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.
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.
Amen.
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.
Wasn’t St. Joseph told in a dream that the Child was conceived through the Holy Spirit?
Wise words!
**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.
Michael Barber is NOT St. Matthew ~
I think you have the references really screwed up ~ don’t you?!
I got mixed up. My mistake, sorry about that.
I thought you were talking about the author of the article posted at the top of this thread.
I've often thought that since these folks were all of the special caste of people in the Royal Family they might well have observers and hangers on surrounding them throughout their lives ~ that way the NATION, should it ever get reconstituted, could be sure in some way that the lineage was true.
The Bourbonnais and other branches of the French royal family still have their followers. The genealogies aren't always clear, and there's no one expert but the identity of the NEXT King of France is known. So you be careful, eh? (another Black Death taking out the right folks and lo and behold ...... ).
The Japanese royal line is followed just as close ~ and little events about the lives of the people in the line are noted in the genealogies ~ that way you know that it was YOUR GGGGUncle Goro who rode a horse under the palace gate and saved the emperor ~ that sort of thing. Families can remember such things. I know one Japanese family whose tradition begins with the adoption out of a surplus younger son to a family with nothing but girls so they'd have an eldest son. that was way back in the 1500s. It kind of tags that particular line of people in their relationship to the royal house.
That Joseph and Mary would not have the services of such people available to them is, to say the least, highly improbable.
Which religions begin with Noah? That would be interesting? Are you referring to Sabeans? Or to Mandeans?
Hey — Krishna isn’t in the Ramayana, is he? He’s an avatar of Vishnu — as is Rama.
Possibly elder half-brothers and half-sisters though why would Jesus then give care of His Mother to a stranger like John?
I've studied the Mahabarat much more thoroughly than I have the Ramayana, but I accept the word of the authorities on who is what, when is where, and where is who.
That's one of the reasons for using only language and names from the Mahabarat.
But, we digress ~ and this business of discovering Dwarkha is definitely BIG TIME.
It's easy to look this stuff up on the internet these days ~ years ago you had to read a lot of books to find references to the phenomenon.
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.