The Gospel of Luke: Divine Developments

Transcript

JRNT 75
02/2/2025
The Gospel of Luke: Divine Developments
Luke 2:36-38
Jesse Randolph

Well, we are back in our study of Luke’s Gospel this morning. And we’re going to pick it up in chapter 2:36. Last time I was up here, that was two weeks ago, we had Dwight Oswald last week, giving his riveting exposition of Isaiah 40. But last time I was here, we covered Luke’s account of a man named Simeon, a man in Jerusalem who had long been anticipating the coming of the Messiah. And this morning we’re going to encounter a woman in Jerusalem, a woman named Anna, who like Simeon, was holding onto a similar messianic hope, which she was about to see realized in the Child that was cradled at that very moment in Simion’s arms.
Our text for this morning is Luke 2:36-38. I thought I’d get to 40 this morning, I deceived myself. Luke’s account here, is of this woman named Anna, and how her story fits within this overall narrative of events surrounding the birth of Jesus.

Let’s look at Luke 2:36-38, God’s word reads: “And there was a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin, and then as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the temple, serving night and day with fastings and prayers. And at that very moment she came up and began giving thanks to God, and continued to speak of Him to all those who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.”

The story of Anna, like the story of Simeon, is reported only by Luke. And note how Luke launches into this description of Anna in a way that really shadows his introduction of Simeon a few verses before. Back in verse 25 Luke began this way in describing Simeon: “And behold there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon.” And now here in verse 36, he begins his description of Anna with these words: “And there was a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher.”

Now, right away in this first sentence, we see Luke giving us a few key details about this woman. First, of course, her name was Anna. That’s a name which comes from the Hebrew name Hannah, which means grace or favor. And we’re going to see that name really fit Anna well. Since she was another one of these witnesses to the birth account of Jesus who was clearly walking with the Lord and clearly had received favor from the Lord. Second, we see that she was the “daughter of Phanuel” or as some translations have it, Penuel. And this is the only time we see this man mentioned in the entire New Testament, right here in verse 36, where he is identified as Anna’s father. Now that name Phanuel, by the way, means face of God. And that reminds me of 2 Corinthians 4:6 which says, “God, who said, ‘Light shall shine out of darkness,’ is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.” Its possible here, that Luke, by mentioning Phanuel’s name and tying in the fact that Phanuel’s daughter, Anna, would soon be literally beholding “the glory of God in the face of Christ,” is alluding to that 2 Corinthians 4 idea, though that idea did come later with Paul, but the same idea of beholding God’s glory in the face of this precious little One. All we really do know is that Luke, by mentioning Phanuel, Luke, even by mentioning the name Anna here, he really did know his Jewish history. And he really did know his Jewish genealogies. And he’s trying to bring it all to bear here to Theophilus, to explain about this Messiah who had come into the world.
The third thing we see here from verse 36, is that this woman, Anna, daughter of Phanuel, was “of the tribe of Asher.” So, this elderly Jewish woman, as we’re about to see, this very elderly Jewish woman, could trace her genealogy all the way back to the tribe of Asher.

Now, we’re going to spend a little time now doing some Old Testament excavation to see what this “Asher” reference is all about. The story of Asher goes all the way back to the book of Genesis. In fact, turn with me, if you would, to Genesis 27. We’ll really zero in on Genesis 30, but we’ll go back to 27 to get sort of the highlight here and a running start. This is, of course, that whole account of the story of Jacob. You recall, Jacob is the son of Isaac. Isaac was the son of Abraham. Jacob is the twin brother of Esau. And not only did Jacob grab the heel of Esau while they were both in the womb, we remember he played that fast one on Esau in front of their father, Isaac. Recall that scene where Isaac, who is now old and his eyes are failing him, and then Jacob, with the prompting of his mother, Rebekah, goes up to him pretending to be Esau, pretending to be Isaac’s firstborn. And then through this pretense and duplicity, he steals the blessing that rightfully belonged to Esau, his brother. Well, that angered Esau. Look at Genesis 27:41, it says: “Esau bore a grudge against Jacob because of the blessing with which his father had blessed him; and Esau said in his heart, ‘the days of mourning for my father are near, then I will kill by brother Jacob.’” Well, it also upset Isaac that he had been deceived. Look up the page at verse 33, it says: “Then Isaac trembled exceedingly violently” when he learned of this deception. And it provoked the mother of the two boys, Rebekah, to urge Jacob to flee to Haran, where her brother,” that would be Jacob’s uncle Laban, “lived.”

And before Jacob departed for Haran, his father Isaac gave him this command in Genesis 28:1. Look at Genesis 28:1, it says, this is Isaac to Jacob: “You shall not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan. Arise, go to Paddan-aram, to the house of Bethuel your mother’s father; and from there take to yourself a wife from the daughters of Laban your mother’s brother.”
So Jacob then sets out for Haran, along the way he has this dream of a ladder. The top of the ladder is touching heaven. Angels are descending and ascending upon that ladder. And then from there, as he draws near to Haran, he lays his eyes upon Rachel. Genesis 29:17, and Rachel there is described as being “beautiful in form and beautiful in appearance.” And it was love at first sight. Look at verse 18: “now Jacob loved Rachel.” And so much did he love her, that he was willing to serve her father, Laban, his uncle, seven years in order to take Rachel’s hand in marriage. And he did so, verse 20: “So Jacob served seven years for Rachel, and they were in his sight but a few days because of his love for her.” Some Valentine Day cards write themselves, like that one right there.

