‘Incarnational Theology’ Understandings and the Scriptural Witnesses to St Joseph in the Human Maturation of Jesus of Nazareth

Abstract

The author here reflects on textual witnesses of the role of Joseph of Nazareth in the human development of Jesus of Nazareth to build a culturally embodied theology that is intended to offer for us and for others some suggestive scriptural perspectives on the complex topic and ‘task’ of growth toward human maturity in our contemporary contexts.

Introduction

. . . Occasions for inter-disciplinary encounter and exchange between theologians and philosophers, natural and social scientists, historians, and so on, should also be fostered, since, as is indicated in this report, theology is a science that thrives in interaction with other sciences, as they do also in fruitful exchange with theology.

The above quote from Theology Today informs the methodological approach applied in this paper to build a more ‘Incarnational Theology’ understanding of the role of Joseph of Nazareth in our cultural appreciation of his engagement in the work of God in Christ. ¹ A very useful and recent survey article on St Joseph by a Benedictine monk positions ‘Saint Joseph [as] an intimate and integral participant in the hidden years of Christ’s life’ ² while including the remark, ‘Though we have often quickly overlooked this holy marriage [of Joseph and Mary of Nazareth]. . .’. ³ Those latter words capture something that is background to the present article–namely, a sense of inadequate general appreciation that Joseph was ‘father of Jesus’ in a perspective of juridical and cultural understanding of marriage; ⁴ and, further, a corollary as addressed in this article of inadequate practical appreciation of the paternal and mentoring role of Joseph in the human maturation of Jesus the Christ.

Francis Filas in an earlier and expansive monograph likewise predicates his treatment of St Joseph and his fatherhood on his matrimonial status, yet likewise observes the ‘obscurity’ of the fatherhood of Jesus across the eras of the church. ⁵ An important distinction that Filas sustains is not solely the juridical predicate of the marriage prior to the Annunciation, but his sustained corollary argumentation that Joseph’s fatherhood of Jesus ‘exists solely in the moral order’ ⁶ –although his discourse on ‘moral order’ is mainly conducted within the philosophical theology and even casuistical frame of then contemporary ‘moral theology’. ⁷ The present article sustains that normative stance (of the ‘moral order’) while articulating theologically a more contemporary social sciences language and an inter-disciplinary/cross-disciplinary paradigm of ‘human development’–that is, an emphasis on the normative office and role of St Joseph in the human development and formation of Jesus of Nazareth. ⁸

Nowadays we increasingly see representations of Joseph and the Child Jesus and even of Joseph as Carpenter with Jesus being inducted into that craft, ⁹ and with these complementing the more typical images of Mother and Son (usually as a baby or infant Son). In his article, Boniface Hicks carefully also argues a long line of Catholic theological and magisterial presentation of the integral paternal role of Joseph in relation to Jesus the Christ ¹⁰ that in more recent times finds representation in expansions in liturgical celebrations. ¹¹ Important as are these developments in liturgical markers of the last century in commemorating St Joseph, increasingly their practical contextual applications ‘Also need to acknowledge the changed social-cultural context worldwide’ ¹² —with the need to engage with prevalent contemporary confusions in perceptions and understandings of husbandly and paternal roles and of mentoring in human maturation. These cultural contextual confusions urge the need for contemporary ‘incarnational theology’ amplifications of the basic understandings that have been present across Catholic theological tradition.

The present essay addresses such amplifications in the way in which sparse witnesses in the synoptic gospels are linked and interpreted in what is explained as a canonical hermeneutics manner. But, further, recent methodological developments in Catholic theology involving more explicit integration of inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary approaches in ‘doing theology’ point to the enhanced need to bring critical evaluation of recent disciplinary understandings of human development and of paternal roles and mentoring in human maturation. ¹³ The analysis of this essay thus involves an integration with critical evaluation that draws upon recent social sciences literatures (including sexology and psycho-sexual development) to contribute more robust appreciation of foundational scriptural and tradition perspectives and understandings of the role of St Joseph in relation to the human development of Jesus. This is first progressed by analysis of the sparse NT texts that witness the human development and human nature identity of Jesus of Nazareth. ¹⁴

