John 1:29–34

²⁹  The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! ³⁰  This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ ³¹  I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” ³²  And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him.³³  I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ ³⁴  And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

John 1:29–34 ESV – Bible Gateway

---

As Catholics, we are very familiar with the term the “Lamb of God” as we hear it at least every time we celebrate the liturgy. We also see this in artistic imagery, but what we become so familiar with can also lose touch with.

The Navarre commentary of the Gospel of John points out:

For the first time in the Gospel Christ is called the “Lamb of God”. Isaiah had compared the sufferings of the Servant of Yahweh, the Messiah, with the sacrifice of a lamb (cf. Is 53:7); and the blood of the paschal lamb smeared on the doors of houses had served to protect the firstborn of the Israelites in Egypt (cf. Ex 12:6–7): all this was a promise and prefiguring of the true Lamb, Christ, the victim in the sacrifice of Calvary on behalf of all mankind. This is why St Paul will say that “Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:7). The expression “Lamb of God” also suggests the spotless innocence of the Redeemer (cf. 1 Pet 1:18–20; 1 Jn 3:5).[1]

When John the Baptist invoked this term he was not envisioning a warm image of a soft cuddly lamb, but a lamb destined for sacrifice to save us from our myriad sins.

Dr. Brant Pitre goes into the point that we “we don’t have any text that talks about the Passover Lamb taking away sin. It protects from death…” and that “the image of taking away the sin of the world is actually an allusion to the suffering servant. So in the book of Isaiah 53, Isaiah describes this mysterious figure of the servant who will take upon himself the iniquities of all the people, and Isaiah says of the servant that “like a lamb he was led to the slaughter” and that “upon him were the sins of the many,” that “he bore the sins of the many,” an image of taking away the sin of the people.”[2]

St. Theophylact of Nicomedia. (in loc.) Why does he say the sin of the world, not sins? Because he wished to express sin universally: just as we say commonly, that man was cast out of paradise; meaning the whole human race.[3]

The Catechism concurs in this:

§608 After agreeing to baptize him along with the sinners, John the Baptist looked at Jesus and pointed him out as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” By doing so, he reveals that Jesus is at the same time the suffering Servant who silently allows himself to be led to the slaughter and who bears the sin of the multitudes, and also the Paschal Lamb, the symbol of Israel’s redemption at the first Passover. Christ’s whole life expresses his mission: “to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.”[4]

There is so much depth in all that John the Baptist is revealing here. Pointing out that Jesus is the mysterious figure of the suffering servant as prophesied by Isaiah and then blithely mentioning that Jesus pre-existed him alluding to his divinity. John’s original audience would have understood none of this, would not even have even known that Jesus was born three months after him.

They also would not have been puzzled by the statement made by John that “I myself did not know him.” We, as a modern audience, might ponder why John would not know his relative Jesus.

St. Chrysostom. (Hom. xvii. ❲al. xvi.❳ 2.) That He might not seem however to give His testimony from any motive of friendship or kindred, in consequence of his being related to our Lord according to the flesh, he says, I knew Him not. John could not of course know Him, having lived in the desert. And the miraculous events of Christ’s childhood, the journey of the Magi, and such like, were now a long time past; John having been quite an infant, when they happened. And throughout the whole of the interval, He had been absolutely unknown: insomuch that John proceeds, But that He should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. (And hence it is clear that the miracles said to have been performed by Christ in His childhood, are false and fictitious. For if Jesus had performed miracles at this early age, he would not have been unknown to John, nor would the multitude have wanted a teacher to point Him out.) Christ Himself then did not want baptism; nor was that washing for any other reason, than to give a sign beforehand of faith in Christ. For John saith not, in order to change men, and deliver from sin, but, that he should be made manifest in Israel, have I come baptizing. But would it not have been lawful for him to preach, and bring crowds together, without baptizing? Yes: but this was the easier way, for he would not have collected such numbers, had he preached without baptizing.[5]

The humility of St. John the Baptist is always so striking. Taking every effort to point to Jesus and away from himself. Aware that even the baptism of repentance he preached and practiced was to be quickly superseded.

