Messianic Judaism?

[Steve Petersen]

I have pointed this out before: after a person converted to Judaism, the sages said that the community should not be overly meticulous with the new convert. Converts were given a few light and a few heavy commandments to start with. As time went on they were expected to incorporate more.

I believe that this is what the Jerusalem Councils ruling amounts to: a dispensation for new believers in Jesus in order not to discourage them with ALL the commandments at once. They were given essential ones at the beginning to separate them from idolatry BUT they were expected to adopt more as they matured; this is why the phrase 'Moses is read every sabbath in the synagogue' appears there. It was there that they would CONTINUE to learn and add mitzvot to their praxis.

I would call this Divine Expectation rather than Divine Invitation.

 

[visionary]

That is where we would differ. When I read the Torah, I the Mosaic law given to the Jewish people as all of the law is addressed to the Jewish people or a segment of the Jewish people. Some commands are given to the Gentiles as the Gentiles are specifically mentioned as included in that obligation. So, if the Gentile people attended the synagogues to hear Moses, they would see the law as they are applicable to the various people groups. Plus, they would have heard the Rabbinical teaching which would apply only a subset of laws to the Gentiles.

So, yes, they would be incorporating it into their lives, but would not feel obligated to the entire law given in the Mosaic covenant, since they are Gentiles/not Jewish.

Just as you would have only certain obligations as it applies to your life... What is this "obligation to the entire law" ? Yeshua could not even be obligated to the entire law as He was not levite, female, etc... Yet as we all are, the "obligation" to acknowledge its role in our society [congregation] whether Jew or Gentile holds us all together as a community of believers.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Just as you would have only certain obligations as it applies to your life... What is this "obligation to the entire law" ? Yeshua could not even be obligated to the entire law as He was not levite, female, etc... Yet as we all are, the "obligation" to acknowledge its role in our society [congregation] whether Jew or Gentile holds us all together as a community of believers.

You have to wonder - if Yeshua was fully observant - how far he'd go. Did Yeshua choose to make offerings of atonement for himself as all were required to as Jewish males in Israel? He was God - and yet for a long time, no one thought he was anything other than a Law-abiding Jewish citizen. And I think it'd be interesting to see him in the temple when sacrifices for sin were made and he particpated - for he would've obviously had a radically different mindset behind why he did so than other Jewish citizens.

As said before here and here/here, I do believe that Yeshua was perfect. For He was truly without sin and perfect...and whenever he spoke out against the temple (as was the case when he overturned the money-changers/tables in John 2 and elsewhere), I believe the Lord voiced His opinions toward the religious rank of the temple rather than the sacrifice itself. Nonetheless He came to fulfill and replace the sacrifice which is explained in Hebrews 9. His institution of Hoy communion confirms His body & blood replacing the animal sacrifice In John 6:44-71 (read all of John 6 though). Also St. Paul testifies to holy communion in 1 Corinthians 11 (mainly verses 20-30). However, while Jesus was alive He lived under the Mosaic Law which demanded animal sacrifice. It wasn't till after His Death (When His blood substituted for the blood of all animals) that animal sacrifice was no longer necessary. But, again that did not happen till after he died and was resurrected.

And with sacrifices, we already see where the Lord was actively involved in the sacrifical sytem itself...including partaking in lambs that were made for the purposes of sin (Exodus 12, Leviticus 23:4-6 , Leviticus 23:4-6 , Deuteronomy 16, etc):

Mark 14:12
​

​

[ The Lord's Supper ] On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" 13 So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. 14 Say to the owner of the house he enters, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 15 He will show you a large room upstairs, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there.”
​

Luke 22:14-16Luke 22
10 He replied, “As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters, 11 and say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 12 He will show you a large upper room, all furnished. Make preparations there.”

