Troublesome Topic: WHAT WERE JOSEPH’S OPTIONS?

Short answer: 1) Divorce her publicly (with formal accusations), 2) Divorce her quietly (no accusations), 3) Marry her.

His first option was to accuse her of sexual misconduct with another man. Because Joseph was already called her husband, her sexual deviance was considered adultery, which would result in both the offenders being stoned, if they could determine who the other man was. If she had sexual relations with another man, it was a violation of the “husband’s” authority, therefore he and his father would be in charge of finding evidence to prove it was another man, and present that evidence to the town fathers. If they could lay hands on the girl when she was not guarded by her father, they would likely use any means possible (think torture) to get the truth from her. Then the one who brought the accusations and was considered the “first witness” against her (the “husband”), would be the first one to throw a stone at each of them. In this scenario, the girl’s father would be seen as the one who violated the betrothal agreement because he did not protect her from other men, therefore, the bride price would have to be returned to the betrothed husband’s father who could use it to secure a different wife for his son.

But if they were unable to find out who the man was, the community would still stone the girl – I think it was done in front of her parents’ house in order to show that the father had not done a good job of training and protecting his daughter (Dt 22:20-21). No one could remove the pile of stones from in front of the parents’ house without becoming defiled by proximity to a dead body.

The preference of the girl’s father would be to prove that it was the betrothed husband who had gotten her pregnant and convince him to follow through with marrying her. If he succeeded in convincing the young man, he would not have to return the bride price and his daughter would not be stoned. He would suffer some shame, but the betrothed husband would suffer more shame. Therefore he (the girl’s father) would be looking for convincing evidence that it was the soon-to-be husband who had gotten her pregnant.

Thus, two investigations would be going on simultaneously if the betrothed husband accused her of having sex with another man.

But Joseph had no stomach for this. He never dreamed that Mary would actually be that rebellious and do such a thing. She had never shown any hints of being that kind of girl. There had always been something special about her, or so he thought. He did not want to take the lead in stoning her. Plus, he had no “evidence” he could present of another man in the picture, and did not know of any witnesses that could bolster his case. So he put that option out of his mind as unacceptable.

His second option was to divorce her “quietly” meaning without public accusations or formal charges. It would be assumed by many that the young man’s silence in the matter meant that he had gotten her pregnant.

Even if the betrothed husband did not make any accusations, the girl’s father would be looking for witnesses that could help prove that the betrothed husband had violated the betrothal agreement. If the betrothed husband was found guilty and if he refused to marry the girl, he would be stoned along with the girl, and the bride price would not be returned to the “husband’s” father.

If the girl’s father failed to convinced the town fathers that the betrothed husband got his daughter pregnant, the young man was not stoned, only the girl. I’m not sure what happened with the bride price in this situation.

But this was a risk for the would-be-husband since her father would be trying to prove that he was guilty.

This type of thing had the potential to tear apart a small town or village with people taking sides on the matter.

So his third option was to accept her as his wife.

If a betrothed husband got his betrothed wife pregnant before their wedding, it was a violation of the authority of the girl’s father.

If the betrothed husband decided to marry her, no one would be stoned.

In such a case, the girl’s father had the authority to call off the wedding, but a father would seldom do that because it would be very hard for him to find another husband for his “tainted” daughter.

By agreeing to marry her, the betrothed husband was basically admitting to being the father of this “illegitimate baby.” If he was willing to accept the guilt of his act, marry the girl and care for her, the “husband” would have to pay whatever was necessary to satisfy the wrath of her father, which could be a very large among of money, possibly the bride-price paid all over again by the husband, or even more. It usually meant that the young man was in debt to his father-in-law and making payments to him as long as the father-in-law was alive. What’s more, he would be considered irresponsible and undisciplined by the community, which would likely hurt his business dealings.

Therefore the young man could expect to be weighed down with heavy payments to the girl’s father as long as her father lived.

This would put a huge strain on the relationship between this young man and his own father. His father and his family would also suffer irreparable shame because of what had happened. It was understandable if the father disowned his son over something like this.

It would also ruin the young man’s reputation. He would not be able to find work locally and would have to walk to a larger city every day.

In Joseph’s case it would mean lie and take the blame for something he did not do.

He could not bring himself to do this either. He did not want a miserable marriage. He did not want their oldest child to be a constant reminder that their marriage started off on the wrong foot. He did not want to constantly wonder if she might do this to him again. Besides that, he tried to follow the Torah faithfully, therefore he wanted a wife that was pure. This option was also unacceptable to him.

In summary, when Matthew 1:19 says that “Joseph, being a righteous man and not willing to expose her publicly …” we have often taken it to mean that he did not want to see Mary harmed and was trying to protect her. I have come to think that his decision had very little to do with her and was mostly a weighing of the options open to him, none of which were good. I think that statement means that he followed the Torah carefully. He could not marry a woman who had committed sexual immorality with another man while they were engaged. That would condone the wrongdoing. He knew it wasn’t his child because he had kept his tools in the box and kept the box locked. So why should he admit to something he had not done? Thus, the option of accepting her as a wife was not acceptable to him. The part about not being willing to expose her publicly meant first of all that he could not envision an investigation turning up conclusive evidence about the “other guy’, secondly, that if the community decided to stone her, there was little he could do to prevent that, short of marrying her, and he did not want to do that, and thirdly, he did not want to actually cast the first stone at Mary’s stoning. Thus, he concluded that divorcing her without making any accusations would be the least costly thing to do – that is, until the angel changed his mind.

The next lesson is: What Was that Place We Usually Call an “Inn”?