Dr. Peter Kreeft writes:

John was not the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. John cannot take away our sins. John’s baptism does not take away our sins, as Baptism in the name of Jesus does. In the Acts of the Apostles, St. Paul discovers a congregation of Christians who don’t see that great difference. He senses something missing, and he says, “How were you baptized?” And they say, “With the baptism of John.” And Paul says, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” When they heard that, “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,” and “the holy Spirit came upon them,” just as the three thousand at Pentecost. They even received the charismatic gift of speaking in tongues (Acts 19:3–8).[6]

St. John the Baptist then gives the testimony of what he witnessed after he baptized Jesus.

Dr. John Bergsma shows some of the connection that this reveals.

“I saw the Spirit come down … and remained upon him.” This calls to mind the anointing of David in 1 Samuel 16, on whom the Spirit came mightily “from that day forward” (v. 13); in other words, it remained on him. The Spirit coming down and remaining on Jesus marks him out as the heir of David. John the Baptist, the prophet, plays the role of Samuel, who anointed the first David. This Gospel announces Jesus as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s vision of the Davidic royal servant, the one who is “Israel.” Just as Israel washed in the waters of the Jordan symbolically when they crossed into the Promised Land under the first Joshua (Y’shua, Jesus), so this second Joshua (Y’shua, Jesus) comes to enter the Jordan once more and lead us all to the promised land of heaven. This is done primarily through Baptism, in which we, as Christians, are given the gift of the Holy Spirit, which gives us power to become children of God and to live lives of holiness, not continual defeat.[7]

From “The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament” edition:

1:32 the Spirit descend as a dove: The Baptism of Jesus, which initiates his manifestation to Israel (1:31) and prefigures the effects of sacramental Baptism (3:1–13)…. remain: The Greek expression is used often in John (also translated “dwell” or “abide”) for the enduring bond between the Father and Son (14:10; 15:10) and for the indwelling of the Trinity in the believer (6:56; 14:17; 15:4–7).[8]

This is a salutary reminder for us to reflect on our own baptism and how, through it, it configures us to Christ.

Recently Pope Francis said we should celebrate our baptism like a birthday.

“It is like a birthday because baptism makes us reborn in Christian life. That is why I advise you to teach your children the date of their baptism as a new birthday: that every year they will remember and thank God for this grace of becoming a Christian.“[9]

Concluding with a paragraph from the Catechism:

§537 Through Baptism the Christian is sacramentally assimilated to Jesus, who in his own baptism anticipates his death and resurrection. The Christian must enter into this mystery of humble self-abasement and repentance, go down into the water with Jesus in order to rise with him, be reborn of water and the Spirit so as to become the Father’s beloved son in the Son and “walk in newness of life”: (CCC 1262; CCC 628)

Let us be buried with Christ by Baptism to rise with him; let us go down with him to be raised with him; and let us rise with him to be glorified with him.

Everything that happened to Christ lets us know that, after the bath of water, the Holy Spirit swoops down upon us from high heaven and that, adopted by the Father’s voice, we become sons of God.[10]

Sources

• The Navarre Bible – St. John
• Catholic Productions, Commentaries by Brant Pitre
• Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers, Volume 4: St. John – Verbum
• Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition
• Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Cycle A
• The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year A – John Bergsma
• The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible꞉ The New Testament
• Pope Francis Celebrate the date of your baptism like a birthday Catholic News Agency
• Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

---

1. Navarre, Saint John (2005)  ↩
2. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre, 2nd Sunday in Ordinary Time (Year A)  ↩
3. Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed). United States Catholic Conference.  ↩
4. Theophylact, Archbishop of Ohrid, A.D. 1078, Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. John (J. H. Newman, Ed.; Vol. 4, p. 58)  ↩
5. Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Cycle A  ↩
6. The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year A, John  ↩
7. Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament  ↩
8. Pope Francis: Celebrate the date of your baptism like a birthday, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/253288/pope-francis-celebrate-the-date-of-your-baptism-like-a-birthday  ↩
9. Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed). United States Catholic Conference. Paragraph 537  ↩
10. St. John Chrysostom, Abp. of Constantinople, A.D.398. Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. John (J. H. Newman, Ed.; Vol. 4, p. 59)  ↩

Matthew 2:1–12

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, ²  saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” ³  When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; ⁴  and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. ⁵  They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:

⁶  “‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
    are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for from you shall come a ruler
    who will shepherd my people Israel.’”

