Matthew 1:18-25 (II); The Birthing of Jesus

We know that Joseph is a good guy. Well, the word is dikaios, which is best translated "righteous" or "law abiding." This latter translation is probably better, because it emphasizes the legal dilemma faced by Joseph. What should he do in this situation, where his betrothed has something in her stomach? Deut. 22:13-21 gives guidance. The specific passage that is "on point," as lawyers like to say, is vv. 20-21.

"If, however, this charge [i.e., that the betrothed is no longer a virgin] is true, that evidence of the young woman's virginity was not found, then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father's house and the men of her town shall stone her to death, because she committed a disgraceful act in Israel by prostituting herself in her father's house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst."

One of the things you learn in life if you ever hang around Jewish people is that they belong to a tradition that honors the intellect, and they especially like people who are deft at Biblical/Talmudic interpretation. So, what would a "deft" young man do when faced with this passage? It looks like if he really is righteous that Joseph has to bring the woman to her father's house and have her stoned to death. The passage doesn't give, as we say in law, a "safe harbor" by appealing to a "Holy Spirit exception." That is, there is no "footnote" in the text which says, "This law applies unless conclusive or persuasive evidence can be brought that the pregnancy is the result of direct divine intervention."

Could you imagine if such an exception was placed in the law? The "Holy Spirit defense" would become the major vehicle used by young Jewish women who had been playing around and wanted to keep from being killed. A whole jurisprudence on the "Holy Spirit defense" would have grown up in Israel, with additional rules of construction (how can you tell a true appeal to the Holy Spirit from a false one?). But, unfortunately, the text doesn't give Joseph and Mary this "out." So, it looks as if Joseph then is an unrighteous man in deciding to get rid of his wife quietly. But how can he, who was just deemed righteous, apparently in the next breath decide not to follow the law?

A Way Out of the Dilemma

Actually, I think there is a way out of this dilemma, but you have to be a clever exegete. If you look at Deut 22:13-14, which begins the passage, you see it reads:

"Suppose a man marries a woman, but after going in to her, he dislikes her and makes up charges against her, slandering her by saying...." [and then follows the allegation that she is no longer a virgin...which leads, first, to the false charge in 22:15-20 and then the true charge in 22:21-22]

But Joseph can argue, "The premise of the entire passage doesn't apply to me. I don't 'dislike' her at all. In fact, I continue to love her. Because the premise doesn't apply, the remedies suggested as the passage develops also don't apply. Thus, I am free to devise my own response to this situation I have on my hands." By so arguing in his mind, Joseph had two other alternatives: (1) to live with her quietly, making nothing of the situation; (2) to get rid of her quietly, so that the story doesn't get "out." He decided on the latter course of activity. Actually, the Greek text of v. 19 is interesting. It says that he decided not to make a public example out of her. He decided not to "stigmatize" her. The Greek verb is deigmatizo. I will coin a new word. He decided not to "digmatize" her. Thus, Joseph continued to be law-abiding (dikaios) and he had "solved" his problem.

So he thought. But what happened to him next is something that pretty much defies all our expectations. The Greek text of v. 20 says "after he had decided these things," in a dream the angel of the Lord came to him. Our translations are pretty good on this, but they can easily be overlooked. The point is that when Joseph went to bed that night, he had already decided to call it quits in his engagement. The decision was made. He didn't decide to "sleep on it," as we say when we face big decisions. He wasn't expecting things to get sorted out in sleep; he already had sorted them out. His decision would be (2) above--let go of her quietly so as not to digmatize her.

When Joseph had made up his mind, the angel of God speaks. Sometimes when we have made up our minds, the angel of God may also try to break through to us. What does the angel suggest? Well, specifically, alternative (1) above. That is, Joseph had guessed wrong when he made up his mind to divorce her quietly. What God wanted him to do was to live with her. Now we really have a problem because what Joseph is doing is exposing himself to liability as well as Mary. If he tried to digmatize her privately and secretly, he would have saved himself, and possibly her. Now, if he is to follow the angel's advice, he will open both himself and her not simply to stigma but possibly to more severe punishment. He could be fined and she could be killed (Someday someone should write something on the inequity of punishment by gender in Deut.22). So, in this case, the intervention of God was an intervention that led them into more danger.

Conclusion

All of us know that parenting is an inherently dangerous task. Kids might get in trouble; a parent could die and leave the family in financial straits. Kids both provide a kind of glue to the family relationship, but sometimes it is as if the glue is applied in the wrong places--like the bottom of the shoes or on the face. But in this case the parents of Jesus were going to be saddled not just with what we might call the "typical perils" of raising a child, but with the potential stigma of staying together. Well, Matthew, not a sociologist and not particularly concerned with following Joseph or Mary once Jesus is on the scene, never resolves the problem he creates for us in ch. 1.

But I, for one, would like someone to write a piece of imaginative literature to show how Joseph and Mary were received after their decision to stay together. What would your story look like? Would people ignore them? Vilify them? Exclude them from all the right parties? Would the stigma stick or would it gradually recede? Would they be convinced always that they were doing the right thing? Did Mary have any "problems" accepting Joseph's explanation of things? Or, was she "100% with" the angel?

All of these questions are provoked by this wonderful story. But they only can be provoked in your mind if you agree that this story is about the birthing and not the birth of Jesus.

3127