Mary and her marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lea101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lea101

Guest
If Mary vowed to be a virgin as a young girl, why was she betrothed in the first place? And is her relationship with Joseph romantic or just purely platonic?

Someone asked me this and I don’t really have a good answer.
 
I have heard it claimed that both were consecrated virgins, I have also heard that Joseph was an older widower.

I would say their relationship was more “platonic” than romantic in either case.

As to why she was betrothed… maybe her family was poor and joining Joseph’s house was a way to guarantee her future?
 
f Mary vowed to be a virgin as a young girl, why was she betrothed in the first place? And is her relationship with Joseph romantic or just purely platonic?
These are pious legends, but not part of the deposit of faith.

What we do know is that Mary remained a virgin.
 
Perhaps, but some “pious legends” become part of the deposit of faith.
How could such a thing happen? The Deposit of Faith was closed at the death of the last Apostle. All the pious legends developed later!
 
So the story about Mary making that vow in the temple isn’t infallible as say, the assumption?
 
I thinks that’s a little too harsh. If you never knew your mother personally, wouldn’t it be natural to ask your ‘older siblings’ what she was like, be interested in stories about her life, and wonder how it all fit together?

I would agree that taken too far, this tendency could theoretically become dangerous if one doubts the Faith because of some perceived contradiction between accounts, but as a tendency I don’t think it’s a bad thing but just an innocent act of love.
 
Last edited:
I think the question is relevant to more deeply understand Mary. I’ve come to prefer a young Mary and Joseph. The story is more layered makes more sense, deeper in meaning.
 
"Hereiam2h

Perhaps, but some “pious legends” become part of the deposit of faith."

That is completely untrue.
 
Are you sure what constitutes the Deposit of Faith? It includes sacred tradition, and the root of much sacred tradition regarding the marriage of Joseph and Mary is based on the Protoevangelium of James.
 
Well, no. Not at all.

The deposit of faith is divinely revealed, it cannot change.
 
I think Mary and Joseph planned on living a normal life as husband and wife. I think they planned on enjoying the marital embrace. Then they bumped into God’s plan.

Their Virginity is much more sacrificial and profound, not to mention more united to Jesus, as an unplanned commitment in their life.

The decisions they make take on deeper meaning. Their story is more dimensional, their sufferings more profound.
 
Last edited:
Nobody said it changed. You assumed wrong. The sacred traditions of the marriage of Joseph and Mary go back to the beginning theology of the Church.
 
Last edited:
you’re not really looking why Jesus Christ is important to us.
Other aspects of Mary’s life such as her dental condition are not germain to the doctrines of the faith, as is her relationship with Joseph. Most modern evangelicals believe that Mary and Joseph had more children, referenced in the scriptures as his “brothers and sisters here with us”. It is a serious theological debate.
Are you sure what constitutes the Deposit of Faith? It includes sacred tradition, and the root of much sacred tradition regarding the marriage of Joseph and Mary is based on the Protoevangelium of James.
Yes, we are sure, and the protoevangelium of James is not part of it! Sacred tradition is the part of the faith handed down from the Aposltes.
I think Mary and Joseph planned on living a normal life as husband and wife. I think they planned on enjoying the marital embrace. Then they bumped into God’s plan.
The snag in this is Mary’s response to the Angel. If a person was engaged to be married, there would be no reason to ask how one was going to get pregnant. The question she asked the angel better reflects a vow of lifelong chastity.

Apparently it was not uncommon for temple virgins to be given to an older man when they reached puberty. There was not a cloister of virgin women as there is today, but they might continue to live their vow of celibacy in a family context.

Holy Family flight to Egypt depicts Jesus’ older brother James, his son from a previous marriage with their parents during the flight to Egypt.
 
What I have heard (and it makes sense) is that in Jewish society, a woman was either under the ‘headship’ of her father, her oldest male relative, her husband, or her son. A woman who had none of the male protection above would find herself out on the street and forced into slavery or prostitution in order to survive.

So if Mary’s father had died before she reached puberty and she had no living male relatives (Elizabeth was her kinswoman, not Zachariah), then it would have been arranged, possibly by her father before he died, or by the temple authorities) for Mary to be betrothed. Her spouse would then be responsible for her.

Now if Mary had made a vow to live as a consecrated virgin, her father, relatives, or husband could do one of two things: they could have her cancel the vow (since they had authority over her) or they could let the vow ‘stand’ (thereby giving the vow ‘their authority’ to proceed).

So if Joseph were requested to be Mary’s responsible party, he could let the vow stand or have her consummate the marriage, even if he had previously said he would let the vow stand. If he DID consummate the marriage he was perfectly within his legal right, but he would be ‘looked down on’ by those who knew that he had originally agreed to something different.

This would explain a lot about the views of the people in Nazareth about Jesus --pride in Him but also a rather contemptuous view of Him and His family --if they thought that Mary had broken her vow, that she and Joseph had let their ‘lusts’ overcome a sacred vow. Jesus would be seen as of course a legitimate child, but a child of ‘profane lust’. They wouldn’t be surprised that He ‘broke out’ years later as a ‘meglomaniac’. And they would be sneering, “That son of Mary”. . .and his ‘ragtag’ family. They also would not have been surprised that Jesus was the ONLY son of Mary, as they would think that Mary and Joseph, after their lapse, would try to ‘make up for it’, although ‘of course’ they’d still be scandalous. The Blessed Virgin very likely had a lot of ‘barbs’ thrown her way by women who looked down on her. . . and Joseph probably had to stand a lot of male chaffing and being looked down on as well. . .and both knowing their innocence but submitting to the slander just as their Son would years later.
 
The snag in this is Mary’s response to the Angel. If a person was engaged to be married, there would be no reason to ask how one was going to get pregnant.
No snag necessarily, with a careful reading there is evidence that the angel communicated immediacy in what he said would occur.
Luke 1-31
1 **And **now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus
I think Mary understood the immediacy in the angels words, and what he said would be realized as soon as she agreed.

Her question “How can this be, since I am a virgin? is still valid, Her and Joseph were betrothed, so, Mary would be a virgin until their bretrothal had ended.
 
Last edited:
“That son of Mary”
This term was also an insult, as all boys traced their lineage back through their father. It speaks to the rumor that Joseph did not consummate the marriage with Mary, and that people thought she became with child in an adulterous manner - possibly when she was away in the hill country visiting Elizabeth.
 
Luke 1-31

1 **And **now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus

I think Mary understood the immediacy in the angels words, and what he said would be realized as soon as she agreed.
There is a real problem in carefully parsing words in an english translation of a biblical passage. Very few translations have “now” in this passage. Without the “now”, does your argument still stand?
 
Last edited:
No, my argument doesn’t hinge on that

I agree with you. I shouldn’t have used it to support my argument

I do believe that the Incarnation is a reality that was present with the angel in that it waited only on Mary’s approval to happen.
 
Last edited:
No, my argument doesn’t hinge on that

I agree with you. I shouldn’t have used it to support my argument

I do believe that the Incarnation is a reality that was present with the angel in that it waited only on Mary’s approval to happen.
I, too, believe in the incarnation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top