Why was the Blessed Mother betrothed to Joseph?

[Tom]

thistle:

Tom:

A careful reading of Luke chapter 1 tells us a different story. Nothing written in Scripture is without a purpose, even the timing of the events in the New Testament serve a purpose. Let’s take a closer look at Luke 1.After the salutation, Gabriel tells Mary: The fact that she would conceive and bear a child should have been no surprise to any woman who planned to have a normal sexual relationship with her husband. Perhaps the fact that the child would be a boy was a nice surprise, we’d expect her to make a comment about it being a boy, but not about her bearing a child.
Now there’s a shocker, he’s going to be the king? WOW now here we would expect her to ask about this, but again we wouldn’t expect her to ask how she shall become pregnant, it was obvious to any woman planning to have a normal sexual relationship with her husband isn’t it? Notice also that Gabriel has not yet told Mary who the real Father of the child would be. This is for a specific reason, the angel is forcing her to make her statement about her perpetual virginity

. Why would the angel stop short of revealing the most important fact of the matter? That the child would be the Son of God. Wouldn’t Mary naturally assume the father would be Joseph? Obviously not, but why wouldn’t she? Next her statement: the angel is speaking to Mary about shall occur in the future, not her present condition, Mary responds accordingly with her future condition of virginity, NOT her current condition of virginity. Think about it, o.k. Mary, sometime in the future you shall become pregnant. No great surprise right? Mary would naturally assume Joseph and she would have a child. ** She was stating her future virginity, not her present virginity. To think she was referring to her present virginity doesn’t make sense./**QUOTE]

thistle:

I believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity but I don’t see at all how you can claim that she is making a vow about her perpetual virginity at the Annunciation. I haven’t seen any such interpretations in any Catholic Study Bible (I use NAB and also Igantius Study Bibles) and I’m unaware that the Church interprets the Annunciation that way. If you have an official Church source with such an interpretation it would be most interesting and I would be happy to stand corrected but for me Luke 1 does not mean what you say.

Scripture is an official Church document. Read Luke chapter 1 again, read my post, Mary would not have questioned her conceiving a child in the future with her current virginity.
o.k. for the moment you are Mary. Gabriel has just told you that in the future you will conceive a child. You would answer him by saying, wait a second right now I’m a virgin, how will I become pregnant in the future? I don’t think so, you’d answer with your future plans, so yes, Joseph and I will have a child. Her saying I know not man was a statement of her future plans, not her present condition of virginity.

 

[Thal59]

steveandersen:

That doesn’t sound quite right. I mean if it was supposed to be a “guardianship marriage” what would be the result when, a few months later, Mary did indeed have a child? The people would assume that either Joseph violated his role of guardian or that he was cuckold.

It seems to me that Mary and Joseph were married simply to provide Jesus with a normal family environment (as well as the more practical reason of protecting Mary from the fate an unwed mother might have faced back then)
As for her virginity and the details of their private, married life…that was something that that neighbors didn’t need to know anything about.

Regarding the underlined portion…
You are trying to evaluate the validity of the guardianship marriage on the basis of what happened afterwards: something no one had any idea about, including Joseph… i.e. that Mary would concieve of the Holy Spirit. Not even Mary knew it would happen until the angel proclaimed it to her. When you mention that the people would assume that Joseph had violated his role, you are right. Again, according to the protoevangelium of James that I cited in my original thread, both Joseph and Mary were subjected to a very painful inquiry at the hands of the Jewish leadership when Mary was found to be pregnant.

According to tradition, Mary was a virgin dedicated to the temple just as Samual was dedicated to the service of the Lord by his mother before his birth. If indeed Mary’s parents had passed away when she was no more than say about 14 years old, it would become the responsibility of the hierarchy to arrange the guardianship marriage and to later investigate what seemed to be the violation of that marriage when she became pregnant. All of this is recorded in the protoevangelium of James.

Your second thought, in bold, is out of joint with the first reality. In other words, why would a “guardianship marriage” be arranged between a temple virgin and and elderly widower to provide a family environment for a child who was never meant to be born from that union? Joseph’s “guardianship” is to provide for the destitute Mary and to protect her virginity.