Canonical Reading of Scripture

The aim of [canonical] exegesis is to read individual texts within the totality of the one Scripture. . .. ¹⁵

Correctly to read Scripture is to forego readings seeking explicit support for all propositional viewpoints outside the textual witnesses, and to strive for a canonical reading of sacred texts that engages the worldviews and the literary varieties across and within sacred texts. ¹⁶ This is certainly so in the matter of human identity where too often there is a tendency to read further than may be supported by the textual witnesses. In respect of contemporary interest in human identity and human sexuality, the ‘big messages’ of scripture are mainly paradigmatic and are mainly conveyed implicitly rather than explicitly. So saying does not imply a dichotomization between explicit and implicit, since necessarily these are overlapping perceptual positions. Moreover, in saying ‘implicitly’, one does not simply refer to cases where a contemporary reader ‘reads into’ the text ‘categories that [are] incongruous with the literature itself’. ¹⁷ Rather, and particularly addressing the received gospel texts, a recognition of authorial ecclesial purposes identifies purposes chiefly of theological proclamation. It is this that more explicitly guides the textuality, while the implicit cultural and worldviews within the texts are less the focus of the authorial purposes. Such recognitions nevertheless do not detract from close observation of textual evidences that are conveyed more matter-of-factly and that signal implicit social constructions that are present in the texts. ¹⁸

With these cautions in mind, proposing some insightful and, in some respects, perhaps original observations about the human identity and human sexuality of the Incarnate Word, Jesus of Nazareth, may be sustained with reference to observations concerning the cultural role of St Joseph of Nazareth. ¹⁹ This focus reinforces a conviction that comprehension of the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth requires a central place for St Joseph of Nazareth, spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Guardian of the Church. ²⁰

The Genealogy of Jesus of Nazareth

The Lukan texts of course are the most fruitful, starting with the betrothal of Mary of Nazareth to Joseph of Nazareth (Lk 1:27); with Joseph taking the expectant Virgin Mother to Bethlehem (Lk 2:4); with the Shepherds finding the Babe with Mary and Joseph (Lk 2:16); and Jesus’ genealogy as ‘son of Joseph’ (Lk 3:23f). There are important parallels in the Matthean text (Mt 1:16–20), and the narrative of the responses of Joseph in taking the Child and Mother to Egypt (Mt 2:13) and their return to Nazareth (Mt 2:19). These texts are important for their paradigmatic authorial portrayals of Joseph as four times obedient to revelatory dreaming (Mt 1:20, 2:13, 2:19, 2:22), and his husbandly and fatherly leadership in the family. ²¹

Clarification of the Cultural and Ethics Status of Joseph in Taking Mary his Wife