Well, after his seven years of service for Rachel were up, it was time for her father, Laban, of course, to give her up. But you recall the story. Laban deceived Jacob on the wedding night, by giving Jacob his other daughter, Leah, instead. Jacob had worked and bargained for Rachel, but through her father’s deception, he actually consummated a new marriage to Leah. Well, Laban then tells Jacob, well, if you serve me for another seven years, then you can have Rachel as your wife. And we’re told in Genesis 29:30 that: “Jacob went in to Rachel also, and indeed he loved Rachel more than Leah, and he served with Laban for another seven years.” So, he did what was asked of him. And then look at verse 31: “And Yahweh saw that Leah was unloved, and He opened her womb.” And then Leah gives birth to four sons. To Reuben. To Simeon. To Levi. To Judah. And then Rachel, though loved by Jacob, she was barren. She was unable to conceive children. And so, Rachel gives Jacob her maidservant Bilhah to conceive children of her behalf. And the first was Dan, he’s mentioned in Genesis 30:6. The second was Naphtali, he’s mentioned in Gensis 30:7-8. So, we’re up to six sons of Jacob. Then verse 9, we see “Leah saw that she had stopped bearing, so she took her servant-woman Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a wife.” And then Zilpah bears a seventh son to Jacob, that’s Gad, he’s mentioned in verses 10-11. And now, look at Genesis 30:12-13, it says: “And Leah’s servant-woman Zilpah bore Jacob a second son.” That would be son number eight, overall. And then this, verse 13: “Then Leah said, ‘Happy am I! For women will call me happy’ So she named him Asher.” Later, through Leah would come two more sons, Issachar and Zebulun. And then through Rachel would come two more sons, Joseph and Benjamin. Making for twelve sons of Jacob. And ultimately, twelve tribes of Israel.

But tying that back to our study of Luke’s Gospel, this woman, Anna, could trace her genealogy as a Jew living in this time, all the way back to Jacob’s eighth son, Asher. Asher, and the tribe that was named after him, is mentioned in just a couple of other places in the Old Testament. In fact, if you flip ahead to Genesis 49, we have this scene where Jacob, father of Asher, now an old man, is preparing to die. He’s preparing to pass off the scene. And before he does so, he brings his sons together to tell them what would become of them and of the lines that would carry their name forward. Look at Genesis 49:1, it says: “Then Jacob summoned his sons and said, ‘Gather together that I may tell you what will befall you in the last days. Assemble together and hear, O sons of Jacob; and listen to Israel you father.’” And he goes down the list here. Starting with Reuben, and then Simeon and Levi and then Judah. And then Zebulun and Issachar, and Dan and Gad. And then look what he says in verse 20 of Asher. Genesis 49:20, “As for Asher, his food shall be rich, and he will yield royal dainties.” Now what Jacob’s words were pointing to, ultimately, is that the people in Asher’s line, the tribe of Asher, would ultimately settle in this agriculturally rich region near the northern coast of Canaan.

In fact, if we go ahead to the book of Joshua… so, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua… if you go to Joshua 19, what we’ll see here, would be the exact parameters of the land that would ultimately be allotted to the tribe of Asher, in fulfillment of what Jacob said to his son, Asher, back in Genesis 49, once the people entered into the Promised Land. Look at Joshua 19:24, I suspect this will not be in your devotions tomorrow. But it’s profitable for our study. It says: “Now the fifth lot came out for the tribe of the sons of Asher according to their families. And their territory was Helkath and Hali and Beten and Achshaph, and Allammelech and Amad and Mishal; and it reached to Carmel on the west and to Shihor-libnath. Then it turned east toward the sunrise to Beth-dagon and reached to Zebulun and to the valley of Iphtahel northward to Beth-emek and Neiel; then it went out to the north to Cabul, and Ebron and Rehob and Hammon and Kanah, as far as Great Sidon. Then the border turned to Ramah and to the fortified city of Tyre; then the border turned to Hosah, and it ended at the sea by the region of Achzib. Included also were Ummah and Aphek and Rehob; twenty-two cities with their villages. This was the inheritance of the tribe of the sons of Asher according to their families, these cities with their villages.”

Why am I taking you through all of these details related to the tribe of Asher? Will there be a quiz on this after this morning service? No. I bring it up, for starters, because it’s clear that Luke found it important to include this detail related to Anna and her linage, as he was moved by the Holy Spirit, to write what he wrote to Theophilus. So, if the Holy Spirit deemed it important to give it to Luke, to give it to us, I deem it important to give it to you, as we figure out what was all behind Anna’s linage.

Not only that though, I think it’s important to trace out this detail about Anna being from Asher’s line, to weed out some bad theology which continues to pollute the religious landscape even of our day. For instance, for decades now, there have been people from various colors and nationalities who claim that they are the true Jews today. That they are the true Israel today.
Now, let’s refresh ourselves just a bit more on some biblical history here. We remember that King Solomon was the last king over united Israel, before there was the division into the northern and the southern tribes. The kingdom though after Solomon’s death did split in two. There were the ten tribes in the north, including Asher. Then there were the two tribes in the south, Judah and Benjamin. In 722 B.C. the northern tribes are conquered. They’re hauled off into captivity by Assyria. And according to some, they were not only conquered and hauled away, but those ten tribes, including Asher, not only never returned to the land but no record of them was ever kept. They were completely wiped off the historical map, as the argument goes. This is what’s called the “lost tribes of Israel” idea.

