Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 1:19
Then Joseph her husband, being a just [man,] and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
19. being a just man ] i. e. one who observed the law, and, therefore, feeling bound to divorce Mary. But two courses were open to him. He could either summon her before the law-courts to be judicially condemned and punished, or he could put her away by a bill of divorcement before witnesses, but without assigning cause. This is meant by “ putting her away privily,” the more merciful course which Joseph resolved to adopt.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Her husband – The word in the original does not imply that they were married. It means here the man to whom she was espoused.
A just man – Justice consists in rendering to every man his own. Yet this is evidently not the character intended to be given here of Joseph. The meaning is that he was kind, tender, merciful; that he was so attached to Mary that he was not willing that she should be exposed to public shame. He sought, therefore, secretly to dissolve the connection, and to restore her to her friends without the punishment commonly inflicted on adultery. The word just has not unfrequently this meaning of mildness, or mercy. See 1Jo 1:9; compare Cicero, De Fin. 5, 23.
A public example – To expose her to public shame or infamy. Adultery has always been considered a crime of a very heinous nature. In Egypt, it was punished by cutting off the nose of the adulteress; in Persia, the nose and ears were cut off; in Judea, the punishment was death by stoning, Lev 20:10; Eze 16:38, Eze 16:40; Joh 8:5. This punishment was also inflicted where the person was not married, but betrothed, Deu 21:23-24. In this case, therefore, the regular punishment would have been death in this painful and ignominious manner. Yet Joseph was a religious man – mild and tender; and he was not willing to complain of her to the magistrate, and expose her to death, but sought to avoid the shame, and to put her away privately.
Put her away privily – The law of Moses gave the husband the power of divorce, Deu 24:1. It was customary in a bill of divorce to specify the causes for which the divorce was made, and witnesses were also present to testify to the divorce. But in this case, it seems, Joseph resolved to put her away without specifying the cause; for he was not willing to make her a public example. This is the meaning here of privily. Both to Joseph and Mary this must have been a great trial. Joseph was ardently attached to her, but her character was likely to be ruined, and he deemed it proper to separate her from him. Mary was innocent, but Joseph was not yet satisfied of her innocence. We may learn from this to put our trust in God. He will defend the innocent. Mary was in danger of being exposed to shame. Had she been connected with a cruel, passionate, and violent man, she would have died in disgrace. But God had so ordered it that she was betrothed to a man mild, amiable, and tender: and in due time Joseph was apprised of the truth in the case, and took his faithful and beloved wife to his bosom. Thus, our only aim should be to preserve a conscience void of offence, and God will guard our reputation. We may be assailed by slander; circumstances may be against us; but in due time God will take care to vindicate our character and save us from ruin. See Psa 37:5-6.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 19. To make her a public example] , to expose her to public infamy; from , near, and , I show, or expose; what is oddly, though emphatically, called in England, showing up-exposing a character to public view. Though Joseph was a righteous man, , and knew that the law required that such persons as he supposed his wife to be should be put to death, yet, as righteousness is ever directed by mercy, he determined to put her away or divorce her privately, i.e. without assigning any cause, that her life might be saved; and, as the offence was against himself, he had a right to pass it by if he chose. Some have supposed that the term should be translated merciful, and it certainly often has this signification; but here it is not necessary.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
It was found she was with child, possibly herself or some of her friends told it to Joseph her espoused husband; it is plain from this text he came to the knowledge of it, for upon it, the evangelist saith, he
was minded to put her away privily. Had Joseph at this time heard and believed that the Holy Ghost had come upon her, and the power of the Most High overshadowed her, being a good man, he would not have entertained thoughts of putting her away. But though she had before received this revelation, and might possibly have communicated it to some of her friends, yet it is manifest that her husband Joseph had not heard it, or at least was not easy to believe a thing of so unusual and extraordinary a nature. That she was with child was evident, how she came to be so was as yet hidden from him in nature, and so incredible a thing, as it had argued too much of easiness of belief for him to have believed, had not Joseph had (as afterward he had) a Divine revelation for it: he therefore receiving such a report, and finding it to be true, resolves to put her away in the most private manner he could, rather than to expose her to a public shame, or to be made a public example. Their being betrothed was a thing publicly taken notice of, and he could not put her away so privately but there must be witnesses of it; the meaning therefore must be, as privately as the nature of the thing would bear. Joseph in this case had the choice of three things:
1. He might, notwithstanding this, have taken her to his house as his wife, for the law of divorce, or putting away, was but a law giving a liberty in case of a discerned uncleanness to put away the wife, it did not lay any under an obligation so to do.
2. He might give her a bill of divorce, and leave her with her friends. Now those skilled in the Jewish writings tell us this might be done, either more privately before two or three witnesses, putting a writing of that import into her bosom; or more openly and publicly before the magistrate.
3. He might, according to the law, Deu 22:23,24, &c., have brought her forth to be examined, whether she had only suffered a rape, or had herself consented. If it was done with her consent, she was by the law to be stoned.
Of these Joseph, in his first thoughts upon the matter, and before he rightly did understand the thing, chooseth the second and the milder part, and resolves to put her away, but in the most private manner the law would in that case allow him. He did this (saith the evangelist) because he was
a just man, where the term signifieth equitable, in opposition to severity and rigour; nor ought any to say Joseph in this showed himself an unjust man, because by the law she ought to have been stoned to death; for that is a mistake. Supposing she had been with child by man, yet if she had been forced the man only was to die, Deu 22:25,26; or she might have been with child before her betrothing, in which case she was only obliged to marry him that had so abused her. A kind and equitable man always presumes the best, especially in a case where life is concerned; besides that, no doubt Mary had by this time told Joseph the truth, and what the angel had said to her, to which (it being so incredible a thing as not to be believed but upon a Divine revelation) though Joseph was not obliged, having as yet no such revelation, to give a present easy faith, yet he might reasonably give so much credit as to resolve upon the mildest course he could take, though he was willing also to avoid the blot upon himself by taking her to him for his wife according to his contract. God will not leave so good a man long unresolved what to do.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
19. Then Joseph her husbandCompareMt 1:20, “Mary, thy wife.”Betrothal was, in Jewish law, valid marriage. In giving Mary up,therefore, Joseph had to take legal steps to effect the separation.
being a just man, and notwilling to make her a public exampleto expose her (see Deu 22:23;Deu 22:24)
was minded to put her awayprivilythat is, privately by giving her the required writingof divorcement (De 24:1), inpresence of only two or three witnesses, and without cause assigned,instead of having her before a magistrate. That some communicationhad passed between him and his betrothed, directly or indirectly, onthe subject, after she returned from her three months’ visit toElizabeth, can hardly be doubted. Nor does the purpose to divorce hernecessarily imply disbelief, on Joseph’s part, of the explanationgiven him. Even supposing him to have yielded to it some reverentialassentand the Evangelist seems to convey as much, by ascribing theproposal to screen her to the justice of his characterhemight think it altogether unsuitable and incongruous in suchcircumstances to follow out the marriage.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then Joseph her husband,…. To whom she had been betrothed, and who was her husband, and she his wife according to the Jewish law, De 22:23 though not yet come together,
being a just man, observant of the law of God, particularly that which respected adultery, being wholly good and chaste, like the Patriarch of the same name; a character just the reverse of that which the Jews give him, in their scandalous b book of the life of Jesus; where, in the most malicious manner, they represent him as an unchaste and an unrighteous person:
and not willing to make her a public example, or to deliver her, i.e. to the civil magistrate, according to Munster’s Hebrew edition. The Greek word signifies to punish by way of example to others, to deter them from sinning; and with the ancients it c denoted the greatest and severest punishment. Here it means either bringing her before the civil magistrate, in order to her being punished according to the law in De 22:23 which requires the person to be brought out to the gate of the city and stoned with stones, which was making a public example indeed; or divorcing her in a very public manner, and thereby expose her to open shame and disgrace. To prevent which, he being tender and compassionate, though strictly just and good,
was minded to put her away privily: he deliberately consulted and determined within himself to dismiss her, or put her away by giving her a bill of divorce, in a very private manner; which was sometimes done by putting it into the woman’s hand or bosom, see De 24:1. In Munster’s Hebrew Gospel it is rendered, “it was in his heart to forsake her privately.”
b Teldos Jesu, p. 3. c A. Gellii Noct. Attic. l. 6. c. 14.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
A Righteous Man (). Or just, not benignant or merciful. The same adjective is used of Zacharias and Elizabeth (Lu 1:6) and Simeon (Lu 2:25). “An upright man,” the Braid Scots has it. He had the Jewish conscientiousness for the observance of the law which would have been death by stoning (De 22:23). Though Joseph was upright, he would not do that. “As a good Jew he would have shown his zeal if he had branded her with public disgrace” (McNeile).
And yet not willing ( ). So we must understand here, “and yet.” Matthew makes a distinction here between “willing” () and “wishing” (), that between purpose () and desire () a distinction not always drawn, though present here. It was not his purpose to “make her a public example” (), from the root ( to show), a rare word (Col 2:15). The Latin Vulgate has it traducere, the Old Latin divulgare, Wycliff pupplische (publish), Tyndale defame, Moffatt disgrace, Braid Scots “Be i the mooth o’ the public.” The substantive () occurs on the Rosetta Stone in the sense of “verification.” There are a few instances of the verb in the papyri though the meaning is not clear (Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary). The compound form appears () in Heb 6:6 and there are earlier instances of this compound than of the uncompounded, curiously enough. But new examples of the simple verb, like the substantive, may yet be found. The papyri examples mean to furnish a sample (P Tebt. 5.75), to make trial of (P Ryl. I. 28.32). The substantive means exposure in (P Ryl. I. 28.70). At any rate it is clear that Joseph “was minded to put her away privily.” He could give her a bill of divorcement (), the laid down in the Mishna, without a public trial. He had to give her the writ () and pay the fine (De 24:1). So he proposed to do this privately () to avoid all the scandal possible. One is obliged to respect and sympathize with the motives of Joseph for he evidently loved Mary and was appalled to find her untrue to him as he supposed. It is impossible to think of Joseph as the actual father of Jesus according to the narrative of Matthew without saying that Matthew has tried by legend to cover up the illegitimate birth of Jesus. The Talmud openly charges this sin against Mary. Joseph had “a short but tragic struggle between his legal conscience and his love” (McNeile).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Not willing [ ] – was minded [] . These two words, describing the working of Joseph ‘s mind, and evidently intended to express different phases of thought, open the question of their distinctive meanings in the New Testament, where they frequently occur [ much oftener than ] , and where the rendering, in so many cases by the same words, furnishes no clue to the distinction. The original words are often used synonymously in cases where no distinction is emphasized; but their use in other cases reveals a radical and recognized difference. An interchange is inadmissable when the greater force of the expression requires qelein. For instance, boulesqai would be entirely inappropriate at Mt 8:3, “I will, be thou cleansed;” or at Rom 7:15.
