Commentary on the Gospels

The Child in Jerusalem
Luke 2:21-38

Exposition

Verse 21. When the Lord established His covenant with Abraham, He directed that every male baby in Abraham’s line be circumcised on the eighth day after birth (Gen. 17:10-12). This procedure, which is still practiced today even among non-Jews because of its medical benefits,¹ was a sign that the descendants of Abraham had been set apart by God. In keeping with the law, Jesus was circumcised on the day exactly one week after His birthday.

Jewish custom postponed the naming of a male child until the day of circumcision. Accordingly, one week after His birth, the child of Mary was named Jesus, the very name that the Lord had instructed His parents to choose for Him. Luke says that this name was revealed by an angel before He was conceived in Mary’s womb. Indeed, she learned that He should be called Jesus when Gabriel appeared to her (Luke 1:31).

Verses 22-24. A few weeks later, while the couple still lodged in Bethlehem, they made the short journey up the road to Jerusalem, a mere six miles away.² No doubt they left early in the morning and arrived well before noon so that they could meet their obligations at the Temple and return before nightfall. They had two specific obligations to fulfill in order to be in full compliance with the law of Moses.

1. The law declared that a woman was unclean for forty days (or forty-one days by inclusive reckoning) after the birth of a male child and for eighty days (or eighty-one days by inclusive reckoning) after the birth of a daughter (Lev. 12:1–4). Scholars have long debated why, in the law He laid down for the nation of Israel, God judged any new mother as unclean. One practical result is that she was considered unfit to visit the Temple (except to remove her uncleanness) or to attend any meeting at a synagogue. This divine ruling therefore had the merciful effect of discouraging her from walking far from home before she fully regained her strength.³
        Another practical result is that her uncleanness ordinarily prevented her and her husband from coming together in sexual love, which could hinder her recovery.⁴ Her husband would avoid such intimacy because he had good reason to believe that in God’s sight, he would as a result become unclean also. The law pertaining to a new mother did not specifically threaten this consequence, but he could see elsewhere in the law that the uncleanness of many other things was contagious—that by merely touching them he would make himself unclean (Lev. 15:7; Num. 19:22; etc.). For example, if he touched his wife while she was menstruating, he would be unclean until the next evening (Lev. 15:19). In many rulings, the rabbis treated a menstruating woman and a woman after childbirth as essentially equivalent in their uncleanness.⁵ Yet for a fuller perspective on divine love, a further observation will be helpful. The law never states that a baby handled by a mother who has not yet undergone purification also becomes unclean and untouchable.
        It is highly significant that doctors today advise a new mother that she should wait four to six weeks after childbirth before resuming sexual relations with her mate.⁶ Six weeks are, of course, virtually the same as the forty days specified by the law of Moses for the mother of a baby boy. Why the term was twice as long for a baby girl remains a mystery, of course. Perhaps a baby girl in Jewish culture was likely to receive less attention than a little boy. Lengthening her mother’s isolation may have helped to correct this problem. Whatever the exact reasons for the law’s provisions concerning a new mother, we see the facts plainly enough to affirm with confidence that they must have been designed to promote her rapid and full recovery from the ordeal of childbirth and to safeguard the baby. This feature of Mosaic law is one of many showing that it was not human, but divine, in origin.
        To rid herself of uncleanness at the end of forty or eighty days, a new mother had to offer two animals for sacrifice at the Temple: a young pigeon or turtledove as a sin offering to remove her defilement as a result of giving birth, as well as a lamb for burnt offering to restore fellowship with God (Lev. 12:1-4). If she could not afford a lamb, she could purchase instead another pigeon or turtledove (Lev. 12:8). Luke informs us that Mary brought the less costly sacrifice, showing that she and her husband were people of limited means. It is likely that Joseph was a young man newly independent from his own father. He knew the trade of carpentry, but in Nazareth he had not been in business long enough to accumulate funds that he could take along on his travels, and likewise in Bethlehem he had not been able to save money. Perhaps he supported himself there by doing odd jobs for people, earning barely enough to get by.
        Yet we should not imagine that he was irresponsible. The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke stress throughout that he was a wise man who did his duty, down to the smallest detail. He refrained from any sort of vengeance when he found that Mary was pregnant, but responded mercifully, in a manner pleasing to God, and after the angel of the Lord affirmed her innocence, he gladly obeyed God’s instruction to take Mary as his wife. He fulfilled his obligation as a citizen when he went to Bethlehem to be registered. He stayed by Mary’s side both before and after the child was born. He gave to the child the name chosen by God. He took Mary to Jerusalem so that, doubtless at some personal sacrifice, they could satisfy the requirements of Mosaic law. He carried out the dictates of prophecy by refraining from sexual relations with Mary until Jesus was born. It is obvious that he was exactly the right man to stand in the role of Jesus’ father. How many teenage boys today would be so careful to carry out instructions? How many would exhibit such maturity?
        After entering the Temple complex, Joseph and Mary went first to accomplish her purification. After walking through the outer court, known as the Court of the Gentiles, they entered the Court of Women within the walls of the Sanctuary itself. There, Mary dropped payment for the doves or pigeons into a collection box. She was then free to join all the other women who had also paid for sacrifices and who were now standing at the top of steps leading to the Nicanor gate, separating the Court of Women from the Court of the Israelites. Only men were allowed to pass through this gate into the next court. At a set time, all the collection boxes were emptied and the priest in attendance determined how many sacrifices had been purchased.⁷ This information was passed along to priests managing the altars further inside the Temple. All the women seeking purification stood by openings beside the gate, where they could witness the ceremony that would fulfill their desire.⁸ Many details of this rite of purification have passed into obscurity because they are not recorded in historical sources.⁹ Yet enough is known to allow a reasonable guess as to what happened. It is likely that after the ceremony began, the women could see a cloud of smoke rising from the Altar of Burnt-offering, where the sacrifices for their purification were performed, and a cloud of incense rising from the Golden Altar.¹⁰ Also, they could probably hear the priests beside the altars raising prayers of benediction against a background of soul-stirring music from a choir of men and boys accompanied by harps.¹¹
        After watching the ceremony inside the Temple, Mary rejoined her husband to satisfy the second requirement that they had to meet as new parents.
2. Jesus was a first-born male. Therefore, He had to be dedicated to the Lord. As Luke says, "They brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)" (Luke 2:22–23). He is paraphrasing Exodus 13:2, 12. The ceremony of dedication was a memorial of the first Passover many centuries before, at the time when God delivered Israel from bondage in Egypt. Using Moses and Aaron as His spokesmen before the Egyptian Pharaoh, He had demanded Israel’s release, and to show His power to make Pharaoh comply, He had brought a series of plagues upon the land. The last and most severe was death of all the firstborn males. Yet every family who obeyed God by sprinkling the blood of a lamb on the doorposts and lintel of the house escaped being visited by the death angel (Exod. 12:1–14). Deliverance by the blood of a lamb was of course an early picture of salvation through the blood of Christ. Among those who obeyed were all the families in Israel. God declared that henceforth all firstborn males of the nation belonged to Him. The meaning was that they would spend their lives in the service of God. But a short while later, He declared that He would take full-time servants from another source. When the tribe of Levi distinguished itself by taking God’s side against the worshippers of a golden calf (Exod. 32:25–35), He granted to that tribe the perpetual privilege of serving as helpers to the priests in their work of directing the nation’s worship of God (Num. 3:5–10). A firstborn male in other tribes was excused from any such obligation, provided his parents redeemed him from full-time service by paying the Lord a fixed sum of money (Num. 18:15-16). The amount was only five shekels (probably about ⅔ ounces of silver,¹² today worth about $13).
        Meeting this requirement was a much more informal procedure. Instead of participation in a ceremony, all that was required of Mary and Joseph was to approach a priest and take a few simple steps requiring very little time.¹³ Perhaps there were priests stationed in the Court of Women to make this possible. First, after securing a priest’s attention, Mary and Joseph presented their son to him. This gesture expressed their recognition that their son belonged to God.¹⁴ Next, they offered the payment required for their son’s redemption from full-time service.¹⁵ Upon receipt of this payment, the priest pronounced two benedictions: the first thanking God for permitting this redemption, the second thanking Him for blessing these parents with a new baby boy.¹⁶

Verses 25-28. While Mary and Joseph were taking care of their legal obligations at the Temple, they encountered a saint of God, an old man named Simeon. His life was marked by a degree of godliness that others recognized as outstanding. He was blameless in both his vertical relationship to God and his horizontal relationships to fellow men. Toward God he was devout: that is, pious and God-fearing. Toward fellow men he was just: that is, righteous and good. Another virtue that distinguished him was his keen desire to see the "consolation of Israel," a reference to the Messiah. It is evident that Simeon loved God so whole-heartedly, in obedience to the first and greatest commandment (Deut. 6:4-5), that he longed for the day when God would cast down His enemies and enforce His righteous laws throughout the world. God’s instrument for gaining these objectives would be the man called the Messiah. This man would be a special consolation to Israel because in His kingdom, He would not only put an end to all hatred and oppression of the Jews, but He would raise Israel to preeminence over the other nations.

The text does not tell us whether the Spirit came upon Simeon because he was a good man, or he was a good man because the Spirit came upon him. Yet true godliness is always a work of God. Therefore, the latter interpretation must be correct. The secret to Simeon’s sterling life was that he was a willing instrument of the Holy Spirit. Before Pentecost, the Holy Spirit did not indwell believers, yet at times and under circumstances of His choosing, He came upon them to accomplish some specific purpose.

Here in these verses, we learn why the Spirit chose Simeon to be a vessel of His presence and influence. He wanted Simeon to be the first in Jerusalem to recognize and worship the Christ child. More-over, He wanted Simeon to give Mary and Joseph words confirming their faith and preparing them for the momentous events that lay ahead. So that Simeon might remain in a mood of expectation until he fulfilled his appointed task, the Spirit revealed to him that he would not die before he saw the Messiah. With that assurance in his heart, Simeon was able to press on in an active life despite his advancing age. On the day when Mary and Joseph came to Jerusalem, the Spirit gave Simeon very specific guidance. He brought him into the Temple at the right time, He positioned him in a place where Mary and Joseph would soon pass by, and He pointed out precisely which child was the Messiah.

Simeon was overjoyed. He hurried to Mary and Joseph, took the child in his arms, and blessed God. That is, He praised God for fulfilling all His promises to send a child who would decisively crush the evil one and obliterate all his evil works.

Why the parents allowed a strange man to take the child from them has provoked much discussion. Some have suggested that Simeon was the priest whom the parents chose to perform the rite necessary to redeem a firstborn son. Yet there is nothing in the story to support this. On the contrary, the account tells us that Simeon would not have been in the Temple at that time except for the Spirit’s leading (v. 27). It is more natural to suppose that the parents allowed Simeon to take the child for both a cultural reason and a personal reason. The cultural reason is that under normal circumstances, the Temple filled with worshippers was a place entirely safe. The personal reason is that like Simeon, Mary and Joseph were under the moment-by-moment guidance of the Holy Spirit, and through the Spirit they recognized that the kindly, aged man desiring to hold the child was a saint of God with a legitimate purpose. Indeed, they may have sensed that God had sent him to speak words of prophecy.

Verses 29-32. Simeon’s message concerning the child had three distinct parts. First, He spoke of the child’s significance for himself; second, for the whole world; and third, for Mary.

For himself, he declared that he was now ready to die, having seen the wonderful child that the Lord had promised to show him. As the old man held Jesus, he knew that he gazed upon the face of victory. That victory became secure when the child was born. It would only be a short time before the child would enter His kingly state and use His withering glory to rend apart the kingdom of darkness and banish it to eternal oblivion. So, Simeon was now at peace in his soul. He saw clearly the end of the story, and it would be a happy ending. He was therefore content to pass on to an afterlife of waiting for his own resurrection, affording him a place in the child’s kingdom.

Application

Simeon is a perfect model not only for elderly Christians, but for all of God’s children. The focus of his life was upon the glorious future moment when He would see Christ face-to-face. What better vision could dominate our minds as we trudge through this nasty world—a world always sliding deeper into contempt for the things of God? Even as we step through dark fogs of worldly sin and unbelief, we should always keep our eyes upon the glorious light visible ahead of us, and we should always remind ourselves that we are stepping ever closer to it. The light at the end of our road is the future moment when we will enter Christ’s presence, either through the peaceful and victorious death of a saint or through the thrilling ascent of all saints into the skies when the church is raptured. Until that moment arrives, we should follow Simeon’s example by never tiring in God’s work, and by always keeping our hearts filled with anticipation of seeing Christ. We should always be praying, "Even so, come, Lord Jesus" (Rev. 22:20).

