"divorce her quietly"

[AnneElizabeth]

I have a question as something is not clear to me pertaining to Scripture and how life was lived back then.

In Matthew 1, we read that Joseph, upon finding out that Mary was pregnant decided to divorce her ‘quietly’. They were not actually married yet but engaged… so why was a writ of divorce necessary? Also, did people have sexual relations back then when they were engaged? (As in, it was allowable, as in, it was not a sin) Because how could Joseph actually ‘hide’ her ‘sin’ (he was thinking she had committed adultery and that is why he was divorcing her) if she was pregnant (pregnancy is visible) and there was no sexual contact during engagement?

So my question is somewhat in two parts-

Why the need for divorce in an engagement?

How could Joseph protect Mary from prosecution for adultery if she was pregnant and it would show? Especially if there was to be no sexual relations during engagement? … Meaning, that if Joseph and Mary were not allowed to have sexual relations with each other during engagement but Mary got pregnant and Joseph knew that he was not the father, how could he divorce her ‘quietly’? The people would either know she committed adultery or think the baby was his when she’d start to show her pregnancy or have a baby in her arms. And if the baby was thought to be his and that couples were not allowed to have sex during engagement, then it would still reflect poorly on him, that he sinned as well AND on top of it decided to put her away while with child!. If couples were NOT to have sex during marriage and he divorced, wouldn’t people still have known that Mary committed adultery? He did not want to expose Mary’s ‘sin’, yet he wanted a divorce. If one wasn’t thinking of their reputation, then wouldn’t he have just married Mary anyway? I’m just very confused over this. I’d like some explanation on how he could ‘quietly’ divorce Mary so that her shame would not be shown when pregnancy is obvious and even more so, toting around a newborn baby.

Sorry if that is a bit jumbled. Hopefully, you will understand what I’m trying to say.

Oh one last question… did Joseph and Mary actually ever marry? I don’t recall any Scripture saying they were. When Jesus was born were they married?

 

[JohnR77]

Greetings,

The betrothal, it was not equivalent to our modern engagement today,

When the Bible says   “Mary had been betrothed to Joseph”

Matthew 1:18, arguably the most celebrated verse in Sacred Scripture,
it mean they were 100% legally married.

A Jewish marriage consists of two stages. The first is betrothal, kiddushin. The second is the nuptials, chuppah. …Maimonides
(The most renowned of the Jewish medieval scholars, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, AD 1135-1204 )
tells us that a Jewish marriage consists of two stages. The first is betrothal, kiddushin. The second is the nuptials, chuppah. …

This first stage of marriage is not a preliminary agreement to contract a marriage at a future date (like the western concept of engagement), but an integral component of the two-step marriage process. The betrothal portion is a sort of inchoate marriage; from that point onward, the couple is considered married. … the couple is together yet apart. Until the twelfth century, this first stage of marriage lasted up to one year in order to make preparations for the final step. The second stage of the marriage process is the consummation. It is alternatively termed nissuin, meaning elevation of status, from nassa, coming by carriage from the father’s home to the groom’s; or chuppah, wedding canopy.
See
Jewish Web site

So, when the separated everyone would assume the Baby was Joseph’s since they were married and no one would suspect Mary of any mischief since the divorce would be done quietly. .

Tim Staples states :“So when Luke 1:27 says Mary was betrothed, it means they were already married at the time of the annunciation.”
And interestingly he adds :“One final thought: When Mary asked the question, “How *shall *this happen, since I do not know man,” the verb to be (Gr.-estai) is in the *future tense. *There is nothing here that would indicate she was thinking of the immediate. The future tense here most likely refers to… the future. The question was not how she could conceive immediately. The question was how she could conceive ever. The angel answered that question for her.”
See
When Were Joseph and Mary Married?

Just to be clear,
the New American Bible translation is not perfect.
No translation is perfect.
The NAB badly translates the Greek as :

“How can this be, since I know not man?”,

The original Greek does not use the word “can”.
Mary was not doubting whether or not it could happen as Zachary had done.

The Greek text says

"How shall this be done, because I know not man?”

Mary’s words imply that she had taken a vow of virginity.

defendingthebride.com/ma2/neweve.html#PERPETUAL

John

 

[NoelFitz]

AnneElizabeth

Thanks for raising this interesting query.

You ask did Joseph and Mary ever Mary. Catholics would answer no, as there was no consummation of marriage.

The two significant gospel quotes are:

'Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit. Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly.’ (Matt. 1:18-19 NAB)

From this we see Mary was pregnant through the Holy Spirit when she was ‘betrothed’, yet Joseph decided to ‘divorce’ her. Essentially customs then differed from now.

The other significant quote is from Luke.

‘Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.
…But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”
And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”’ (Lk. 1:26-35 NAB).

One would have considered that Mary in the normal course of events would consummate her betrothal and hence Joseph’s son would be Jesus. But this was not to be as Mary was perpetually a virgin.

A so-called writ of ‘divorce’ was necessary as betrothal was a solemn promise.

Joseph could have walked away claiming Jesus was not his.

Sexual intercourse during betrothal was not officially allowed.

There was no question of adultery as neither Mary of Joseph were married.

I see ‘The written Torah never forbids sex outside the context of marriage, with the exception of adultery and incest. On the contrary, the Torah seems to assume that it is a natural part of life’ (myjewishlearning.com/article/traditional-sources-on-sex-outside-marriage/)

I hope I have answered your questions.

 

[DebChris]

The quiet writ of divorce was a legal protection. Her pregnancy was proof of infidelity.
The engagement was much more formal than how we currently look at engagements.
The other possibility was a public stoning of Mary as an adulteress.
When Joseph had his dream, he learned the truth. Mary had not been unfaithful.
He took her into his house and continue to protect her.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Yes, I thought that the law of Moses then allowed men to divorce their wives in the event of adultery, and the only reason for doing it quietly was that Joseph was a kind man who didn’t want to publicly accuse her and have her be sentenced to death by stoning. But when the baby showed up, people would have drawn their own bad conclusions if Joseph had divorced her.

 

[tee_eff_em]

You ask did Joseph and Mary ever Mary. Catholics would answer no, as there was no consummation of marriage.

*You are incorrect.

Of course the Church teaches that Joseph and Mary were married. **

(* Except, perhaps, insofar as many Catholics may be confused about the Church’s teachings on marriage)

tee

 

[jcrichton]

AnneElizabeth

Thanks for raising this interesting query.

You ask did Joseph and Mary ever Mary. Catholics would answer no, as there was no consummation of marriage.

The two significant gospel quotes are:

'Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit. Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly.’ (Matt. 1:18-19 NAB)

From this we see Mary was pregnant through the Holy Spirit when she was ‘betrothed’, yet Joseph decided to ‘divorce’ her. Essentially customs then differed from now.

The other significant quote is from Luke.

‘Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.
…But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”
And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”’ (Lk. 1:26-35 NAB).

One would have considered that Mary in the normal course of events would consummate her betrothal and hence Joseph’s son would be Jesus. But this was not to be as Mary was perpetually a virgin.

A so-called writ of ‘divorce’ was necessary as betrothal was a solemn promise.

Joseph could have walked away claiming Jesus was not his.

Sexual intercourse during betrothal was not officially allowed.

There was no question of adultery as neither Mary of Joseph were married.

I see ‘The written Torah never forbids sex outside the context of marriage, with the exception of adultery and incest. On the contrary, the Torah seems to assume that it is a natural part of life’ (myjewishlearning.com/article/traditional-sources-on-sex-outside-marriage/)

I hope I have answered your questions.

Hi, Noel!

…so the Torah teaches Jewish people to be sexually active, as long as they do not get married or have sex with those who are married or who are their own close blood relatives?

…hey, can I become Jewish–and does that come with 79 virgins that I don’t need to marry so that I do not commit adultery? (I know, I know, I’m stretching this a little–make it 49, ok?)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I have a question as something is not clear to me pertaining to Scripture and how life was lived back then.

In Matthew 1, we read that Joseph, upon finding out that Mary was pregnant decided to divorce her ‘quietly’. They were not actually married yet but engaged… so why was a writ of divorce necessary? Also, did people have sexual relations back then when they were engaged? (As in, it was allowable, as in, it was not a sin) Because how could Joseph actually ‘hide’ her ‘sin’ (he was thinking she had committed adultery and that is why he was divorcing her) if she was pregnant (pregnancy is visible) and there was no sexual contact during engagement?

So my question is somewhat in two parts-

Why the need for divorce in an engagement?