Before moving on, it should be noted that both in canonical exegesis and in canonical approaches to textual translation there is a confusion that requires clarification–namely, the usage of ‘betrothal’ (mnēsteúō in Greek) in translating the above texts. ²² What however is generally missed in this usage is the fact that Jewish marriages in the relevant biblical era were marked by celebrations at two separate times, the first being betrothal (erusin in Hebrew) ²³ and later the wedding (nissuin in Hebrew). ²⁴ At betrothal the woman was legally married, although she still remained in her father’s house, the termination of the betrothal was reckoned as a ‘divorce’. ²⁵ The wedding meant that the betrothed woman was brought from her father’s house to the house of her groom. ²⁶ Thus we read of the intention of St Joseph ‘quietly to divorce his wife’ (Mt 1:19), but upon waking from the revelatory dream ‘he took his wife’ (Mt 1:24b) (in the Greek text, ‘he took the woman of him’). The same Greek term ‘betrothed’ (emvēsteumevē) occurs in the Lukan record of Joseph taking Mary to Bethlehem (Lk 2:4–5). A lack of appreciation of the cultural contextuality of that time inhibits recognition for readers in English translations that it is Mary as wife of Joseph who is brought from Nazareth to Bethlehem. This Lukan literary usage that does not reflect the contextual fact that the act of Joseph in taking Mary to his house changed her status from ‘betrothed’ to ‘married’ (tēn gunaika autou, ‘the woman of him’). These linguistic and cultural issues are not so sharply noticed where in English translation ‘betrothal’ is used, since in contemporary culture this would likely be read as ‘marriage’. In some recent translations, ‘engaged’ is now encountered. ²⁷ In many contemporary cultures this creates confusion, where ‘engaged’ often means cohabitation with an intention to marriage. The result of such shifts from seemingly archaic language translation to supposed ‘contemporary’ language translation is a failure implicitly to convey distinctions in legal, moral, and cultural status that lead to inaccurate textual readings in the absence of appreciation of the Jewish ritual and moral understanding of marriage in the relevant biblical era–understanding that is crucial for correct ‘canonical’ translation and reading of the performance and role of St Joseph in the these narratives of Jesus of Nazareth. ²⁸ These remarks are cast in terms of canonical exegetical reading and translation of the synoptic witnesses. Where the approach is more directly theological, there is a long ecclesial appreciation that marriage frames the understanding of the person, the role, and the performance of Joseph of Nazareth. This is seen in the Apostolic Exhortation of John Paul II, Redemptoris custos, ‘On the Person and Mission of Saint Joseph in the life of Christ and of the Church’, in which he strategically locates the marriage bond of Joseph and Mary in their both rightly ‘being called Christ’s parents’, n. 7, with his drawing upon theological expositions of that status ranging across Irenaeus, John Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Pope Leo XIII, and through to Pope Paul VI. ²⁹

The Paternal Influence of Joseph of Nazareth

There is the crucial Markan witness that implies a passing from this life of St Joseph by the time of Jesus’ return to ‘his own country’, where we read, ‘Are not his Mother and brothers and sisters with us?’ (Mk 6:3, par. Mt 13:55). These texts need to be read in the context of recounts from the four evangelists in respect of Joseph of Nazareth: the Lukan narrative of the exclamation of Mary of Nazareth upon finding the adolescent Jesus in the Jerusalem Temple, ‘Son, why have you treated us so? Your father and I have been looking for you anxiously!’ (Lk 2:48, also 2:27, 33, 41, 43); the Markan account of Jesus’ reception in Nazareth, ‘Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us? And they took offence at him’ (Mk 6:3, also 3:31); ‘Is not this Joseph’s son?’ (Lk 4:22); ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son?’ (Mt 13.55); the Johannine witness of St Philip making Messianic claims of Jesus and hailing him as ‘Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph’ (Jn 1:45); and ‘Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?’ (Jn 6:42). Further, in reading these witnesses, we need to be mindful of the qualification in the Lukan account, ‘Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being–as was supposed–the son of Joseph. . .’ (Lk 3:23, punctuation and emphasis added). These texts recount the matrimonial or husbandly role of Joseph of Nazareth, but they also give prominent witness across all four evangelists of the paternal role of St Joseph in respect of Jesus of Nazareth. ³⁰

These sparse texts also give testimony to the manner in which his contemporary society made social recognition of Jesus. ³¹ Without going into the details of Jesus’ parabolic teaching, we further should notice the generally sustained recourse to contemporary and practical ‘worldly’ everyday circumstances ³² that indicate his principal communication was with unlettered people of his own society and culture from rural and small urban backgrounds. ³³ This social context is also reflected in similar backgrounds that mostly characterize his closer disciples. ³⁴ Even so, we should recognize that the contemporary society of Jesus was not homogeneous: the recounts of his invitations to dining imply substantial residences; ³⁵ he mostly does not directly address the synagogue and temple classes, but his responses to their interrogations show that he understands their society and worldviews; ³⁶ and there is the kind of societal criss-crossing as represented by the Johannine recount, ‘. . .the other disciple was known to the high priest. . .’ ³⁷ and the Lukan recount, ‘. . .Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward. . .’. ³⁸ These adumbrating remarks suggest a cultural setting that has differentiating overlays, but that nevertheless centrally identifies locality (chiefly, Galilee) ³⁹ and family and kinsfolk ⁴⁰ and–as already noted–especially identifies paternity and Son-following-the-father, Joseph of Nazareth.

