A question about Mary

[Rilian]

Let me start out by saying I accept all of the Orthodox belief about Mary as I've come to understand it. The ideas of betrothal and her ever-virginity actually make perfect sense to me. My question (which really my wife brought up and it has been bugging her) is would the fact that Joseph and Mary did not officially marry have caused a problem in their society? Specifically would it have been looked at as a violation of Jewish law to have Christ presented in the Temple given the fact that they weren’t officially married? I’m guessing maybe there would be a perception that he was illegitimate if people didn’t understand the nature of his birth. I would also guess that the Pharisees would have attacked Jesus’ legitimacy as the Messiah if they had this same perception, but I don’t remember it ever coming up.

Any help appreciated, we went around about this for a while last night.

 

[Eusebios]

A good question and one that has been in the back of my mind for awhile too. Anyone, anyone?
* intones Eusebios in his best Ben Stein monotone*

 

[The Prokeimenon!]

.

 

[Philip]

I’m guessing maybe there would be a perception that he was illegitimate if people didn’t understand the nature of his birth. I would also guess that the Pharisees would have attacked Jesus’ legitimacy as the Messiah if they had this same perception, but I don’t remember it ever coming up.

John 8:40-42
They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did. You do what your father did." They said to him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God." Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.​

I have understood this verses to indicate that the Pharisees did believe that Christ was born of fornication.

 

[JasonS]

I got this off Catholic.com which seems to explains things fairly well:

Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the "brethren of the Lord." As explained in the Catholic Answers tract Brethren of the Lord, neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1).

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "brethren." The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren." The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of "the brethren of the Lord." And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

 

[Rilian]

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow.

Thanks Jason. The issue is really how did they exactly answer to the Temple authorities? What was the resolution? The Orthodox Church teaches that Joseph and Mary remained betrothed, meaning they never formally married. I'm just having trouble figuring out how that wouldn't have been an issue.

 

[ThereseTheLittleFlower]

I thought, that Joseph and Mary were already married.

God Bless!

Renee

 

[Rilian]

Does the Catholic Church teach that they were married?

 

[JasonS]

The East Orthodox may have a slightly different view but I suspect it's very similar to Cathoics at least. This is what I've gathered so far:

When Mary becomes pregnant, a priest suspects Joseph and Mary of wrong-doing and put the two to a test, which they pass.

And the priest said: Restore the virgin whom thou didst receive out of the temple of the Lord. And Joseph was full of weeping. And the priest said: I will give you to drink of the water of the conviction of the Lord, and it will make manifest your sins before your eyes. 2 And the priest took thereof and made Joseph drink and sent him into the hill-country. And he returned whole. He made Mary also drink and sent her into the hill-country. And she returned whole. And all the people marvelled, because sin appeared not in them. 3 And the priest said: If the Lord God hath not made your sin manifest, neither do I condemn you. And he let them go. And Joseph took Mary and departed unto his house rejoicing, and glorifying the God of Israel.

So did Joseph marry her? Sort of. This is what Catholic Apologetics says:

Betrothed

In Jewish Law a man betrothed to a woman was considered legally married to her. The word for betrothed in Hebrew is Kiddush, a word that is derived from the Hebrew word Kadash which means "holy" "consecrated," "set apart." Because by betrothal (as in Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27) , or marriage, a woman became the peculiar property of her husband, forbidden to others.

The Oral Law of Kiddushin (Marriages and Engagements) states; "The husband prohibits his wife to the whole world like an object which is dedicated to the Sanctuary" (Kiddushin 2b, Babylonian Talmud).

We know from the Gospel of Matthew 1:14 that Joseph the husband of Mary was a righteous man, a devout law-abiding Jew. Having noticed that Mary was pregnant and that he, her betrothed, had nothing to do with the pregnancy, Joseph had either to publicly condemn her and have her put to death for adultery (Dt 22:22-29) or put her away privately.