Exposition

The child’s significance for the whole world was that He would be its Savior. When looking upon the child, Simeon called Him "God’s salvation," perhaps the most direct translation of the name Jesus. Salvation from what? Through His death on a cross, He would provide salvation from sin. He would take upon Himself all the punishment for sin that men deserve so that they need not suffer it themselves. If they believed on Him, they would spend eternity not in hell, the place of punishment, but in heaven, the place of joy.

The benefit of salvation would not be limited to the Jews. Indeed, Christ would be the "glory of thy people Israel." That is, the nation would gain undying fame and prestige as the nation that produced the Redeemer. Yet Christ would also "lighten the Gentiles." He is recalling a recurring theme of Isaiah, most explicit in Isaiah 49:6: "And he [the LORD] said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth." The light is the light of the gospel (2 Cor. 4:4; 2 Tim. 1:10). The offer of salvation through Christ would go out to the whole world, and many would be saved.

Moreover, Christ’s redemptive work would not be hidden in a corner, but would be take place "before the face of all people." Indeed, the death and resurrection of Christ are perhaps the best-known events in all of history. Many do not understand their significance, yet few have never heard anything about them, and some in all nations have both understood and believed.

Verse 33. Why did Mary and Joseph marvel? Did they not already know these things? The spotlight here is on Joseph. It says "Joseph and his mother." Although Joseph knew that the baby was Christ the Savior, perhaps he had imperfect understanding of what Christ would accomplish. Surely many Jews in his day saw the Messiah mainly as a conqueror who would put down Israel’s enemies and rule the world from Jerusalem. From such a narrow perspective, Simeon’s prophecy that Christ would be "a light to lighten the Gentiles" would have been puzzling. How would He bring light and blessing to those He defeated? Perhaps this was the assertion that caused Joseph to marvel. Or perhaps he and Mary marveled merely because a complete stranger knew all about the child.

Verses 34-35. For both Joseph and Mary, Simeon pronounced a blessing. They were indeed blessed of God to be given such a high responsibility, the responsibility of rearing God’s own Son in human form. With great responsibility comes great reward if it is discharged well, and so far as we know, both Mary and Joseph were faithful and unfailing in the task God had given them. No doubt both have earned a high place in heaven.

But Simeon was not done. He had a special message for Mary, and it was a message of warning. God wanted her to understand that to be the mother of Christ did not mean that her life would be smooth sailing to a place of great honor and privilege. On the contrary, it meant that she would see great trouble and sorrow. In kindness God spared her from dreams that would never be fulfilled and prepared her for reality. In particular there were three kinds of evil she could expect.

First, through the ministry of Christ many would fall. Israel would be divided into two groups. Many would rise again to life immortal in resurrected bodies, but many others would fall to eternal damnation. Their destiny would be just, for it would come upon them because they rejected free salvation through Christ, but it would be no less tragic, and perhaps some that Mary herself knew and loved would be among the fallen.

Second, Mary would hear many speak against her son. Their scorn would be especially targeted at the sign He would provide, a reference to the cross. The cross was the second great sign or picture afforded by the life of Jesus. The first was the manger. Although both showed our Savior in the full measure of His humility, men would accept the first better than the second. They would remember the manger in Christmas celebrations, but the cross would be "spoken against," or opposed. To the Jews the preaching of Christ crucified would be a stumbling block (1 Cor. 1:23). Why? The cross would unveil the innermost thoughts of the mind and motives of the heart. Those whose hearts were touched by the light of Christ would turn to Him in repentance. Those whose hearts clung to darkness would reject Him and forfeit salvation.

Third, a sword would pierce Mary’s soul. He said "thy soul also" because the sword would have another victim, Christ. This allusion to the sufferings of Christ confirms that the sign spoken against is indeed the cross. Simeon was warning Mary of the unspeakable torment of mind and agony of soul that she would someday feel when she saw her beautiful baby and darling boy and strapping youth and awesome man—her own beloved son complete in all his potential beyond mortal measure—when she saw Him dying on a cross. How any mother would feel defies description. How she would feel who was the mother of the world’s only perfect son is not only beyond my words, but for me to attempt any words would be an irreverent violation of her sorrow.

Why did Simeon issue no such warning to Joseph? Because God knew that Joseph would not see the Crucifixion. In fact, he is altogether absent from the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ ministry. Based on these accounts, the church has always assumed that by the time Jesus reached thirty years of age, Joseph had died. We have no direct evidence bearing on the question except what the townspeople of Nazareth said when Jesus came to preach (Matt. 13:54-56). Notice that when they identify His mother and brothers, they tell by what names they are now called. But what His father is now called receives no mention. In fact, instead of referring to him by name, they only speak of him as a carpenter, as if they do not remember him very well. Whereas in their words they affirm that Jesus’ sisters are now alive, they give their hearers no reason to believe that His father is alive also. As Joseph listened to Simeon, did he understand the possible implications concerning his own future? We do not know.