The Cultural Role of Joseph of Nazareth for his Presumed Son

The very phrase ‘cultural role’ situates what follows in an early modern perspective of scriptural interpretation first developed in the German phrase Sitz im Leben (‘setting in life’) and perhaps first popularized following the 1906 publication of The Quest for the Historical Jesus by Schweitzer (that gave the styling Quest for this and subsequent interpretative episodes). ⁴¹ A ‘Second Quest’ is often reckoned from the 1951 Inaugural Lecture by Ernst Kasemann ‘The Problem of the Historical Jesus’, published in English over a decade later under the same title. ⁴² Methodologically, the tenor of this ‘Second Quest’–and contrary to the earlier ‘Quest’ labelling–drifted from a historical ‘Quest’ and tended to be characterized by reductive approaches as exemplified by the ‘form criticism’ analysis of Rudolf Bultmann as presented in his 1941 lecture titled, ‘New Testament and Mythology: The Problem of Demythologizing the New Testament Message’. ⁴³ A movement back toward history was influenced by a 1967 publication in German by Joachim Jeremias titled, Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu, ‘Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus’, that includes in its sub-title in the English edition the key words ‘Social Conditions’ that are central for the perspective here being developed. ⁴⁴ There followed what has been named a ‘Third Quest’ that across varieties of approaches may be characterized by an emphasis on context ⁴⁵ involving historical reading with recourse to methods drawn from social sciences. ⁴⁶

An essential fruit of the interpretative perspectives gathered under a ‘Third Quest’ labelling is that there now is an established scholarly mindfulness of the Jewishness of Jesus, both in his genealogy and in his culture, and in interpreting his ethnic manner of speaking as represented in the gospel literatures. ⁴⁷ Even so, mindfulness of his ethnicity has not always entailed a realization of crucial recognition of his Jewishness and lineage for deep ‘incarnational theology’ understandings of the scriptural witnesses to Jesus of Nazareth. That is, authentic scriptural interpretation engages development in understanding that the incarnation of the Eternal Word was not and is not simply a credal ‘assuming of humanity’ in the genealogical and theological anthropology senses as given in the Lukan and Matthean accounts and in the ‘Nicene Creed’ representation, ⁴⁸ and in a distinctive way in the Johannine text, and across ecclesial history in theological approaches to Joseph–but was also a cultural incarnation. ⁴⁹ That is, the human nature of the Person, Jesus of Nazareth, was and is expressly to be understood in his cultural and ethnic incarnational facticity to manifest his human social formation in his historical and local Jewish culture as well as the impacts upon that historic culture of the preceding Greek Empire and of the then current Roman Empire. But, in the present focus, especially upon the impacts of the paternal role of Joseph of Nazareth in the nurture, the cultural upbringing and human formation, and the trade-skills formation of his presumed son, Jesus of Nazareth. ⁵⁰ In brief, ‘And the Word became flesh’ is also a cultural statement.

Entailments of a Cultural Comprehension of the Incarnation of the Eternal Word

The impact of this heightening of cultural sensibilities can be quite startling. Such heightening of sensibilities can lead to reflection on cultural influences in the observed remarkable human maturity and psycho-sexual integration of the man Jesus of Nazareth as encountered across the gospel witnesses–along with suggestions across the recounted textual witnesses of integral links to Joseph of Nazareth in cultural anthropology understandings and in human developmental understandings. That startling recognition of course remains in a context of appreciation also of the role of Mary of Nazareth in cultural anthropology and human development understandings of Jesus of Nazareth, and in the gospel presentations of the continuance of that maternal relationship through to the Last Words of Jesus (Jn 19:25) (and then further into Acts 1:14 in the early church). The above introduction of the term ‘psycho-sexual integration’ at first blush may appear to involve a projection from our contemporary ways of thinking onto sparse scriptural texts–reservations that are addressed after some further paradigmatic observations are considered.

