John 19:26-27


I’m reading about St. Joseph, and this verse confuses me.

“When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son.” Then he said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother.’ And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.” John 19:26-27

Wasn’t Joseph still alive?


No Joseph was not alive otherwise he would have taken care of Mary.


Ok, so the New Testament neglects any mention of Joseph’s death.


The Bible doesn’t “neglect” anything. Not saying something doesn’t mean that it is neglected, only that it is not mentioned.

The Catholic Church holds St. Joseph up as third only to Mary and Jesus himself. He was chosen to receive the great honor of caring for Jesus and Mary as guardian and protector, head of the family, while Jesus was a child. He lived in a home with Jesus, taught Jesus, and provided for Jesus’ physical needs.

After Jesus and Mary, we owe the greatest debt of gratitude to Joseph.

Is this another question from the book “Wild at Heart” which you are reading? Please put that book down and read something else.



Why not more mention of him and/ or his death then?

personally, I find it strange that certain years in Jesus life is not even talked about, such as his toddler years, when he was becoming a teenager, etc. Seems like they skipped a large part of the story…?


St. Joseph is the patron saint of a happy death since he had both Jesus and Mary present with him. We can all have Jesus, Mary, and Joseph with us spiritually at our death.


I don’t find it strange; I find it fascinating that those three years of Jesus life, from age 30 to 33, has greatly influenced the world. My curiosity about those early years can be revealed in stories like: The Nativity, The Flight into Egypt and the return to Nazareth, the Wedding at Cana (his relationship with his mother), Finding young Jesus in the Jerusalem temple after losing him (his mastery of Scripture and truth), Jesus fasting in the desert (did he do this regularly?), Jesus teaching in his temple and being attacked for blasphemy (did they ever understand him?)…also the thought of his making a living as a carpenter like St Joseph (what kind of carpentry work was readily available?), taking care of your mom after your father dies (what were their family routines and needs?), studying the faith and Scripture (what were the family discussions like?)

This complaint about skipping a large part of the story feels so canned. It seems like an automatic dismissal of Christ and His teaching, or some inference that we are barking up some wrong tree by ignoring His childhood. If anything, we know more about Jesus’ childhood than most famous people. If you study other great people there is usually a big gap in their early history; their mission years are the focus. Read Jesus gospels. The important stuff is all there, I assure you.


Well… that would depend on what “the story” is, wouldn’t it?

I mean, if the story was ‘the authorized biography of Jesus,’ then you’d have a point. But, instead, the Bible is the story of salvation history – it’s the story of God’s plan for us to be with Him in heaven. With that in mind, we have to recognize that there are lots and lots of facts that are irrelevant to that history. Jesus’ childhood? Interesting… but not relevant. The details of Joseph’s business life? Interesting… but not relevant. The story of Joseph’s death? Interesting, but… well, you get the idea. :wink:

So, is it “strange that certain years in Jesus’ life” are not part of the Scriptural record? Not really. Would a story of His toddler years or His teenage years tell us anything about our salvation? No. Therefore, there’s nothing – either a “large part” or a small one – that’s “skipped” in this story… :shrug:


The story starts with “In the beginning” in Genesis 1:1 and ends with “Amen, come Lord Jesus” in Revelation 20:20. Everything is between those two verses. The entire story is there. Nothing is missing.



So maybe Joseph’s death is not relevant, and therefore not included, I cant think of what purpose it would serve if it was included.


Well, we all know how significant Mary was/ is, its hard to understand that her husband, Joseph, would not be more important than he seems to be, according to the bible…? Just my opinion though.


Do you mean Joseph of Arimathea who took Jesus’ body away to the tomb?


Joseph of Nazareth, Jesus’s father. His deeds are very important for understanding Jesus and Christian fatherhood, but I cant think of why including his death would be relevant to Jesus’s story. He was dependent upon Joseph as a child, but once he is a grown man he has his own agenda. Plus if Jesus was active in his 30’s, then Joseph would be a fairly old man at that point.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit