14  Testifying to  Jesus—Part 1:  Joseph and Mary  (Luke 2:21–24)

And when eight days had passed, before His circumcision, His name was then called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb. And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”), and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.” (2:21–24)

A basic legal principle requires a person’s testimony to be confirmed by multiple witnesses. The Mosaic law declared that “a single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed” (Deut. 19:15; cf. 17:6; Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28). In his gospel, Luke testified that Jesus Christ was born the Son of God; that He was Israel’s long-awaited Messiah, conceived in a virgin through the power of the Holy Spirit; that He is God in human flesh, the Redeemer, who will save His people from their sins.

Such an amazing, unprecedented claim came with verification, as Luke presented the testimony of several witnesses to corroborate it. Because a person’s testimony is only as credible as his or her character, Luke was careful to establish that the witnesses he presented were righteous people.

At the time of Jesus’ birth four groups, whose teachings were inimical to true biblical righteousness, dominated Jewish society. The Sadducees were the theological liberals of the time, denying the resurrection of the body and the existence of angels (Acts 23:8). Their arch-rivals, the Pharisees, were legalists, who believed they could earn their way to heaven by observing rituals and ceremonies (Matt. 23:1ff.). The Zealots were political revolutionaries, advocating the violent overthrow of Roman rule and the recovery of Israel’s sovereignty (cf. Acts 21:38). The last group, the Essenes, were ascetic hermits, living in the wilderness in isolation from the rest of society.

In contrast, the righteous were a small remnant in Israel. Luke has already introduced some of them of them—Zacharias, Elizabeth, Joseph, Mary, and the shepherds who received the announcement of Jesus’ birth. In this section of his narrative (2:21–38) Luke called four members of that righteous remnant to testify as witnesses to Jesus’ true identity and mission: Joseph and Mary, Simeon, and Anna. The setting of this passage is closely connected with two Old Testament themes. The scene for most of the passage is the temple and involves the rituals prescribed by the Mosaic law. The passage also borrows richly from the writings of Isaiah, particularly chapters 40–66.

Fittingly, the first to give testimony to Jesus were His parents, Joseph and Mary. That Joseph was a righteous man is explicitly stated in Matthew 1:19, while Mary’s righteousness is evident from her declaration in Luke 1:47 that God was her Savior. Five times in chapter 2 of his gospel Luke affirmed the couple’s righteousness by noting their commitment to the law of God (vv. 22, 23, 24, 27, 39). Genuine righteousness, the righteousness that comes from God by saving faith, inevitably manifests itself in obedience, since “faith without works is dead” (James 2:26; cf. John 3:36; Acts 5:32; 6:7; Rom. 1:5; 15:18; 16:26; 2 Thess. 1:8; Heb. 5:9; 1 Peter 1:1–2). Obedience is also the mark of true love for God (John 14:15, 21, 23; 15:10, 14).

Two acts of obedience reveal Joseph and Mary’s testimony to Jesus as Messiah and Savior of the world: the circumcision and naming, and the purification and presenting.

THE CIRCUMCISION AND NAMING

And when eight days had passed, before His circumcision, His name was then called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb. (2:21)

In obedience to the law’s requirement (Gen. 17:9–14; Lev. 12:3) Joseph and Mary circumcised their newborn Son eight days after His birth. As noted in the discussion of 1:59 in chapter 8 of this volume, God instituted circumcision for three purposes. First, along with the other dietary and sanitary regulations prescribed in the law, circumcision had health benefits. As the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, circumcision was also the mark of Israel’s national identity. Finally, circumcision was a spiritual object lesson of the need for cleansing from the depravity of sin, which is passed to each succeeding generation through procreation. Circumcision was a physical symbol of the spiritual cleansing of the heart that takes place at salvation (cf. Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4).