The distinction, which is abundantly illustrated in Homer, is substantially maintained by the classical writers throughout, and in the New Testament.
Qelein is the stronger word, and expresses a purpose or determination or decree, the execution of which is, or is believed to be, in the power of him who wills. Boulesqai expresses wish, inclination, or disposition, whether one desires to do a thing himself or wants some one else to do it. Qelein, therefore, denotes the active resolution, the will urging on to action. Boulesqai is to have a mind, to desire, sometimes a little stronger, running into the sense of purpose. Qelein indicates the impulse of the will; boulesqai, its tendency. Boulesqai can always be rendered by qelein, but qelein cannot always be expressed by boulesqai.
Thus, Agamemnon says, “I would not [ ] receive the ransom for the maid (i. e., I refused to receive), because I greatly desire [] to have her at home” (Homer, “Il.,” 1 112). So Demosthenes : “It is fitting that you should be willing [] to listen to those who wish [] to advise” (” Olynth., “1 1). That is to say, It is in your power to determine whether or not you will listen to those who desire to advise you, but who power to do so depends on your consent. Again :” If the gods will it [] and you wish it [] “(Demosth.,” Olynth., ” 2 20). 1
In the New Testament, as observed above, though the words are often interchanged, the same distinction is recognized. Thus, Mt 2:18, “Rachael would not [] be comforted;” obstinately and positively refused. Joseph, having the right and power under the (assumed) circumstances to make Mary a public example, resolved [] to spare her this exposure. Then the question arose – What should he do? On this he thought, and, having thought [] , his mind inclined (tendency), he was minded [] to put her away secretly.
Some instances of the interchanged use of the two words are the following : Mr 14:15, “Pilate willing” [] ; compare Luk 23:20, “Pilate willing” [] . Act 27:43, “The centurion willing” [] ; Mt 27:17, “Whom will ye that I release” [] ; so ver. 21. Joh 18:39, “Will ye that I release” [] ; Mt 14:5, “When he would have put him to death” [] . Mr 6:48, “He would have passed by them” [] ; Act 19:30, “Paul would have entered” [] . Act 18:27, “He was disposed to pass” [] . Tit 3:8, “I will that thou affirm” [] . Mr 6:25, “I will that though give me” [] , etc., etc.
In the New Testament qelw occurs in the following senses :
1. A decree or determination of the will.
(a) Of God (Mt 12:7; Rom 9:16, 18; Act 18:21; 1Co 4:19; 1Co 12:18; 1Co 14:38).
(b) Of Christ (Mt 8:3; Joh 17:24; Joh 5:21; Joh 21:22).
(c) Of men (Act 25:9). Festus, having the power to gratify the Jews, and determining to do so, says to Paul, who has the right to decide, “Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem ?” Joh 6:67, Others of the disciples had decided to leave Jesus. Christ said to the twelve, “Will ye also go away?” Is that your determination? Joh 7:17, I any man sets his will, is determined to do God ‘s will. Joh 8:44, The lusts of your father your will is set to do. Act 24:6.
2. A wish or desire. Very many of the passages, however, which are cited under this head (as by Grimm) may fairly be interpreted as implying something stronger than a wish; notably Mr 14:36, of Christ in Gethsemane. Our Lord would hardly have used what thou wilt in so feeble a sense as that of a desire or wish on God ‘s part. Mr 10:43, “Whosoever will be great,” expresses more than the desire for greatness. It is the purpose of the life. Mt 27:15, It was given to the Jews to decide what prisoner should be released. Luk 1:62, The name of the infant John was referred to Zacharias’ decision. Joh 17:24, Surely Christ does more than desire that those whom the Father has given him shall be with him. Luk 9:54, It is for Jesus to command fire upon the Samaritan villages if he so wills. (See, also, Joh 14:7; 1Co 4:21; Mt 16:25, Mt 19:17, Joh 21:22; Mt 13:28; Mt 17:12.) In the sense of wish or desire may fairly be cited 2Co 11:12; Mt 12:38; Luk 8:20; Luk 23:8; Joh 12:21; Gal 4:20; Mt 7:12; Mr 10:35.
3. A liking (Mr 12:38; Luk 20:46; Mt 27:43). (See note there.)
Boulomai occurs in the following senses :
1. Inclination or disposition (Act 18:27; Act 19:30; Act 25:22; Act 28:18; 2Co 1:15).
2. Stronger, with the idea of purpose (1Ti 6:9; Jas 1:18; Jas 3:4; 1Co 12:11; Heb 6:17).
In most, if not all of these cases, we might expect qelein; but this use of boulomai there is an implied emphasis on the element of free choice or self – determination, which imparts to the desire or inclination a decretory force. This element is in the human will by gift and consent. In the divine will it is inherent. At this point the Homeric usage may be compared in its occasional employment of boulomai to express determination, but only with reference to the gods, in whom to wish is to will. Thus, “Whether Apollo will [] ward off the plague” (” Il., “1 67).” Apollo willed [] victory to the Trojans “(Il.,” 7 21).