Paternal and Maternal Roles in the Emergence of Harmonious Human Development in Cultural Contexts

The recounting of this cultural incarnational ‘discovery’ further holds relevance for appreciation of the significance of such paternal and maternal and filial relationships in the formation and maturation of the human person–and when speaking of Jesus, formation and maturation of his human nature. Restating in brief, the Incarnation of the Eternal Word was not and is not simply a genealogical and theological phenomenon as more directly traced in the gospels and in ecclesial theology. It was also a social phenomenon as implicitly traced in the gospels–that is, it was a social and cultural incarnation. Understanding this is at the heart of a correct holistic formulation of the Work of God in Christ and the integral proclamation of the Gospel of the Incarnate Word, Jesus of Nazareth (2 Cor 5:19).

This social and cultural incarnational understanding as implicitly conveyed in the canonical gospels ⁵¹ further enhances appreciation of the astonishing and explicit work of Saul of Tarsus in transforming the Gospel from a Jewish truth and proclamation to a universal truth and proclamation for a gentile world (Gal 2:7). And recognition of that astonishing work under God of the Apostle Paul presents a paradigm for an ongoing transformation of the truth and proclamation of the Gospel for contemporary societies–for our culture or cultures or our society or societies.

Extensions of Cultural Appreciation to the Human Formation of Sexual and Gender Identities

This recognition of enculturation of the Gospel applies not only in overarching or paradigmatic terms, but also applies as we move to more specific terms–such as contemporary cultural cognizances of issues in the social construction of gender identities. Thereby, an enculturation paradigm also extends to the human formation engaging social and cultural aspects of the harmonious integration of sexual and gender identities. Despite contemporary conflations in language usage, separately naming language of sex and gender is crucial. Like many other contemporaries, Bulkeley says ‘God has no gender!’ when he is identifying that ‘the three [divine] persons are the same ousia’. ⁵² His narrative gives several examples of OT language conveying a social gendering of God, ⁵³ and his citations in Greek and Latin from the ecclesial Patristic era make clear that ‘God is not either male or female’, meaning that God has no sex. ⁵⁴ These cited patristic claims must, however, be understood in an a-temporal time frame before the Incarnation, since the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, is manifestly a boy–that is, sex is specified, male sex (Mt 1:21, Lk 1:13). And in terms developed in this article, there also are present witnesses of the masculine social construction of Jesus’ sexuality–that is, of masculine gender. Further, the scriptural witnesses clearly convey witness to male sex and masculine gender in the ecclesial recognitions of the Resurrected and Ascended Jesus (Mk 16:6f, Lk 24:15–18, Acts 1:9)–that is, the witnesses sustain both male sex and masculine gender in the events following the Passion and Death of Jesus. The formative social processes are only implicit in the scriptural witnesses, and caution is needed against too confidently drawing lines from those witnesses. Nevertheless, with caution there are some inferences that may be drawn as outlined in the following sections.

Setting Aside Mistaken Distractions for Accurate Social and Cultural Textual Reading

Making the observation of certain cultural and personal corollaries in the processes of personal maturation including sexual and gender identity does not entail aligning with imputations of certain readings such as ‘love greater than the love of women’ between Jonathan son of Saul and David son of Jessie after the manner of the aspersions attributed to King Saul (1 Sam 20:17, 30, 2 Sam 1:26); nor in the relationship between Jesus and ‘the beloved disciple’, the youthful John the Apostle (Jn 13:23–25, 21:22f); ⁵⁵ nor also between Jesus and Lazarus (Jn 11:36). ⁵⁶ Luke also records the presence of women ‘who had come with [Jesus] from Galilee’, thereby implicitly documenting an ease of Jesus with the presence of women in his discipleship company (Lk 8:2f and 23:49, 55). There is also the surprise of the Samaritan woman at Jesus speaking with her at Jacob’s well (Jn 4:9), and similarly the marvelling of the disciples at his speaking with the woman (Jn 4:27). Likewise, we should notice the poignancy of the feminine affective initiative of the woman weeping as she anointed the feet of Jesus, and his affective poise during and following her action (Lk 7:38). Another example presents movingly witnesses of Jesus’ response in the confronting narrative of the adulterous woman before her accusers (Jn 8:1–11). Read in their canonical contexts, these texts are congruent with the implicit textual portrayals that manifest the outworkings of the mature human development processes in respect of Jesus, the presumed son of Joseph of Nazareth (Lk 3:23); and in their compositional situations indicate testimony to profound and firm affective relations between the Beloved Disciple and Jesus, and also the equable affective relations of Jesus with women.

