(Mt 1:18-24)

Matthew 1:19 Joseph her husband, being a just man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, resolved to divorce her quietly.

When we read this verse, we feel entitled to enter Joseph's mind, take his place and reflect our own thoughts, conjectures and fantasies in the text.

Joseph is defined here as a 'just man', dikaios; and this verse expresses Joseph's drama, which is the drama of every just person. What exactly does this righteousness allude to? Certainly not to the fact that he decided not to expose Mary to any judgement, with possible tragic consequences for her; nor to the fact that he wanted to repudiate her secretly, since Joseph was already 'righteous' before these things happened. The "righteous" person, biblically speaking, is one who faithfully practises the Torah. The Jewish religion, in fact, is the religion of orthopraxy, the correct execution of what God commands, without first wanting to understand. God's commandment is a will that must simply be carried out. The righteous person, therefore, is one who knows how to conform and faithfully carry out what the Torah commands. Yet in this case, Joseph does not apply the Torah, which would require repudiation, divorce, and possibly stoning.

So in what sense is Joseph righteous? According to one interpretation, 'righteous' should be understood in the sense of 'good': Joseph has his suspicions, but he is a 'good' man, he has a 'good heart', he will not make a scene and will separate from Mary in silence. But dikaios never has the meaning of 'good'.

In reality, 'righteous' must have the typical meaning given to it by Matthew, that is, acceptance of God's plan, however disconcerting it may be. Joseph, being a righteous man, from the height of his righteousness thinks only of what is good, but not of his own good, rather that of Mary. And what is good for Mary? It is not to repudiate her publicly. This would have exposed Mary, at the very least, to the ridicule of the people. The good, therefore, consists in quietly and silently leaving Mary's life. This means 'dismissing her in secret'. He would have withdrawn without anyone knowing anything. The 'just' man is the one who respectfully withdraws before God's intervention.

'He did not want to repudiate her' translates the Greek verb 'deigmatìsai', a very rare verb. Therefore, there are divergent translations and interpretations: 'he did not want to expose her to infamy'; 'he did not want to publicly disgrace her'; 'he did not want to expose her to public ridicule', all versions that seem to imply that Joseph considered Mary guilty. The question is whether this rare Greek verb should have a pejorative meaning or not. In one of his writings, the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea observes that "deigmatisai" simply means "to make known", "to bring to light". Something that is unknown and is subsequently revealed may be good or bad, edifying or shameful; but the word itself means 'to expose, or to propose as an example', 'to appear', 'to show'. So Joseph does not want to expose the fact, he does not want to make it appear, he does not want to show it publicly.

"He decided to dismiss her" translates the Greek "apolysai", which refers to the meaning of "free", "dissolve", "acquit". So it can simply mean "to set free", "to let go", but it can also have the meaning of "to dissolve, to break the bonds of marriage". According to some, it could therefore mean 'to repudiate', 'to divorce'. In this case, it should be interpreted as if Joseph wanted to give Mary a certificate of repudiation to submit to the court in order to obtain a divorce. But this is a hard-line interpretation. Technically speaking, the word can only mean 'to divorce' with a certain amount of stretching. But since divorce is a public act, performed before witnesses, and here the verb is accompanied by the adverb 'lathra' ('secretly, covertly'), a public act cannot be performed in secret.

Alternative translation: "Joseph, her husband, who was just and did not want to expose her, decided to separate from her in secret." If we read the verse from this perspective, its tone changes completely. Joseph could not say in public what Mary had revealed to him in confidence; he had to keep it in his heart as a precious secret. But what was he to do? Filled with religious awe at the mystery that had taken place in Mary, his wife, Joseph saw no other way out at that moment than to withdraw discreetly. Thus, the very idea of a denunciation vanished completely. The perspective was radically reversed. Full of respect for Mary, in whom the Holy Spirit had accomplished such great things, Joseph was ready to surrender her totally to God.

Other interpretations start from assumptions such as that Joseph had not been informed of Mary's virginal conception. Being righteous, he could not in conscience live with a sinner, in contrast to the law of the Lord. This is the traditional hypothesis, but it does not take into account the Christological and non-historiographical intent of the evangelist. Therefore, two opposing directions are possible in the interpretation: one severe and the other more moderate, which leaves the way open to a favourable explanation.

We must open ourselves to something much greater than we can imagine. The very virgin conception of Mary must be experienced by every believer, that is, being willing to accept something infinite. Only in this way can we receive God's gift. Why did Mary conceive the Word of God? Simply because, being humble and knowing that she did not deserve it, she did not say, 'I do not deserve it, so I reject it'; but being humble, she said, 'I receive it as a gift'.

The humble desire God, while the proud desire something they can do themselves. Paradoxically, it would be the proud person who is right because he knows his limits, his duties, his obligations; since he is right, he stops there: I know myself, I know my limits and I stop. And Joseph reasons in this way. This thing is too big for me, it is not for me, so I remain outside God's gift. It would be like going to work for an hour and being given five million; you say: no, that's not right. So it is with grace: it requires humility to accept it. 

Let us think if Mary, when the angel said to her, 'The Lord is with you, you will conceive a son', Mary had replied: perhaps you are mistaken, I am not worthy, go to someone else. We often say that! It means that the Word is not rooted in us, because of our sense of unworthiness that does not come from God. God does not give us a sense of unworthiness, He gives us a sense of humility and welcomes us so that we can welcome the gift. So we enter into the Gospel with this openness of heart to welcome the impossible, because the gift that God gives us is impossible, it is Himself.

 Argentino Quintavalle, author of the books 

- Apocalypse – exegetical commentary 

- The Apostle Paul and the Judaizers – Law or Gospel?

Jesus Christ, true God and true Man in the mystery of the Trinity

The prophetic discourse of Jesus (Matthew 24-25)

All generations will call me blessed

 Catholics and Protestants in comparison – In defence of the faith

 The Church and Israel according to St Paul – Romans 9-11

(Available on Amazon)