A layman's commentary on John 1:47-51. What was it that captured Nathanael's attention and caused him to believe?

 Since I managed to lose my first attempt at this commentary on John 1:47-51, I will try once again.

Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and *said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!" Nathanael *said to Him, "How do You know me?" Jesus answered and said to him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." Nathanael answered Him, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel." Jesus answered and said to him, "Because I said to you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You will see greater things than these." And He *said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."
(John 1:47-51 NASB)

This conversation was initiated with Philip, excitedly looking for Nathanael. Nathanael, it seems, comes back at Philip with the rather notorious statement, What good thing can come out of Nazareth. In spite of his bad attitude, he follows Philip to see Jesus; thus, we see the narrative above, where Jesus now sees Nathanael, and like the prodigal's son, He comes toward Nathanael.

I would not, even for a second, tell you that I see Nathanael as anything other than another Israelite who is willing to fight to preserve his right to be entrenched in the law.

And yet, what does Nathanael say in response?

How do you know me?

This is another of those events where we are not given the precise details. How much would your attitude change if you found out that Jesus may have run to Nathanael, arms outstretched, demonstrating the love He had for this young man?

Because Jesus said, I saw you under the fig tree, Nathanael declares, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; ...the King of Israel.”

Jesus replied, Because I said to you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You will see greater things than these." And He *said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."

What was it that captured Nathanael's attention and caused him to believe?

It was the Signs, which were carried out through words and wonders.

I know many of you want to argue that there were no signs involved with the drawing of Nathanael. If that is what you believe, and it is based upon religious tradition, we can only fix that by adhering to the word of God.

The concept of signs is entwined in words, and everything Jesus said to Nathanael can be found in the Torah and the Tanach. The impact of signs is found in the 10 plagues.

“Moses told Aaron all the words of the LORD with which He had sent him, and all the signs that He had commanded him to do. Then Moses and Aaron went and assembled all the elders of the sons of Israel; and Aaron spoke all the words which the LORD had spoken to Moses. He then performed the signs in the sight of the people.”
(Exodus 4:28-30 NASB)

In Genesis 1:14, we see the Hebrew word for signs – 'ôth. It means a signal, beacon, evidence, a mark or a sign.

Genesis 1:14-15 NKJV Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; (15) and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.

If God is explaining His actions to an entity, who would that entity be?

In our foolishness, we like to claim that it was Jesus or humanity. The problem with that thought process is that Jesus is God, and John's gospel tells us that He was the creative force that spoke everything into existence.

John 1:1-3 NKJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) He was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

If you are going to cling to the idea that it was man or humanity, then your argument is pointless, for we have no evidence, by scriptural standard, that there was any trace of humanity upon the earth at this time.

In Deuteronomy 6, we see the LORD showing signs.

Deuteronomy 6:22 NKJV and the LORD showed signs and wonders before our eyes, great and severe, against Egypt, Pharaoh, and all his household.

Those words, passed through Moses, became the plagues (signs) that were poured out upon Pharaoh and Egypt.

Moses tells Aaron what he heard. Aaron believes and responds by performing the actions he is compelled to do.

“You are to speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his land. But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I will multiply My signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, Pharaoh will not listen to you. Then I will lay My hand on Egypt, and by mighty acts of judgment I will bring the divisions of My people the Israelites out of the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 7:2-4 BSB)

“In time “... the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out My hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out from among them.”
(Exodus 7:5 BSB)

The Berean Study Bible announces this plague to be the first.

“So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD had commanded. Aaron threw his staff down before Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a serpent. But Pharaoh called the wise men and sorcerers and magicians of Egypt, and they also did the same things by their magic arts. Each one threw down his staff, and it became a serpent. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up the other staffs.” (Exodus 7:10-12 BSB)

Is the event with the staff the first plague?

The answer to that question is not defined for us. However, is it possible that this is the first because God later says to Moses, “take the staff that was changed into a snake.”

The next thing we see is Aaron, at Moses' command, throwing down Moses' staff before Pharaoh and the wise men and sorcerers and magicians of Egypt. They, in turn, did the same thing, but Moses' staff, which had turned into a serpent, consumed all of their staffs, which had also turned into serpents. Quite impressive.

I suppose that for an event to qualify as a plague, it would have to touch the population. An event, such as turning all the water into blood, would have such an effect on the nation.

• Water Turned to Blood. The First Plague.

  “Go to Pharaoh in the morning as you see him walking out to the water. Wait on the bank of the Nile to meet him, and take in your hand the staff that was changed into a snake. Then say to him, ‘The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, has sent me to tell you: Let My people go, so that they may worship Me in the wilderness. But you have not listened until now. This is what the LORD says: By this you will know that I am the LORD. Behold, with the staff in my hand I will strike the water of the Nile, and it will turn to blood. The fish in the Nile will die, the river will stink, and the Egyptians will be unable to drink its water.’” (Exodus 7:15-18 BSB)

I think it is fair to say that this plague, right off the bat, puzzles me. It seems that God expressly speaks of the Nile River, and that would make sense, for how could God affect the water, in pots, in their homes?

What a ridiculous question to ask. God is not constrained by physics or our walled buildings in which we store our water jugs, no matter what they are made of. Besides that, consider that Jesus walked through a locked door when He came to be with the disciples who were gathered in the upper room.

John 20:19-20 BSB It was the first day of the week, and that very evening, while the disciples were together with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them. “Peace be with you!” He said to them. (20) After He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.

This demonstration by signs in Egypt continues.

“And the LORD said to Moses, 'Tell Aaron, ‘Take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt—over their rivers and canals and ponds and reservoirs—that they may become blood.’ There will be blood throughout the land of Egypt, even in the vessels of wood and stone.”
(Exodus 7:19 BSB)

So, nothing was excluded. If that is the case, then explain to me how this next phase of this plague happened.