Recognizing the complex ensemble of our human natures suggests that affective aspects of complex inter-personal relations also engage sexual aspects–what in these cases may be described as ‘manly love’ (such as between Jonathon and David) and ‘manly paternal and filial love’ (such as between Jesus and the Beloved Disciple). Such recognitions do not thereby impute textual witness to what may be named as ‘erotic relations’. Rather, such recognitions engage holistic and culturally situated readings of such textual witnesses as enfolding the complex ensembles of our human natures, including our sexual natures. The important point that requires reinforcement is that readers should notice what the textual witnesses implicitly convey in these matters–namely, representations of affective relations that are conveyed with approbation.

It follows that the recognitions and understandings as just traced may enlighten reader understandings of the social and cultural influences in the unfolding of our human natures that encompass our perspectives in understanding the unfolding of the human nature of Jesus of Nazareth–including noticing the witnesses of the paternal and mentor influence of Joseph of Nazareth. While not engaging close exegesis of these sparse textual witnesses, these recognitions from canonical and cultural readings of the scriptural witnesses suggest congruities with the kinds of understandings that include recognition of the complexity of human persons and the social and cultural nature of human development that encompasses overlapping affective configurations of human persons. ⁵⁷

The Manifest Integration of Sex and Gender Encountered in the Textual Evidence of the Human Nature of Jesus, Son of Joseph

Returning to return a key point in this article should lead to enhanced attention to the eloquent textual witness to the role of the Holy Family in the unfolding of Jesus’ humanity (and that without implying any separation of the humanity and the divinity of Jesus the Christ of God). That is, the notable integration of personal identity and of sex and gender identity encountered in the textual evidence of the human nature of Jesus–Son of Joseph of Nazareth of the House of David (Lk 1:27). ⁵⁸ This integral human identity may be read as presenting an eloquent witness to the role of the Holy Family in the unfolding of Jesus’ humanity. Without gainsaying the maternal role in the social and cultural processes of human formation, the paternal influence of Joseph of Nazareth in the human maturation of his presumed son Jesus (Lk 2:37, 48, 51f) takes particular significance in deep recognition of such wholesome paternal and mentor presence in the development of sexual and gender identity and integration of human persons. When speaking of Jesus of Nazareth, ‘human nature’ is referenced; when speaking of ourselves ‘human person’ is referenced.

Inter-disciplinary and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives

In speaking earlier of the entailment of cultural comprehension of the Incarnation, reference was made to the ‘observed remarkable human maturity and psycho-sexual integration of the man Jesus of Nazareth’. So speaking may suggest an implant of ‘today’s beliefs’ into ‘yesterday’s evidences’ and an amplification of sociology and psychology ‘that runs counter to the theological presentation of the text[s]’. ⁵⁹ As earlier noticed, caution concerning projections onto the scriptural witnesses rather than reading of the scriptural witnesses is integral to careful scriptural hermeneutics. Nevertheless, contemporary hermeneutics properly engage inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary evidences as proper to theological interpretative practice. ⁶⁰ With caution, it is this hermeneutical perspective that is present in recourse to the following inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary evidences. ⁶¹

The question of projection onto textual reading of the term ‘psycho-sexual’ involves noticing that this language originates in the psychoanalytic perspectives of Sigmund Freud. ⁶² The term continues in use in psychology, psychiatry, and in medical sciences, ⁶³ but its contemporary use is now more prevalent in religious approaches to human development and notably in human development of persons in clerical and religious life. ⁶⁴ The contemporary zeitgeist has given impetus to investigations from feminist perspectives and more recently from LGBTQI+ perspectives ⁶⁵ and now ‘gender fluidity’ perspectives ⁶⁶ that challenge recent developments in natural law approaches to human sexuality, ⁶⁷ and that zeitgeist contributes to the paucity of investigations that take masculine or human [‘male and female he created them’] perspectives.

