child bride predation v. mary's perpetual virginity

[Open Heart]

NOTE: I wasn't sure where to put this. If this topic is too hot for this area, please move it to where it is appropriate.

A child bride is defined by the United Nations as any girl who is married before her 18th birthday. It is considered a Human rights violation. This is because such a girl does not have an adult brain, meaning her sense of self is not fully developed and she lacks many adult cognitive/emotional skills. It is why in many places, these teens cannot consent to sex with adult men. It makes no sense that if they cannot consent to sex, that they can consent to marriage.

The marriage of children to adult men has a long and sordid history. Men marry girls for a variety of reasons:

1. They look hot
2. Their virginity is intact
3. They are easy to control -- THIS is the main one which we shall talk about

It seems like child brides are in the news all the time. We have Roy Moore's obsession and the scandal of Evangelical willingness to vote for him anyhow. We have the FLDS habit of marrying young girls to older men in their polygamous culture. We have the home schooling courtship scandal of fathers marrying off their teen daughters to older men. We have Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty proclaiming on National TV that its better to marry a child because she's easier to boss around--and he doesn't lose any TV sponsorship for saying it.

In the past, child brides have been the norm for several reasons:
1. Children were considered small adults; there was no awareness of different cognitive development stages. It's an argument that people are dumb.
2. People died so very young, sometimes the average death was in the mid 30's. Having children at an early age must have seemed a necessity. Another ignorant argument -- teens die giving birth because their pelvises aren't large enough for the heads.
3. Most cultures in the world, including Christian culture, OUR culture, are Patriarchal, meaning that females are meant to be submissive, so the idea of choosing a child so that they would be more submissive would make sense.

BUT IS THIS THE WAY THAT GOD PLANNED? Is this his ideal? Is this what he wanted from the beginning, or is this the result of sin and needs fixing?

I say that the ideal is as Paul stated: to be submissive one to another. A wife submitting to her husband is balanced out by a husband sacrificing himself for her as Christ sacrificed himself for the church. You cannot have that kind of egalitarian relationship if there is a significant age difference, or an immature mind.

To sum things up, Child Marriage is a human rights violation. It is about control. It is predation. You want a girl who will learn music so she can lead the choir while you pastor? You can have that. You want a girl who will drop her education, bring you beer, take care of the kids and do all the house work? You can have that. You want a woman who gets a degree in education to better home school the kids? You can have that! She will like the TV shows you want to watch. She will cook the foods you want to eat. She will do sex the way you want sex. It's all about you. Predation.

This long introduction brings me to the heart of this post.

The Proto-gospel of James states that Joseph was a widower when he married Mary, who was 12 at that time. This means she was certainly either pre-pubescent or adolescent and he was an older man. Is this historically accurate? I don't think we can know for sure. But two things are certain:
1. This document is based on the oral traditions of Jesus' life
2. It is certainly was second century Christians believed about Mary and Joseph

Now I have heard a gazillion times from Protestants that Mary couldn't have been perpetually virgin because the Bible says that "he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son," and "until" means that they had sex following the birth. The idea here is that it would have been wierd and unnatural and unthinkable for Joseph and Mary to not have sex if they are married.

My question to those Protestants is this: Do you think Joseph was a predator? Because even if he left Mary alone for, say, a half dozen years, it means the marriage would have been "weird, unnatural and unthinkable" in Protestant thinking. How do you deal with this? I realize this is a hard question, and your answer probably won't be short.

 

[Basil the Great]

Excellent summation of the evils of child bride predation, Open Heart.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

A child bride is defined by the United Nations as any girl who is married before her 18th birthday. It is considered a Human rights violation. This is because such a girl does not have an adult brain, meaning her sense of self is not fully developed and she lacks many adult cognitive/emotional skills. It is why in many places, these teens cannot consent to sex with adult men. It makes no sense that if they cannot consent to sex, that they can consent to marriage.

Nothing magical happens when you turn 18.

1. Children were considered small adults; there was no awareness of different cognitive development stages. It's an argument that people are dumb.

They were not children. Legal definitions of "adult" vary I'm sure you are aware that according to ancient Jewish custom a boy becomes a man at 13, and girl becomes a woman at 12. That was the age at which they, and not their parents, were deeped responsible for their actions.

2. People died so very young, sometimes the average death was in the mid 30's. Having children at an early age must have seemed a necessity. Another ignorant argument -- teens die giving birth because their pelvises aren't large enough for the heads.

The main reason why the average lifetime was short was because of the high infant and child mortality rate. When 30-40% of the population doesn't live to age 5, that does quite a bit to bring life expectancy down. Once you made it to maturity, your expected life was pretty close to what it was now:

"The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away."

Psalm 90:10

3. Most cultures in the world, including Christian culture, OUR culture, are Patriarchal, meaning that females are meant to be submissive, so the idea of choosing a child so that they would be more submissive would make sense.

BUT IS THIS THE WAY THAT GOD PLANNED? Is this his ideal? Is this what he wanted from the beginning, or is this the result of sin and needs fixing?