“But the magicians of Egypt did the same things by their magic arts. So Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said.” (Exodus 7:22 BSB)

Where did the wizards get clean water so that they could make it bloody and useless?

Aside from the disgusting after effects, you would think that there was no fresh water left in the region, and yet, Pharaoh's sorcerers found some clean water and turned it into blood.
Where did they find fresh water?

I cannot imagine.

• Frogs, the second plague.

By themselves, or in small quantities, they might almost be tolerable, but to have frogs in everything would be unbearable.

So the river shall bring forth frogs abundantly, which shall go up and come into your house, into your bedroom, on your bed, into the houses of your servants, on your people, into your ovens, and into your kneading bowls.”
(Exodus 8:3 NKJV)

Just a couple of fun side notes:

And the magicians did so with their enchantments, and brought up frogs on the land of Egypt. (Exodus 8:7 NKJV)

What verse 7 tells me is that the dark work of the demonic is not to be toyed with.

Did you ever pay attention to how God got rid of them?

“Then Moses and Aaron went out from Pharaoh. And Moses cried out to the LORD concerning the frogs which He had brought against Pharaoh. So the LORD did according to the word of Moses. And the frogs died out of the houses, out of the courtyards, and out of the fields. They gathered them together in heaps, and the land stank. But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them, as the LORD had said.” (Exodus 8:12-15 NKJV)

• The Third Plague: Gnats.

“So the LORD said to Moses, "Say to Aaron, 'Stretch out your rod, and strike the dust of the land, so that it may become lice throughout all the land of Egypt.' " And they did so. For Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod and struck the dust of the earth, and it became lice on man and beast. All the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of Egypt.”
(Exodus 8:16-17 NKJV)

How could gnats be such a problem? The answer is easily understood just in numbers alone. There is dust everywhere. If you have been bothered by them while fishing or working around livestock. They will enter every available orifice on your body.

• The land is ruined by flies. Plague #4.

  “Or else, if you will not let My people go, behold, I will send swarms of flies on you and your servants, on your people and into your houses. The houses of the Egyptians shall be full of swarms of flies, and also the ground on which they stand. And in that day I will set apart the land of Goshen, in which My people dwell, that no swarms of flies shall be there, in order that you may know that I am the LORD in the midst of the land. I will make a difference between My people and your people. Tomorrow this sign shall be." ' " And the LORD did so. Thick swarms of flies came into the house of Pharaoh, into his servants' houses, and into all the land of Egypt. The land was corrupted because of the swarms of flies.” (Exodus 8:21-24 NKJV)

This is right there with gnats in terms of annoyance. Aside from their ability to bite or lay eggs that can infest your body. The eggs can turn into meat-eating larvae. They are associated with death.

• The Egyptian Livestock Die. The Fifth Plague:

“then the hand of the LORD will bring a severe plague on your livestock in the field—on your horses, donkeys, camels, herds, and flocks. But the LORD will make a distinction between the livestock of Israel and the livestock of Egypt, so that no animal belonging to the Israelites will die.’”
(Exodus 9:3-4 BSB)

Unlike the plague that is to come, where the “death” angel kills the firstborn of all who were NOT covered by the blood on the doorposts, it is possible that Moses had a hard time convincing the Israelites that God could do such things. He not only could but would.

“And the next day the LORD did just that. All the livestock of the Egyptians died, but not one animal belonging to the Israelites died.”
Exodus 9:6 BSB

• The Sixth Plague: Boils

  “So the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 'Take for yourselves handfuls of ashes from a furnace, and let Moses scatter it toward the heavens in the sight of Pharaoh. And it will become fine dust in all the land of Egypt, and it will cause boils that break out in sores on man and beast throughout all the land of Egypt." Then they took ashes from the furnace and stood before Pharaoh, and Moses scattered them toward heaven. And they caused boils that break out in sores on man and beast. And the magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils, for the boils were on the magicians and on all the Egyptians.”
  (Exodus 9:8-11 NKJV)

• Hail, the seventh plague.

I feel like I am boring you with this information about all the plagues. If you wish, look them up for yourselves, as there are three more.

Why was God doing all this?

Exodus 9:13-16 NKJV Then the LORD said to Moses, "Rise early in the morning and stand before Pharaoh, and say to him, 'Thus says the LORD God of the Hebrews: "Let My people go, that they may serve Me, (14) for at this time I will send all My plagues to your very heart, and on your servants and on your people, that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth.

15. Now if I had stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with pestilence (so that you die), then you would have been cut off from the earth.

And finally, the 16^th verse speaks to us as well. When it says, “that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Open your mouth and declare the wonders.

15. But indeed for this purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.

Well then, come and see, and therefore the two disciples heard and followed. John 1:36-42.

 Previously we learned that a primary function of John the baptizer’s mission served was to announce that Jesus was manifested to Israel.

Did that happen?

Yes, but from a human standpoint, many looked at the baptizer as a crazy man; after all, look at what he wore and ate.

When the Jewish leaders showed up, he challenged them, calling them vipers – a term that gave them an association with the serpent that Moses raised up on the pole; it represented evil, poison, and death. It is challenging to perceive John as a live-screen billboard declaring that the Messiah is here. With a rant like this, you might be inclined to say that God was unfair toward the Jewish leadership, seeing as the voice doing the announcing, though a son of a priest himself, was, at best, peculiar. But never forget that at Jesus’ birth, in Bethlehem, there was, what we assume, an astrological alignment of stars that effectively pointed right to the spot where the Messiah was born.

Did the Jewish leadership accept that fact even though it was declared through the Torah and the Tenach, books that are the foundations of our faith and lead us to Yahshua, the Messiah?

No, those same leaders were quickly brought before Herod because he became alarmed that a relatively large entourage was coming their way and may have been a threat to Herod’s rule. So he asked the Jews if they knew what was going on; they did, and they quoted the words. Ah, but the Jews refused to accept this baby as the Messiah.