13 They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.

14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15 And he said to them,“I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”
​

The people who heard what Yeshuas' disciples asked about Passover preparations would have naturally understood them to be saying Christ was preparing to eat a traditional Passover meal as other Jewish families did....and they would not have thought that Yeshua was meaning He was not for the eating of a sacrificial lamb when He said "I have eagerly been wishing to eat this Passover Meal with you." I've often been of the mindset that there are certain laws that could not have been kept by the Lord since they never applied to Him....just like those who were not farmers had differing regulations/ordinances they had to obey that farmers were exempt from in Torah. As I've said to another before, some of this I have brought up before when others note how there's no mention of whether Christ in keeping all of the Torah chose to go up into Jerusalem/temple and make offerings of sacrifice for sins like all in the land did (and were required to do...Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16, Lev. 17:11 and Leviticus 7, Leviticus 5, Leviticus 4, etc ) since He himself was sinless. One can only imagine how other Jews may've reacted to one claiming to be without sin refusing to make sacrifices of atonement as all others......for it'd be odd to see a Jewish boy (When Yeshua was young) refuse to make any type of sacrifices of sin for himself or attend Yom Kippur due to claiming that He was WITHOUT any sin

If Christ kept the Law/Torah that demanded sacrifices and went to temple to do so yearly when he was alive, to me, the only way to reconcile that is to consider how Christ may've done so in the same way others ( i.e. Daniel 9 or Ezra in Ezra 9-10 or Nehemiah 8-9 and Moses in Exodus 32-33 & Numbers 14, etc) did when it came to identifying with the sins of their nations even though they themselves never sinned...much in the same way Christ identified with humanity via baptism by John even though he was not in need of forgiveness since He was perfect, as Christ noted he had to be baptized for the sake of identification/fulfilling all righteousness.


For more, one may consider the following:

• For the Sins of the Nation

• Identificational Repentance - Reconcile.org

II Corinthians 5:21 comes to mind as it concerns Christ being made sin for us...identifiying with us fully (Hebrews 4:14-16, Hebrews 2:5-18, etc).


Galatians 2:4 speaks very clearly on the issue of law and how Jesus was born under the Law and of a woman. He was born as a Jew, subject to GOD'S Law and fulfilling it perfectly/FLAWLESSLY. Thus, Jesus was the PERFECT Sacrifice because although he was fully Human, he never sinned..and His death brought freedom for us who were enslaved to sin so that we could be adopted as sons of God.

Some may say that the requirements of the Law (regarding sacrifices/offerings) were made only for "Sinful" man---and though I agree in part with that, I think it's over-reaching to say that was all of the purpose behind the Laws that God gave. For even with the laws being made for sinful man, saying its wrong for Jesus to keep it/walk by due to his being perfect and without sin is like saying it was somehow wrong for Christ to be BAPTIZED in Luke 3:21-22 and Matthew 3:13-17. For Baptism could be said to have been only for sinful man...and yet Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit had no issue with it. Baptism is a sign of repentance from sin, yet Jesus did not need to be to be baptized for sin since he NEVER sinned.....and in asking to be baptized, Jesus seemed to be taking one more step in fulfilling his earthly mission of identifying with our humanity/sin. As Jesus said, his baptism was to fulfill all righteousness....and by endorsing the rite of baptism, Jesus was giving us an example to follow...and he was being baptized for the sins of the nation.

In baptism Jesus was confessing sin on behalf of the nation. If that could happen with Baptism, other parts of the Law would be no different when it came to Jesus walking by it---and identifying with it when it came to sin. That does not make Christ out to be somehow less than SINLESS, IMHO--but rather, it shows just how far he was willing to go for the sake of identification with the people he came to save.

Identification is such a big theme in the life of Yeshua, as He was the Boss/The one who aided in instituting the Law of Moses...but in order to redeem His people, He chose to come under it in identifying with the people, much in the same way that an Employer comes down to the level of an employee/works in their position even though they, as the boss, has freedom to do as they please. The Law is subject to the Law-GIVER rather than the other way around. __________________

He came to fulfill and replace the sacrifice which is explained in Hebrews 9. His institution of Hoy communion confirms His body & blood replacing the animal sacrifice In John 6:44-71 (read all of John 6 though). Also St. Paul testifies to holy communion in 1 Corinthians 11 (mainly verses 20-30). However, while Jesus was alive He lived under the Mosaic Law which demanded animal sacrifice. It wasn't till after His Death (When His blood substituted for the blood of all animals) that animal sacrifice was no longer necessary. But, again that did not happen till after he died and was resurrected.


