmuring of the people: Some said, "He is a good man"; others said, "No, he is deceiving the people…" Some said, "He is the Christ"; others said, "Must the Christ come from Galilee…?" So there was a great discussion on this subject… "He is possessed," some said, "he is a madman; why listen to him any longer?" Others said, "Aren't these the words of a possessed man?" Bossuet, 12th Elevations of the 18th week (see Elevations 13-18). Moreover, only a few days after his birth, Jesus was already the target of contradiction: he was an occasion of ruin for Herod, a cause of resurrection for the shepherds, for the Magi, and for faithful souls. The struggle has continued throughout the centuries (cf. Hebrews 12:3); Today it is more ardent than ever, and it will last until the end of the world. Humanity will always be divided into two camps regarding Jesus and his Church: the camp of friends and the camp of enemies.

Luke 2.³⁵ "A sword will pierce your own soul, and thus the thoughts hidden in the hearts of many will be revealed."» – The object of hatred and contradiction from many, Jesus will therefore be steeped in bitterness: this is clear from verse 34. But, to the “Passion” of Christ, there will naturally correspond the “Compassion” of his Mother, as the holy old man now adds. A sword will pierce your soul… The soul is here used to refer to the heart, insofar as it is the seat of affections, and consequently of maternal love. The sword here symbolizes the sharp and poignant sorrows that pierced the heart of Married during the life of his divine Son, but which tore him apart above all at Calvary, as the Church sings: “The sword pierced his groaning, sorrowful, and suffering soul.” See Euthymius, hl. This beautiful metaphor is quite classical. It is therefore wrong that St. Epiphanius in antiquity, Lightfoot in modern times, and some other exegetes following them, took the word sword in a literal sense and concluded from Simeon's words that Married was to die a violent death. As Bede the Venerable aptly puts it when explaining this passage, "No account relates that the Virgin Mary departed this life after being pierced by a sword, especially since it is not the soul but the body that the sword usually pierces." But there is another, even stranger interpretation: it consists of seeing in the sword the figurative representation of a battle that was to be fought in Married between doubt and faith concerning her Son, as if Jesus were to be momentarily a sign of contradiction even for his Mother. That several Protestants adopt this sentiment is not surprising; it is more astonishing to find traces of it among former orthodox Christians (see quotations in D. Calmet), and even in the writings of St. Augustine, for he cannot rely on the text of St. Luke, nor on the rest of the Gospel narrative: thus, it is rightly rejected by most commentators, whatever their beliefs may be. So that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed…These last words of the prophecy are clear in themselves, but commentators disagree on their connection to the preceding propositions. Some link them simply to “sign of contradiction.” Jesus, they say, by the very fact that he will be a sign of contradiction, will force his enemies to reveal the most secret thoughts of their hearts. The prediction concerning Married Since it is thus isolated between two clauses to which it is not directly connected, it is placed in parentheses. But we believe, along with other exegetes, that it is more natural and more consistent with the flow of thought to consider this final proposition of Simeon as the conclusion, the consequence of the three preceding ones taken together. The first three clauses constitute an inseparable whole: Married Jesus will suffer greatly because of the contradictions to which his Son will be subjected; these contradictions will stem from Jesus' very role in relation to Israel. All these things combined will result in the revelation of hearts. By taking sides for or against Christ, people will necessarily reveal what they think and want, their intentions and their most hidden affections.

Luke 2.³⁶ There was also a prophetess, Hannah, daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher; she was very old, having lived seven years with her husband since her virginity. ³⁷ Having remained a widow and reached the age of eighty-four, she did not leave the temple, serving God night and day in fasting and prayer. »An ancient legend has Simeon dying of happiness at that very moment at the feet of the Infant Jesus. Then Anne, daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher, approached. The evangelist,« exclaims Theophylact, »stops with pleasure to depict Saint Anne.” If he gives us not only the name of this pious woman, but also that of her father and that of her tribe, could it be because of their figurative meaning? This has been suggested: “Since Anne means Grace, Phanuel the Face of God, and Asher the Happy, one could find in this triple appellation a marvelous fittingness. All this had been verified in Anne: these names contained her story.” But the reasoning seems to us more ingenious than true. The sacred text adds that Anne was a prophetess. She, too, had received supernatural insights which, for the most part, undoubtedly concerned the Messiah: verse 10. 38 seems to indicate this at least. St. Luke further emphasizes her advanced age; he specifies the length of her married life; then he notes her status as a widow, and a holy widow. Eighty-four years old. Some exegetes believe this refers to Saint Anne's total age at that time in her life; others, following Saint Ambrose, apply it only to the years of her widowhood. Assuming, according to this second hypothesis, that Anne had married at 15, according to Jewish custom, she would then have been 106 years old (15+7+84). But we believe the first view more probable. – In antiquity, widowhood was much less common than it is today: women They almost always remarried, at least when they were still young at the time of their first husband's death. Anne, like Judith, was a glorious exception to this rule; and she used her freedom to serve God with greater perfection. She did not leave the templeShould we take these words literally, and assume that Saint Anne actually had her residence in one of the annexes of the temple? Or is it not better to believe that the sacred writer used them hyperbolically, to say that the pious widow spent a large part of her days in the sacred courtyards (cf. 24, 53; Act 2(p. 46)? We are more inclined toward this second interpretation. In any case, it is clear that Anne was dead to the world and lived only for God. She embodied the image of the true widow described by St. Paul in 1 Timothy 5:5. She persevered in her unceasing adoration, night and day. Although she was long past the age when bodily penances form an important element of holiness, nevertheless her life was a continual fast. If prayer was the work of her life, penance was its recreation.

Luke 2.³⁸ She too, arriving at that hour, began to praise the Lord and to speak of the Child to all those in Jerusalem who were awaiting redemption. – Moved, like Simeon, by a powerful impulse of the Holy Spirit that dwelt within her, Anne arrived at almost the same moment as the holy old man, at the moment when Married and Joseph were about to perform the ceremony of the Child's redemption; and, recognizing in this newborn the Liberator of Israel, the Messiah, she began to publicly glorify the Lord. began to praise the Lord. From then on, Saint Anne found great joy in speaking of Jesus to all those who were awaiting the Messiah. – The episode ends abruptly with this detail, and St. Luke takes us back to Nazareth, following the Holy Family. 

Luke 2:39-52 = Matthew 2:23.

Luke 2.³⁹ When they had done everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to Nazareth, their own town. This verse forms a transition between the mystery of Jesus' presentation at the temple and that of his obscure retreat in Nazareth. We saw earlier, in explaining verses 22-24, what Mosaic law required of mothers and their firstborn sons. Before moving on to another episode, the evangelist is careful to say that Married And Joseph remained faithful to all his commandments. Bethlehem was the “city of David,” their ancestor, v. 4, and they had only come there in passing, to obey a decree of Caesar, or rather, the will of divine Providence; but Nazareth was their home, where they had long been settled (cf. 1:56): they therefore returned there as soon as there was nothing left to keep them in Judea. Let us explain the agreement between the account of St. Matthew and that of St. Luke concerning the Infancy of Jesus: each of the two narratives can be reduced to five distinct events. According to the first Gospel, chapter 2, there is 1° the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem2. The Adoration of the Magi in that same town, 3. The Flight into Egypt, 4. The Massacre of the Holy Innocents, 5. The Return from Egypt and the Establishment of the Holy Family in Nazareth. According to Luke 2:1-39, there is 1. The Birth of Jesus in Bethlehem2. The worship of shepherds, 3. Circumcision, 4. The Purification of Married and the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple, 5th the return of the Holy Family to Galilee. While St. Matthew leads Jesus, Married and Joseph of Bethlehem in Egypt before bringing them back to Nazareth, St. Luke seems to affirm that, having left BethlehemThey returned directly to Nazareth. Following Celsus and Porphyry (cf. S. Epiph. Haer. 51, 8), rationalists frequently contrast St. Matthew with St. Luke, sometimes rejecting one account at the expense of the other (Schleiermacher, Schneckenburger, etc.), and sometimes rejecting both (Strauss, Leben Jesu, 1835, §§ 34 and 35). Meyer himself, though far less advanced, asserts that "reconciliation is impossible." Alford, despite his belief, did not hesitate to say: "In the present state of the two accounts, it is not at all possible to suggest a satisfactory method for uniting them. Whoever has attempted this has violated, in some part of their hypothesis, probability or common sense." Although we, as Catholic exegetes, follow rules of criticism far stricter than those to which an Anglican minister is bound, we find the two accounts compatible. – 1. It is easy to understand that the sacred writers did not recount exactly the same events: St. Matthew chose those that fit more closely into his plan (see our commentary on Matthew 2:22); St. Luke included in his narrative those he found in the documents he used. 2. The agreement is achieved in the simplest way for the initial events: Jesus is born in Bethlehem According to the two evangelists, he is worshipped by the shepherds, then circumcised on the eighth day, according to St. Luke. The agreement between the two also exists regarding the stay in Nazareth, which St. Matthew and St. Luke recount together. 3. Everything happens first as St. Luke describes it, up to and including the Presentation. The Magi then come to worship Jesus at Bethlehem, where his parents had brought him back after leaving Jerusalem. After this came the flight into Egypt, the Massacre of the Holy Innocents, the return from Egypt, and the establishment of the Holy Family in Nazareth. Thus, the accounts in their original integrity are respected; there is only the insertion of St. Matthew's account after St. Luke's in the most natural way. – The two evangelists do not contradict each other, but complement one another. St. Luke, not intending to recount the visit of the Magi and its painful consequences, could very well have led the Holy Family directly from Jerusalem to Nazareth, without excluding intermediate journeys. Secular historians frequently use this liberty, and no one thinks of criticizing them for it. – See on this question St. Augustine, *De consensu Evangelica*; Dehaut, *L'Évangile expliqué, défendu*, 5th ed., vol. 1, p. 343 ff.; Maldonat, Comment. in Matt. 2, 13, 22, 23.

Luke 2.⁴⁰ However, the child grew and became strong, being filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him. – In these few lines, the evangelist summarizes the first twelve years of Our Lord Jesus Christ: he presents them generally as a time of universal growth and development, as is the case for all people. cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogues on Tryphos, chapter 88. Filled with wisdom. Beneath the appearance of a humble little child, Jesus concealed infinite wisdom, by virtue of his divine nature. See the explanation of verse 52. In the Greek, the verbal form would seem to indicate a perpetual and constantly reiterated outpouring of divine Wisdom upon the soul of Our Lord Jesus Christ. cf. Schegg, hl – The grace of God was in him. God's favor, therefore, rested, or rather, visibly descended upon the Son of Mary: the Lord henceforth placed all his delight in this blessed Child. How bland the thought would become if one saw in this, following some exegetes, an indication of the bodily graces of Jesus. – St. Luke had previously made a similar remark concerning the Forerunner, 1:66 and 80. But what a difference between the growth of St. John and that of Christ! There, moreover, it was said only that the hand of God was with the son of Zechariah, whereas here it is the very grace of God that dwells in Jesus.

Jesus among the Doctors. vv. 41-50

«The evangelist now shows the truth of what he has just said.» St. Cyril, apostolic, D. Thomas. St. Luke, in fact, highlights the truly divine wisdom of Jesus through a touching anecdote. This episode is all the more precious to us because it contains the first personal manifestation of the Savior, because it allows us to glimpse the depths of his soul and his childhood, and because it is unique in the Holy Gospels. It is true that apocryphal literature has tried to lift the veil that covers the early years of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and that it abounds in information about the hidden life in Nazareth. But, apart from a few details that, as St. Jerome, in his letter Ad Laetam, can compare to a little gold in a lot of mud, what a poor idea it gives us of the Child-God. A theatrical display of pointless miracles, shocking fables, a Jesus who is neither humble, nor obedient, nor simple, who poses before everyone—that is what one finds there. Providence has allowed these strange books to reach us so that we may better see the difference between the Gospels of heaven and the Gospels of earth. See Brunet's work already cited.

Luke 2.⁴¹ But his parents went to Jerusalem every year for the Passover festival.  – This verse and the following one contain the preliminary details of the story. His parents went every year…First detail, of a more general nature. Each year is an ellipsis for “on the occasion of the Passover festival,” so Jesus’ parents made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. But it is likely that the evangelist is abbreviating at this point, and that if he only mentions Passover, it is because the incident he recounts took place during this solemnity. Indeed, according to Jewish law, it was three times a year—at Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles—that the Israelites were to visit the sanctuary and thus strengthen the bonds that tied them to the theocracy. (cf. Exodus 2:14 ff.; 34:23; Deuteronomy 16:16). There was no exception except for… the sickthe elderly, small children and womenBut these women, out of piety, often went to Jerusalem to celebrate at least the Passover festival. (cf. 1 Samuel 1:7; Matthew 27:55; Mark 15:4; Luke 23:55). Hillel had even attempted to make this attendance obligatory for them. In any case, we are not at all surprised to see that Married accompanied her holy husband to Jerusalem.

Luke 2.⁴² When he reached his twelfth year, they went up there, according to the custom of this festival, This age held paramount importance among the Jews, due to an ancient custom linked to various details in the lives of Moses, Solomon, and others. A child before reaching it, one became a man upon passing it; but above all, around this time, one became a "son of the law," meaning one was subject to all the precepts of Mosaic law, because one was now considered strong enough to observe them, even in their most difficult aspects. Consequently, at the age of twelve, the young Israelite was bound by the fasts and pilgrimages we have discussed. Does it follow, then, that the journey described in this place by St. Luke was the first of those Jesus made to Jerusalem after his Presentation in the Temple? Several exegetes have accepted this (von Burger, Abbott, etc.). But it seems more natural to believe, with St. Augustine, Maldonatus, Luke of Bruges, Jansenius, and others, that his parents had not left him on their previous pilgrimages. The circumstance of his age is entirely incidental in the evangelist's account.

Luke 2.⁴³ And when they returned home, the days of the festival having passed, the child Jesus remained in the city, without his parents having noticed. ⁴⁴ Thinking he was with their traveling companions, they walked all day, then they searched for him among their relatives and acquaintances. – Jesus lost in Jerusalem. The Easter celebrations lasted a whole octave, that is, 8 consecutive days (cf. Exodus 12:15; Leviticus 23:3 ff.; Deuteronomy 16:3), and it is very likely, according to the expression of St. Luke, that Married And Joseph remained in Jerusalem for eight full days before even considering leaving. However, one could also set out as early as the third day, once the most important part of the ceremony had passed. The infant Jesus remained in Jerusalem. He remained, as he himself explains a little further down, verse 49, because "his Father's business" required it: he did not warn either his Mother or St. Joseph, because it was in accordance with God's secret plan that they should be grieved by his temporary loss. His parents didn't notice.See verse 33 and the explanation. It seems at first very strange that Married and Joseph were thus separated from Jesus, and that they then left Jerusalem without finding him. But everything is easily explained if we consider the circumstances surrounding the Child's disappearance. The Holy Family was not traveling alone (cf. v. 44); they were returning to Nazareth with a caravan composed of many Galilean pilgrims. Now, the departure of an Eastern caravan is as slow and chaotic as it is noisy. Often, therefore, the impatient young people take the lead, and everyone meets up at the next stop; the mothers know this and are not worried. Or, even if they had set out together, various groups soon form. Women And the older men usually ride donkeys; the men and young men go on foot; a thousand incidents slow down or speed up the journey; the children, who at first run beside their fathers, soon join a nearby group. Let us not forget, moreover, that we are in the Orient, where, at twelve years old, one is already often treated as a young man. Finally Married Joseph and his wife knew Our Lord, and, though his wisdom was evident to all from his earliest years, no one had as much proof of it as his Mother and guardian. For all these reasons, to which we can add, following Euthymius, the economy of divine Providence, Married Joseph and his family were not too surprised by Jesus' absence, rightly assuming he was with their own people. However, after a day's walk (six or seven hours) during which the Child had not reappeared, the caravan stopped for the night, and the members of each family gathered to prepare for a common camp. It was then that Married And Joseph, seeing that Jesus did not join them, began to search for him among the different groups. “The Savior remained secretly so that his parents could not oppose the discussion he wished to have with the teachers of the law; or perhaps he wanted to avoid appearing to despise his parents’ authority by refusing to obey them. He therefore remained secretly, either to act with complete freedom or to avoid being accused of disobedience.” (Chain of the Greek Fathers)

Luke 2.⁴⁵ Not having found him, they returned to Jerusalem to look for him.After fruitless efforts, they resumed their journey to Jerusalem. The holy couple continued their agonizing search from the place where they had stopped and all the way to Jerusalem. On that day, the sword of sorrow foretold by Simeon must have cruelly turned in the soul of Married.

Luke 2.⁴⁶ After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and questioning them. – Jesus found in the temple, vv. 46-50. – After three days. It is not the return of Jesus' parents to Jerusalem, as de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, etc., would have it, but their departure, which serves as the starting point for the count. On the first day, they left the holy city and headed north; on the second day, they came to Jerusalem; on the third, they met the Savior. In the temple. Jesus was not in the sanctuary itself, but in one of the temple's annexes. Among the many buildings designated by this name were rooms used for the Rabbis' academic classes: it was in one of these rooms that Jesus was found. The evangelist describes his posture in picturesque terms, which bring the scene to life before our eyes. He is seated among the teachers, not, however, as one of them, as painters mistakenly believe (those who have best depicted this scene are Giotto, Ferrari, Bernardino Luini, Pinturicchio, Giovanni d'Udine, and Valentin), but on a mat, in the manner of Eastern schoolchildren. It is true that he did not merely listen to the Rabbis' teaching, since the sacred text expressly states that he himself spoke to question them; but even in this, he acted more like a student than a teacher. Indeed, the rabbinic method greatly encouraged students' questions and objections: this is evident on every page of the Talmud. "I learned much from my rabbis," said an old Jewish teacher; "I learned even more from my colleagues; but it is from my students that I learned the most." Moreover, our opinion is that of the Fathers (cf. Orig. hl; S. Greg. Pastoral. 3, 26; Maldonat and D. Calmet), and the contrary idea would be utterly contrary to the spirit of the child Jesus. – What was the subject of Jesus' questions? We can conjecture this from the rest of his life: "What do you think of the Christ?" he would later ask the Jewish Doctors. "Whose son is he?" The child's questions were undoubtedly of the same nature as those of the mature man. An apocryphal Gospel falsely claims that Jesus began to explain to the astonished Rabbis the number of spheres and celestial bodies, their nature and their operations, and to describe physics, metaphysics, hyperphysics, and hypophysics. cf. Evang. Infantiae arabicum, ch. 48-52. 

Luke 2.⁴⁷ And all who heard him were delighted by his intelligence and his answers. – Their astonishment overwhelmed them. The historian Josephus, always quick to speak of himself, recounts in his Life, chapter 1, that at the age of 14 he astonished everyone with the precocity and depth of his intelligence, to such an extent that the priests and doctors enjoyed asking him questions about Mosaic Law. But what was the wisdom of a human child compared to that of Jesus? Our Lord's response to his Mother, verse 49, will help us understand the depth of his answers to the Rabbis. Bede: To show that he was a man, he listened modestly to doctors who were only men; but to prove that he was God, he answered their questions in a sublime manner. His words, in fact, revealed divine wisdom, but his age covered him with the outward appearance of human weakness; The Jews, too, torn between the sublime things they heard and the outward weakness that appeared to them, felt a sense of admiration mingled with doubt and uncertainty. But for us, nothing here is surprising, for we know from the prophet Isaiah that, though He chose to be born a little child for us, He remains nonetheless the mighty God.

Luke 2.⁴⁸ When they saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, "My child, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been searching for you anxiously."« – In turn, Joseph and Married They are surprised. It's Married who speaks, and not Joseph: a perfectly natural detail, since a mother's affection is more intense than a father's, and even more so than that of an adoptive father. Several early exegetes (Salmeron, Maldonat, etc.) delicately suggest that the Virgin Mary waited until the assembly in whose midst she had found Jesus had dispersed before sharing her maternal anxieties with him. In this hypothesis, the scene that follows would have been witnessed only by members of the Holy Family. Why did you act this way towards us? Never before had Jesus grieved his parents. In the exclamation that so spontaneously escapes from the heart of MarriedProtestant and rationalist writers have sought to find harshness in this. Try as we might, we find only the expression of a tender affection, united with the deepest respect. See Luke of Bruges, hl Married She doesn't complain directly; she simply lets the facts speak for themselves, which were so eloquent: we searched for you, deeply distressed. The Greek word for "distressed" is very powerful: it describes pains as intense as those of childbirth. The imperfect tense indicates long and arduous searches. Married He humbly takes his name after St. Joseph, and he bestows upon the guardian of Jesus the glorious title of father. This was the title he bore within the family, as well as before public opinion; and he deserved it by the generosity of his love for the divine Child. (cf. Bossuet, 5th Lecture of the 20th Week)

Luke 2.⁴⁹ And he answered them, «Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?» – Married had spoken in the name of St. Joseph no less than in his own name: this is why Our Lord addresses his reply to them collectively. This reply is of infinite value to us, not only because of its immense scope and its meaningful lessons, but also because it contains the first Gospel saying of Jesus, indeed, the only saying that the Holy Gospels have preserved from his first thirty years. Rationalism, which knows no respect, has also attacked it, claiming that Jesus displays rigidity and even insubordination toward his mother and adoptive father; whereas, on the contrary, it is admirable in every respect and truly worthy of Jesus. Noble and simple at the same time, combining majesty andhumilityIt is no less fitting for the Son of Man than for the Son of God. But it has unfathomable depths, and one can understand that narrow, superficial minds, blinded by religious prejudices, were incapable of comprehending it. To the two questions of MarriedThe Divine Child responds with two counter-questions. Jesus in no way blames his Mother and St. Joseph for having anxiously sought their beloved son; he simply reminds them, in respectful and delicate terms, of his superior nature and the great duties it imposes upon him. See Bede the Venerable, hl The phrase to the things of my Father This has received two interpretations, both equally authorized by classical usage. The Syriac and Armenian versions, several Fathers (Origen, St. Epiphanius, Theophylact, Euthymius), and various exegetes (Kuinoel, Meyer, etc.) have considered it synonymous with "in my Father's house" and consequently with "in the temple." Why not immediately assume, as Jesus would have thought, that I was in the palace of God, my heavenly Father? You would thus have spared yourself arduous research. Most commentators retain the meaning of "my Father's business," which is much better, we believe, because the first translation unnecessarily limits the idea (cf. 1 Timothy 4:15 and Genesis 41:5 in the Septuagint). Married had mentioned the “father” of Jesus: the Savior takes up this title again, but to give it an infinitely higher meaning, the only one, moreover, that corresponded to the reality of the facts. “Correcting, in a way, the words of Married Regarding the one who was thought to be his father, he reveals the true Father, teaching that he comes from above” (Graec. ap. Cat. D. Thom. hl) – Jesus thus indicates why he had remained in Jerusalem: the affairs of his heavenly Father had detained him. Sublime distinction between the rights of God and of Married about him. Jesus deeply loves his mother and his adoptive father; but his love for them cannot prevail over duty, over the will of heaven. He is therefore astonished, so to speak, that they did not have this thought sooner, just as "a lover would be astonished if one wanted to assign him a direction other than that of the North Pole." The "program" of Jesus' entire life, the key to all his mysteries, has been found precisely in this saying. To be occupied with his Father's affairs was constantly his ideal. (cf. John 4:34; 8:29; 9:4; 14:31, etc.) If ever a child's expression was prophetic, it is surely the one we have just read. But it foreshadowed renunciation and sacrifice, generously accepted whenever the glory of God was at stake.

Luke 2.⁵⁰ But they did not understand what he was telling them. This verse does not mean that Jesus' words were a complete enigma to his parents, since they knew better than anyone that he was the Christ foretold by the prophets. St. Luke simply meant that they did not then grasp the full extent of Jesus' answer. What was the connection between the Child's current presence in the temple and the affairs of his heavenly Father? Was he going to reveal himself to the world right away? Did he intend to dwell in the Temple regularly? To return there frequently? Was he going to begin his preaching and ministry there? These and similar questions crowded their minds, and they could not find a complete solution. Because they were expecting great things from him, everything seemed mysterious to them, and they could not guess the time or the means by which his plans would be carried out. Their immense humility This prevented them from subjecting Jesus to a battery of questions. They clearly remembered the manner chosen by God for the Annunciation, the Incarnation, and the dispelling of Saint Joseph's doubts about how to behave with the Virgin. MarriedThere are countless things in the prophecies that are very clear and that were only understood afterward, cf. Dom Calmet. “Saint John (…) explains on several occasions that the Master’s words, enigmatic at the time, were meant to be understood afterward, cf. 12:16; 13:7; 14:25-26; 15:26-27; 16:12-15” cf. The Christian Bible, The Four Gospels, Quebec, Anne Sigier editions, 1988, §18, p.120.

Luke 2.⁵¹ So he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was obedient to them. And his mother treasured all these things in her heart.  – Jesus, return to the shadows after this momentary radiance. The graceful flower of Nazareth had opened slightly and released some of its fragrance; but now it closes again for many years, for eighteen whole years, which St. Luke summarized in two verses. It is true that this summary is inexhaustibly rich. He was subject to them. «I am filled with astonishment at this statement,» wrote Bossuet, 8th Lecture of the 20th week. «Is this then the entire purpose of Jesus Christ, the Son of God? His whole role is to obey two of his creatures.» (cf. Philippians 2:7) What an admirable picture in these three words: “He was subject to them.” His mother kept all these things… In verse 19, St. Luke had already pointed out this perpetual contemplation of Married in the face of the mysteries of Jesus; however, here he uses a more forceful expression. The Mother therefore meditated day and night on the words and actions of her Son. This retreat in Nazareth was for her a time of sweet joys, which nothing disturbed after the episode in the temple, except the death of St. Joseph, which occurred, in all likelihood, some time before the public ministry of Our Lord. cf. John 2, 12, where the holy patriarch is not even mentioned in a very accurate enumeration of the Savior's human family.

