Joseph's Trial

Having regained their home, Mary and Joseph resumed their former tenor of life—their occupations, their labors, their exercises of piety, with even increased fervor. The poor and the sick rejoiced at their return, for in them they beheld their constant benefactors. All superfluities, the fruit of Joseph’s toil—that is, all that was not strictly needed for the maintenance of Mary and himself—were regarded as their patrimony. His hands labored for it, and her hands dispensed it. Like her mystical figure in the Proverbs, “she hath opened her hand to the needy, and stretched out her hands to the poor; and the law of clemency is on her tongue,”¹ that kindness which adds such sweetness to a gift, and is itself an alms more prized by the suffering than even the material relief. Neighbors and friends, too, rejoiced to see them again, for their goodness, gentleness, and courtesy had endeared them to all.

The nearer the time approached for Mary’s divine delivery, the more exalted were the graces of which she was the privileged recipient. Not only was she continually favored by familiar visits of angels, who came to adore and serve the Incarnate Word within her, but we have reason to regard as most true what saints have asserted, that she was admitted at times, so far as is possible for a human creature still abiding on earth, to behold God in His Divine Essence. That great authority, Suarez, says, “I affirm that it may be piously and with probability believed that the Blessed Virgin was in this life sometimes elevated for a short space to the clear vision of the Divine Essence”.²

Nor need this surprise us when we consider that, with the exception of the hypostatic union, there could be none more intimate, more sublime, than that which existed between Mary and the Incarnate Word,³ the flesh of Christ being the flesh of Mary; from whence, indeed, St. Thomas deduces that the Blessed Virgin, being the Mother of God, possesses a certain infinite dignity derived from the Infinite Good, which is God;⁴ and Suarez says that “the dignity of the Mother of God is in its kind infinite”.⁵

Joseph, meanwhile, in the midst of his labors and his poverty esteemed himself superlatively rich, because in Mary he possessed the rarest and most precious treasure on earth. Her presence was paradise to him. One glance from her countenance of heavenly modesty and of the glory which beamed from it was sufficient to kindle in his soul the fire of divine charity such as burns in a seraph; the sound of her voice, which had awakened to the light both of reason and of grace the unborn infant, must have made his heart often bound within his bosom. He felt the nearness of God in her, and was blessed beyond expression. As, however, it is scarcely given to mortals to enjoy for long such perfect felicity on earth, we may well imagine that the fear of losing it could not have been absent from his mind, and that a strange prescience concerning his virgin spouse, fostered by all he had recently seen and heard, may have dwelt in its secret depths. Respecting these things, and many more, Scripture is silent, though the veil has been lifted at times in the visions with which saints have been favored.

Thoughts such as these he may have pondered on after their return from Hebron, when one day the fact of the pregnancy of his most pure spouse flashed upon him unmistakably. We will adhere to the Gospel words, for nothing is said in vain: “She was found with child of the Holy Ghost”.⁶ “By whom,” asks St. Jerome, “was she found with child? Certainly by no one but Joseph.”⁷ Others would never have supposed that she had conceived by Divine power, but would have recognized in her condition nothing but the natural fruit of a lawful marriage. Not so her spouse Joseph. He was well acquainted with the inviolable virginity of Mary. He also knew well what was her unapproachable sanctity. He knew that she lived an angel’s life on earth. What wonder, then, if what he beheld should have suggested to him the thought that possibly she was the destined Mother of the Messias, the Virgin foretold by the prophet Isaias, who was to bring forth the Emmanuel! Joseph, we must remember, was deeply versed in the Divine Scriptures, and, according to St. Francis de Sales, was wiser than Solomon. Not he alone, but others far less enlightened than he was were anxiously looking out at that period for the coming of the Redeemer.⁸ All knew that He was to be of the tribe of Juda and of the house of David, and all who were familiar with the prophecy of Isaias must have known that He would be born of a virgin. Moreover, Joseph must have recalled all that had preceded and accompanied his espousals with Mary; and that which had taken place in the house of Zachary, whom he had heard declaring by the movement of the Holy Ghost that the child miraculously given to him was to go before the face of the Highest, must have been fresh in his memory. Does it not, then, seem most highly probable that all these signs and tokens combined must have brought wonderful evidence to the mind of Joseph concerning the mystery attaching to Mary’s state? And not only must we feel this to be highly probable, but it is even difficult to imagine that it could have been otherwise. A thought which in other men might have awakened feelings of self-complacency, pride, and exultation, in the most humble Joseph caused such confusion, and what we may call dismay, that we may imagine him repeating to himself words such as these: “The Mother of God my spouse! The Son of the Most High born in my house!” No, such an honor was not for him. His place was not there. Could he in the face of the world continue to accept, recognize, and treat Mary as his wife, who had conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost? Could he appear to claim as his son the Holy One who was to be born of her? He shrank with holy consternation from the very idea. In his just mind such conduct assumed the appearance of acting out an impious falsehood.⁹ No, his place was not there. What could he do, then, but privately depart, and go to hide himself among the deserts and solitudes of the Jordan, there to weep over his own unworthiness? Such, we may believe, must have been the thoughts which filled Joseph’s mind when he made this discovery, and not that distressing alternation of doubts and suspicions of the fidelity of his immaculate spouse which some pious orators have dwelt upon, causing pain, we cannot but think, to many of their devout hearers.

It is true that some of the ancient Fathers held that doubts and perplexities concerning Mary’s state arose in Joseph’s mind,¹⁰ but the more general opinion of Doctors and Fathers, ancient and modern, coincides with that which we do not scruple to adopt, namely, that Joseph thought of withdrawing secretly from the Virgin out of reverence to the Divine Maternity. The first view is grounded on the letter of the text, viewed on its surface; the second also rests on the letter of the text, but carefully examined; whereby it is plain that, so far from contradicting, it is really favorable to the view which is most honorable to Mary as well as most worthy of Joseph. It also removes, or rather precludes, all those difficulties which the other various interpretations raise without solving. We will, then, examine the text a little in detail.

We have just observed that the Evangelist distinctly says that Mary was found to have conceived of the Holy Ghost. But Joseph alone could have known this, because he alone knew of the mutual vow of virginity which together they had made. Others could never have imagined the existence of this vow. The text proceeds: “Whereupon Joseph, her husband”; and here we will pause to notice once more how Joseph is expressly called her “husband”. What is narrated cannot, therefore, have taken place in the interval between the betrothal and the nuptials, as some have maintained. Had this been so, the discovery of Mary’s state would have been made by others, not by Joseph, as she could not have been residing with him. Add to which, that their marriage, which, according to this view, took place immediately after the angel’s appearance to Joseph, would not have shielded the honor of our Lady.¹¹ The birth of Jesus less than six months after their union would have been a circumstance sure not to be forgotten in Nazareth. Now, the legitimacy of His birth was never questioned by His unbelieving countrymen, or the slightest slur ever cast upon Him or Mary, His Mother, by His malicious enemies, who would have been sure to avail themselves of any report of this kind had it ever existed.

To continue. The Evangelist says: “Whereupon Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately,” or, in other words, separate himself from her and leave her; for the Greek word rendered in the Vulgate by dimittere has this signification, as may be often seen in Scripture. It is the word, for instance, used in the Gospel of St. Matthew 19:5: “For this cause shall a man leave (dimittet) father and mother,” where, assuredly, the term dimittet could not signify to put away or divorce. Neither can it be the meaning in the case of which we are speaking. Joseph could not have repudiated Mary by a private bill of divorce, or any other form, without its becoming known, and therefore without defaming or publicly exposing her, the very thing which, it is said, he was not willing to do.

Then, again, as regards Joseph being a just man, which is the reason given why he did not act in this manner by his spouse, the text does not say that he was compassionate; it does not say that he was merciful; nor does it use any expression which might seem to countenance the idea that there was anything to forgive or condone on his part. It says simply that he was just. But the epithet “just,” according to St. Jerome and the other Fathers, signified (as we have already seen¹²) the perfect possession of all the virtues. In every case it would, at least, point to a faithful fulfillment of all the injunctions of God’s law. St. Luke describes Zachary and Elizabeth as being both of them “just before God, walking in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord without blame”;¹³ that is, fulfilling all the precepts of the Law of Moses. Now, the Law of Moses did not leave to a man the choice either of retaining his wife, if guilty of adultery, or even of concealing her crime, if it became known to him. If Joseph, then, did not denounce Mary, and was desirous that no suspicion should be directed to her, it is manifest that he did not himself suspect her of infidelity; otherwise the epithet “just” would not have been strictly applicable to him, since he would not have been an exact observer of the Law, in that he sought to conceal the sins of others.¹⁴ St. Jerome uses this very argument in defense of Joseph. “If,” he says, “it was a precept of the Law that, not only the guilty, but those who had knowledge of their guilt, were under the penalty of sin, how could Joseph, in concealing the sin of his wife, be styled just?”¹⁵ Yet it was precisely because he was just that he would not denounce her, being persuaded that she was innocent, and that, if she were with child, it was through the power of God. But, if she were innocent, why does he not remain with her? The reason, as we have said, is clear. Having become persuaded from so many signs that she is the Mother of the Messias, he, reckoning himself unworthy to abide under the same roof with her, and with the Desired of all nations, comes to the determination to leave her privily, so that her reputation may remain undamaged. Had he abandoned her publicly how many questions and suspicions concerning the motives of his behavior would have arisen! But, departing thus quietly, people might naturally suppose that his work had called him away for a time, and that he was executing some order which he had received in the neighborhood, or, possibly, that for some cause or another he was making a fresh journey into Judea.

Still, it may be asked, how could Joseph have the heart to forsake a wife so tenderly beloved, and in such a condition; leaving her, too, without a companion and without aid amidst all her trials? Did he not give a thought to the grief which he would cause her? Yes, Joseph we may be sure thought of everything, but the awe and reverence he felt at the presence of an Incarnate God was more powerful in him than the love and tenderness he bore his spouse. Without ceasing, therefore, to love her, he meditated concealing himself from her sight, convinced that, having with her a God, she had greater aid, security, and comfort, and better company, than he could have afforded her. This separation was a great sacrifice to him, and caused him unutterable pain, but it seemed to him to be necessary, and he purposed to effect it.

Now, having seen that the Gospel text, so far from being opposed to the interpretation we advocate, is favorable to it, we will refer to the Fathers. If we are to credit so great a saint and doctor of the Church as St. Bernard, there is a very general agreement among them on the subject. He reasons thus: “For what cause did Joseph think of leaving Mary? Hear upon this point, not my opinion, but that of the Fathers. Joseph wished to separate himself from Mary for the same reason as made Peter desire to leave the Lord, when he said, ‘Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord’;¹⁶ and for which the centurion would dissuade Him from coming into his house, saying, ‘Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldest enter under my roof’.¹⁷ In like manner, Joseph, reputing himself a sinner and unworthy, did not think it fitting to live familiarly with one whose surpassing dignity inspired him with awe. With a sacred dread he beheld in her the indubitable token of the Divine Presence, and, as he could not fathom the mystery, he desired to leave her. Peter was confounded at the greatness of the Divine power, the centurion by the majesty of the Divine presence; and Joseph also, as a man, was struck with fear at the strangeness of so great a mystery, and therefore was minded privily to leave her. Do you marvel that Joseph, beholding her pregnancy, should esteem himself unworthy to abide with his virgin spouse when you hear St. Elizabeth, unable to sustain her presence without trepidation and awe, exclaiming, ‘Whence is this to me that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?’”¹⁸ Thus St. Bernard. His words need no comment.

But who are the Fathers to whom he alludes? There are an Origen, a Jerome, a Basil, a Remigius, author of a fragmentary work which has been attributed to St. Chrysostom, a Theophylact, and others. “Joseph,” says Remigius, “sees that his spouse has conceived; he beholds with child her whom he knows to be chaste; and, because he had read in the Prophets, ‘There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root,’¹⁹ he did not question or doubt but that this prediction was about to be fulfilled in her.” And again, elsewhere he exclaims, “More possible does Joseph believe it that a woman should conceive without the concurrence of man, than that Mary should sin”.²⁰ To the names we have mentioned we may add those of Aimon, St. Thomas Aquinas, Gerson, St. Bernardine of Siena, and Isidoro Isolano. Here are St. Thomas’s words: “Holy Joseph pondered in his humility not to continue to dwell with so much sanctity”.²¹ But, leaving all the rest, let us listen to the great Doctor of the Church, St. Francis de Sales. Echoing the sentiments of St. Bernard and the other Fathers, he writes thus: “The humility of St. Joseph, as St. Bernard explains, was the cause of his desiring to abandon our Lady when he perceived her to be with child. St. Bernard says that he reasoned thus within himself: ‘What is this? I know that she is a virgin, for together we took the vow of preserving our virginity and our purity, in which she would certainly not have failed. On the other hand, I perceive that she is with child, that she is a mother. And how can maternity and virginity subsist together? How should not virginity be an obstacle to maternity? Might it be, he then said, that she is that glorious Virgin of whom the Prophet declares that she shall conceive and bring forth the Messias? If this be so, far be it from me to abide any longer with her, I who am unworthy to do so. It were better that I should secretly leave her on account of my unworthiness, and not live any longer in her company.’ Marvelous sentiment of humility!”²²