Abstract
The story of Joseph seeking to divorce Mary (Mt. 1.18-25) illustrates the teaching in both Mt. 5.31-32 and 19.1-12. These last pericopes attach exception clauses to the prohibition of divorce (contrast Mark and Luke) and show sympathy for sexual abstinence (19.10-12). Without the exception clauses, however, and if πoρνεία is not equated with 'adultery', there would be a striking contradiction between the behavior of the 'just' Joseph and the teaching of Jesus. Perhaps, then, 1.18-25 partly explains the addition of the exception clauses and establishes that πoρνεία = 'adultery', the imagined crime of Mary. Furthermore, 1.18-25 relates that Joseph abstained from sexual intercourse during pregnancy, and maybe this circumstance should be related to the well-attested conviction that such intercourse is improper.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.