THE ANGEL’S APPEARANCE TO JOSEPH

"The Dream of Joseph" circa 1640 AD by Georges de La Tour.

(Nazareth B.C. 5)

Matthew 1:18-25a

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. [Secretly or privately. The NIV translates this as: “He had in mind to divorce her quietly.”]

There is some interesting information in the last sentence. If Joseph did not want to expose her to public disgrace, Mary's condition was probably not widely known. Perhaps it was confided and confined to her immediate family and Joseph. At any rate, Joseph had every right to divorce her under the Law. He would have cited Deuteronomy 24:1, "If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house..." (NIV) This certificate of divorce was called a "Get" and would have been considered merciful on Joseph's part considering the punishment available for adultery. A Get would have accomplished three things. One, it would have severed any marital obligations between Joseph and Mary; two, it would have freed Mary to marry another man if she wished and it would have legitimized any child born to that marriage. Here are the basic rules for a Get:

(1) The parties appear before a rabbi learned in the laws of divorce, a scribe, and two witnesses.

(2) The husband requests that the scribe write the GET for his wife, which the scribe then proceeds to do using a special quill pen.

(3) The husband declares that he is giving the GET of his own free will, and the wife concerning its receipt makes a similar declaration.

 (4) At this point, the GET is then signed by the two witnesses.

 (5) The parties are again questioned as to whether they are giving and accepting the GET voluntarily.

 (6) The husband takes the GET and drops it directly into his wife’s cupped hands, stating: "This is your GET and accept this as your GET, you shall therewith be divorced from me, you are untied free and permitted to any man".

 (7) She then places the GET under her arm and symbolically leaves by turning and moving several steps away.

 (8) The divorcée then returns and the GET is taken from her by the officiating rabbi who tears the GET crosswise; and

 (9) finally, the divorced woman is given a Divorce Certificate to prove her divorced status, and the process is over.

It says Joseph wanted to do this quietly. He would not have been required to place blame in order to obtain a Get, he could simply claim his displeasure in Mary. He would not necessarily had to spell out what the indecency was he found in her. Obviously, her condition would become apparent. Perhaps the plan also included sending her away somewhere. Mary and Joseph were betrothed, which was as binding as marriage, but did not include consummation. If Mary were seen as pregnant, people would assume either Joseph and Mary had not remained pure in their betrothal or Mary had committed adultery. Joseph would probably have desired to avoid either accusation.

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, fear not to take to you Mary your wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name JESUS [Hebrew: Joshua, which means God is Salvation]: for he shall save his people from their sins.”

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” [Isaiah 7:14]

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took to him his wife and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

There are some who claim Mary and Joseph never had sex or children of their own. Here in Matthew 1:25 is the first of several passages in Scripture that refute that idea. They restrained from consummation of their marriage vows until sometime after the birth of Jesus. If Mary and Joseph had denied their bodies to each other as man and wife, they would have been committing sin against each other and the commands of God. (See Genesis 1:28; Genesis 2:24; Ephesians 5:25-33 for example.) 

This also took great faith on Joseph's part, because by doing so he would bring some condemnation on himself for not restraining himself and his wife during the betrothal period. I am sure people were no different then than now and much whispering went on around the town speculating on just how and by whom Mary had become pregnant. Probably the rumor that she had been either raped or had an affair with a Roman soldier began here.

P.S.: In de La Tour's painting, Joseph appears as quite old. Often we see Joseph portrayed as much older than Mary and although it is possible he was a few years her senior, it seems more likely he and she were both quite young given the customs of the time. Mary may even been as young as twelve or thirteen and Joseph himself may have been a teenager. We really don't know their actual age at this time from any authentic source.

So why have classical artists often painted Joseph as this old man?

There are apocryphal writings, such as "The Story of Joseph the Carpenter", that contend Joseph had been married prior to Mary and was of quite an advanced age. According to these traditions, Joseph married one Melcha (sometimes called Escha) when he was forty years old and they lived together 49 years before she died. During their marriage, Joseph and Melcha had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was known as James the Less.

Now a year after Melcha died, for reasons I really don't know, these priests send a message throughout Judea for a worthy man to Marry this twelve or thirteen year old girl named Mary. So Joseph, this ninety-year man, makes the trek to Jerusalem to apply as the groom and gets selected.

This idea caught on that Joseph was this very old man at the time of Christ's birth. I think one of the reasons this story was perpetuated came from the belief of some that Mary remained eternally a virgin after Jesus was born. There is a belief in some churches that Mary and Joseph never had any sexual relationship in their marriage, a situation I stated was a sin and violation of God's will. However, those who hold that this was the case faced the problem when Scripture mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters on occasion. This story then resolves the problem by claiming Joseph had a previous marriage and Jesus had half-siblings. Joseph would have been free to marry Mary because his first wife had died. (The same apocryphal stories claim Joseph died at the age of 111, which would have his demise coming halfway between Jesus' presentation at the Temple at age twelve and His ministry beginning at age 30.)

