Why was the Blessed Mother betrothed to Joseph?

[Tom]

NonDenom:

Hi This passage clearly is saying that when Mary is told that she would give birth to a child, she did not understand because she had not known, or had sex with any man.

Is Gabriel telling her something that had already occurred, or something which would occur in the future? Gabriel is talking about something which would occur in the future, not what had been done. Mary would naturally think this would happen after her marriage, where in Scripture does it say it would happen prior to the marriage? Logic tells you, the angel is referring to after the marriage, how else could it be?

NonDenom:

Matt 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.
The key sentence here is “before they had came together” meaning before they had sexual relations.
Thanks, In Him and Only Him.

No, it implies that they had not had sex, so that we know the child is the Son of God, and no way the son of Joseph. It does not imply that it had happened after.

 

[RCCDefender]

thistle:

You are taking that from the Protoevangelium of James and that is not inspired writing and is not accepted by the Church so you cannot use that as “documented evidence”.

Correct, the protoevangelium is not considered canonical by the Church. Neither are the writings of the early fathers, you know, Ignatius, Clement, Iraneus, etc. For that matter, none of the writings of the popes except Peter are canonical. However, they are good, Christian, and historical writings, so why can no one use anything that’s not in the Bible as documented evidence?

thistle:

It also says that Joseph was married before and had children by his first wife. This has been rejected by the Church so how can it be a viable source of historic information.

I have never read where this was rejected by the Church. Can you please cite your source for this belief?

 

[Tom]

John, you shall win the lottery!!!
How shall this happen since I haven’t bought a ticket!!!
Just getting punchy… LOL

 

[javelin]

Tom, thistle, I think you are talking past each other.

Thistle, you don’t seem to be seeing Luke 1:27, where it indicates she was already betrothed to Joseph. Hence, Tom’s argument presupposes that when a woman is betrothed, it is a reasonable expectation that she will one day bear a child, IF it is assumed her marriage is a “normal” one and she will have relations with her husband. During ALL of Gabriel’s announcement prior to Mary’s assertion that she does not know man, it could be reasonably assumed by Mary that the angel was talking about a child she would bear with Joseph (IF she were intending to have relations with him). Yet, she responds with surprise that she will bear a child at all, “because I know not man.” Her response is most fitting if she were a professed virgin.

I also don’t think Tom or anyone else is saying that “the Annunciation was Mary’s vow of perpetual virginity”, merely that it signified a vow she had previously made.

Tom, you can’t really make claims such as “Gabriel stopped short of telling her who the true Father would be to force her to make her statement of perpetual virginity.” There is no evidence that this was Gabriel’s intent.

That said, your reasoning is sound.

I would still stay away from basing a position on the Pro. of James.

Peace,
javelin

 

[javelin]

Thistle,

If Gabriel had said “You are pregnant”, then you could say her response was looking to the past: “How can I be pregnant when I have not known man?”

If Gabriel said “You will be pregnant”, then Mary’s response “I know not man” does not make sense. That is Tom’s point.

Gabriel said the latter, “Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.” The wording implies conception will happen in the future.

Make sense?

Peace,
javelin

 

[Mike_O]

thistle:

How dare you!! That statement is a sin of detraction against me.
I absolutely believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
What I am saying I have never heard from anyone apart from this thread that the Annunciation was Mary’s vow of perpetual virginity and if you read all my posts you would see that I said I would be happy to stand corrected. I would like an apology from you.

You need to carefully read what was written the next time.

I was quoting “LoverofChrist,” not you, and so demanding an apology for an imagined slight is not generally efficacious in that way.

The exact quote was: “I just really don’t believe that Mary planned to be a virgin all her life if she planned on marrying.”

I certainly think this nears to or falls under the category of blasphemy. Mary clearly planned on marrying being that she was espoused to St. Joseph, so that covers the “if” portion of the statement. We are left with the first part, which reads “I just really don’t believe that Mary planned to be a virgin all her life.”

That is uncalled for, not in line with Church teaching, and offensive to Our Lady who made a vow of perpetual virginity.

 

[javelin]

Mike O,

I think thistle’s misunderstanding was due to bad formatting in your post, which said:

---

Originally Posted by LoverofChrist *

thistle:

Tom:

I just really don’t believe that Mary planned to be a virgin all her life if she planned on marrying.​

Notice that "

" is closer to the actual quote than “LoverofChrist”. Hence the misunderstanding. Perhaps you can be more careful when quoting others in the future.

