Mary's Forty Days of Purification

LUKE 2:22

"And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord."

When was Purification Necessary?

In trying to figure out why Mary had to go through 40 days of purification following the birth of Jesus, it is helpful to understand what made her unclean in the first place. In trying to make sense of this, according to Mosaic Law, I discovered that there were actually many things that made a person unclean, only one of which is giving birth. In fact, it would have been nearly impossible for a person to not be deemed unclean at one time or another, or even multiple time during his or her life.

Before delving into Mary's situation specifically, I would like to address some of these other cases, to give context and an indication of just how common it was to need purification. Below is a list of things that would make someone unclean, dating back to Old Testament times.

If one became defiled by one of these things, he or she was quarantined for a particular period of time and then had to undergo certain rituals, such as bathing or offering sacrifices, in preparation for returning to his or her prior status of purity. While a person was unclean, he or she couldn't enter the sanctuary or touch anything sacred, lest that setting or thing should also become unclean. Defiled objects had to be purified in prescribed manners, or sometimes broken and discarded.

Affliction	Duration of Uncleanness	Consequences	Purification Required	References
DISCHARGE OF BODILY FLUIDS:
Menstruation	7 Days from when it began	Can't enter sanctuary Can't touch holy things		Lev. 12:2, 15:9
Woman gives birth to boy	7 days unclean + 33 days semi-isolation		Offerings: 1 Yearling lamb 1 Young pigeon/turtledove, or 2 Young pigeons 2 Turtledoves	Levitcus 12:1-4
Woman gives birth to girl	14 days unclean + 66 days semi-isolation		Offerings: 1 Yearling lamb 1 young pigeon/turtledove, or 2 Young pigeons 2 Turtledoves	Leviticus 12:5-8
Longer than 7 days, Irregular menstruation	7 Day after last discharge	Can't enter sanctuary Can't touch holy things		Leviticus 15:25
Abnormal bleeding (as with the woman who had an issue of blood for 12 yrs)	7 days after last issue	Can't enter sanctuary Can't touch holy things		Lev. 15:19-33 Matthew 9:20-22 Mark 5:25-34 Luke 8:43-48
Contact with menstruating or otherwise bleeding woman	Until next evening			Leviticus 15:19
Contact with menstruating woman's bed	Until next evening		Bathe Wash clothes	Lev. 15:20-23
Menstruation starts during sex	Man/woman for 7 days			Leviticus 15:24
Sex when already menstruating	Indeffinitely	Man/woman cast out		Leviticus 20:18
Man with discharge	7 Days after last discharge		Wash clothes Bathe in flowing water Offering: 2 turtledoves or young pigeons
Involuntary emission, such as during a dream or because of an impure thought	Until next evening		Bathe Wash clothes and anything exposed	Lev. 15:16-17
Emission during sex	Both until next evening		Bedding/man's clothes washed Man and woman bathe	Leviticus 15:18
SKIN AILMENTS:
Infectious skin disease	Unknown	Separation from others	Bathe Shave head Request re-admittance	Leviticus 13-14
CONTACT WITH UNCLEAN PERSON, THINGS AND ANIMALS:
Contact with a dead person	7 days		Wash on the third day	Numbers 19:11-13
Person dies in a tent	All in the tent for 7 days		Open vessels broken	Numbers 19:14-15
Contact with one slain by the sword in an open field	7 days			Numbers 19:16
Contact with human bones	7 days		Wash in water of separation	Numbers 19:16
Contact with a grave	7 days		Wash in water of separation	Numbers 19:18
Administering water of separation	Until the next evening		Wash clothes	Numbers 19:21
Touching dead, unclean animal	Until the next evening		Wash clothes	Numbers 19:21
EATING UNCLEAN ANIMALS:
Examples: Not cloven-footed, chewing cud Water creatures w/out fins/scales Some birds (owls, vultures...) Some creeping things (lizards etc) Clean animals that die naturally Food in contact w/ unclean things	Until the next evening?			Numbers 11

Chart Summary

Unclean until the next evening:
Contact with menstruating or abnormally bleeding woman or something she touched
Involuntary discharge such as during an explicit dream etc (man unclean, anything exposed must be washed)
Emission during sex (both man and woman unclean)
Person who cleanses another with the water of separation (clothes must be washed)
Touching an unclean animal that has died (must wash clothes)
Eating an unclean animal or food that touched something unclean

Unclean for 7 days:
Menstruating woman (7 days from start)
Woman menstruating longer than 7 days (7 days after last discharge)
Woman with irregular menstruation (7 days from last discharge)
Menstruation starts during sex (both man and woman)
Unusual bleeding or abnormal discharge from sexual organs (man or woman, 7 days after last discharge)
Contact with a dead person (must wash on the third day or will still be unclean by the seventh day)
Person dies in a tent (any who enter are unclean for 7 days, items therein are unclean, open vessels must be broken)
Contact with one slain by the sword in an open field
Contact with human bones or a grave (must wash in the water of separation)

Unclean for 7 days + 33 Days in Semi-Isolation:
Giving birth to a son (after 40 days mother must offer 1 yearling lamb + 1 young pigeon or turtledove, or 2 young pigeons + 2 turtledoves)

Unclean for 14 days + 66 days in Semi-Isolation:
Giving birth to a daughter (after 80 days mother must offer the same sacrifice as if she'd birthed a son)

Unclean for unknown or Indefinite Period of Time:
Infectious skin disease (separation from others, bathe, shave head, request re-admittance)
Intentionally having sex with a menstruating woman (both man and woman cast out)

Anyone unclean could not enter the sanctuary or touch anything holy. Someone clean touching someone unclean, or something the unclean person came in contact with, then became unclean. Touching an unclean animal was fine as long as it wasn't dead. Thus, riding a camel was completely acceptable, though one was not permitted to eat it. A man could comfort his wife who just gave birth, but this would make him temporarily unclean. She would not be able to cook for him while unclean, or she would make his food unclean. Basically, everyone was likely to be unclean at one point or another, or many times during his or her lifetime, and it was necessary to take proper steps of purification in order to be allowed to continue with certain activities, such as entering the sanctuary.

Possible Reasons for These Laws

Likely, there were several reasons for these very specific restrictions being given by God. One was surely for health reasons. For example, if one touched a decaying carcass and then straightway started helping a woman give birth, infection would be almost inevitable. Childbirth fever would abound. Any number of deaths would result, given that they didn't understand germs and how they were spread. This knowledge did not come until thousands of years later. They needed very specific laws to preserve them as a people.

One can also see symbolism within some components of the Mosaic Law, foretelling of the coming of the Messiah and what His roll would be. For example, being cleansed in the water of separation could have symbolized being cleansed of our sins. I've often wondered if the general population fully understood the symbolism of what they were doing back in those days. Maybe they did, or maybe they didn't.

These rules could have also partially been given in order to test the people's level of obedience. Even if they didn't fully understand the reasons behind those laws, would they still obey with strictness and faith? Would they treat the unclean with tolerance and love, or would they be unkind and prideful? Surely, these laws were a purification of sorts, meant to cleans the outer body, as well as the inner self.

The Purification Process

This depended upon the situation, as indicated by the chart above. Interestingly, those who come in contact with person's dead body must wash in a mixture made from the ashes of a red heifer, hyssop, cedar wood, and scarlet (see Numbers 19). The properties of these substances made this mixture, also known as the water of separation (Numbers 19:21), comparable to modern day antibacterial soap. These practices often had very real medical reasoning, not scientifically proven until thousands of years later.

