Were St Joseph and Our Lady married before the Annunciation?
Phrases in the Gospel might suggest that St Joseph and Our Lady were merely engaged at the time of the Annunciation—but is this the correct understanding?
Phrases in the Gospel might suggest that St Joseph and Our Lady were merely engaged at the time of the Annunciation—but is this the correct understanding?
Editor’s Notes
Modern representations of the Nativity story show a great concern to make the figures “relatable” to us modern men and women. This is achieved in two ways, and both contribute to a particular image of St Joseph.
First, they reduce the supernatural or remarkable elements of the story to a minimum. Second, they frame the story according to our own points of reference.
These two ways come together in how they present “doubt” of St Joseph after becoming aware that his wife is pregnant without his involvement.
In contemporary representations, St Joseph’s “doubt” about what to do is an assumption of infidelity, combined with pity for the woman he loves or thought he loved. His initial decision to put her away quietly is, therefore, framed as an act of mercy—despite Holy Scripture calling him “a just man” (rather than a merciful man) in this context. After an Angel informs him of the true situation, St Joseph marries Our Lady despite the sneers and shame of their neighbours.
An interpretation along these lines is certainly not without precedent in Christian tradition. However, despite the near universality of this interpretation in contemporary representations, it is not the only possible understanding of the Scripture; nor is it common amongst the saints.
On the contrary, many saints and holy writers teach that:
St Joseph and Our Lady were already married
St Joseph was already aware of Our Lady’s promise of perpetual continence, and both accepted and shared such a vow himself
Far from being mediocre creatures (as per The Nativity Story), the couple were already highly endowed with grace and sanctity, with a true estimation of each other’s qualities
Far from being emotionally disturbed (or even violent, as per Maria di Nazaret) at an assumed betrayal, St Joseph’s doubt about what to do was based on a realisation that God was working in his most pure spouse’s life in a way that did not seem to involve him (having received no instruction or communication from God on the matter)
His desire to “put her away privately” was not an intention to break an engagement (or to divorce her) but rather to withdraw himself from this mystery, perhaps leaving her with Elizabeth and Zachary
St Gabriel’s message was not an instruction to marry Our Lady amid the shame of their neighbours, but rather to assume the rights of husband and father in the Holy Family (excepting, of course, the conjugal rights).
The image of St Joseph that appears under this understanding—explained by Fr Coleridge below—is very different to the former. Here we have “a just man” indeed; one that is holy, strong, noble, in control of himself, and ready to act according to his lights and God’s will.
Is this the true interpretation? As mentioned, there are a variety of opinions, and we cannot settle this issue here.
However, we can note that the Church formerly celebrated the Espousals of St Joseph and Our Lady on 23rd January, about two months before the Annunciation. Further, the following Fathers, saints, and holy writers presented or considered the plausibility this interpretation.
From the Catena Aurea:
In addition, the following place the marriage before the Annunciation:
Ludolph the Saxon
Maria Agreda
Anne Catherine Emmerich.
It is a great shame that modern representations of the Nativity and of the foster-father of Our Lord eschew this elevated and noble vision, in favour of what is “relatable”—even if there are indeed more husbands suspecting their wives of infidelity, than married saints, perplexed by a divine intervention that appears to exclude them.
We will provide Fr Coleridge’s account of St Joseph’s doubt in due course, but in this piece we will see…
How the marriage of St. Joseph and Our Lady was already a true marriage before the Annunciation.
That St. Joseph shared in Mary's vow of virginity, embracing a life of holy dedication.
Why the Gospel language about their union avoids ambiguity regarding Christ’s divine conception.
Fr Coleridge will shows us that St Joseph, far from being a passive figure, was an active and willing participant in God's plan, uniting himself to Mary in perfect chastity and obedience.
Eve of the Annunciation
The Preparation of the Incarnation
Chapter XI
Burns and Oates, London, 1885
Headings and some line breaks added.
Part I: Were St Joseph and Our Lady married before the Annunciation?
Part II: What do we know about St Gabriel?
Perfection of our Lady’s marriage
The external events in the life of the Blessed Virgin had been few. The greater part of the short years which had passed since her birth had been spent in the sacred home attached to the Temple, in a round of uniform duties made up of prayer, study, and such kinds of useful and holy work as formed a part of the instruction of girls so brought up.
The only events which had broken the uniformity of her life had been the deaths of her parents and the betrothal which had made her the wife of St. Joseph. It is hardly necessary for us to deal with the foolish objection that she was not perfectly and truly his wife. St. Augustine has been at the pains to show, against some of the heretics of his time, that the substantial goods of marriage were all present in that which bound Mary and Joseph together.
The marriage was most perfect in its kind, both in all other respects, and also and above all it was perfect on account of the fruitfulness which blessed it in the generation of the Incarnate Son.
Question as to her state at the Annunciation
It is another question, which has been hotly debated among critics, at what precise moment of the months which elapsed before the Nativity of our Lord, the actual marriage, as distinguished from a simple betrothal, took place between this holy pair.
