ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 มิ.ย. 2024
- So, we've been diving into the Old Testament and exploring these cool things called undesigned coincidences that serve as evidence for the trustworthiness of the Bible. Another kind of undesignedness that can crop up is when we look at instances where information is assumed by the author but not explicitly spelled out. JJ Blunt called the 'uniformity of expressive silence' - where repeated omissions seem to carry meaning.
Today, I want to zoom in on some of these gems within the story of Isaac and Rebecca, and Jesus and his Joseph.
00:00 What is expressive silence?
00:35 OT example - Rebekah's Missing Dad
05:05 NT example - What happened to Joseph?
08:09 Why it means you can trust the Bible
Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubts.com
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isjesusalive for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
Recommended books on defending the Gospels: isjesusalive.com/recommended-...
If this was the History channel it would be hinted that Joseph was abducted by aliens.
👽
LOL!!!
@@TestifyApologetics The bible claims the world is 6000 years old, flat with a dome over it, thats all you need to know it cant be believed! So tell me why didnt joe have sex with his wife? Why did he believe her excuse of magic!
Aliens angels same different
@@TestifyApologetics Gay joe and fictional fairy tales!
Joseph's absence has always been particularly conspicuous to me, ever since I was reading the Bible as a little kid. If the Gospels were nothing more than myths constructed decades or even centuries later, you'd think that Matthew (the Gospel which emphasizes Jesus' status as the Messianic son of David) would have made Joseph a much more central character.
Lol. Wouldn’t even know where to begin with you.
@@a5dr3 so arrogant, this is why no one likes atheists
Always start with believing the Bible is true. Then the answer is easy.
Mary and Joseph were both of the House of David. Mary came from the line of servants and Joseph was from the line of kings (Matthew 1). Jesus was born to Mary and adopted by Joseph. Likewise we are born again of the Holy Spirit and adopted by Jehovah. There's a symmetry there.
Joseph was from the line of kings. That means while he was alive he was the rightful King of Judah. For Jesus to be the King of the Jews (Judah), Joseph had to be dead.
I agree. This coincidence is very impressive.
No because Joseph is supposedly not Jesus' biological father and Jesus' "true father" is God.
I feel my brain growing
🧠💪
Br aware it might become into a quasar
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, knowledge of the Holy One is the beginning of understanding
Proverbs 9:10
I think it's likely Joseph died while Jesus was younger, and Jesus, being the oldest child, worked to provide for his family. This would explain the lack of information about Jesus' life prior to his ministry and the absence of Joseph during his ministry.
But Joseph was married before & had other children. Wouldn't the oldest son be the head & not Jesús?
there is no verse that says Jesus was MARY&JOSEPH"s oldest child. maybe that's a modern certain kind of protestant conclusion. it could be that jesus was one of many children from mary and joseph's marriage. joseph could have been married before (as tradition records) and had children already (who would still be jesus' siblings). jesus' brothers and sisters could also be closeR relatives, like half brothers, step brothers, cousins, second cousins, neighbours, citizens (of the same city), uncles, aunts, close friends, compatriots, associates etc (for such is the semantic range of אח).
Jesus was an ONLY child.
Jesus was God’s only child. Not Joseph’s. Joseph was married, had kids with a wife that had died.
@MossEYE- There is no evidence whatsoever for that in the Bible, nor is there evidence that Joseph and Mary had no children together after Jesus. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Mary remained a virgin her whole life.
In all likelihood, Joseph was a man in his mid-to-late twenties who had recently established himself as wealthy enough to provide for a family, and Mary was a girl in her late teens to early twenties who made a good match.
There's also no mention of any children traveling with Jospeh and Mary before or right after Jesus's birth. No mention of them on the travel to Bethlehem, when they stayed in Egypt, etc. Just Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. You don't think Luke, the detail-oriented writer of one of the four Gospel books, would have at least mentioned at all that there were children in the family before Jesus?
Edit: autocorrect decided that "virgin" *had* to have meant "Virginia," which is now fixed.
Both ancient Catholic (Western) and Orthodox (Eastern) traditions hold that Joseph passed away before Jesus’ ministry from old age/natural causes. So it all lines up. I always saw it that way too personally, kind of like in Superman (1978) where Clark Kent only goes on his journey to become Superman after his own adoptive father dies from a heart attack.
Yes because we believe that Joseph was an old man when he married Mary
@@deutschermichel5807 That's one theory. He could have been anywhere from 20 to 60. Either way, it's safe to say that he died at some point before Jesus' ministry. Who knows? He could-a choked on a piece of fish or somethin'.
@@ignatiusjackson235 No, the old man explanation fits with Traditional Christian doctrine in more ways than just being convenient. The Protoevangelion of James has been in circulation since at least 150AD and it explicitly supports the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity... so regardless whether one believes that, it was a belief going back through at least 94% of Christianity's history. And it explains that Joseph was old and Mary had been raised living in the temple, but was no longer able to live there after she started menstruating as it would have been unclean. So Joseph offered to take her in as a charitable action. That also explains why her being pregnant was such a big deal for him - if, as the Traditional Church believes, he never mated with her and never even intended to, then to "put her away quietly" would have been the only honorable way to handle it.
Joseph's old age also explains how Jesus had brothers, as they would have been Joseph's children from a prior marriage.
@@fisharmor I'm not opposed to either hypothesis. Remember, the Protoevangelium of James was condemned by Pope Innocent ~400 and rejected by the Gelasian decree ~500. That's not to say that it's all bad, of course. It just doesn't appear to have been in circulation prior to 150 AD or so, well after the Apostle James had passed away; and, while it's not held to be Scripture, it does accurately reflect the commonly-held belief concerning the Virgin Mary.