Approximately thirty years later, they are no less inclined to accept Jesus as the Messiah.

“Again the next day, John was standing with two of his disciples, and he looked at Jesus as He walked and *said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” 
(John 1:35-36 NASB)

I began looking for a translation that would solidify this statement with a Jewish feel and perhaps give us a blast of clarity. Look at what I found; I prefer something else to this translation, but with three words, it dominates the reality of why Jesus was here. 

“He looked up, saw Jesus walking nearby, and said, “Here he is, God’s Passover Lamb.”
(John 1:36 MSG)

“He” is referring to John, the baptizer.

Serving as the Passover lamb is one of the functions of Jesus as the Messiah.

What do we have that bears witness to this statement? 

“And Abraham said, My son, God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering. So they both went together.”
(Genesis 22:8 MKJV)

Statements such as John’s and what we see in Genesis 22:8 could be interpreted in at least two ways. One would be that God would arrange to have a sacrifice provided, which is precisely what God did in the case of Abraham and Isaac. The other way of reading this passage conveys that God would provide Himself as the lamb, which is precisely what God did for those who believe and follow.

John the baptizer said of Jesus, Behold the Lamb of God. Every Jew hearing this bold assertion made a prompt association with: 

• The forgiveness of sin; 

• The faithful actions of Abraham as he made the substitutionary sacrifice and, therefore, did not kill Issac, his firstborn – according to the promise; 

• The lamb that was slain on the night of the Passover. The blood of that lamb was painted on the doorposts and the lentil as a symbol of God's possession, and it became protection from the wrath that was to come upon the firstborn of everyone not covered by the blood that night.

If they had been willing to see, (This simple phrase carries a broad meaning as the “they” would have been inclusive of any in Egypt, whether they followed the lead of God's people that night. It is not likely that they would have painted the blood because there was more to it than that, but there was nothing that prevented a scared Egyptian from seeking shelter from the wrath, which, if you follow that logic through, speaks volumes about a God of mercy that is beyond my comprehension.) they would have seen that the Messiah would be the substitutionary sacrifice, removing the penalty for all sin and all humanity. Like the Jews that day, we all have to apply some faith and trust in Him, receiving Him as the King over our lives.

“The two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.” 
(John 1:37 NASB)

Context! The Apostle John refers to John – the baptizer, as the speaker. 

The Apostle John (and yes, I am aware that John was not given this title until much later, but it helps, especially here, to identify who is talking), when talking about events that included himself, never inserted his own name. This could be what is happening here in John 1:37. And that is the story I am going to hold to unless there is a historical account that details who this other disciple was.

Does the Apostle John's intentionally vague acknowledgment of himself affect the message and our perception? 

Not as long as we pay attention to the context.

An example of context that gave me trouble occurred as I looked at Matthew’s account of the briefing initiated in Matthew 24:1 that Jesus gave to the disciples on the Mount of Olives. 

“Now when Yeshua went out and was going away from the Temple, His disciples came up to point out to Him the Temple buildings.”
(Matthew 24:1 TLV)

Assuming you realize that none of the disciples understood that Jesus was to be the substitutionary sacrifice because they were looking for Him to be the military rescuer of Israel that would relieve them from Roman rule and oppression. As I read Matthew 24:1, the disciples come across as traumatized war veterans, and the fact that they had to defer to alluding to the megalithic stones that were part of the temple’s construction, which was well-known to all, was nothing less than bizarre and obviously, embedded in some previous action or conversation. I returned to Matthew 22 to find the context surrounding the question and Jesus’ response. The point here is that you must be willing to do your appropriate homework.

We are told these two disciples followed the Messiah, whether or not they fully understood or believed. 

Follow is the Greek word akolouthéō, and means to attend, accompany, go with, or follow a teacher.

Isn’t this what He desires from us today - To attend, accompany, and stay close by His side as we follow Him?

“Yeshua turned around and saw them following. He said to them, “What are you looking for?” They said to Him, “Rabbi” (which is translated as Teacher), “where are you staying?”
(John 1:38 TLV)

The Modern King James Version indicates that He said, “what do you seek?” Whether Jesus rudely asked, “What are you looking for?” is irrelevant and improper because He would not have been blatantly rude. I find it easier to believe that He said, “what do you seek?” Both versions of the question are rather open-ended and could imply a variety of responses. What the Jews sought was Jesus, a rabbi that could and would teach them and lead them; regrettably, they did not fully realize that.

Just the day before, Jesus had been baptized by John and had not only the Holy Spirit come upon Him, but the Father acknowledged Him as the Son in whom He was well pleased. In a sense, we did not see Him leave.

Strangely, Matthew records this as though there is a precise chronological timeline.

“Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry.”
(Matthew 4:1-2 NASB)

Where did John the baptizer do most of his baptizing?

“Now in those days John the Baptist *came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying,”
(Matthew 3:1 NASB)

It was south of Jerusalem and Bethlehem. That is approximately 87 long miles by foot between Capernaum and Judea. So Jesus did not make any overnight round trips between these two points.

It is Matthew that tells us that Jesus had just come from Galilee.

Then Jesus *arrived from Galilee at the Jordan, coming to John to be baptized by him.
(Matthew 3:13 NASB)

For them to ask Him where He was staying, especially when He doesn't live around the area, tends to indicate that they were looking for permanence in their relationship with Him.

“Come and see,” Yeshua tells them. So they came and saw where He was staying, and they spent that day with Him. It was about the tenth hour.”
(John 1:39 TLV)

The series, “The Chosen,” initiated their series with these very words, Come and See. Those words still ring true in contrast to I don't believe, well then, come and see.

The Lamb of God willingly proved who He was and still is today, consistent.

“Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John speak and followed Yeshua.”
(John 1:40 TLV)

All this proves is that Andrew, the brother of Simon, the fisherman, became one of Jesus' first disciples based upon what he heard from Jesus and a drive to follow Him.

“First he finds his own brother Simon and tells him, “We’ve found the Messiah!” (which is translated Anointed One).”
(John 1:41 TLV)

So Andrew goes and finds his brother Simon. He tells him, “we have found the Messiah!” The Complete Jewish Bible states, (CJB)  "We've found the Mashiach!" (The word means "one who has been anointed.")

The word Mashiach is the Greek word Messias. It is a proper noun transliterated from the Hebrew term Māshı̄ach. It corresponds with the Greek word Christós. The words are meant to indicate a consecrated or anointed person. In ancient times not only the king, but also the priest and the prophet were consecrated to their calling by being anointed. In the OT, the word is used in its literal sense, meaning one who has been anointed. This understanding of the OT is the manner in which those hearing Andrew's exclamation would have been directed. [Word Study Dictionary]

“Andrew brought him to Jesus, who looked at him and said, “You are Simon, son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which is translated as Peter).”
(John 1:42 BSB)

In just a matter of hours, Peter is standing before Jesus/Yahshua.

Did he realize that this was the Mashiach that they longed for?

I doubt it, but then there was the Holy Spirit coming upon Jesus and that voice that called Him the beloved Son.

Nonetheless, Jesus, in the process of introducing Himself, immediately designates Peter as Cephas, or, as the Tree of Life version, which was written for Messianic church groups, indicates that Peter was to be called Kefa (which is translated as Peter).” We have been told over the years that this name applied to Peter, meaning the rock - an indication that he was to be solid, steadfast, and dependable.

If you watch The Chosen, they show Peter's frailties. While scripture does show us those things, it does show us Peter's reactionary actions in the garden when cutting off Malchus' ear, and we are shown his denial and how it affected Peter. After Jesus' death, Peter seems to have reverted back to being a fisherman, and a few others joined him. The fascinating end to this story was Jesus' way of handling Peter by calling him back into the game, eating lunch with the men, and directly reaffirming Peter, just as He does with us.

Considering that it is the Christmas season, I chose to do a character study on Joseph.

It doesn't feel like I have time, but I want to do a character study on Joseph, the man who married Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Let's set something straight right off the bat. 

Although Mary is considered the mother of Jesus, she was merely a surrogate that carried a fertilized egg. I understand that most of you that have some religious background wish to fight with me already. The reason you want to fight is that what I said goes against your theological training and tradition.

Why would I be comfortable saying that Mary was merely a surrogate? Because, we humans, ALL of us, is broken. To use an egg from a broken human being would have caused Jesus to be born into sin and that would have made the payment of God's flesh for our sin, null and void. You see, we have to understand the depths of Adam's actions to understand this, and that is a direction I had not planned on taking this. 

Look at these verses.

2 Corinthians 5:21 NASB (21) He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

The word “Knew” reaches into the idea of a virgin who knew NO man, much like Mary. 

Jesus had NO sin in Him.

1 Peter 2:22 NASB WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH;

First, let me say that I copied this straight from the NASB. So for them to put these words on a page as capital letters mean to imply the force and enthusiasm with which they perceived Peter saying them. The translators perceived Peter yelling to get his point across.

Secondly, when I consider the phrase “nor was any deceit found in His mouth,” most of us understand that Jesus never sinned and, therefore, was NOT worthy of any of the punishment He submitted himself too. And yet, we see Jesus making a whip and driving the vendors out of the outer courts.

John 2:14-15 NASB And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money-changers seated at their tables. (15) And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables;

Now think about what just happened here. Having observed what was going on, Jesus found the necessary items to build such a device, and then use it on particular people - the vendors. The legal system looks at a chain of events, such as this, as premeditated. For you and me, this is flagrant sin.

What did Peter say? "He did not sin."

What about this word deceit, does that tell us anything? 

Deceit is the Greek word dólos and generally means fraud, guile, deceit. So my take away from this is that Jesus was NOT fraudulent or deceitful in His actions. I can also comprehend that God saw nothing wrong with the actions and words of Jesus. Consider this:

John 5:19 NASB Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

Jesus did nothing unless He saw the Father doing it, or heard the Father say it. That incident with the whip was merely Jesus acting out what the Father had asked Him to do.

Matthew 21:13 NLT  He said to them, “The Scriptures declare, ‘My Temple will be called a house of prayer,’ but you have turned it into a den of thieves!”

The house of prayer aspect points prominently to Isaiah 56:7. Jesus added the part about them, turning it into a den of thieves.

“I will bring them to my holy mountain of Jerusalem and will fill them with joy in my house of prayer. I will accept their burnt offerings and sacrifices because my Temple will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” NLT

At this point, we have established that:

• Jesus was born of an implanted, fertilized egg - a necessary method as it bypassed the contamination of the broken nature that is integrated into all humanity.
• Mary, a virgin, was a willing, bearer of the fertilized egg (although the entire process, it seems, was not explained to Mary – that was not necessary) and soon-to-be mother of God's Son. She was (most likely), by a familial, contractual agreement engaged to Joseph. 
• Joseph was a descendant of King David, and his hometown was Bethlehem.
  Joseph, we are told, was a righteous man. The short explanation of Joseph's righteousness comes from the Word Study Dictionary, where it says, “In the N.T., those that are called righteous (díkaioi) are those who have conditioned their lives by the standard which is not theirs, but God's. They are the people related to God and who, as a result of this relationship, walk with God.” There is only one way to perceive this man; he had a solid knowledge of the Torah and followed the Jewish law. It is evident by this statement that many knew of his comprehension and actions. (He may have been an elder.)

If he knew the law, as I stated, then he knew this,

Deuteronomy 23:2 NASB, "No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

Hold that thought, for we will come back to it shortly.