His decision was made when an angel appeared to him in a dream, saying: "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins" (Mt. 1:20-21). The angel does not use the phrase for marital union: "go in unto" (as in Gn 30:3, 4, 16) or "come together" (Mt 1:18) but merely a word meaning leading her into the house as a wife (paralambano gunaika) but not cohabiting with her.

For when the angel revealed to him that Mary was truly the spouse of the Holy Spirit, Joseph could take Mary, his betrothed, into his house as a wife, but he could never have intercourse with her because according to the Law she was forbidden to him for all time.


I think the Orthodox position is the same. Any Eastern brothers here care to confirm?

 

[prodromos]

I have read on a Catholic apologetics site that under Jewish law, if a man was betrothed to a woman who was pregnant by another man, that by engaging in sexual intercourse during her pregnancy he would essentially lay claim to the child. However, if he did not do so, then he was subsequently forbidden to engage in sexual intercourse for the rest of their marriage.

I have never been able to confirm or deny whether the above is true. If it is, then it puts the final nail in the coffin of Protestant arguments against the ever virginity of the Theotokos. Can anyone confirm its validity?

John.

 

[Axion]

To quote from the JewishEncyclopedia.com

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=995&letter=B

The root

("to betroth"), from which the Talmudic abstract

("betrothal") is derived, must be taken in this sense; i.e., to contract an actual though incomplete marriage. In two of thepassages in which it occurs the betrothed woman is directly designated as "wife" (II Sam. iii. 14, "my wife whom I have betrothed" ("erasti"), and Deut. xxii. 24, where the betrothed is designated as "the wife of his neighbor"). In strict accordance with this sense the rabbinical law declares that the betrothal is equivalent to an actual marriage and only to be dissolved by a formal divorce.
..when the agreement had been entered into, it was definite and binding upon both groom and bride, who were considered as man and wife in all legal and religious aspects, except that of actual cohabitation.

After the betrothal a period of twelve months was allowed to pass before the marriage was completed by the formal home-taking ("nissu'in," ). In case the bride was a widow or the groom a widower, this interval was reduced to thirty days (Ket. v. 2; Shulḥan 'Aruk, Eben ha-'Ezer, 56). After the dispersal of the Jews had brought them into contact with the Western peoples, this arrangement was felt to be inconvenient and out of harmony with the prevailing views. It therefore became customary to perform the entire marriage ceremony, betrothal and home-taking ("erusin" and "nissu'in"), at one time;

The Legal Ceremony.
Betrothal in its legal sense ("erusin") is performed in the following manner: After the ordinary benediction over wine, the person performing the ceremony continues as follows: "Blessed art Thou, O Lord, our God, King of the universe, who hast sanctified us with Thy commandments and given us commandments concerning forbidden connections, and hast forbidden unto us those who are merely betrothed, and permitted unto us those lawfully married to us through 'canopy' ["ḥuppah"] and 'betrothal' ["ḳiddushin"]. Blessed are Thou, O Lord, who sanctifiest Thy people Israel through ḥuppah and ḳiddushin," after which the groom hands to the bride a ring or some object of value (not less than a peruṭah, the smallest current coin), saying, "Be thou betrothed unto me with this ring [or object] in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel" ("kedat Mosheh we-Yisrael").

The NT never states that Mary and Joseph formally completed the second stage of full marriage.

 

[Matthias]

*shrugs*. No idea, and I really don't care either.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I have read on a Catholic apologetics site that under Jewish law, if a man was betrothed to a woman who was pregnant by another man, that by engaging in sexual intercourse during her pregnancy he would essentially lay claim to the child. However, if he did not do so, then he was subsequently forbidden to engage in sexual intercourse for the rest of their marriage.

I have never been able to confirm or deny whether the above is true. If it is, then it puts the final nail in the coffin of Protestant arguments against the ever virginity of the Theotokos. Can anyone confirm its validity?

John.

prodromos, that would be very, very interesting to find out if it is indeed true . . it would sure put aside all claims that Mary was required to have sexual relations with Joseph, wouldn't it!!

Can you provide a link to where you read that?

Peace in Him!