More significant in this paucity of investigations is a presumption as voiced by Malina in arguing ‘Third Quest’ methodologies, ‘[That they should] explicitly define the terms used in their generalizations and models. . .’. ⁶⁸ I so posit this significance because questions of human development that focus upon psycho-sexual development and harmonious integration of sex and gender identities engage complex and multiple-causality involving cross-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary work that becomes difficult to accomplish in the prevalent ‘positivist’ approaches of contemporary social sciences. It thus is not surprising that as late as 2002 Worthington and associates observed that there remains a paucity of literature focused on healthy personality development–and their further remark that research on the ways in which heterosexual males perceive their own sexual identity was ‘almost non-existent’. ⁶⁹

Nevertheless–and contrary to the contemporary zeitgeist in academia–there is a growing civil interest in and concern about the fatherhood role in human development of boys (and girls) ⁷⁰ that increasingly is informed by a wide selection of publications mostly from counselling perspectives and experiences. ⁷¹ When we turn to the sparse texts cited from the New Testament, we notice that some reflect what some ‘Third Quest’ writers might term ‘author redactional material’, for example, as in the Matthean and Lukan genealogies with the theological location of Jesus rooted as ‘son of David, son of Abraham’ (Mt 1:1) and leading to ‘Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ’ (Mt 1:16); and beginning with Jesus ‘being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph’ (Lk 3:23) and working back to ‘son of Adam, the son of God’ (Lk 3:38). Most references to Jesus’ patrimony and cultural background are, however, less attributable as authorial theological constructions, and may be read as more reflecting articulated social attributions of Jesus’ paternity and maternity (for example, Jn 6:42). An element of such social-attribution is perhaps seen in the recount of the return of Joseph and Mary to Jerusalem in search of the adolescent Jesus (Lk 2:41–52) where the address of Mary on finding Jesus is ‘your father and I’ (Lk 2:48b); ⁷² where the early intellectual development is noticed (Lk 2:46–47); ⁷³ and where Jesus’ early unique self-identity is noticed (Lk 2:49); ⁷⁴ and with this episode closing with ‘And [Jesus] went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them. . .. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature. . .’ (Lk 2:51f). ⁷⁵ As already noticed, there of course are not necessarily sharp lines between ‘theological construction’ and ‘everyday recount/description of social attributions’–since all interpersonal communications are in language that derives from culture and social systems and the understandings and values that are there embodied and that include implicit theological schemas.

Such ‘embodied’ understandings and values are communicated in the dominant recorded social ascriptions of Jesus earlier noted as: ‘the carpenter’s son’ (Mt 13:55); ‘the carpenter’ [tektōn] (Mk 6:3); ‘Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph’ (Jn 1:45, 6:42). The contemporary human identity literature given footnote citation in the previous paragraph may be interpretated as evidencing the perennial and cross-cultural significance of ‘fathering’ or ‘male mentoring’ in the human development of persons, not least in the transitions from infancy to boyhood to manhood and to manly maturity. The sparse New Testament texts that have been adduced record extraordinary yet ‘everyday’ encounters that witness to what in our contemporary human development language may be termed the ‘psychosexual integration and maturity’ of Jesus. And adopting the ‘Incarnational Theology’ understanding that titles this essay and that roots our embodied understandings in the existentialities of family and culture, these witnesses seem congruent with the ascription of a key role in the human formation and development and maturation of Jesus that centrally involves the presumed paternity of Joseph of Nazareth. ⁷⁶ This manner of reading the scriptural witnesses does not diminish the unique nature of the Person of Jesus that is the foundation of the belief of the Church of God. Rather, so reading the course of the maturation of the human nature of the Person of the Christ more firmly builds our insertion into a truly culturally embodied theology that is integral to our pivotal incarnational confession, ‘And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. . .’ (Jn 1:14).

