Abode at Nazareth—Education of Jesus

Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee, was, equally with Archelaus, the son of Herod, the Ascalonite. But his mother was a Jewess, and he had not, like Archelaus, the son of a woman of Samaria, inherited the sanguinary temper of his father. True, we hear in the Gospel of his vicious and immoral life, and how, to keep his rash promise to a dancer, he cut off the head of John the Baptist, but we know also that he did it reluctantly; whereas to his father, Herod, and his cruel brother, Archelaus, the shedding of blood was a matter of supreme indifference; nay, rather one might say it was a ferocious propensity and passion. Moreover, he would not know that Jesus dwelling at Nazareth was the Child on whose account the Innocents had been massacred. The birth of the Messias was by the prophet Micheas associated with Bethlehem; and no one would have thought of seeking Him in Nazareth. Joseph might, therefore, by returning to his old domicile at that place, be entirely reassured as to the safety of the Divine Child. No doubt God could have protected His Son from all danger in Bethlehem, but so also He might have concealed Him from the rage of Herod without sending Him into Egypt. Archelaus, however, was not to be left long in possession of his power, being dethroned and exiled by the Roman Emperor; yet it did not please God on that account to bid Joseph leave Nazareth and take up his abode at Bethlehem; for, as has been seen, it entered into the designs of Divine Providence that Jesus should be brought up at Nazareth, even as in the exile into Egypt a double purpose was fulfilled, as we have indicated.

It has been a question with commentators as to where in the Old Testament we are to seek for this prediction; indeed, the difficulty of identifying it has led to the supposition that the book in which it was contained was among those sacred writings which have been lost.¹ But undoubtedly the fact was as St. Matthew affirms; Jesus was to be called a Nazarite, and never to lose that name, which was to be inscribed on His Cross: “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews”.² He was not to be brought up and be known in the city of David His father, nor in the neighborhood of those who might have heard reports of the glories attending His birth. He was to be reared in obscure and despised Nazareth, so despised that Nathanael, as we know, replied to Philip’s invitation to come and see Jesus, the predicted Messias, the son of Joseph of Nazareth: “Can anything of good come from Nazareth?”³ and the Jews afterwards, reasoning with those who said He was the Christ, objected: “Doth the Christ come out of Galilee? Doth not the Scripture say that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the town where David was?”⁴ So it pleased God, in His secret ways, that His Son might at once be hidden and manifested; manifested to those who were true of heart, hidden from those who would not see, and therefore took scandal at His supposed origin.

St. Jerome, however, has suggested a solution of the difficulty by showing that St. Matthew is referring, not to the precise words of the Sacred Text, but to their sense; and, in confirmation of this view, he notices that the Evangelist says, “That it might be fulfilled which was said by the prophets,” not naming any particular prophet, as he would otherwise have done; in which case the application of the prediction must, probably, be sought in the etymology of the name of the place itself. This has received various interpretations, and, prominently, that of Flowery. Now, Jesus was the Flower of the Field, and the Flower of the Rod of Jesse. Hence St. Jerome, writing to Marcella, says: “Let us go to Nazareth, and there, according to the interpretation of its name, we shall see the Flower of Galilee”. The term Nazarite has also been considered to signify holy, separated, or set apart, and consecrated by God. Accordingly, we read of Samson, who was a figure of Jesus, that the angel declared he “was to be a Nazarite of God from his infancy and from his mother’s womb; and begin to deliver Israel from the hands of the Philistines”.⁵ In this sense likewise the name would be supremely applicable to the Savior of the world.

The two Evangelists, St. Matthew and St. Luke, both agree in stating that the Holy Family returned to Nazareth, and dwelt there, the latter omitting all mention of the Flight into Egypt, as the former had made no allusion to the Purification. Having, then, conducted the Holy Family back to Nazareth, St. Luke sums up his account of the boyhood of Jesus in these few words: “And the Child grew and waxed strong, full of wisdom, and the grace of God was in Him”.⁶ They are few words, but how much is contained in them! We have already commented on expressions used a few verses further on with reference to Jesus advancing in wisdom and age, when it was question of the mode in which our Divine Lord deigned to make progress like other children. Here, then, we shall only notice the remarkable words: “the grace of God was in Him”. Some might think this was little to say of One who was Himself the very source of all grace. And truly so He was, in virtue of His Divine Nature, but that Divine Nature was united to a perfect human nature, perfect, although having no human personality. He was “perfect God and perfect man, of reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting,” to use the words of the Athanasian Creed. Jesus, then, had a human soul, the recipient of grace as are other human souls, only the Spirit was not given to Him by measure. St. Luke would seem to be especially the Evangelist of the Humanity of the Son of God, which needed to be clearly proclaimed as well as His Divinity. Heresies were to assail both. Accordingly, he testifies to it emphatically in those words: “the grace of God was in Him”. St. Luke is not believed to have personally known our Lord, although Epiphanius seems to consider that he was a disciple towards the close of the life of Jesus. Be this as it may—and it is by no means the common opinion—he himself does not pretend to relate as an eye-witness, but only as “having diligently attained to all things from the beginning”.⁷ Yet we know that, although he had thus carefully collected his information from eye-witnesses, he, equally with the other Evangelists, wrote by the inspiration of the Spirit of God; for inspiration, while giving light to the mind of the writer, guiding him in the selection of the materials he possesses and guarding him from error in his statements, does not preclude the use of the natural faculties, as they might be employed by other historians in the collection of facts, and to secure accuracy. “He had diligently attained to all things from the beginning;” that is, from the beginning of the life he relates, namely, that of Jesus; and from what source could he have learned that beginning save from the lips of Mary herself? The Annunciation, the Adoration of the Shepherds, the Visitation, the Purification, and the Finding of Jesus in the Temple, are related in detail by St. Luke, and by no other Evangelist; and who was there upon earth who could have communicated these things to him but the Blessed Mother of God herself, she of whom the Eternal Word had taken human flesh?

It is not amiss to remind ourselves of this, for it helps to throw a light on the manner in which Joseph is spoken of in this Gospel. That manner must surely reflect Mary’s wishes, and what were Mary’s wishes at any time but to fulfill His will of whom she was ever the handmaid as well as the Mother? Now Joseph is always intimately associated with Mary by this Evangelist in their relationship to Jesus, and he stands alone in using the common term “parents,” in speaking of them. This was the case in relating the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple, where he says that “His parents brought in the Child Jesus, to do for Him according to the custom of the Law”; and that Simeon blessed them both, as has been already noticed. And again, after Simeon’s “Nunc dimittis,” he says that “His father and mother were wondering at those things which were spoken concerning Him,”⁸ giving the first place, as usual in common parlance, to the father. We have already quoted these passages when relating the incidents of the Purification, but we recall them now as showing the light in which Mary desired her spouse to be regarded; and that light must undoubtedly have been the true one, designed by God Himself. St. Augustine—and he does not stand alone among the Doctors in this matter—observes that it is in order to demonstrate the sublime dignity of Joseph that St. Luke puts him on an equality with Mary in calling them both the parents of Jesus. That an Evangelist, who knew the mystery of the Incarnation, having himself previously narrated the Annunciation of the angel to Mary, should, speaking by inspiration, use this language, certainly shows that Joseph was—excluding always natural generation—a true father; not a mere putative father, or a father by adoption and by law. Since, then, he was not a father in the ordinary sense, that is, according to the flesh, he must have been so in a mystical sense, according to the spirit; and this is why St. Augustine frequently repeats that Joseph is so much the more truly a father in that he is so spiritually and virginally;⁹ he is the true father of Jesus according to the spirit, as Mary is His true Mother according to the flesh. The Evangelist is, therefore, fully justified in calling this blessed couple conjointly the parents of Jesus.

Mary and Joseph, no doubt, resumed their old occupations in their humble abode at Nazareth; in addition to which they had now to provide for the care and the education of the Divine Child. He had been pleased to have Himself treated as other children of His nation, by subjecting Himself to all the rites and precepts of the Old Law; it is not surprising, therefore, if Mary and Joseph, who had fulfilled these obligations for Him when, being an infant, He was unable to do so for Himself, should continue, in proportion as His age increased and permitted it, to direct and instruct Him in exercises of piety—He Himself manifesting such to be His desire—bringing Him up in accordance with the precepts of the Law given to Israel, and in all things which were conformable and suitable to their own condition in life. This would appear to us a very difficult and delicate duty for Mary and Joseph to perform towards their Son, so as at once worthily to correspond to the office with which they were charged, and duly to recognize the dignity of that Son.

Some observations on this subject which Vincenzo de Vit makes in his Life of St. Joseph¹⁰ are worthy of being here quoted. Referring to this difficulty, he is of opinion that there exists in the very disposition of human nature itself a mode of conciliation. “It is an observation,” he says, “which experience daily confirms, that among the various inclinations which it has pleased the Creator to implant in our human nature, there are two which strikingly manifest themselves in children from their earliest days: the tendency to imitation or to the reproduction of those acts which they see performed by those who surround them; and curiosity, or the desire to know what these same acts signify. Now, there cannot be the smallest doubt but that the Child Jesus, by reason of His human nature, must have been endowed with all these natural qualities in their fullness and perfection, in virtue of which Mary and Joseph would, without in the least ignoring who He truly was, be drawn, as it were, without willing it and, I may even add, sweetly drawn and guided by Himself to the discharge of their parental office.” That the Child Jesus had the first of these qualities, De Vit illustrates and proves from what He Himself said to the Jews with reference to His Divine Sonship. They had reproached Him with making Himself equal to God, and this was His reply: “Amen, amen, I say unto you, the Son cannot do anything of Himself, but what He seeth the Father doing; for what things soever He doth, these the Son also doth in like manner. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things which Himself doth.”¹¹ Now, this writer argues, if Jesus taught this of His Divine Nature, we may readily believe the like of Him in regard to His Human Nature, which in Him must have been most perfect. “Whence it may be concluded,” he says, “that if it is the nature of the son to imitate his father, it is only necessary, in order to educate him, to set before him the example of his parents. Let these be perfect and the education will be perfect; and perfect, therefore, was the education of the Child Jesus. For His Heavenly Father had given Him in Mary such a mother as was a perfect vessel of election in the fullest sense of the term; nor was Joseph unlike her in the perfection which was her appanage; the same Eternal Father having chosen him to be her companion and cooperator in a ministry of so delicate a nature. . . . But example is not sufficient; the son needs something more. Scarcely has he learned from his parents the use of speech when immediately, from that innate desire which he has to know and understand, he besieges them with a thousand various questions, calling for an answer which cannot be evaded. Not otherwise, I believe, did the Child Jesus act with regard to His Mother and St. Joseph; and I feel it to be sufficient proof of this, that He behaved in a similar manner with the Doctors of the Law in the Temple, as we shall see, ‘hearing them and asking them questions’.”¹²

An example of the solicitous care which the parents of Jesus took of His religious education is afforded in their yearly visits to Jerusalem to keep the Paschal solemnity, which was the occasion, when He was twelve years old, of the incident to which reference is here made, and which we are about to narrate more fully.