Who was Joseph, the father of Jesus?

Husband of Mary the mother of Jesus. He was 'a just man,' and was obedient to the instructions he received from God as to his wife, and in protecting the infant Jesus. He was of the house and lineage of David, his genealogy being given in Matt. 1 and perhaps in Luke 3. The visit to Jerusalem, when the Lord was twelve years old, is the last incident recorded of him. He is once called 'the carpenter,' Matt. 13:55, as is the Lord also in Mark 6:3. It was a custom for all Jews to learn a trade. Matt. 1:16-25; Matt. 2:13, 19; Luke 1:27; Luke 2:4-43; Luke 3:23; Luke 4:22; John 1:45; John 6:42.

It is no mere coincidence that the two Josephs of the New Testament were prominent, one at the birth and the other at the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is a third Joseph in Acts 1, but he is of no account. The Joseph of the Old Testament was called “a fruitful bough,” and these two men were of the same stock; they brought forth their fruit in its season, and their fruit abides, and their leaves have not withered unto this day. They bore the same name and in character they were alike. They are both said to be “just” men, which clearly indicates that they had walked in the fear of God though their positions in life were very different. He of Arimathea was a rich man and an honourable counsellor, while the husband of Mary was an obscure and poor carpenter of despised Nazareth, though of the house and lineage of David. His social position confirmed the Scripture which spoke of the tabernacle of David having fallen down, and yet as we consider his character and faith, we see his moral greatness; he was a true son of David, a man after God’s own heart.

The genealogy here is that of Jesus as the legal son of Joseph; but the change of wording in verse 16 must be noted, "the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ" as compared with "Jacob begat," etc. Thus Joseph is excluded as the actual father. But if Jesus had not been Joseph's son, according to Jewish law, Joseph would have barred his succession to the throne. Yet if actually his son He could not have been the virgin's son, or Emmanuel — God with us — according to that which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, (Isa. 7:14), nor could He have been the Son of God. But how He was legally, yet not actually, Joseph's son, is unfolded to us according to the wisdom of God in verses 18-25.

Joseph was the representative of the royal line of the house of Judah at the time of the birth of Jesus — a poor man, a carpenter by trade. That his lineage given here was distinct from the natural line of father to son will be seen by comparing it with that which is also given us as Joseph's in Luke. The line of descent from David through Solomon came to an end by the sentence of God on the childless Jehoiachin (Jer. 22:24, 30; Jer. 36:30) who is therefore omitted in verse 11. Josiah begat Eliakim whose name was changed by Necho to Jehoiakim; he begat Jechoniah, called also Jehoiachin and Coniah (in whom the line was cut off). Jechoniah was not then literally the father of Salathiel. Matthew gives the succession, not the strict birth. The heir to David's throne must now be sought in the line of another of David's sons, as we see by turning to Luke 3:27, where we learn that Salathiel's actual father was Neri, who was the descendant of Nathan (ver. 31), son of David (see 1 Chr. 3:5). This was according to the principle laid down in Numbers 27:11.

But let us look for a little at the remaining view given us of our Lord Jesus in this chapter. Joseph is made very prominent. The genealogy itself is that of Joseph, not of Mary. On the other hand, Mary is the principal figure of the two in Luke, and there it is, I believe, her genealogy. Why is this? It was of necessity, for a Jew, that Jesus should be the heir of Joseph. The reason is that Joseph was the direct lineal descendant of the royal branch of David's house. There were two lines that came down unbroken to those days — the house of Solomon and the house of Nathan. Mary was the representative of Nathan's family, as Joseph was of Solomon's. If Mary had been mentioned without her connection with her husband, there would not have been a legal right to the throne of David. It was necessary that the Messiah should be born, not merely of a virgin, nor of a virgin daughter of David, but of one legally united to Joseph, i.e., in the eye of the law, really his wife. This is carefully recorded here for the special instruction of Israel; for an intelligent Jew would at once have asked that question, and everything must be fenced round with holy jealousy. Let people calumniate as they might, Mary must be espoused to Joseph; else the Lord Jesus would not have a proper title to the throne of David, and therefore the stress here is not laid upon Mary but upon Joseph, because the law would have always maintained the claim of Joseph. On the other hand, had Joseph been the real father, there could have been no Saviour at all. As it is, the wonder of divine wisdom shines most conspicuously, making Him legally the son of Joseph, really the son of Mary, who in the truth of His nature is the Son of God. And all three met and merged in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. He must be the undisputed heir of Joseph according to the law, and Joseph was espoused to Mary. The child must be born before Joseph ever lived with Mary as his wife, and this we are carefully shown here.