Now, I mentioned just a minute ago, people of various colors and nationalities and what they’ve done with this idea of the “lost tribes” concept. On the European-Anglo side, if I can say it that way, certain theories have been advanced as to these “lost tribes.” And the theory goes that after they were hauled away, after their time in captivity in Assyria came to an end, they migrated. Not back to the land, but north across the north of Europe. And then they went across the English Channel to England, ultimately. And of course, many of the North American settlers were English, so wouldn’t you know it, here we are, we’re Israel. That’s one theory.

On the other side of the ‘color nationality spectrum’ is what’s known as the Black Hebrew Israelite movement which is rooted in the belief that blacks today are the direct descendants of the ten lost tribes of Israel. So, the idea is that the ten tribes, as originally constituted, no longer are. That the ten tribes, including Asher, are now represented by the black community. That it was actually, they would say, the transatlantic slave trade and the introduction to Christianity by slaveholders that severed blacks from their fundamentally Jewish roots. And that’s where you get the whole idea of blacks today needing to get back to their Hebrew roots. That whole idea of the ‘Hebrew roots’ movement has been around, at this point, well over 100 years. It has had certain spikes in popularity at different stages of development with certain black religious movements. For instance, the Black Power movement, the rise of the Nation of Islam. You’ve seen a spike in Hebrew roots theology. Even today, cultural icons, Kanye West, Kyrie Irving, the point guard for the Mavericks, they are claiming that blacks are the true Israelites today.

Well, what both movements, whether on the white end of the spectrum or the black end of the spectrum, advocate is a form of replacement theology, the idea is that the original ten northern tribes of Israel are lost and forever gone. And there’s no record of them whatsoever. And all of these tribes, the ten original tribes they’ll say, were wiped off the face of the map once they were carted off to Assyria. And now, they have been replaced by these different and disparate groups.

Now, I have at least two lines of objection to that way of thinking and to those theological camps. The first one goes along with Revelation 7 and the scene that we see painted there. Go with me, over to the final book of the bible, Revelation 7. As pastor Aaron mentioned, we’ll start our Revelation series tonight. I don’t think I’ll get to Revelation 7 tonight. Something tells me I won’t get that far. But Revelation 7, we’ll just read starting in verse 1: “After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, so that no wind would blow on the earth or on the sea or on any tree. Then I saw another angel ascending from the rising of the sun, having the seal of the living God; and he cried out with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea saying, ‘Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees until we have sealed the slaves of our God on their foreheads.’ And I heard the number of those having been sealed, 144,000 sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel: from the tribe of Judah, 12,000 having been sealed, from the tribe of Reuben 12,000, from the tribe of Gad 12,000, from the tribe of Asher 12,000, from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000, from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000, from the tribe of Simeon 12,000, from the tribe of Levi 12,000, from the tribe of Issachar 12,000, from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000, from the tribe of Joseph 12,000,from the tribe of Benjamin, 12,000 having been sealed.’”
So if, as those who hold to this lost tribes theory say, those tribes were truly taken away, forever taken away, never come back, and never will come back, because they’ve been replaced by various different modern day people groups, then how do you explain the plain meaning of this text? Which involves and describes 144,000 persons, 12,000 from every – what? – tribe. The answer is you can’t. The only way you can read these words, for instance, in verse 6, that there’ll be “from the tribe of Asher 12,000” as meaning something other than there’ll be 12,000 from the tribe of Asher present at this scene is by playing some sort of linguistic game where the words of the text don’t mean what they say on their face.

Then there’s this, I mentioned two objections, here’s my second objection to the whole lost tribes of Israel theory. And this one brings us back to our account. In fact, you can go back with me to Luke 2, our passage, verse 36. Recall that the whole lost tribes theory rests on this belief that the ten northern tribes vanished after 722 B.C. And not only vanished, but there’s no record of them forever at this point, after they were taken into captivity. Well, Anna lived some 700 years after this supposed wiping out and erasure of the ten tribes of Israel, the ten northern tribes of Israel, from all history books for all time. What does Luke say in verse 36? There’s this woman “a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher”, it doesn’t say she’s of the former tribe of Asher, the disappeared tribe of Asher, the lost tribe of Asher. No, she’s from the “tribe of Asher.” Not only did Anna apparently know her family background and what tribe of Israel she came from, but so did Luke, as this historian. What does that tell us? Well, the first thing it tells us is that the Jews of this time were keeping records of their family registers and genealogies up to date. So that even some 700 years after being exiled, a member of the tribe of Asher, such as Anna, could identify herself and be identified as being from that tribe. But what this also does, it totally eviscerates the foundation of those who today will wrongly teach, that whether they are white or black, that they are the new Israel. No, they’re not. Israel is Israel. Anna was of Israel, specifically, she was of the tribe of Asher. And Luke found this detail important enough to include it in his account for Theophilus.

Now, we skipped a key detail. You probably picked up on this, about this woman, verse 36. Luke gives us her name, Anna. He notes that she’s “the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher.” We just worked through that. But we can’t ignore this: that she was a “prophetess.” What does that mean, she was a “prophetess? Well, some have taken this to mean that she was exclusively a forthteller. By that I mean she was somebody who took what was already-written in God’s revealed word and explained it. So, she was exclusively, some would say, an Old Testament teacher. Doing something very similar to what I’m doing right now. Taking the text of a printed page and teaching it.