I say that the ideal is as Paul stated: to be submissive one to another. A wife submitting to her husband is balanced out by a husband sacrificing himself for her as Christ sacrificed himself for the church. You cannot have that kind of egalitarian relationship if there is a significant age difference, or an immature mind.

Is the relationship between Christ and the church egalitarian?

My question to those Protestants is this: Do you think Joseph was a predator? Because even if he left Mary alone for, say, a half dozen years, it means the marriage would have been "weird, unnatural and unthinkable" in Protestant thinking. How do you deal with this? I realize this is a hard question, and your answer probably won't be short.

The gospels do not give the ages of Mary and Joseph at the time of their marriage. Going by what the typical marriage ages at the time were, my best guess is that Mary was about 15 or 16, and Joseph in his late teens to early twenties. As to the question of whether Joseph was a predator, the answer is of course not. The question is nonsensical.

 

[Paidiske]

It was a different era and Mary wasn't considered a child within her culture. I don't think Joseph was a predator by the standards of their time. Today we probably would offer robust critique of many marriages of that culture but that doesn't mean they were all unloving within the norms of their day.

I'd also note that Scripture gives us no guidance as to how old either of them were, or whether there was a large age gap. Some early church fathers insisted that Joseph was also a virgin (I seem to recall St. Jerome arguing for that with some vigour).

For me, it's clear that Mary wasn't a perpetual virgin because Scripture says Jesus had siblings. That's not complicated unless people want to make it complicated. How long Mary and Joseph waited, to my mind, probably has more to do with questions of recovery after the birth of Jesus, sleep deprivation, and all the normal new parent things!

 

[Sabertooth]

It was a different era and Mary wasn't considered a child within her culture.

And God is the one who made her pregnant, so (apparently) He didn't have a problem with teen pregnancy (inside of marriage).

 

[Open Heart]

Nothing magical happens when you turn 18.

A worthy point. However, a line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere.

 

[Open Heart]

They were not children. Legal definitions of "adult" vary I'm sure you are aware that according to ancient Jewish custom a boy becomes a man at 13, and girl becomes a woman at 12. That was the age at which they, and not their parents, were deeped responsible for their actions.

Knowing right from wrong is very different from giving sexual consent or consenting to marriage, a much more complicated issue.

 

[FireDragon76]

according to the tradition, Joseph and Mary were not even really married, ever. They had a family in the sense they took care of each other, but Mary was more like Joseph's ward.

Those sorts of marriage arrangements were not uncommon in the middle east at the time. There was no social welfare back then, so an unmarried woman would be vulnerable and marrying them created a legal arrangement to take care of them. Of course it could be abused as well.

 

[Open Heart]

Is the relationship between Christ and the church egalitarian?

Yes. The whole passage begins with the verse, "submit yourselves one to the other." Thn a balance is created between men and women. The stipulation is repeated for women to submit. For men it is spelled out in greater detail to love their wives as Christ loved the Church and gave up his life for her, aka love in a sacrificial way. Some might even say that's harder, but in my view it's perfectly egalitarian.

 

[Open Heart]

As to the question of whether Joseph was a predator, the answer is of course not. The question is nonsensical.

The reason we know Joseph was not a predator is because as an older man, he would never have sex with a teenager.

 

[KWCrazy]

Mary and Joseph were engaged, but their marriage had to be postponed for the birth of Jesus. Afterward they lived a relatively normal life and had other children together. Yes, they were married. No, Joseph was not a predator and Mary was not a sex slave.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

A worthy point. However, a line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere.

Of course, but what would be the case for 18, rather than 17 or 19?

Knowing right from wrong is very different from giving sexual consent or consenting to marriage, a much more complicated issue.

Marriage was legal at those ages. It wasn't common - primarily it was allowed as a means of ensuring that in the event that a girl became pregnant out of wedlock, the child would grow up with parents. The recommend age of marriage for girls was around 16 - the point which she had finished puberty and is phsyically optimal condition for childbearing. At that age she usually has the maturity to function as an adult. Girls are typically mature faster than boys too - rule of thumb is that a girl has a maturity level about the same as a boy two years older than her. This incidentally, is why high school romances seldom work out. So a 16 year old girl typically has the same level of maturity as an 18 year old boy, who in our society, is judged an adult.

Men typically married at a later age, usually late teens to early twenties, because they were expected to show themselves able to support a family economically. Phil Robertson's marriage to a 16 year old girl at age 20 is perfectly within historical norms - and the marriage seems to have turned out fine.

Yes. The whole passage begins with the verse, "submit yourselves one to the other."

Then the passage goes on to describe not only the relationship between husbands and wives, but also parents and children, then slaves and masters.

The reason we know Joseph was not a predator is because as an older man, he would never have sex with a teenager.

We know that as a God-fearing man he would not have sex with a woman who was not his wife. I will have none of this business of pathologizing a man's natural desire for a family. Marriage was an instition ordained by God at creation, in accordance with the command to "be fruitful and multiply" and according to the teaching of your church, a sacrament.

