Joseph & Mary's marriage

[MaggieOH]

Pug:

I have been trying to digest this. I see how a vow of celibacy can fit into the context, but it seems to be only one of many possible vows to me.

I see how it talks about a vow to the Lord or before the Lord. It is usually a dedication of some sort, that can be finished at the end somehow in the temple by a set sacrifice. They even regulate how it may be paid (not with a whore's money, for example, Dt23:18). Not every vow is a Nazarite vow. For example, Jephthath made a horrid vow and ended up making a whole burnt offering of his daughter. There seem to be a number of vows in the OT that go, if you Lord do such and such, then I will do this or that.

There are also in the numbers 30 passage the words, "binding oath to afflict herself," or as the Douay says, "to afflict her soul by fasting, or abstinence from other things". This one more to me seems the sort that could mean virginity. The Nazarite vow did not mean celibacy typically, it more seems about hair, wine, etc., and then devoting or offering the holy hair by fire. What bothers me more with the argument is that the husband could overrule both types, the vow and the binding oath to afflict herself. So the same argument applies to both kinds. But I don't think both would be virginity only.

This is an interesting topic because these days I don't think people go around saying they will erect altars or sacrifice animals if God does something for them. We also don't utterly devote (to destruction) things like the Israelites used to do.

BTW, don’t misunderstand. I have no trouble with Mary having a special vow that is rather unique to herself. It just seems a strange vow to be the only thing intended in numbers 30.

Pug,

I agree in principle with what you are saying. The vow of the nazirite is the vow that was taken by St. Paul. It is not the vow taken by Mary. I agree that Numbers 30 addresses more than the vow of the nazirite, but I also see it as addressing a vow of virginity. I cannot think that there would be too many vows that a young girl or woman could make that would necessitate the father or husband annulling it.

However, setting aside for the moment the kind of vow that is being mentioned and concentrating upon the rights of the father and husband in relation to a vow being made by the woman, it would seem to me that the vow involved for the woman is one that is that of virginity. If this is the case, then the wording in Numbers 30 is very important in the case of Mary and Joseph:

“if a woman makes a vow or pledge and her father hears of it and does nothing about it by the next day, then he is held to the vow.” (paraphrase)

Let me see, if a girl of marriagable age makes a vow and her father hears of it, and he does not annul the vow, then he cannot force her to marry a suitor. Now, if a wife makes a vow, and her husband hears about it, and he does not annul it, despite his right to override her vow, then he is held to that vow and he cannot at a later time force her to break that vow. If that young woman was Mary, and she was given to Joseph, and on the day that she was given to him she told him of her vow, and he agreed to it, i.e. that she will remain a virgin during their marriage, then he is bound by that vow.

Does that make better sense?

MaggieOH

 

[MaggieOH]

Pug:

I didn’t notice your post earlier, so I am slow to reply here.

True, I tend to talk/think in terms of Rabinical Judaism. Are you suggesting that Mary was Essene or similar, and not whatever was a standard Jewish person back then? I also tend to equate the OT to Judaism, so I think of stuff where ladies were so upset to be without child, almost cursed.

I do not believe that Mary was an Essene but I do see your point about the way that the women felt if they did not have a child. This is true of Sarah, Rebekkah, Rachel, Hannah and others. It is a good point.

The difference I believe can be explained because of the gift of Grace that had been bestowed on Mary from the moment of her conception. Her thoughts were only for God, because God was acting within her. From this point of view it is probable that Mary did not want to be married and that she wanted only to give her life to God.

Even if I think that the Protoevangelium of James is spurious that does not take away some of the ideas that were posed there. I dismiss the notion that Joseph was an old man, but this work does imply that Mary had a very special relationship with God before the Incarnation.

God Bless
MaggieOH

 

[Pug]

MaggieOH:

I cannot think that there would be too many vows that a young girl or woman could make that would necessitate the father or husband annulling it.
…
…
Does that make better sense?

MaggieOH

You’re right, what exactly would a young maid be vowing that needs annulling? Virginity is a good choice, especially given how the father or husband has to react.

I suppose for a married woman it could be like the vow of Hannah, and the husband could well want to object to giving the baby to the temple and having to provide a bull to sacrifice.

Somehow, this is making better sense, anyway.

You also posted:

The difference I believe can be explained because of the gift of Grace that had been bestowed on Mary from the moment of her conception. Her thoughts were only for God, because God was acting within her.

This is a good point. She was immaculate. Her heart must have been so close to God. Think of how she must have had plans of serving Him…If St. Therese of Lisieux (sp?) was so oriented towards God so young, how so must Mary have been!

 

[MaggieOH]

Angainor:

Being a spouse to the Holy Ghost, would not keep her from marrying Joseph any more than being a “bride of Christ” would keep another Christian from marrying someone else.
Perhaps, but Christians married to “brides of Christ” dare to touch eachother. St. Jerome thought Joseph didn’t dare touch Mary because she was the bride of the Holy Ghost.
The reason Mary and Joseph did not have relations was because of her vow of chastity.
I could accept that. Vows are voluntary. Joseph would have to have consented to respect that vow. The idea that Joseph wouldn’t dare touch Mary is much different. It seems to set up a barrier. It is not the language of a voluntary action. Something is over-riding the normal rules of marriage from outside the marriage. A vow would be a voluntary action within the marriage. Mary and Joseph would have freely entered a vow of chasitiy, but there is nothing free about not daring to touch the “spouse of the Holy Ghost”, that implies the couple could not have decided differently without breaking the Law. I think a marriage where the couple are forbidden from marital actions is not a marriage at all.

Angainor,

after reading again your comments, I have a suggestion for you. Stop interpreting this as a 21st century American, and think in terms of being a holy and upright Jewish couple who had been anticipating the imminent arrival of the Messiah.

