In just the past item, 36, it was discussed how it is quite possible that Moses and the ancient prophets had spoken of the Messiah as being the son of Joseph of Egypt. And we considered that the learned Jews may also have well known this to be one of the characteristics of the promised Messiah, that he was indeed of dual ancestry of both Judah and Joseph. In this item we will further consider in the local Jews and more common people of the Jews also understood that being the son of Joseph was not one of the telling identifying matters of the promised Messiah.

Hiden within the questioning crowds comes the question, 'Is this not the son of Joseph?' To some it merely implies that Joseph the carpenter, the husbnad of Mary was the father of Jesus. To others of a deeper perception it would be an inquiry as to whether Jesus was indeed the son of Joseph Mary's husband or of someone else. To the small mind it might bring the thought of another mortal genetic father as no doubt some may have wondered and denied the virgin birth and/or recognized Jesus not to be Joseph's son. To others of a higher mind it may have suggested Christ's true father to be God the Father and Joseph as being but the child's mortal caretaker. And still to others, it may have actually brought to mind the question of Jesus being Messiah Ben Joseph, that is of Joseph of Egypt. And even then as well, there are various levels of perspective and understanding to consider. And one might be able to write a text just around this simgle question and all of its various levels of understanding and possible perceptions.

Certainly what seemed to be a simple question on the surface, becomes a multi-leveled inquiry depending upon the background and understanding of its audience. And even then the manner of perceiving one's thoughts upon it may vary in the form of the inquiry made. 'Did some of the congregation of the Synagogue that day in Nazareth wonder and consider if this was not the prophecied Messiah Ben Joseph, the son of Joseph of Egypt?' OR, 'Did not some of the congregation of the consider the quetion if Jesus were indeed he Son of God rather than Joseph at all? Was it just the question of Joseph the carpenter being Jesus' father or was there much more underlying that question, adding to the frustration of the acceptance of Jesus being more than a mortal man?

My conclusion is to the latter form informative understandings of the question. Certainly there would be those in the congregation who knew of the prophecies of a Messiah, even a Messiah Ben Joseph, Joseph being that ancient ruler of Egypt, son of Jacob. But then would they or would they not recognize Jesus as being such. Certianly, whatever the case, it stirred anger in them. To some it may have been because they knew Jesus personally as the son of Joseph the carpenter, ' and the refused him as the Son of God, the Messiah. To other who looked to a Messiah from the loins of Joseph of Egypt, they would have been angry that Jesus would have claimed to be such, as they gave him no honor and considered him not to be such. And to others it would be possible to consider some combination of the various perspectives. Yet for the most part the local congregation of Jesus' home town of childhood did reject him in anger. And many a local son has experienced just so a prejudice against them. And they sought Jesus' life because of it.

Again at the feeding of the five thousand the question was raised. But at what point was it raised. What it raise in response to the concept that Christ was the promised Messiah the Son of God? Was it raised in response to the concept that Christ was the Messiah Ben Joseph from the promised seed of Joseph of Egypt? And was the pointed question meant more in answer from one who knew Jesus only as the son of Joseph the Carpenter in response to such other notions? Certainly the one who had such a limited persepctive could be pittied if that is all the knew Jesus to be.

But certainly, with the braoder understanding we have of Christ and the various prevailing concepts, one must truely consider that whenever one did ask, 'Is this not Joseph's Son?' That the implications and considerations in the minds of many well would have varied in response to the question at hand. And if Philip's pronouncement be correct, that Moses and other prophets as well had written that Jesus, the Messiah was to be the Son of Joseph, as being of his linage, then many so versed in the ancient scriptures would have considered this possiblity of the Savior's birth and ancestry.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Today in the discussion of Christ being the Messiah, either Ben David/Judah or Ben Joseph or both, the question as to which Joseph and when does arise. During the life of Christ, this well may have been the same discussion of the matters at hand held by the religious scholars of Christ's own day. It was asked of Christ in his lifetime if he was not the son of Joseph? And with the Jewish understanding of Messiah Ben Joseph and Christ's temporal adoptive father being Joseph the carpenter, the same levels of discussion and types of considerations and questions may well have been raised.

There are two separate occasions upon which is asked the question of Christ's parenthood being Joseph in the New Testament. One is had in John's gospel account and the other in Luke's gospel account. John's occasion is at the feeding of the 5,000 in chapter six when the Jews murmur against Christ as being of Joseph, whose parentage they knew. Luke's occasion in chapter four is when Christ reads in the church (synagogue) of Nazareth the Messianic words from Isaiah 61 and states their fulfillment. And the people there asked, 'Is not this Joseph's son?'

Now many consider only two such implications as to the intent of this question. But they do miss the full question being asked which caused such vigerous debate. First to many who were of the accepting mind, Jesus was the son of Joseph the carpenter and there was no question to even be considered that he was not. For whether is was Joseph's by birth or Joseph's by the traditional adoptive tradition of the Jews of Jesus having been taught in the trade of his father, surrogate of real as the case may be, Jesus was indeed the true and legal son of Joseph the carpenter. Then to those of a low mind who concern themselves intrusively into the business of other in order to make themselves better at another's expense, there was the question of Jesus' legitimate birth. But again Jewish custom of tradition did resolve this. The only real question, whether mean spirited or of true inquiry was if this Jesus of Nazareth was or was not indeed the promised Messiah, the promised Son of David, the Son of Jopephs of Egypt. And it this arena there were those who did belittle the very House of David. The Macabees had been Kings of the Jews. The house of Herod had been Kings of the Jews. And both in preference to any Son of David coming to the throne, for they in truth did despise the House of David, considering it no better that those of the Samaritans, knowing it to be a house of mixed marriage and also a house which had claim to the linage of Joseph of Egypt. And thus many high Jewish master did snub the House of David and they would tout that concept that now of the House of David would even come to reign again since the time of Jehoachin and the prophecy against his seed ever come again to rule in Judah. In short, in many a Jewish high house, the name of the House of David was despised even as were the Samaritans and for the same reasons. To such, their desire was that the House of David never come to the leadership and throne of Israel again despite David's promised claim that the Messiah would one day come of his house. Simply stated, the House of David was hated and despised by many of the Jews of Jesus day. Thus his burden was increase upon him for even claiming to be of the House of David.