Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was Joseph Really Suspicious of Mary's Pregnancy?
TheSacredPage.com ^ | 12-6-10 | Michael Barber

Posted on 12/06/2010 11:14:40 AM PST by Mighty_Quinn

During this Advent/Christmas season we will turn again and again to introductory chapters of Matthew and Luke. Here I'd like to look at one passage in particular.

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; 19 and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to send her away quietly. 20 But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; 21 she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:18–21).

Here's the question: why does Matthew tell us that Joseph wanted to "send [Mary] away quietly"?

The most common interpretation is of course that Matthew's story implies that Joseph was suspicious of Mary's pregnancy. In this view, Matthew's narrative insinuates that Joseph thought that Mary had been unfaithful to him and that the child was likely from another man. He did not want to put her to shame by revealing her unfaithfulness and expose her to the authorities. The penalty, of course, for such actions would have been capital punishment.

This view has some support in Christian tradition. Advocates, for example, include Augustine and John Chrysostom.

However, not all shared this view, which we might call "the suspicion theory". Here I want to highlight another approach, whose advocates include Origen, Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux.

Problems with the Suspicion Theory

First, let's be honest: the view that Matthew intends us to think that Joseph was simply suspicious of Mary seems to have problems.

Joseph, Matthew tells us, is a "just man" (δίκαιος ὢν). If Joseph truly thought Mary had been unfaithful would he not be required to follow the Law of Moses? According to the Law, adultery was a capital crime! Could Joseph really simply look at the other way? It seems unlikely that Matthew describes Joseph as upright because he fails to keep the Law!

In fact, according to the Torah there was a specific rite available to suspicious husbands concerned about their wives' fidelity (cf. Num 5). Yet Joseph does not invoke it according to the evangelist.

Matthew simply says that Joseph tried to "send her away quietly".

Anticipating Jesus' Teaching?

Some have argued that for Matthew Joseph's actions anticipate Jesus' teaching--i.e., Joseph sees a need to relax the law here which he might have viewed as too harsh. Such seems highly unlikely. Jesus intensifies the law in Matthew: he does not relax it (cf. Matt 5:17-20; Matt 23:2)!

And lest it be claimed that Joseph was simply showing mercy--note that Matthew gives us no indication that Joseph thought Mary had repented of being unfaithful. Such would have to be read into the text.

With Child of the Holy Spirit

Moreover, we might point out that the text does not even say that Mary was simply "found to be with child". It says that Joseph wanted to separate from her after she had been "found to be with child of the Holy Spirit" (Matt 1:18). In other words, the text seems to suggest that Joseph knew that the child was "of the Holy Spirit".

Put another way, Matthew notably does not say that Mary was "found to be with child" and that Joseph had no idea where the baby had come from. Again, that reads something into the text that is not there. Instead, Matthew says that Joseph's actions followed upon the discovery that Mary was with child "of the Holy Spirit." There doesn't seem to be any suspicion here.

The Humility Theory

So why did Joseph want a divorce in the Matthean story?

There's one ancient view that's often overlooked: Origen's. Although his commentary on the first few chapters of Matthew's Gospel has been lost, Aquinas preserves some of it in his famous Catena Aurea. This work is essentially a running anthology of patristic opinions on the Gospel texts. There, along with other interpretations, Thomas gives us Origen's view. "He sought to put her away, because he saw in her a great sacrament, to approach which he thought himself unworthy." (Catena Aurea at Matt 1:19). Though Aquinas does cite from fathers who hold to the suspicion theory in the Catena, he later adopts Origen's view as his own. In the Summa Theologica we read: “Joseph was minded to put away the Blessed Virgin not as suspected of fornication, but because in reverence for her sanctity, he feared to cohabit with her” (Summa Theologica, III, q. 3, a. 3 ad 2). Indeed, this view seems at least historically plausible. If you were an ancient Jew with proper reverence for God, his temple, and all that he had deemed holy and if your wife had conceived by the Holy Spirit and would you not also be hesitant about living with her?

So why then does it say Joseph did not want to expose Mary to shame? Well, according to this view Joseph knew that, given her pregnancy, some--not knowing where the child had come from--would conclude the worst when they heard Joseph had divorced her. He thus decided to do so "quietly".