.As the Lord asking for something to be done on their part as a means of being right with Him--with the Lord setting the rules for how he wanted the people to approach Him if they wanted to be clean--demand is more than accurate, IMHO. The Lord did not need to have sacrifices...but as it concerns relationships, it was not an option for the people not to bring them if they wanted to connect with Him. Of course, that can also be an issue of semantics since sacrifices in/of themselves were never able to cleanse people of their sins.....and there was always the dynamic of what sacrifices symbolized when it came to what they poitned to.

As a Jew, Jesus must have kept the Law of Moses perfectly. Yet that same law required all Jews to keep the Passover celebration ( (Exodus 12:47 ). The Gospels specifically mention Jesus keeping three Passover feasts in Jerusalem....even as a boy (Luke 2:41-51). In order to keep the feast, the participants were given roasted lamb, bitter herbs, and unleavened bread to eat (Exodus 12:3-4). The entire lamb had to be eaten during the feast. If there were any leftovers, they had to be burned (Exodus 12:10). If Jesus did not eat the lamb, he would have been violating the Law and could have been accused of sin ( Numbers 9:10-13 ). The New Testament records that Jesus did eat the Passover feast, which would include the eating of the roasted lamb (Luke 22:14-15).

 

[Qnts2]

Just as you would have only certain obligations as it applies to your life... What is this "obligation to the entire law" ? Yeshua could not even be obligated to the entire law as He was not levite, female, etc... Yet as we all are, the "obligation" to acknowledge its role in our society [congregation] whether Jew or Gentile holds us all together as a community of believers.

The Jewish people are one people and the Mosaic law was given to the Jewish people. As a people, we are obligated to the entire law, as we said at Mt Sinai, all that God says, we will do. So speaking individually, I am obligated to do the laws which apply to me as my part of the people, but as a people, we are obligated to the entire law (minus the Temple as that is impossible to keep without the Temple)

I grew up in Judaism, so the Mosaic law is nothing new to me. When I accepted Yeshua, the Jewish community didn't really want me around. What was new is Yeshua. So when I joined in with other Messianic Jews in Messianic Judaism, we had all grown up in Judaism but were now outcastes because of our belief in Yeshua. What held us together, was our belief in Yeshua.

So, for me, it is not about the Mosaic law. That has always been in my life. What makes me Messianic is Yeshua. If it were not for Yeshua, I would not be a Messianic Jew.

 

[Steve Petersen]

You have to wonder - if Yeshua was fully observant - how far he'd go. Did Yeshua choose to make offerings of atonement for himself as all were required to as Jewish males in Israel? He was God - and yet for a long time, no one thought he was anything other than a Law-abiding Jewish citizen. And I think it'd be interesting to see him in the temple when sacrifices for sin were made and he particpated - for he would've obviously had a radically different mindset behind why he did so than other Jewish citizens.

What sins would he have had to make sacrifices for?

Some sacrifices were mandatory. Pilgrimage festivals required participants to bring offerings. 'You shall not appear before me empty-handed.'

 

[visionary]

I grew up in Judaism, so the Mosaic law is nothing new to me. When I accepted Yeshua, the Jewish community didn't really want me around. What was new is Yeshua. So when I joined in with other Messianic Jews in Messianic Judaism, we had all grown up in Judaism but were now outcastes because of our belief in Yeshua. What held us together, was our belief in Yeshua.

So, for me, it is not about the Mosaic law. That has always been in my life. What makes me Messianic is Yeshua. If it were not for Yeshua, I would not be a Messianic Jew.

Yep... and for me it was both... as I was not born nor raised in either camp, that which believed in the Messiah or the Torah, so I too am an outcast from my family because of my beliefs. Yep.. we are now in the same congregation of believers, believers in Yeshua, and His Holy Torah.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

What sins would he have had to make sacrifices for?

I don't believe he had any sins he needed to make sacrifices for - no more than he had to be baptized as a sign of repentance like he did anything wrong....although he did participate in both baptism and the sacrificial system - and it'd be very odd for Christ to make sacrifices and yet leave out an entire relevant category while he was on Earth - and telling other Jewish men "I don't have to do this as the Law asks for all men regardless since God says all must do these sacrifices"

Some sacrifices were mandatory. Pilgrimage festivals required participants to bring offerings. 'You shall not appear before me empty-handed.'

Indeed . Offerings of thanksgiving and gratitude I can see Christ doing with no issue - but the ones for sin all had to do I wrestle with....as he simultaneously claimed to be without sin/God and yet be for all of the Law. To others hearing his claims of being Messiah, I wonder how seriously they could take him if he's making the same sacrifices they feel are to be made for men who are sinful and yet he's claiming to them that He is without sin/the one they need to look to.

I do wonder what Yeshua really did in everyday life and what it must have been like. He's a Man - and yet He's also the one who will make his people righteous and He's the true sacrifice that can purify others. Living a life without sin continually and NEVER messing up in order to ensure that he was a spotless sacrifice.

Luke 2:39-41
40 And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was on him.

Luke 2:52
And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.
Luke 2:51-52

Hebrews 5:6-8 / Hebrews 5
And he says in another place,

“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”[a]

​

7 During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered

1 Peter 4
Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because whoever suffers in the body is done with sin. 2 As a result, they do not live the rest of their earthly lives for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God.
​

 

[Avodat]

What sins would he have had to make sacrifices for?

Some sacrifices were mandatory. Pilgrimage festivals required participants to bring offerings. 'You shall not appear before me empty-handed.'

I don't think it was a 'baptism' or 'immersion' to do with John's ministry to the ordinary people. It was, more likely, to have been his anointing as King and High Priest. I can't see Yeshua being involved in a deception to accept the immersion of John, knowing it to be for cleansing from sin and nothing to do with the imparting of the Holy Spirit (as we know from Acts).

 

[yedida]

I have pointed this out before: after a person converted to Judaism, the sages said that the community should not be overly meticulous with the new convert. Converts were given a few light and a few heavy commandments to start with. As time went on they were expected to incorporate more.

I believe that this is what the Jerusalem Councils ruling amounts to: a dispensation for new believers in Jesus in order not to discourage them with ALL the commandments at once. They were given essential ones at the beginning to separate them from idolatry BUT they were expected to adopt more as they matured; this is why the phrase 'Moses is read every sabbath in the synagogue' appears there. It was there that they would CONTINUE to learn and add mitzvot to their praxis.

I would call this Divine Expectation rather than Divine Invitation.

Absolutely! No woman gives birth to an infant and expects that newborn to behave like her 20yr old son!! The infant must be given a chance to learn and grow and mature. And that mother's 20yr old is gonna feel a very unpleasant boot in fleshy part of his body if he decides to act like his new-born sibling!! She'll quickly put a stop to that behavior! So why is it so difficult to understand that a gentile just coming to faith in the Holy One of Israel is granted the same time of growth and maturity? A complete change of lifestyle is definitely a culture shock and demands time for adjustments.

 

[visionary]

I don't think it was a 'baptism' or 'immersion' to do with John's ministry to the ordinary people. It was, more likely, to have been his anointing as King and High Priest. I can't see Yeshua being involved in a deception to accept the immersion of John, knowing it to be for cleansing from sin and nothing to do with the imparting of the Holy Spirit (as we know from Acts).

