Why was the Blessed Mother betrothed to Joseph?

[Tom]

Mike O:

Tom, yours is a great and clear explanation.

Well, thank you, I don’t think I’ve convinced some though, I’ll pray for their understanding.

 

[StCsDavid]

"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?

I’m not sure how you make the leap that prior to the Angel Gabriel visiting her she had no intention of marrying and living an ordinary life. Afterall, we see in 1:27 that she was already betrothed to Joseph. Up until then, how were her parent to have known that she would be the Mother of God? Also in the Ignatius Revised Standard Version, she says, “I have no husband,” which is a little more specific than “relations with a man.” I just don’t see how her situation up until ole Gabriel’s visit was all that out of the ordinary.

What is your source for her parents knowing ahead of time?

 

[Tom]

Mike O:

"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?

StCsDavid:

I’m not sure how you make the leap that prior to the Angel Gabriel visiting her she had no intention of marrying and living an ordinary life. Afterall, we see in 1:27 that she was already betrothed to Joseph. Up until then, how were her parent to have known that she would be the Mother of God? Also in the Ignatius Revised Standard Version, she says, “I have no husband,” which is a little more specific than “relations with a man.” I just don’t see how her situation up until ole Gabriel’s visit was all that out of the ordinary.
What is your source for her parents knowing ahead of time?

Hmmm what is an “ordinary” life? If you mean a normal sexual relationship, I disagree. Are priests, nuns, brothers, single people, abnormal? Or do you mean a normal chaste and celibate life? As far as having no husband, that is really not true, Joseph was her legal husband, this is why he needed to divorce her quietly. No reason to divorce someone you’re not married to.
Dan-Man916 gave an excellent web link, with a very interesting article, you might like to read: jewishencyclopedia.com/v…earch=betrothal

 

[thistle]

To RCCdefender.

Sorry. I misunderstood your question about the Church teaching on siblings.
Yes it is correct that the Church teaches Jesus had no blood siblings because of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
There is no official teaching that Jesus had no step brothers or sisters but I think this can be reasonably concluded for the following reasons:

1. The only place this is mentioned is in the Protoevangelium of James and this is not accepted as inspired writing by the Church.
2. It is estimated to be written around 150ad which would not make the writer (writer not confirmed either) a comtemporay of the apostles.
3. If it was thought likely that Jesus had step brothers and sisters why would something of such significance never have been addressed by the Church in any of the Councils.
4. If he did have step brothers and sisters why would Jesus on the Cross give his mother over to the care of the beloved disciple and not his brothers and sisters.

On the other issue of Mary’s vow of virginity at the Annunciation Tom’s interpretation is interesting and I’m not saying its wrong. Its something I’ll give more thought to now.
I just mention though that it is not a Church teaching.

 

[Tom]

thistle:

There is no official teaching that Jesus had no step brothers or sisters but I think this can be reasonably concluded for the following reason:
If he did have step brothers and sisters why would Jesus on the Cross give his mother over to the care of the beloved disciple and not his brothers and sisters.

I agree, this is one of our stock answers to the “brethren” it would applied to step brothers as well as biological brothers.

 

[aurora77]

Thanks for the explanations. I’m going to have to think about this for awhile. Like I said, I’ve always just interpreted Gabriel telling Mary she was going to conceive to be imminent, solely because it wouldn’t really make sense for her to learn of the big, amazing thing that is going to happen, but it not be for another year (or however long). Anyway, I appreciate the explanation!

 

[Tom]

Tom:

I agree, this is one of our stock answers to the “brethren” it would applied to step brothers as well as biological brothers.

I don’t mean to use this to cast doubt on the Proto of James, there are many ways children could have been considered the “sons and daughters” of Joseph as written in the proto, and yet not have been biological sons. Let’s not even start to count the possible ways. As I recall from ancient Aramaic the term for “brethren” there were some 30 or so spellings, all meaning basically the same, kin. Not necessarily brother or sister, just “kin”. The word (in the poorest translation possible) was D’aAKHaA, as in † Yukhanan — 12:47
† Acts — 11:29, 12:12, 16:30
† Romans — 8:29
† Philippians — 1:14
† Colossians — 4:15
† 1Thessalonians — 4:9
† Hebrews — 13:1.
OaAKHaA, as in † Marqus — 10:30
† Acts — 15:23
† Romans — 11:14
† 2Timothy — 4:21
LaAKHaA, as in † Acts — 14:2, 15:1, 15:32, 15:36, 16:40, 18:18, 21:7
† 2Corinthians — 9:3, 12:18
(just a few of the 30some spellings, all basically meaning the same.) It’s kind of like saying “aha!” with a cough… LOL, some of the spellings use a DH, or AK, as the first letters. Caution must be used; we’re dealing with a language, which does not have the same alphabet as English.
The words Scripture use to describe the brethren of Jesus mean (in ancient Aramaic) kin, relations.
They may be brothers; they may be cousins, same word. For example if Jesus were to call John the Baptist, He would refer to John as His “D’aAKHaA “ (His cousin), the same word Simon would have used for his biological “brother” Andrew. If they needed to describe the relationship they would trace thru the fathers family, Simon, Bar-Jona (son of John). Enough trivia for the night.

 

[Klm]

My understanding of the Annunciation goes something like this: Though betrothed to Joseph, she wasn’t living in his home at the time. (See Matthew 1: 24). I think she planned a normal life like any other Jewish girl of her day. She was living in Nazareth and planning on marrying. I don’t think she viewed the angel’s visit as some “future event.” Why would she? An angel would only come and announce something that was unusual. I also don’t think her words, “How shall this be, since I don’t know a man?” referred to perpetual virginity. I think she was asking a very basic question. Something like, “Okay, you say I’m going to have a baby. I assume you mean soon, or you wouldn’t be here. But I’m not married. So, HOW am I going to get pregnant if this is going to happen now.” As opposed to happening in the “normal” way. And remember once Gaberiel explains about the Holy Spirit coming upon her - once she understands the mechanics of how she’s going to get pregnant without violating her pre-married virginity, she says, “OK”. Why was she a perpetual virgin after Jesus’ birth? Could you imagine the family dynamic if he had brothers and sisters? Or, as we understand genetics today, Mary carried no original sin in her blood line. Neither did the Holy Spirit. Therefore Jesus was fully human and fully divine. But if Mary had had other children, they would have carried - what? Half original sin? They required Baptism Lite? Just joking. I think up until the time of the Annunciation, Mary was a normal woman/girl. An extrordinary one, but her life was just like that of other Nazarean girls of that day.
Just my thoughts.

 

[Tom]

Klm:

I don’t think she viewed the angel’s visit as some “future event.” Why would she?

The visitation was not the future event; he was announcing a future event, the conception of a child.

Klm:

An angel would only come and announce something that was unusual. I also don’t think her words, “How shall this be, since I don’t know a man?” referred to perpetual virginity. I think she was asking a very basic question. Something like, "Okay, you say I’m going to have a baby. I assume you mean soon, or you wouldn’t be here.

Need we review proclamations of angels, which dealt with events centuries to come? What in Scripture hints that the conception was “soon “? How soon? Within the year? Makes sense since she would be married within the year. The fact that she would be wed “soon” would lead her to believe the angel was referring to a conception within that framework.

Klm:

But I’m not married. So, HOW am I going to get pregnant if this is going to happen now." As opposed to happening in the “normal” way.

Again, please, just any hint from Scripture to support your contention that she would think it wasn’t in the timeframe of her “soon” to be marriage?

Klm:

And remember once Gabriel explains about the Holy Spirit coming upon her - once she understands the mechanics of how she’s going to get pregnant without violating her pre-married virginity, she says, “OK”.

Remember when Gabriel tells her who the true Father will be, only after she makes her proclamation, not before. Had the angel continued with his proclamation and not stopped prior to his announcement of who the father of the child would be there would have been no proclamation from Mary. Let’s rewrite Scripture shall we?

“Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever and of his kingdom there shall be no end For the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee, and therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

There would be no reason for Mary to say, “How shall this be done, because I know not man?” We were already told she was a virgin, no need to repeat it. So why did the angel not finish his message? Why did he make Mary ask a question with such an obvious answer?

 

[Tom]

thistle:

To RCCdefender.

Sorry. I misunderstood your question about the Church teaching on siblings.
Yes it is correct that the Church teaches Jesus had no blood siblings because of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
There is no official teaching that Jesus had no step brothers or sisters but I think this can be reasonably concluded for the following reasons:

1. The only place this is mentioned is in the Protoevangelium of James and this is not accepted as inspired writing by the Church.
2. It is estimated to be written around 150ad which would not make the writer (writer not confirmed either) a comtemporay of the apostles.
3. If it was thought likely that Jesus had step brothers and sisters why would something of such significance never have been addressed by the Church in any of the Councils.
4. If he did have step brothers and sisters why would Jesus on the Cross give his mother over to the care of the beloved disciple and not his brothers and sisters.

On the other issue of Mary’s vow of virginity at the Annunciation Tom’s interpretation is interesting and I’m not saying its wrong. Its something I’ll give more thought to now.
I just mention though that it is not a Church teaching.

Unless of course the “John” who Jesus spoke these words to was one of Josephs “sons”, since James has often been confused as a “brother” of Jesus.
Matthew 4, 21 And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets: and he called them.
Matthew 10
3 James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus,
Matthew 17
1 And after six days Jesus taketh unto him Peter and James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart:
But this is just idle conjecture.

 

[Tom]

I guess we need to ask which is more logical and likely; that a girl who was betrothed and would be married within the year would have considered the angels announcement as an event which would be 1) “immediate”, as in prior to her upcoming marriage or 2)within the framework of her upcoming marriage.

 

[StMarkEofE]

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 trib.

Joseph’s first wife was Salome and they had sons and daughters. One son was James the stepbrother of Jesus and according to Orthodox tradition accompanied his father Joseph, Mary and Jesus on their escape to Egypt and their return back to Nazareth.