Contextualizing in Multi-Dimensional Textual Reading

These observations are raised to highlight recognition of the role of Joseph of Nazareth of the House of David in the integrated humanity of Jesus as witnessed in the gospels. This is not proposed as a full explanation of the emergence of human maturity and psycho-sexual integration and of gender-identity in human persons. To repeat, although a particular focus has been given, this does not imply a mono-causality understanding of the complex processes of human formation and maturity. Rather, exploring this fruitful perspective in reading the scriptural witnesses is intended as illustrative of a multi-dimensional perspective in contrast with earlier tendencies toward one-dimensional and dichotomous perspectives and understandings of human persons leading to noetic understandings of the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth (and to noetic and reductive understanding of ourselves). Rather, understandings need to be multi-dimensional and embodied if they are adequately to represent the complexity of human persons and when speaking of Jesus, the complexity of his ‘human nature’.

These perspectives, so briefly argued, clearly reposition our scriptural reading of human development and theological ethics within cultural-studies and cross-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary paradigms that differ from the static received manualist and casuistic stances typical of much earlier catechetical and moral theology and dogmatic theology. Such ‘reconstruction’ has entailments for body-affirming and incarnational ascetical theology and for pastoral theology and practice. ⁷⁷ A fitting closure to this essay is to cite a key perspectual quote from 2010 words of Benedict XVI and words from the 1983 Catechism of the Catholic Church:

. . .Growth toward human maturity . . . involves the integration of sexuality into the whole personality . . . Sexuality is a gift of the Creator, yet it is also a task which relates to a person’s growth toward human maturity. ⁷⁸

Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity . . . and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others. ⁷⁹

Father/Son Language in the Gospels

Before closing this paper, it should be acknowledged that language of Father and Son has been somewhat skirted. This lacuna mainly arises because adequate treatment of this complex issue does not seem possible within the scope of this paper. Moreover, the textual witnesses include indications of authorial understandings of this language usage as at times more directly ‘revelatory’ than ‘social’. Examples are where the adolescent Jesus declares to his astonished parents in Jerusalem, ‘Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house’ (Lk 2:49); where the voice from heaven declares ‘thou art my beloved Son’ (Mk 11:1); and through to the Johannine high christology ‘I and the Father are one’ (Jn 10:30).

Niebuhr makes a penetrating remark, ‘. . .a moan is natural, a word is cultural.’ ⁸⁰ In strict terms ‘a moan’ may also be located as cultural, ⁸¹ but taking Niebuhr at what I think is his intention, suggests that in part Jesus’ relational enculturation as influenced by Joseph of Nazareth may be understood as suffusing his distinct language usage of Father and Son. Just as there are varieties of gendering of language in OT references to God, we may also notice varieties of gendering of language in the NT that in the canonical gospels include rather strenuous paternal images. ⁸² But the dominant note in gospels usage is conveyed in words to pray like this, ‘Our Father who art in heaven. . .’ (Mt 6:9), and in the parable of the father’s reception of the prodigal son (Lk 15:20). In so far as ‘a word is cultural’, it seems reasonable to impute an existential cultural influence of Joseph of Nazareth in the distinct father/son language of Jesus. ⁸³ A further word of Niebuhr, ‘Man not only speaks but thinks with the aid of the language of culture’, ⁸⁴ suggests in respect of aspects of recounts of language usage of the Incarnate Word that we may encounter unanswerable questions as to whether or where locational lines may be drawn between social and revelatory logoi. ⁸⁵

Summing-up

The reflections in this essay are intended to give a social and cultural perspective on a ‘task’ that in human terms was engaged and manifestly achieved as portrayed in the paradigmatic witnessing in the canonical gospels to the human integration of Jesus of Nazareth. We in our inheritance of that scriptural witness may fruitfully discern that portrayal and seek in our own social and cultural contexts to build for ourselves and for others processes of human formation and development conducive to enhancing contemporary personal, social and cultural conditions for the fulness of integral human development–in scriptural language for personal and ecclesial life that is abundant (Jn 10:10). These reflections also illustrate the application of inter-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary developments in theological method and bring a multivalent lens on scriptural witnesses to the presence of Joseph in the human maturation of Jesus of Nazareth, and thereby present a different quality of ‘incarnational theology’ that gives fresh scriptural perspectives on the complex topic and ‘task’ of growth toward human maturity in our contemporary contexts of confusions in the areas of human sexuality and gender identity.