Were Mary and Joseph Breaking the Law?

[DeSanto]

I’m in a discussion all about ancient Jewish laws and customs regarding marriage in reference to Our Lady’s perpetual virginity.

Among many other arguments, I referred to Numbers 30 where it speaks of the legality of marriage if a young woman takes a vow before marriage and if the father agrees, it stands. And if the prospective husband agrees to uphold the vow, then he is bound by it.

But, nowhere does this passage speak of what type of vow or vows it is referring to.

Is there any evidence of the legality of ancient Jewish “celibate” marriages?

Wouldn’t Mary and Josheph have been considered to be breaking the law, even if Mary took her vow (after her betrothal to Joseph) at the time of the Annunciation?

Reliable sources would be appreciated.

Thank you for your help.

 

[phil19034]

The vow mentioned was a vow of virginity.

Tim Staples discusses this on one episode of Catholic Answers Live from this summer.

If I find it, I will post it.

Sts Mary and Joseph were not breaking the law

I hope this helps.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hi DeSanto.

Maybe these excerpts from our local men’s Bible study group will be helpful.

. . . . .What we DO know is St. Luke makes special mention of the fact that Anna at least was a virgin.

The Church has always recognized Josephite marriages, but in the 1500’s the Church chose to respond to certain people who seemed to have issue with this concept of sexual continence.

The Church responded in Session 24 (Canon 8) of the Council of Trent this way . . . .

SESSION 24 COUNCIL OF TRENT CANON VIII - If any one saith, that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema.

Objection: “This whole concept of a so-called spiritual marriage or ‘Josephite marriage’ or anything resembling it is mere Catholic superstition and invention.”

Answer: Not at all. We just saw probably this situation in some sense with Anna the daughter of Phanuel.

Also consider in Scripture, Numbers chapter 30.

As Dr. Brant Pitre points out this concept of a Josephite marriage is not unheard of in ancient times either (although of course in Old Testament times they would not have called it a “Josephite” marriage).

The context of Numbers 30 is concerning a woman and an oath she takes to “afflict herself”. When she gets married her husband can make void or accept this vow that she has taken to “afflict herself”.

NUMBERS 30:13 13 Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void.

What does it mean when this woman takes a binding oath to “afflict herself”?

The Hebrew word “anah” (for “afflict”) although not explicitly defined in Scripture implicitly means to practice self-denial.

Afflict = The practice of voluntary relinquishment. Self-denial or voluntary relinquishment of what?

To “afflict oneself” is a general term that has to do with voluntary abstaining from sense-pleasure for the glory of God.

This can take several forms. It can take the form of self-denial from food (fasting), but it can also take the form of self-denial from sexual relations.

The woman in Numbers 30 is taking a “binding oath to afflict herself” and it is discussed all in the context of not food but a man in her life, a husband (what do you think “afflict herself” concerns in this context?).

To this day, the rabbinic Jews as part of their self-affliction for Yom Kippur abstain from sexual intercourse.

Also Rifat Sonsino is Rabbi Emeritus at Temple Beth Shalom, Needham, MA and has this to say concerning afflicting oneself.

“You shall afflict”

Even though in the earlier biblical times “afflicting oneself” was a general term for “self-denial,” during the late biblical period, it was clearly understood as “fasting,” based on the parallelism between “fasting” and “affliction” in Isa 58: 3 (cf. v. 5). [6] Similarly, we are told that Ezra had “proclaimed a fast [tzom] there by the Ahava River to afflict ourselves [le-hitannot] before our God” (8:21). Later on, the rabbis too [7] interpreted the injunction as “fasting” and elaborated: “Food and drink, and the other pleasures of the sense of touch, arouse the physical self to be drawn after desire and sin; and they can interrupt the form of the spirit of wisdom from seeking after the truth, which is the service of God and His good and sweet moral lessons.” [8] . . .

. . . . Even from Ps. 35:13, “I afflicted myself with fasting” [inneti batzom nafshi], we can learn that “fasting” was only one way of expressing regret.

In the early rabbinic period, the Mishna [10] specified that on Yom Kippur “self-denial” covered not only eating and drinking, but also bathing, anointing, wearing sandals, and sexual intercourse. The Talmud argued (Yoma 74b) that “affliction” simply meant “abstention,” and not torture. Based on Deut. 8:3, [11] it added that this was to be done primarily through hunger. However, it stressed that children, pregnant women, and those who are ill should not fast (Yoma 82a-3a).

The Book of Judges implicitly tells us that Samson was engaging in illicit sexual relations with a woman who was not his wife. Samson was having relations with a Philistine spy named Delilah.