Verses 36-38. While Simeon was speaking to Jesus’ parents, yet another old saint approached. She was Anna, of whom Luke says, literally, "she was a widow of about eighty-four years."¹⁷ Many readers interpret his words to mean that she had lived eighty-four years as a widow. In that case, she was at least 103 years old. But since she was still active and self-sufficient, it is more likely that Luke merely uses the word "widow" as a more specific reference to a certain woman. To furnish additional information, he identifies Anna as "a widow of . . . eighty-four years" instead of as "a woman of . . . eighty-four years." Thus, he intends eighty-four years to be understood as the measure of her age.¹⁸

She had long been without her husband, for he had died after they had been married only seven years. Based on our knowledge of Jewish customs, we surmise that she married young, in her early teens. Therefore, her widowhood had lasted more than sixty years. During that time she had dedicated her life to serving God. Luke says that she "departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day" (v. 37). It may escape the reader that he means to be taken literally. This woman actually lived in the Temple. To underscore that she resided there, Luke says that she remained night and day. Her purpose was to continue in prayers and fastings without interruption.

Our position that Anna actually lived in the Temple is dismissed by Alfred Edersheim on the grounds that no one lived there, not even the priests who had private chambers within the complex of buildings.¹⁹ But that the Temple was her home both in daytime and nighttime seems to be the inescapable meaning of Luke’s words. Perhaps after darkness fell, she slept on a portable bed like the one used by the impotent man beside the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:1–7). Anyplace inside the Temple would have been safe from dangerous men. The temperature was never too cold if she was able to cover herself. Our knowledge of custom and practice in first-century Temple worship is much too limited to be dogmatic about possibilities. Merrill Unger has concluded, "Probably by reason of her great piety [she] was allowed to reside in some one of the chambers of the women’s court."²⁰

It is hard for us, who are so preoccupied with worldly affairs, to imagine a woman so godly that her life for many years consisted of little besides communion with God. What a special person she was! And see how God has honored her. The Word of God devotes several verses just to commending this woman Anna. She is one of very few women that the Bible calls a prophetess. In other words, as a mouthpiece for God, she was the equal of any man. Through spending so much time in the presence of God, she knew God’s heart and God’s mind. Moreover, the Bible gives her pedigree. She was the daughter of Phanuel from the tribe of Asher. Notice that by virtue of raising such a daughter as Anna, her father also receives commendation. It is significant that she was not actually a Jew, which means from the tribe of Judah, but from one of the so-called lost tribes. None of the tribes has been lost, however. We cannot elaborate here, except to say that the ten northern tribes had escaped extinction in two ways. Some of their representatives taken into captivity by Assyria had retained their identity for centuries and rejoined the international community of Jews. Others had migrated to the kingdom of Judah before its conquest by Babylon, and had been numbered among those who went into exile and later returned. Thus, among Jews in Jesus’ day, as well as among modern Jews, we find descendants of all the tribes, although most are unaware of their lineage.

The lineage of Anna is given for a reason—so that we might see her and Simeon as representatives of all those in Israel who had long been eagerly waiting for the Messiah. One was a man, the other a woman. One was from Judah no doubt, the other from a northern tribe. Yet despite the differences, both embodied the best in Israel. Both were aged saints, well tested and proven by the trials of life. Like aged saints in all ages, both had an especially keen desire to see God move forward in history and bring all His prophecies to fulfillment. Prophecy has always seemed the special province of older saints. Moreover, both Anna and Simeon were so filled with the Spirit that they were vehicles for new prophetic utterances.

When Anna came in, she also acknowledged that the babe was Christ. How she came to this conclusion, whether from Simeon’s testimony or from the Spirit’s counsel in her own heart, we do not know. But the wonderful sight of the newborn Christ stirred her to great enthusiasm. She instantly praised God, and she went around the Temple telling all the godly the good news that Christ had now appeared. Despite her age she was so energetic in her witness that she did not stop until she had spoken of Jesus to everyone in Jerusalem who was looking for the Messiah.