Indeed, it was the purpose of God to establish a normal family environment for Jesus, but it was not the purpose of the people involved in arranging that marriage because no one knew at that time that a child named Jesus would be born to a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit.

As far as lineage to the “House of David” is concerned, lineage through Joseph - his “foster father” - would be superficial at best. Many scholars have believed that Mary was also of the house of David which would more directly secure Jesus’ line to David.

Thal59

 

[Tom]

Kept in logical and chronological context:
www.drbo.org:

Lk 1, 31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.

Question: Is Gabriel making a statement of what has already occurred or what shall occur in the future?
www.drbo.org:

Lk 1, 34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

Question: Is Mary making a statement of what has already occurred or what shall occur in the future?

 

[thistle]

Tom:

thistle:

Tom:

A careful reading of Luke chapter 1 tells us a different story. Nothing written in Scripture is without a purpose, even the timing of the events in the New Testament serve a purpose. Let’s take a closer look at Luke 1.After the salutation, Gabriel tells Mary: The fact that she would conceive and bear a child should have been no surprise to any woman who planned to have a normal sexual relationship with her husband. Perhaps the fact that the child would be a boy was a nice surprise, we’d expect her to make a comment about it being a boy, but not about her bearing a child.
Now there’s a shocker, he’s going to be the king? WOW now here we would expect her to ask about this, but again we wouldn’t expect her to ask how she shall become pregnant, it was obvious to any woman planning to have a normal sexual relationship with her husband isn’t it? Notice also that Gabriel has not yet told Mary who the real Father of the child would be. This is for a specific reason, the angel is forcing her to make her statement about her perpetual virginity

. Why would the angel stop short of revealing the most important fact of the matter? That the child would be the Son of God. Wouldn’t Mary naturally assume the father would be Joseph? Obviously not, but why wouldn’t she? Next her statement: the angel is speaking to Mary about shall occur in the future, not her present condition, Mary responds accordingly with her future condition of virginity, NOT her current condition of virginity. Think about it, o.k. Mary, sometime in the future you shall become pregnant. No great surprise right? Mary would naturally assume Joseph and she would have a child. ** She was stating her future virginity, not her present virginity. To think she was referring to her present virginity doesn’t make sense./**QUOTE]
Scripture is an official Church document. Read Luke chapter 1 again, read my post, Mary would not have questioned her conceiving a child in the future with her current virginity.
o.k. for the moment you are Mary. Gabriel has just told you that in the future you will conceive a child. You would answer him by saying, wait a second right now I’m a virgin, how will I become pregnant in the future? I don’t think so, you’d answer with your future plans, so yes, Joseph and I will have a child. Her saying I know not man was a statement of her future plans, not her present condition of virginity.

I have read it and I don’t agree with you. I don’t see anyway she is making a statement or commitment about her future virginity. Why don’t my two catholic study bibles have this interpretation? Why have I never heard such an interpretation before? I agree with you on one score and that is that scripture is a Church document source but it just doesn’t say or imply what you imply.
I would be interested to see if other posters agree with your interpretation and also if you can point me to anyone in the hierachy of the Church that shares your views.

 

[LoverofChrist]

thistle:

Tom:

thistle:

I have read it and I don’t agree with you. I don’t see anyway she is making a statement or commitment about her future virginity. Why don’t my two catholic study bibles have this interpretation? Why have I never heard such an interpretation before? I agree with you on one score and that is that scripture is a Church document source but it just doesn’t say or imply what you imply.
I would be interested to see if other posters agree with your interpretation and also if you can point me to anyone in the hierachy of the Church that shares your views.

Actually, I disagree. There has been a lot of speculation over the years as to whether Mary had other children after Jesus was born. The Bible even talks about his “brothers”. That in itself has set up a lot of debate as to who or what were His brothers. I just really don’t believe that Mary planned to be a virgin all her life if she planned on marrying.

 

[RCCDefender]

I agree with Tom.