However, taken in light of the Old Testament, very few early Christians would've had as much of a problem accepting Mary's perpetual virginity as they do today. The Protoevangelium is most likely a type of "midrash," the ancient Hebrew custom of devout meditation by "filling in" the text with what could have been, probably taken up in order to combat the first cluster of those proto-Christians who denied Mary's perpetual virginity.
It probably takes many truthful stories floating around and compiles them under a false name as an act of early Christian apologetics. At least, that's my understanding. Much of it is, as we'd say, "based on a true story."
The reason I tend to doubt its authenticity goes back to Scripture itself, where Mary of Clopas/Alphaeus is clearly indicated to be the "mother of James and Joses" and James the Less is described as the son of Alphaeus. The "brothers" of Jesus are listed in Matthew as: James, Joses, Simon, and Judas. This leaves a few possibilities:
1. James the Just (the "brother" of Jesus) and James the Less (the son of Alphaeus) are in fact the same person - which has been the traditional understanding of the Catholic Church for centuries - and James, Joses, Simon and Judas (as well as his "sisters") are all sons (and daughters) of Mary of Clopas and Alphaeus/Cleophas [that's the same person, the glottalized name didn't translate well to Greek].
2. James the Less and James the Just are still the same person, still the son of Mary and Cleophas along with Joses, but Simon and Judas (and/or Jesus' sisters) are sons (and daughters) to Joseph from a prior marriage. This is possible, but nothing specifically is indicated by the text. Configurations may vary. Nonethless, James would still be the son of Alphaeus not Joseph, as claimed by the Protoevangelium.
3. James the Just and James the Less are different people, with the "brother of Jesus" being the offspring of Joseph from a prior marriage, and James son of Alphaeus being the son of Mary of Clopas. This would be odd, for both Marys to name their sons James and Joses. It would also be odd that Mary and Mary were described as "adelphe" to each other. So Mary and Mary both had James and Joses and James and Joses. That doesn't make sense.
I'm still open to possibility #2, despite the lack of explicit evidence, but we can't really say that for sure. The Protoevangelium could have been referencing a known fact about the history of Joseph as it referenced the known fact of Mary's perpetual virginity. We can't say for sure.
If I personally had to guess, I would put Joseph's age to be around 40 or so. People died earlier back then from diseases that would have been considered "natural causes." Nonetheless, the matter is still up for debate, and there's nothing wrong with that. The Gospels were written to proclaim the work of Jesus Christ, after all. We take that for granted because we know the story so well. As much as I'd like to see videographic evidence of the early lives of the Holy Family, that all stands in the periphery of Christ's death and resurrection.
I'm sorry for writing a novella here. I'm just a sucker for this kind of stuff. God bless, and peace be with you!
“And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”
- Matthew 1:25 (KJV)@@fisharmor
Wow. You're one of those people who find things in Scripture that we who read it day in and day out miss.
Bethuel - I never noticed it.
Joseph - I noticed it but never really processed it.
Thanx for the share.
Hello and greetings from Florida. Yes, I need to notice things in the scriptures which I tend to miss.
It's a popular but yet a bit controversial opinion that Joseph was much older than Mary when he married her, and much older than we usually assume. It's very much possible that Mary had around 15 when pregnant, thus during the Passion of the Christ, somewhere between 45 and 50 years old. Joseph being 40 years old, would have 70 by the time of Jesus ministry.
Well it's very easy to comprehend how a profession of "builder" can wear out a man, even today. Imagine being a builder at that time! That also helps to explain how Jesus gave so much importance to the care for the widows.
There is no evidence to support the notion that Joseph was significantly older than Mary. In fact from the gospel accounts we have it points to the fact that they were of a similar age.
Why do I say that. For one there is no evidence of any kind of power imbalance here. They both seem mature and respectful of one another, I don't think this would be true if Joseph was significantly older. Secondly you have to bear in mind what happened when Joseph found out Mary was pregnant. He was troubled by it and considered divorcing her quietly. You get the sense that he isn't sure how to handle the situation. This isn't somebody with years of experience behind them, this is somebody who is unsure of themselve.
So even though we don't know what age they were from the gospel accounts we can make a rational conclusion that they both of a mature age and were probably of a similar age
Those eyes.
I was NOT expecting that
I always assumed he had died especially because of Jesus telling John to take care of Mary but after seeing the account of Bethuel; I'm not sure.
I think that it is safe to assume that Joseph died. I'm not an expert, though.
Jesus loves you, believe in him and be saved! ❤✝
It's good to know that I'm not the only one who has these questions. It's strange that I've read both Genesis 24 and 29 so many times but I've never completely focused on Bethuel's absence. Thanks for shedding light on this!
This is a really cool series. Thanks for sharing these insights!
These videos are fantastic in Quality and explanation Erik. Thank you greatly. Have a blessed Easter. Your channel has been an important part of my faith journey for the past few years.
I appreciate that! If it's good it's grace
I kind of want to do a dramatization of that Mark 3 passage. After a time of Jesus refusing to see his brothers and mother, James forces his way through the crowd and yells at Jesus. "Ever since dad died you've been trying to cope by this religious preaching, when you should be grieving with the family."
Jesus replies. "You're father, James, not mine. My Father has always been in heaven."
Thank you for sharing these videos. I pray you get a bunch more subs. Your channel needs to be promoted.
Erik been putting in that WORK
Fascinating. Well done, now I want to go learn more!
Love the stories you investigate. Learning so much. Thanks
I hope you and your family have a meaningful Easter, Erik.
So great! Thanks for these videos
I’ve literally never thought of this before seeing this video, good stuff.
Very interesting. Thanks for all the information presented. God bless.
Revelation 14:12
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
This is one of my favourites, well explained.