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ* was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 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 while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream," etc. (vers. 18-20). Here the angel appears to Joseph in a dream. In Luke the angel appears to Mary. It is thus in Matthew because Joseph was the important person in the eye of the law; and yet the Messiah must not be, in point of fact, the son of Joseph. All the wit of man could not have understood these ways beforehand; all his power could not have arranged the circumstances. If the law demanded that Jesus should be the heir of Joseph, the prophet demanded that he should not be the son of Joseph, but of a virgin. God humbling Himself was the need of man; man exalted was the counsel of God. How was this, and far more, to be united and reconciled in one person? Jehovah Jesus is the answer. "The angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost" (ver. 20).

But what has it to do with Joseph? He was of the royal tine. The angel of the Lord addressed him as son of David thus: “Joseph, son of David, fear not to take to thee Mary, thy wife, for that which is begotten in her is of THE HOLY GHOST” (Matt. 1:20). In obedience to God’s Word Joseph took her, “and” (the Holy Spirit carefully records) “knew her not until she had brought forth her first-born son and he called His Name Jesus” (v. 25). Joseph was therefore rightly regarded as the legal father of Jesus. In every true sense legally the firstborn Son of Joseph’s wife was his rightful Heir, and that as given of God according to the promise, that of a Virgin there should be a child born, and son given (Isa. 9:6).

In the genealogy of Matthew Jesus Christ is shown to be the King legally; in the Gospel of Luke we have His genealogy as the Son of Man, and as such linked with the whole race. The genealogy in Matthew proves that Joseph is a descendant of David through the house of Solomon. The one in the Gospel of Luke proves that Mary, the virgin, is likewise a descendant of David, but not through the house of Solomon; she is connected with David through the house of Nathan. The Messiah was to be born of a virgin, one who must be a descendant of David. But a woman has no right to the throne. As the son of the virgin alone He could not have a legal right to the throne. For this reason to make the One begotten in her of the Holy Ghost, the rightful heir to the throne of David in the eyes of the nation, the virgin had to be the wife of a man who had a perfect, unchallenged right to the throne. Now the genealogy in Matthew shows that Joseph is a son of David, and thus entitled to the throne, therefore Jesus is legally in this way heir to the throne. He is the legal descendant and heir of David through Joseph, but never Joseph's Son. He was supposed by the people to be the Son of Joseph. "And Jesus Himself, when He began to teach, was about thirty years of age; being, as was supposed, the Son of Joseph" (Luke 3:23). "And they said, Is not this the Son of Joseph?" (Luke 4:22). His claim as being truly the Son of David was therefore never disputed. Now if He had been the Son of Joseph according to the flesh, He would never be and could never be our Saviour. The 51st Psalm would then have found an application. "I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me." On the other hand, if He had been the Son of Mary, without she being legally the wife of a Son of David, the Jews would have rejected His claim from the very outset. We see then that legally He was the Son of Joseph; in His humanity, He is the Son of Mary, and then one step higher, as we read in the closing verses, He is the Son of God. The two genealogies show Him as King -- Son of man and Son of God -- as the One born of Mary, but begotten in her of the Holy Ghost.

