Let’s Stop Ignoring Joseph
— Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 —
I played a cow in my first-grade Christmas pageant, and I had more lines than the kid who played Joseph. He was a prop, or so it seemed, for Mary, the plastic doll in the manger, and the rest of us. We were just following the script. There’s rarely much room in the inn of the contemporary Christian imagination for Joseph, especially among conservative Protestants like me. His only role, it seems, is an usher—to get Mary to the stable in Bethlehem in the first place and then to get her back to the Temple in Jerusalem in order to find the wandering 12-year-old Jesus.
But there’s much more to the Joseph figure.
Real Father
When we talk about Joseph at all, we spend most of our time talking about what he was not. We believe (rightly) with the apostles that Jesus was conceived in a virgin’s womb. Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father; not a trace of Joseph’s sperm was involved in the formation of the embryo Christ. No amount of Joseph’s DNA could be found in the dried blood of Jesus peeled from the wood of Golgotha’s cross. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit completely apart from the will or exertion of any man.
That noted, though, we need to be careful that we don’t reduce Joseph simply to a truthful first-century Bill Clinton: “He did not have sexual relations with that woman.” There’s much more to be said. Joseph is not Jesus’ biological father, but he is his real father. In his adoption of Jesus, Joseph is rightly identified by the Spirit speaking through the Scriptures as Jesus’ father (Luke 2:41, 48).
Jesus would have said “Abba” first to Joseph. Jesus’ obedience to his father and mother, obedience essential to his law-keeping on our behalf, is directed toward Joseph (Luke 2:51). Jesus does not share Joseph’s bloodline, but he claims him as his father, obeying Joseph perfectly and even following in his vocation. When Jesus is tempted in the wilderness, he cites the words of Deuteronomy to counter “the flaming darts of the evil one” (Eph. 6:16). Think about it for a moment—Jesus almost certainly learned those Hebrew Scriptures from Joseph as he listened to him at the woodworking table or stood beside him in the synagogue.
Difficult Deed
Our contemporary cartoonish, two-dimensional picture of Joseph too easily ignores how difficult it was for him to do what he did. Imagine for a minute that one of the teenagers in your church were to stand up behind the pulpit to give her testimony. She’s eight months pregnant and unmarried. After a few minutes of talking about God’s working in her life and about how excited she is to be a mother, she starts talking about how thankful she is that she’s remained sexually pure, kept all the “True Love Waits” commitments she made in her youth group Bible study. You’d immediately conclude that the girl’s either delusional or lying.
When contemporary biblical revisionists scoff at the virgin birth of Jesus and other miracles, they often tell us we’re now beyond such “myths” since we live in a post-Enlightenment, scientifically progressive information age. What such critics miss is the fact that virgin conceptions have always seemed ridiculous. People in first-century Palestine knew how babies were conceived. The implausibility of the whole thing is evident in the biblical text itself. When Mary tells Joseph she is pregnant, his first reaction isn’t a cheery “It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas.” No, he assumes what any of us would conclude was going on, and he sets out to end their betrothal.
But then God enters the scene.
When God speaks in a dream to Joseph about the identity of Jesus, Joseph, like everyone else who follows Christ, recognizes the voice and goes forward (Matt. 1:21-24). Joseph’s adoption and protection of Jesus is simply the outworking of that belief.
Same Faith
In believing God, Joseph probably walked away from his reputation. The wags in his hometown would probably always whisper about how “poor Joseph was hoodwinked by that girl” or how “old Joseph got himself in trouble with that girl.” As the stakes grew higher, Joseph certainly sacrificed his economic security. In first-century Galilee, after all, one doesn’t simply move to Egypt, the way one might today decide to move to New York or London. Joseph surrendered a household economy, a vocation probably built up over generations, handed down to him, one would suppose, by his father.
Again, Joseph was unique in one sense. None of us will ever be called to be father to God. But in another very real sense, Joseph’s faith was exactly the same as ours. The letter of James, for instance, speaks of the definition of faith in this way: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world” (1:27). James is the one who tells us further that faith is not mere intellectual belief, the faith of demons (2:19), but is instead a faith that works.
James shows us that Abraham’s belief is seen in his offering up Isaac, knowing God would keep his promise and raise him from the dead (2:21-23). We know Rahab has faith not simply because she raises her hand in agreement with the Hebrew spies but because in hiding them from the enemy she is showing she trusts God to save her (2:25). James tells us that genuine faith shelters the orphan.
What gives even more weight to these words is the identity of the human author. This letter is written by James of the Jerusalem church, the brother of our Lord Jesus. How much of this “pure and undefiled religion” did James see first in the life of his own earthly father? Did the image of Joseph linger in James’s mind as he inscribed the words of an orphan-protecting, living faith?
It’s a shame that Joseph is so neglected in our thoughts and affections, even at Christmastime. If we pay attention to him, though, we just might see a model for a new generation of Christians. We might see how to live as the presence of Christ in a culture of death. We might see how to image a protective Father, how to preach a life-affirming gospel, even in a culture captivated by the spirit of Herod.
This post originally appeared at The Gospel Coalition Blog on December 15, 2011, under the title, “Father to God, Model for Us.”
Amen. Last Jan., one of my church’s deacons (hopefully to become an elder soon!) taught an excellent character study of Joseph. You can tell he’s been affected by a certain book entitled “Adopted for Life.” Speaking of adoption, Rick and his wife April need our prayers- they were “paper pregnant” but unfortunately they’ve “miscarried”…
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=116111916196
Why wouldn’t God who from the beginning planned all those begats not use Joseph’s DNA?