You missed a couple verses,
Joh 6:42 ISV They kept saying, “This is Jesus, the son of Joseph, isn’t it, whose father and mother we know? So how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
And
Luk 4:22 ISV All the people began to speak well of him and to wonder at the gracious words that flowed from his mouth. They said, “This is Joseph’s son, isn’t it?”
And
Mat 13:55 ISV This is the builder’s son, isn’t it? His mother is named Mary, isn’t she? His brothers are James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, aren’t they?
None of these verses can absolutely confirm that Joseph was alive at that time. They can still use present tense words with past knowledge.
My non-biblical opinion is that somewhere near the time of Jesus ministry that Joseph had a building accident and had died. The importance of Jesus ministry swallowed up the obituary news.
I mentioned that there were a few brief mentions, including in John.
Very good comment.
Note that Jesus is always referred in these verses a being the son of Joseph or the carpenter. Joseph is not referred as the father of Jesus or Jesus's father Joseph.
Also, in other instances where his Mother and Brothers are mentioned, if Joseph was with them it could have caused confusion for them to say "your Father", because he is not his father. Also Jesus says in Matthew 23:9 NASB1995
[9] Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
Jesus is God, he has always been God, he is God in the same way as God the Father is God and God the Spirit is God. Jesus is the begotten son of God the Father, making Jesus, God the Son.
if joseph died then why didn't christ raise him from the dead
@@deividhac probably cause it wasn't essential to the salvation story. If Mother Mary was taken into heaven it makes more sense since He came from her body and modern science proves that a child's cells remain in the body of a mother for the rest of her life. God cant stay in the grave cause, well God is the Life of the world and neither could His human cells.
@@deividhac I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. John 5:30
Thank you for this info!😊
Erik be grindin ❤
bro i notice you’re talking slower i like it cuz i’m slow you’re the man
I was hoping to hear why bethual wasn’t mentioned but I see what you were going for.
In the case of Bethuel, he is most likely incapacitated and near death. Later when looking for "Laban son of Nahor" Nahor probably outlived his son Bethuel and was possibly still alive. In the case of Joseph, he is likely dead by time Jesus starts his ministry. However in both cases the eldest son would assume the responsibilities as the head of the family. Laban would have been the eldest and therefore would have had to deal with the wedding, Jesus as the firstborn son handed this responsibility to his younger brother who was next in line while hanging on the cross before his death. The Author of the Bible is God, If he needed us to know something else, it would be included, God did not omit important details or hide something.
Except He didn't have any younger brothers to pass this responsibility to, so He gave the responsibility to His disciple, John. The brothers mentioned are either sons of Joseph by a previous wife, or they are more distant relations; they are not sons of Mary, and therefore, Mary is not their responsibility.
I think there is a more plausible narrative reason for why Joseph disappears from the Jesus stories in the gospels, and that is simply that having his "father" there all the time with his mother and brothers and sisters would cause confusion with his "real" father.
Hans? I didn’t expect to see you here! How’s it going man?
@@Mike00513 I am doing fine. How are you?
Well, I may have told you before, but I basically just react to videos that appear in my feed. This one popped up, I watched it, and I thought I'd chip in my two cents.
Interesting thought.
Although it should be noted that when Jesus goes missing as a twelve year old, "his parents" are still mentioned. So Joseph is still present at that time, despite not being recorded as saying anything.
My biggest fear is being recognized in a youtube comment section
@@MatthewFearnley You said: _"Interesting thought."_
Thanks.
You said: _"Although it should be noted that when Jesus goes missing as a twelve year old, "his parents" are still mentioned. So Joseph is still present at that time, despite not being recorded as saying anything."_
Yes, and that story serves to pivot of the narrative of Jesus from a human kid to the Son of God, so that from that point on forwards, Joseph would be in the way of the message. I think this supports my view.
Hey Erik, Why don't you do a live stream or a good ppt presentation for the maximal case for the resurrection, because I wanted to explore the maximal case but I see no youtube videos really addressing it perfectly, I just see some pieces here and there
Hey there! Catholic here. Yes, it is understood that Joseph had died at some point after finding Jesus in the Temple. In fact, there is a large devotion to Joseph as being the patron of a happy death, as he would have had both Mary, the Blessed Mother, and Jesus, Son of Joseph and Son of God, at his bedside. Catholics likewise pray for the grace to be accompanied by them in our final hour.
As for his death, there is some speculation that he may have had an 'assumption' moment, similar to Mary. Either at his earthly death, or he was among those spirits who wandered about at the resurrection of Jesus (Matt 27:53) and was assumed into heaven as Mary would be at the end of her earthly life. Although, I must declare this aspect of Joseph is a very niche and not widely attested to in Catholic circles, being more speculative rather than dogmatic as is the case with Mary (whose assumption is also speculative as to whether she was alive during it).
Thank you! I was wondering what various traditions would say.
It makes sense that Mother Mary was assumed and I as a Catholic always struggled with this teaching. Modern science attests that a mother will forever carry the cells of her offspring in her body and that hey will actually fight for her health and immunity against many diseases. That helped complete the story for me, that God could not allow His celss or any part of Himself to stay in the grave. Never considered that she might have been dead but now that I recall the old stories did say that she was laid to rest in a flowery bed and that her body was missing thereafter. I think the Orthodox say something similar and instead of Assumption tyey say her Dormition or falling asleep.
@@RedRiverMan That thing you said about the Blessed Mother carrying the cells of her offspring as all mothers do... bro... I'm not crying... you're crying!
Yeah, I never really thought much about Joseph until I was watching the Chosen and I’m like, “Oh right, I guess he wasn’t really around or mentioned much.” This was a cool video, thanks.