To make a public example [] . The word is kindred to deiknumi, to exhibit, display, point out. Here, therefore, to expose Mary to public shame (Wyc., publish her; Tyn., defame her). The word occurs in Col 2:15, of the victorious Savior displaying the vanquished powers of evil as a general displays his trophies or captives in a triumphal procession. “He made a show of them openly.” A compound of the same word [] appears in Heb 6:6, “They crucify the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, (Ioseph de ho aner autes dikaios on) Then Joseph, her espoused or engaged husband, being (existing as) a just man, a fair, discreet, charitable, or upright man of moral and ethical integrity. Joseph was in a hard circumstance. He could not overlook an apparent (seeming) fault in Mary, yet loving her, in spite of her seeming moral infidelity, he did not want to expose her, but wanted to deal tenderly in becoming legally released from his engagement to her.
2) And not willing to make her a publick example, (kai me thelon auten deigmatisai) And not at all willing to hold her up as a (public) example, not at all resentful of her visible child-expectancy to any point of wanting to humiliate her by bringing public moral wanting to humiliate her by bringing public moral charges against her. He might publicly repudiate her or quietly cancel the engagement. In affection he had settled on the latter course.
3) Was minded to put her away privily. (eboulethe lathra apolusai auten) Had resolved in or made up his mind to dismiss or release her privately, from her engagement and his former pledge to marry her, by giving her a written certificate of divorce, in the presence of two witnesses, but no cause need be stated as per Deu 22:23-24; Deu 24:1-2. His deliberate decision was a kind one. Let it be observed that things in life are not always what they appear to be to others, even- to good and sincere people. How cautious one should be in condemning, or judging before the facts and testimony are all in evidence, Mat 7:1-2; Rom 14:4; Rom 14:10; Rom 14:13; Gal 6:1.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
19. As he was a just man Some commentators explain this to mean, that Joseph, because he was a just man, determined to spare his wife: (98) taking justice to be only another name for humanity, or, a gentle and merciful disposition. But others more correctly read the two clauses as contrasted with each other: that Joseph was a just man, but yet that he was anxious about the reputation of his wife. That justice, on which a commendation is here bestowed, consisted in hatred and abhorrence of crime. Suspecting his wife of adultery, and even convinced that she was an adulterer, he was unwilling to hold out the encouragement of lenity to such a crime. (99) And certainly he is but a pander (100) to his wife, who connives at her unchastity. Not only is such wickedness regarded with abhorrence by good and honorable minds, but that winking at crime which I have mentioned is marked by the laws with infamy.
Joseph, therefore, moved by an ardent love of justice, condemned the crime of which he supposed his wife to have been guilty; while the gentleness of his disposition prevented him from going to the utmost rigor of law. It was a moderate and calmer method to depart privately, and remove to a distant place. (101) Hence we infer, that he was not of so soft and effeminate a disposition, as to screen and promote uncleanness under the pretense of merciful dealing: he only made some abatement from stern justice, so as not to expose his wife to evil report. Nor ought we to have any hesitation in believing, that his mind was restrained by a secret inspiration of the Spirit. We know how weak jealousy is, and to what violence it hurries its possessor. Though Joseph did not proceed to rash and headlong conduct, yet he was wonderfully preserved from many imminent dangers, which would have sprung out of his resolution to depart.
The same remark is applicable to Mary’s silence. Granting that modest reserve prevented her from venturing to tell her husband, that she was with child by the Holy Spirit, it was not so much by her own choice, as by the providence of God that she was restrained. Let us suppose her to have spoken. The nature of the case made it little short of incredible. Joseph would have thought himself ridiculed, and everybody would have treated the matter as a laughing-stock: after which the Divine announcement, if it had followed, would have been of less importance. The Lord permitted his servant Joseph to be betrayed by ignorance into an erroneous conclusion, that, by his own voice, he might bring him back to the right path.
Yet it is proper for us to know, that this was done more on our account than for his personal advantage: for every necessary method was adopted by God, to prevent unfavorable suspicion from falling on the heavenly message. When the angel approaches Joseph, who is still unacquainted with the whole matter, wicked men have no reason to charge him with being influenced by prejudice to listen to the voice of God. He was not overcome by the insinuating address of his wife. His previously formed opinion was not shaken by entreaties. He was not induced by human arguments to take the opposite side. But, while the groundless accusation of his wife was still rankling in his mind, God interposed between them, that we might regard Joseph as a more competent witness, and possessing greater authority, as a messenger sent to us from heaven. We see how God chose to employ an angel in informing his servant Joseph, that to others he might be a heavenly herald, and that the intelligence which he conveyed might not be borrowed from his wife, or from any mortal.
The reason why this mystery was not immediately made known to a greater number of persons appears to be this. It was proper that this inestimable treasure should remain concealed, and that the knowledge of it should be imparted to none but the children of God. Nor is it absurd to say, that the Lord intended, as he frequently does, to put the faith and obedience of his own people to the trial. Most certainly, if any man shall maliciously refuse to believe and obey God in this matter, he will have abundant reason to be satisfied with the proofs by which this article of our faith is supported. For the same reason, the Lord permitted Mary to enter into the married state, that under the veil of marriage, till the full time for revealing it, the heavenly conception of the virgin might be concealed. Meanwhile, the knowledge of it was withheld from unbelievers, as their ingratitude and malice deserved.
