Matthew tells us that when "Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly."
Why did Joseph intend to divorce Mary?
The view that suggests itself to most people is that Joseph thought Mary had been unfaithful to him.
But there is another theory: that Joseph knew the Child had been conceived "of the Holy Spirit" and so Joseph was afraid to take Mary as his wife.
What are we to make of this issue?
And what does Pope Benedict have to say in his new book, Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives
What Did Joseph Know & When Did He Know It?
The idea that Joseph did not think Mary had been unfaithful to him may be suggested by the fact that Matthew mentions the miraculous conception of Jesus before he introduces Joseph's idea of divorce.
He says: "before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit."
Found by whom? Who knew that the Holy Spirit was responsible for the pregnancy?
Presumably, Joseph would have been one of the first to be told.
If he believed this then one could understand why he would be afraid to take Mary as his wife.
Who wouldn't hesitate to take to wife someone who, in later centuries, would be called "the spouse of the Holy Spirit"?
Thus, as a "just man" he might seek to quietly sever the legal bond between them and would need the assurance of the angel telling him "do not fear to take Mary your wife."
On the Other Hand . . .
The angel didn't stop by saying Joseph shouldn't fear to take Mary as his wife. The angel continued "...for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."
If Joseph already believed that the Holy Spirit was responsible for Mary's condition, why would the angel say this?
The fact the angel says it suggests that Joseph did not yet believe this about Mary's pregnancy. If he already believed it, why tell him as an explanation of why it's okay to take Mary home as his wife?
It suggests that either he had not heard that the Holy Spirit was responsible or he had heard it but not yet come to accept it.
An Intermediate Position?
According another view, which is in some ways between the two just mentioned, Joseph simply did not know what to think.
On the one hand, he did not think that Mary had been unfaithful, but he also did not know how to explain her pregnancy. He thus left open the question of how she became pregnant . . . chastely.
While Joseph might have had such a view pass through his mind, it is difficult to see this as a settled position.
(Unless, God forbid, he thought Mary had been raped, which there is no suggestion of in the text and would not be grounds for a just man to divorce her.)
In any event, the "Joseph did not know what to think" view, like the "Joseph thought Mary was unfaithful" view, presupposes that he did not (yet) believe that the Child was of the Holy Spirit.
The fundamental question is still: Did he believe this yet or not?
The Fathers Know Best?
This is a case where the Church Fathers do not have a united opinion.
A quick check of St. Thomas Aquinas's Catena Aurea, reveals individuals on both sides of the issue.
Some fathers clearly understand Joseph did not yet believe in the Child's miraculous origin. In fact, some think that Joseph believed Mary had been unfaithful.
In fact, here are four doctors of the Church writing in that vein:
Ambrose. (in Luc. ii. 5.) St. Matthew has beautifully taught how a righteous man ought to act, who has detected his wife’s disgrace; so as at once to keep himself guiltless of her blood, and yet pure from her defilements; therefore it is he says, Being a just man. Thus is preserved throughout in Joseph the gracious character of a righteous man, that his testimony may be the more approved; for, the tongue of the just speaketh the judgment of truth.
Jerome. But how is Joseph thus called just, when he is ready to hide his wife’s sin? For the Law enacts, that not only the doers of evil, but they who are privy to any evil done, shall be held to be guilty.
Chrysostom. But it should be known, that just here is used to denote one who is in all things virtuous. For there is a particular justice, namely, the being free from covetousness; and another universal virtue, in which sense Scripture generally uses the word justice. Therefore being just, that is kind, merciful, he was minded to put away privily her who according to the Law was liable not only to dismissal, but to death. But Joseph remitted both, as though living above the Law. For as the sun lightens up the world, before he shews his rays, so Christ before He was born caused many wonders to be seen.
Augustine. Otherwise; if you alone have knowledge of a sin that any has committed against you, and desire to accuse him thereof before men, you do not herein correct, but rather betray him. But Joseph, being a just man, with great mercy spared his wife, in this great crime of which he suspected her. The seeming certainty of her unchastity tormented him, and yet because he alone knew of it, he was willing not to publish it, but to send her away privily; seeking rather the benefit than the punishment of the sinner.
Note in particular: St. John Chrysostom's comment that Mary's alleged crime was potentially punishable by death. That is a subject we've discussed before.
On the other hand . . .
We also find early authors taking the opposite position. St. Jerome, having proposed the first theory (see above), proposes the second as an alternative:
Jerome. Or this may be considered a testimony to Mary, that Joseph, confident in her purity, and wondering at what had happened, covered in silence that mystery which he could not explain.
Rabanus. He beheld her to be with child, whom he knew to be chaste; and because he had read, There shall come a Rod out of the stem of Jesse, (Is. 11:1.) of which he knew that Mary was come, and had also read, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, (Is. 7:14.) he did not doubt that this prophecy should be fulfilled in her.
Origen. But if he had no suspicion of her, how could he be a just man, and yet seek to put her away, being immaculate? He sought, to put her away, because he saw in her a great sacrament, to approach which he thought himself unworthy.
What does Pope Benedict say?
In his new book, Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives
Joseph had to come to terms with the fact that Mary “was with child of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 1:18).
With regard to the child’s origin, Matthew is anticipating something here that Joseph does not yet know. Joseph has to assume that Mary has broken their engagement, and according to the law he must dismiss her. He has a choice between a public juridical act and a private form. He can bring Mary before the court or he can issue her with a private writ of divorce. Joseph decides on the latter option, in order not “to put her to shame” (1:19). Matthew sees in this choice an indication that Joseph was “a just man.” . . .
After the discovery that Joseph made, his task was to interpret and apply the law correctly. He does so with love: he does not want to give Mary up to public shame. He wishes her well, even in the hour of his great disappointment. He does not embody the form of externalized legalism that Jesus denounces in Mt 23 and that Paul opposes so strenuously. He lives the law as Gospel. He seeks the path that brings law and love into a unity. And so he is inwardly prepared for the new, unexpected and humanly speaking incredible news that comes to him from God. . . .
The message conveyed to Joseph is overwhelming, and it demands extraordinarily courageous faith. Can it be that God has really spoken, that what Joseph was told in the dream was the truth—a truth so far surpassing anything he could have foreseen? Can it be that God has acted in this way toward a human creature? Can it be that God has now launched a new history with men? Matthew has already said that Joseph “inwardly considered” (enthymẽthéntos) the right way to respond to Mary’s pregnancy. So we can well imagine his inner struggle now to make sense of this breathtaking dream-message: “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 1:20).
Is This View Mandated?
Pope Benedict famously wrote in the first volume of his Jesus of Nazareth series
It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium, but is solely an expression of my personal search “for the face of the Lord” (cf. Ps 27:8). Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding.
One thus can maintain either theory.
At the same time, if one thinks that Joseph already believed that Mary had conceived by the Holy Spirit, one should acknowledge that the other view can also be held by a pious Catholic.
Otherwise one would run the risk of being "more Catholic than the pope."
What Now?
If you like the information I've presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.
If you're not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.
I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict says about the book of Revelation.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.
In the meantime, what do you think?
View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
MikeCGannon, I agree that this is one plausible way to think of it. In any case, I believe that Joseph was doing the thing that he considered best for Mary. This, as with many things, is a mystery we will understand when we sit down for an eternal chat with Our Blessed Mother and St. Joseph, God willing.
I’ve always read it on two levels. First off, Joseph believed Mary to have been unfaithful to him, and yet out of love and mercy, did not want to subject her to public shame and even death. Wounded and hurting as he was, his love for her meant that he would rather have others think ill of him for divorcing a young pregnant wife than risk any harm or humiliation befalling on her. Now, why divorce her at all? It seems to me that a model of selfless love like Joseph would want above all for Mary to be happy in life. If she had indeed fallen in love with someone else, Joseph seems like the kind of man who would have been generous enough to release her so that she could be with that person. So when the angel said “Do not be afraid…”, it was assuring Joseph that he would not be causing Mary any anguish of heart or spirit by staying married to her. Anyway, that’s my two cents.
@Emmanuel - I find you comment very helpful. We hear often hear of Mary’s fiat, you’re the first person I’ve heard present this question in terms of Joseph’s fiat. Regardless of which way one approaches this question of Joseph’s virtue of obedience to the law or Joseph’s virtue of humility in assuming the role of foster father of our Lord, Jesus Christ and true spouse of the Virgin Mary, in the end, it was a fiat that must have come at great self sacrifice, faith and trust on the part of St. Joseph.
Joseph’s Fiat, good stuff!
The archangel’s comments can be read as a confirmation of Joseph’s trust in Mary. The “for” clause could be seen as Gabriel giving Joseph a reason to trust Mary. However, it could also be read as the archangel describing Joseph’s actions. In other words, Gabriel is saying, “Do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, the cause of your fear being that that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”
I had never given it much thought until now! Thanks for writing this interesting article.
Hmm. . . . on reflection, the problem with the pure “I am not worthy” theory is what the angel said. He might have positively thought she had been unfaithful, and he might have been confused about what, exactly, was happening, but—why would the angel have merely repeated, for reason why he should take her into his home, things that he already knew?
I hate this article.
Great post and good comments and questions. Mike had a good question above and I could see his point. But then Maria, today, answers it with another plausible explanation. I read somewhere that in the inspired Greek “apolusai autaen” could mean “dismiss himself” from her. Any Greek scholars? “Dimittere eam” can only have the one meaning as we have it “put her away”. But the word for “bill of divorce” is not used. Is this significant?
It is the case among Orthodox Jews to this day that a man must divorce his adulterous wife (including a woman betrothed to him but not yet living with him). Joseph evidently thought Mary had been unfaithful to him, and it was only the intervention of the angel that prevented this.
I’ve read before (sorry I can’t site anything) that Joseph, by “putting her away privily” was actually taking the punishment himself, i.e. it would appear that Joseph was the father (since he didn’t publicly accuse Mary) but that he was divorcing her. In this way not only was Mary saved, but Joseph himself would be liable for the punishment of death.
Anyone else ever heard that version?
I think it’s worth noting that Thomas Aquinas, also, interprets Joseph’s action as coming from a sense of unworthiness. In fact, in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Thomas says that it would have been easier for Joseph to believe the prophecy of Isaiah that a virgin would bear a son, than that Mary could have fallen into debauchery. Also, we have to remember that Mary would have probably told Joseph about her vow of virginity before they were betrothed. So, when Joseph realized Mary was pregnant, he would have had to believe that Mary had been unfaithful to her vow to him and her vow of virginity to God. It seems to me that knowing the Blessed Mother personally, it would have been hard for Joseph to believe this. Just some thoughts…
Very well written, Jimmy. I like the interpretation that Joseph knew before his dream that he was not worthy to be the husband of so holy a woman. But, of course, I accept both explanations.
Emmanuel, very, very well said.
There are a lot of similarities between Joseph’s fiat and Mary’s fiat. They both had a complete trust and acceptance of God’s will which was revealed by an angel. They both had doubts and questions about what they should do. Their humility shone brightly in there acceptance. At the end they trusted in God.
Thank you good people for bringing up some perspectives I had never thought of before.
It would not make sense, I think, for Mary to go to Elizabeth in order to find seclusion and escape notice by staying with a distant relative, as pregnant high-schoolers did 50 years ago. Elizabeth’s miraculous pregnancy was very publicized in the hill country of Judea.
“A multitude” were outside when Zechariah received the angelic visitation at the Altar of Incense concerning his wife: her subsequent pregnancy must have made her rather a celebrity. Scripture also says that when it was time for her to give birth, all the neighbors and kinsfolk were rejoicing. People knew.
So my thought is that Mary “arose with haste and went” to honor Elizabeth, and to help her: ever the handmaid, Mary was there to cook and clean and help get things ready for the geriatric childbirth!
“Arose with haste and went” might even imply that she hadn’t even told Joseph at that time. Maybe he didn’t find out until her return to Nazareth 3 months later. She might have had a little baby bump by tht time. Poor Joseph had to decide right away: cancel the wedding, or ...? Good thing the angel set him straight.
To not confuse us, the post just above is from MaryB, a different Mary. Who btw, agrees with you Mary.
Thank you
I would not blame Joseph for his hesitation to marry Mary after he learned of her being with child, nor would I blame Mary for running to Elizabeth for consolation and advice. Both were in shock. Mary was very young, only about 13 or 14 yrs old and really frightened about what had happened to her; about being a mother and of course the childbirth itself. Joseph was really confused and conflicted about what was going on and what went wrong with the young girl who seemed so pure and sweet, but who obviously treated their vows lightly and with such little respect.
For help Mary ran to Elizabeth and Joseph ran to the bible. As a result the Holy Family came into being and the Son of God was born to save us all. Just as God had willed it to be so. God’s will always prevails.
Mike I agree with you about “quietly divorcing”. To my mind it is a matter of semantics and is in no way protective of mother and child. It is possible that Mary went to Elizabeth understanding that she would be “put aside” by Joseph and needed to be “out of sight” until the baby was born. This is probably what is meant by a quiet divorce. Mary would then have the responsibility of deciding the fate of her child alone.
This sort of thing happened years ago when young women found themselves pregnant and wanted to have their baby rather than have an abortion. They would travel away from their home area to live in a group home for unwed mothers. During their stay they would have a chance to decide whether to keep the child or place the child into an adoption service after birth.
As far as I am concerned, this scenario far outweighs the overuse of abortion today.
Presumably the notion would be you would send Mary away to distant relatives, where she would be probably be described as a widow. This was, in fact, common practice in 19th century America when the man could not be brought to marry the woman he had gotten pregnant.
I just don’t see how Joseph could think Mary wanted to call of the engagement since it clear she likely told him she wanted to marry and said it was okay since the child was of God.
I personally think Joseph didn’t know what to think, but regardless of how the child was conceived, he felt he couldn’t marry her or put her to shame. If the child was of God, he likely felt unworthy…especially if God didn’t tell him.
As for the other options, it must be clear that marriage isn’t just a contract. At minimum there has to be a level of trust, even if the marriage is utilitarian in nature (e.g. according to the apocraphal Protoevangelium of James, Joseph married Mary to be her protector since she was dedicated to God from childhood). If there is no trust, there is no marriage. So if he suspected that Mary betrayed him or was raped but refused to tell him him the truth (so he can seek justice for his bride and take care of her) and instead happily made up a story that God was responsible, I don’t see how he could trust her even if it it seemed that Mary’s character was beyond reproach.
The last option is that Mary was telling the truth but and Incubus (demon) tricked here. He would very well know that demons often masquerade as angels of light. If the child was of a demon, I don’t know how a just Jew would have reacted at the time, but I’m sure it would have given him at least some second thoughts.
In any case, it would seem that Joseph’s reaction was natural, and the answer to each one of the plausible scenarios is the same…God has to intervene and fill him in on the details that it is okay to marry Mary. And that’s what happened.
In what way does divorcing Mary quietly protect her from shame? As a single, pregnant (divorced!) woman, wouldn’t she be in for a whole boatload of shame? Or could divorcing her quietly somehow allow the community to believe that Joseph himself might be guilty of the crime?
Why split hairs on the issue? What would change? Is my faith based on the Greek translation of one or two words? I will agree with Paul, “I preach Christ and Him crucified.” (PERIOD!!)
I have to admit, until now, the difficutly I had in considering that St. Joseph could have thought he should quietly put Mary away due to sin, justice and the law was painful to say the least. However, the pain this consideration causes is eased by another thought I didn’t have until just now.
.
Didn’t Jews of that time, knowing Scripture, still know God as monotheistic and not Trinitarian? Even Mary asked, but how will this done? I now wonder if these appearances/messages of St. Gabriel to Mary and Joseph weren’t the first revelations of God as Trinity to man?
.
What would “of the Holy Spirit” have meant to, and be understood by, Mary and St. Joseph? Consideration of this less painful new question and mystery will keep me peacefully occupied till next advent I’m sure. Thanks Jimmy!
I don’t know what to think. Both suppositions are completely plausible. I always thought that Joseph thought that Mary had been unfaithful but now I can really see that he may have thought himself unworthy of being the foster father of such a child.
There are several unanswered questions which I do not think we will ever know the answer to, until we can ask them in heaven. Did Our Lady die or did she just fall asleep and be taken up to heaven? Why did Jesus tell Mary Magdalen not to cling to him because he was not then ascended to his Father? He did not say that to any other person when he revealed himself to them after his resurrection. We do not know all the answers.
I always thought this was part of the motivation for Mary to visit her cousin Elizabeth: she knew the punishment for adultery and did not yet want anyone to see that she was pregnant. I thought for sure she would not tell Joseph.
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.