Peace,
javelin

 

[LoverofChrist]

Mike O:

You need to carefully read what was written the next time.

I was quoting “LoverofChrist,” not you, and so demanding an apology for an imagined slight is not generally efficacious in that way.

The exact quote was: “I just really don’t believe that Mary planned to be a virgin all her life if she planned on marrying.”

I certainly think this nears to or falls under the category of blasphemy. Mary clearly planned on marrying being that she was espoused to St. Joseph, so that covers the “if” portion of the statement. We are left with the first part, which reads “I just really don’t believe that Mary planned to be a virgin all her life.”

That is uncalled for, not in line with Church teaching, and offensive to Our Lady who made a vow of perpetual virginity.

I think you need to back off. You make it sound like I was talking like Mary was a harlot or something. All I was saying was that when a girl is planning on marriage…wanting children goes along with that. Mary therefore knew what that would entail and that meant not staying a virgin all her life. You are trying to read way too much into a very simple statement!

 

[Mike_O]

LoverofChrist:

I think you need to back off.

When someone takes a shot at the Blessed Mother, real or imagined, I consider it grounds for speaking up. If your intention was different, forgive me, but I read what you wrote and saw differently.

You make it sound like I was talking like Mary was a harlot or something.

Not at all. I am sorry if you perceive it that way.

Mary therefore knew what that would entail and that meant not staying a virgin all her life.

This is the problem statement here. She meant to stay a virgin her whole life. Read into the concept of guardianship marriage already spoken of here.

You are trying to read way too much into a very simple statement!

The theology behind the conception of the Savior is rather more important a concept that a “very simply statement,” wouldn’t you agree?

 

[YADA]

Personally, I do not like referring to the Proto. of James, as it is not inspired writings. And the Virgin dedication in the Temple idea seems suspect. That said, Numbers 30 has been offered and most of the posters have ignored it.

Numbers 30 clearly references vows of abstinance, for men and for women, married and unmarried, living with parents and husbands. It does not mention any requirement for making the vow in the temple or the parents dedicating the child as some would have Anna and Joahiquim do for Mary. What is clear is that a woman had the right to make the vow of chastity and husbands and fathers were bound by that vow, unless they immediately objected.

So chastity vows were known, understood and practiced in the Jewish community. Mary clearly would have understood the Angel as referring to future children with Josheph if she ever intended to normalize relations in the marital sense. Clearly she did not by her reply.

To the poster who said they had never heard [read] that as the ‘catholic’ understanding of the passage, I say I have never heard any other ‘catholic’ understanding [unless you consider John Dominic Grossen an orthoddox catholic, of course] Big Joke

 

[javelin]

Back to the topic, what evidence is there, besides the Prot. of James, that Mary had taken a temple vow or perpetual virginity and her marriage to Joseph was to protect her virginity?

For example, what if Mary’s desire to stay a virgin for God had nothing to do with a public vow? What if that is simply what she desired. Perhaps her betrothal to Joseph was arranged to provide for her well-being, but had nothing to do with virginity? I think that all Chruch dogma would still fit in this particular scene, with Joseph agreeing to accept Mary’s virginity solely due to her already being “overshadowed” by God Himself.

So, where is the evidence for the scenario that is being put forward here?

Peace,
javelin

P.S. I should clarify my thoughts on the Pro. of James: There is no problem forming a hypothesis that is derived from it, but that hypothesis needs to be affirmed by authoritative sources before being accepted as Truth, and not just plausible theory. Mary’s perpetual virginity is a good example of how the scenario described by the Pro. of James can be reconciled with Sacred Scripture and ultimately positively affirmed by Tradition. Unfortunately, protestants do not recognize the affirmation given by Church Tradition, so we are left attempting to show it through Sacred Scripture, which is not ultimately definitive on the matter.

 

[RCCDefender]

I don’t remember whether this was already stated in this thread, but Martin Luther never had a problem with Mary’s perpetual virginity, and I don’t think the other reformers did either…

 

[Tom]

YADA:

Personally, I do not like referring to the Proto. of James, as it is not inspired writings. And the Virgin dedication in the Temple idea seems suspect. That said, Numbers 30 has been offered and most of the posters have ignored it.