⁷  Then Herod summoned the wise men secretly and ascertained from them what time the star had appeared. ⁸  And he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, “Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may come and worship him.” ⁹  After listening to the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was. ¹⁰  When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy.¹¹  And going into the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. ¹²  And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their own country by another way.

Matthew 21–12 ESV – Bible Gateway

---

This Gospel invokes so much imagery for us that and so much of this imagery passes on concerning the Magi and the star is simply false. So much conjecture concerning the star that starts on false premises.

Jimmy Akin recently wrote an article in the most recent Catholic Answers magazine titled “Why the Magi Came” which addresses some of this.

Summarizing these myths:[1]

1. The Magi were following the star.
2. The star moved in an unusual way.
3. The star was a new one and never appeared before.
4. The star was an angel or supernatural phenomenon.
5. The star was a fixed star.

He also covered some of this in an episode of Catholic Answers Focus “The Real Star of Bethlehem” which also weighs evidence of what the “star” actually was.

There is also a lot of speculation regarding the homeland of the Magi. There is a tradition of them being Persian, but there is much less certainty regarding this now and it is an open question. We don’t even know the total number of them other than tying this to the gifts given. Considering the time frame that Herod used regarding the slaughter of the innocence, when they arrived was likely long after Jesus’s birth up to two years later.

There has also been a lot of speculation on the gifts the Magi brought and their significance. The first reading from Isaiah has a Messianic prophecy regarding the nations that would come to him and bring him gifts of gold and frankincense.

Dr. John Bergsma writes:

The gifts that the magi bring are rich in biblical symbolism. As stated above, frankincense and myrrh are only mentioned together in the Old Testament in the Song of Songs, where they are nuptial perfumes employed by Solomon and his bride to prepare for their marriage. Here in Matthew, Jesus is being marked out as Bridegroom King from his birth.[2]

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible brings out some of the traditional allegories:

Allegorically (St. Irenaeus, AH 3, 9, 2): the gifts of the Magi signify the mystery of Christ incarnate. Gold, a symbol of royalty, represents the kingship of Jesus. Frankincense, used in the worship of God, points to his divinity. Myrrh, a burial ointment, signifies the humanity of Christ, especially in his Passion and death. Morally (St. Gregory the Great, Hom. in Evan. 10): the treasures signify the gifts we present to Christ in our daily lives. Gold is Christ’s wisdom, which shines in us, frankincense is the prayer and adoration we give him (cf. Rev 8:3–4), and myrrh is our daily self-sacrifices (10:39; cf. Rom 12:1).[3]

What is much more significant than the gifts is that fact that the Magi worshipped the Christ-child.

Dr. Brant Pitre comments on this:

They go into the house with the child, they find Mary his mother, and they fall down and they worship him. Now this is extremely important because the word used here for worship, proskyneō , literally means to bow down prostrate before someone. It actually means to get down like a dog before another person. So you bow down before them prostrate.

and

And in some contexts the word proskyneō can be used for the kind of homage that you pay to just an ordinary king, but in the Gospel of Matthew he uses this term for the kind of expression of adoration and veneration that you give to God and God alone. So for example, just a couple chapters later in Matthew 4:9, the devil says to Jesus that if he just “bows down and worships him, he will give him all the kingdoms of the world.” And Jesus responds by saying “No. God alone shall you worship.” And yet we see the Magi in chapter 2 here worshiping Jesus the Christ child. So what is the implication? The implication is that they recognize that he’s not just the king of the Jews, they are not just venerating him as King, they are worshiping him as divine, as the divine king.

St. Peter Chrysologus in one of his sermons, wrote:

“Today the Magi find crying in a manger the one they have followed as he shone in the sky. Today the Magi see clearly, in swaddling clothes, the one they have long awaited as he lay hidden among the stars.

Today the Magi gaze in deep wonder at what they see: heaven on earth, earth in heaven, man in God, God in man, one whom the whole universe cannot contain now enclosed in a tiny body. As they look, they believe and do not question, as their symbolic gifts bear witness: incense for God, gold for a king, myrrh for one who is to die.

So the Gentiles, who were the last, become the first: the faith of the Magi is the first fruits of the belief of the Gentiles.”[4]

God used the Magi to give witness to the incarnation and the birth of the Messiah. Their own theological understanding was incomplete, but it moved them to worship. They sought this sign using their own arts, but it lead them to truth, in fact, the incarnate truth. God also entered their lives by warning them off to not return to Herod. I would guess that after meeting Herod, it would not have taken much convincing that he was a bad dude to avoid.

The word epiphany includes a range of meanings. There is a specific context in how the Church uses it as Dr. John Bergsma references:

The word “Epiphany” comes from two Greek words: epi, “on, upon”; and phaino, “to appear, to shine.” Therefore, the “Epiphany” refers to the divinity of Jesus “shining upon” the earth. In other words, it is the manifestation of his divine nature[5]

Leaving off with a paragraph from the Catechism:

528 The Epiphany is the manifestation of Jesus as Messiah of Israel, Son of God and Savior of the world. The great feast of Epiphany celebrates the adoration of Jesus by the wise men (magi) from the East, together with his baptism in the Jordan and the wedding feast at Cana in Galilee. In the magi, representatives of the neighboring pagan religions, the Gospel sees the first-fruits of the nations, who welcome the good news of salvation through the Incarnation. The magi’s coming to Jerusalem in order to pay homage to the king of the Jews shows that they seek in Israel, in the messianic light of the star of David, the one who will be king of the nations. Their coming means that pagans can discover Jesus and worship him as Son of God and Savior of the world only by turning toward the Jews and receiving from them the messianic promise as contained in the Old Testament. The Epiphany shows that “the full number of the nations” now takes its “place in the family of the patriarchs,” and acquires Israelitica dignitas (are made “worthy of the heritage of Israel”). [6]

Sources

• Catholic Answers November-December 2022
• Catholic Answers Focus “The Real Star of Bethlehem”
• The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year A – John Bergsma
• Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition
• The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible꞉ The New Testament
• Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

---

1. Catholic Answers November-December 2022, Jimmy Akin “Why the Magi Came”  ↩
2. The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year A, John Bergsma  ↩
3. Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament  ↩
4. Peter Chrysologus, Sermo 160, PL 52:620–62. As translated in Office of Readings:Non-Biblical Readings for Christmas Season, reading 8 in Christian Prayer: The Liturgy of the Hours (New York: Catholic Book Publishing, 1976), 1965.  ↩
5. The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year A, John Bergsma, First Reading  ↩
6. Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed). United States Catholic Conference.  ↩

Luke 2:16–21

¹⁶  And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger. ¹⁷  And when they saw it, they made known the saying that had been told them concerning this child. ¹⁸  And all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them. ¹⁹  But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart. ²⁰  And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them.

²¹  And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Luke 216–21 ESV – Bible Gateway

---

St. Ambrose. Esteem not the words of the shepherds as mean and despicable. For from the shepherds Mary increases her faith, as it follows: Mary kept all these sayings, and pondered them in her heart. Let us learn the chastity of the sacred Virgin in all things, who no less chaste in her words than in her body, gathered up in her heart the materials of faith.[1]

Dr. Brant Pitre, in his commentaries, has noted that the idea that shepherds were especially despised has been overblown. Shepherds are rather prominent in the Old Testament, from Abraham, Moses, and King David. I can easily see how they had been looked down by others higher on the cultural food chain. Jesus describes himself as the Good Shepherd. Still, the lowliness of these witnesses to the Incarnation is an important theme in the birth of the Messiah. A king who came to us pre-announced, but in a shockingly humble and hidden way. This would not be the script that we would write.

From the Navarre commentary on the Gospel of Luke:

The birth of the Saviour Messiah is the key event in the history of mankind, but God wanted it to take place so quietly that the world went about its business as if nothing had happened. The only people he tells about it are a few shepherds. It was also to a shepherd, Abraham, that God gave his promise to save mankind.[2]

Mary treasuring and pondering the news from the Shepherds combined with her own experience with God is such a rich vein to mine.