In addition, according to this approach then the angel's instruction to Joseph is not understood as revealing Mary's innocence as much as it is a revelation of God's plan that Joseph should not be afraid because God has ordained it that he should play a part in the birth of the Messiah.

Humility vs. Suspicion

It seems to me that the "suspicion theory" has more problems than the view taken by Origen and Aquinas, which we might call the "humility" theory. The former fails to explain why Joseph as a just man would not keep the Law and give a suspected adulteress a pass. In addition, it has to ignore the flow of the text: Mary was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.

The humility theory, however, does not suffer from these problems. It reads the text as it flows. It also makes clear how Joseph's identity as a "just man" informed his decision to put Mary away quietly: he was a humble man who did not deem himself worthy to play the role of the foster father of the Messiah, who was born "of the Holy Spirit".

And, finally, it resonates--at least it does with me. It makes sense to me that an ancient Jew who was "just" would feel unworthy of being the spouse of a woman who had just conceived "of the Holy Spirit."

That's got to be just a little intimidating.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Theology
KEYWORDS: betrothed; joseph; mary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
Check out the website where this is from. There's some great discussion in the comment box.
1 posted on 12/06/2010 11:14:43 AM PST by Mighty_Quinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mighty_Quinn

What a crazy thing to argue about. The text is absolutely clear. No point of doctrine hinges on Joseph’s state of mine about it.


2 posted on 12/06/2010 11:26:56 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mighty_Quinn
I hear nothing in this article about the fact that Joseph loved Mary and did not want to have her punished, he had his doubts but then God sent an angel to calm his fears...He being a just man and not vengeful had pity and love for Mary, he was not selfishly thinking of himself, but what would happen to Mary if he did not quietly put her away...

To me such a love for her made him imminently qualified to be a father to Jesus and able to protect them both..

3 posted on 12/06/2010 11:38:18 AM PST by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zot

Origen on St. Matthew’s account of Joseph & Mary


4 posted on 12/06/2010 11:40:35 AM PST by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA
Obviously the text is clear ~ and it's totally supported by the "humility" theory.

Makes sense too ~ I've known fellows who were awarded the Silver Star ~ they have this "humility issue" ~ we could discuss that all day long and into the night, but it's so much better to just ask one of the awardees what he feels about it ~ particularly if it were a circumstance where others died.

This discussion illuminates what I've heard directly from my friends.

The answer is that it is St. Joseph's state of mind that must be considered if we are to fully understand the message. It is also another one of those Biblical ying/yang things, but here it's 3D and over time.

Imagine that we have a "just man" who is betrothed to the beautiful young woman and he is really looking forward to normal married life. Then God comes along and she is pregnant with the Messiah. Joseph sees that he must look forward to something other than normal married life. God steels his resolve by pointing him toward the future (which some interpret as God's Plan).

There, suits me fine ~ God's Plan antipodal yet integrated within the whole concept of Life subject to quantum uncertainty.

Did someone say that was rather "intimidating"?

5 posted on 12/06/2010 11:42:28 AM PST by muawiyah (GIT OUT THE WAY ~ REPUBLICANS COMIN' THROUGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mighty_Quinn
If Joseph wanted to divorce Mary knowing full well that she had not been unfaithful, then he definitely could not be considered a righteous man. And yet scripture tells us he was.

It would be logical for a man to believe his betrothed was unfaithful if she became pregnant before they came together. There was no reason for Joseph to know this child was of the Spirit, as there had been nothing in scripture nor any message to him at that point that Mary specifically was to bear the Messiah.

Matthew 1:19 says "Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly." He wanted to put her away quietly because he was a man of mercy as well as righteousness under the law. (Even the Old Testament tells us that God requires us to love mercy.)

It was only after the angel visited Joseph and told him that the child was of the Holy Spirit that he knew Mary had not been unfaithful. I thank God that Joseph was willing to serve the Lord by taking care of Mary and the Christ child.

6 posted on 12/06/2010 11:42:39 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goat granny

Well said. And there is every reason to believe he was an exemplary father and husband. Why take that away from him for the sake of some theory not supported by the text?


7 posted on 12/06/2010 11:45:38 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mighty_Quinn

Perhaps Joseph felt left out of the process and needed the reassurance from the Angel. Knowing more about his emotions and reactions would be a helpful guide to all.