Mary wasn’t exactly talked about much either approx 19 mentions and mostly all within the same story. Joseph was mention 14 times. So it’s not really worth the worry
Joseph became known as The Terror of Demons. I don't know what he did to earn that title, but it must've been pretty bad-*ss.
What he did is that he is the peak example of Masculinity to strive towards , silent protector of God Incarnate and the perfect Husband to the Mother of God .Demons hate him because God chose him to guard ever the Divine Son .
So based
Be like Joseph. Take care of other people's sperm golems.
He brought Mary and the new born Jesus to Egypt. Legend has it the Demons and the false gods of Egypt fled during this event.
@@jeremysmith7176 Just imagine the heavenly host surrounding Christ in the spiritual realm as they traveled to Egypt. I doubt any demon could get within 50 miles.
I always wondered what happened to him. I used to confused the the man named joseph who paid for jesus's tomb as his dad but later learned it was a different guy.
Yup, he was more particularly described as Joseph of Arimathea.
Thank you
I think in this way, Bethuel simply wasn’t held important role for managing his daughter marriage and the only alternative is to go Rebekah mother and her brother to grant the marriage request.
But with Joseph case, some said Joseph died before Jesus in teenage phase which it seems likely to be happened. With Joseph silenced in the Gospel, we can see that importance of Mary being the mother of Jesus and as an eyewitness to Jesus.
My take on the 'absence' of Joseph in the account of Jesus is that he is mentioned along with Jesus' brothers. I believe it would have been confusing for none believers who were being taught the Gospel to mention Jesus' adoptive father when we know that Jesus' Father is Yahweh. They would probably have argued how he could have two fathers. I am curious if earlier texts didn't say family instead of brothers and sisters.
I like at the beginning you said “3 year olds can’t do that you Dawah boys” because some Muslims will say that Rebekah was 3 years old at the time which is ludicrous, false, and purpose is to deflect from Muhammad marrying a 6 year old.
Well, I am glad I watched this channel just to learn that Gn 24:50 mentions Bethuel. I honestly don't recall that. In fact, I distinctly remember it saying that Bethuel had died, lol. After doing a word search, it doesn't say that at all.
I think that the most straightforward explanation in regard to Joseph is that by the time Jesus began his ministry Joseph had already died. Saying that Jesus was the son of Mary simply reflected the fact that Mary was still around. It doesn't contradict the fact that they considered him to be the son of Joseph.
In regard to Jesus' instructions from the cross in regard to taking care of Mary, I think it is much more significant that Jesus entrusted her care to John, rather than to his own brother and Mary's son James (presumably the next eldest).
Donʼt forget that James didnʼt believe in Jesus back then.
@@deutschermichel5807 That is a very good point!
James was the son of Mary of Clopas, "adelphoi" refers to close cousins in those pages. Read the whole of the Gospels for context. In Matthew alone:
Mary of Clopas and Mary, mother of Jesus are described as "adelphe" (sisters)... Mary and Mary? Really? Mary of Clopas had kids named "James and Joses," too. Really?
Moreover, in the Gospel of Mark, Mary of Clopas is identified as the mother of "James the younger (son of Alphaeus) and Joses"
More likely that both Joseph and his brother Clopas/Alphaeus married women named Mary (popular name). Mary of Clopas gave birth to the "brothers" (close cousins) of Jesus. The virgin Mary gave birth to Christ. They probably lived in relatively close quarters, which would make sense.
"Adelphoi" is used numerous times throughout the Bible to refer to brothers in a figurative sense or close kin. This is not an isolated event.
@@ignatiusjackson235 so was Joseph firstly married to Mary, the sister of the Theotokos? And after Maryʼs death, Joseph married the Theotokos?
Jesus and James had the same mother. The only reason to cast James and the others as cousins, or as older step-brothers by a previous wife of Joseph, is in support of the notion that Mary remained a virgin her entire life.
Mary was MARRIED to Joseph. There is nothing unclean or lacking in virtue for Joseph and Mary to have made love after the time that Jesus was born. In fact, it would have been inappropriate for them NOT to have done so.
Do we have a Mishnah or something about Bethuel? I gotta know more!
Bethuel must be super bummed out after the Book of Genesis dropped.
hahahaha that notice for the dawah-potato-boys xD
The bible says fill your lamps with oil ,..
Thank you for this input,. Blessings
What happened to him?
He died.
Next question, please.
Hallo greet and bless
I asked Jesus about this and he led me to a few passages that may not seem relevant at first. So...
In Matthew's genealogy, we see how the title of Prince of Judah was passed down once God chose Nashon, son of Amminadab to lead the tribe in Numbers 2:3. Did you notice in Matthew 1, that title went from Josiah to Jeconiah but didn't follow Jehoiakim or Zedekiah? Here's where it gets interesting...
In Jeremiah 22:28-30 the Lord declares that Jeconiah is to be counted as childless, "for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah"? Yet it is written that the title of Prince of Judah (and rightful heir to David's throne) was passed to Shealtiel. How could this be? This is where Luke's genealogy of Joseph comes in. At the same time that Jeconiah had his son Shealtiel, Neri, the son of David's son Nathan, also had a son named Shealtiel. This Shealtiel had a son named Zerubabbel, the Prince of Judah who was made Sheshbazzar, Governor over Judah, by Cyrus.
Thus we see that the royal line and title of Prince of Judah transferred from the sons of Solomon to the sons of Nathan. Now we go back to the genealogy in Matthew and see how a carpenter in Nazareth was the Prince of Judah. The reason we don't see Jospeh after Jordan is simple. While we see Jesus subject to both Joseph and Mary for 18 years after he tried to take up his mantle at age 12, Jospeh couldn't see his wife's firstborn baptized at Jordan...
Because Jesus had to go see his cousin and be baptized as the Prince of Judah. Joseph had to go to his fathers for Jesus to begin his ministry. That's why Jesus was, by birth, the King of the Jews. He inherited the title from Joseph when the man he called "dad" died.
You see, Matthew's genealogy follows God's blessing all the way from Abraham to Judah, and then from Judah's son Pharez to Nashon, the first Pince of Judah chosen by God, leading all the way to the last son of Adam to be Prince of Judah, a carpenter in Nazareth named Joseph...
Luke's genealogy isn't for Mary as is commonly taught, it's Joe's actual bloodline, all the way back to Adam.
I still dont get it. What is going on with Bethuel and how dose is it linked to Joseph??
The lack of explanation about Bethuel exemplifies that although the people who wrote scripture may have known why he was overlooked when decisions were made about Rebecca, they did not include the explanation in the scriptures.
Just like the New Testament scriptures do not mention why Joseph was not mentioned in the later parts of Jesus's ministry including important times like the cross.
I was told that people in Jesus community didn't recognize Miriam's husband as his dad because the nature of where they were when recently married and the holy nature of Jesus birth.
The focus of the writers was one the line of David which came through Mary so that’s why they didn’t focus on Joseph and designate him as “son of Joseph”. As for the people there during His ministry on earth, there are other cultural indicators that Jesus was the man of his household which would mean his earthly father had passed.
Yeahhhh, no that's not enough.
Zippori or Sepphoris is the ruins of an important ancient Jewish-Roman city, located in the lower Galilee on the Jezreel Valley, midway between Haifa and the Sea of Galilee ..When Jesus is about 15, Joseph is injured due to a work accident in this town. A heavy load of tiles is going up on the roof of a house, but falls down and injures Joseph so that he dies. Jesus, who is the eldest son, now becomes the one in the house who must provide bread and money for the family's survival.
The answer is simple. Joseph died when Jesus was young. So no mystery at all.
Laban's is not nahor's son but bethuel (Genesis 29:5)
Rebecca was daughter of bethuel (Genesis 24:22-28), and laban is Rebecca's brother (Genesis 24:29)
In Genesis 24:22-28 we can see bethuel is nahor and milcah' son.
Yeah, he needs to review his material and "double" check it 3 times.
This is exactly what he says though. Except that Genesis 29:5 doesn't mention Bethuel. If says Laban is the son of Nahor (as the video states), but the Hebrew can mean a less direct relationship - so it can easily mean grandson. And so some translations go with that for clarity. It is still odd to mention Nahor instead of Bethuel, which is what he's saying here.
Or Joseph was really old like they mentioned and he died long before Jesus was an adult. The gospels are also deficient about the bulk of Jesus’ life when he was young.
Ultimately the main purpose of the gospel is not to provide a full accounting of everyone in his life but of his ministry. And the fact they mention Mary more than Joseph … that should tell you something
According to some traditions, Joseph was much older than Mary and already had children from a previous marriage. This would explain why Joseph might be dead by the time Jesus was 30 but left a large family behind.
the bible doesnt say that
6:35 One explanation I once heard for why Jesus is referred to as the "Son of Mary" was that it was an insult- a roundabout way of stating that Joseph wasn't His father. Technically true, but they didn't mean that in the "Born of a virgin as proof of His divinity and in the fulfillment of prophecy" sort of way. People in a small town like Nazareth would have known that Mary became pregnant with her oldest boy before she'd tied the knot with Joseph, and some people likely never let her forget it.
Your thoughts?
That’s what I have thought. Never in history have illegitimate children been treated well, so I am sure that Joseph not being the father of Jesus would have been thrown at them the entire time they lived in Nazareth. So the mistreatment of Jesus by the Jews began at his birth, and not just at the end of his early life.
Mary and Joseph are figures (important) in history, but they are not the story.
True but heres the rub, you cant have the story as we understand it without them. Every character holds the whole story in a different aspect in him or herself. We don't get to isolate Jesus and consider all other characters only incidental, God doesn't do human relations that way in the bible.
@@RedRiverMan Roman Catholics will be insulted, but Joseph and Mary are beneath him. But yes, God is relational, he created us in his image to be with him.
In a way, he is isolated from them.
Speaking of silence, he might not be Mary's egg either. Paul (our apostle) said he came in the likeness of sinful flesh. He did not come in sinful flesh. Words are chosen carefully in the Bible. Mary rightly said she need a savior, as she was born under the curse of Adam.
@@nickma71 I think the Catholic view that Christ's sacrifice allowed Him to be Mary's Saviour before her own birth so that she was born cleaned of original sin, thus making her cells non-sinful flesh makes more sense than a bizarre claim that Mary isn't even Jesus' real mother. Don't let your Protestant attachment to insulting Our Lord's beloved mother lead you into denying Jesus' own humanity.
@@telephonebear21 That is all made up BS. I don't care what people make up, including Muslims, Mormons, JW, or the church of Rome. I don't want them in hell, so the gospel shall be preached. Mary is a sinner the same as everyone else. Romans 3. She will be resurrected with the others after Jacob's trouble (great tribulation-70th week) and placed in the land promised to the Fathers.
Some comments are saying Joseph was married prior to his marriage to Mary and had older children but LUKE 2:4&5 said he went to Bethlehem for the census with Mary who was great with child. It doesn’t say he took any other relatives with him because as a man he would have to account for all his wives and children. That is his taxes worked then and if he didn’t pay the right amount he could be crucified or flogged by Roman soldiers. This scripture allows me to assume with confidence that Joseph only had kids with Mary
And he only had 1 kid, and that was Jesus.
And he only had 1 kid, Jesus.