If you try stepping into their shoes, hopefully you might have a clearer picture of Mary and Joseph, who were both chosen by God for their role as parents of Jesus, in those critical years of the non-public life.

God Bless,
MaggieOH

 

[MaggieOH]

quote=prodromos
What you think about me, based on the miniscule contact we have had thus far, is not only irrelavent, but borderline Ad Hominem.
In any case, my thoughts are not based on the Protoevangelium of James but on the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox church. However, I see no point in continuing this discussion with you.

John.
[/quote]

John,

Ad Hominem means attacking the person. I have not attacked you. I have not attacked the Orthodox Church. What I have done is stated that I do not think that it is sensible to use a spurious document such as the Protoevangelium of James because it contains material that does not add up to what is in Scripture.

Anything to do with the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church is off topic in this thread and I will not be drawn into yet another attempt to hijack a thread with irrelevancies.,

All I am asking is that you do your homework and look at what is in the Scripture, because nowhere does it say that Jesus was a widower who was roughly 90 years old when he married Mary. That is a ludicrous suggestion and that is what the Protoevangelium of James is suggesting. If you use Scripture instead of a spurious document then you would discover for yourself that James, Jude, Simon and Joseph have another mother and father. The father’s name is listed in the Scripture. It is Alphaeus. The mother is the other Mary. That should be the end of the matter.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Angainor:

Are you sure about that? On the radio apologist show from 1/16/05 made it quite clear that although it was not an average marriage, they “were, in fact, married”.

They were married. They had a covenantal relationship. At that time there were two steps to marriage. The first step is the betrothal - it is a covenant and there is no backing out of that arrangement. The second step is the bridegroom and bride living in the same house.

This is the setup. Mary and Joseph had gone through the betrothal ceremony so that they were considered to be husband and wife, but they were not living in the same house when the angel came to visit Mary. Since they were not living in the same house, and Joseph, being an upright man did not expect her to have sexual relations with him at this point in time, Mary was a virgin at the time she became pregnant with Jesus. The next scene to consider, is after Mary returns from her visit to Elizabeth. She arrives back in her home and her shape has changed so that it is noticeable that she is pregnant. Joseph knows that he is not the father because he has not touched her. He thinks about quietly divorcing her so that she is not publicly disgraced. The angel intervenes and Joseph agrees to complete the marriage covenant and they begin to live together.

We have to see this from the point of view of the Jewish practice at that time and not according to our 21st century rules about engagements and marriage.

MaggieOH

 

[Benadam]

MaggieOH:

Benadam,

I think that I see your point regarding the Temple priests knowing of the vow and the implications upon seeing Mary’s pregnant shape.

Whilst I accept that the story about the Temple priests knowing about Mary’s vow as a possibility, I also think that it is probable that Mary did not tell them of her vow, and that this was between herself and Joseph alone. Again, keeping what is written in Numbers in mind, if Joseph knew of the vow and he did not object by annulling the vow, then he cannot force her to break it.

Good points. I hope I am understanding you.

MaggieOH

’
Maggie,
I was understanding the vow as something that was made to God through the ministry of the Temple and that involved the priests interests. That made me assume that if her state of living changed the vow, it would be unlawfull to keep it from the priests. I also wasn’t even considering the possibility that Joseph would deny her that choice of life so in that light the vow to my thinking had to be for life. In my mind a perpetual vow of virgiunity was the only possible vow the temple priests could have known about. This circumstance seemed to me impossible because the priests would have to intimate a role in the incarnation requiring a lie to cover.

 

[MaggieOH]

prodromos:

Same in the Septuagint. Note this vow described is not a permanent vow but only for a short period and seems to be along the lines of what Paul says in 1 Cor 7:5
This was so a woman’s children would be of the same tribe so that her inheritance would not go to another tribe. SInce Mary did not intend to have children I’m not sure what significance you attach to this since I presume her inheritance would have gone to her nearest relative on her dying childless. It is significant in that Jesus had his legal lineage traced through Joseph’s line, but the temple priests could not have forseen Mary becoming pregnant, or rather they would have excluded that possibility. I believe I have given everything ample consideration in coming to my conclusion.

John.

I do not agree with the analysis that you have given regarding Mary’s inheritance. If there is any truth in the Protoevangelium and the High Priest had a role in her marriage to Joseph, then certain things had to be a given or known:

1. That Mary was from the Royal line of David and therefore her husband had to come from the same line.
2. According to the rules of inheritance her suitor had to come from the same tribe to ensure the inheritance remained within the tribe.
3. By the time Mary had matured into a woman her parents were already dead.

If these are the real facts then the priests would call all of the men to the Temple in order to choose a husband for Mary.

Every account that I have read concerning the betrothal of Mary and Joseph from sources other than the Protoevangelium do concur on these points. The other sources are equally as spurious and prone to embellishment, but some have been written at a very late date and were allegedly the result of things revealed as a visionary. As such that information can be taken as either reliable or unreliable.

Where the Protoevangelium of James is different from these other sources is the information regarding the age and marital status of Joseph. If you believe the Protoevangelium then Joseph must have been about 80-90 when he was betrothed to Mary. If you believe other sources he was probably a young man of 30 years old. Where the sources are similar is that Joseph was chosen not by the High Priests but by God. Some sources say that it was the result of a dove and others that he had the only branch that had blossoms on it. I kinda like the idea of bringing in a branch, giving it to the High Priest and that it blossomed because Joseph was the one chosen to protect Jesus.

The Gospels tell us that Joseph was an upright man. That means he followed the Judaic Law and that he would do nothing that was contrary to God’s will. If all sources outside of the Gospels are correct and Mary told Joseph of her vow of chastity and Joseph did not protest against her vow, then he is held to that vow of chastity.

MaggieOH