8 posted on 12/06/2010 11:47:32 AM PST by ADSUM (Democracy works when citizens get involved and keep government honest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I sure it was at least intimidating after the Angel verified the facts. It would take divine intervention for any man to believe Mary’s story. Such a think had never happened in the history or mankind.


9 posted on 12/06/2010 11:49:01 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Actually, the text does not explicitly tell us that Mary told Joseph how she got pregnant.


10 posted on 12/06/2010 11:53:03 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DManA
What a crazy thing to argue about. The text is absolutely clear. No point of doctrine hinges on Joseph’s state of mine about it.

I never found it confusing. His suspicions would have been quite normal. It would be like a guy who had had a vasectomy and found out his wife was pregnant two or three years later. On the one hand, it might be a miracle. On the other hand ....

11 posted on 12/06/2010 11:54:30 AM PST by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DManA
Yet, there was a prophecy of a "virgin with child".

You know there's a lot of that going around these days ~

In the East the Messianic prophecies are considered to be part of a continuum where the older promises of a Messiah can be used to "predict" or "identify" the future appearances of a Messiah.

In the West we think of this as a set of prophecies specifically pointing toward Jesus of Nazareth and the philosophy he preached to us.

At the same time I haven't found any reason to believe the former prophecies are not valid for use in identifying the time of the Messiah, or his identity, in a future time.

Should be the same Jesus every single time, right?

12 posted on 12/06/2010 11:55:07 AM PST by muawiyah (GIT OUT THE WAY ~ REPUBLICANS COMIN' THROUGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ADSUM
Knowing more about his emotions and reactions would be a helpful guide to all.

Apparently God disagrees since He did not inspire Matthew to include anything about it in his narrative.

13 posted on 12/06/2010 11:56:30 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

No. All of God’s great truths have distorted echoes in pagan religions. The best lies have a kernel of Truth.


14 posted on 12/06/2010 12:02:04 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DManA
The writer of the text refers to ".....child of the Holy Spirit .......", which is either an idiomatic expression, or the writer is doing a retrospective, or somebody knew ~ e.g. another woman ~ a kinswoman ~ who knew the signs of pregnancy, and when such involved God's own intervention. That would be, at that time, exactly one person.

Considering the fact that sometimes the Scriptures are like the election of 1876 reduced to a telegraphic message, I think there's enough information in the Scriptures as a whole to deduce the idea that somebody in the community"knew" ~ and maybe enough information to figure out who that might be.

15 posted on 12/06/2010 12:02:33 PM PST by muawiyah (GIT OUT THE WAY ~ REPUBLICANS COMIN' THROUGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DManA
Apparently God disagrees since He did not inspire Matthew to include anything about it in his narrative.

On the other hand, He has inspired many people to consider the question that is raised precisely because of the paucity of information in Matthew's narrative.

So following your logic, those who aren't asking questions as a result of Matthew's narrative aren't following the curiosity that God wants them to follow - otherwise God would have made the narrative perfectly clear to everyone.

So in this case, questioning the deeper meaning of the narrative is following the will of God. In fact, it is possible God desires such investigation as a matter of course. What a concept - that God gives His children curiosity in order for them to use it.

16 posted on 12/06/2010 12:07:29 PM PST by Talisker (When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on its own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DManA
Yet, there are religions in the East that begin with Noah!

We are not discussing them ~ fortunately ~ but they discovered Dwarka a couple of weeks ago ~ kind of like finding "The True Cross" or "The Holy Grail" or "The Ark of the Covenant" ~

Let's put it this way, there are truths in all the traditions ~ because they are now or were "an amnesty from oblivion".

The problem lies in Mankind's inability to Hear God. That's why discussions like this are worthwhile.

17 posted on 12/06/2010 12:09:01 PM PST by muawiyah (GIT OUT THE WAY ~ REPUBLICANS COMIN' THROUGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DManA
The text is absolutely clear.

Yes, it is. But if Joseph was "just man", would he not have followed the law of Moses and turned her into the authorities?

18 posted on 12/06/2010 12:10:28 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
Good point. Interesting how all of us are reading that part differently, and we probably wouldn't have known that unless this issue was raised.

