Luke Chapter 2

This translation in ESV:

5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. [Luk 2:5 ESV]

The way this reads in the ESV says that Mary and Joseph had still not been formally married when Mary gave birth to Jesus.  They were betrothed only.  She wasn't just pregnant before marriage, she gave birth before marriage.  What a scandalous way to begin life.  But look at the old KJV.  It says Mary was his "espoused" wife.  Intended wife perhaps?  So all the translations acknowledge this, you just never hear a preacher point it out.  Here is perhaps the plainest translation:

5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. [Luk 2:5 NIV]

Another FB post for December. He was born to an unwed mother.

2022 - I believe I found a place that makes it very clear that they were married before Jesus was born.  Looking at these verses, all say she was betrothed, and pregnant.  Not one of them says that she gave birth while betrothed.  I read between the lines to get that.  Joseph went to Bethlehem, and took Mary with him, on the trip where she gave birth in Bethlehem.  Did they get married on the way?  Why would they have waited until she was this far along?  I'm guessing it has to do with how Jewish weddings work.  Perhaps they had gone through all the ceremony required to be married, but the marriage was not yet consummated.  And until it was, they were not entirely married under Jewish law?  There's the whole thing about the bride waiting for the bridegroom and all that.  This part of the ceremony would not yet have taken place, since Mary was already pregnant.  This is a much more likely explanation for the wording of these verses.

The Christmas story, as I always read it.  I like Luke's narrative.

The  "whole world" was to be taxed.  Joseph leaves Nazareth and travels to  Bethlehem, and while there, Mary gives birth and lays the baby in a  manger.  In a manger, because there's no room in the inn.  No innkeeper  is mentioned.  At all.  Directly or indirectly.  We presume that they  had permission to sleep in the stable, that Jesus was not born as a  "trespasser".  As an unwanted "guest".  But what if he was???  Isn't  that the story of his whole life?  He was mostly unwelcome, criticized,  and threatened everywhere he went.  He himself says that he has nowhere to lay his head.  Why would the moment of his birth  have been any different.

7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. [Luk 2:7 ESV]

This is a good post for FB during December.  He was born to an unwed mother trespassing in a barn.

2025 - First, this is not true.  She was definitely married.

2025 - In the NASB95, both in verse 7 and again in verse 12, it says baby Jesus was wrapped in "cloths".  Not clothes, but cloths.  I checked BLB, and this is pretty much a correct interpretation.  However, this word is used to mean "swaddling cloths", as an infant would be wrapped in at birth.  I do not believe that saying he was wrapped in swaddling cloths, as so many translations say, is an interpretation, but a better translation, more directly conveying the meaning of the word.  I note, however, that the "newer" the translation, the more likely it is to say "strips of cloth" or just "cloth".  The ESV, ASV, and RSV are notable exceptions.  NIV says cloths.  So I guess t his is what the scholars worry about...I hardly see how it can make much difference.  In our day both words have to be explained because they have no current equivalent.

16 And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger. [Luk 2:16 ESV]

Then  the story of the shepherds.  It starts not with a heavenly host of  innumerable angels singing in the sky, but with a single angel who gives  them a message.  The angel says a child has been born.  That Christ the  Lord has been born.  Not just some special child, but Christ has  finally arrived.  The manger is mentioned again here and is the sign that unequivocally identifies this baby as the Messiah.  Jesus is identified not by the trappings of royalty or by a golden cradle and silk coverings, but by the paucity of any indications of greatness.  He is born humblest of all. 

Another good FB post for December.  

Then,  only then, after the message is delivered, do the angels say - NOT SING  - praising God.  So the shepherds confer, and decide to go see this  child. 

And once they have, they tell everyone they see.  Must not have  been really late at night, though it was at night.

17 And when they saw it, they made known the saying that had been told them concerning this child. [Luk 2:17 ESV]

Shepherds for heralds.  Men who should have been at work.  Men with no education.  Their grammar was poor.  They didn't know any big words.  They were just bursting with the impact of the news and lacked the words to express it.  Can you imagine them as they try and convey that they have seen angels, real angels, and that the one they have awaited for centuries is over there in a manger, just a mile or so from where we stand.  The child is in a manger, born to an unwed mother, trespassing in a barn.  But angels say this is Him.  What a way to start.

Still another good FB post for the series.  This if four.  This is two weeks.  14, 17, 21, 24.

  Note this:

19 But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart. [Luk 2:19 ESV]

She may have never told anyone about these events until she told Luke. 

Then this verse:

22  And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of  Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23  (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every male who first opens  the womb shall be called holy to the Lord") [Luk 2:22-23 ESV]

How  long after Jesus was born was this required?  MSB says 40 days.  MSB  implies that they had remained in Bethlehem for that whole time, and  traveled six miles to the temple.  Their offering indicates that they  were quite poor.  I imagine so if they had moved from the stable to the  inn during this time and were having to pay for food and lodging for a  whole month.  Does this make sense?

The  story of Simeon.  The Holy Spirit was "upon" him.  Doesn't say in him.   But the Holy Spirit had told him that before he died he would see "the  Lord's Christ".  Simeon recognizes Jesus when he is brought in by his  parents.  It says he "took him up in his arms", as if the child was  walking already?  Simeon thanks God for the "salvation" he is seeing.   Then he talks specifically to Mary, telling her what Jesus will do. 

2023 - This verse:  27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law, [Luk 2:27 ESV].  This looks like the same phrase used in Revelation of John, in the Spirit on the Lord's day.  Note that Simeon, in the Spirit, recognized who Jesus was immediately.  So we might say this is a very "aware" state for someone to be in.

Then  Anna, a prophetess, shows up and begins to speak about Jesus to all  that were there.  She didn't hear what Simeon had said, but Jesus was  revealed to her separately. 

2024 - This verse:

36 And there was a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years and had lived with [her] husband seven years after her marriage, [Luk 2:36 NASB95].

So there had been 400 years with no prophet at all.  Until John the Baptist?  Who this is Anna?  We might say that women are a different kind of prophet than the men who were called prophets in the OT.  We might say that Anna was a different kind of prophet than them on other grounds - a NT prophet, a non-revelatory prophet, a non-miracle prophet - though many OT male prophets did no miracles either.  Simeon was not called a prophet, but the Spirit was upon him - a phrase also used of OT prophets.  If we go with this, how are we to say that there were no prophets for 400 years?  We might be better off to say that for 400 years, no prophet added to the canon.  This gets my attention this year because of the recent ST study of spiritual gifts and John Mac's "Strange Fire" contrasting the charismatic version of NT prophet with the Biblical requirements to be a true prophet.  Even so, why have I never heard this before?   

They go back to Nazareth.  Which they would have done no matter how old Jesus was at the time. 

We  are told that Mary and Joseph go to Jerusalem every year at Passover.   We have jumped ahead to when Jesus was 12.  Nothing about the wise men  in Luke.  Jesus is left behind at the temple, and is in discussion with  the men there, and his knowledge, as a 12 year old, astonishes them, and  his parents.