Now, the other view would be she was a foreteller, predicting things that were to come. Speaking on behalf of God. Receiving revelation from God. Truly prophesying in the sense of offering insight from God, revealed to them through her. Now, I get why some will say, they get really nervous when we talk about her being a prophetess. They will say that she could have only been an Old Testament teacher. She was a forthteller, not a foreteller. And I get the heart behind the concern there. Because we’re so steeped in our day with snake-oil salesmen on TBN trying to pitch the new charismatic gifts that they say they have. And we’re so resistant to, and concerned with, and rightfully so, the charismania that exists in certain churches, where people are running wild, calling themselves prophets and prophetesses, and apostles and such. That there’s a natural resistance to see the word “prophetess” here and think it must be something more like a bible teacher like what we’re used to in the Church Age.

But here’s my challenge. Let’s not read our presuppositions and our hangups back into the bible and what was revealed at that time and what was normative at that time. Rather, let’s read the bible progressively as we’re called to do, as it unfolded in real time, in real history. And when we do so we’re going to see that certain gifts, like prophecy, existed in this moment in history.
In fact, Paul, as he’s writing in 1 Corinthians 14, this is well after the life of Anna here, he says this, Paul does, in 1 Corinthians 14:1, “Pursue love, yet earnestly desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.”

And that’s what we have here. You know, I don’t think Luke here is using the word “prophetess” to merely portray Anna as being a female teacher of the Old Testament, being a forthteller. She could have been doing that. But I think the word “prophetess” here has a wide enough range of meaning, especially as we look at it historically, to suggest that what she was doing, was foretelling. Declaring on behalf of God, even predicting, truly prophesying. To borrow from the words of Deuteronomy 18:18, God was putting words in her mouth and she was speaking those words on His behalf.

One reason I arrive at that conclusion is what we see back in the Old Testament. I won’t take you to all these passages but you can jot down, there are at least three references to Old Testament prophetesses that Anna would have stood in the line of. One of those would have been Miriam, Aaron’s sister, in Exodus 15. I won’t take you to that passage, but Miriam was described in Exodus 15:20 as a prophetess. One I will take you to is Deborah. Go with me, over to Judges 4. So, after Deuteronomy, we have Joshua, then we have Judges. Look at Judges 4. And note here, as I’m reading through this, see if you can detect, is the prophetess who spoken of here, is she doing forthtelling, teaching the Old Testament, teaching God’s word as already revealed? Or is she doing foretelling?

This would be the account of Debroah in Judges 4, pick it up in verse 1, it says: “Then the sons of Israel again did what was evil in the eyes of Yahweh. Now Ehud had died. And Yahweh sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor; and the commander of his army was Sisera, who lived in Harosheth-hagoyim. Then the sons of Israel cried to Yahweh; for he had 900 iron chariots, and he oppressed the sons of Israel severely for twenty years.” Now here she comes, “Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. And she used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment. Then she sent and summoned Barak the son of Abinoam from Kedesh-naphtali and said to him, ‘Has not Yahweh, the God of Israel, commanded, “Go and march to Mount Tabor, and take with you 10,000 men from the sons of Naphtali and from the sons of Zebulun? And I will draw out to you Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s army, with his chariots and his many troops to the river Kishon, and I will give him into your hand.’” So, you have there with Deborah, God speaking through her to the people that are in her midst. “Has not Yahweh, the God of Israel commanded”, verse 6. She’s prophesying. She’s foretelling.

Now, turn with me, over to 2 Kings 22, where we’re going to see another example of an Old Testament prophetess. This would be Huldah. 2 Kings 22, keep going right until you get to 2 Kings 22. And for this one, we’ll pick it up in 2 Kings 22:14. Again, I want you to listen out for, is this forthtelling, or foretelling? Verse 14: “So Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Achbor, Shaphan, and Asaiah went to Huldah the prophetess,” there we go, “the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe (now she lived in Jerusalem in the Second Quarter); and they spoke to her. And she said to them, ‘Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, “Say to the man who sent you to me, thus says Yahweh, ‘Behold, I am bringing evil on this place and on its inhabitants, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read. Because they have forsaken Me and have burned incense to other gods that they might provoke Me to anger with all the work of their hands, therefore My wrath is set aflame against this place, and it shall not be quenched.’” But to the king of Judah who sent you to inquire of Yahweh thus you shall say to him, ‘Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, “Regarding the words which you have heard, because your heart was soft and you humbled yourself before Yahweh when you heard what I spoke against this place and against its inhabitants that they should become an object of horror, and a curse, and you have torn your clothes and wept before Me, I truly have heard you,”’ declares Yahweh.” So, she is speaking to them directly, but she’s very clearly speaking on behalf of the Lord, to them. She is prophesying, foretelling. So, there’s our example. These are our examples of Old Testament prophetesses, in whose line Anna stood.

And even when we get to the New Testament in the Church Age, we still see women prophesying while this gift was still in operation before the canon of scripture closed. I won’t take you there, but in Acts 21:8-9. Remember, Luke is the one who would have been the human author of the book of Acts. We learn of Philip the evangelist. He had four daughters, four virgin daughters, who prophesied. So, in other words, in Anna’s time, the prophetess was a legitimate office. It took various forms. It could have been forthtelling, but it very much could have been foretelling as we’ve seen from these Old Testament examples. So, back to Luke 2, Anna was not only the daughter of Phanuel. She was not only of the tribe of Asher. She was a prophetess.