This whole idea that Mary remained a virgin and never had marital relations with Joseph is not Scriptural at all. The elaboration of a previous marriage for Joseph just shows the lengths some will go to rather than accepting what Scripture clearly tells us. Scripture tells us that Jesus had brothers and sisters who were the children of Joseph and Mary. Matthew tells us, "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." (NIV) The form of that last statement indicates that after the birth of Jesus they did have normal marital relationships.

JESUS AT THE WEDDING FEAST IN CANA

The Wedding at Cana by Jacopo Robusti Tintoretto, 1561

Autumn 26 A.D

Cana in Galilee

John 2:1-12

And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there and both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

On the map below, you will see Cana just above Nazareth and if you look further down to the Dead Sea, you will see a Bethany just at the top of the sea. As stated previously, no one  really knows 

the exact location of either of these places anymore. Their placement on this map is the most commonly accepted guess. It is thus estimated that Cana was about 9 miles north of Nazareth. The location of Bethany beyond the Jordan probably was just inside the border of modern day Jordan.

At any rate, there are those who claim Jesus could not have been at Bethany beyond the Jordan and then attended a wedding in Cana in the time frame given by John. However, this is a miscalculation of the text. When they read, “On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee”, they mistakenly think it is the third day after John the Baptist pointed Jesus out to John and Andrew. However, a careful count of the references to “the next day (as we did) shows Jesus decided to leave for Galilee on the third day and the reference of the wedding on the third day is the third day of that trip.

Some still argue the distance was too great, but this only comes from living in a culture and time when we ride everywhere. We are not use to walking great distances to go between places as was common in those times. The distance between Bethany and Cana was most likely 90 to 95 miles. I walk at an average rate of 4 miles per hour. If we allow a slower pace of three miles per hour, a person could cover the distance in three days by walking between 10 and 11 hours a day. If the person did average four miles per hour, it would be eight hours a day. For people used to foot travel, certainly doable. 

Here is where we pickup on the third day when Jesus and his new disciples arrive at this wedding:

And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”

Jesus said to her, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? My hour is not yet come.”

His mother said to the servants, “Whatsoever he says to you, do it.”

And there were set there six water pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins [8 or 9 gallons] apiece. Jesus said to them, “Fill the water pots with water.”

And they filled them up to the brim.

And he said to them, “Draw out now, and bear to the governor of the feast.”

And they bare it.

Mary says to Him (probably whispered). “They have no more wine.”  This was going to be a great embarrassment to the family running out of wine before all the wedding celebrating was over. I think Jesus and His disciples had just arrived when the wine ran out and so Mary informed Him of that fact. It would have been customary for Jesus and his followers to be given wine and perhaps this had not happened. If we look at the Young’s Literal Translation of this text it becomes clearer this may have been the sequence of events:

And the third day a marriage happened in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there, and also Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage; and wine having failed, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, `Wine they have not…'

This may have been a family wedding. We find later that Mary, Jesus, His disciples and His brothers went down to Capernaum from there, so His brothers were also guests. Mary as a close family member may have been helping with the arrangements. It may also be this is why Jesus decided to go to Galilee when He did, he had been invited to this wedding. The literal translation says Jesus was called. His new disciples may have been called as a courtesy. These were not gatecrashers, one had to be invited to attend a wedding feast. We have to be called to attend the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. We won’t be allowed in with out our invitation.

Notice that Mary does not ask Jesus to do anything; she just states a fact. Jesus reply is curious, “Dear woman, why do you involve me? My time has not yet come.” (NIV) [Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come. (KJV)]

If his mother had called Jesus to the wedding and she had some responsibility for the provisions, was it inferred he would help by creating more wine?

The King James translation sounds harsh, “Woman what have I to do with thee?” The NIV sounds either indifferent or put-upon, “Dear woman, why do you involve me?” First, He is speaking to his mother and we would not today generally refer to our mother as “woman”. But in those times this was actually a term of respect. Second, there may have been a better translation of Jesus’ response. Here is the Young Literal Translation: “Jesus saith to her, `What -- to me and to thee, woman? Not yet is mine hour come.”

This may to be similar to us saying, “Mother, just between you and me, it isn’t my time yet.”

Mary never made a specific request and she doesn’t wait for a specific answer either. She goes to the servants and says to do what Jesus tells them. This again indicates Mary had some authority at this wedding, enough that the servants would obey her. Also notice this is all kept rather secretive. There are only three groups who witness what happens: Mary and Jesus, the servants and the disciples. There is no spectacle made of this first miracle. No one else is let in on it. Mary doesn’t boast, “Look everyone at what my wonderful son the Messiah can do.” Jesus doesn’t stand before the wedding guests and announce, “Watch this and be amazed.”

It isn’t time for that yet.