What did the Law of Moses Require of Mary?

When a woman gave birth back in those days, she was considered to be unclean for a specified period of time following the birth. This allotment, strangely enough, depended upon whether she bore a girl or a boy. The mother could not fully resume her prior lifestyle for eighty days if she gave birth to a daughter. However, in Mary's case, having birthed a son, she could return to her normal routine in only forty days.

In Leviticus 12:2-5, the Lord instructed Moses in the following manner: "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days: she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days."

So, basically, Mary was unclean for seven days, meaning anything she touched was unclean (her bed, anything she sat on, vessels she ate/drank from, etc). During this time, if Joseph touched her or anything she touched, he would also become unclean until the following evening. On the eighth day Jesus was circumcised, according to Mosaic Law. I doubt that Mary could have attend that ceremony, as she would not have been permitted to enter the sanctuary. Joseph probably attended, so long as he did not touch her, or anything she touched, for a day or so prior. After that, Mary remained in semi-isolation for thirty-three additional days, before everything returned to normal for her and Joseph.

It is interesting to note the wording in Leviticus 12:4-5: "the blood of her purifying". The very blood flow that made her unclean, was also the means of her cleansing. It appears that the idea was that the blood was carrying any contaminants, or possibilities thereof, out of her body. That may be the reason that this blood, with its impurities, was considered to be unclean.

Dedicated Obedience

In submitting to this requirement, Mary and Joseph showed their devotion to God and to the Law of Moses, under which they lived. For the first seven days, she was so unclean that no one could even speak with her, let alone touch her, without also being considered unclean. This would have even included her own dear husband.

By today's standards, those seven days would appear very lonely. In modern times, family members visit and friends gather to look upon the infant and congratulate the parents soon after the birth. The mother and father share intimate exchanges of pride and of indescribable joy. They take turns looking after their precious gift during the long, sleepless night and are a support to one another, both physically and verbally.

Not so, evidently, in Biblical times. Certainly, Joseph was proud of his wife and loved the son she bore, but he was unable to talk with her about it, or to hold her. I suppose that, since this was the norm at that time, the separation was not such a hardship as we might imagine, but it could not have been easy for them either. Or, perhaps, he spent time with her anyway, but only stayed away when needed right before Jesus' circumcision, as suggested above. Who's to say?

After Jesus' circumcision at the age of eight days, Mary was allowed some privileges back. Joseph and others were finally able to talk with her, hugs, etc without becoming unclean, but she was still remained secluded and was not allowed inclusion in public worship, or to even to enter the sanctuary in which such took place, and could not touch anything that was considered to be holy.

What Can Be Learned From Their Example?

It is hard to imagine the full reasoning behind such requirements. What we do know is that there is no talk of any disobedience to this law, on the part of Joseph or Mary. They simply did as the Lord had commanded. Any uncleanness was dealt with, as required. Could we not learn a great lesson from this? We no longer observe specified days of purification following childbirth, but we would do well to spend time in thought and prayer, as surely Mary and Joseph did while they observed the law at that time. They submitted to the will of the Lord and dutifully did what was required of them without complaint. I would think that their intent was to honor God and to continue in righteousness to the best of their abilities.

Jesus is Circumcised and Named

LUKE 2:21

What was the point of circumcision?
In understanding why Jesus was circumcised, it is helpful to investigate the law under which the Jews lived at that time. As a part of the covenant made with Abraham when he was 99 years old, recorded in Genesis 17, infant boys were to be circumcised when eight days old. Though over the age of eight, he and his male offspring including his 13 year old son, Ishmael, as well as men and boys of his household bought from strangers were, according to this commandment, to be circumcised. At this time, Abram's name, meaning "noble father", was changed to Abraham, meaning "father of a multitude". Interestingly, his wife's name was also changed, from Sarai (my princess) to Sarah (mother of nations). This was when circumcision began, and it continued through the ages among the Hebrew people, with the exception of when the Israelites were in the wilderness after being rescued from bondage in Egypt. However, their neglect was later corrected. Circumcision did not bring about salvation, but was an outward sign and reminder that one was of the Abrahamic Covenant, which included Abraham's seed, or descendants.

The Abrahamic Covenant and the Law of Moses in the New Testament...
By the time the New Testament events took place, circumcision was a dual purpose ritual, which included the circumcision itself as well as the recipient being officially named. It was still consistently done on the 8th day of an infant boy's life, even if that day fell on the Sabbath. If this occurred, regular Sabbath strictness was relaxed to include the ceremony. Thus, we see that it was a very important thing to the Jews at that time. It signified commitment, and a reminder of the person's inclusion with God's covenant people. However, it was not only an outward sign, but was intended to include also a change within, toward God, obedience and humility.

The first mention of it in the New Testament is when John the Baptist was circumcised. "And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father. And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John." (Luke 1:59-60)

Jesus was also circumcised and named at eight days of age. His circumcision is mentioned almost in passing, before an accounting of Mary's purification and the presentation of baby Jesus. It is written in the context of following the law of Moses. So, it would seem that Jesus was circumcised for this purpose. It also stands to reason that, had He not been circumcised, He would been less accepted by those around Him when He went about His work later in life. It was frowned upon to commune with those who were uncircumcised.

His circumcision as an infant was recorded in Luke 2:21, immediately after the story of the shepherds. "And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb." Surely, Joseph and Mary, both direct descendants of Abraham, sought to strictly observe the law of their forefathers in getting baby Jesus circumcised. It was, doubtless, a special day in which they were, in effect, dedicating Him to be humble and obedient. Perhaps they even shed a tear or two for the baby's physical pain, yet surely they felt joy in knowing that they were fulfilling this ancient command.

Did Jesus teach the continued importance of circumcision?
As one reads on, it becomes increasingly apparent that circumcision itself was not so important as the inward change of heart which came when one turned to the Lord. We have only one record of Jesus, himself, mentioning circumcision. This can be found in John 7:22-24, and is given in the context of exposing the hypocrisy of the Jews of His time in judging Him for healing a man on the Sabbath. "Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." I know of nowhere that Jesus actually states that circumcision is necessary, even when pointedly asked what one must do to obtain eternal life. He only mentioned circumcision once that I am aware of, and it was only in the context of something else. The Jews still thought it was important, but obviously the Lord did not.

Is circumcision no longer needed?
When Gentiles began to be converted, it became a matter of great confusion and debate whether they should be circumcised and encouraged to live the law of Moses. Peter informed those present that there was no need to burden them with this, but that God knew their hears and that they were purified by faith. He went on to say that he believed they were saved by grace. (Acts 15:1-11) In Galatians 6:15 is stated, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." Acts and Galatians, both written only a few years after the Lord's death and resurrection, thus indicated that one's faith and resulting actions were of more importance. After all, one could be circumcised and yet have no faith and obey none of the laws of God. From a spiritual standpoint, what would it gain him or her, then, to have been circumcised?

It appears that, with the Lord's suffering, death and resurrection, came an end to the need for circumcision and the law of Moses. The Lord was, after all, the ultimate sacrifice. What need was there for a continuation of the old law? The law of Moses kept them in remembrance of the coming Messiah, but He had now come among them.