 

[Open Heart]

No, Joseph was not a predator and Mary was not a sex slave.

Did Joseph, an older man, prey upon Mary, a teenager, or not?

 

[Sabertooth]

Did Joseph, an older man, prey upon Mary, a teenager, or not?

No. He married her.

 

[KWCrazy]

Did Joseph, an older man, prey upon Mary, a teenager, or not?

No.
According to your religion, Joseph was a saint. Why are you accusing him of being a child molester?
Something doesn't pass the smell test here.

 

[FireDragon76]

Excuse me, but where in the Bible does it say Mary and Joseph lived a "relatively normal life". This is just enforcing middle-class bourgeois Protestant tastes onto the texts. If anything, we know that Joseph died either young, leaving Mary a vulnerable widow, or Joseph was quite a bit older than Mary, which raises potential questions about what the substance of their relationship was. Maybe Jesus had to go out and search for work at a relatively young age to support his mother. We don't know.

I'm not saying, believe Catholic tradition necessarily, but... it seems ridiculous when some folks want to make the Holy Family into a 1950's-style nuclear family, as it only appeared on TV. That's just so convenient. But we have a history of making the sacred in our image, and that's not good.

John's crucifixion narrative implies Jesus was perhaps an only child, and that his brothers could not fulfill his role to support Mary. I could see that as being the case, if they were not in fact his biological brothers, but they belonged to Joseph from a previous marriage. Many Protestants historically ignore this text and have no good explanation for what its significance is (John 19:26-27).

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

No.
According to your religion, Joseph was a saint. Why are you accusing him of being a child molester?
Something doesn't pass the smell test here.

She's trying to create a false dilemna. Either her church's teaching of Mary's perpetual virginity is true, or Joseph was a sexual predator.

 

[Major1]

Did Joseph, an older man, prey upon Mary, a teenager, or not?

NO. Having spoken with you before on Catholic doctrine compared to Bible doctrine, I have to agree with "Soldier of the King" in comment #17.

There is actually NO real point here at all.

I think what is important is that there is no mention at all in the Bible about there being a big difference in the ages of Joseph and Mary. NONE!
That being the case then everything else is just human conjecture and opinion.

I do not know if this will help you but I would say however to you that when there is an older man in the Bible that is going to become a father, the Bible usually reveals that fact.

That is seen in Abraham as one example in Genesis 17:15-17.
Boaz is another example in Ruth 3:7-11.
Zacharias is another example. Luke 1:5-7.

God Himself set the age of being accountable for life decisions at 20 years old.

Numbers 14:28-30 says..........
"Say unto them, As truly as I live, saith the LORD, as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you: Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me, Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun."

Could this be why Jacob was willing to work 7 years for Rachel's hand in marriage, because she had not quite reached 20 years old, yet.

We do not know, because it does not say. Genesis 29:18 says........
"And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter."

Now based upon the fact that God holds young adults accountable from 20 years old and up, do you think that God would have never put such an important decision before Mary, as to whether she would be willing to bear the Messiah, unless she was at least 20 years old?????

God does not violate His own principles. I for sure do not know but I will give you this to think about.

Luke 1:34-38 says...........
"Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her."

 

[Almost there]

I think it is all cultural. If one looks at the history of marriage it clarifies some aspects of the confusion. Females come in 2 categories:
1. Pre-pubescent - i.e. Child
2. Post-pubescent - i.e. Woman

All those arbitrary age things are strictly man made laws, usually made with the best of intentions, but they are not about morality. They are about law.

And "legal" and "moral" are not the same thing.

I've said since high school (1972) that what's legal is not necessary moral and what's moral is not necessarily legal.

 

[Major1]

Excuse me, but where in the Bible does it say Mary and Joseph lived a "relatively normal life". This is just enforcing middle-class bourgeois Protestant tastes onto the texts. If anything, we know that Joseph died either young, leaving Mary a vulnerable widow, or Joseph was quite a bit older than Mary, which raises potential questions about what the substance of their relationship was. Maybe Jesus had to go out and search for work at a relatively young age to support his mother. We don't know.

I'm not saying, believe Catholic tradition necessarily, but... it seems ridiculous when some folks want to make the Holy Family into a 1950's-style nuclear family, as it only appeared on TV. That's just so convenient. But we have a history of making the sacred in our image, and that's not good.

John's crucifixion narrative implies Jesus was perhaps an only child, and that his brothers could not fulfill his role to support Mary. I could see that as being the case, if they were not in fact his biological brothers, but they belonged to Joseph from a previous marriage. Many Protestants historically ignore this text and have no good explanation for what its significance is (John 19:26-27).

Your comment of "An only child" is of course completely untrue according to the Bible.

If YOU want to think that, you are of course free to do so but you can not post it with the idea it is Scripturally true.

Matthew 12:46............
"While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. "

Luke 8:19 .................
"Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd.

Matthew 13:55 ..........
"Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? "