Now, moving on. We’re told next, verse 36, middle of verse 36, that: “she was advanced in years having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin, and then as a widow to the age of eighty-four.” Now, the first part of that statement is very straightforward. Anna, it says, was “advanced in years.” That’s the same description Luke gave Zechariah and Elizabeth back in Luke 1:7 where he says of the two of them: “they were both advanced in years.” Meaning, they were old. Zechariah, Elizabeth, Anna, they were all old. That’s the clearest statement there. Now, the second part of the statement in verse 36 still, is also straightforward. Where it says: “having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin.” So, what that’s telling us is that Anna was married to her husband from what would have been a typically early-teen age, likely 13 or 14, just like Mary with Joseph. And that her husband died when she was 20 or 21, seven years later. And we know her husband died, because she’s called a widow in verse 37. But here comes the hard part. Not only does it say that Anna “lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin.” That’s easy to calculate and quantify. But you see it there in verse 37, it says: “and then as a widow to the age of eighty-four.”

Now this is where, at least for a guy like me, this gets fun. Because there’s a split of opinion out there. There are different arguments out there, about what it is that Luke is actually saying here. Is the idea that Anna had been a widow up to the age of 84? Which is what the LSV and NASB translations seem to indicate. Or is the idea that Anna had been a widow for 84 years after her husband died around the age of 20 or 21? Now, I want to be clear, this is not a let’s-split-the-church-over-this kind of discussion. This is not a let’s-break-fellowship, a sheep-versus-goat, heaven-or-hell kind of matter. So, with that qualification out of the way, I do want to let you know; I take the minority view here. The minority view is that she had been a widow for 84 years, meaning that by this point in the narrative, she was probably 104 to 105 years of age. The reason I arrive at that conclusion boils down to the language of the underlying Greek text. Which literally says this: “and she a widow up to eighty-four years.” As I read that, what it seems Luke is doing is linking the number 84 to Anna’s widowhood. Not to eighty-four to how old she was at that time. Now, I get it, that might sound awfully incredible that God would use a woman this old, at this stage of her life. But when you really think about it, as we’ve been studying in the Gospel of Luke, it wouldn’t be unlike God at all, to use such unlikely means to bring about His message of salvation coming through the Messiah, Jesus. I mean, for goodness sake, Elizabeth had a once barren womb in which she conceived. Mary was a young teenage, virgin girl when she conceived. So, is it all that outside the realm of possibility that Anna could have been 104 or 105 years old at this part of the narrative? Again, not going to die on the hill. Just sharing my interpretation. I take the number 84 here, not to be pointing to her age, but rather how long she had been a widow. She was not only advanced in years, she was very advanced in years.

Now, the next thing Luke tells us about this woman, is that she was not just incredibly old, but incredibly pious and devout, and active. Look at the next part of verse 37, it says: “She never left the temple, serving night and day with fastings and prayers.” And here’s another interpretive choice we need to make. Some have said that when it says here “she never left the temple”, this is referring to her residence. Like she literally lived at the temple. That somebody, somewhere along the way, made her some sort of makeshift dwelling in which she could live. That would have been somewhere in the court of women, the only part of the temple courtyard that she could have been in. That’s the idea that some will articulate. I don’t think that’s what’s being communicated here. And the reason I say that, is the phrase that Luke uses here, when he says that “she never left the temple.” The underlying idea here, the underlying statement here, is that she “continued not to withdraw” from the temple. That’s the literal rendering, she continued not to withdraw. So, that idea has much less to do with where she laid her head each night. But rather, more so that she practically spent her life at the temple, specifically in its courts, specifically in the court of women. Right? Like in this day, you’ll hear that expression, “That guy never leaves the church, he’s always at the church, it’s like he lives there.” I think that’s what’s happening here with Anna. She “never left the temple.” Not in the sense that the temple was her dwelling place, where she put her head on the pillow each night. But rather, the sense here that her earnest longing was always to be in the place where God was known to dwell. It really tracks with different Psalms. Like David in Psalm 122:1 says: “I was glad when they said to me, ‘Let us go to the house of Yahweh’.” David also said in Psalm 84:2: “My soul has longed and even fainted for the courts of Yahweh.” That’s I think the idea here.

And really, the point of this passage where Luke is saying what he’s saying about her in verse 37, he’s not really communicating where she lived. But ultimately, how she lived. Note the language there: she never left the temple, “serving night and day with fastings and prayers.”
I mean, just right away, note the number of godly traits of this woman, Anna, that are jumping off this page. There’s obviously longevity. I’m arguing that it was for 84 years post widowhood. She was devoting herself to the service of the Lord in the temple. So, hers was not a fleeting faith. Certainly, there were parts of her body that were starting to ache and deteriorate. But her servant’s heart kept ticking on. Note her priority, her clear priority. No longer married, of course, she’d been a widow for most of her life. Her concentrated focus and effort was on serving the Lord. Her advanced age didn’t deter her from devoting herself and consecrating herself to the Lord’s service.

Another trait we see here was her humility. You know, she’s a prophetess. That’s highlighted here by Luke. But note what Luke doesn’t highlight is that she’s speaking these powerful words from the Lord for all who are in her presence. Instead, what Luke deems worthy of mentioning about Anna, is that “she never left the temple, serving night and day with fastings and prayers.” Now, she was qualified to, she was authorized to speak for God. But what she spent most of her day doing, apparently, was drawing near to God in these very personal means.

Next, we see her perseverance. We read through it fast, but note, it said that she was serving night and day, and then the words are plural, with “fastings” and “prayers.” Not just “a” prayer. Not just “a” flair prayer. Not just one occasional fast. She was persevering. The plural forms here tell us something. She offered prayers and fastings. She prayed without ceasing. She regularly deprived herself of food and basic necessities like that, out of a desire to draw near to the living God. Anna was in continual communion with the God of Israel, the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. No doubt praising Him for who He is. But also pleading with Him on behalf of her people, the Jews, the Israelites, that He would bring to fruition the fulfillment of His promises to bring His Messiah to them. She was a devout, righteous woman. And she was a battle-tested woman. As a woman who had lost her husband at such a young age. No doubt she had asked God “why” on occasion. No doubt she had experienced feelings of loneliness and desolation as a first young, and later middle-aged, and later old widow. No doubt Satan had tempted her to despair at different times along the way. But as those crease lines formed on her forehead, as her cheeks started to sink, as her hair whitened, Anna, by grace, overcame them all. She persevered. And she gave all that she had, in her service to the Lord.

There’s no doubt that everyone of us here this morning can learn something from this example here of Anna. Right? I mean, couldn’t we all seek to learn from her example of longevity? Refusing to look at ourselves as being short-term or part-time servants, by refusing to grab onto that mentality that I will only serve as long as it’s convenient for me? Or as long as I’m getting acclaim or being served by others? Couldn’t we all seek to learn from her example of priority, making sure all of our life is ultimately an act of spiritual service to God? What does Romans 12:1 say? “Present your bodies as a sacrifice – living, holy, and pleasing to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.” Couldn’t we all seek to learn from her example of humility, making sure that we never take the position or the view that because we have one set of gifts that we’re above serving others in other ways? Or that we’re above needing to draw near to God in prayer, to have fellowship with Him, communion with Him.

Anna was a noble, devout, and godly example, and in many different ways. And as we come to verse 38, we see that she, as she lived out that example, she was very aware of what she was waiting for. And more pointedly, Who she was waiting for. Look at verse 38, it says: “And at that very moment she came up and began giving thanks to God, and continued to speak of Him to all those who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.” Now, to get our bearings here, the words at the head of the verse there, “at that very moment,” that tied this back to the last two sections of Luke’s Gospel that we’ve been studying. Recall that Joseph and Mary, they left Bethlehem, they’ve come to Jerusalem, and they do so to do what? To present, dedicate, consecrate their newborn Son, Jesus, to the Lord. That’s back in verse 22, it says: “And when the days for their cleansing according to the Law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord.” That’s that scene where they offered the two turtledoves or the two pigeons. They paid the redemption tax, as they dedicated, consecrated, presented their newborn Son to the Lord.

Then, last time we saw from the account of Simeon, it’s as these two new parents are going through that dedication process, that consecration process in the temple in Jerusalem. Simeon spots them, and he spots the infant that they’re with, Jesus. And then look at verses 27-28, speaking of Simeon here, it says: “And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus to carry out for Him the custom of the Law, then he took Him into his arms and blessed God.” And then the thanksgiving blessing comes in verses 29-32, these are Simeon’s words: “Now Master, You are releasing Your slave in peace, according to Your word. For my eyes have seen Your salvation, which You prepared in the presence of all peoples, a Light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for the glory of Your people Israel.” Then Simeon, you’ll remember, gave Mary those words of prediction, dire words in verses 34-35, where he says: “Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed – and a sword will pierce through your own soul as well – that the thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.”

Now, fast forwarding to our passage, verse 38, and this account of Anna. It was “at that very moment”, as it says there. Which moment? Well, the moment that whole scene involving Simeon, we looked at last time, took place. That’s what’s wrapped in with the words “at that very moment.” Meaning, Anna was there to witness Simeon. She spotted Simeon taking the Child Jesus into his arms. She was there, at least in the vicinity, when Simeon blessed God and said, verse 30: “my eyes have seen Your salvation.” She was there when Simeon said what he said to Mary, about what her Child would go through. And the grief and the anguish that she would go through. It was “at that very moment” that Anna, you see it there, verse 38: “came up.” So, she walked up to this small group of people, Joseph, and Mary, and Simeon, with Simeon holding the Infant Jesus in his arms. And as Anna comes up to this group, she recognizes whose presence she’s in. She’s convinced that the Child that’s now being held in Simeon’s arms was indeed the Messiah. And so, filled with gratitude, middle of verse 38, she “began giving thanks to God.” She gave thanks to God for sending His Messiah. She gave thanks to God for bringing the promised Redeemer. The One through whom God would fulfill His promises to her people, Israel.

And not only did she give thanks to God. But then she, you see it there, “continued to speak of Him to all those who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.” In other words, the thankfulness that she was experiencing internally, flowed out in her proclaiming externally. She was a prophetess and so she prophesied. She spoke on behalf of God, she acted as a mouthpiece for God as prophets and prophetesses at this time did. And at the heart of her prophetic words was her announcement to anyone who would listen, that through this Child who had just been born to Joseph and Mary -- the Messiah, the Promised One, the Christ had arrived. The One who had been anticipated would bring redemption, as it says there, to Jerusalem.

Now, those last few words there, “redemption of Jerusalem”, they are theologically packed.
To the Jews of this time, the idea of Messiah coming was linked to their understanding that when He came, He would bring about redemption, rescue, in Jerusalem. In fact, if you would, go back with me, over to the book of Zechariah. Zechariah is the second to last book in the Old Testament. So, hang a left, go to Matthew, buzz past Malachi, and turn to Zechariah 12. Zechariah in various places speaks of the mighty hand of deliverance that God was going to bring against Israel’s enemies as He redeemed her as a people. Zechariah 12:8 says: “In that day Yahweh will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the one who stumbles among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of Yahweh before them. And it will be in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.” So, you see the protection, the standing in, for Jerusalem that’s being described there. Now, go over to Zechariah 14, where we’re going to see even more about Jerusalem’s one-day victory and security. Zechariah 14:9 says: “And Yahweh will be king over all the earth; in that day Yahweh will be the only one, and His name one. All the land will be changed into a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem; but Jerusalem will rise and inhabit its site from Benjamin’s Gate as far as the place of the First Gate to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the king’s wine presses. And people will inhabit it, and there will no longer be anything devoted to destruction, for Jerusalem will be inhabited in security.”