The Birth of Jesus Christ

LUKE 2:6-20

A Fitting Birthplace

Bethlehem
Photo source ➚

Bethlehem holds great historical significance. It was "an early Canaanite settlement connected with the patriarchs. Situated along an ancient caravan route, Bethlehem has harbored a melting pot of peoples and cultures since its beginning. The geography of the region is mountainous, sitting about 2,600 feet above the Mediterranean Sea." (Bethlehem ➚) It was here that Jacob had tended his flocks, and where his favored wife, Rachel, was buried. Here, also, the story of Naomi, Ruth and Boaz took place, and here David was born and raised. In Bethlehem, David was anointed king of Israel by the prophet, Samuel, and it was later fortified and called the City of David. Thus, we see that the location had already been of great importance for hundreds of years, and was a rather appropriate birthplace for the Savior.

Ancient prophecy had already set the birthplace of Jesus, some 700 years before. Micah 5:2 reads, "But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

Also significant is that the name "Bethlehem" means "House of Bread". Jesus would later state, "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:35) So, in the House of Bread was born the Bread of Life.

By the time Mary and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem for the census, ordered by Caesar Augustus, its population had declined to 300-1000 people. One could well imagine that it was overcrowded at this time, as many returned to their ancestral village. It could be assumed that, given that Mary was "great with child" (Luke 2:5), Joseph would have sought a suitable place for her to rest upon their arrival. They had, after all, been traveling for several days. It's easy to picture her labor pains beginning when they finally reached the village, and their need for lodging, thus, being great. However, we don't know how many days or weeks they were there before she gave birth. The text says only, "And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered." (Luke 2:6) Likely it was fairly soon, given that the "inn" was still too full for them to lodge there.

The Inn
Most villages of this size only had one inn, and it may have been little more than four walls and a roof. It has been suggested that Bethlehem's inn may have been built by Chimham, son of Barzilae, with whom King David stayed toward the end of his life. David might have given Chimham part of his inheritance in Bethlehem for the very purpose of building said inn to secure an income for the man. Jesus may have been born in the stable portion of this very inn. Thus, it would be rather appropriate that He may have been born within the property once owned by King David himself, of whom Joseph and Mary were direct descendants. (Bethlehem - the Manger and the Inn ➚)

A Cave
Another theory is that the stable in which the Lord was born was little more than a cave, perhaps with a wall closing in the mouth thereof. Perhaps this idea evolved from the sense that the Son of God should be born in seclusion. The cave scenario has been considered a distinct possibility for centuries, mentioned in writings as early as 150 AD. Caves were historically used for lodging, fortresses, hideouts, storage, and for the housing of animals. Perhaps, if it is true that He was born in just such a cave, it had, at one time, a house attached to it. It was common for a house to have a courtyard which led to a basement or cave, in which food was stored and animals were housed at night. It would be interesting if He were born in a cave of sorts, since he was resurrected from one also, in a sense (from a tomb).

Did They Stay with Relatives?
It is important to remember that Bethlehem was the ancestral home of both Joseph and Mary, and they likely still had relatives living there. Surely, they would have turned to them first, falling under their protection according to Jewish custom, especially given that Mary was pregnant and may need assistance. It would have insulted their relations to have sought refuge elsewhere. I had always pictured them going from one building to the next, Joseph asking for lodging, and repeatedly being turned aside. However, Luke 2:7 states only that Mary gave birth to her firstborn son "and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn." Luke doesn't specifically indicate that Joseph tried multiple times to secure a place to stay before being given permission to stay in a family's stable. It is, though, rather interesting that there was no room in the "inn". This seems a parallel to the fact that we often don't make room for the Lord in our lives either.

Alternative Meaning for the Word Translated as "Inn"
I didn't realize until recently that the word "inn" may mean something entirely different than I had assumed. This same Greek word "kataluma" was translated as "guest room" or "upper room" in the King James Version of Luke 22:11-12 and as "guestchamber" in Mark 14:14. However, the word "pundakeion" rather than "kataluma" was chosen to mean "inn" in the story of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:34. So, was the "inn" actually an extra room in a relative's house in Bethlehem rather than a building meant to house travelers? If so, it would seem that, perhaps, the guest room was full, so they were housed, instead, in the lower level of a relative's home, where the animals were often kept.

Ancient Architecture
In typical Hebrew homes the animals were kept on the lower level or in an adjoining cave, and the people slept above them. When I really stop to think about Mary being given lodging with the animals, it gives me pause. Couldn't someone else have moved in with the animals and given this pregnant woman a more comfortable place to rest? Does having to room with the animals suggest that the family was shaming or rejecting her because they believed her child was illegitimate? Did they even know the whole story about how and when she had become with child?

It is also possible that they sought to get her away from the overcrowded guest room so that she might have a more private place to give birth. Perhaps they were providing Mary with the best or only accommodations they had to offer. With the animals, she was still within the protection of the family, rather than being out on the street, so to speak. Therefore, it could have been a very pointed act of compassion extended to these travelers.

They also may have been housed in the main living area where many peasant babies were traditionally born, especially given that the guest room was full. The animals were on a sunken floor or cave at night. Thus the Child would have been born in cleaner surroundings above, yet laid in the manger at the edge of where the floor is sunken.

Suffice it to say that we can't say for sure where Jesus was born. The great event could have taken place in a stable attached to the inn, or in a basement or lower level with the animals owned by relatives, or in a secluded cave. What we do know is that he was born in Bethlehem and that his birth was long awaited by those who knew the ancient prophecies. The Savior being born changed everything.

Angels Visit the Shepherds

Photo source ➚

These particular shepherds were likely tending the temple flock, meaning that these sheep were being raised for sacrificial purposes, for the temple in Jerusalem. Jewish tradition stated that the Messiah would be revealed from the "tower of the flock", a tower along the road to Jerusalem, but not far from Bethlehem. (Migdal Edar - Biblical Location ➚) Such towers were used as a lookout to spy enemies approaching, but also for shepherds to keep an eye on the flocks. This one would have been used to oversee the temple flock specifically, which pastured there. (Shepherds - Bible Dictionary ➚) The tower was originally erected as a monument at Rachel's tomb. There, she died giving birth to Ben-Oni (son of sorrow), whose name was changed to Benjamin (son of the right hand).

Photo source ➚

Angels visit the shepherds near Bethlehem
Photo source ➚

The roles of shepherds were to lead the sheep to food and water, rescue any that wandered off, and to protect the flock from predators and thieves. In reality, the shepherds had to be willing to do most anything to keep the sheep well and safe, even putting their own lives in danger if need be. They had to be vigilant and watchful, and were sometimes also at the mercy of extreme weather conditions. These particular shepherds were charged also with carefully selecting lambs fit for sacrifice. Those chosen were sometimes wrapped in swaddling clothes of sorts, some believe, I suppose as a way of marking them as different from the others, which were flawed.

It's amazing to think about the miraculous story of the shepherds. They were out tending sheep in the fields outside of Bethlehem at night, when an angel, presumably the Angel Gabriel who had appeared to Mary prior to the conception of Jesus, visited them and the glory of the Lord "shone round about them". Imagine! Unaccustomed to such an occurrence, naturally they were terrified. The angel assured them that there was no need to fear, and informed them that the Savior had been born that day in the city of David (Bethlehem). They were to know that they'd found the right baby when they saw Him, wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger. It is interesting that both the sacrificial lambs and baby Jesus were clothed in such a manner. Surely, there is symbolism in this. Perhaps the message to these shepherds, in effect, was that, though they tended the sacrificial temple flock, another "Lamb" had been born that would be the ultimate sacrifice. It is only fitting that the angel told them first, given that it was their calling to certify lambs suitable for sacrifice.

After this exciting message was relayed, suddenly many more angels appeared, praising God! I can't even imagine what an amazing experience that must have been for them. Did others round about see or hear the angels as well? We are not given any information in that regard in Luke's account. Perhaps they were only, miraculously, visible to the shepherds. Throughout the Bible, God seems to look favorably upon humble shepherds, and even Jesus called himself the Good Shepherd. "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep... I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." (John 10:11, 14)

Once the angels disappeared, the shepherds promptly went to Bethlehem to find the babe. How could they not, after such an experience? They didn't doubt at all, it seems. "Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us." (Luke 2:15) They did not question whether the message was of God. They were completely sure that if they went to Bethlehem, they would find exactly what they were told they'd find. That is inspiring, in and of itself.

The faithful shepherds did just that, and found Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus. After so doing, they praised God and told others all that had happened. Everyone that heard about it was amazed. Keep in mind that shepherds, though they served a crucial purpose, were somewhat nomadic and were low on the social and economic ladder, with little or no formal education. Their testimonies were not even admissible in court in that era! Yet here they were, receiving an angelic visitation, being among the first to see the newborn Lord, and telling everyone they could who would listen, perhaps even those to whom the chosen sheep were later taken in Jerusalem.

Mary's Response

Mary pondered on the shepherds' experience
Photo source ➚

Mary's reaction is particularly interesting as well. Its mention in the text speaks of the importance of her response. Following the visit from the shepherds, during which they would have surely given an account of the angelic visitation, she "kept these things, and pondered them in her heart." (Luke 2:19) She was obviously a very faithful, reflective young woman, given to meditating on all that she and others had experienced with regard to the Son of God. Surely, she was in awe at all that had happened, and thought much on what was to come.

Joseph's Reaction to Mary's Pregnancy

Joseph sought to do what was best for Mary
Photo Source  ➚

MATTHEW 1:19-25
I've been contemplating what Joseph's feelings might have been during all of this. He is not mentioned a whole lot, but we do get a glimpse into his thoughts during this part of the story. Keep in mind that he was betrothed to Mary, but had not yet consummated their marriage, yet she was found to be with child. This put him in a rather difficult position.

Matthew's account does not tell us whether Mary confessed to Joseph the means by which she had become pregnant, or if she's even the one that told him of her condition. One might assume that, when she got back from her three month visit with her cousin, Elisabeth, Mary did just that. However, he might have discovered it from a mutual acquaintance or noticed that she was starting to show. Remember that she was not yet living in his house, and we don't know how frequently they saw each other or conversed, or even how well they knew one other by this time. A betrothal did not necessarily equate to a longstanding affection, although it may have in some cases.

It is really hard to say exactly what Joseph thought of this news. Surely he was aware that she had been away for three months. He may have initially thought that his betrothed had been with another man while she was gone, for he knew that he had not lain with her himself. He likely would not have agreed to marry her in the first place had he not thought her to be a virtuous woman, so one could assume that he was rather shocked, to say the least, to think that she had committed adultery. Perhaps he even briefly feared that Mary had been raped. Did possible adverse reactions from his peers worry him? Would they look down upon him for marrying an unchaste woman, or would they think he had lain with her before she left for Elisabeth's? Obviously, Mary was not going to be able to hide her condition for long. Even if she remained in confinement, a baby would be forthcoming, and community members would soon realize the baby had arrived earlier than they would think acceptable.

Even not knowing yet at who's hands she had become pregnant, I would guess that Joseph felt let down. The bright future he looked forward to with her must have suddenly become so clouded. It seems that he didn't fully understand at first the bigger picture, and thought it wouldn't be right to follow through with marrying her, a woman pregnant with a child he had not fathered. Perhaps he even thought it would be a sin to do so. He was described, after all, as a just man. From this it could be concluded that he sought to follow the laws of God carefully.

According to the Law of Moses, which Joseph would have still felt loyal toward even though they were living under Roman rule by this time, he had several options. He could take her as his wife anyway, he could divorce her and leave her in the care of others, or he could bring the situation before the authorities and have her tried and possibly stoned to death. Becoming pregnant prior to marriage is very common now, but in ancient times it was unacceptable. This was not something to be taken lightly. Joseph was within his rights, maybe even duty bound, to see to it that justice was served.

Yet he thought less of his own shame and disappointment, and more of how to protect Mary from pain. The fact that Joseph chose a very lenient option tells us a lot about his character. Matthew stated the following: "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily." (Matthew 1:19) In other words, he didn't want to bring attention to the situation, which would cause her punishment, shame or death. I think this speaks of his merciful, gentle personality. How many would have, instead, become angry and seen her held accountable to the fullest extent of the law? However, Joseph opposed severity in this matter and sought a consequence that was along the most lenient allowed, a private divorce in which the specifics need not be brought to light.

The power of divorcement was given to men only in Biblical times. The betrothal was considered binding, very similar to a marriage. Thus, legal means had to be pursued in order to dissolve it and still preserve Mary's life. A private divorce is what Joseph figured was best, but he had some thinking to do before going through with it. I would think that even a private divorce would have had some public aspect to it. If it was common knowledge that the two of them were betrothed, the community would need to be made aware that the agreement had been dissolved. Perhaps, at the least, it would have been done in front of a small number of witnesses. Undoubtedly, it was still a matter that weighed heavily on his mind, for he wished to spare her any shame.

Joseph, not wishing to be hasty or to make the wrong decision, took some time to ponder their precarious situation. Surely he was torn by what he felt he had to do. Even if Mary had told him that her pregnancy was of the Holy Ghost (we don't know if she did or didn't), she had no proof. The only way for Joseph to know for himself with complete certainty was for the message to come from God. That night or one soon thereafter, something very merciful happened, which put an end to Joseph's questions as to what to do. An angel appeared to him in a dream, telling him that he need not fear following through with taking Mary as his wife. It was then that he was told that her pregnancy was of the Holy Ghost, not man, and that her son was to be named Jesus, because He was to "save his people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21)

This was a direct fulfillment of prophecy that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14), something that Joseph and his people had watched for with hope. Obviously, Matthew drew this connection as well. "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." (Matthew 1:22-23) The name "Jesus" basically means "God is salvation". "Emmanuel" means "God with us". So, really, these two names explain a very similar meaning as to who Jesus is. He is our God and it is through Him that salvation is possible.

Imagine how Joseph "son of David" felt! He was to rear the Son of God! His betrothed had been chosen to bring Him into the world! The long awaited prophecy was soon to be fulfilled! It appears that he did not even hesitate after this. There are no more "while he thought on these things" (Matthew 1:20) phrases in this portion of the text, but the following instead: "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife." (Matthew 1:24)

The last verse of the chapter reads, "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus." The phrase "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son" means that their marriage was not consummated until after she gave birth. This showed his great restraint. Perhaps we tend to gloss over this aspect of the story, but it was no small sacrifice, I am sure.

Joseph's kindness toward Mary
Photo Source ➚

In the coming months, as Mary's condition became more noticeable, Joseph stood by her. Mary was undoubtedly in confinement for much of her pregnancy, meaning that she would have remained largely out of sight, but how did family members in the community, aware of the situation, treat them? Were they supportive or judgmental?

This time period in their relationship probably bound them together in a union of trust. Mary trusted Joseph to protect her from shame, and Joseph trusted that Mary had been faithful to him and would continue to be. Both trusted God to see them through, and to allow them to raise up the Messiah, that He might fulfill his great mission. They undoubtedly had conversations about what the future might look like for their family and, specifically, for Jesus. Come what may, they would get through it together. What a great example of what marriages are meant to be like.

Joseph's reaction speaks of pure obedience and faith. He was slow to anger, reluctant to judge harshly, and was careful and thoughtful in his actions. He simply did what God wanted him to do, as soon as he knew what He expected of him. The more I think about it, the more I realize how much of "a just man" he really was. He sought to follow the law and to follow God, and was naturally kind toward the woman to whom he was espoused, even when all might have seemed against him. There is much to be learned from Joseph. He truly was a humble, obedient and just man.

Luke, Paul's Greek Physician

Luke may have been of Gentile descent, because of his name and his knowledge of the Greek language, and was possibly the only non-Jewish writer in the New Testament. (Bible Archaeology ➚) However, given his “intimate knowledge of the Old Testament and the focus of interest in his writings”, he may have been “a Jewish Christian who followed a Greek lifestyle and was comparatively lax in ritual observances.” (Britannica ➚) 

It is possible that Luke was a native of Syria and, more specifically, of the city of Antioch (Bible Archaeology ➚). Antioch was the capital of the Roman province of Syria, a city situated at the bend of a river where it breaks through the mountains about 300 miles north of Jerusalem, and about 15 miles from the Mediterranean Sea. In Paul’s time, Antioch was the third most important city of the Roman empire, with a population of more than 200,000 people. Many Jews settled in this picturesque city. In Antioch, the first Gentile church was established. Here, the Lord’s disciples were first referred to as Christians (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia). A part of the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to the Gospel of Luke that is believed to have been written in the 2nd century AD read, “Luke, was born in Antioch, by profession, was a physician. He had become a disciple of the apostle Paul and later followed Paul until his martyrdom. Having served the Lord continuously, unmarried and without children, filled with the Holy Spirit he died at the age of 84 years” (Wikipedia-Luke the Evangelist ➚). It is also possible that Luke’s hometown was, rather, Philippi, or perhaps he lived there at one point. (Bible Archaeology ➚)

It is believed that Luke was the beloved physician who was a companion to Paul during Paul’s extensive travels among the Gentiles, his journey to Jerusalem, and then to Rome where Paul was imprisoned. Luke could even be considered Paul’s personal physician (Bible Archaeology ➚). He was with Paul in Rome to the last, and was probably present when Paul was beheaded by the Romans. “Only Luke is with me,” said Paul (2 Timothy 4:11).

He was also a painter, said to have painted pictures of Mary and baby Jesus, as well as Peter and Paul. Luke was a historian as well, judging from the accuracy of his descriptions of towns, cities and islands, and official titles. However, his intention in his gospel writings was not so much historical as it was to record things of a more spiritual nature, to “proclaim and to persuade” (Wikipedia-Luke the Evangelist ➚).

Luke was first mentioned by Paul himself in Philemon, Colossians and 2 Timothy. Philemon 1:24 lists fellow laborers who were with him, being therein recorded as Lucas. Colossians 4:14 reads, “Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas greet you.” 2 Timothy 4:10-11 states, “For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.”

Luke was not an eyewitness of the Lord, but recorded life events that had been reported to him by those who were. (Luke 1:1 “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;”)

One of the oldest copies of part of the book of Luke, on papyrus, dating back to the 3rd century AD
Public domain tag {{PD-US}} ➚   Photo source ➚

Interestingly, Luke is the only writer of the gospels to record the Lord’s statements about physicians, such as “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick” (Luke 5:31). He was in Jerusalem with Paul during Paul’s third missionary journey. When Paul was arrested in Jerusalem and then imprisoned in Caesarea for two years, Luke is no longer mentioned, until Paul appeals to Caesar and is put on a ship to Rome. Luke and Aristarchus boarded with him. Surely during this two years, Luke visited Paul in prison, but he may also have used this time to interview eyewitnesses of the Savior and gather information in preparation for his writings. 

By the time he wrote the book of Luke, other gospels were already circulating. Traditionally, Matthew was the first and Mark the second, Mark writing on Peter’s behalf. Both were available before the middle of AD 40. Luke spoke in Luke 1:2 “Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word”.  He may have visited Jerusalem, Samaria, Perea and Galilee, places Jesus had taught, and interviewed those who knew or had heard of Jesus. Perhaps he also visited Nazareth and interviewed Mary, obtaining details of the birth of the Lord. (Bible Archaeology ➚)

In addition to being the author of the Gospel of Luke, he also wrote the book of Acts. Judging from his vocabulary and literary style, he was a well-educated man. These works may have been written “shortly after the Jewish revolt (AD 66-73)”, putting them about 20 or 30 years after the books of Matthew and Mark. Some scholars also believe that Luke wrote, or assisted by copying down dictations or manuscripts, some other writings now included in the New Testament. (Britannica ➚) The book of Luke may have been written as late as AD 60-85, though we don’t know where he wrote it. His sources were those who were eyewitnesses to the Savior. As mentioned above, he did not witness the Savior himself, but recorded events told to him by those who had.

The book of Luke was intended for a Gentile audience. This is indicated by Luke’s literary style and his use of Greek (Hellenistic) terminology. The books of Luke and Acts were addressed to Theophilus (Luke 1:3), the Greek meaning of which is ‘friend of God’ or ‘beloved of God’. Theophilus had evidently received previous information about the life and teachings of the Lord (Luke 1:4). Luke sought to teach him further of the Savior’s mission and ministry. Since physicians were often slaves, some also suspect that Luke was Theophilus’ personal physician and servant. The face that Theophilus was addressed as “the most excellent Theophilus” in Luke 1:3, indicates that Theophilus was in a ruling position in the Roman Empire (Commentaries – Chuck Smith ➚).

Things unique in the book of Luke, not included in the other Gospels, was the traditional Christmas story, Jesus at the temple when He was 12, the good Samaritan, the prodigal son, the ten lepers, the resurrected Lord walking with His disciples on the road to Emmaus, the prayerfulness of Jesus, and the shedding of Jesus’ blood in the Garden of Gethsemane. He also highlights the Lord’s interest in all people, not only the Jews, but also the Samaritans and the Gentiles. He emphasizes the Lord’s regard for women, his compassion for the downtrodden, and His concern for outcasts and sinners.

Luke is believed to have been arrested in Thebes, possibly flayed alive and crucified on an olive tree. (Bible Archaeology ➚) Others think that he died of old age at 84. His tomb is located in Thebes, at one time accompanied by his relics. Thebes is in central Greece, about 30 miles northwest of Athens. (Wikipedia-Thebes, Greece ➚)

Summary – 

• From Antioch, Syria

• A well-educated physician by trade, but also a missionary

• Contemporary of, and companion to, Paul

• Was not an eyewitness of the Lord

• Gathered material for his writings from those who knew Jesus
• Wrote Luke and Acts ca. AD 60-85

James, brother of the Lord

Variations of his name
James, brother of the Lord
James Adelphatheos (Brother of God)
James the Righteous
James the Just

James was called the Just because he was uncommonly fair, later in life, as a church leader in Jerusalem. Jacob is also an English version of James.

Who were his parents?
Possibilities:
1) Joseph and Mary (making him a half brother of the Lord), but some believe Mary remained a virgin
2) James was a cousin or other relation of the Lord rather than His brother ("brother" wasn't always literal)
3) Alphaeus (Cleaophus in Greek) and Mary, making him one of the twelve, not commonly believed
4) Joseph and a previous wife (making him a step-brother of the Lord)

I lean toward the 4th option listed, that Joseph was a widower when he became betrothed to Mary, and that James was a son from Joseph's previous marriage. One tradition even goes so far as to state that James, being older than Jesus, was present with Mary and Joseph when they took baby Jesus to Egypt in order to save His life. If this is true, James would have been closely associated with Jesus through His childhood years, giving him a rather rare and interesting perspective.

Matthew 13:55 stated the following, speaking of Jesus and his siblings, including James: "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary?" This doesn't necessarily prove that Mary was the biological mother of James, however. She still could have been his step-mother, meaning that he might have been the son of the carpenter (Joseph) from his possible previous marriage. I really don't think there's enough information to say for sure, but it has been fascinating to dig a bit into this matter.

The siblings of James...
Jesus (likely a step brother)
Joses (Joseph)
Simon
Judas
unnamed sisters

Scripture tells us that Jesus had several brothers and sisters, including James, though some historians contend that "brothers" and "sisters" in the following verses might not be literal in meaning. Sometimes those words were used for cousins or other relatives.

Matthew 13:54-57
"And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, "Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these might works? Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house."

What did James and his siblings initially think of Jesus?
Some believe that James was called one of the Lord's brothers because, assuming he was a son of Joseph from a previous marriage, he was entitled to a portion of Joseph's estate. This theory states that when Joseph was close to death he wanted to leave a portion of his estate to Jesus, his adopted son, and not only to his other sons. All of the other sons, save James, supposedly opposed Jesus getting a portion, since he was not Joseph's biological son. James, however, he would share his portion of his inheritance which Jesus, whom he loved. Along with this tradition, it is also understood that James was devoted to Jesus from the start, even accompanying Joseph and Mary as the fled with the baby Jesus into Egypt when Herod sought to kill Him. (The Brother of God ➚)

It appears that, perhaps, these step-brothers of Jesus did not initially accept Him as the Messiah. "His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that they disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth an thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him." (John 7:5) Again, "brethren" might not literally mean "brothers", but it might. The theory has been put forward that his brothers did not recognize Him as the Lord until after his resurrection, when he appeared to James. "After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles." (1 Corinthians 15:7) By the time Pentecost occurred, at least some of them had changed their views. Acts 1:14 says the following, "These all continued with on accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." This indicates that Jesus' brothers and his mother, Mary, were present at that time. (James, the Lord's Brother ➚)

His character
Though he may have been slow to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, James obviously because an undaunted supporter in later years. Hegesippus, a man who lived immediately after the time of the apostles, wrote the following concerning James, "James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day, for there were many that bore the name of James. He was holy from his mother's womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people. Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, Bulwark of the people' and Justice,' in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him. (The Martyrdom of James, who was Called the Brother of the Lord ➚)

James, for the whole of his life it seems, was different. This man (a Nazarene?) is said to have lived the laws of a Nazirite. Never drinking wine or strong drink or eating meat, he lived solely on bread and water. He also did not cut his hair or wear woolen clothing, but garments made of fine linen. James slept very little, preferring instead to spend his nights in prayer. He was one of the Seventy and aided in the conversion of many, Jew and Greek alike. He went into the temple to kneel and pray for forgiveness on behalf of the people so often that his knees became calloused like those of a camel. He may have written the Epistle of James about 20 years after Jesus died. Well known for his fairness, his opinions were well-respected, even among the Scribes and Pharisees.

James becomes a leader in Jerusalem
He was a very prominent figure among the people of his time. He was the leader of the Christian movement in Jerusalem, beginning three years after Paul's conversion ca. 34 AD. By then, the church was under the direction of the apostles. James is commonly referred to as the first bishop to preside over the congregation in Jerusalem. Clement of Alexandria, ca. the late 2nd century AD, wrote, "For they say that Peter and James (the Great) and John the Apostle, after the ascension of our savior, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just as bishop of Jerusalem". (Wikipedia - James, brother of Jesus ➚)

Presumably the responsibility was given to him by Peter, James the Elder and John after the ascension of Jesus Christ. Elsewhere, however, it is written that Jesus, himself, "imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one." James the Just led the church in Jerusalem for thirty years or so. (Wikipedia - James, brother of Jesus ➚)

James' prominence increased after the apostle James, son of Zebedee, was beheaded in 44 AD, and after an angel rescued Peter from prison and he left Jerusalem. James became the chief spokesman at the Council of Jerusalem. In this capacity, he clarified for Paul in 49 AD that Gentiles who were converted need not be circumcised, but that the Jews should still be strict in their observance of Jewish laws. (Encyclopedia Britannica - Council of Jerusalem ➚)

Scriptural references to James
Galations 1:18-20 (Paul mentions meeting "James, the Lord's brother")
"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God I lie not."

Galations 2:9-12 (James is on of the "pillars" of the church)
"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles..."

1 Corinthians 15:5-8 (Paul mentions that Jesus appeared to James after the resurrection)
"And that he was seen of Cephas [Peter], then of the twelve: After that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me [Paul], also, as of one born out of due time."

Acts 12:17 (James needed to be told that Peter had miraculously been freed from prison)
An angel rescued Peter from prison, and Peter hurried to the house of Mary, mother of John Mark. He told those present to "go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place."

Acts 15:13-15 (a matter is brought before James and the elders and apostles in Jerusalem)
"And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written"

Acts 21:17-20 (Paul meets with James)
"And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry."

His death
James the Just, after all he had done to lead others to believe on the Son of God, died a martyr. During the Passover in 62 AD, the Scribes and Pharisees feared the people, for so many had began to believe in Him. They thought the people erred in who they thought Jesus was. They approached James the Just and requested that he climb up to the pinnacle of the temple, where the crowds could see and hear him better, and declare to them that Jesus was not the Messiah. Instead, he preached powerfully to them the opposite. To this, the people gathered for the Passover replied, "Hosanna to the Son of David." As a result of their failed scheme, the Scribes and Pharisees plotted to have James pushed from the pinnacle, after which he fell roughly 450 feet into the Kidron Valley below.(St. James the Just and the Ministry of Reputation ➚) Miraculously, he survived and gathered all his strength to kneel and pray one last time for the people, "I beseech Thee, Lord God or Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." How similar this wording to the Lord's plea on the cross.

The Scribes and Pharisees found him and intended to stone him to death. One of the priests, a descendant of the Rechabites of whom Jeremiah spoke in Jeremiah 35, cried out, "Cease, what do ye? The just man is praying for us." His words went unheeded, and a launderer took a staff that was normally used to wring out clothes he dyed them, threw the club at James' head with such force that his brains began to spill out. So ended his earthly life, ca. 62 AD. He was buried right there where he died, near the temple, and a monument was erected in his memory.

The resulting unrest
It was illegal to form a Sanhedrin, or court, without the consent of the governor, and the people felt that James had been unjustly killed. It is suspected that this so upset the Jews that it led to the siege of Jerusalem, the First Jewish-Roman War, four years later.

Lineage of the Messiah

MATTHEW 1:1-19 AND LUKE 3:23-38

Does it really matter?
How many of you have been tempted to skip over this portion of the New Testament? Does it really matter what the Savior's lineage was? Well, to the Jews of that era it mattered a great deal. You see, it had been prophesied that their King would be descended from Abraham through the tribe of Judah, and that He would be of the house of David. Anyone claiming to be the Messiah, who did not fit this criteria, would not have been recognized as such.

Why give the lineage of Joseph?

Joseph and Mary
Photo source ➚

What reasons did Matthew and Luke have for considering the ancestry of Joseph to be relevant, when the Lord's literal parents were actually God the Father and Mary? What of the lineage of Mary, and thus her son, Jesus? Why does the lineage given in Luke differ so greatly from Matthew's, if both are the lineage of Joseph?

So many theories...
I got bogged down for several hours trying to decipher the various schools of thought on this matter. It appears that the general consensus is that one lineage was Joseph's and the other Mary's. However, ideas even differ as to which is which. Rather than compare and contrast the varying theories in depth here, which I feel unqualified to do, I will discuss the one I found to be the most fascinating. Ultimately, though, what is really important in all of this is that Jesus is the promised Messiah. Both lineages show direct descent from Abraham through King David, as was required. The difference is only that one follows the lineage through Solomon and the other through Nathan, both of whom were sons of David.


Was Mary's father also named Joseph?
Elliot's Commentary for English Readers ➚ suggests the following about Mary: “The omission of any mention of her parents suggests the idea of orphanhood, possibly under the guardianship of Joseph. The non-appearance of Joseph in the records of our Lord’s ministry, makes it probable that he died in the interval between the visit to the Temple of Luke 2:42 and the preaching of the Baptist, and that he was older than Mary. Both were poor; Joseph worked as a carpenter (Matthew 13:55), Mary offered the cheaper sacrifice of “two young pigeons” (Luke 2:24). They had no house at Bethlehem (Luke 2:7)." Mary being an orphan when she was betrothed to Joseph is something I hadn't really considered, and I thought it deserved mention in this context.

Whether or not she was an orphan, we do know that she was the mother of the Lord. It would seem, though it went against Jewish tradition to give the genealogy of a woman, that her lineage would merit being recorded in order to show that Jesus was of the correct lineage of be the Messiah. Regardless of when her parents died, who was Mary's father? Was his name Joseph, as was her husband's?

Within this theory, the lineage given in Matthew 1 is that of Mary, not her husband. If this is the case, the lineage clearly shows that Jesus was descended directly from David, and back through Abraham, as was prophesied. I found something very interesting when learning about this idea. Part of the conclusion drawn comes from the ancient text itself. In Matthew 1 verses 16 and 19, the word translated as "husband" can mean other things, indicating that there might have been two men by the name of Joseph, one Mary's father (verse 16) and one her husband (verse 19).

"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband (Greek: aner, meaning adult male, usually translated as husband) (Aramaic: gavra, meaning mighty man, father or husband) of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16)

"Then Joseph her husband (Greek: aner, meaning adult male) (Aramaic: bala, meaning man or husband), being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily." (Matthew 1:19)

Matthew is the most "Jewish" of the four gospels, and many scholars believe it was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and then translated to Greek. This is possible, given Matthew's background. During the translation into Greek the meaning could have become "husband" in verse 16 rather than "father". Notice that in Aramaic the word used in verse 16, possibly distinguishing that, anciently, it was understand that these were two different men, was not the same as in verse 19. However, in Greek the same word was used in both verses, suggesting that some meaning was lost in translation.

If translated more literally from Aramaic, verse 16 could read "And Jacob begat Joseph the father of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." This makes enough sense to merit some consideration, and allows the lineage in Matthew to continue its 14 generation pattern which Matthew described, adding the missing generation of Mary's father. . It is also interesting that the lineage listed in Matthew mentions several women, something not traditionally done at that time, whereas the lineage in Luke (possibly actually of Joseph, Mary's husband) does not. This may, possibly, give more merit to this lineage being Mary's. (Truth or Tradition ➚)

Something else to remember when trying to figure all this out is that there was no Greek word for "son-in-law". Therefore a genealogy could mention "son of" when it really means "son-in-law of".

Comparison of the two lineages

Both show direct descendant lineage through Abraham and King David, but by different sons of David.

Matthew 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14 generations:  1) ABRAHAM  2) Isaac  3) Jacob  4) Judas/Judah  5) Phares/Perez  6) Esrom (mother, Thamar)  7) Aram  8) Aminadab  9) Naasson/Nahshon 10) Salmon  11) Booz/Boaz 12) Obed (mother, Rahab) 13) Jesse (mother, Ruth) 14) DAVID (king ca. 1010-970 BC) 14 generations:   1) Solomon (king ca. 970-931 BC)   2) Roboam (king ca. 931-915 BC) (mother - wife of Urias)   3) Abia/Abijam (king ca. 915-911 BC)   4) Asa (king ca. 911-870 BC)   5) Josaphet/Jehoshaphat (king ca. 870-849 BC)   6) Joram/Jerhoram (king ca. 849-842 BC)   7) Ozias/Uzziah (king ca. 783-742 BC)   8) Joatham/Jotham (king ca. 750-735 BC)   9) Achaz (king ca. 735-715 BC) 10) Ezekias/Hezekiah (king ca. 716-697 BC) 11) Manasses/Manasseh king ca. 697-643 BC) 12) Amon (king ca. 643-640 BC) 13) Josias/Josiah (king ca. 640-609 BC) 14) Jechonias (cursed) BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY 14 generations:   1) Salathiel/Shealtiel   2) Zorobabel/Zerubbabel (grandfather's curse lifted)   3) Abiud   4) Eliakim   5) Azor   6) Sadoc/Zadok   7) Achim  8) Eliud   9) Eleazer 10) Matthan 11) Jacob 12) Joseph 13) Mary? 14) JESUS

Luke 3 Adam Seth Enos Cainan Maleleel Jared Enoch Mathusala Lamech Noe Sem Arphaxad Cainan Sala Heber Phalec Ragau Saruch Nachor Thara ABRAHAM Isaac Jacob Juda/Judah Phares/Perez Esrom Aram Aminadab Naasson/Nahshon Salmon Booz/Boaz Obed Jesse DAVID (king ca. 1010-970 BC) Nathan Mattath Menan Melea Eliakim Jonan Joseph Juda Simeon Levi Matthat Jorim Eliezer Jose Er Elmodam Cosam Addi Melchi Neri Shealtiel Zerubbabel Rhesa Joanan Joda Josech Semein Mattathias Maath Naggai Esli Nahum Amos Mattathias Joseph Jannae Melchi Levi Matthat Heli Joseph JESUS (adopted)

Some notes on Matthew's 14 generation pattern...

Matthew was categorizing the lineage by major historical time periods. Because records and books were scarce among the people, it was tradition to divide up genealogy into portions of equal length to more easily commit them to memory. (Barnes’ Notes on the Bible ➚) Keep in mind that the lineage Matthew listed was abbreviated; there are missing generations here and there. Possibly, this was to keep with the 14 generation pattern.

14 generations of growth:
Abraham to David

• Oversaw by patriarchs, prophets and judges
• Covers the life of Abraham, to whom the promise was given, through David, to whom the promise was renewed more fully

14 generations of decline:

David to the carrying away of the Jews from Jerusalem to Babylon, the extremely well-fortified capital of a vast empire

• Ruled by kings
• Covers the time from the building of the temple to its destruction

14 generations from ruin to redemption:
Babylonian captivity to the birth of Jesus Christ

• Under the rule of the Asmonaean priests and generals
• Began with temporal captivity, with its disgrace and misery, and ended with spiritual deliverance

I find it interesting that these multiples were chosen. Clearly, these generations were categorized by periods in history, and this allowed Matthew to memorize them more easily, but is the number fourteen significant? Perhaps it has something to do with the number seven being a symbol of completeness and perfection (spiritual and physical), used 860 times throughout the Bible. 14 is a multiple of 7. The 7th day is hallowed as the Sabbath. The Bible was originally divided into 7 major sections (the Law, the Prophets, the Writings/Psalms, the Gospels and Acts, the General Epistles, the Epistles of Paul and the Book of Revelation). There were originally 49 books (a multiple of 7), demonstrating the perfection of the Word of God. Whether it is relevant or purely coincidental, it is something to consider.


Conclusion
Whether Matthew gave the genealogy of Mary, while Luke gave Joseph's, or vice versa, I am fully confident in stating that Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah. Though the various theories are fascinating, we could split hairs or debate these theories all day long. What it really boils down to is that we know that Jesus is the Lord. I believe that the intention of Matthew and Luke, in recording these lineages, was simply to show the Jews that Jesus fit all of the criteria outlined to qualify Him for being the Lord and Savior, according to the ancient prophecies.

Journey to Bethlehem

LUKE 2:1-38

Inhabitants were ordered obey Caesar Augustus' decree
Photo source ➚

Luke does not mention much in the way of particulars, as to the circumstances surrounding the decree which brought Joseph and Mary to their ancestral home of Bethlehem. The extend of background he gives is as follows: "And it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child." (Luke 2: 1-5)

From the wording of ancient manuscripts, it is unclear whether this was more of a census or enrollment of taxable citizens, an assessment of each person's property in preparation for being taxed, or if Joseph and Mary were actually going there to pay said taxes. It was likely only a census or sorts, or an enrollment in preparation for later taxation. The taxation itself probably actually went into effect much later. Surely Caesar Augustus desired to gather an accounting of the population within the Roman Empire (the phrase translated as "all the world" often referred to the Roman Empire), each person's name, tribe and family. Taxing them immediately would have been difficult, and would have even caused a rebellion. Later, in Acts 27, there was a revolt by the Jews because of an attempt to tax them under Cyrenius, suggesting that there was no earlier taxation, but only an enrollment for such. (Bible Study Tools ➚) 

Cyrenius (Quirinius), the man mentioned by Luke as the one who first initiated the "taxation", had previously been the governor of Syria from 4 BC to 1 AD. He was appointed a general in the Roman army by the emperor in 6 AD, and was also and the governor of Syria once more, and remained so until 11 AD. His dominion then extended not only throughout Syria, but also the Roman province of Judea, which included Judea, Samaria and Idumea for the purpose of the census. At that time he was instructed to assess the province of Judea for the purpose of taxation, by way of this census. Keep in mind that the Jews hated these pagans who had conquered their land, and to whom they were, in a sense, slaves. Censuses were also against Jewish law. This census resulted in a revolt and the formation of the Zealots. (Wikipedia - Quirinius ➚)

As a side note, Will's Commentary states that the month, August, was named for Caesar Augustus because he corrected the calendar. He was considered to be the first to rule the entire Roman Empire, which was also known as "all the world". "Should be taxed" was translated from a phrase meaning "should be enrolled". Augustus saw to it that the empire was surveyed, in preparation for the actual taxation to take place, according to Roman law which required tax to be paid on males 14 years and older, as well as females 12 and up, later referred to in Luke 20 as the tribute to Caesar. Historically, it is pretty well established among scholars that Caesar Augustus carried out a geometrical survey of his empire. (Will's Commentary on the New Testament, Volume 3, page 36 ➚) It is really hard to say all that was involved in the decree, but we do know that Joseph and Mary traveled to where their people came from, in obedience to Caesar Augustus' edict. One can only wonder how this young couple felt about what they were required by law to do, knowing that it went against the laws of their Jewish forefathers.

Joseph brought Mary to Bethlehem Photo source ➚

Joseph took care of Mary along the way Photo source ➚

At this time it appears, from the usage of the phrase "espoused wife", that the marriage ceremony had taken place, but Joseph was not yet living with Mary in the traditional marital sense. We know this also from Matthew 1:24-25 which states, "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus." In marrying her, though she was already pregnant, he saved her from public shame and likely being stoned to death, as the physical proof of her condition became apparent. He was commanded to do so by the angel, but it also showed his level of trust and compassion. Surely, he was a great man, carefully chosen to be Mary's husband and to guide Jesus through childhood.

Their journey to Bethlehem, the birthplace of David, ca. 6 BC took them a great distance, some 90 miles, from where they lived in Nazareth. Bethlehem was located six miles south of Jerusalem. Though they could have chosen a shorter route through Samaria, this was hostile territory and hilly terrain, difficult and dangerous especially given Mary's stage of pregnancy. It is suspected that they, instead, traveled "southeast through the Jezreel Valley and further east to the Jordan Valley. Continuing south to Jericho, they probably proceeded up through the Judean Desert to Jerusalem and onward to Bethlehem." (Reference ➚) Whether they were both on foot, or if Mary rode on a donkey as is traditionally accepted, is hard to say. It is estimated that they journey took anywhere from 4 days to a week and a half. Suffice it to say that it was a very difficult trip for Mary in her condition, but surely Joseph made her as comfortable as possible.

The text states that they went "up" from Nazareth in Galilee. It is interesting to note that Bethlehem is about 2000 feet elevation, so they really did go "up". (Will's Commentary on the New Testament, Volume 3, page 36 ➚) The old city of Nazareth was situated in a "bowl-like" valley at 1200 feet, surrounded by hills. (Encyclopedia - Nazareth ➚) At this time, Nazareth likely had a population or 4-500 people. (Wikipedia - Nazareth ➚)

Bethlehem, in the hill country of Judea, has great Biblical significance. It was there that Rachel died, and her tomb is at the entrance of the city. In a valley east of there Ruth gleaned the fields. In this fortified city, David was anointed king of Israel by the prophet Samuel. It is also the birthplace the Lord. (Wikipedia - Bethlehem ➚) From the fields east of the city came the shepherds to visit baby Jesus, and shepherds still watch over their sheep in this area, to this day. (Bible Places - Bethlehem ➚)

This being where Jesus was born fulfills the Old Testament prophecy recorded in Micah 5:2, "But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." This prophecy is referred to by the chief priests and scribes when Herod questioned where Jesus was to be born, in Matthew 2:4-6.