Mary was consecrated as a temple virgin by her parents. As she got older the priests knew they’d have to find a guardian spouse for her. They couldn’t keep her in the temple when she got older because she would defile it with her menstrual periods. Joseph was a widower who already had children. The priests could trust him with this young child, that he would honor her vow.

Mary was an only child, of the House of David. According to Jewish law, daughters with no siblings had to marry within their tribe.

As far as I can tell, the latest book of the New Testament was written about 70 A.D. The protoevangeleum was written no earlier than 100 A.D. It also wasn’t used extensively in worship, another requirement for it to have been considered for the canon. This is why I suspect it would not have been considered for the canon.

 

[thistle]

RCCDefender:

I agree with Tom.

Mary was consecrated as a temple virgin by her parents. As she got older the priests knew they’d have to find a guardian spouse for her. They couldn’t keep her in the temple when she got older because she would defile it with her menstrual periods. Joseph was a widower who already had children. The priests could trust him with this young child, that he would honor her vow.

Mary was an only child, of the House of David. According to Jewish law, daughters with no siblings had to marry within their tribe.

As far as I can tell, the latest book of the New Testament was written about 70 A.D. The protoevangeleum was written no earlier than 100 A.D. It also wasn’t used extensively in worship, another requirement for it to have been considered for the canon. This is why I suspect it would not have been considered for the canon.

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”.

 

[Tom]

Thistle, did you read post #23?
Kept in logical and chronological context:
www.drbo.org:

Lk 1, 31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.

Question: Is Gabriel making a statement of what has already occurred or what shall occur in the future?
www.drbo.org:

Lk 1, 34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

Question: Is Mary making a statement of what has already occurred or what shall occur in the future?

It is obvious Mary would not reply to a future event Gabriel is telling her about with her present condition.

Gabriel tells you that next year you will be in New York City, you respond with “How shall this be? Since today I’m in San Fran Cisco”?

 

[thistle]

Tom:

Thistle, did you read post #23?
Kept in logical and chronological context:

Question: Is Gabriel making a statement of what has already occurred or what shall occur in the future?

Question: Is Mary making a statement of what has already occurred or what shall occur in the future?

It is obvious Mary would not reply to a future event Gabriel is telling her about with her present condition.

Gabriel tells you that next year you will be in New York City, you respond with “How shall this be? Since today I’m in San Fran Cisco”?

I don’t follow your logic.
The Angel is telling Mary she will conceive and bear a son to be called Jesus.
She asks how this could happen because at that stage she is not actually married and so has had no sexual relations with a man.
The Angel then tells her the Holy Spirit will overshadow her and that’s how she will conceive.
How is any of that a statement or commitment of perpetual virginity?

 

[Mike_O]

LoverofChrist:

thistle:

Tom:

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

I would really ask that statements like this NOT been included, especially by Catholics, in trying to answer this question. Maybe one of the staff apologists could stop in and give a definitive answer, but Tom is correct in that I saw something by Jimmy Akin or another fairly high profile apologist, a long time ago (and so I don’t recall where it was) that noted that the Blessed Mother’s question to Gabriel very clearly implied her vow of perpetual virginity.

Mary knew very well how babies were made, and therefore, in asking “How will this be, seeing that I know not man?” she is indeed speaking about the future. Why would she ask how she could conceive a child, and then reference her vow of perpetual virginity, considering that she was to be married and that she knew how women conceived children? Read it several times if you need to, but it seems quite explicit.

But to those putting out sayings like the quote above, this borders on blasphemy. Bringing into doubt the vow of perpetual virginity is something serious and something not befitting a Catholic’s personal “beliefs” until an apologist stops in and gives an answer.

 

[thistle]

Mike O:

LoverofChrist:

thistle:

I would really ask that statements like this NOT been included, especially by Catholics, in trying to answer this question. Maybe one of the staff apologists could stop in and give a definitive answer, but Tom is correct in that I saw something by Jimmy Akin or another fairly high profile apologist, a long time ago (and so I don’t recall where it was) that noted that the Blessed Mother’s question to Gabriel very clearly implied her vow of perpetual virginity.