How could Joseph protect Mary from prosecution for adultery if she was pregnant and it would show? Especially if there was to be no sexual relations during engagement? … Meaning, that if Joseph and Mary were not allowed to have sexual relations with each other during engagement but Mary got pregnant and Joseph knew that he was not the father, how could he divorce her ‘quietly’? The people would either know she committed adultery or think the baby was his when she’d start to show her pregnancy or have a baby in her arms. And if the baby was thought to be his and that couples were not allowed to have sex during engagement, then it would still reflect poorly on him, that he sinned as well AND on top of it decided to put her away while with child!. If couples were NOT to have sex during marriage and he divorced, wouldn’t people still have known that Mary committed adultery? He did not want to expose Mary’s ‘sin’, yet he wanted a divorce. If one wasn’t thinking of their reputation, then wouldn’t he have just married Mary anyway? I’m just very confused over this. I’d like some explanation on how he could ‘quietly’ divorce Mary so that her shame would not be shown when pregnancy is obvious and even more so, toting around a newborn baby.

Sorry if that is a bit jumbled. Hopefully, you will understand what I’m trying to say.

Oh one last question… did Joseph and Mary actually ever marry? I don’t recall any Scripture saying they were. When Jesus was born were they married?

Hi, Anne!

I like this version better:

19 Her husband Joseph; being a man of honour and wanting to spare her publicity, decided to divorce her** informally**

. (St. Matthew 1:19)
This rendering makes more sense; St. Joseph could very well simply leave town in the middle of the night; in this manner, the pregnancy would be attributed to him and the Virgin and child would not suffer the consequences of the punishment of adultery.

…any formal divorce procedure would surely put a target on the Virgin… and, as human nature would have it, more than one jealous or vindictive “pious” person would demand “justice!”

…as it was explained in one of the replies, the betrothal is composed of two parts/phases; both phases uphold the sanctity of the Sacrament of Marriage, hence the “adultery;” but during the first phase of the betrothal the man and the woman do not live together under the same roof; if for some reason (usually financial or the death of the parents and loss of family home, etc.) the man and woman do physically share the same above, there’s not supposed to be any hanky-panky taking place–it’s the “honor” thing.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[James248]

A better translation would be “put her away.”

 

[NoelFitz]

jcrichton and tee_eff_em

thank you for your replies to me. I would prefer to get replies disagreeing with me rather than being ignored. I do not think jcrichton is really serious in his reply to me, where I quoted a Jewish website, even thougtht his replies to me are usually very sound and Catholic. So I will ignore his post.

But tee_eff_ em is correct and I was wrong, not an unknown position for me. I was wrong to believe that a non-consummated marriage is not valid (ratum sed non consummatum). It is valid, but divorce can be obtained, and it is not recommended by the Church.

 

[tee_eff_em]

tee_eff_em

thank you for your replies to me. I would prefer to get replies disagreeing with me rather than being ignored.

But tee_eff_ em is correct and I was wrong, not an unknown position for me. I was wrong to believe that a non-consummated marriage is not valid (ratum sed non consummatum). It is valid, but divorce can be obtained, and it is not recommended by the Church.

On second reading, I did not mean for my post to come off so terse, nor even a little harsh seeming? Mea culpa

But I do hate to see misunderstandings perpetuated, and any such participants in this thread and forum have much company among those who misunderstand or have been misinformed or are otherwise mistaken about the nature of marriage.

FTR:

• 
  *]Consent between parties capable of marriage, and before any appropriate witnesses, makes a valid marriage.
  *]Baptism of both parties at the time of marriage or subsequent to it makes a valid marriage a sacramental marriage.
  *]Consummation of a sacramental marriage makes that marriage indissoluble except by death.
  
  And most of all: Joseph and Mary were not Catholic at the time of their betrothal/marriage, and were not bound by Catholic canon law.
  Marriage comes from the Creator and predates the Church!
  
  tee
  Who Is Not A Canon Lawyer
  And who has been mistaken about many things in his life
  (But is pretty sure about this)

 

[AnneElizabeth]

I want to thank everyone for their replies so far.

I also wanted to try and make my quesiton a bit more clear and zeroed into exactly what is confusing me.

Obviously, I know the story and how it goes and what the truth of the situation was. I’m asking about how someone could divorce someone ‘quietly’ AND on top of that even if no one said a word, the visible pregnancy of a woman would spell out that something happened that was ‘wrong’ in order that Joesph would divorce her and that she would be pregnant (given that they were not supposed to have sex during engagement).

So … “divorce quietly” plus visible pregnancy = not really ‘quiet’ but obvious. AND if it was obvious, then how would Mary not get prosecuted by the authorities of that time as I read that they would have her stoned, or something. I"m not sure. I’ve read so many differing things I’m not sure what is what.

I was wondering if anyone knew the exact translation, the words used that were translated into English.. As I said, I've found "quietly" and 'secretly" and now thanks to jcrichton, there is also "informally".

But still… it just doesn’t seem to make sense, the reason why Joseph wanted to divorce her was probably because she appeared to have done something wrong and therefore could not be trusted. YET, he did not want to expose her, but I’m saying, the pregnancy would expose her eventually, so it doesn’t matter if he exposed her or not… she’d be exposed eventually… especially when the growing abdomen would become obvious, and more obvious when she’d show up with a baby. So if he did not want to expose her, and loved her enough to want to not expose her, AND if it was more about shame, why wouldn’t he decide to marry her instead? It just seems to not make psychological sense to me.

And I don’t mean that in the sense that there actually was psychological discrepancy, but that the actions and the words don’t add up, which makes me think its a translation thing. The motive is given that he did not want to expose her ‘sin’. but the only way to really cover someone’s sin (this sin in particular because of visible pregnancy and subsequent child) would have been to stay in the engagement.

Also, how do you divorce someone ‘informally’. Or does this just mean that Joseph was thinking on all these matters, and that divorce would be his right but more so he decided just to separate himself from her for a bit until further insights as to what to do no the matter developed?

I wish I knew the original text and knew how to translate. It might offer some insight.

Basically, I’m trying to get a better picture of what occurred and what the customs were to get a better sense so that I can understand it.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

Hi, Anne!

I like this version better:

This rendering makes more sense; St. Joseph could very well simply leave town in the middle of the night; in this manner, the pregnancy would be attributed to him and the Virgin and child would not suffer the consequences of the punishment of adultery.

…any formal divorce procedure would surely put a target on the Virgin… and, as human nature would have it, more than one jealous or vindictive “pious” person would demand “justice!”

…as it was explained in one of the replies, the betrothal is composed of two parts/phases; both phases uphold the sanctity of the Sacrament of Marriage, hence the “adultery;” but during the first phase of the betrothal the man and the woman do not live together under the same roof; if for some reason (usually financial or the death of the parents and loss of family home, etc.) the man and woman do physically share the same above, there’s not supposed to be any hanky-panky taking place–it’s the “honor” thing.

Maran atha!

Angel

This was really helpful! Thank you! This does seem to make the most sense, the version that you say here. Thank you!

Blessed be the name of Mary, Virgin and Mother.
Blessed be St. Joseph, her most chaste spouse.
Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints. **Amen. **

 

[NoelFitz]

AnneElizabeth
You wrote:
*I was wondering if anyone knew the exact translation, the words used that were translated into English… As I said, I’ve found “quietly” and 'secretly" and now thanks to jcrichton, there is also “informally”. *

As in this thread I have been incorrect once it is with due humility I contribute again.

The key verse is
Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly. (Matt. 1:19 NAB)

I have looked at about 35 English translations and I see secretly, privately, privily, quietly and informally used.

Barclay Newman in his Greek-English Dict. Of the NT gives ‘λάθρᾳ adv. secretly, quietly’.

Take your pick.

 

[jcrichton]

jcrichton and tee_eff_em

thank you for your replies to me. I would prefer to get replies disagreeing with me rather than being ignored. I do not think jcrichton is really serious in his reply to me, where I quoted a Jewish website, even thougtht his replies to me are usually very sound and Catholic. So I will ignore his post.

But tee_eff_ em is correct and I was wrong, not an unknown position for me. I was wrong to believe that a non-consummated marriage is not valid (ratum sed non consummatum). It is valid, but divorce can be obtained, and it is not recommended by the Church.

Hi, Noel!

I apologize for coming on too strong… I was hoping to shuck you; not to disrespect you…

Here’s the problem I have with the offer you made:

15 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and sleeps with her, he must pay her price and make her his wife. 16 If her father absolutely refuses to let him have her, the seducer must pay a sum of money equal to the price fixed for a virgin.