Jesus quietly points out some empty ceremonial washing jars and tells the servants to fill them with water. He doesn’t say to what purpose. He then tells them to draw some and take it to the banquet master, which they do. 

When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was (but the servants which drew the water knew) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, “Every man at the beginning does set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse, but you have kept the good wine until now.”

This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory, and his disciples believed on him.

The banquet master had no idea a miracle had occurred. The biggest miracle in his eyes was the family had saved the best wine for last, something that just wasn’t done. Generally, it still isn’t. You serve the expensive wine first, and then you serve cheaper wine. Why? To save cost. When one first drinks a cup of wine, the taste buds are fresh and the drinker savors the drink, but after a cup or two, the taste is dulled to a point it is hard to distinguish a change in the drink. In the case of those times, the best wine would be served and then wine that was either a bit close to turning sour or new wine that had not fully fermented. 

There is a lesson here. Jesus honored his mother and saved the bridegroom’s family from embarrassment, but he took none of the credit. As far as the banquet master and the wedding guests were concerned, the bridegroom was a generous person. A true kindness from a generous heart is one unmotivated by self-aggrandizement or praise seeking. It is not self-serving. It is the right hand not knowing what the left hand does so the good deed done is between the doer and God. Mary didn’t have to actually ask, because she knew he would do it out of mercy. Jesus did it without fully revealing himself.

The servants had seen what happened, why didn’t they say something? Perhaps somewhere at sometime they did speak of it to intimate acquaintances they trusted not to ridicule them? Put yourself in their sandals. If you saw a man take a jug of water and turn it into fine wine, would you tell anyone? Who would believe you? Would you tell the banquet master, your boss? He might think you’d been sneaking the wine on duty and fire you on the spot. 

There was someone else Jesus allowed to witness this transformation of water into wine, the five new disciples he had chosen to bring with him from Bethany. Remember what was the last thing said to Nathanael before the trek to Cana began? "You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You shall see greater things than that." Here is the first of greater things these Disciples will see over the next three and a half years. It is also the first opportunity Jesus takes to manifest his glory to these men to teach them to put their faith in him.

As an aside, I read some believe this wedding was Nathanael’s. This doesn’t make much sense and seems only to come from the fact Nathanael is from Cana. However, if you notice after the banquet master receives this new wine (and don’t think the reception of new wine doesn’t have a far more spiritual and future meaning) he called the bridegroom aside to congratulate him. This would indicate Mary and Jesus were attending the wedding feast. This is an important fact.

Today when we think of attending a wedding it means going to a relatively short ceremony where the bride and groom exchange vows to each other. This is often followed by a joyride, a caravan of cars following the newly weds and blowing horns. This ends with a reception, where a meal is served, music is provided, often dancing and then the happy couple drive off to parts unknown for a honeymoon.

This is not the wedding procedure being followed in Cana in the First Century. First, the couple was for all intent and purpose “married” with their betrothal. This was not the same as our engagement period today. One did not simply decide to return the ring and try someone else. To end a betrothal one had to have legal reason to petition for a divorce. (This was the situation Joseph faced when Mary told him she was pregnant, whether to divorce her for adultery.) 

Once a woman had accepted the man’s proposal and the betrothal was established, the groom would tell his bride he was going to prepare a home for her and would return for her when it was ready. (Keep this in mind; it will come up again later in Jesus’ promises to those who believed in Him.) While he was busy building or preparing this home, she would be busy getting a number of things together by her bed for the moment he returned. When he came back, she would know it because he would come with his friends and there would be the blowing of a trumpet.

Here is why this could not have been Nathanael’s wedding. The groom would collect his bride and followed by the wedding guests and family, they would go to their new home for seven days, their version of the honeymoon. On the first night, the wedding was consummated and proof of the bride’s virginity was displayed. The wedding party and guests would then basically party for a week while the bride and groom enjoyed time alone with each other. At the end of these seven days, the happy couple would reemerge and the Wedding Supper would commence.

Since the bridegroom was in attendance at this celebration, this was the Wedding Supper and Nathanael could hardly have been on his honeymoon when three days prior he was in Bethany.

It is interesting that this whole sequence from when John addressed the Pharisees until Jesus was at the wedding feast paralleled the wedding of the bride and groom. John told the Pharisees the Messiah was coming. Jesus appeared the next day and on the fourth day after he met his new Disciples left for Cana where he arrived three days later; the time of the groom appearing until the end of the honeymoon and the wedding feast.

After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples and they continued there not many days.

There is one person missing from this group, Joseph. Joseph is not mentioned as attending this wedding and has disappeared from the narrative completely at this point. My opinion is Joseph has died between the time Jesus was twelve years old and His baptism.  I think circumstantial evidence in the Scriptures supports this. From this point onward until near the end of Jesus ministry, Mary is mentioned in conjunction with his siblings. It would be expected if the husband died that the family would take care of the widow. (We will discuss this further later.)