It was almost inevitable that this question should be raised, and that there should be considerable names on either side of the alternative solutions. This arises from the circumstances of the case, and the language of the Evangelists themselves. It may be well, not only for the satisfaction of this particular question, but also for general reasons connected with the subject-matter, to say just a few words on the question here.
It will be seen that here also we shall find the greatest help in the consideration of the objects in view of the several Evangelists with whom we have to do as to the early history of the Incarnation, that is with St. Matthew and St. Luke.
First opinion—only engaged (‘betrothed’)
In the first place, the opinion that our Blessed Lady was only betrothed to St. Joseph at the time of the Annunciation is supported, at least apparently, by the direct words of Scripture. For St. Matthew speaks of her as espoused to St. Joseph, and he also mentions the injunction to the latter by the Angel to take unto him Mary his wife, and the obedience of the saint in this particular.
In the second place, St. Luke calls her a Virgin espoused to a man of the House of David, and when he mentions the journey of the holy pair to Bethlehem, he again speaks of our Lady as an espoused wife, being at the time pregnant. It may also be said that this opinion is supported by the silence of Scripture as well as by its words. For it makes no mention of St. Joseph in the account, either of the Annunciation or of the Visitation, and thus leaves us to suppose that he had no part in directing or accompanying the movements of our Blessed Lady, such as he would naturally have had, if she were already his wife.
This being the case with the records of Scripture, as we possess them, it is not wonderful that so many of the Fathers and other writers of authority should have adopted the view which seems naturally suggested by the statements of the Evangelists.
Its difficulties
It is true that this opinion, on the other hand, is full of its own inherent difficulties. The chief difficulty of all is the great and overwhelming one, which is contained in the supposition of a marriage taking place between St. Joseph and his blessed Spouse three months or more after the date of the Annunciation. In that case, as our Lord was to pass to the eyes of the world for the Son of Joseph, it becomes inevitable that it should have been possible to suppose that his conception had taken place before the marriage of his blessed Mother. Ingenious efforts have been made by various critics to imagine a solution of this difficulty.
It is thought, for instance, that the Nativity of our Lord having taken place at Bethlehem, the date of it would not have been known at Nazareth, or, again, that the journey to Bethlehem before the birth of our Lord may have taken place so long before that birth, that no one would have known that it was imminent at the time of the departure from Nazareth. But both these devices fail to meet the difficulty, besides that they rest on altogether gratuitous suppositions. For it is certain that the Holy Family returned to Nazareth immediately after the Purification, and it is also not likely that the journey in question could have been undertaken at any sufficient distance of time before the Nativity to answer the purpose which is supposed.
For this reason, it seems sufficiently clear that the facts of the case must ever remain most difficult of explanation, if it be not supposed that at the time of the Annunciation our Lady was a wedded and acknowledged wife.
Language of Scripture
The argument from the language of Scripture is not altogether on one side of the question.
In the first place, St. Joseph is never called the betrothed of our Blessed Lady. He is always spoken of as her husband, even in the passages in which she is called his betrothed.
In the second place, her own words to the Angel seem to settle the question. They certainly seem properly to mean that she is bound to perpetual continence with a husband, that she is already married, and bound to live in virginity.
In the third place, it seems easy to explain why the Evangelists should speak of her as a Virgin espoused to a man, or as the espoused wife of Joseph, namely, for the reason that it was incumbent on them never once to mention her relation to her husband in a manner which could be misunderstood, with regard to the time before the Nativity of our Lord.
The language of Scripture is always most perfectly modest and reticent, and the simplest way of describing our Lady truly was that which has been followed by St. Matthew and St. Luke in the passages quoted, as an espoused wife. It may be safely said that no one would ever have thought of supposing that the marriage of our Blessed Lady took place after the Annunciation, but for the word espoused which is thus used of her by the Evangelists, and for the other reason also, which is contained in the language of Scripture about the injunction to St. Joseph to take to him Mary his wife.
This language supposes, or rather seems to suppose, that she was not yet his wife at the time when that injunction was given to him. But at that time, according to the common opinion, it was already manifest, at least to St. Joseph, and possibly to others, that she had conceived a child.
‘Doubt’ of St Joseph
This brings us to the point which will have to be explained more fully hereafter, of the exact meaning of that injunction given by the Angel to St. Joseph. It is here that we have to help ourselves by the consideration of the objects in view of the Evangelists when they wrote.
With regard to the silence which is maintained in the narrative concerning the Visitation as to any presence of St. Joseph, it is only a case parallel to other great silences of Scripture, such as that of St. Matthew with regard to the Annunciation, and that of St. Luke with regard to the Epiphany. Scripture does not tell us a single unnecessary thing, and the object of the narrative of the Visitation had nothing to do with the presence of St. Joseph, which moreover might have been safely presumed, from the simple fact of the journey of his Spouse.
In the same way, the whole narrative of the Visitation makes no mention of the presence of St. Zachary, the father of the unborn Baptist. It is not till after the departure of our Lady that he is introduced as interfering in the naming of his son.