When Delilah “afflicts” Samson in Judges 16:19, she is not withholding bread or food from Samson (fasting). Delilah is cutting off Samson from the illicit sexual relations he was heretofore used to engaging in (and Samson was certainly in part “blinded” by these sins that he was engaging in). After Delilah “afflicts” (in the RSV “torments”) Samson, she then has Samson attacked by Philistines.

JUDGES 16:19 (KJV) And she made him sleep upon her knees; and she called for a man, and she caused him to shave off the seven locks of his head; and she began to afflict (anah) him, and his strength went from him.

• Context of “afflicting Samson” = Delilah rejecting Samson’s advances (Delilah cutting Samson off from sexual relations)

continued . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

Continued from last post . . . .

footnote 22 above = sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=435
CBJ below = Complete Jewish Bible biblestudytools.com/judges/16-19-compare.html

JUDGES 16:18-21 18 When Delilah saw that he had told her all his mind, she sent and called the lords of the Philistines, saying, “Come up this once, for he has told me all his mind.” Then the lords of the Philistines came up to her, and brought the money in their hands. 19 She made him sleep upon her knees; and she called a man, and had him shave off the seven locks of his head. Then she began to torment him, and his strength left him. 20 And she said, “The Philistines are upon you, Samson!” And he awoke from his sleep, and said, “I will go out as at other times, and shake myself free.” And he did not know that the LORD had left him. 21 And the Philistines seized him and gouged out his eyes, and brought him down to Gaza, and bound him with bronze fetters; and he ground at the mill in the prison.

JUDGES 16:19 (DRV) But she made him sleep upon her knees, and lay his head in her bosom. And she called a barber, and shaved his seven locks, and began to drive him away, and thrust him from her: for immediately his strength departed from him.

JUDGES 16:19 (CJB) She had him go to sleep in her lap and called for a man to shave off his seven locks of hair. Then she began tormenting him, but his strength had gone away.

(CJB = Complete Jewish Bible)

Yes this is an example of Delilah “afflicting” Samson, and certainly not Samson “afflicting himself”, but it does give us an idea of how “afflict” (anah) can be used in an ancient Scriptural sense concerning sexual relations.

Let’s look at Numbers 30:13 again in the context of “afflict herself”.

NUMBERS 30:13 13 Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void.

Here is what Dr. Pitre has to say concerning “afflict” . . .

The key is in the final section; the chapter is concerned with a woman’s vows to “afflict herself,” which, as the great Torah scholar Jacob Milgrom points out, was interpreted by ancient Jews as referring to fasting and refraining from sexual intercourse. Similar terminology is used in descriptions of the Day of Atonement, when Jews were expected to fast and refrain from sexual intercourse (see Milgrom, Harper Collins Study Bible n. Lev 16:29; citing Targum Pseudo-Jonthan; cf. also Exod 19:15) .

(from
thesacredpage.com/2008/03/biblical-basis-for-marys-perpetual.html with bold mine)

So the binding oath to “afflict herself” in Numbers 30 concerns “fasting and refraining from sexual intercourse” in this case according to Pitre (as per Jacob Milgrom).

Dr. Pitre points out it’s hard for us to envision this oath in our sex-saturated society, but the fact remains even in our society today, we have consecrated virgins, both male and female.

Numbers 30 concerns women who “afflict” themselves in 3 different situations, and how they may or may not be released from that oath to “afflict” themselves.

Here again are the different types of women that these oaths concern in Numbers 30.

• Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a young, unmarried woman.
• Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a married woman.
• Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a widow or divorced woman.

Let’s look first at the example of “Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a young, unmarried woman.”

NUMBERS 30:3-5 3 Or when a woman vows a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by a pledge, while within her father’s house, in her youth, 4 and her father hears of her vow and of her pledge by which she has bound herself, and says nothing to her; then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand. 5 But if her father expresses disapproval to her on the day that he hears of it, no vow of hers, no pledge by which she has bound herself, shall stand; and the LORD will forgive her, because her father opposed her.

We will come back to this shortly, but Numbers 30:3-5 is probably what St. Paul is referring to when he talks about the context of a father giving his daughter in marriage or refraining from giving her in marriage (in union with her choice of course) for the sake of virginity.

1st CORINTHIANS 7:38 (DRV) Therefore, both he that giveth his virgin in marriage, doth well; and he that giveth her not, doth better.

Now let’s look at the example of “Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a married woman!”

NUMBERS 30:6-8 6 And if she is married to a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself, 7 and her husband hears of it, and says nothing to her on the day that he hears; then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand. 8 But if, on the day that her husband comes to hear of it, he expresses disapproval, then he shall make void her vow which was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips, by which she bound herself; and the LORD will forgive her.

And last let’s review “Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a widow or divorced woman.”