Fortunately we are all in synch with the Fathers of the Church ~ (cited in the references)

19 posted on 12/06/2010 12:11:36 PM PST by muawiyah (GIT OUT THE WAY ~ REPUBLICANS COMIN' THROUGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

In a dream the Angle told Joseph:

Matthew 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”).

Why would the angle tell him that if he already know it?


20 posted on 12/06/2010 12:13:58 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mighty_Quinn

Sam Kinison:

“It all goes back to Jesus... he’s got to be up in heaven freaking out at all the interpretations of the things they SAY he said. He didn’t even KNOW he was the son of God. As soon as he was born, as soon as he could speak the language, his mother said, ‘You’re the son of God. When you were born the angels came, and the stars stood in one place, the wise men brought gifts, and the whole world’s been waiting for you to come and do great things.’ [As baby Jesus] ‘Really? Me? Are you sure?’ [Back to normal voice] Everybody but Joseph. Joseph’s walking around going, [very suspicious] ‘Yeah, you had better be the son of God, I’ll tell you that. You had BETTER be him, little mister. And you better be the ONLY son of God.’”


21 posted on 12/06/2010 12:15:18 PM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Sounds intriguing but I don't understand what this means:

We are not discussing them ~ fortunately ~ but they discovered Dwarka a couple of weeks ago

22 posted on 12/06/2010 12:27:38 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DManA
Oh, why would the Angel have to inform Joseph ~ and yet Joseph knew of the Messianic prophecies ~ that's easy ~ the prophecies only had one name attached to them. Now, with Mary and Joseph associated with the events they had to be informed it was all about them and not somebody else.

Remember, Mankind is limited somewhat by the flow of time ~ it flows in one direction for us and there's only so far we can see into the future. For God it necessarily flows whatever way He wishes and He deals readily with both the Past and the Future and the Garfarb.

23 posted on 12/06/2010 12:31:12 PM PST by muawiyah (GIT OUT THE WAY ~ REPUBLICANS COMIN' THROUGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Now, with Mary and Joseph associated with the events they had to be informed it was all about them and not somebody else.

It's easy because that's not in dispute. In fact it's self evident that they couldn't have known until they were told.

The only point of disagreement is when did Joseph know it. The author and some of the posters claim to be able to infer that he knew it when he was contemplating divorce. The Bible narrative has the angel telling Joseph NOT to go through with the divorce because the prophecy had come to fruition in Mary. Explicitly stating that he didn't know when he was thinking about divorcing her.

24 posted on 12/06/2010 12:41:43 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mighty_Quinn
People back then could count to nine. Jesus was at least 3 months premature, I believe. Several times in the gospel, our Lord is called "the son of Mary." In a patriarchal culture, people are normally identified by the name of the father. Think of Scandinavian practice -- the son of Eric the Red was Lief Ericson. Think of Russian practice -- the middle name is a patronymic -- the famous son of Denis was Ivan Denisovich.

I suspect that the expression "son of Mary" was an insulting way of saying "father unknown."

25 posted on 12/06/2010 12:43:57 PM PST by RJR_fan (The press corpse is going through the final stages of Hopium withdrawal. That leg tingle is urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
There was no reason for Joseph to know this child was of the Spirit, as there had been nothing in scripture nor any message to him at that point that Mary specifically was to bear the Messiah.

Why do you think Mary wouldn't tell him?

26 posted on 12/06/2010 12:45:14 PM PST by Sloth (TSA: Because 10,000,000 sexual assaults per year is justified to *possibly* prevent 300 murders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sloth

Why would he believe her?


27 posted on 12/06/2010 12:55:01 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RJR_fan
What would cause you to believe that?

Jesus was at least 3 months premature, I believe.

28 posted on 12/06/2010 12:56:28 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DManA
Let me answer this in Western terms (not Eastern terms since most Hindus would allow the Moslems in to cut off my head) ~ to us the Ramayana and the Mahabarat are nice stories ~ sagas in fact ~ that incorporate a vast repository of ancient Indian folktales, religious beliefs and history.

Both sagas, BTW, report on the same events with the same time line and yet manage to relay the entirity of the belief system in totally different ways.