Mary knew very well how babies were made, and therefore, in asking “How will this be, seeing that I know not man?” she is indeed speaking about the future. Why would she ask how she could conceive a child, and then reference her vow of perpetual virginity, considering that she was to be married and that she knew how women conceived children? Read it several times if you need to, but it seems quite explicit.

But to those putting out sayings like the quote above, this borders on blasphemy

. Bringing into doubt the vow of perpetual virginity is something serious and something not befitting a Catholic’s personal “beliefs” until an apologist stops in and gives an answer.

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.

 

[Tom]

thistle:

I don’t follow your logic.
The Angel is telling Mary she will conceive and bear a son to be called Jesus.
She asks how this could happen because at that stage she is not actually married and so has had no sexual relations with a man.
The Angel then tells her the Holy Spirit will overshadow her and that’s how she will conceive.
How is any of that a statement or commitment of perpetual virginity?

The angel is telling her what is going to happen in the future, what difference would it make that she is currently a virgin? She certainly isn’t going to be a virgin in the future is she?

1. Mary in the future you will marry Joseph (already known)
2. Mary in the future you will have sex (assumed if she is to marry right?)
3. Mary after you have had sex you will concieve a child (and this is a surprise?)
   Why would you question how this shall be? She understood how children were concieved, she would naturally think the child would be a result of sexual intercourse between her and Joseph (in the future, when the angel is talking about)
   If you told a 14 year old girl today that in the future she would have a child, why would she ask “how shall this be”? Isn’t it obvious how it shall be?

 

[Thal59]

It is almost as if some people are inferring that Mary, by asking “…how can this be since I have not known man…” doesn’t know how children are brought into the world. Of course she knows, and if her perpetual virginity were not at issue here, she simply would have accepted the angel’s remarks on the assumption that she would bear the child with Joseph.

By asking that question, she is actually saying…“how can this be without me first knowing man which will break my vow of virginity.”

The angel then puts her mind to rest by informing her that the child will be the product of the Holy Spirit, not of a man’s seed.

And, yes, the protoevangelium of James is not canonical, but that does not exclude it as a viable source of historic information. It gives us an insight as to what was believed by the second century Christians. If one refers to it as a source of information, the whole question at hand becomes much more easy to understand.

Thal59

 

[thistle]

Thal59:

It is almost as if some people are inferring that Mary, by asking “…how can this be since I have not known man…” doesn’t know how children are brought into the world. Of course she knows, and if her perpetual virginity were not at issue here, she simply would have accepted the angel’s remarks on the assumption that she would bear the child with Joseph.

By asking that question, she is actually saying…“how can this be without me first knowing man which will break my vow of virginity.”

The angel then puts her mind to rest by informing her that the child will be the product of the Holy Spirit, not of a man’s seed.

And, yes, the protoevangelium of James is not canonical, but that does not exclude it as a viable source of historic information. It gives us an insight as to what was believed by the second century Christians. If one refers to it as a source of information, the whole question at hand becomes much more easy to understand.

Thal59

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.

 

[Tom]

Let me try it this way…

thistle:

The Angel is telling Mary she will conceive and bear a son to be called Jesus.

Is this something which had already occurred or an event sometime in the future?

thistle:

She asks how this could happen because at that stage she is not actually married and so has had no sexual relations with a man.

Why would she ask this question, what difference does it make if today she is a virgin? In the future, when the angel is talking about, she won’t be, she knows how children are conceived doesn’t she? She knows it’s by sexual intercourse. She is betrothed to Joseph, she knows in the future (when the angel is referring to) she will have sexual relations with Joseph doesn’t she? The statement of her virginity is in context with the angels declaration of what will happen in the future, not what has already happened, she is answering what will be in the future.
I know this may be difficult to understand, but, trust me, when you finally understand it will make perfect sense, sorry I’m so poor at explaining it.