Mary, the virgin. (Yes, I am very much aware that this is a character study on Joseph, but you have to keep in mind that everything in scripture is integrated into the entirety of God's plan.)

As I am writing this, a prominent fact is jumping out at me. The stories we were told as children are not lining up with the Word of God. This misalignment is one of the reasons that we need to read the scriptures for ourselves. Luke 1:26-38 is an excellent place to start when looking at Mary, for it gives you many of the details. Mary's hometown was Nazareth. The distance between Nazareth and Bethlehem is approximately 120 kilometers or a little over 80 miles. Not a comfortable walk, and therefore makes me think about how God so casually arranges the meetings of our life, and, how did Joseph know of, or meet Mary. This thought process lends itself more to the contractual marriage idea, an idea that plays into a family's economy.

The Birth of Jesus Foretold.

A couple of things I want to point out. The NASB entitles this section the Birth of Jesus Foretold, however, by jumping straight into Luke 1:26, and 27, we lose the context.

Now in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. (Luke 1:26-27 NASB)

The context of this moment has everything to do with Mary visiting her relative, Elizabeth. Without the proper context, some, like me, might start thinking about the Jewish month Sivan, and what would be happening then, and what does any of this have to do with the birth of Jesus?

Secondly, In Luke 1:27, we have a piece of information that I have never noticed before. Mary is referred to as a virgin twice. 

To the Jews, repetitive words were recognized as God's way of getting your attention or enforcing a prophetic point. Because of the chain of events that are about to transpire, it may be immensely important that the readers/listeners understand, beyond a doubt, that this girl was a virgin.

I started this writing by pointing out that Mary was merely a surrogate mother.

What is it that makes a woman a NON-virgin? Intercourse, willingly or not. 

Mary never experienced what that might be like, but would have had the sage advice of say, her mother, when she thought it was necessary, to explain the gritty details. I suppose none of this is essential information, and to some degree, tasteless. Still, if Mary, the virgin, is about to become pregnant without sexual contact, the typical evidence an angry mother would demand to see would not be there, and yet, just a few months later, Mary would be showing. All these details suddenly thrust upon her, had to be so confusing.

Remember that I told you to hold that thought about Joseph being a righteous man; and how, as a righteous man, he would have had extensive knowledge of the Torah/Jewish law.

A person of illegitimate birth may not enter the assembly of the LORD; to the tenth generation, no one related to him may do so. (Deuteronomy 23:2 NET.)

Many of Mary's neighbors also knew the law, and because Mary stood her ground and insisted that this child, she is so obviously carrying, is God's and NOT Joseph's, she is either thought to be a liar or an adulterer. The negativity would have spilled over onto Joseph, and everyone would have been looking at this righteous man, not only with the stink eye but the "you know what to do eye." None of these neighbors would have allowed Mary, Joseph, or the child into the Synagogue or Temple, however, as most of you know, Jesus entered the Synagogue, as was His custom, opened the scroll of Isaiah, and read the prophecy that spoke of Him.

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners; To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn, (Isaiah 61:1-2 NASB)

And the strangest thing happened, those who acknowledged Him, called Him Rabbi – teacher. Where did they come to this understanding?

In reading Luke's gospel, we just left off with the narrative about Elizabeth, who should be well beyond childbearing years, and she is the wife of an old priest named Zacharias. She is now six months pregnant with the baby that will soon be named John the Baptist. (Luke 1:1-26.)

Luke 1:1-26 is where things are less than clear to me. I think this confusion stems mainly from the flannel board stories of my youth and religious traditions that have marred the chronological timeline in my head. You see, I always assumed that Mary went to see Elizabeth simply to get away from the hostility of the neighbors in Nazareth. Pay attention to this next part of the story.

Matthew 1:18 NASB Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, however, before they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

Matthew just threw us into fast forward, so we need to go backward in time to when Gabriel tells her what God's plan is.

Luke 1:26-27 NASB Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, (27) to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

It is almost as though the story starts here, but as you know, it started back when God opted to have Joseph become engaged to Mary. Remove from your thinking that she is some assertive, twenty-something, pre-med student because that is not even close. She could have been anywhere between twelve and sixteen. Twelve-year-old children do not often have their wits about them, but a sixteen-year-old might. Based upon the upcoming conversation, and the fact that she stood her ground against Joseph and her neighbors, I would lean toward sixteen.

Now in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you." But she was very perplexed at this statement and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was. The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end." Mary said to the angel, "How can this be since I am a virgin?" The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, and for that reason, the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. "And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age, and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month. "For nothing will be impossible with God." And Mary said, "Behold, the bond-slave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her. (Luke 1:26-38 NASB)

Things I see in this transaction between Mary and Gabriel.

• And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."
  I suppose we watch too much television, but I cannot begin to imagine, in this world where I feel like I have to watch my back all the time, how I would perceive this event. That is unless this was a notable event.
  The Greek word coming is eiserchomai and carries meanings that imply to enter a room, to possess someone, or to enter their thoughts; all of these could apply here.
  An example from the Bible comes to mind where Abram has a vision. We see this in Genesis, chapter 15. This passage is the vision in which God lays out the Abrahamic covenant. This vision/dream is so real and vivid that it is hard to tell if it was a spiritual event or reality.
  Clearly, there was something extraordinary happening both here and in Mary's life.
• Verse 29 tells us that she was very perplexed.
  That seems like a reasonable response.
• Having been told, "you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end."
  Gabriel has effectively told her, you will be carrying and mothering the Son of God. Her reaction, how will that be, I am a virgin, is like informing Gabriel that I am not doing anything to change that status.
  In response to Mary's statement/question, Gabriel responds with, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.”
  Overshadow is the Greek word episkiazō and means to envelop in a haze of brilliancy, along with a few other meanings. In other words, this event will be beyond your comprehension, and much like many of our intense experiences with the Holy Spirit, you are left with an immensely warm feeling. And by the way, Mary, the events that you associate with your time of the month, will cease, as the child immediately begins to develop within you. (Jesus voluntarily became a human; that means that He went through the entire birth and growth process, just as we all do.)
• Gabriel adds, “And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month.”
  Mary is probably fully aware that Elisabeth is well past the childbearing age, and may be one of the reasons Gabriel makes this next statement.
• "For nothing will be impossible with God."
  So, it is possible for Elisabeth to be pregnant, and  God can make you Mary, pregnant with His Son.

The entire conversation ends most intriguingly.

• "Behold, the bond-slave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word."
  When Jesus was addressing a crowd of Jews, they responded to Him by saying, we have never been slaves to anyone. Is that so? How do you explain that whole Egyptian thing, and what of the seventy years of bondage to Babylon?
  The Apostle Paul opened his letter to the church in Rome, a church primarily filled with Jewish believers, I Paul, the bond-slave of Jesus Christ.
  From Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God. Romans 1:1 NET.
  In Paul's case, he is trying to shock the thinking of the Jewish believers, and make a point that we are not in control, God is; and our role, as believers in this life, is to follow God's will and Word, just as Jesus did. This is a voluntary and wholehearted submission to the will of God. (And, in the case of Mary, a submission that understands full well the horrendous abuse she is about to sustain.)

Now the focus shifts back to Joseph.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, and before they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:18 NASB)

• Mary, betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, was found to be with child.
  This word found, can also be interpreted as perceived to be with child.
  Think this process through.
  • Mary, knowing that running around town, telling people her “wonderful” news would be detrimental to her health, as some would likely kill her, keeps quiet.
  • Since pregnancies can only remain a secret for so long before the rumors begin to fly, one of the apparent attacks would come from her household.
    (Remember, this engagement has moved from the contractual stage to a point where Joseph has made the official call for her hand in marriage. At this point, he would begin building what would be their home. This home was often an add on to the parent's home, and he will come for her at the end of this engagement period, most likely a year, when the house is finished. This home is in Nazareth at this point.)

Now how would someone know that something about Mary had changed?

The first and most obvious person to know would be her mother, for she would have noticed that Mary did not have her period at its regular interval. Well, that may not be a good clue because stress and other factors have caused some to miss their periods, although this tends to be a one month issue. The next thing that may have been the giveaway would be the baby bump. Common sense and politeness would rule out most of us from saying anything. For all we know, she is just getting fat; since the attire of the period is loose clothing, this would be hard to detect for several months.

So the reality is, she may be three months or more along by the time Joseph finds out about this pregnancy by God.

And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. (Matthew 1:19 NASB)

We already talked about the ramifications of Joseph being a righteous man, but now we see that he does not want to disgrace her. 

That word disgrace is the Greek word deigmatizō and means to expose or to make a show of her. His choice to protect her dignity shows remarkable class on his part, but it also shows that he knows full well what is about to happen to her and the child, and he is trying to protect his character as well.

But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." (Matthew 1:20-21 NASB)

Matthew 1:20-21, in saying, “when he had considered this,” gives us NO time frame as to how long this deliberation on the part of Joseph would have taken.

The "made for T.V." version showed Joseph immediately going back to the house he had meticulously worked on and started smashing it to pieces. Regardless, considering the thought, plans, and preparations he had to make to "put her away privately," may have taken weeks at a minimum.

• Do not be afraid.
  That is so like God. The phrase “do not be afraid” shows up in 46 verses across the Bible's pages. One of those characters was Gideon, and we should all have an idea of how that worked out for him.
  Knowing what Joseph is about to enter into, God is trying to console his heart.
• “for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”
  It is not another guy, quit your worrying and scheming. This statement by the angel also validates the idea that the child belongs to God.
• “She will bear a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus,”
  Did you catch that? The angel said, “and YOU shall call His name Jesus,”
  How do you resist God when He includes you in His plan and gives you a role to play.
  Back to the “made for TV” movie; in it, Joseph, at Mary's family home began to smash things up as well.
  
  
  Do you understand how difficult it is to get people to forgive and hopefully forget your bad behavior? The truth is, we may be able to forgive, but chances are, we will never forget.

And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son, and he called His name Jesus. (Matthew 1:24-25 NASB)

Unlike the story of Abram, where he has a vision, we are told that Joseph awoke from his sleep. It appears that he immediately did as the angel of the Lord commanded. He took Mary, that day, as his wife. However, he did NOT have intercourse with her, keeping her a virgin until she gave birth to God's Son.

Think about what just happened. If Joseph had touched Mary sexually, then the enemy would have had opportunity to argue that Jesus was not born without sin. The ramifications would have been many. Whether Joseph was operating under a Godly mandate and not touching her, is not made clear to us. Logic has to play a role in this thought process.

Married and pregnant.

Now in those days, a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him and was with child. While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son, and she wrapped Him in cloths and laid Him in a manger because there was no room for them in the inn. (Luke 2:1-7 NASB)

Wouldn't you know it, Caesar Augustus demanded that the whole earth, as he perceived it, would comply with his demands by participating in a census. And so every male, and his family, were on their way to the city of their birth, to register for the census, and that meant that Joseph had to take his very pregnant wife south to Bethlehem. A story like this evokes many levels of discomfort, as we picture Mary, potentially riding on a colt.

It is not until the end of the paragraph that we are told, “she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger because there was no room for them in the inn.”

Now answer me this; where are they? They are in Bethlehem, the hometown of Joseph, where his kinfolk live, and NO ONE will take them in. Why is that?

• Could it be that they too had found out that Mary was pregnant before Joseph and Mary got married?
  That would seem like a logical assumption considering that she was notably pregnant. People will always make comments like, oh, and didn't you just marry a few months ago? And then, where does the conversation go after that?
• And, could it be that Joseph is openly stating that he did not touch her at any point?
  First off, it is a horrendous assumption that Joseph would make this statement unprovoked. To assert that he never touched her is indicative that he agrees with God's actions and plan; and hopefully, it is a proof that God is the Father of Jesus.
• Mary continues to insist that the baby is God's?
  Imagine for a moment the effect on God's plan of salvation, if Mary, simply to get people off her back, had said, she and Joseph were intimate before the marriage. While that may approach may have incurred the wrath of many, it would have explained this child in a way that the villagers understood. With this kind of perception, Jesus would have never been accepted as God's Son.

Could any of these possibilities cause problems? Absolutely. But remember, Joseph is a righteous man.

In a short time, Mary gives birth to the baby boy; and yes, it is possible that they stayed in that manger for many days.

And when eight days had passed, before His circumcision, His name was then called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb. And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (Luke 2:21-22 NASB)

Joseph, the righteous man knew this law.

"And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. "And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.” (Genesis 17:11-12 NASB)

And he also knew this:

"No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD. (Deuteronomy 23:2 NASB)

Can you imagine the inner turmoil Joseph may have had, knowing that the world he understands sees this baby as illegitimate, and therefore, neither the baby, Joseph, or his wife, are eligible to enter the temple.

But notice how Luke 2:22 says, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord. Jerusalem may be a place where the word about the parentage of Jesus has not traveled as yet.

Why would anyone challenge Jesus' parentage?

They wouldn't, unless, as we know, both Mary and now Joseph, both hold to the testimony that the baby Jesus is the Son of God. An answer to my question may be found in the probabilities that, with each birth, there may be the recital of one's ancestry. Wow, suddenly the fact that Mary is tied back to Abraham, and Joseph's lineage takes him back to Adam.

From what I understand, the modern Jewish community has people/Priests/Rabbis that will come into your home. We can only assume that the availability of those who do circumcisions, at this time, is only found at the temple. We have to look a little further to see that they took Him to the temple.

"Every firstborn male shall be counted consecrated to the Lord," and to offer the sacrifice in accordance with what is specified in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons." Now there was in Jerusalem, a man named Simeon, an upright, devout man; he was expecting to see the consolation of Israel, and he was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he should not die without seeing the Lord's Messiah. So under the Spirit's guidance, he went into the temple, and when the parents brought the child Jesus there to do for Him as the custom of the law required, (Luke 2:23-27 Williams)

• “and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord.”
  This only happened in the temple.
• Now there was in Jerusalem, a man named Simeon, an upright, devout man; he was expecting to see the consolation of Israel, and he was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he should not die without seeing the Lord's Messiah. So under the Spirit's guidance, he went into the temple, and when the parents brought the child Jesus there
  Consider the arrangements God had to make to fulfill, not only Simeon's promise, but Anna's as well.

Anna, a prophet, was also there in the Temple. She was the daughter of Phanuel from the tribe of Asher, and she was very old. Her husband died when they had been married for only seven years. Then she lived as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the Temple but stayed there day and night, worshiping God with fasting and prayer. She came along just as Simeon was talking with Mary and Joseph, and she began praising God. She talked about the child to everyone who had been waiting expectantly for God to rescue Jerusalem. (Luke 2:36-38 NLT)

The census was taken, and the baby was born. At a minimum, two years had passed when the Magi showed on the horizon. Their numbers, along with the entourage, raised no small cloud of dust. The report was made to Herod, who immediately went into a panic.

“Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod, the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him." When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. They said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet: (NASB) ‘And you, O Bethlehem in the land of Judah, are not least among the ruling cities of Judah, for a ruler will come from you who will be the shepherd for my people Israel.’ (Matthew 2:6 NLT) Then Herod secretly called the magi and determined from them the exact time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and search carefully for the Child; and when you have found Him, report to me, so that I too may come and worship Him." After hearing the king, they went their way; and the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them until it came and stood over the place where the Child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. After coming into the house, they saw the Child with Mary, His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him. Then, opening their treasures, they presented to Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And having been warned by God in a dream not to return to Herod, the magi left for their own country by another way.” (Matthew 2:1-12 NASB)

Joseph once again hears from God and takes the family to safety in Egypt.

After the wise men were gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up! Flee to Egypt with the child and his mother,” the angel said. “Stay there until I tell you to return because Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” That night Joseph left for Egypt with the child and Mary, his mother, and they stayed there until Herod’s death. This fulfilled what the Lord had spoken through the prophet: “I called my Son out of Egypt.” (Matthew 2:13-15 NLT)

History tells us that Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. I suppose that would make Jesus around four when Joseph brought the family out of Egypt. But the travel saga doesn't end there, as apparently, they tried to return to Bethlehem.

“Get up!” the angel said. “Take the child and his mother back to the land of Israel, because those who were trying to kill the child are dead.” So Joseph got up and returned to the land of Israel with Jesus and his mother. (Matthew 2:20-21 NLT)

Matthew 2:20 merely says, take the child and his mother back to the land of Israel; this is not very specific.

But when he learned that the new ruler of Judea was Herod’s son Archelaus, he was afraid to go there. Then, after being warned in a dream, he left for the region of Galilee. (Matthew 2:22 NLT)

The Commentator Albert Barnes points out that “Archelaus possessed a cruel and tyrannical disposition similar to his father. At one of the Passovers, he caused 3,000 people to be put to death in the temple and city. For his crimes, after he had reigned nine years, he was banished by Augustus, the Roman emperor, to Gaul, where he died. ”

This is conjecture on my part, but it does not change my faith or remove my confidence in God's plan, and yet, it sure makes sense when I say, the region of Galilee would be familiar ground for Mary, and quite possibly for Joseph as well; for where do we first see Joseph? In Nazareth, a town in the region of Galilee. It would be easy to blend in, and there is the added benefit of time. Time? Why say that? Because the overall time frame since they first left Nazareth, is quite possibly five years or more, and because of the adamant stance the two parents took just before they left.

Dr. Luke's gospel is extremely abbreviated, as it bypasses the trip to Egypt, puts them walking out of the temple door, meeting Anna the prophetess, and heading back to Nazareth.

When Jesus’ parents had fulfilled all the requirements of the law of the Lord, they returned home to Nazareth in Galilee. (Luke 2:39 NLT)

What were the requirements? Joseph knew the answer to this question. The purification time for his wife; the circumcision of Jesus on the eighth day. If there was anything else, I am not aware of it.

 And so, according to Luke's gospel, back to Nazareth, they went..

The Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him. (Luke 2:40 NASB)

I have heard it said that all that a child is going to be, behavior-wise, is established by the age of seven. I suppose much of that has to do with oral and visual inputs from the adults that surround their life. If your father is a man that knows and follows the Torah, then your inputs should be God-oriented as well, and this is exactly what we see in Jesus. So Joseph was a good and capable choice.

The next time we see Jesus he is age twelve, very close to the age of Bar mitzvah. “Bar mitzvah is a Jewish coming of age ritual for boys. According to Jewish law, when a Jewish boy is 13 years old, he becomes accountable for his actions and becomes a bar mitzvah.” Wikipedia

If you care to challenge the FACT that Jesus went through a Bar Mitzvah, then I offer this detail. In Mark's gospel, we have this:

As Jesus was starting out on his way to Jerusalem, a man came running up to him, knelt down, and asked, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked. “Only God is truly good. But to answer your question, you know the commandments: ‘You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. You must not cheat anyone. Honor your father and mother.’” “Teacher,” the man replied, “I’ve obeyed all these commandments since I was young.” Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. “There is still one thing you haven’t done,” he told him. “Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Mark 10:17-21 NLT)

The Bible Knowledge Commentary has this to say about Mark 10: 17-21.

“In answering the man’s question directly, Jesus quoted five commandments from the so-called “second table” of the Decalogue (cf. Exo_20:12-16; Deu_5:16-20) but in a different order. Obedience to those commands dealing with human relationships are more easily verified in a person’s conduct than are the earlier commands (Exo_20:3-8). The command, Do not defraud, not a part of the Decalogue and occurring only in Mark, may represent the 10th commandment (Exo_20:17). But more likely, it is an appropriate supplement to the 8th and/or 9th commandments (Exo_20:15-16) applicable to a wealthy person (cf. Lev_6:2-5; Mal_3:5).

The man’s reply shows he firmly believed he had kept these commandments perfectly (cf. Php_3:6) since he was a boy, since age 12 when he assumed personal responsibility for keeping the Law as a “son of the Law” (bar Mitzvah; cf. Luk_2:42-47). Perhaps he had expected Jesus to prescribe something meritorious that he needed to do to make up for any lack.”

Because, as I have stated repeatedly, Joseph was a righteous man, then he would have made Jesus submit to the tradition of bar Mitzvah as well. That is why Jesus knew fully what the young man was saying when he responded to Jesus with, “I've obeyed all these commandments since I was young.”

What is one of the common things we know about Jesus? He fulfilled all the commandments of righteousness, and Matthew's gospel proves that out.

Then Jesus arrived from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. But John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I have need to be baptized by You, and You are coming to me?" But Jesus answered and said to him, "Permit it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he permitted Him. (Matthew 3:13-15 EMTV)

So, where does Joseph fit into this conversation?

Joseph, being a righteous man, knew these things and saw to it that they were performed.

Now after Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, "Arise, and take with you the young Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the life of the young Child have died." Then he rose and took along the young Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. But hearing that Archelaus was reigning over Judea instead of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being divinely instructed in a dream, he withdrew into the regions of Galilee. And when he arrived, he settled down in a city called Nazareth, so that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, "He would be called a Nazarene." (Matthew 2:19-23 EMTV)

And with this, we end our look at Joseph, for, after this point in time, we see him no more. However, I will add one more piece of information.

When Jesus had finished these parables, He departed from there. He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? (Matthew 13:53-55 NASB)

Based upon this paragraph, we assume that Joseph was a carpenter, and therefore Jesus too was a carpenter. But that is NOT what this verse says. I know, it sure appears that it does, but therein lies the majority of our misinterpretation of God, His nature, and His character. They never said carpenter, the translators did, and they did it because it made sense to them.

The word translated carpenter is tektōn and merely means a craftsman. Tekton can also mean one who writes poetry, but since we know that this was not Jesus' calling, then we can exclude that idea.

An interesting detail about Nazareth is that a half-mile outside the city the Israel antiquities department excavated a stone vessel shop. In this shop, it was determined that 2000 years ago they lathed, yes lathed, quarried stone into household vessels, such as mugs and large water vessels. 

What is the significance of that? 

During the days of Herod, the Great, a Jewish, entrepreneur read in the Torah, how vessels can become unclean by the usage of certain persons and products, like pig fat. However, in his reading of the law, it became abundantly clear that it said nothing about stoneware. With no small discussion, it was decided that because stone was not mentioned in the list of things that could become contaminated, that stone MUST be excluded. To this day, stoneware is a standard in the Jewish community. Did God come up with this idea? Hardly, but the Jews have integrated this stoneware usage rule into their laws.

What does this mean to me? It means that Joseph may well have been a craftsman of stoneware and that Jesus had learned that trade alongside him. 

Then consider something. When Jesus performed his first public miracle, what was involved, massive stoneware water vessels that were being used for ceremonial cleansing. So when he asks the servants to fill these same vessels with water, he did not concern himself with the cleanliness issue and turned that water into wine. He knew full well about the rules pertaining to stoneware and may have been one of the tektōn's who made those pots.