Peter Kreeft puts it well in his commentary:

Mary is mentioned three times in this passage, and there is something we can learn from all three things that are said about her.
First, she is simply there, at the manger, with Joseph and baby Jesus. She does not go to the shepherds; they come to her, and so do the three wise men, later. Men move around the circumference; a woman is at the center of the circle.
Second, she “kept all these things” that had happened and “reflected on them in her heart.” The older translation says she “pondered” them in her heart. It’s a kind of praying.
Third, she and Joseph brought Jesus to the temple to be circumcised eight days after he was born, as the Mosaic Law commanded, and they named him “Jesus” in obedience to the angel’s command to Joseph. Both the circumcising and the naming were instances of obeying: obeying God’s Mosaic Law and obeying God’s angel.

So we have Mary staying, praying, and obeying.[3]

He continues:

What does “pondering” add to “thinking”? Depth. And patience. Most of the most important things in life take time and patience to understand, like the three most important choices we make: what God to believe in and what person to marry and what career to work at. Patience is necessary especially with people: you can’t understand other people, or even yourself, without patience and experience. It’s not like math or technology, with formulas and machines that give you instant answers. In all the most important areas of life, truth comes gradually, like the tides, or the sunrise, not instantly, as it does when you just press a key or flip a switch or solve a math problem.[4]

This example of pondering and treasuring should be the necessary part of everyone’s life who desires to be a disciple of Christ. How often do we treasure what God has worked on in our lives and pondered his word? It is one thing to have knowledge of Christ, but to contemplate this and to bring our lives into conformity is another thing. I often fail miserably at integrating what I know into my life, still grasping at that pearl of great price and falling in awe to my knees.

Mary contemplates Jesus’ birth and childhood, not from a distance, but as a participant in the mystery (1:35, 43; 2:51).[5]

Dr. Brant Pitre explains:

The Greek word syntēréō literally means to “treasure up” (Luke 2:19). It is from the idea of putting money into a treasury. So she’s taking the words of the shepherd and she’s treasuring them up in her heart, she is storing them up inside of her interiorly, in her heart and in her mind.[6]

This Gospel passage ends with the circumcision and the naming of Jesus.

Dr. Brant Pitre explains why this passage was selected for the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God and also why the first reading was selected.

So the first reason that this passage is on this particular day, is that January 1st is the eighth day after the birth of Christ. It is the octave, so to speak, within the season of Christmas and, in fact, in earlier times, before the Second Vatican Council, January 1st was actually the Feast of the Circumcision and the Naming of Jesus.
… I think, not a coincidence that the new year—because this feast always falls on January 1st—opens with a blessing. It opens with the blessing of the people of God. So the very first reading for the beginning of the new year is that the Lord would bless his people.[7]

From the Catena Aurea:

St. Epiphanius. Christ was circumcised for several reasons. First indeed to shew the reality of His flesh, in opposition to Manichæus f and those who say that He came forth in appearance only. Secondly, that He might prove that His body was not of the same substance with the Deity, according to Apollinaris, and that it descended not from heaven, as Valentinian said. Thirdly, to add a confirmation to circumcision which He had of old instituted to wait His coming. Lastly, to leave no excuse to the Jews. For had He not been circumcised, they might have objected that they could not receive Christ uncircumcised.[8]
St. Bede. He was circumcised also that He might enjoin upon us by His example the virtue of obedience, and might take compassion on them who being placed under the law, were unable to bear the burdens of the law, to the end that He who came in the likeness of sinful flesh might not reject the remedy with which sinful flesh was wont to be healed. For circumcision brought in the law the same assistance of a saving cure to the wound of original sin which Baptism does in the time of the grace of revelation, except that as yet the circumcised could not enter the gates of the heavenly kingdom, but comforted after death with a blessed rest in Abraham’s bosom, they waited with a joyful hope for their entrance into eternal peace.[9]

Finishing with a paragraph from the Catechism:

495 Called in the Gospels “the mother of Jesus,” Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as “the mother of my Lord.” In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly “Mother of God” (Theotokos)[10]

Sources

• Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers, Volume 3: St. Luke – Verbum
• Navarre, Saint Luke’s Gospel (2005)
• The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible꞉ The New Testament
• Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year A
• Catholic Productions, Commentaries by Brant Pitre
• Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition
• Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

