An Objection: Joseph's Role
as Spouse Depreciated
Against both these
solutions, however, and more particularly against the second, an objection
arises. Has not Joseph, the spouse of Mary, been pushed off the scene? And if
Christ rather than Joseph is called the spouse of Mary, as in the second
solution and in the interpretation above made of the text of Exp. Luc. 2:56,
must it not be remembered that Mary loved Joseph as her spouse? These
questions, in so far as they concern Ambrose's thought, have already been
partially answered in the study of the marriage of Mary and Joseph. The
following views, with the appreciation of Joseph there presented, are
admittedly among the less complimentary that Ambrose expressed about Joseph,
and should be counterbalanced with others, where Joseph's claim to the title just
man is vindicated or his role as guardian of the virgin's purity developed.
In expounding such titles Ambrose rightly vaunts his fidelity to Scripture.
Where he departs from the meagre Scriptural details, he detracts from Joseph's
grandeur as spouse of Mary, especially on two points which have already come to
light: in dependence on a patristic tradition, he held that Joseph was still
alive at the Crucifixion; Jesus' entrusting Mary to John under this
circumstance takes on a prejudicial character, which perhaps did much to leave
Ambrose his less elevated idea of Joseph's role; by contrast, furthermore, with
Jerome, Ambrose inclined to the view that at the time of Joseph's marriage to
Mary he was a widow and the father of the so-called "brethren of the
Lord". The mutual belonging of Joseph and Mary to each other could not,
therefore, in his eyes be as complete as one would desire. The pactio
conjugalis that united them, he said, was not indissoluble, and its
greatest value seems to have been to sanction their unique position
juridically. Under the light of these observations the question of the place
allowed in Ambrose's thought for Mary's love of Joseph as a spouse
becomes a tortuous one. A favorable answer is not so clear as to be
considered an objection to the thesis stated earlier, namely, that in Ambrose's
mind, though not explicitly in his works, Christ was the spouse of his virginal
Mother, as of all other virgins and of the Church. Mary's progress in virginity
of heart and spirit throughout her life in the company of Joseph, from whom God
chose not to separate her until the hour of her Son's death, would then appear
even more rightly a mystery worthy of being reserved to the sublime
Gospel of John. (Charles William Neumann, The Virgin Mary in the Works of
Saint Ambrose [Contributions in the History of Early Christian Literature
and Theology 17; Fribourg: The University Press, 1962], 199-201, emphasis in
bold added)
The depreciative role which
Ambrose accorded Joseph was recognized, for example, by Abbot Ernaldus, friend
of Bernard of Clairvaux. In his brief Libellus de Laudibus Beatae Mariae
Virginis Ernaldus copies entire pages of Ambrose without acknowledging his
source. Having begun an exposition of the words spoken by the dying Savior to
His Mother, he continues (PL 189:1731c-1732a):
Modo matrem non abjicis, nec
ignoras, sed commendas discipulo, et vica- riam imponis sollicitudinem illi
quem praecipue diligis, qui supra pectus tuum in coena recubuit. "Mulier, inquit, ecce filius tuus"; et ad
disci- pulum : "Ecce mater tua." Supererat Joseph ad quem usque ad
illud tempus praecipua obsequii spectaverat ratio, et cui ad hoc ipsum fuerat
despon- sata; et modo quasi hoc ministerio censeatur indignus, Joannes
assumitur. Hunc intellectum circumstantia sermonis videtur exigere.
Verum secretiori ratione virginitas virginitali commendatur, ut hoc testimonio
juguletur Bono- sus haereticus et profanus Helvidius, qui ore fetido ausi sunt
garrire quod de utero virginali alius praeter Christum partus effusus est, et
post Salva- torem natum Joseph eam licentia maritali contigerit. Ipse Christus
de cruce maternae virginitatis est arbiter idem et assertor ... "Suscepit
eam Joannes in suam", non abnuente Joseph, nec aliquam calumniam
referente, suscepit eam in suam, non quasi maritus, sed loco filii, assecla et
custos, et testis et conscius. Erant quidem ambo in ministerio Mariae, Joseph
cedente pro tempore et causa, Joanne praeposito. (English: Now you do not
reject the Mother, nor do you ignore her; rather, you entrust her to the
disciple and assign the substitute care to him whom you love above all, the one
who reclined over your bosom at the Last Supper. “Woman,” He said, “behold your
son”; and to the disciple, “Behold your mother.”
Joseph, until that time
regarded as the one to whom the highest duty of service had been observed—and
to whom she had been betrothed for that very purpose—now, as if deemed unworthy
for this ministry, is replaced by John. The circumstances of the discourse
appear to demand this understanding.
Yet, by a more secret
reasoning, virginity is commended in terms of virginity, so that this testimony
is invoked by the heretic and profaner Helvidius Bonosus, who, with foul
language, dared to babble that from the virgin womb another (besides Christ) was
brought forth, and that after the Savior was born Joseph had exercised marital
rights with her.
Christ Himself is the judge
and the confirmer of maternal virginity from the Cross… “John received her as
his own,” not with Joseph’s objection, nor with any calumny being raised, but
He received her as His own—not as a husband, but in the place of a son, as a
follower and guardian, as witness and confidant. Indeed, both were in the
service of Mary, with Joseph yielding temporarily and for a purpose, and John
appointed as the superior.)
Ernaldus has only carried to
its logical consequences Ambrose's view of Joseph as the widower of a former
marriage who is still living at the crucifixion. In the third of his
Tractatus de septem vevbis Domini in Cruce Ernaldus voiced the same opinion
as above (PL 189: 1696b):
Ecce, Joannes, piae
haereditatis suscipis testamentum, eligeris, et in hoc praeponeris omnibus. Joseph,
qui eatenus ministraverat, te subrogato, cedit ; nec maritalia jura opponit, ut
obstruatur os loquentium iniqua in posterum, quia matrimonium illud
dispensationi divinae, non copulae carnali servierat. Ideoque nec Joseph, cum
Joannes eam suscipit in parentem, queritur de disjuncto connubio, quod
dispensatorium fuerat sine ullo carnalis copulae commercio. (English :
Behold, John, you assume the testament of pious inheritance; you are chosen,
and in this you are set above all. Joseph, who had until now served her in that
role, now yields to you, and he does not invoke marital rights to hinder the
mouth of the slanderers in the future, because that marriage served the purpose
of divine dispensation rather than a carnal union. Therefore, even when John
receives her as his parent, Joseph does not complain about the dissolved
union—which had been dispensed without any exchange of carnal union.) (Ibid.,
200-1 n. 5, English translations added for clarification)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