Luke 2.⁵² And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. – St. Luke had already pointed out, in verse 40, the childhood of Our Lord Jesus Christ as a time of universal development. Before leaving the hidden life to enter the public life, he makes a similar reflection about the Messiah's adolescence. Jesus was progressingThis growth had a threefold purpose: the mind, the body, and the soul. – 1. The mind. From the earliest centuries of the Church, a serious debate arose on this point. In what sense, it was asked, can one speak of intellectual development in Our Lord Jesus Christ? Agreement on this subject has not always prevailed among theologians. Several Fathers, and especially St. Athanasius, Orat. 3 contra Arian. c. 51 ff., did not hesitate to admit a genuine progression in Christ's knowledge. As God, they said, Jesus knew all things from all eternity; but, as a man, he grew in wisdom as his understanding was illuminated by the splendors of the Word. It seemed to St. Athanasius and other holy Doctors that this interpretation of St. Luke's words made it possible to refute the Arians more clearly and easily, who misused them to claim that Jesus Christ was not God, since his being was limited. But other Fathers at the same time affirmed that in Jesus there had been no intellectual development properly speaking. According to St. Cyril, Thesaur. Assert., l. 10, c. 7, if he grew, "it was not because his humanity, which was perfect from the beginning, could increase, but because it manifested itself progressively." Growth, therefore, occurred only in relation to other human beings. In the Middle Ages, the question was taken up again and clarified in the most felicitous way. Scholastic theologians distinguished between the divine or uncreated knowledge of Our Lord, which is no different from the knowledge of the Holy Trinity, and the human or created knowledge that Christ possesses as a man. They further divided this human knowledge into three branches: beatific (or visionary) knowledge, infused knowledge, and acquired knowledge (resulting from experience). By visionary knowledge, they meant the knowledge that Christ's soul drew, like that of angels and the blessed, from the intuitive contemplation of the divine essence; by infused knowledge, the insights that God constantly transmitted to him directly; by acquired knowledge, the notions that came to him from reasoning, experience, and so on. Now, according to common opinion, the beatific and infused knowledge of Our Lord Jesus Christ were perfect from the first moment of his conception; therefore, they could not have been augmented. However, they emitted brighter rays each day, “like the sun, which, from its rising to its zenith, becomes more and more luminous and is said to progress, not because there is growth within it, but only in effect, because it gradually sheds more abundant light upon us.” (Coron. Jansenius, Comm. in Luc. 2, 52). On the contrary, his experimental science constantly grew. Not, however, that it taught Jesus entirely new things; but it showed him, in a new light, ideas that he already knew by virtue of his infused knowledge. Thus, according to the Letter to the Hebrews5:8, “He learned, though he was a Son, through his own sufferings, what it is to obey.” These distinctions seem to us to perfectly clarify this delicate point: they also restore harmony among the Fathers, for they explain how some could admit progress in the Savior's wisdom while others rejected it. – 2. The body. The Greek term is ambiguous and can mean either “height” or “age.” Following many exegetes, we prefer the first of these two meanings. Moreover, the difference is not great, since, during a significant part of human life, the development of height and physical vigor accompanies growth in age. – 3. The soul, or moral development. Here we encounter the same difficulty as with the intellectual progress of Jesus. It is resolved in a similar way. Following the theologians, we further distinguish between “supernatural habits and acts, principles and effects. Works of grace or acts of virtue grew and multiplied ceaselessly; but infused habits, virtuous dispositions, sanctifying grace—all that his God-Man nature required in his soul—could not grow. The Savior always possessed these gifts to the highest degree.” (Bacuez, Biblical Manual, vol. 3, New Testament, Paris 1878, p. 171). This is indeed the doctrine of St. Thomas, third part, questions 7 to 12: “In Christ, there could be no increase of grace as in the blessed…except according to the effect, that is, to the extent that someone performs more virtuous works.” From this, we can understand how Jesus' growth, both in wisdom and in grace, took place not only among men but also with God. (Cf. 1 Samuel 2:26, where a similar reflection is made concerning the young Samuel.) From then on, complete silence surrounded Our Lord Jesus Christ. The early events of his life seemed to foreshadow an uninterrupted series of miracles; but now the sacred chronicle shows him living in profound obscurity, like a poor craftsman (cf. Mark 6:3) who earns his bread by the sweat of his brow. However, says St. Bonaventure, Vita Christi, ch. 15, "by doing nothing marvelous, he accomplished precisely a kind of miracle."

If we were now to compare the accounts of the Holy Childhood according to St. Matthew and St. Luke, we could say that, while they harmonize very well, as has been demonstrated above (see the note on verse 39), they nevertheless differ considerably from one another. In the Gospel according to St. Matthew, St. Joseph appears to be the principal figure; in St. Luke's account, on the contrary, it is not. Married who is generally in the foreground. St. Luke recounts a greater number of events; his narrative gives us a better understanding of the first thirty years of Jesus' life. It would seem, according to a charming fiction by Father Faber, Bethlehem(p. 239 ff.) that he was among the first worshippers of Jesus at the manger, and that he also attended the mysteries of the Presentation, of Nazareth, etc., so detailed and vivid are his depictions. He is preeminently the evangelist of the Holy Childhood, just as St. John is the evangelist of the divinity of the Word.