---

1. St. Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan, A.D. 374. Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. Luke (J. H. Newman, Ed.; Vol. 3, pp. 74–75).  ↩
2. Navarre, Saint Luke’s Gospel (2005)  ↩
3. Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year A, Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God  ↩
4. ibid  ↩
5. Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament  ↩
6. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre, Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God  ↩
7. ibid.  ↩
8. St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, A.D. 367. (ubi sup.) Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. Luke (J. H. Newman, Ed.; Vol. 3, pp. 74–75).  ↩
9. St. Bede, Venerable, Presbyter and Monk of Yarrow, A.D. 700. Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. Luke (J. H. Newman, Ed.; Vol. 3, pp. 74–75).  ↩
10. Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed). United States Catholic Conference.
    – Photo by Ben White on Unsplash  ↩

Matthew 1:19–24

¹⁸  Now the birth of Jesus Christ to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.¹⁹  And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. ²⁰  But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. ²¹  She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” ²²  All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

²³  “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
    and they shall call his name Immanuel”

(which means, God with us). ²⁴  When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife,

Matthew 119–24 ESV – Bible Gateway

---

St. Augustine. Furthermore, this manner in which Christ was born of the Holy Spirit suggests to us the grace of God, by which man without any previous merits, in the very beginning of his nature, was united with the Word of God into so great unity of person, that he was also made son of God. (c. 38.). But inasmuch as the whole Trinity wrought to make this creature which was conceived of the Virgin, though pertaining only to the person of the Son, (for the works of the Trinity are indivisible,) why is the Holy Spirit only named in this work? Must we always, when one of the Three is named in any work, understand that the whole Trinity worked in that? [1]

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, reflects on what St. Augustine wrote:

Although, however, according to Augustine, the works of the Trinity are indivisible, and therefore, that conception was worked not only by the Holy Ghost but also by the Father and Son; nevertheless, by a certain appropriation, it is attributed to the Holy Ghost; and this is for three reasons. The first reason is, because the Holy Ghost is love. And this was the sign of the greatest love, that God willed His Son to be incarnated; “God so loved the world, as to give His only begotten Son” (Jn. 3, 16). The second reason is that to the Holy Ghost is attributed grace; “There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit” (I Cor. 12, 4); and this was the greatest grace. The third reason is assigned in the acts of the Council of Nicea, which is; that in us there is a twofold word: the word of the heart and the word of the voice. The word of the heart is that conception of the intellect, which is hidden from men, except inasmuch as it is expressed by the voice or the word of the voice. To the word of the heart is compared the eternal Word before the Incarnation, when He was with the Father, and hidden from us; but to the word of the voice is compared the Incarnate Word which now has appeared to us and is manifest. But the word of the heart is not joined to the voice except by means of the breath; and thus, rightly, the Incarnation of the Word, through which He visibly appeared to us, was made by means of the Holy Ghost.[2]

There have been many commentaries and books regarding the question of St. Joseph being declared a just man in scripture, along with the reason he wanted to send her away quietly.

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible provides a summation of the traditional interpretations:

Catholic tradition proposes three main interpretations to explain why Joseph resolved to end his betrothal with Mary.
– (1) The Suspicion Theory. Some hold that Joseph suspected Mary of adultery when he discovered her pregnancy. Joseph thus intended to pursue a divorce in accord with Deut 24:1–4 until the angel revealed to him the miraculous cause of the conception (1:20). Joseph is said to be righteous because he shuns immorality and directs his life by the Law of God. Proponents of this view include St. Justin Martyr, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Augustine.
– (2) The Perplexity Theory. Others hold that Joseph found the situation of Mary’s pregnancy inexplicable. Divorce seemed to be his only option, and yet he wished to do this quietly, for he could not bring himself to believe that Mary had been unfaithful. Joseph is said to be righteous because he lives by the Law of God and judges Mary’s situation with the utmost charity. The main proponent of this view is St. Jerome, whose exegesis was adopted into the notes of the medieval Bible.
– (3) The Reverence Theory. Still others hold that Joseph knew the miraculous cause of Mary’s pregnancy from the beginning, i.e., he was made aware that the child was conceived “of the Holy Spirit” (1:18). Faced with this, Joseph considered himself unworthy to be involved in the Lord’s work, and his decision to separate quietly from Mary was a discretionary measure to keep secret the mystery within her. On this reading, the angel confirms what Joseph had already known and urges him to set aside pious fears that would lead him away from his vocation to be the legal father of the Messiah (1:20). Joseph is said to be righteous because of his deep humility and reverence for the miraculous works of God. Proponents of this view include St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Thomas Aquinas. [3]

St. Thomas Aquinas takes a deep look at the various interpretations, and here he looks at the Reverence Theory.