NUMBERS 30:9 9 But any vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, anything by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her.

. . . . continued . . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

. . . in conclusion . . .

And in closing let’s continue in Numbers 30 verses 13 and following. . . .

NUMBERS 30:13-16 13 Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void. 14 But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows, or all her pledges, that are upon her; he has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them. 15 But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity." 16 These are the statutes which the LORD commanded Moses, as between a man and his wife, and between a father and his daughter, while in her youth, within her father’s house.

Then someone raised the question to Dr. Pitre about the possibilities that these vows are merely temporary in the first place, Pitre replied in this way. . . .

I’d like to respond to one possible objection to this argument: “Couldn’t a vow of abstinence be a temporary vow? I don’t believe that those verses mentioned anything of a perpetual vow of abstinence.”

In response, I would certainly not deny that the text could be applied to temporary vows, but there are two things that make me think the primary context is permanent vows.

First, what meaning would a temporary vow of sexual abstinence have for an unmarried virgin in her father’s house?!! This is the first category, and as far as I can see it must primarily refer to a permanent vow of abstinence, of which the father approves. To suggest otherwise would mean that Numbers envisions the unmarried woman having sexual relations outside of marriage. This makes no sense.

Second, what meaning would a temporary vow of abstinence have for a widow? If she was taking a vow of temporary abstinence for sexual relations with her husband, she would obviously be automatically be released from the vow by his death!

If a permanent vow of sexual abstinence is in view in both these cases, it makes sense to me to suggest that the primary meaning of the third category is the same: a permanent vow of sexual abstinence. In Mary’s case, it is only a permanent vow that explains her response to Gabriel while she is betrothed to Joseph: “How shall this be, since I know not man” (Luke 1:34; present tense).

So the answer to your question is “No. The Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph would not be violating the Law.”

I hope this helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[sw85]

I’m in a discussion all about ancient Jewish laws and customs regarding marriage in reference to Our Lady’s perpetual virginity.

Among many other arguments, I referred to Numbers 30 where it speaks of the legality of marriage if a young woman takes a vow before marriage and if the father agrees, it stands. And if the prospective husband agrees to uphold the vow, then he is bound by it.

But, nowhere does this passage speak of what type of vow or vows it is referring to.

Is there any evidence of the legality of ancient Jewish “celibate” marriages?

Wouldn’t Mary and Josheph have been considered to be breaking the law, even if Mary took her vow (after her betrothal to Joseph) at the time of the Annunciation?

Reliable sources would be appreciated.

Thank you for your help.

Their marriage was commanded/permitted by God himself, so no, it was not trespassing against divine law.

 

[DeSanto]

. . . in conclusion . . .

And in closing let’s continue in Numbers 30 verses 13 and following. . . .

NUMBERS 30:13-16 13 Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void. 14 But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows, or all her pledges, that are upon her; he has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them. 15 But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity." 16 These are the statutes which the LORD commanded Moses, as between a man and his wife, and between a father and his daughter, while in her youth, within her father’s house.

Then someone raised the question to Dr. Pitre about the possibilities that these vows are merely temporary in the first place, Pitre replied in this way. . . .

I’d like to respond to one possible objection to this argument: “Couldn’t a vow of abstinence be a temporary vow? I don’t believe that those verses mentioned anything of a perpetual vow of abstinence.”

In response, I would certainly not deny that the text could be applied to temporary vows, but there are two things that make me think the primary context is permanent vows.

First, what meaning would a temporary vow of sexual abstinence have for an unmarried virgin in her father’s house?!! This is the first category, and as far as I can see it must primarily refer to a permanent vow of abstinence, of which the father approves. To suggest otherwise would mean that Numbers envisions the unmarried woman having sexual relations outside of marriage. This makes no sense.

Second, what meaning would a temporary vow of abstinence have for a widow? If she was taking a vow of temporary abstinence for sexual relations with her husband, she would obviously be automatically be released from the vow by his death!

If a permanent vow of sexual abstinence is in view in both these cases, it makes sense to me to suggest that the primary meaning of the third category is the same: a permanent vow of sexual abstinence. In Mary’s case, it is only a permanent vow that explains her response to Gabriel while she is betrothed to Joseph: “How shall this be, since I know not man” (Luke 1:34; present tense).

So the answer to your question is “No. The Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph would not be violating the Law.”

I hope this helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic

This is very, VERY helpful. Thanks you so much!

It took me awhile, but for anyone interested, I found this little treasure as well:

ewtn.com/library/answers/talmud.htm

It explains a lot. And in conjunction with the information you posted, I believe this thread will serve to arm people with a great defense for the PV of the BVM.

I will have to come back later to read the rest of the responses.

Thanks again!