As Yeshua said "suffer it to be so"

Matt 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Yeshua sees a fulfillment of righteousness in getting this immersion. ... As immersions [mikvahs] go, there are many reasons why and what for are they required. Which of these was Yeshua refering to as a "fulfillment of righteousness" is a good question.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

When I read the Torah, I the Mosaic law given to the Jewish people as all of the law is addressed to the Jewish people or a segment of the Jewish people. Some commands are given to the Gentiles as the Gentiles are specifically mentioned as included in that obligation. So, if the Gentile people attended the synagogues to hear Moses, they would see the law as they are applicable to the various people groups. Plus, they would have heard the Rabbinical teaching which would apply only a subset of laws to the Gentiles.

So, yes, they would be incorporating it into their lives, but would not feel obligated to the entire law given in the Mosaic covenant, since they are Gentiles/not Jewish.

 

[sevengreenbeans]

As Yeshua said "suffer it to be so" Yeshua sees a fulfillment of righteousness in getting this immersion. ... As immersions [mikvahs] go, there are many reasons why and what for are they required. Which of these was Yeshua refering to as a "fulfillment of righteousness" is a good question.

Every mikvah is a fulfillment of righteousness, because it is part of the process to be "set apart".

 

[visionary]

Every mikvah is a fulfillment of righteousness, because it is part of the process to be "set apart".

I was actually looking for a specific mikvah written in the Law of Moses regarding this particular act of righteousness.

 

[sevengreenbeans]

I don't think it was a 'baptism' or 'immersion' to do with John's ministry to the ordinary people. It was, more likely, to have been his anointing as King and High Priest. I can't see Yeshua being involved in a deception to accept the immersion of John, knowing it to be for cleansing from sin and nothing to do with the imparting of the Holy Spirit (as we know from Acts).

It would not be a deception to mikveh - would the Spirit of YHWH dwell in an unclean habitation?

It's a picture of a picture, so to speak.

There are many instances in the NT which talk about situations Yeshua and his followers were part of where a subsequent mikveh would have been in order.

 

[Norbert L]

48 pages of very public acrimony.

Great idea.

I don't agree with this and I agree with this.

Certainly there are a number of posts where a person's feelings bleed through their thoughts, but part of the attraction to CF as a whole is allowing anyone to find legitimate 'point-counterpoint' evaluations on a topic.

Not all posts contain acromony and even a number of them that do, it's possible to filter out the bitterness and see a legitimate point being made.

I think there is some kind of ingenuity in allowing this approach where some great ideas are good to take note of whereas other great ideas not so much.

 

[Avodat]

As Yeshua said "suffer it to be so" Yeshua sees a fulfillment of righteousness in getting this immersion. ... As immersions [mikvahs] go, there are many reasons why and what for are they required. Which of these was Yeshua refering to as a "fulfillment of righteousness" is a good question.

He didn't need man to declare him as King (in fact when they tried to make him king he refused and walked away) and neither did he need man to make him a High Priest. He submitted to it because his father had decreed that King and Priest had to be set apart and that John's function was to point him out and declare him as G_d's chosen one. Therefore, Yeshua submitted to John, though, as John said, it should be the other way round.

 

[visionary]

He didn't need man to declare him as King (in fact when they tried to make him king he refused and walked away) and neither did he need man to make him a High Priest. He submitted to it because his father had decreed that King and Priest had to be set apart.

King David was set apart with the anointing of oil. What set a priest apart was their bloodline. In either case, it was not immersion [mikvah]. The closest thing I can think of, is the priest would "wash" before entering into the Holy Temple.

 

[Avodat]

King David was set apart with the anointing of oil. What set a priest apart was their bloodline. In either case, it was not immersion [mikvah]. The closest thing I can think of, is the priest would "wash" before entering into the Holy Temple.

Yeshua was in a different line of Priesthood. Aaron (and his sons) were washed by others before he could be prepared for anointing. Yeshua's anointing was from heaven in the form of a dove, after he had been washed by John.