Fully agree with the protoevangelium, nice to read, gives us some possible look into the BVM family, but definitely not as a reference. As far as Numbers 30, absolutely correct, in addition Numbers 30 tells us why the gospel of Matthew informs Joseph in the manner it did. He needed to be aware of her perpetual virginity (which of course he was, but this lets you and I know it also) since he accepts her into his house as a wife under a vow of virginity he must always honor that vow, neither of them can change it at any future date (like after the birth of Jesus). Mary and Joseph being devout Jews certainly understood the ramifications of breaking the Law and would have never done that.

 

[Dan-Man916]

Perhaps it would benefit to have the jewish understanding of what Betrothal actually means:
jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=995&letter=B&search=betrothal

 

[Beaver]

Because the Incarnation is a recreation story. In the creation story we have Adam, Eve and the Real Precense. So to recreate this event we need Adam and a Eve, not just an Eve.

 

[javelin]

Dan-Man916:

Perhaps it would benefit to have the jewish understanding of what Betrothal actually means:
jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=995&letter=B&search=betrothal

Thank you, Dan-Man916, that was very enlightening.

Do you also, perchance, have any documentation on the law as it concerned (in Jesus’ time) sexual relations and the “betrothed” state? It was postulated in this thread that sexual relations were part of a phase of the betrothal time, prior to the marriage ceremony. Is that true?

Peace,
javelin

 

[Tom]

Perhaps part of the problem lies in our perspective. Remember that we are aware of the whole story, whereas, prior to the annunciation Mary had no clue. We know that Jesus was the Son of God, she had no idea. We know the Holy Spirit would overcome her, she had no idea. So when the angel announces:
“Lk 1, 31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son”
You and I know that this Son would be the Son of God, how would Mary know? You and I know it would be a virgin birth, how would Mary know (REALLY). Mary would think it would be a child by her marriage to Joseph, why would she think otherwise?
“Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb”, no surprise, no question needed, yet the only question she asks.
“and shalt bring forth a son” o.k. here’s a little surprise, she might have asked a question about this or perhaps made a comment like “oh good a boy” but no, she remains silent on this.
“thou shalt call his name Jesus.” Well, she might have thought hard on this one, and probably wanted to ask a question, but no, she’s silent
“He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High” WOW, definitely some questions here, but no, she remains silent.
“the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father” ?Well, now, he’s going to be the promised king?? Oh yeah, several questions should be asked here, but no, she remains silent
“he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever” a new king David, her son, and yet no questions.
“And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” OMG this is the promised messiah, remember they did not understand that Jesus would be the Son of God, they expected an earthly king.
Then her statement, and her only question. The question which did not need to be asked, it should have been plain and obvious.
“ And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?”
Now there are several things which she might comment, or ask questions, but truly, the only one which should have been so very obvious is the only question she asks.

 

[Dan-Man916]

javelin:

Thank you, Dan-Man916, that was very enlightening.

Do you also, perchance, have any documentation on the law as it concerned (in Jesus’ time) sexual relations and the “betrothed” state? It was postulated in this thread that sexual relations were part of a phase of the betrothal time, prior to the marriage ceremony. Is that true?

Peace,
javelin

javelin,

No. I’m sorry that I don’t have any documentation. However, if we look at the Gospels, I think it’s pretty clear that sexual relations were not allowed during the betrothal, otherwise there would be no reason for Joseph to want to secretly divorce her otherwise he could have quietly married her and all would be fine, since everyone would then assume that the child was his.

 

[javelin]

Dan-Man916:

javelin,

No. I’m sorry that I don’t have any documentation. However, if we look at the Gospels, I think it’s pretty clear that sexual relations were not allowed during the betrothal, otherwise there would be no reason for Joseph to want to secretly divorce her otherwise he could have quietly married her and all would be fine, since everyone would then assume that the child was his.

I didn’t think that normal sexual relations were a part of the betrothal period, but I was hoping for some documentation to back it up. Makes sense to me.

Peace,
javelin

 

[thistle]

RCCDefender:

Correct, the protoevangelium is not considered canonical by the Church. Neither are the writings of the early fathers, you know, Ignatius, Clement, Iraneus, etc. For that matter, none of the writings of the popes except Peter are canonical. However, they are good, Christian, and historical writings, so why can no one use anything that’s not in the Bible as documented evidence?

I have never read where this was rejected by the Church. Can you please cite your source for this belief?

The Church teaching is that Jesus had no siblings (blood or step). Therefore it does not accept what has been written in the Protoevangelium.