(98) “ Que Joseph a voulu pardonner a sa femme, et couvrir la faute, d’autant qu’il estoit juste.” — “That Joseph intended to forgive his wife, and conceal her offense, because he was just.”
(99) “ Il ne vouloit point nourrir le mal en dissimulant et faisant semblant de n’y voir rien.” — “He did not wish to encourage wickedness, by dissembling and pretending that he did not see it.”
(100) “ Leno;” — “ macquereau.”
(101) “ Le moyen le plus doux et le moins scandaleux estoit, que secretement il departist du lieu, et la laissast sans faire aueun bruit.” — “The mildest and least scandalous method was, that he should depart secretly from the place, and leave her without making any noise.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(19) Joseph her husband.The word was applied with strict accuracy from the moment of betrothal onwards.
Being a just man. . . .The glimpse given us into the character of Joseph is one of singular tenderness and beauty. To him, conscious of being of the house of David, and cherishing Messianic hopes, what he heard would seem to come as blighting those hopes. He dared not, as a righteous man, take to himself one who seemed thus to have sinned. But love and pity alike hindered him from pressing the law, which made death by stoning the punishment of such a sin (Deu. 22:21), or even from publicly breaking off the marriage on the ground of the apparent guilt. There remained the alternative, which the growing frequency of divorce made easy, of availing himself of a writ of divorcement, which did not necessarily specify the ground of repudiation, except in vague language implying disagreement (Mat. 19:3). Thus the matter would be settled quietly without exposure. The bill of divorcement was as necessary for the betrothed as for those who were fully man and wife.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
19. Just man Just, not in its severe sense, but in its milder meaning of a fair man, unwilling to inflict unnecessary misery, even in effecting a proper penalty. Make her a public example By the terrible death, namely, by being stoned to death with her accomplice, prescribed in Deu 22:23-24. Put her away privily By simply a note of dismissal or bill of divorcement, as described in Deu 24:1.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
At this critical juncture, Joseph proved himself all that a true Christian should be:
v. 19. Then Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. Unable to believe her innocent, which in the face of the evidence must have been beyond the average man’s strength, he nevertheless found a way out of the difficult dilemma. As the betrothed husband he had the husband’s rights and responsibilities. And he was a just man, righteous, a respecter of the Law, which was especially strict and uncompromising on the subject of infidelity in the woman, Deu 22:22-24. Yet he did not wish to expose Mary publicly and thus heap ignominy and shame upon her, for she was the woman to whom he had given the love of a husband. His humaneness and benevolence, his affection, were put to a severe test. But the result of his weighing the matter was that he did not choose strict measures, resolving rather upon a quiet cancellation of the bond of betrothal, without assigning a cause, in order that her life might be saved. Justice was tempered by mercy.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 1:19. Being a just man Dr. Doddridge observes very well, that it is without any good reason that this text is often assigned as an instance, that the word is used to signify merciful or good-natured. If we consider the information which Joseph might have received from persons of such an extraordinary character as Zecharias and Elizabeth, who would certainly think themselves obliged to interpose on such an occasion, and whose account so remarkably carried its own evidence with it; besides the intimationgivenbytheprophesyof Isaiah, and the satisfaction he undoubtedly had in the virtuous character of Mary herself;we must conclude, that he would have acted a very severe and unrighteous part, had he proceeded to extremities without serious deliberation; and that putting her away privately would, in these circumstances, have been the hardest measure which justice would have suffered him to take. He was therefore determined not to make her a public example; , which possibly refers to that exemplary punishment inflicted by the lawon those who had violated the faith of their espousals, before the marriage was completed. See Deu 22:23-24 where it is expressly ordered, that a betrothed virgin, if she polluted herself with another man, should be stoned. We may suppose, however, that the infamy of a public divorce, though she had not been stoned, may also be expressed by this same word. But then there was a private kind of divorce, in the bill for which, delivered before two witnesses only, no reason for the divorce was assigned; the dowry was not forfeited as in the former case, and the woman consequently was not so much defamed. Joseph thought upon this last method of proceeding: ignorant as he then was of the divine conception in Mary, there was doubtless a conflict in his breast from opposite considerations. Justice shewed, on the one hand, what was due to himself; on the other, what was due to one of Mary’s character. In justice to himself, he would not cohabit with one whom he ignorantly thought to be defiled; in justice to Mary, he would not give up to the rigour of the law a person hitherto so blameless. His purity must not consort with supposed pollution; therefore he would put her away: her character was in all other respects such, that she ought not to be exposed to public infamy; therefore he would put her away privately. While he was thus deliberating within himself, and innocently in danger of doing wrong, to give us a remarkable instance of the care which God takes of good men, both in affording them direction, and keeping them from sin, God graciously interposed for the direction of Joseph, and associated him with Mary in the most glorious charge that ever creature was dignified with; even the tuition and care of the Saviour. See Heylin and Wetstein.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 1:19 . ] Although only her betrothed , yet, from the standpoint of the writers, designated as her husband . The common assumption of a proleptic designation (Gen 29:21 ) is therefore unfounded. It is different with in Mat 1:20 .