The KEY PLAYER is a person called Krishna. Most of his key ancestors were born of births precipitated by a god usually thought of as "the Sun god". One earlier ancestor was born of a river nymph we know in the West as a Nixie. He was a survivor of a mother who was into killing her infants shortly after they were born (death of the innocents). Krishna's own birth was at the end of a number of births of babies to his mother and father the King and Queen who were being held captive by an evil usurper. Those babies were also murdered (death of the innocents). On the other hand, Krishna's mother's pregnancy was transferred by the gods to another woman thereby getting him out of the way of the evil usurper and also creating a "virgin birth" situation. He also had a sister born but the evil usurper wasn't killing girls. She goes on to be Krishna's closest companion in life and has powers to protect Krishna (she has what we'd call Angelic powers).

After Krishna is born the cell locks break open and his mother and father are freed. The father takes Krishna in a great storm across the river to another place where he'll be safe (this has overtones of the flight to Egypt).

After a great number of adventures and travails Krishna ends up as King of the City of Dwarka and rules wisely for many years. During that period he and others engage in the War between The Truth and Lies ~ and win, but at the expense, again, of their first born sons! (we've got that one several times in the Bible and many have tried to figure out if this is a meme left over from oral tradition days or has some other meaning).

Well, that's the basic story of that particular messiah. Now, about Dwarka ~ that, too, was thought to be a literary vehicle to advance the story about the moral code and the legitimacy of Indian traditions. Then they found Dwarka offshore, in ruins.

If Jesus had grown up in Alexandria, Egypt, and taught in the synagogues, and done all of his works in that great city spending most of his time in the "downtown area" that place, too, would have dropped under the waves in an earthquake many centuries ago. Cleopatra's palace, etc, was found just a few years ago ~ real as could be!

The Hindus are all having chills running up and down their spines. They are leaping and jumping. Finding Dwarka is the rough equivalent of finding the Ark of the covenant because Dwarka is elemental to their core belief ~ to wit: they were visited by a Messiah.

And you thought Krishna was all about chanting and selling roses at the airport ~ that's a different religion guys ~ just the first Hindu sect invented in America.

29 posted on 12/06/2010 12:57:01 PM PST by muawiyah (GIT OUT THE WAY ~ REPUBLICANS COMIN' THROUGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DManA

When Mary went to stay with her cousin Elizabeth, John the Baptist was a six-month fetus. I’m assuming the wedding happened after John’s birth, when Mary returned to Nazareth.


30 posted on 12/06/2010 12:58:06 PM PST by RJR_fan (The press corpse is going through the final stages of Hopium withdrawal. That leg tingle is urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DManA
Or, let's bring this back to "normal", Joseph was a "just man" but evasive.

I suggested he was prepared for marriage to the beautiful young woman of his dreams, then she shows up pregnant. "What's this, the Virgin with Child" I can imagine him saying in his mind only to receive the answer in another dream where the angel says "Yes, now live with it and NO FUNNY STUFF".

31 posted on 12/06/2010 1:01:46 PM PST by muawiyah (GIT OUT THE WAY ~ REPUBLICANS COMIN' THROUGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RJR_fan

All I get from that is that John was six months older than Jesus. Where does the premature birth come in?


32 posted on 12/06/2010 1:03:10 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mighty_Quinn; SunkenCiv

“That’s got to be just a little intimidating.”

Jesus had four younger brothers and some unnamed sisters according to scriptures I believe. So apparently Joseph wasn’t too intimidated.


33 posted on 12/06/2010 1:04:55 PM PST by wildbill (You're just jealous because the Voices talk only to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I don’t think it was random that Joseph became Mary’s husband. God’s will was obviously at work. He is after all a Saint.


34 posted on 12/06/2010 1:06:10 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mighty_Quinn; SunkenCiv

“That’s got to be just a little intimidating.”

Jesus had four younger brothers and some unnamed sisters according to scriptures I believe. So apparently Joseph wasn’t too intimidated.


35 posted on 12/06/2010 1:06:10 PM PST by wildbill (You're just jealous because the Voices talk only to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wildbill

Oh THAT’ll start a fight for sure gggg


36 posted on 12/06/2010 1:07:25 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DManA

I didn’t say he would. That’s irrelevant to what I was replying to.