(Exodus 22:15-16)

23 ‘If a virgin is betrothed and a man meets her in the city and sleeps with her, 24 you shall take them both out to the gate of the town and stone them to death the girl, because she did not cry for help in the town; the man, because he has violated the wife of his fellow. You must banish this evil from your midst. 25 But if the man has met the betrothed girl in the open country and has taken her by force and lain with her, only the man who lay with her shall die; 26 you must do nothing to the girl, for hers is no capital offence. The case is like that of a man who attacks and kills his fellow; 27 for he came across her in the open country and the betrothed girl could have cried out without anyone coming to her rescue. 28 ‘If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed and seizes her and lies with her and is caught in the act, 29 the man who has lain with her must give the girl’s father fifty silver shekels; she shall be his wife since he has violated her, and as long as he lives he may not repudiate her. (Deuteronomy 22:23-29)
Now, I am not a sage or anything of the sort… I’m as pedestrian as they come… but do you not see a complete difference between that sexual flexibility that you presented where “sex is just a natural thing” and a demand that a man must observe a specific conduct when sex is concerned?

…clearly there are differences in cultures (then and now; East and West); but while Scriptures do not hand down a connect the dots rule book, they are very specific: a woman betrothed to another man is a no no; sex outside of marriage is a no no; a virgin assaulted or seduced–it’s a no no and man forfeits his life or has to marry her,
depending upon the offense.

There probably are other passages that speak to this marriage/sex thing… but I think the above are enough to demonstrate that there were exacting mandates on marriages and sex; yet, as with many things, rules are broken and abused and God’s Mercy and Patience abounds far beyond man’s transgression… but God is forever Unfolding His Revelation.

Jesus brought the Law and the Prophets to their perfection… and it is Jesus Who we must Obey not those who, through ignorance or temerity, circumvent God’s Laws and Commandments.

Again, I apologize for my attempt to shuck you into my understanding.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I want to thank everyone for their replies so far.

I also wanted to try and make my quesiton a bit more clear and zeroed into exactly what is confusing me.

Obviously, I know the story and how it goes and what the truth of the situation was. I’m asking about how someone could divorce someone ‘quietly’ AND on top of that even if no one said a word, the visible pregnancy of a woman would spell out that something happened that was ‘wrong’ in order that Joesph would divorce her and that she would be pregnant (given that they were not supposed to have sex during engagement).

So … “divorce quietly” plus visible pregnancy = not really ‘quiet’ but obvious. AND if it was obvious, then how would Mary not get prosecuted by the authorities of that time as I read that they would have her stoned, or something. I"m not sure. I’ve read so many differing things I’m not sure what is what.

I was wondering if anyone knew the exact translation, the words used that were translated into English.. As I said, I've found "quietly" and 'secretly" and now thanks to jcrichton, there is also "informally".

But still… it just doesn’t seem to make sense, the reason why Joseph wanted to divorce her was probably because she appeared to have done something wrong and therefore could not be trusted. YET, he did not want to expose her, but I’m saying, the pregnancy would expose her eventually, so it doesn’t matter if he exposed her or not… she’d be exposed eventually… especially when the growing abdomen would become obvious, and more obvious when she’d show up with a baby. So if he did not want to expose her, and loved her enough to want to not expose her, AND if it was more about shame, why wouldn’t he decide to marry her instead? It just seems to not make psychological sense to me.

And I don’t mean that in the sense that there actually was psychological discrepancy, but that the actions and the words don’t add up, which makes me think its a translation thing. The motive is given that he did not want to expose her ‘sin’. but the only way to really cover someone’s sin (this sin in particular because of visible pregnancy and subsequent child) would have been to stay in the engagement.

Also, how do you divorce someone ‘informally’. Or does this just mean that Joseph was thinking on all these matters, and that divorce would be his right but more so he decided just to separate himself from her for a bit until further insights as to what to do no the matter developed?

I wish I knew the original text and knew how to translate. It might offer some insight.

Basically, I’m trying to get a better picture of what occurred and what the customs were to get a better sense so that I can understand it.

Hi, Anne!

…let’s see if I can improve on my previous attempt; say St. Joseph left town in the middle of the night (no internet or such so a needle would in deed be lost in the hay);
at first the Virgin’s relatives and neighbor would notice her weight gain… but people did not go to stores to buy the latest trends… so her changes would be hidden by her clothes… then there would be the nacities of pregnancy (morning sickness, hormonal changes, cravings…) so it is bound to come out; by the time people start to put it together they would associate the Virgin’s condition to St. Joseph’s sudden departure (‘ah, that’s why that so and so took off; poor girl, she was stupid enough to be seduced…’) would be the subject of their conjuring… from my estimation, there would be less speculation about the Virgin being an adulterer than on St. Joseph abandoning the girl after he took advantage of her…

…I also wonder if the version that puts it as “unofficial” divorce makes better sense than “secretly;” since abandonment has been used by users and deceivers since forever–they refuse to own up to their responsibilities.

Maran atha!

Angel

PS: Sorry, I do not read through the thread but reply one at a time… I noticed that on you reply to my post you got the same explanation I have rendered above–sorry for the repeat.

 

[JohnR77]

I wish I knew the original text and knew how to translate. It might offer some insight.

.

Then, I suggest you consider how St. Thomas Aquinas and St Jerome understood the Greek. They each have the title “Doctor of the Church.” They favored the second theory listed below.

There are two theories to explain his motivation for wanting to do that.
The first is called the suspicion theory and it is the most popular. Joseph is thought to have suspected Mary of being unfaithful with another man in getting pregnant… **Matthew 1:18-19 **
“When his mother 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.”
RSV
However, there is another possible understanding of this event. …

The Greek word that is translated as “shame” in Matthew’s Gospel above, or “disgrace” in some other translations, is one key point to consider. The Greek word is “deigmatizo,” Strong’s number 1165. However, this is not same Greek word that is usually translated as “shame.” In fact, all the other instances that we find the words “shame” or “disgrace” in the English Bible, it is the translation from a different Greek word.

This Greek word, “deigmatizo,”
is defined as: * to expose, make a show of.*
[It is based on word number 1164 which means: * a thing shown, specimen.]
If we put that definition back into Matthew’s Gospel we can see the second theory of why Joseph wanted to divorce Mary.

**This second theory is called the pious theory.

** The pious theory is based on the idea that Joseph realized that the child in Mary’s womb was conceived by the Holy Spirit and that he, Joseph, was so overwhelmed with the holiness of the situation and the responsibility of being a step-father to God’s child and of being a husband to His mother, that Joseph was afraid since he was a humble man and didn’t consider himself worthy to be part of that family.

St. Thomas Aquinas commentary on Matthew’s Gospel
But according to Jerome and Origen, he (Joseph) had no suspicion of adultery. For Joseph knew Mary’s purity and had read in the Scripture that a virgin would conceive (Is 7:14) and in 11:1): “There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots.” He had also known that Mary had descended from David. Hence, it was easier for him to believe that this had been fulfilled in her than that she had fornicated. And so, considering himself unworthy to live together with such holiness, he wanted to put her away secretly; just as Peter said: “Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man” (Lk 5:8). Hence, he was unwilling to put her away, i.e., bring her to him and take her in marriage, for he thought himself unworthy.

We will also examine several clues as to why the context of this passage actually lends more support to this second theory rather than the first one, the suspicion theory. I suggest considering the following translation that includes the above definition and which is based on a comparison of the RSV and NAB Bibles: **Matthew 1:18-21 **
“Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.
19 Joseph her husband, being a just man, and unwilling to put her on public display, decided to divorce her quietly.
20 Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home on account 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, because he will save his people from their sins.”
**Item 1 **
If we use the actual definition of the key Greek word, “deigmatizo,” without reading into the translation process the premise of the suspicion theory we can see that the text seems to suggest that Joseph was not wanting to show Mary and her child off, as if they were some kind of trophy demonstrating Joseph’s own unique role in God’s salvation plan.

**Item 2 **
If Joseph had been reacting toward Mary with suspicion, then we would be more likely to expect the angel to tell Joseph not to be enraged against Mary, or embarrassed about her, or even ashamed to have Mary as a wife. But instead the angel says don’t be afraid.

**Item 3 **
The passage can be translated as above, with Joseph being afraid on account that the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit. The responsibilities of fatherhood is enough to make any man a little anxious, but the responsibility to be a foster-father for God, whom no one is worthy to see face to face had to be overwhelming.

**Item 4 **
If the suspicion theory was the operating factor in this event it would seem that the Gospel writer would have mentioned in verse 18 only that Mary was found with child, and not have mentioned that it was by the Holy Spirit. The fact that Matthew includes “she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit” seems to suggest that, that is what Joseph found out about, that it was the Holy Spirit’s child.

**Item 5 **
… the archangel reaffirms Joseph’s special calling and status in being a descendant and of the royal lineage of King David.

**Item 6 **
…

Read more at
Joseph A Just Man
defendingthebride.com/sn/toseph.html

.