What these passages and passages like these, they are all over the Old Testament, what they show, is that there was an understanding at the time of Jesus’ birth that the Messiah, when He came, would bring about the defeat of the enemies of Israel and the restoration of Jerusalem, and peace in Jerusalem. There was this understanding also though, that when the Messiah came, it wouldn’t just be about victory, political victory, as Jerusalem’s sorrows and desolations came to an end. At the same time, there was the promise, in the Old Testament even, that He would turn, God would turn, the hearts of His people back to Him. So, it wasn’t just an external political victory, there was going to be internal heart change that would go along with that victory.
In fact, that’s exactly what we’ve seen so far in Luke’s Gospel. About the heart change that the coming of the Messiah would bring. Recall what the angel Gabriel said to Zechariah about the Messiah’s forerunner in Luke 1:16: “he will turn many of the sons of Israel back to the Lord their God.” Recall what Mary said in her Magnificat in Luke 1:47: “my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.” Recall what Zechariah would later say, as he prophesied over his now newborn son, John, in Luke 1:68: “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He visited and accomplished redemption for His people, and raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David His servant.” Zechariah then says in verse 76 of Luke 1: “And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High, for you will go on before the Lord to make ready His ways, to give to His people the knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins.” Or when the angel Gabriel appeared to the shepherds out in the field, in Luke 2:11, he says to them: “For today in the city of David there has been born for you,” a what? “a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.” And then Simeon, we saw this last time, as he’s holding the newborn Jesus, what does he say? Luke 2:30, as he is holding this child he says: “For my eyes have seen Your salvation, which You prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for the glory of Your people Israel.”

In other words, Anna here, in verse 38, as she spoke of Him, as it says there: “to all those who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.” What she was doing was stepping into a long line of witnesses, who were waiting for the exact same thing. They were waiting for deliverance. They were waiting for the victory. They were waiting for the salvation, that the Messiah would ultimately bring.

And then, think of this. We’re told here in verse 38, that Anna “continued to speak of Him to all those who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.” Well, necessarily included in that word, or that group “all”, would have been Mary who as we’ve seen, was not only this devout Jewish girl who knew and followed the scriptures. She was not only the mother of this newborn Child, the Messiah. But going back to our last time in this text, she had just been rocked with some heavy truth from Simeon. Look at verses 34 and 35 again, where he says to her right before this: “Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed – and a sword will pierce through your own soul as well – that the thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.” In other words, Mary had just been told that this brand-new baby boy of hers would later, as Daniel 9:26 says, be “cut off.” And that a sword would pierce through her own soul. Meaning her new-born Child would not only Himself face this agonizing death, but His death would naturally cause her, as His mother, great agony and grief, as well.
Now, think about what Anna is saying here, as she speaks to all who were there, who are “waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.” Think about how what Anna is now saying might have struck young Mary. Having heard the dark news of what Simeon had just shared with her. She’s now receiving this reassuring news from Anna. That it would be through her Son that redemption, the redemption of His people, ultimately would come.

One has to at least wonder whether Mary some thirty years after this moment where she’s right there with Anna, as she now stood at the foot of her Son’s bloody cross, might have reflected back on these words from Anna. Might have thought back as she had just witnessed the agony and the death that her Son had gone through, that Anna had reminded her thirty years prior that He would also through that death bring hope and joy and thanksgiving to all who are “waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.” And one even has to wonder, as Mary in that moment at the foot of the cross thinks back to what Anna had told her all those years before when she was this young teenage mother -- if Mary, scripturally saturated as she was, might have thought of these words or words like them, from Psalm 130:5: “I hope for Yahweh, my soul does hope, and for His word do I wait. My soul waits for the Lord more than the watchmen for the morning, the watchmen for the morning. O Israel, wait for Yahweh; for with Yahweh there is lovingkindness, and with Him is abundant redemption. And it is He who will redeem Israel from all his iniquities.”
Not only, we know, would the Messiah, Jesus, offer redemption to Israel, the very reason that we’re sitting here this morning at this part of the world in this place called a church, proclaiming the name of Jesus, is because that redemption and salvation that Jesus offered initially to Israel was later then extended out to the Gentiles like you and me, as His gospel went out to the ends of the earth. And we praise the Lord for that!

Well, we have made it through Luke’s account of Anna. It’s a short account. There’s certainly a lot there. But before we close there is something on my heart that I want to share with our church, for our long-term health as a church, and for our benefit. It is very possible… I’m very tuned into as I work through a text like this all week to prepare to deliver it to you. It is very possible to work through a text like this that we’ve been working through this morning, and if we’re not totally careful we can completely miss the point. We can miss out on how this text fits in with the broader purpose and point of Luke’s Gospel. Remember, Luke is writing here to tell a Gentile named Theophilus about Jesus. That’s the whole point of this. And sometimes, if we’re not careful, in circles like ours, and frankly with preachers like me, where we can sort of lose sight of the forest for the trees. We can be so busy obsessing with the shape of certain twigs on the tree, or the color of the bark on the tree, that we lose the larger landscape of the Gospel of Luke and why God saw fit to include this book in His canon of scripture. Now, part of this responsibility admittedly falls on me as the preacher to make sure I’m regularly tying us back to the overall flow of the narrative here and bring us back to the purpose of this Gospel that God gave Luke to give to us. But part of that responsibility also falls on you as the hearer as the one who is called with the Holy Spirit’s conviction to take this back into your lives and apply it.