37 posted on 12/06/2010 1:13:39 PM PST by Sloth (TSA: Because 10,000,000 sexual assaults per year is justified to *possibly* prevent 300 murders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wildbill
Polygamy was a way social justice was conducted in that society in those days. Was it practiced among the Jews?

There were widows, orphans, and fathers of means were required to care for them. Marriage was the method for making these connections legally binding and defensible in court in case of dispute.

Joseph was a "just man" ~ which also meant he would do what was required of him ~ so did he do his duty?

I have a friend who grew up somewhere in Kashmir. In the partition of the nation his family fled West to Pakistan. His own father was killed. His uncle adopted him and his brothers and all were raised as brothers and sisters. That was his obligation under the traditions of his people. At the same time that particular group didn't deal in polygamy ~ but the objective is to make sure the generations survive, not that any particular individual is happy.

A "just man" in those societies does what is needed, not just that which is required.

38 posted on 12/06/2010 1:17:09 PM PST by muawiyah (GIT OUT THE WAY ~ REPUBLICANS COMIN' THROUGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Excellent answer.

Man should never add or detract to the Word. If God wants us to know, it will be revealed in scripture.

God Bless


39 posted on 12/06/2010 1:44:49 PM PST by Vegasrugrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
Why do you think Mary wouldn't tell him?

If she didn't (and we really don't know for sure that she didn't), it was probably because she didn't think he'd believe her. After all, this was not an event anyone expected to be so personally involved with.

It is possible she did tell him, and he didn't believe her until the angel told him.

Of course, their feelings and motivations are speculations on our part except where scripture tells us.

40 posted on 12/06/2010 2:16:48 PM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Obviously, Joseph made the right choice and would be insightful to understand his decsion making.

From Father Rosica’s comments on “Verbum Domini”:
Rather than leading people into the heart of God’s Word, we have driven some away or elsewhere! We simply need to revive it and rekindle the flame around the Scriptures once again. Perhaps some people who did Bible or Scripture studies felt that they “mastered” the topic and could move on to other things. When we study the Word of God and try to base our lives on it, we never master it. Rather, the Word masters us and we become its humble servants.


41 posted on 12/06/2010 2:20:14 PM PST by ADSUM (Democracy works when citizens get involved and keep government honest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ADSUM

Amen.


42 posted on 12/06/2010 2:23:33 PM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

Thanks for the ping. I disagree with Origen on this one. At the time Joseph thought to put Mary away quietly, he knew she was pregnant and he wasn’t the father. He did not know the child was conceived of the Holy Spirit until the angel told him so. Therefore, I believe Joseph loved Mary, and did not want her to be shamed or stoned to death, but he was still pondering that decision until the angel appeared to him. Note that both Mary and Joseph obeyed guidance from God delivered to them by angels. Thus, they could be guided by God in their raising of the child Jesus.


43 posted on 12/06/2010 2:48:32 PM PST by zot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Wasn’t St. Joseph told in a dream that the Child was conceived through the Holy Spirit?


44 posted on 12/06/2010 2:59:19 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
**The writer of the text refers to ".....child of the Holy Spirit .......", **

Matthew
Chapter 1
 
18
6 Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, 7 but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit.
19
Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, 8 yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly.
20
Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord 9 appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her.
21
She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, 10 because he will save his people from their sins."
22
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:
23
11 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means "God is with us."
24
When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home.

45 posted on 12/06/2010 3:03:32 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ADSUM

Wise words!


46 posted on 12/06/2010 3:07:07 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

**The writer of the text refers to**

The writer of the texr is Michael Barber, a professor of Catholic theology. I wouldn’t dismiss him if I were you.


47 posted on 12/06/2010 3:09:10 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Michael Barber is NOT St. Matthew ~


48 posted on 12/06/2010 4:38:13 PM PST by muawiyah (GIT OUT THE WAY ~ REPUBLICANS COMIN' THROUGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

I think you have the references really screwed up ~ don’t you?!


49 posted on 12/06/2010 4:39:46 PM PST by muawiyah (GIT OUT THE WAY ~ REPUBLICANS COMIN' THROUGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I got mixed up. My mistake, sorry about that.


50 posted on 12/06/2010 4:44:53 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson