|
Let us first note the text:
Mt 1:18-21 - "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.”
It has been argued that Joseph and Mary were married, and therefore since Joseph sought to “put her away” rather than “divorce” her, that the terms ("put away" and "divorce") are the same. On the surface it might appear that the text states that they were “husband” and “wife” and that such settles the matter. However, the term “espoused”, which means engaged or betrothed, is used rather than “married”, which is the first and most obvious indication that they were not married. The fact that the text refers to Joseph as her “husband” and Mary as his “wife” does not contradict the statement that they were espoused or engaged. (see passages from various versions below)
Barnes states: “Her husband. The word in the original does not imply that they were married. It means here the man to whom she was espoused.” Also, for the word “wife”, note Strong’s definition: “a woman; specially, a wife:--wife, woman.” Thus, the idea that Joseph and Mary were married is not proven by the original language.
There are several reasons why we should not conclude that Joseph and Mary were married in the context of Matthew 1:19:
First, because the text says they were "espoused" or engaged.
Second, if Mary and Joseph were actually married, rather than betrothed, as the text says, they could have had sex. They didn’t. When she became pregnant Joseph knew it was not his doing. Therefore, he sought to put her away “privately”; i.e., to end the engagement in a way that was opposite of public in order to spare her the shame.
Third, there is no biblical evidence that he intended to “divorce” her. The Scriptures do not speak of a need to divorce one unless you are married. There may have been a custom where some actually went through some legal process to end an engagement. Nevertheless, God made the Law, not the people. Marriage is a marriage, engagement is engagement, and the terms are different. The thinking and custom of people do not change this fact, nor do they change God’s word.
Fourth, if Joseph and Mary were actually married, Joseph would not have thought to merely put her away. She would have been guilty of adultery, which required the death penalty – NOT “put away” (apoluo) or “divorce” (apostasion) in such cases.
Note the following:
"The fact that Joseph had in mind the putting away of his espoused wife, Mary, without the formality of a bill or at least of a public procedure proves that a decree was not regarded as absolutely necessary" (Mt 1:19). International Standard Encyclopedia
The author (quoted above) made the point that Joseph did not have a mind to formally divorce. Thus, he evidently understood that what Joseph had a mind to do, "put away", was not equal to the formal procedure of providing the "bill of divorce"; which the author followed by providing an example of such a legal document.
Scholars define the Greek word "apoluo" as divorce among other definitions that are actually ahead in their list. The interesting thing is that they base their opinion of what the word means on a text that does not support their conclusion and contention. For example, Thayer says, “Used of divorce” and notes Matthew 1:19.
Conclusion:
The case of Joseph and Mary actually supports the position that “put away” is something that is done without papers, rather than being the same as divorce. Jesus’ teaching in Mat19:9, particularly the exception clause, takes on a whole new meaning once we understand and accept what He actually said. We then see that Jesus did not contradict the Law and that He was not teaching that divorced persons commit adultery if they marry. This means that we do not have to practice “doctrines of devils” in “forbidding to marry” (1Tim4:1-3) and we can (as commanded) allow marriage for those who are “unmarried” and have no marriage (1Cor7:2;8,9;27,28), which is required so they can avoid fornication.
For further study of this same topic follow this link: http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-apoluo-apostasion.htm
Matthew 1:19 – “However, Joseph, her husband-to-be, was a fair man; he did not want to disgrace her. So he decided to quietly call off the marriage.” (International English)
Matthew 1:19 – “And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.” (New American Standard)
Matthew 1:19 – “Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.” (New Revised Standard with Apocrypha)
Matthew 1:19 – “Joseph, her fiancé, being a just man, decided to break the engagement quietly, so as not to disgrace her publicly.” (New Living Translation)
|