When at first it was thought that a great sin had been committed, Joseph (because he was a man of honourable principles, as the scripture explains) determined to dissociate himself from it at all cost to his personal feelings; yet privily, to avoid the infliction of unnecessary pain and scandal on one whom he loved; but when God reveals to him the truth, he acts in direct and implicit obedience, purity, and simplicity. Again when he is warned of danger to the holy Child, he directly takes the Child and mother to Egypt and shelters and protects them through the long, dangerous journeys subordinating all his own interests to their care and safety. It was a manly and honourable charge to protect a woman and child — quite as truly so, when it involved great and unceasing danger, as to lead in the van of an army, though it may receive neither notice nor applause. An upright, devout, gracious, simple labouring man, with royal blood in his veins and royal faith in his heart, Joseph was, by divine grace, in every way qualified for such an important trust. Again, we cannot help thinking of that illustrious chief whose integrity was so great that the people of the hostile countries through which his army passed would bring their goods to him to protect them from the marauding of their own soldiers; and who when his Queen gave him the Kohinoor diamond to get polished, never once let it go out of his sight, but would sit an hour every day whilst the jeweller worked at it, and then wrap it up in his silk handkerchief to take it home. The heart of his Sovereign could safely trust him. From various passages it is concluded that Joseph had died before our Lord's public ministry commenced.

Although of the royal line of David, Joseph and Mary were poor and humble, circumstances ordered in the government of God to suit His purpose for the birth of His Son into this world. In Matthew 13:55, those around said, “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” and in Mark 6:3 those who heard the Lord speak said, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?” This would seem to indicate that Joseph had been called to his rest before the Lord started on His public ministry, and probably shortly before, seeing that he was referred to as the carpenter, and Jesus as his son.

But James was not a "disciple"; he was one of the Lord's brethren who did not believe all the time the Lord was living here below; "neither did His brethren believe on Him" (John 7:5). "His brethren" were sons of Mary after His own birth. Of course we can understand that Romanists have been anxious to make out that they were sons of Joseph and not of Mary. But they were sons of Mary and of Joseph. They would like to make them out sons of a former marriage of Joseph. We do not know anything of a former marriage, nor do they. We do know that scripture is quite plain.

Take Mark 6:3 for instance, and there you will find that what I have just stated is fully acknowledged: speaking of our Lord, it says, "Is not this the carpenter the son of Mary, and brother" (not the cousin, you see) "of James and Joses, and of Juda and Simon?" We do not know what particular place God gave to Joses and Simon, but we do know that James and Judas, or Jude (it is the same name), were both called to an eminent service.

The internal evidence entirely sustains this view as intended of God. For as υἱός was expressed in the parenthetical clause as the reputed relationship, so by a purposely different construction the real natural succession through Mary is traced from her father up to the father of all (τοῦ Ἡλὶ, τοῦ Ματθὰτ, κ.τ.λ), a grand fact characteristic of our Evangelist. In Matthew, on the other hand, where it was essential to trace the Messianic title of our Lord legally, we have "Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary." Again both Evangelists are equally careful to repudiate the actual fatherhood of Joseph, and to affirm the divine generation of our Saviour, as well as His eternal being in the Godhead before the Incarnation.

But there is much more in corroboration, which goes along with the special design of each of the two Gospels. For it will be noticed that only Matthew records the apparitions of Jehovah's angel to Joseph (Matthew 1:20, Matthew 2:19); whereas in Luke 1:26-38 the angel Gabriel was sent by God not to Joseph but to Mary, even though Jehovah's angel appeared to Zechariah before (Luke 1:11), and to the shepherds after (Luke 2:9), the Child was born, the Son was given. Of course, His birth of Mary was of absolute moment for His person as now Man no less than God forever, and for the infinite work He was about to accomplish. But so far was the legal position of Joseph as His reputed father from being unimportant, that He could not have been indisputably viewed as the promised Son and Heir of David's throne, till Joseph passed away. Hence not a word is said in any of the four Gospels which supposes Joseph alive, when our Lord enters on His manifestation as the Messiah, though (as every believer knows) much more than the Messiah. This also disposes of the notion, cherished by not a few ancients and moderns, that Joseph had a family of sons and daughters, before Mary was betrothed to him. For in that case his eldest would have been legally the heir to David's throne. So completely was the law fulfilled, as well as the Prophets and the Psalms. Scripture cannot be broken.