Mary and Joseph were the first couple to commit 
themselves to each other in Holy 
Matrimony in the physical presence of Christ.

The betrothal and marriage of Mary to Joseph (Part 2)

By Bernard Orchard 

St. Luke, as has so often been pointed out, only tells Mary’s side of the events, and neither Matthew nor Luke relate the steps Mary took to inform Joseph of what had happened. But since she must have been bursting to communicate to him the marvelous news that they were to have a son who was to be not only the promised Son of David, but even the Son of God himself—and since God must have endowed them with the grace, wisdom and intelligence required to cope with their unique situation—we may assume that she found a private way to advise her husband of this at once.

The Evangelist Matthew records Joseph’s reaction which is commonly translated by the words “Joseph . . . unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly” (cf. Matt. 1:19). Such a rendering assumes that Mary had kept the Annunciation of Gabriel and her conception by the Holy Spirit to herself and that Joseph, having learnt of her pregnancy by other means, and being as yet unaware of the truth, was in a state of despair. This interpretation has some support if the original text had read paradeigmatísai, for this term does signify “to expose to shame.”

My own understanding of this passage is however informed by the fact that the Greek manuscripts that have here deigmatísai carry the greater textual authority. This verb conveys no more than the concept of bringing something to public attention and has no pejorative meaning, and therefore needs to be rendered according to the context. Thus the sentence may be translated as follows:

And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to make her [divine conception] public, resolved to put her away secretly (Matt. 1:19).

Knowing that Mary would not tell a lie, Joseph would have accepted the news as the truth. Nevertheless, since the angel Gabriel seems to have given Mary no hint as to how they as a couple were to cope with her unique pregnancy, and if, as I propose, the home-taking was imminent, Joseph must have been in great agony over what he must have perceived as an insoluble dilemma. For his knowledge of Scripture would have enabled him to understand Mary’s conception through the Holy Spirit as the manifestation of the Cloud of God overshadowing the Tabernacle. He therefore would have understood that Mary’s womb had become another Holy of Holies containing the Divine Presence. This, he must have reasoned, prohibited him from approaching her (cf., e.g., Exod. 40:34-35, Num. 17:13).

Now while in their society divorce was a swift and easy process, as regards legal formalities requiring of the husband no more than providing his wife with a “bill of divorcement,” he also was obliged to give a valid reason in accordance with Deut. 24:1, although the leading rabbinic schools differed over the interpretation of what constituted an “indecency.” However, as the Divine Sonship of the Messiah had not been made clear previously, if Joseph divorced Mary on the grounds that she had conceived by the Holy Spirit, this was bound to be misinterpreted as adultery on her part and would put her and their unborn son into grave danger of stoning (cf. Deut. 22:22-24). So he reckoned that he had to find a solution that permitted him to divorce her whilst keeping the true reason a secret; and as Matthew’s account suggests, he gave himself the night to ponder and to pray the Lord for guidance.

The Lord God did not allow Joseph to remain in agonizing uncertainty. During that very night he had a vivid dream in which the angel of the Lord appeared to him and, formally addressing him as “son of David,” told him not to fear that the fact that the child begotten of the Spirit is holy forbade him to take his wife Mary home (cf. Matt. 1:20). The angel went on to instruct him to assume paternity by naming the son she would bear. Mary had already been told the name “Jesus,” but the angel now expounded its significance to Joseph, that “He will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).

St. Matthew stresses that, in the person of Joseph’s solemnly betrothed wife Mary, Isaiah’s prophecy had come to pass that the virgin would conceive a son who would be “Emmanuel,” and in order that the full significance of this name might not be lost on anyone unfamiliar with Hebrew he added its interpretation, “God [is] with us” (Matt. 1:22-23).

At the angel’s words Joseph’s heart must have leapt for joy and relief that he was after all to complete the final nuptial rite and take Mary to his home as his helpmate and the mistress of his household. Also the sadness he must have felt thinking that the Lord had denied him the fatherhood of Mary’s son was dispelled when the angel ordered him to name him, because this confirmed him to have, like every other husband, all the rights of a father in the eyes of Israel and of the world. Most significantly, it would establish Mary’s Divine Child as the Son of Joseph and so the Son of David, through whom, as the angel expressly affirmed, God was fulfilling his Promise to provide the Savior.

The angel’s announcement that God had chosen him, Joseph of the House of David, and his solemnly betrothed wife, the virgin Mary from Nazareth in Galilee, to be the Savior’s parents, would not seem to have included any specific instructions as to how they were to live their life as the Holy Family. But since he was a just man, intent on conducting his whole life according to God’s will, we may assume that he would have sought illumination of the angel’s message from the Word of God in the Scriptures. Joseph would have grasped that by Mary bringing forth their son and he himself teaching him the Law, they would not only be fulfilling the salvific purpose of their marriage to be fruitful and multiply, but that they would be fulfilling it to perfection, because their son was the Savior himself so that this very fact left no scope for them to bring forth further offspring.

Indeed Christian tradition has been unanimous in affirming that the salvific purpose of the marriage of Mary and Joseph was to make possible the bringing forth, through the Holy Spirit, of the God-Man who was to save and reunite all humanity in the Lord’s eternal kingdom.

Matthew concludes his account of the conception of Jesus Christ with the assertion that

Joseph took his wife; and he knew her not until she bore a son (the firstborn); and he called his name ‘Jesus’ (Matt. 1:24b-25).

It has often been argued that “he knew her not until she bore a son (the firstborn)” is a limiting remark whereby the Evangelist intended to indicate that Mary and Joseph had further offspring after the birth of Jesus; and in support of this interpretation his later mention of brothers and sisters of Jesus is frequently adduced (cf. Matt. 13:55). As regards these latter, in accordance with oriental custom a reference to “brothers” and “sisters” needs to signify no more than close relatives and therefore may safely be left out of consideration in this context.

What is necessary to take into account however is the fact that Matthew begins his conclusion of the account of Jesus’ conception by saying that Joseph promptly “did as the angel commanded him” (Matt. 1:24a), before he lists what precisely this comprised. Matthew therefore is not presenting here details of a comprehensive life of the Holy Family but, as throughout his work, confining himself to what is pertinent in the context and indeed for his purpose of writing the Book of “the coming-to-be of Jesus Christ” (cf. Matt. 1:1). Moreover, the confirmation in vv. 24b-25 of the three steps that Joseph took in obedience to the angel’s command complete Matthew’s proof of what he implicitly claimed at the beginning of his Book, namely that

• while Joseph was indeed the husband of Mary (cf. v. 16a),
• he did not beget Jesus Christ (cf. v. 16b),
• but by naming him made him the Son of David, the son of Abraham (cf. v. 1).

Hence Matthew’s purpose with the three points he asserts in vv. 24b-25 is simply to round off the argument of his first literary unit.

When Joseph informed Mary the next morning about the message of the angel, and that the arrangements for the home-taking ceremony were to go ahead as planned, they must have been overwhelmed at the marvelous design of God and filled with gratitude for his stupendous gift of making them the parents of the Savior whose upbringing would constitute their lifework. Thus there never was, nor will there ever be, another wedding celebration so profoundly full of joy and thanksgiving as that of Mary and Joseph in their secret sharing of the knowledge of the glorious Son who was to be born to them. For Mary was now already bearing him under her heart, whilst Joseph must have been delighted at the thought that he was not only her husband, though forever a celibate one, according to the model of the first Adam before his disobedience, but also the father and teacher of the Son of David who by Divine Providence was the Son of God.

Nevertheless they must have been greatly relieved when the festivities and the bustle of hospitality had come to an end—which may well have lasted a whole week—and they were at last free to pay a visit to Elizabeth to obtain confirmation of the sign that the angel had given Mary at the Annunciation. Luke (1:39) tells us that Mary set out with haste; but no doubt her husband Joseph was escorting her, as propriety required. And when Elizabeth exultantly exclaimed that Mary’s greeting was causing the infant in her womb to leap for joy (cf. Luke 1:41-45), this was not only the promised sign but also the first thrilling intimation to Mary herself that her own Son had already begun his saving mission.

The three months that they spent in the company of Elizabeth and Zechariah were to provide them with the opportunity to learn from the older couple’s wisdom and years of experience in the service of God and together to consider their sons’ future missions—independent and yet inseparably linked in the Divine Plan of Salvation. One of the points they must have discussed, and agreed upon, would have been that Mary and Joseph should depart before Zechariah had his faculty of speech restored and be obliged to disclose that his son John’s mission was to prepare the nation for the Coming of the Messiah. For this might have given rise to speculations and questions about his identity, which could have proved awkward for the Messiah’s parents-to-be. But whereas Zechariah had been met by Gabriel in the Holy Place with the people waiting in suspense outside and subsequently already attributing the cause of the delay to Divine intervention, Mary’s and Joseph’s respective meeting with the angel had been in total privacy, so that they had every reason to think that the identity of Mary’s Divine Child had to remain secret until his Precursor had prepared the way for him. Indeed we learn from Luke (1:56) that they returned home without waiting for the birth of John—to their marital home (oîkon autês), not her father’s house, as is often asserted.

Mary’s Magnificat and Zechariah’s Benedictus give us a beautiful insight into the inspired thoughts and feelings of these two holy couples at the time when the Holy Spirit was opening the final chapter of Salvation history.

In conclusion, there is no sign in the Gospel accounts, read against our knowledge of contemporary Jewish society from other sources, that either Mary or Joseph, or both, were not like all other deeply pious young Jews in regarding it as their duty as members of the People of God at the right age to get married in accordance with his design for humanity, in order to help and support each other throughout life, and to raise offspring in the Faith as their own humble share in the work of Salvation. The Evangelists moreover give no indication that Mary and Joseph had not entered upon their betrothal with the desire to be a fruitful generation in the lineage of David from whom God had promised to provide the Savior.

God’s Plan of Salvation therefore meant that the unstinted obedience of both Mary, his handmaid, and Joseph, the just man, in always doing his will, would bestow on them the special grace that, within the mutual support that he wants every marriage to afford husband and wife, would enable them to fulfil its salvific purpose to perfection by Mary becoming the very Tabernacle of the Presence of God and by them jointly raising up the Savior of the world himself. These reasons precluded Mary and Joseph from having any further children, so that their marriage had to be celibate always. As regards the mutual help and companionship within their marriage, this was to remain just like that of any other truly pious couple.

One final reflection is now in order in the light of the official teaching of the Church that all its Seven Sacraments were instituted by Christ himself at some period during his life on earth, since in the case of the Sacrament of Matrimony theologians and biblical exegetes have not as yet agreed on the occasion of its institution.

From the Gospel accounts it is evident that Christ, the Son of the Most High God, was present in Mary’s womb—and that this was recognized and accepted by Joseph when they celebrated their concluding nuptial ceremony of the home-taking, whereby in response to God’s call they both publicly, in the presence of their families and friends, freely ratified the promise they had made each other at their betrothal, with the conscious intention to be observant always of their mutual obligations towards each other. Thus Mary and Joseph were the first couple ever irrevocably to commit themselves to each other in Holy Matrimony in the physical presence of Christ. Therefore I propose that Mary’s and Joseph’s home-taking ceremony ought to be regarded as the moment when Christ instituted the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony for His faithful followers, and their marriage as the proto-type of all subsequent Christian marriages.

Chronology based on Matthew’s and Luke’s birth narratives
The left-hand column shows the typical duration of a pregnancy according to modern medical reckoning, namely 40 weeks (280 days), counted from the first day of the last menstrual period. This has been aligned with a column to the right, showing nine full months in accordance with the reckoning during intertestamental times (cf. 2 Mac. 7:27, 2 Es. 4:40, 8:8), i.e. about 266 days based on the length of the lunar month of 29-30 days. Apparently the duration of a pregnancy was calculated from the [presumed] day of conception.

The angel Gabriel appeared to Zechariah (Luke 1:11 ff.).

When his days of service were over, Zechariah returned to his house (Luke 1:23).

After these days Elizabeth conceived (Luke 1:24a).

Perhaps 10-14 days later Elizabeth missed her monthly period.

Elizabeth hid herself for five months, knowing that she was pregnant (Luke 1:24b-25).

In the 6th month Gabriel appeared to Mary, betrothed to Joseph (Luke 1:26 ff)

Mary had already conceived when an angel ordered Joseph to take her home (Matt. 1:20).

On waking Joseph obeyed (Matt. 1:24).

In those days Mary [and Joseph] went with haste to Elizabeth (Luke 1:39 ff).

After 4-5 days, depending on the route, Mary [and Joseph] arrived at Zechariah’s house.

After staying about 3 months Mary [and Joseph] returned to her [marital] house (Luke 1:56).

Elizabeth’s time had come, and she gave birth to a son (Luke 1:57)

On the 8th day he was circumcised, and Zechariah named him John (Luke 1:59 ff) 

Notes on Sources

This Scriptural Meditation was first delivered at a Meeting of the Ecumenical Society of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Great Britain on 20 January 2001 and subsequently circulated to their membership. It does not attempt to be a full exegesis of the marriage of Mary and Joseph and is subject to approval by Church authority.

Gospel quotations from: J. B. Orchard, A Synopsis of the Four Gospels, Macon Ga. 1982 (out-of-print, revised second edition in preparation). Old Testament quotations from: J. B. Orchard and R. C. Fuller (ed.), The Holy Bible—Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, London 1966.

For some of the scholarship that supports this Scriptural Meditation see for example: Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation: The Guardian of the Redeemer, 1989; F. L. Filas, The Man nearest to Christ, London 1947; Joseph and Jesus, A Theological Study of their Relationship, Milwaukee, Bruce, 1952; J. McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament, London 1975; H. Wansbrough OSB, “St Matthew” (§712d-k), A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, London 1969. 

Reverend Dom Bernard Orchard, O.S.B., (Ealing Abbey, England) is a founding member and first chairman of the World Catholic Federation for the Biblical Apostolate (now CBF). He was Promoter/General Editor of the first one-volume Catholic commentary on Scripture (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1953). His writings include Gospel Synopses (Engl. ed. 1982, Greek 1983) and a pastoral Life of Christ (1993). He is now consolidating his Fourfold-Gospel Hypothesis that seeks critically to defend the tradition of the Fathers and the Church concerning the apostolic authorship and historicity of the four Gospel accounts.