] not: aequus et benignus . So (after Chrysostom and Jerome) Euth. Zigabenus ( ), Luther, Grotius, Kuinoel, Fritzsche, B.-Crusius, Bleek. For , like , means generally, he who is as he ought to be (Hermann, ad Soph. Ajac. 543; Khner, ad Xen. Memor. iv. 4. 5; Gesen. Thes. III. p. 1151); therefore rightly constituted, and, in a narrower sense, just, but never kind, although kindness, compassion, and the like may be in given cases the concrete form in which the expresses itself. Here, according to the context, it denotes the man who acts in a strictly legal manner. down to contains two concurring motives. Joseph was an upright man according to the law, and could not therefore make up his mind to retain Mary, as she was pregnant without him; at the same time he could not bring himself to abandon her publicly; he therefore resolved to adopt the middle way, and dismiss her secretly. Observe the emphasis of .
] to expose; see on Col 2:15 . Here the meaning is: to expose to public shame. This, however, does not refer to the punishment of stoning (Deu 22:23 ), which was to be inflicted; nor to a judicial accusation generally (the common view), because must mean a kind of dismissal opposed to that denoted by ; comp. de Wette. Therefore: he did not wish to compromise her, which would have been the result had he given her a letter of divorce, and thus dismissed her .
] secretly, in private, i.e. by means of a secret, private interview, without a letter of divorce. This would, indeed, have been in opposition to the law in Deu 24:1 , which applied also to betrothed persons (Maimonides, Tract. , c. 1; Wetstein in loc.; Philo, de leg. spec. p. 788); but he saw himself liable to a collision between the two cases, of either, in these circumstances, retaining the bride, or of exposing her to public censure by a formal dismissal; and from this no more legal way of escape presented itself than that on which he might with the more propriety lay hold, that the law itself in Deut. l.c. speaks only of married persons, not of betrothed. De Wette thinks, indeed, of dismissal by a letter of divorcement, but under arrangements providing for secrecy. But the letter of divorce of itself, as it was a public document (see Saalschtz, M. R. p. 800 ff.; Ewald, Alterth. p. 272 [E. T. p. 203 ff.]), is in contradiction with the .
On the distinction between and , the former of which expresses willing in general, the action of the will, of the inclination, of desire, etc., in general; while denotes a carefully weighed self-determination, see Buttmann, Lexil. I. p. 26 ff. [E. T., Fishlake, p. 194 ff.], partly corrected by Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 316. Observe the aorist : he adopted the resolution.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
For the better apprehension of what is here said, it should be remembered, that it was the custom among the Jews to betroth, or make engagements for future marriages, before that any intention was formed of the time when the nuptials were to be consummated. sometimes those betrothings were made years before the parties came together Yea, Jewish parents sometimes contracted for their children, before, the young persons had any knowledge of, and much less a predilection for, each other. Hence, in case afterwards matters arose of difference, there was a law made for disannulling. See Deu 22:23-24 , and Deu 24:1 , etc. Such was the case of Joseph and Mary. They were but betrothed to each other, though Mary is here called His wife. So that the miraculous conception took place before that they came together. Joseph is here represented as deliberating how to act on the Occasion. And it must be confessed, that it affords an amiable picture of his mind.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man , and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
Ver. 19. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man ] And yet withal a merciful, tender man of the Virgin’s credit. Hence that conflict and fear within himself lest he should not do right.
And not willing to make her a public example ] That is, to wrong her, as the same word is used and expounded by the author to the Hebrews of the Son of God, as here of the mother of God,Heb 6:6Heb 6:6 ; cf. Heb 10:29 : . Noluit ipse eam nec poenis, nec infamiae, imo nec risui exponere (Aret.).
Was minded to put her away privily ] Which yet he could hardly have done, without blame to himself and blemish to her. So far out we are (the best of us) when destitute of Divine direction. How shamefully was that good Josiah miscarried by his passions to his cost, when he went up against Pharaohnecho, without once advising with Jeremiah, Zephaniah, Huldah, or any other prophet of God then living by him!
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
19. ] so called, though they were as yet but betrothed: so in Gen 29:21 ; Deu 22:24 .
] just; . being, as the plainly shews, not the explanation of , but an additional particular. He was a strict observer of the law, and (yet) not willing to expose her. The sense of ‘ kind ,’ ‘ merciful ,’ is inadmissible.
] Not ‘ without any writing of divorcement ,’ which would have been unlawful; but according to the form prescribed in Deu 24:1 . The husband might either do this, or adopt the stronger course of bringing his wife (or betrothed, who had the same rights, Maimon. in Wetstein, and Philo de legg. spec [8] , ad cap. 6 Est 7 decal. 12, vol. ii. p. 311, ) to justice openly. The punishment in this case would have been death by stoning. Deu 22:23 . Maimonides (quoted by Buxtorf de divort.) says, “Femina ex quo desponsata est, licet nondum a viro cognita, est uxor viri, et si sponsus earn velit repudiare, oportet, ut id faciat libello repudii.”
[8] The Latin readings contained in a MS. ‘Speculum’ at Rome. Published by Mai.
