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.
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.’”
We are not discussing them ~ fortunately ~ but they discovered Dwarka a couple of weeks ago
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.
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.
I suspect that the expression "son of Mary" was an insulting way of saying "father unknown."
Why do you think Mary wouldn't tell him?
Why would he believe her?
Jesus was at least 3 months premature, I believe.
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.
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.
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".
All I get from that is that John was six months older than Jesus. Where does the premature birth come in?
“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.
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.
“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.
Oh THAT’ll start a fight for sure gggg
I didn’t say he would. That’s irrelevant to what I was replying to.
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.
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
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.
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.