 

[visionary]

Yeshua was in a different line of Priesthood. Aaron (and his sons) were washed by others before he could be prepared for anointing. Yeshua's anointing was from heaven in the form of a dove, after he had been washed by John.

Good analogy..

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yeshua was in a different line of Priesthood. Aaron (and his sons) were washed by others before he could be prepared for anointing. Yeshua's anointing was from heaven in the form of a dove, after he had been washed by John.

I think seeing the impact of being anointed for Priesthood in the coming down of the Dove in Matthew 3 is a BIG deal when considering the background Yeshua hailed from. In example, when Hebrews 2:17-18 and 4:15 talks about His participating in our weaknesses, temptations, and sufferings, can it mean that He found out what it's like to be the kid that everybody calls born out of wedlock?


In John 8, it seems to come out when the Jews say they were not "illegitimate children" when Yeshua was calling them out. It seemed that their comment was more than a veiled way of making clear that Yeshua had no right to call them illegitimate children of Abraham since they all supported the rumor that He was born out of wedlock/wasn't truly born the correct way. As no one but Mary and Joseph (alongside Elizabeth, Zechariah and John) were aware of the prophecies of Christ---knowing He was born of a virgin---the rest of the people would reasonably disbelieve the claim that God was the Father of Christ. It's one of the reasons why it seems that Joseph choosing to marry Mary was a BIG deal since it seemed publically that she had either slept with another man....or that her/Joseph were messing around. Either way, shame would have been something that MARY/Joseph had to deal with.[/color]

Understanding the battles Yeshua may've had with illegitimacy can make more sense in light of what the Word notes with Yeshua growing up/being approved by the Father:

Luke 2:37

The Boy Jesus at the Temple

41Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. 42When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. 43After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48When his parents saw him, they were astonished.

His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."

49"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" 50But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

51Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.
​

According to the text, Jesus demonstrated wisdom beyond his years---which is not suprising since He stayed close to his Heavenly father. And on the cultural background, according to God's Law, every male was required to go to Jerusalem three times a year for the great festivals (Deuteronomy 16:15-17 Deuteronomy 16 ). In the spring, the Passover was celebrated, immediately by the week-long Feast of Unleavened Bread. And at the time of the Passover, the greatest rabbis of the land would assemble to teach/discuss great truths among themselves. The coming of the Messiah would have been a popular discussion topic--as everyone was expecting him soon. And Jesus would have been eager to listen/ask probing questions (as He did).

In line with Mary's question of "Why have you done this to us", Jesus made clear the question was misplaced. AWhen Jesus was 12 years old, it was at the age at which a Jewish boy undergoes his bar-mitzvah ceremony and becomes a "son of the commandment", personally responsible for keeping the Torah given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. At this time, for the first time, he was given an aliyah (call-up) to come to the bimah (lectern) and read from the sefer-Torah (i.e. Torah scroll) in a synagouge service.

At the age of 12, Jesus was considered almost an adult, and so he didn't spend a lot of time with his parents during the festival. Those who attended these festivals often traveled in caravans for protection from robbers from the Palestine roads. It was customary for women and children to travel at the front of the caravan, with the men bringing up the rear. A 12 year boy could have been in either group..and both Mary/Joseph assumed Jesus was in either one.

But Jesus stayed behind, absorbed in his discussion with the religious leaders. And with that in mind, as upset as Mary was and while Joseph may have been searching for days for the child, they should have known where to look (according to Jesus's response)----especially in light of what had already been revealed to them about their son in Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2.

Mary was fearful she had not been careful with this God-Given child--yet she could not see the man who was in the temple living out part of what he was meant to do...nor had she learned to let go. His parents didn't understand what He meant about "father's business"--as they didn't realize he was making a distinction between his earthly father and his heavenlly Father----and they knew he was unique but they did not know fully all He was called to do.....since they had to raise him along with his brothers/sisters as a normal child ( Matthew 13:54-56 Matthew 13/ ).