 

[thistle]

Tom:

Let me try it this way…
Is this something which had already occurred or an event sometime in the future? Why would she ask this question, what difference does it make if today she is a virgin? In the future, when the angel is talking about, she won’t be, she knows how children are conceived doesn’t she? She knows it’s by sexual intercourse. She is betrothed to Joseph, she knows in the future (when the angel is referring to) she will have sexual relations with Joseph doesn’t she? The statement of her virginity is in context with the angels declaration of what will happen in the future, not what has already happened, she is answering what will be in the future.
I know this may be difficult to understand, but, trust me, when you finally understand it will make perfect sense, sorry I’m so poor at explaining it.

How are you defining the future? My reading of the Annunciation is that conception is imminent and she knows from what is said by the Angel it means she will conceive before she has had any relations with Joseph which is why she asks how this could be when I have not known any man.

 

[NonDenom]

"But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” " (Lk 1:34)

This passage implies that the Blessed Mother never had any intention of abandoning her perpetual virginity; in ancient Hebraic society, then, what purpose would her betrothal to St. Joseph have served? Why would her parents have given her away knowing that she would never bear children conceived of a man?

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.
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 “befor they had came together” meaning before they had sexual relations.
Thanks, In Him and Only Him.

 

[Tom]

www.drbo.org:

Lk 1, 31 Behold thou shalt (in the future) conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.

www.drbo.org:

Lk 1, 34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall (in the future) this be done, because (today?) I know not man?

Does it make any sense to you that she would ask how shall this be done in the future, when today she is a virgin? She is clearly telling you, not what her present condition is, but what her future condition will be.

 

[steveandersen]

Thal59:

Regarding the underlined portion…
You are trying to evaluate the validity of the guardianship marriage on the basis of what happened afterwards

No I’m questioning whether it was a “guardian marriage” at all

I’ve never heard of such a thing.

Thal59:

……. Again, according to the protoevangelium of James that I cited in my original thread, both Joseph and Mary were subjected to a very painful inquiry at the hands of the Jewish leadership when Mary was found to be pregnant.

And the results of this inquiry were?

Thal59:

According to tradition, Mary was a virgin dedicated to the temple…

I know little or nothing about 2nd temple practices
But I have never heard of the Jews having the institution of temple virgins which I thought was a pagan institution (but I could be wrong). I thought they had an all male, hereditary priesthood and various rules about the “uncleanness” of women with strict rules on which parts of the temple they could even enter and what things they could touch and when.

Does anyone know more about the era?

……All of this is recorded in the protoevangelium of James.

And what gives the protoevangelium its authority on the matter?

Thal59:

Your second thought, in bold, is out of joint with the first reality. In other words, why would a “guardianship marriage” be arranged between a temple virgin and and elderly widower to provide a family environment for a child who was never meant to be born from that union?

I meant that God had arranged a regular family unit for His Son.

Why would He put Mary and Joseph in a position of such terrible scandal by having a woman in a marriage that wasn’t supposed to produce children have a child? (Assuming that there even was such a thing as a marriage that isn’t supposed to have children.) In a small closed society that would be a scandal that would follow Jesus his whole life. Wouldn’t the Pharisees have mentioned that in one of their frequent criticisms of Christ?

Why would a temple virgin need a guardian marriage? Wouldn’t that just be an undo temptation on both parties? IIRC, the Vestal Virgins and similar pagan institutions lived and served in their own temple and lived apart like modern nuns. Why wouldn’t Jewish Temple virgins have a similar arrangement? Wouldn’t Mary have to live in Jerusalem to serve in the Temple rather than in Nazareth?

 

[Tom]

thistle:

How are you defining the future? My reading of the Annunciation is that conception is imminent and she knows from what is said by the Angel it means she will conceive before she has had any relations with Joseph which is why she asks how this could be when I have not known any man.

Where in Scripture does it says conception is imminent? A logical person would consider this event happening after she and Joseph were married and had sex. Where in Scripture or Church teaching do you find that it is imminent? She’s betrothed to Joseph, going to be married, actually they could already have sex, wouldn’t you naturally think the angel was talking about after the wedding, or at the least after they had sex? Where do you find any hint that it was going to occur prior to the marriage, until after she makes her statement?