But then the narrative of the doubt of St. Joseph which is given by St. Matthew, does certainly seem at first sight to support the notion that it was after that doubt had been settled that he took to himself Mary his wife, that is, married her. It will be seen, however, at a later stage of our history, that this impression is probably altogether groundless. St. Joseph was told by the Angel to do that which he had before hesitated to do, and he did this after the injunction of the Angel.
What, then, was this? It will be seen that the most probable explanation of the doubt of St. Joseph himself is that when the time came for him to conduct our Blessed Lady home from her visit to St. Elisabeth, he had conceived the thought that on account of his own conscious unworthiness, he had better retire from her company. Up to that time, he had no commission from heaven to act as the father of her Child.
He thought of leaving her either with the holy pair at the house of Zachary, or with her own relations and friends at Nazareth, and of withdrawing himself from her company, not because she was not truly his wife, but because he was not certain as to his own part in the direction of one so highly favoured by heaven, a direction which would, at no great distance of time, involve also the care and superintendence of the early life of the Divine Child Who was to be born of her.
Our Lady a wedded wife
For these reasons, therefore, it seems most in accordance with the language of Scripture itself to follow the opinion, now probably the most common among Catholic critics, that the full and perfect marriage between St. Joseph and our Blessed Lady had taken place some time before the Annunciation. It may even have been celebrated at Nazareth, after her return from her long sojourn in the Temple.
We consider, therefore, that the word “espoused,” as used by the Evangelists of our Blessed Lady, is only used by them in the signification mentioned above.
Appendix
From Chapter X—The Marriage of our Blessed Lady
Counsel of Chastity
It has also been said that the words of our Lady herself, at the time of the Annunciation, are peremptory in the proof which they furnish of the existence of the vow as a binding pledge on her at that time. But at that time she was a betrothed wife, and it therefore follows that her betrothed husband must have consented to it.
For with the Jews, at all events, the rite of betrothal was of the same binding force as to the rights of the two parties who were mutually contracted, as the tie of marriage itself. Nor, in using the word betrothed of our Blessed Lady, must we forget how nearly certain it is that in her case it means the same as the word married. A married person was already bound to her husband, and for a vow of virginity on her part to be valid, his consent must have been obtained.
Shared by St Joseph—mutual consent
But in the case of two souls of the highest sanctity, and who were already united most closely by their common devotion to the mystery of the Incarnation, and by that resemblance of character and that perfect communion of hearts and aims of which we have already spoken, it stands to reason that we must go even further than this.
We must suppose that St. Joseph was not only perfectly conscious of, and a consenting party to, the dedication of herself to God on the part of Mary, in the holy estate of virginity, even in marriage, but that he must have shared her self-oblation by a similar dedication on his own part, that he must have rejoiced and taken immense pleasure in that dedication, and that these two blessed spouses could have had no thought in which they were more closely united than this, of the special beauty of “the chaste generation” of which the Wise Man had spoken.
In the next part, we’ll ask the question: What can we know about St Gabriel, the angelic messenger to Our Lady, Zachary, the prophet Daniel and possibly St Joseph?
Hit subscribe to make sure you don’t miss it:
Eve of the Annunciation
Part I: Were St Joseph and Our Lady married before the Annunciation?
Part II: What do we know about St Gabriel?
Read Next:
Here’s why you should subscribe to The Father Coleridge Reader and share with others:
Fr Coleridge provides solid explanations of the entirety of the Gospel
His work is full of doctrine and piety, and is highly credible
He gives a clear trajectory of the life of Christ, its drama and all its stages—increasing our appreciation and admiration for the God-Man.
If more Catholics knew about works like Coleridge’s, then other works based on sentimentality and dubious private revelations would be much less attractive.
But sourcing and curating the texts, cleaning up scans, and editing them for online reading is a labour of love, and takes a lot of time.
Will you lend us a hand and hit subscribe?
Follow our projects on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
“But why is He conceived not of a Virgin merely, but of a Virgin espoused? First, that by the descent of Joseph, Mary’s family might be made known; secondly, that she might not be stoned by the Jews as an adulteress; thirdly, that in her flight into Egypt she might have the comfort of a husband.
“The Martyr Ignatius [margin note: vid. Ign. ad Eph. 19] adds yet a fourth reason, namely, that His birth might be hid from the Devil, looking for Him to be born of a wife and not of a virgin.”
“Or this may be considered a testimony to Mary, that Joseph, confident in her purity, and wondering at what had happened, covered in silence that mystery which he could not explain.”
“He beheld her to be with child, whom he knew to be chaste; and because he had read, ‘There shall come a Rod out of the stem of Jesse,’ of which he knew that Mary was come, and had also read, ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive,’ he did not doubt that this prophecy should be fulfilled in he did not doubt that this prophecy should be fulfilled in her.”
“But if he had no suspicion of her, how could he be a just man, and yet seek to put her away, being immaculate? He sought to put her away, because he saw in her a great sacrament, to approach which he thought himself unworthy.”
“But as no one puts away what he has not received; in that he was minded to put her away, he admits to have received her.”
“Be not troubled that he calls her his wife; for she is not herein robbed of her virginity, but her wedlock is witnessed to, and the celebration of her marriage is declared.”
I’m not yet convinced by Fr Coleridge’s arguments.