But why was Jesus circumcised, since He was sinless (Isa. 53:9; John 8:46; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5) and did not need to have His heart cleansed? The answer lies in understanding that He came to fulfill the law. In the words of the apostle Paul, Jesus was “born of a woman, born under the Law” (Gal. 4:4). Like His baptism, Jesus’ circumcision served to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15). He could say with David, “I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your Law is within my heart” (Ps. 40:8), and He alone kept God’s law perfectly throughout His life. Only because He did so could His righteousness be credited to believers. At the cross God treated Jesus as if He had lived their sinful lives. He is, therefore, able to treat them as if they had lived Jesus’ perfectly righteous life.

In keeping with prevailing Jewish custom (see the discussion of 1:59 in chapter 8 of this volume), the Child’s name was then (at His circumcision) called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb. The name Jesus is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew name “Joshua,” which means, “Yahweh saves.” It is a fitting name for the One who was born to “save His people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).

One of the most egregious misrepresentations of biblical truth by the Roman Catholic Church is its portrayal of God as a reluctant Savior. The implication of Catholic theology is that Father is angry, vengeful, and hostile toward sinners. Jesus is slightly more sympathetic, but the truly gentle, compassionate, approachable one is Mary. Sinners are thus well advised to approach her for salvation because Jesus cannot resist His mother’s requests. So pervasive is this view that Rome elevates Mary to the status of co-redemptrix with Jesus.

Such a portrayal of God is completely false, since the Bible reveals Him to be a saving God by nature. In Deuteronomy 33:29, Moses said, “Blessed are you, O Israel; who is like you, a people saved by the Lord.” David referred to God as the “God of our salvation” (1 Chron. 16:35), while in Psalm 7:10 he exclaimed, “My shield is with God, who saves the upright in heart.” Psalm 106:21 chided Israel because “they forgot God their Savior, who had done great things in Egypt.” Isaiah called God the “Savior of Israel,” who has saved His people “with an everlasting salvation” (Isa. 45:15, 17; cf. 45:22; 59:1; 63:1, 8). Jeremiah described Him as the “Hope of Israel, its Savior in time of distress” (Jer. 14:8).

In the New Testament Mary referred to God as her Savior (Luke 1:47). Paul described Him as “God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:3–4; cf. 4:10; Titus 1:3; 2:10; Jude 25) and affirmed that it is “God who has saved us” (2 Tim. 1:8–9; cf. Titus 3:4–5). Nowhere in the New Testament is God’s tender, compassionate, saving nature more clearly depicted than in the case of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11–32).

Even more significant than what others said about Him are God’s repeated declarations that He is a Savior. “For I am the Lord your God,” He said in Isaiah 43:3, “the Holy One of Israel, your Savior.” In verse 11, He added emphatically, “I, even I, am the Lord, and there is no savior besides Me.” In Isaiah 45:21, God described Himself as “a righteous God and a Savior” (cf. 49:26; 60:16; Hos. 13:4).

The ultimate proof that God is a saving God is the reality that He “so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16; cf. 1 John 4:14). In the Old Testament Isaiah predicted that God would be “pleased to crush Him [Christ], putting Him to grief” (Isa. 53:10). To the Romans Paul wrote, “For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly” (Rom. 5:6) and, “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?” (Rom. 8:32). In 2 Corinthians 5:21, the apostle described the profound theological implications of God’s sacrifice of His Son: “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” “In this is love,” wrote the apostle John, “not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10).

The Father’s choice of the name “Jesus” for His Son is appropriate, reflecting the reality that He is “a righteous God and a Savior” (Isa. 45:21).

THE PURIFICATION AND PRESENTING

And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”), and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.” (2:22–24)

As was the case with Jesus’ circumcision, Mary’s purification (the word their merely reflects the presence of Joseph and Jesus) and the presenting of the baby Jesus were done strictly in keeping with the law of Moses. Like circumcision, a woman’s purification after childbirth illustrated the need for cleansing from sin. Leviticus 12:1–5 describes the purification process:

The uncleanness in view here is ceremonial uncleanness, the first part of which lasted for seven days, like that of menstruation (Lev. 15:19). While she was unclean, a woman could not touch anything sacred or holy, nor could she go to the temple. Her ceremonial uncleanness tempered the natural joy of bringing a new life into the world (John 16:21) with the sober reality that the child, like its parents, was a sinner (Ps. 51:5).

After a male child’s circumcision on the eighth day, the mother was ceremonially unclean for another thirty-three days. Interestingly, the time of her impurity was doubled if the child was a girl, to two weeks initially followed by a subsequent sixty-six days. The Bible does not explain the reason for that additional time of uncleanness, but there are at least two possibilities. First, as noted above, when a male child was born circumcision served as an illustration of sin and depravity. It may be that God intended the extra period of uncleanness involved in the birth of a female child to take the place of circumcision. Second, doubling the length of purification may reflect the stigma on women stemming from Eve’s leading the human race into sin (1 Tim. 2:14). That stigma is removed in Christ; while a woman led humankind into sin, godly women, through their influence on their children, have the privilege of leading many out of sin into godliness (v. 15).

After the days for Mary’s purification … were completed and she was again permitted to enter the temple, the couple brought Jesus up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord. Though it did not have to be done at Jerusalem or the temple, the Law of the Lord given through Moses declared that every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord and set apart to Him. In Exodus 13:1–2, “the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first offspring of every womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and beast; it belongs to Me.’” Elaborating on that commandment Moses said to Israel,

The setting apart of the firstborn was not for priestly service, because priests came only from the tribe of Levi (Jesus was from the tribe of Judah [Heb. 7:14]). Joseph and Mary, then, were not presenting Jesus for priestly service, but rather dedicating His life to God.

The Levites took the place of the firstborn of the rest of the tribes by being devoted to the service of God. In Numbers 3:12–13, God said to Moses,

But in return for their being exempted from priestly duty, a redemption price had to be paid for the firstborn from the other tribes. In Numbers 18:15–16, God said to Aaron,

Israel was to a great extent a theocracy, with the priests and Levites doing much of the work of governing the country. The five shekels (a significant amount of money) paid by the families of the firstborn sons of the other tribes helped defray the costs of running the government.

Though it is not explicitly stated in the text, it is safe to assume that Joseph and Mary paid the five-shekel redemption fee for Jesus, since they “performed everything according to the Law of the Lord” (v. 39). That fee, coupled with the expense of traveling to Bethlehem and staying there for an extended period of time, was a significant financial burden for this young couple. As the discussion of Mary’s sacrifice below reveals, Joseph and Mary were not wealthy. But like all the righteous, they found great joy in obeying the law of God (cf. Pss. 1:1–2; 40:8; 119:70, 77, 92, 174).

After his parenthetical statement in verse 23, Luke returned to the other reason Joseph, Mary, and Jesus went to the temple. After her forty days of uncleanness following the birth of her Son, Mary had to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord. This again reveals her righteous character and commitment to obeying the law of God.

Just as her ceremonial uncleanness pictured sin, so Mary’s sacrifice symbolized the ultimate sacrifice for sin that her own Son would make on the cross. That sacrifice granted direct access to God (symbolized by the tearing of the temple veil [Matt. 27:51]) by fully satisfying His wrath and atoning for the sins of all who put their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

The normal sacrifice was “a one year old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering” (Lev. 12:6). For those whose means were not sufficient for such an offering an alternative was provided: “But if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, the one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean” (v. 8). Having made her offering, Mary was once again ceremonially clean. That she offered the alternative offering, a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons, showed that she and Joseph were poor. It also indicates that they had not yet seen the wise men (Matt. 2:11), since the valuable gifts they brought would have allowed Joseph and Mary to afford a lamb for the sacrifice. That Mary offered a sin offering is consistent with the reality that she was a sinner in need of a Savior (cf. 1:47). The Catholic dogma that Mary was immaculately conceived and lived a sinless life finds no support in Scripture.

Joseph and Mary’s obedience to the law of God shines forth throughout the narrative of Christ’s birth. Giving Him the name Jesus in obedience to the angel’s command (Matt. 1:21), presenting Him in the temple, paying the fee required for a firstborn son, and Mary’s scrupulous observance of the law of purification demonstrate that they, like Zacharias and Elizabeth, “were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord” (Luke 1:6). That righteousness validates their confirming testimony to their Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.