] intended, was minded: expresses the mere wish , the wish ripened into intention: see 1Ti 5:14 , note, and Buttmann’s Lexilogus, i. p. 26.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 1:19 . . : proleptic, implying possession of a husband’s rights and responsibilities. The betrothed man had a duty in the matter . He was in a strait betwixt two. Being , just, righteous, a respecter of the law, he could not overlook the apparent fault; on the other hand, loving the woman, he desired to deal with her as tenderly as possible: not wishing to expose her ( in an emphatic position before the loved one. Weiss-Meyer). Some (Grotius, Fritzsche, etc.) take in the sense of bonitas or benignitas , as if it had been , so eliminating the element of conflict. . He finally resolved on the expedient of putting her away privately . The alternatives were exposure by public repudiation, or quiet cancelling of the bond of betrothal. Affection chose the latter. does not point, as some have thought, to judicial procedure with its penalty, death by stoning. before is emphatic, and suggests a contrast between two ways of performing the act pointed at by . Note the synonyms and . The former denotes inclination in general, the latter a deliberate decision between different courses maluit ( vide on chapter Mat 11:27 ).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
being a just man = though he was a just man (i.e. desirous of obeying the Law).
and = yet.
not. Greek. me. App-105.
not willing = not wishing. Greek. thelo. See App-102.
to make her a publick example = to expose her to shame. L TTr. A WH read deigmatizo instead of para-deigmatizo. Occurs only here and in Col 2:15. This exposure would have necessitated her being stoned to death, according to the Law (Deu 22:22). Compare Joh 8:5.
was minded = made up his mind, or determined. Greek. boulomia. See App-102.
put her away = divorce her according to the Law (Deu 24:1).
privily = secretly. By putting a “bill of divorcement into her hand” (Deu 24:1).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
19. ] so called, though they were as yet but betrothed: so in Gen 29:21; Deu 22:24.
] just; . being, as the plainly shews, not the explanation of , but an additional particular. He was a strict observer of the law,-and (yet) not willing to expose her. The sense of kind, merciful, is inadmissible.
] Not without any writing of divorcement, which would have been unlawful; but according to the form prescribed in Deu 24:1. The husband might either do this, or adopt the stronger course of bringing his wife (or betrothed, who had the same rights, Maimon. in Wetstein, and Philo de legg. spec[8], ad cap. 6 et 7 decal. 12, vol. ii. p. 311, ) to justice openly. The punishment in this case would have been death by stoning. Deu 22:23. Maimonides (quoted by Buxtorf de divort.) says, Femina ex quo desponsata est, licet nondum a viro cognita, est uxor viri, et si sponsus earn velit repudiare, oportet, ut id faciat libello repudii.
[8] The Latin readings contained in a MS. Speculum at Rome. Published by Mai.
] intended,-was minded: expresses the mere wish, the wish ripened into intention: see 1Ti 5:14, note, and Buttmanns Lexilogus, i. p. 26.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 1:19. , just[54]) It is disputed in what sense this epithet is applied to Joseph. The thing is clear. Joseph wished to put away Mary, and he also wished to put her away privately. The Evangelist indicates the cause of both wishes. Why did he wish to do it privately? Because he was unwilling to publish the matter, and exact the penalty which the law permitted in the case of women guilty, or suspected, of adultery, and thus to make an example of one, whose sanctity he had in other respects so greatly revered. But why did he wish to put her away at all? We learn from the context. Because he was just (justus), and did not think it reputable (honestum) to retain as his wife one who appeared to have broken her conjugal faith. His thoughts were many and conflicting; his mind was in doubt. St Matthew expresses this with great beauty, by a phraseology somewhat ambiguous in this its brevity: for Greek participles may be resolved into the corresponding verbs with the conjunctions although, because, or since: [and , therefore, may be rendered either although he was unwilling, because he was unwilling, or since he did not wish]. Elsewhere is sometimes found with the signification of yielding and kind, as injustus[55] (which signifies primarily unjust or unrighteous) with that of severe.-, to make an example of) Thus the LXX. in Num 25:4, have- , , Make an example of them to the Lord before the sun: where the expression is used of persons executed by hanging. The simple form, , occurs in Col 2:15 : for both and [from which the verbs are respectively derived] denote that which is exhibited as a public spectacle.-, privily) i.e. without a public trial, without even a record of the reason on the writing of divorcement. Two witnesses were sufficient.-, to put her away) fearing to take her.
[54] In Bengel, justus, which, as well as the original, , signifies, and is translated, either just or righteous, as the case may require. In Bengels own German version, it is rendered in the present instance GERECHT, which is equally ambiguous.-(I. B.)
[55] Ex. gr. Virg. Ecl., Injusta noverca.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
her husband: Lev 19:20, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:24
a just: Gen 6:9, Psa 112:4, Psa 112:5, Mar 6:20, Luk 2:25, Act 10:22
a public: Gen 38:24, Lev 20:10, Deu 22:21-24, Joh 8:4, Joh 8:5
was: Deu 24:1-4, Mar 10:4
Reciprocal: Jdg 19:3 – speak Eze 16:38 – as women Mat 19:7 – and to Luk 2:5 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1:19
Verse 19. Being a just man denotes that Joseph was kind and considerate, yet was conscientious and unwilling to ignore the moral law. Because of this he planned to put her away which means to break the engagement. He had such a personal regard for her that he did not want to expose her to public disgrace, yet he did not think it would be right to live with her.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
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 Joseph, being a just man, etc.] there is no need to rack the word just; to fetch out thence the sense of gentleness or mercy; which many do; for, construing the clauses of the verse separately, the sense will appear clear and soft enough, Joseph, being a just man; could not, would not, endure an adulteress: but yet not willing to make her a public example; being a merciful man, and loving his wife, was minded to put her away privily.