But, according to Jerome and Origen, he did not suspect adultery: for Joseph knew Mary’s chastity; he read in Scripture that a virgin would conceive: “And there shall come forth a rod (virga) out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root,” etc., (Isaias 7, 14 & 11, 1). He also knew that Mary had descended of the line of David. Hence, he more easily believed this to be fulfilled in her, than for her to have been ravished. And therefore, considering himself to be unworthy to dwell with one of so great holiness, he wanted to put her away privately, as Peter said: “Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man,” Luke 5, 8. Whence, he was not willing to take her, that is to lead her home to himself, and accept her as a spouse, thinking himself to be unworthy. Or, according to the opinion of others, being unaware of the purpose, he did so lest he be held guilty if he concealed the matter, and kept her with himself.[4]

Jimmy Akin in his article Why Did Joseph Plan to Divorce Mary also goes through some of the different views along with what then-Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his book Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives.

The late Fr. William Most seems to have preferred the Perplexity Theory:

He had several options: he could denounce her to the tribunal to annul the engagement; he could keep her and celebrate the marriage itself; he could repudiate her in public, but without asking for any punishment, or he could do it privately before two witnesses without having to give a motive, and without dating the bill of rejection, to save her honor. It is this last option that Joseph was planning to use, for he was “just”, that is, a man who did everything that was morally rightsuch is the sense of Hebrew sedaqah and sadiq. He was interiorly convinced of her honor and moral rightness even though he could not reconcile that with the pregnancy. If he did not have that conviction he might have publicly repudiated her. But in divine matters at times we meet two conclusions which clearly clash. Then we should hold to both without straining either one until finally, we hope, a solution may appear.

Regardless, we do not have a magisterial teaching on this. I prefer the Reverence Theory, a preference in that is the one I most want to be correct.

Most importantly, is that Joseph was obedient to God’s word he was given through the Angel. That he would continue to be obedient and provide a pivotal role as the Guardian of the Redeemer.

In St. John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation “Redemptoris Custos,” he writes in the introduction:

Inspired by the Gospel, the Fathers of the Church from the earliest centuries stressed that just as St. Joseph took loving care of Mary and gladly dedicated himself to Jesus Christ’s upbringing, he likewise watches over and protects Christ’s Mystical Body, that is, the Church, of which the Virgin Mary is the exemplar and model.

In this way the whole Christian people not only will turn to St. Joseph with greater fervor and invoke his patronage with trust, but also will always keep before their eyes his humble, mature way of serving and of “taking part” in the plan of salvation.
…
I am convinced that by reflection upon the way that Mary’s spouse shared in the divine mystery, the Church – on the road towards the future with all of humanity—will be enabled to discover ever anew her own identity within this redemptive plan, which is founded on the mystery of the Incarnation.

This is precisely the mystery in which Joseph of Nazareth “shared” like no other human being except Mary, the Mother of the Incarnate Word. He shared in it with her; he was involved in the same salvific event; he was the guardian of the same love, through the power of which the eternal Father “destined us to be his sons through Jesus Christ” (Eph 1:5).[5]

From the Catechism paragraph §497:

The gospel accounts understand the virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility:“That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit,” said the angel to Joseph about Mary his fiancée. The Church sees here the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.”[6]

Sources

• St. Thomas Aquinas “Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew”
• The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible꞉ The New Testament
• The Father William Most Collection
• Apostolic Exhortation, Redemptoris Custos, “Guardian of the Redeemer”
• Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition
• Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

---

1. St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, A.D. 396, (Enchir c. 40.) Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. Matthew (J. H. Newman, Ed.; Vol. 1, pp. 43–44)  ↩
2. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Dolorosa Press, 2012
   :[7] Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament
3. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Dolorosa Press, 2012  ↩
4. Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Redemptoris Custos, 1989, August 15  ↩
5. Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed). United States Catholic Conference.  ↩
6. 5  ↩