Why am I bringing this up? I bring this up because since I became the pastor of this church a little over 2 ½ years ago now, I’ve heard from several people, some newer people, some longstanding members, that they just learn so much during these sermons. That the sermons are so informational. That coming to church, I’ve even heard it said, is like going to seminary.
Now, while on the one hand I can appreciate the sentiment. I think it’s coming from a good heart, that’s communicating an expression of appreciation for how the Word is carefully handled from this pulpit, week in and week out. But I also have to say it totally terrifies me that that might be the mindset of some in our church who think that coming to church is like going to seminary. Or like going to school. Just a place that we go to fill up our minds with information.

Friends, the church is a hospital. It’s a place full of spiritually sick sinners who come, needing to have their wounds bound up. And their fears and their worries addressed. And the love of Christ and the love of the whole body of Christ poured out on them. We should think of the church as a hospital. We should think of the church as a house. A church is, after all, 1 Timothy 3:15, called the “household of God.” It’s family. Those who give of ourselves to one another in a variety of different ways. I gave our all-church update last Sunday night. And, you know, I gave a glowing report on statistics and metrics and numbers and figures about all the ways we’re doing well on paper as a church. But I have to say, how we’re doing on paper is not going to impress the Lord of the church. The One who is building His church, the One whose church this is. He wants our hearts. John 21, the Lord to Peter, He doesn’t say, How many bible facts can you report to me? He says, “Do you love Me?” And when we stand before Him one day, when you stand before Him one day, I can assure you, I can say this with confidence, He is not going to ask you if you can recite all twelve tribes of Israel in order. He’s not going to ask you if you have a strong position on whether Anna was 84 or whether she was widowed for 84 years. He’s not going to ask you if you made perfect attendance for every Sunday evening church service. He's going to ask you how you loved and served one another and so proved to be His disciples.

It is wonderful… I hope you hear me when I say this, it is wonderful that we have a church full of members with dog-eared bibles. It is wonderful that so many of you can play stump your pastor, and ask me questions in the south lobby, that I’ve truly never even thought about. That’s good. It is totally wonderful that the word of God is being proclaimed from this pulpit, as it has been for decades past. But the question is Colossians 3:16, is the Word of Christ richly dwelling in you? Is the Word cutting and convicting you? Is it transforming your very wants and desires? Is it motivating and prompting you, spurring you on to service of others in this body? I know I’m poking a little bit. Now, I’m going to jab. Is the Word having such an impact on you that you are being intentionally welcoming and hospitable to new folks as they come into these doors? Is the Word having such an impact on you that you’re willing to break out of your comfortable, familial bubbles to go meet someone new? Is the Word having such an impact on you that you’re willing to move from the chair that you’ve been sitting in since the Reagan administration to go meet somebody on the other side of the auditorium? Is the Word having such an impact on you that you find yourselves praying actively for the members of this body? Is the Word having such an impact on you that you’re seeking earnest accountability for the sin that’s still dogs you from other members who would pray for you and hold you close? Is the Word having such an impact on you that you are sharing your faith? Is it having such an impact on you that you’re inviting others to this church?

Or instead, has this all become routine for you? Got to service – check. Hear a message – check. Learn something new about Anna – check. Go home and take a nap – check. Come back next Sunday and do it again. As the man who’s responsible for feeding this flock in a gathered setting like this through the preaching of God’s word, I have to say, that if all you’re getting out of this is a lesson each Sunday… I can’t stand the word “lesson”, it sounds like we’re going to math class. If that’s all you’re getting is a lesson, information, head knowledge, then something’s missing. Something has gone horribly awry. And something has to change. Not only for your benefit. But for the overall and benefit of this church. We cannot be that church full of people who are stuck on routine. And not enraptured with the Savior. We cannot be that church that is steeped in sound doctrine, but inept when it comes to living out our faith with fellow believers. We cannot be that church that’s full of mere hearers of the word, who refuse to be doers of the Word. And we cannot be that church that’s like Ephesus, with our noses pointed up in the sky because we know our doctrine better than that group, or that church, or that individual all while having lost our first love for Christ.


Here's my challenge to you. And I know I’m way over time. We are officially now through the birth narrative of Jesus. It took us 9 months – I thought that’s fitting. We’re about to start getting into the life of Christ. Here’s my challenge. Don’t come to church next Sunday, or any Sunday with the idea that you’re just here to acquire some new biblical data point that you can file away for your information. Don’t come here with the idea of I’m simply going to learn something interesting that I’ve never thought of before, like going to a museum. Instead, think about how, as we all work through the life of Christ in however many weeks, months, or years it takes us, we’re going to grow in our love for Him. Our devotion to Him. And our earnest desire to be more like Him. Here in this church. In our homes. Everywhere else He takes us. That’s the challenge. That will be my ongoing prayer. We’re way out of time.

Let’s pray. Lord, we thank You for this chance to be in Your word this morning. We thank You for the account of Anna, her righteous, godly character, and what it highlights about a woman who loved You and sought Your plans and purposes. God, may we be a church, like I just articulated, that would not be a church made up of mere hearers, but a church that’s made up of passionate doers. Who seek to draw near to You, as Anna would draw near to You. And seek to bring glory to Your name in all aspects of our life. We pray these things in Jesus’ name. Amen