[To make her a public example.] This doth not imply death, but rather public disgrace, to make her public. For it may, not without reason, be inquired, whether she would have been brought to capital punishment, if it had been true that she had conceived by adultery. For although there was a law promulged of punishing adultery with death, Lev 10:10; Deu 22:22; and, in this case, she that was espoused, would be dealt withal after the same manner as it was with her who was become a wife; yet so far was that law modified, that I say not weakened, by the law of giving a bill of divorce, Deu 24:1; etc., that the husband might not only pardon his adulterous wife, and not compel her to appear before the Sanhedrim, but scarcely could, if he would, put her to death. For why otherwise was the bill of divorce indulged?
Joseph, therefore, endeavours to do nothing here, but what he might, with the full consent both of the law and nation. The adulteress might be put away; she that was espoused could not be put away without a bill of divorce; concerning which thus the Jewish laws: “A woman is espoused three ways; by money, or by a writing, or by being lain with. And being thus espoused, though she were not yet married, nor conducted into the man’s house, yet she is his wife. And if any shall lie with her beside him, he is to be punished with death by the Sanhedrim. And if he himself will put her away, he must have a bill of divorce.”
[Put her away privily.] Let the Talmudic tract ‘Gittin’ be looked upon, where they are treating of the manner of delivering a bill of divorce to a wife to be put away: among other things, it might be given privately, if the husband so pleased, either into the woman’s hand or bosom, two witnesses only present.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 1:19. Joseph, according to the Jewish law, her husband. Comp. Mat 1:20; Gen 29:21; Deu 22:24.
A just man, a man of uprightness. His conduct does not compel us to accept the sense: a kind man. He was influenced by justice. Mary had possibly told him of the revelation made to her: he was just in giving her a hearing, and then, in consequence, in not wishing to make her a public example. At the same time, justice led him, as a Jew, to the intention of putting her away, though privately. The former phrase is the more remarkable, since such Justice is rarely exercised to one in the situation of Mary. So high a regard for the honor and reputation of a woman is most rare in Eastern countries. Marys strong faith may have influenced him also.
Not willing expresses the mere wish; was minded, the intention; a distinction not always recognized in discussing this passage.
Privately. In the conflict between his sense of right and his regard for Mary, he chose the middle way of private divorce. The eternal Son of God exposed himself, at his very entrance into the world, to the suspicion of illegitimacy! One chosen to be His mother was suspected of un-faithfulness by her husband!The two kinds of divorce among the Jews. The private divorce here spoken of consisted in giving the wife a bill of divorce (Deu 24:1-3; Mat 19:8). without assigning a reason for it. The public divorce would have involved the charge of adultery, and consequent punishment, stoning to death. By preferring the former, Joseph exhibited not only kindness but self-sacrifice, since her condition, when publicly known, would be reckoned his disgrace.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
That is, being an holy person, and a strict observer of the rites of his nation, he was unwilling to accompany with a defiled woman, and therefore minded to put her away, by giving a bill of divorce into her hand before two witnesses; but being kind and gentle, he intended to put her away privily, lest she should have be exposed and stoned to death.
Observe here, How early our dear Lord’s sufferings began; he and his mother are designed to be put away, even when he was but an embryo in the womb.
Observe further, from the great clemency of Joseph towards the suspected virgin, that kind and merciful men always presume the best, and prosecute with gentleness, especially where life is concerned. Meek Joseph doth resolve upon the milder course, and chooses rather to put her away privily, than publicly to expose her. Lev 19:20; Gen 6:9; Gen 38:24; Deu 24:1-4
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Mat 1:19. Joseph her husband, being a just [or righteous] man That is, as many understand it, a strict observer of the law, and of the customs of his ancestors, and therefore not judging it right to retain her under these circumstances. But the following words, and not willing to make her a public example, seem manifestly to lead to another and even an opposite sense of the word here rendered just, or righteous. Hence some interpret the clause thus: Joseph, being a good-natured, merciful, and tender- hearted man, was unwilling to go to the utmost rigour of the law, but chose rather to treat her with as much lenity as the case allowed. But, Dr. Doddridge very well observes, it is without any good reason that should be here rendered merciful or good-natured, because, if we consider the information which Joseph might have received from persons of such an extraordinary character as Zachariah and Elizabeth, who would certainly think themselves obliged to interpose on such an occasion, and whose story so remarkably carried its own evidence along with it; besides the intimation the prophecy of Isaiah gave, and the satisfaction he undoubtedly had in the virtuous character of Mary herself; we must conclude that he would have acted a very severe and unrighteous part, had he proceeded to extremities without serious deliberation; and that putting her away privately would, in these circumstances, have been the hardest measure which justice would have suffered him to take. It seems the expression, , here rendered to make her a public example, may perhaps refer to that exemplary punishment which the law inflicted on those who had violated the faith of their espousals before the marriage was completed. See Deu 22:23-24, where it is expressly ordered that a betrothed virgin, if she lay with another man, should be stoned. We may suppose, however, that the infamy of a public divorce, though she had not been stoned, may also be expressed by the same word. But then there was besides a private kind of divorce, in which no reason was assigned, and the dowry was not forfeited as in the former case, and by this she would not have been so much defamed. But it must be observed, that as their being betrothed to each other was a thing publicly known, he could not have put her away so privately, but there must have been witnesses of it, two at least, her parents, suppose, or some of her nearest relations.