Yes! The most straightforward account is that Mary conceived Jesus as a virgin, and that subsequently she and Joseph went on to have four more sons, who are named, and at LEAST two daughters, who are not.
@@nycsguy Wrong. All those named sons are of other women and men. And the word used merely denotes brethren.
The idea Mary had other kids comes from atheists in the 1800s trying to disprove Jesus.
While I hear what you are saying, how does this work with Joseph? What is odd about not calling Joseph Jesus's father? Joseph being called the father of Jesus is almost unheard of. He's almost never called anything at all in reference to Jesus except the husband of his mother. So why would he be mentioned as a father or as anything when talking about Jesus's family? Seems to me it would be more odd for the gospels to refer to him as a relative at all. The absence of calling Joseph the father of Jesus when god is supposed to be his father seems pretty normal to me. Don't you think it would be out of place, to say the least, to constantly refer to Joseph as Jesus's father?
fire
Erik - you say, at 6:40, "notice Jesus' hometown crowd refers to Jesus not as the son of Joseph but only as the son of Mary."
Matthew13, verse 55: Is not this *the carpenter's son?* is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Mat13
Interesting content as always, but is there a reason you omitted Matthew 13 in your analysis?
You're reading between some lines there, Joseph's name isn't even mentioned and no I didn't purposefully omit it
@@TestifyApologetics I was just asking if there is a reason this vid didn't include Matthew's account of Jesus being called, in the present indicative, "the carpenter's son"?
This video raised Mark's parallel passage at 6:15 and then at 6:40 stated that in the narrative account of Jesus' visit to his hometown, "none of the people said anything at all" about Joseph. It seems to me that an account where people refer to Jesus as the quote, "Carpenter's son" in the present tense would be highly relevant to the discussion at hand.
I wasn't charging you with purposely omitting it. Or with accidentally omitting it. I wasn't charging you with anything! I was just genuinely asking a question :]
Only one of us has perfect knowledge (his name is JESUS.) The rest of us are brothers & sisters learning together.
Thanks for the cool content, as always. Cheers
@@AnHebrewChild But why do you think the crowd said "carpenter's son" rather than the "son of Joseph" ?
Was Joseph possibly more widely known as the "carpenter" instead of his own name ? Intriguing.
Respectfully from Florida USA
@@TestifyApologetics Matthew 13's "is not this the carpenter's son?" represents the vlast reference, directly or indirectly, made of Joseph in all the gospels (chronologically).
It seems like this is important. I didn't know if maybe you'd already discussed this reference in another recent/related vid or if it's a disputed reading or.. 🤷♂️ I was just asking.
It seems like in a video discussing the bible's last references to Joseph, that the very last reference to Joseph would be relevant. Even if he's not named by name.
@@AnHebrewChildI agree with all that you say.
It’s not really that big of deal to say that Joseph died before Jesus was in his 30’s. He was a carpenter in 1st century, could’ve easily fell off a house or killed
You never answered the question posed by your video. Did he die?
Missing information is the best form of evidence.
Awesome video! Explained a lot for such a short statement that Joseph has "died" 🤣
So what did happen with Joseph?
As far as I can gather, he most likely passed away before Jesus’s ministry began. It’s not mentioned in explicit detail because it wasn’t necessary to mention as they always pointed out that Mary and his siblings were around during his ministry. So it’s safe to assume he passed or was simply no longer around.
What if Joseph as a devoted Jew, eventually did not believe his son to be the Messiah and hence he is omitted from the later events?
He was at work. Bills aint gonna pay themselves.
👍
We should always respect the silence of God…not sure speculation serves any divine purpose??
There wasn't a term in Hebrew for grandfather. Just father/son. But yeah, maybe Bethuel was out of order.
The reason Joseph doesn't appear is probably because he was doing what fathers do -- WORKING to earn a living for his family. If he had been dead, Matthew would not have had a source for the Nativity story in his Gospel. Furthermore, Mary and her sons would not have had the money to travel all over Israel as they did. Nor would they have been invited to any fancy weddings. You don't invite impoverished people to fancy weddings. Joseph wasn't at the Crucifixion because he was at home taking care of business. That is the only scenario that makes sense. And the Gospel writers didn't talk much about Joseph because they wanted to stress that Joseph was NOT Jesus's father.
Wait so what happened to joseph?
Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
Luke 2:48-50 And when his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress.” And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?” Yet his parents did not understand the statement he spoke to them.
Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli.
John 6:42 And they said, “Isn’t this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
Poor Bethuel
Interesting observation! Also, check out the story of Adam and his wife, who was with him, in the Garden of Eden. She did not have a name until after they ate of the forbidden fruit, and God pronounced curses upon them and the serpent. And only then did she receive her name: Genesis 3:20 - "Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living." What significance might this have? 🤨🧐
Because of the seed of the woman, the messiah would come to the world to fight against the seed of the serpent.
@@shulkash8799 yes, but why did Adam have a name before they sinned and not her?
@@macmaccourt The thing is that Adam was the name for both the man and the woman, read Genesis 1:27, if you read the word for man in Hebrew, it Adam, which is the name for both male and female.
In Genesis 2, The first human is named Adam, but if we remember Genesis 1 both are Adam, if anything the one with no proper name is Adam. Because Adam was never named as Adam by no one. Adam is what he is, not his name, until he need to be denoted as the first human to differentiate from all the other humans/Adams that would be born later. The one with proper name was Eve, because of her seed the messiah would come, but originally her name was just Adam as well until the fall.
That is not correct, Adam names Eve before they aye of the forbidden fruit.
@@shulkash8799 I had never heard that "Adam was the name for both the man and the woman". Interesting. I wish I knew the Biblical Hebrew language.
I appreciate your comments. Thanks
💯
Just want to comment that Essau sold his blessing to Jacob for... A bowl of soup I think, well before Jacob 'stole' the blessing by tricking his father. Essau is admonished in the New Testament for this. Feel like this detail is too often skipped over when discussing Jacob.
Isnt Joseph Jesuses step dad? He was married to Mary.
Not exactly. To be Jesus's stepfather, Mary would have had to be married previously to Jesus's biological father. But Jesus didn't have a biological father, and Mary didn't have a prior marriage, because you can't be married to God. It's more correct to say that Joseph was Jesus's adoptive and legal (earthly) father. When Jesus was presented in the Temple as a baby, that's when Joseph formally claimed his as his son, so that Jesus was recorded in the Temple genealogy records as the son of Joseph.
📚📖🧐...all the early "orthodox" (Coptic; Greek; Syriac and Latin) apocryphal Gospels describe Joseph was very old man in his 80s (beyond sexual desire) when he married Mary...all of Jesus brothers and sisters are much older from a previous marriage...which is why Mary was entrusted to John- none of them were not her children...Joseph dies at the ripe olde age of over 100yo...when Jesus was about 18yo.....[ references available upon request ]
I would think if the men here were dead they would definitely be mentioned since that would have been a way to honor their lineage. Perhaps there was something medically wrong with them.
God is Jesus father and the Bible authors want to make it clear that God is the father that Jesus prays to, talks to, and obeys. The Bible wanted us to look at God as our father.
Wait, the fact that we find out nothing about Joseph's later whereabouts leads you to say that the story is MORE historically reliable? All his absence tells us is that he's not important to what the writers want to convey religiously-and it makes sense because their argument is that Joseph was not Jesus' REAL father, God was. Ignoring Joseph makes this literary-theological point. It has nothing to do with historical veracity one way or the other. (By the way, the same thing is likely true concerning Bethuel, since the Torah wants to focus on Laban who becomes Jacob's surrogate nemesis in the absence of Esau.) Besides, why would people writing for future generations assume that everyone would just know what happened to Joseph?
"Besides, why would people writing for future generations assume that everyone would just know what happened to Joseph?"
They are not assuming that - that's precisely the point. The gospels are memoirs reporting things eyewitnesses reported, and sometimes when a person recounts a story he may just leave out a detail, because he/she happens to be focussed on other things. But if it's fiction, you tend to make sure that there are no loose ends. If you created the character of Joseph, you keep that literary character in mind, and give him a proper closure.
@@JM-jj3eg The gospels are a variety of spiritual biography, sacred narratives that probably meant more to their authors than anything else on earth. They are crafted with extreme care. (One thing that's so weird about all this channel's videos is his working assumption that the writing is almost casual-and so it must be true. (Among other things, this "argument from casualness" goes against what Christians have always believed about the NT. They see it as God's word or breath.) Joseph's absence doesn't mean it's historically precise, and his presence wouldn't have proven it's fiction. As I wrote in my OP, there are other, more theological reasons for completely dropping Joseph. In any event, his absence from the rest of Jesus' life is more than a small detail.
@@KingoftheJuice18 The argument is not about Joseph getting dropped out of the story, but how casually it's done. There's no statement explicity saying that Joseph died - which you'd think they would say if they had theological reasons for getting Joseph out of the way. Yes, the Gospels are carefully crafted to make theological points, but raw material they draw from is artless, casual eyewitness testimony.
@@JM-jj3eg You're making many unwarranted assumptions and then drawing major conclusions from them. Who said dropping Joseph was casual; I think it was quite intentional. I don't see how just noting somewhere along the way that he died would NOT have been casual. How do you know the mind of the writer? And how do you know it's based on eyewitnesses and not inherited oral traditions or imagination? Obviously some parts could not have been witnessed. And the judgment of "artlessness" is very subjective. The artistry of the gospels has been written about extensively by Christians. And as I already said, the "casualness" argument also goes against other things most traditional Christians believe. I'm curious: are you saying you don't think Scripture is "inerrant" and "God-breathed"?
It has to do with His life being the fulfillment of His Word. Like marriage, a man is to separate himself from his Father and Mother and be Joined to His Bride. The last time we hear about Joseph is the time he was left behind. Guess What Work was of the Father. The Marriage between Christ and His Bride the Church. Its Symbolic and Actually played out in his life according to the Word of God (him being the Word in the flesh. and yet just one fulfillment of ALL things fulfilled in Christ. His ACUALL life is the OT playing out before our very eyes. His Actual life played out according to all things said. This is why the Jews missed Him. they did not see Him in the Torah. Had they, then they would have known him by What was said and done in His Life.
You should use a better translation
Is this an argument from silence?
Good question. No, an argument from silence is more like this: "If the virgin birth happened, then Paul would've mentioned it. Paul didn't mention it. Therefore, it didn't happen." The argument occurs when there's some kind of misconception about what an author would or would not mention.
The difference here is that in the Gospels, nowhere are we told what happened to Joseph. There is a consistent and silent presumption of his death without any positive affirmation of that fact. This suggests that the Gospel authors knew more about the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ father, Joseph, than they explicitly tell us in their accounts. This is a hallmark of truthful reporting rather than fictionalization. If anything, Joseph, being a descendant of David, would have provided a marvelous opportunity for a fiction writer to craft an interesting story and embellish details. Instead, the Gospel writers show a lot of restraint.
@@TestifyApologeticsThank you.
This makes it not a story?
not by itself, no. but it's a cumulative case, death by a thousand paper cuts.
If only the gospel writers had been more forthcoming we would not have been left to mere theological speculation. 🤔
True, but I find it quite interesting that after thousands of years, we are still learning new info about the Bible. What other book (movie, song, or meme) has ever drawn so much study?
As outlined in the first chapter of Matthew, Joseph was a first born son of a first born son in the Davidic line. Throughout the entire course of Jewish history, the Davidic genealogical line were recognized as the true heirs of the royal family and the true heirs to the throne. Thus, the true Kings of the Jews. In reality Joseph then and of course Jesus Himself were both heirs and in turn King of the Jews. Genealogy and family lineage was a big deal to the culture and the religion. Just ask any Pharisee. Such things could not be hidden. Everyone knew who Joseph and Jesus were and were supposed to be. The title (King of the Jews), the throne and all the trappings of the royal Davidic line including the wealth and authoritative power had been stripped from Joseph’s grandfather Eleazar by Caesar and given to the falsly appointed king Herod (the Idumean). Speaking of culture, who could have possibly come forth to legally claim the body of a Jew from the government? Protocol held that the eldest living male in the family line had that responsibility and right. Who claimed the body of Jesus from Pilate? Joseph of Arimathea. Ari is the Hebrew word for lion. The lion was the Hebrew symbol of royalty and royal authority from the time of King David. Mathea is the Hebrew title/word meaning gift from God. Joseph of Arimathea was none other than Joseph, Mary’s husband, Jesus’ earthly step father and the true crown prince of the Davidic line.
The Bible is about Jesus, not Joseph. What is important about Joseph is included in Matthew 1. Joseph is the direct descendant of David through Solomon. Jesus is not the "adopted" son of Joseph, but the legal son. That's important because Jesus is heir to the kingly line of Judah. That lineage was cursed and cut off forever at the Babylonian exile. Jesus is the Branch that revives the kingly line but is not subject to the curse. "In those days and at that time I will make a righteous Branch sprout from David's line; he will do what is just and right in the land. In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness." Jeremiah 33:15-16
Me going in with the dumb comment: so... what happened to Joseph? Do we know? Was he dead? That's why it is not mentioned?
No. Not dead. He raised Jesus and it was his tomb that Jesus was placed in. He was Jesus natural father. It was God who adopted Jesus.
I was taught that Joseph died before Jesus. That’s why Jesus assigned John to take care of his mother, Mary.
@@geoattoronto Uhhh.. What happened to Mary being a virgin when Jesus was born, and Joseph almost divorcing Mary because he thought she was cheating, only stopped by an angel in a dream? What about every time Jesus is called the Son of God?
@@geoattoronto ask me how I know you're jewish
I always felt that there were missing pieces in these NT writings. Many thanks for illuminating them. It looks like Joseph had to disappear so the Father would have center stage with no confusion. Joseph must have suffered.
This is because Joseph was already an older widower when he was betrothed to Mary, taking her from her rearing at the Temple and into his protective custody as a near kinsman as a member of the house of David. Joseph already had grown and married daughters, who had their own children who appear in the Gospels, and he also had James, the brother of the Lord, who was still a lad. Joseph, being so much older than Mary, dies sometime after we last see Christ sitting and teaching the elders in the Temple. By the time of Christ’s opening miracle at Cana, Joseph is reposed. Furthermore, none of the brothers of Jesus come from Mary; they come from either Joseph’s first wife (who bore James), or the sons of Joseph’s daughters- who would have bore these children either a few years before or after Christ Himself was born. (Because of Herod’s slaughter of the Innocents, there would be almost no males in Judea who were the same age as Christ - John the Baptist being one of the only ones- and this age gap would make Christ and John stand out. This is also why Christ put His mother into the care of John from the Cross, as John was the only Apostle there, such was his intense brotherly love of Christ- he is acting like family at the Cross. The Law would have required Mary’s children to care for her, but Christ knows that since she had no other children, He put her into John’s custody, just as she had once been put into Joseph’s custody when she had to be put out from the Temple. Her parents were Joakim and Anna, who were themselves extremely old when they conceived her, and thus she was quite without family.
I'm begging yall to not turn this into a thread about Catholicism v Protestantism. This could be true. But even if I was orthodox or catholic I don't think we can say this with strong historical confidence. If you wanna believe it as a dogma go ahead. It has some plausibility but the sources for it aren't great.
The Church Fathers all affirm that Jesus was the only child of Mary. Whether the OP's theory is true is of course conjecture.
@@TestifyApologeticsit's funny how you could already tell the claim can turn into a fight between Catholics and Protestants. It seems while the theory could be technically true feels like a huge oversight for all gospels to leave out.
This all comes from the Protoevangelium of James, which isn't a historically accurate text. There is no evidence that Mary served At the Temple or that Joseph was an old man. There is also not a shred of evidence that they were betrothed simply for Mary's protection.
Can you cite a verse or a passage in the Bible where it says that Joseph was a widower before he married Mary, and where it says that he already had children before Mary and Jesus? It's hard to believe this claim unless you present your sources and evidence.
Another omission is the daughters of eve are not mentioned. So... that's awkward.
"Adam lived 800 years after the birth of Seth and had other sons and daughters." How many is not mentioned, but that they existed is.
Zachariah did not have faith and so he was struck dumb until John was born. I think Joseph may have lost faith too. He was not struck dumb. He did not know exactly how Mary had became pregnant and would express his doubts to her. Tell me who is the father!
Pffffft lol ok. Have you never read the Bible? An angel told him exactly what was going on. He didn’t “loose faith”
Son of Mary bit neatly aligns with the Tradition that teaches Joseph was married before and his kids from the first marriage are mentioned as Jesus's brothers/sisters: while the whole lot are "children of Joseph", Jesus alone is "son of Mary, the second wife".
He got stuck paying child support for a kid that wasn’t his and hardly ever got to see him