And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh. – Matthew 2:11
(Greek) 3813. Paidíon: a young child, an infant, a little child, little one; properly– a child under training– (“a little child in training”) implies a younger child (perhaps seven years old or younger). Some scholars apply 3816. (país) to a son or daughter up to 20 years old.
Upon the arrival of the Magi, one might ponder the generally accepted age of Jesus: Was Jesus really an infant upon their arrival, or was He possibly much older than our basic assumption? This assumption is largely surmised from Herod’s murderous decree against male children two years and younger. Yet, is it likely that the wise men were intuitively aware of Herod’s deadly intentions? Therefore, it seems only natural that the Magi would have concealed the child’s true age– though tragically, still having to produce an answer to the dark-hearted ruler.
In further speculation, one can’t help but notice that the psychological control over the narrative is much easier to direct if Jesus was a baby upon the Magi’s arrival– helpless, innocent, and pure. This concept is one that most can relate to and (frankly) fall in love with almost instantly– as opposed to the possibility that He was an adolescent: still generally innocent and pure, but certainly exposed to the world and its corruption prior to the Magi’s arrival and anointing. Thus, Jesus’ age and physical circumstance (during this mysterious time) is put on a wider range and speculative ground.
Now turning to Joseph: Was Joseph– His step father– more than just a simple laborer? Was Joseph– the artisan, the craftsman, the carpenter– actually a man of much higher learning, proficient in technique that far surpassed that of a simple wood-worker?
Is not this the carpenter‘s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? – Matthew 13:55
5045. Tektón: a craftsman, a carpenter, an artisan; taken from the base of 5098. timória: punishment, penalty, avenge myself on; from 5097. timōréō, “authorized to administer recompense, punishment”– punishment, meted out from the view of the offended party, emphasizing the value-system (standards) of the punisher; from the Greek 5092. timé: a price, honor, a valuing.
In Joseph’s case, simply stated: Due to the scarcity of actual wood in that region– it’s much more likely that Joseph was not only a craftsman, but a stonemason. There is really no need to ruminate over the resounding connotations surrounding Jesus’ possible association with masonry. Though, if this possibility is legitimate: At the very least, His family’s knowledge comes not by some random fluke, but from a higher lineage of a specified understanding that would have been passed down throughout the generations. Could it be with Joseph– as with Abram of Chaldea– that he was a descendant of a significantly higher lineage of spiritual intelligence?
Now returning to Jesus and His physically unique personhood, could He– as a young child under training– have had a moment of self-revelation, an alignment with that innate awareness that must have been overwhelming since before He could recall? Could Jesus have been shown solidifying information of His Godhood by not only His mother, “father”, and the Magi, but also from (arguably) His long-rooted relations and time spent in Egypt? Now setting aside for a moment Jesus’ Spiritual Nature, we mustn’t forget His actual personhood, a characteristic that He shared with every man on earth. Therefor, one ponders over the extent of Jesus’ natural intuition towards common life. Thus, did Joseph in fact teach the divine Lógos of Theós in any capacity? Therefore, could Theós have allowed Himself (Lógos manifested) to be taught and/or even intended for a process of observation and self-intended revelation?
Due to a few brief mentions of Jewish ignorance in Scripture, many have claimed that Jesus was intellectually (Law of Moses) “unlearned”, often using this ridiculous idea as posture to defend (of all things) His omniscient Godhood (which we do not oppose). In spite of this atrocity of intellect, we attest that Jesus (our Lord and Savior) was, in fact, quite learned– a man (Lógos manifested) who stemmed from a lineage of immense understanding and technical ability. Additionally, regarding Scriptural context, we postulate that Jesus (upon returning from Egypt to Israel) was likely perceived (at best) as a loosely-related outsider, a newcomer, the Egyptian-Jew, someone the Jews thought had obtained no formal training from the principle teachers of the Law– thus rendering their astonishment wholly unsurprising.
With that said, regarding His time in Egypt: It seems plausible that Jesus was not as unlearned as many assert– rather, that Jesus was taught with great care and intelligence from a very early age (and possibly, from a very ancient lineage) about who He was, and who He would become. It’s been theorized that Joseph would have hidden his family within the community of the Qumran-Essenes, and thus they would have been the source of Jesus’ learning. This theory, though arguably valid in many respects, still leaves one to ponder another group similar to the Essenes, though unique in their own interpretations. Those within this group lived in Northern Egypt from roughly the turn of the first century and were claimed by Philo of Alexandria to be ascetic philosophers, those given to perfect goodness and a contemplative life, those of great temperance, who were known to be physical and spiritual healers. They were the Therapeutea– a sect of Alexandrian Jews whose spiritual practices are strikingly similar to that of Jesus (i.e., the renunciation of property, solitude during the six days of the week and the gathering together on Saturday for the common prayer and the common meal, severe fasting, keeping alive the memory of God, continuous prayer, meditation, and study of Holy Scripture). Additionally, the word therapeutea is clearly the source for our modern word therapeutics.
(Greek) therapeutae/ therapeutides: to heal, cure, worship; treatment, or healing in a spiritual or medical sense.
The vocation of these philosophers is at once made clear from their title of Therapeutae and Therapeutrides, a name derived from £åòáðåàö, either in the sense of “cure”, because they profess an art of healing superior to that practiced in the cities which cures only bodies, while their’s treats also souls oppressed by grievous and wellnigh incurable diseases, inflicted by pleasures and desires and griefs and fears, by acts of covetousness, folly and injustice, and the countless hosts of other passions and vices; or else in the sense of “worship” because nature and the sacred laws have schooled them to worship the Self-existent, Who is better than the Good, purer than the One, and more primordial than the Monad. – Philo of Alexandria