@Ellen Jervis,
As I understand it, it was so that Adam’s original sin wouldn’t be transmitted to Jesus.
What a great article, Russ! Congratulations on your new little one. You are blessed in your family. Merry Christmas to you and yours.
I find it fascinating to see the way in which the New Testament treats Joseph. For example, in the first chapter of Matthew’s Gospel he is included in the genealogy of Jesus, even though the text is careful to point out that he is “the husband of Mary” rather than, as would be expected, “the father of Jesus.”
When you read verses 18 to 25 it seems as though you are reading about Joseph. Mary is very much in the background. An angel appeared to Joseph telling him to marry Mary; he was not expected to trust Mary’s word, he was given a word from God (verses 20 & 21).
When the family was ordered to flee from Bethlehem to Egypt the angel appeared to Joseph, not to Mary or to Jesus (2:20).
Joseph is consistently treated as the head of the family and he is seen fulfilling his responsibilities as such.
Pretty insightful post. Never considered that it was this simple. Extolment to you!
Russell,
It is great that a Southern Baptist can discuss the virtue of St. Joseph. Just think how great a Southern Baptist’s Christian life would be if he or she stopped ignoring Jesus’ words?
“Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
The Gospel of St. John Chapter 6:53-59
No, actually, Joseph probably didn’t sacrifice his reputation. In a culture where betrothal was considered just as binding as marriage today, no doubt there were plenty of girls like Mary who became pregnant before the marriage ceremony, which was really a kind of second marriage. Betrothal was binding. Joseph would have had to divorce Mary—different from simply breaking off an engagement. Moreover, the very fact that the verse says he “was minded to put her away PRIVATELY” indicates that her pregnancy wasn’t common knowledge. She may only have been a couple months pregnant when she told Joseph. This was all behind the scenes. Then of course the angel told Joseph to proceed with the marriage. So in the end, there wasn’t any reason for the townspeople to suspect the baby wasn’t Joseph’s.
I think I see a general tendency among pastors to try to over-dramatize or complicate things in the Bible that really were relatively ordinary or “boring.” It’s important to keep a practical historical perspective on these things.
@yankeegospelgirl, I agree with your concern about over-dramatisation, but in this case I believe it is misplaced.
Luke 1 indicates Mary visited Elisabeth for three months after the conception of Jesus, which means the events of Matthew 1 would have taken place when Mary was at least 3 months pregnant.
Furthermore, part of the whole point is that it was to be known, by those who were willing to believe, that this was a virgin birth. The Lord did not want this to look like a normal pregnancy, and John 8:41 probably includes a sarcastic reference to the fact that it was widely known that it wasn’t normal. The baby had to come early enough that everyone would know He was not conceived after the marriage was legally completed.
Finally, as to the private divorce, this just means Joseph was considering giving her a “no-fault” divorce as mentioned in Deut. 24, rather than denouncing her for adultery. The pregnancy was not going to be hidden no matter what. The fact that Joseph was willing to consider this shows what an incredibly compassionate man he was, because to pursue that course would have trashed his reputation even more than what eventually did happen.
Hi I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed reading this - it was very encouraging and a further thought on the character of Joseph is that from trying to read between the lines, he was a man of great self-control. Many of the great men of the scripture, at different times had a crisis of faith or fell into sin, however with Joseph we only read of that which is really important to the Christian - that he was a just man, compassionate to Mary and self-controlled in his response to the whole situation.
Thanks again for the post.
Xander
That verse from John COULD be taken as some evidence that people suspected, but I’m not sure how convincing that interpretation is, because it seems implausible that if there was some local gossip, it would have reached all the way to the Jewish leaders of Jerusalem (which is the setting for that passage).
As for your theory that God wanted people to guess Jesus was born of a virgin, I’m not sure how you drew that conclusion, since anyone who though Jesus was born out of wedlock would simply have attributed his fatherhood to Joseph.
I’m not sure why you said Joseph’s contemplated divorce would have been “compassionate,” since if anything it would have been an act of distancing himself from Mary and sending a message that he had nothing to do with her. The first thing he thought when he found out she was pregnant was that she had been unfaithful with another man, and that’s the conclusion other people would have arrived at too. It would have been her reputation that was ruined, not his.
@yankeegospelgirl, Sorry for not getting back to this sooner.
“As for your theory that God wanted people to guess Jesus was born of a virgin, I’m not sure how you drew that conclusion.”
I suppose Isaiah 7:14 ought to be a factor in our thinking on that topic. He’d told people 700 years before that there would be something pretty special about the birth.
I don’t really follow you here. Previously, you argued that Joseph’s reputation wouldn’t be damaged, and now you are saying that people would assume he was the father. You appear to be contradicting yourself, which probably means I’m not understanding you.
Why was Joseph’s contemplated divorce compassionate? Look, he thought she’d been unfaithful and immoral. If you were engaged to some guy and found out he’d been sleeping around and got a girl pregnant, and then he was denying it and saying that it was God who made the girl pregnant, would you shrug and say, “Oh, well, that’s ok then, we’ll go ahead and get married?” Or would you take off in the other direction as fast as you could?
There was nothing wrong with Joseph thinking about divorce. Any man would, and would be justified in doing so.
The compassion came in because he was thinking about doing it secretly, not giving the reason publicly. He COULD have had her dragged into the synagogue and denounced her as adulterous and immoral, and even demanded that she should be stoned. The “secret” part was in giving her a “no-fault” divorce, which would make him look like a total cad, and make her look like the victim. I’ve written about it on my own blog, if you want the details. http://mindrenewers.com/2011/12/13/minded-to-put-her-away-privily/