Also, what happened there in Luke 2 was a matter of Jesus realizing for the first time that He was God's Son...yet even though He knew he was God's Son, He did not reject his earthly parents/who they were and what they were placed there to teach him. For He went back to Nazareth with them, lived under their authority for another 18yrs and took up the trade of his father (i.e. a carpenter), which was another function of being about the Business of His Father/always doing what His Father wanted him to do at the time.

And later, in Matthew 4 and Luke 4, the Lord YEshua was again affirmed PUBLICALLY that he was indeed the son of His Father, who was well pleased with him. Seeing how many may've assumed that Jesus was an illegitimate child and Joseph was not the real father (which was hinted at in John 8:40-42 when the Jewish people noted of themselves that they were not illegitimate children), having to be confirmed was a big deal. Although the Lord was qualified to be considered an heir to the Davidic line, he still was not known to be one who was born of a virgin....and thus, the stigma of being considered as being born out of wedlock would not have gone away easily.

One man of God, known as Joseph Garlington, said it best here:

Maximise Life Conference - New Wine Church - Bishop Joseph Garlington - Part 4 ​

From what I was able to see, the Lord would be in need of having a rite of passage himself. Messianic Jew Asher Intrater from "Revive Israel" ministries and Israel Mandate...actually had one of the greatest speeches on the subject I've ever heard of entitled You Are My Beloved Son


When considering all that Mary's Son had to go through with others mistreating Him...and considering what Mary herself would have to endure, it's amazing that people don't realize how difficult it was for Mary to do as she did in proclaiming to her cousin Elizabeth that she would forever be considered blessed. For it is not easy for a mother who had Christ on her hip when she got married to Joseph...and probably had to deal with shame all of her life from the community who never knew that God brought forth Christ (hence, why Joseph planned on divorcing her since it seemed like she slept around).


Again, Joseph, according to Matthew's Gospel, was a righteous man who didn't want to disgrace Mary when pregnancy came forth, so he wanted to "put her away secretly" (Matthew 1:19)...but an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and explained he was not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife. Matthew explains that Joseph obeyed the angelic visitor, keeping Mary as his wife...and we can only surmise how Mary dealt with the problem which led to Joseph's involvement. When she first told him, obviously he didn't accept her explanation of her pregnancy...just as any other man would react if he came home and a wife pregnant with a child not his said "This child is from God!!!"..

Luke dismisses the questions Joseph had and follows Mary to Elizabeth's home (Luke 1-2). ..and both Gospels ignore Mary's emotions and thoughts in this sensitive area of culture. But I must wonder what Mary thought..apart from where she declared that future generations would say that she was blessed. She told her betrothed what had happened, and he didn't accept the truth until an angel confirmed Mary's explanation. Nothing is said about what the neighbors said, but it was a time when a woman could have been stoned for becoming pregnant out of wedlock[/B]. One of Joseph's own ancestors, Judah, had caused the pregnancy of Tamar, and she was almost stoned [and burned].

This cultural response may have been partially lessened when Mary left her hometown of Nazareth and went south to Judea to visit Elizabeth. This trip also gives us an intimate portrait of feminine reaction to pregnancy in a culture where a childless woman was considered to be unfulfilled....but again, Mary would have easily been considered in danger if others saw Joseph dismising her. In light of that, it was NO SMALL Task to be asked to bear the Son of God since one faced the threat of death....alongside long-term shame from the community who would never believe what she said about the true parent of her child.

As another said best on the issue:

What did she think about the ugly rumors that had persisted among unbelieving Jews and Romans from the very first days of Jesus' ministry? Those stories were recorded in other non-biblical literature and persist to this day. ["Then they said to Him, 'We were not born of fornication; we have one Father-God.'" (John 8:41) The indication from the false religious leaders of Jesus day, is that, they believed Jesus was born of fornication.] Basically, they say Jesus was the illegitimate son of Mary and a Roman soldier. Surely she must have heard those stories in her lifetime. How did she feel about such terrible words? Did these rumors add to her grief so that she was prostrate the morning after the Sabbath?
​