When did Mary's hymen break?

[Divide]

I always assumed that when the Holy Spirit came upon Mary for the conception of Christ that it was a supernatural implantation that did not break the hymen. Then I realized that if it was not broken at conception, that meant Jesus had to break it with his head at his birth. Apart from the angels and shepherds coming to see the baby born, there is no indication in Scripture that his birth was out of the ordinary.

Years ago I read a marvelous book called, Why the Hymen? by Sheila Cooley. In that book she explains that the breaking of the hymen was the blood covenant of a marriage. Cloths were laid under the bride on her honeymoon night to catch the blood to prove that she was a virgin. So the consummation of marriage was traditionally a blood covenant, assuming the bride was a virgin.

So the question crossed my mind while thinking about this, "If the head of the baby Jesus broke the hymen to come out, was that a blood covenant with Mary somehow?

I have no answer for this, so I am asking for everyone's thoughts on the topic. Thank you for your feedback.

Post Script.
It is apparent that people misunderstand my question. I am not asking what constitutes virginity in a woman, I asked the question if the hymen were broken by the head of Jesus did that constitute some kind of covenant with Mary?

I referred to Sheila Cooley's book, but it is clear that readers need more information. She draws upon the story of the covenant God makes with Abraham in Genesis 15:9 through :17 where Abraham cuts a heifer in half and the lamp of God passes through it. This is a blood covenant since the heifer had to be slaughtered. From this passage she draws the conclusion that blood spilled with the passing through the flesh is the covenant act. Therefore when a man marries a virgin and consummates the marriage on the honeymoon, the hymen breaks and spills blood while the act of intercourse is the passing of the flesh through the flesh.

If Mary's hymen was intact, and I believe it was since that is the medical definition of virginity, then it had to break when Jesus was born, hence my question.

Was it a blood covenant with Mary? It was a blood covenant for the entire human race, was it not?!

 

[Eloy Craft]

It seems somewhat inconsistent that on one hand the Catholic church will grant a divorce, or annulment for non- consummation of the marriage, then insist that Mary and Joseph never did so. They also state that the reason for marriage is to have children and are against contraception, yet insist that Mary never had any other children.

The marital bond is formed when the two persons enter the state of matrimony. The man commits his life to the maternity of the woman. Matrimony means 'mother-state and that is the maternal environment within which the children will enter life. The man commits to that and the woman, and the woman commits to that and the man. Since the maternal environment must be possible, consummation is necessary. That being the characteristic of the state that the man and woman enter into for the marital bond to form. That environment happened when Mary became a mother. For Joseph to take Mary to be his wife is all that's required. The marriage is complete whether or not it's consummated or that the child is his, since the command to marry came from heaven and the child is God.

No reason for Mary and Joseph to have been celibate. Was not a sin but a command. Be fruitful and multiply was the first command of God to Adam and Eve. And the church quotes it often--except for when it applies to Mary. Don't mean to be rude or obtuse but----wh

This is a reason (there are others) for why Jesus was celibate and also why Joseph and Mary were. If a person's life and purpose for being is earthly they have earthly desires. The urge to reproduce fulfills an earthly purpose because earthly life ends.

If a person's life and purpose for being is heavenly they have heavenly desires. There is no purpose for reproduction in heaven, so there is no desire to reproduce. The intimate paternal and maternal bonds with Jesus and His heavenly life and purpose on earth, established in Joseph and Mary, a heavenly life and purpose that satisfied the desires of earthly life. The earthly purposes for being, are fulfilled in the presence of God's purpose for your being.

The command to be fruitful and multiply is fulfilled for them as parents of the one Child Jesus. The Holy Families purpose for being on earth is fulfilled in Jesus. They had no greater purpose for being, so, they had satisfied their greatest desire of their life on earth. Joseph and Mary's purpose was to create a maternal environment, a human family in which God could enter into life on earth. That end fulfills their purpose for being and satisfies their every desire.

 

[mmksparbud]

Joseph takes Mary to be his wife is all that's missing. Whether or not the child is his.

Just a note:
By Jewish law, the father of the child is whomever is married to its mother at time of birth regardless of who the biological father is. Joseph was the legal father of Jesus. It was so in most countries, including this one, until recently with DNA coming into the picture. That is why Jesus can claim to be from the line of David, because Joseph was. It is the mother that defines who is Jewish, If the mother is Jewish, the child is Jewish, regardless of who the father is. If the mother is not a Jew, but the father is---the child is not a Jew. It still is this way though modern Jews want it to be if either is a Jew, then the child is. Jesus claims his humanity through Mary, and his royalty through Joseph. The priesthood was determined by the father. It was passed from father to son---being the Son of God, Jesus had the right of the Divine Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. All bases covered.

There is no question as to why Jesus was celibate. However, Mary and Joseph---their job was to bring the promised Messiah into the world.
Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mat 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us

"God with us" is the closest that the Jews got to understanding the Messiah was the Son of God. The angel never told either Mary or Joseph He was the Son of God. What they understood is vague. There is several places that state that Mary pondered these things--like she didn't know what to make of it. The Jews did not understand the Messiah to be the Son of God but the savior from sin. That they had something special was clear, how special, doesn't seem to have gotten through. Even the disciples did not fully grasp it until the resurrection. Mary and Joseph wee not of heaven, only Jesus was.

I wonder, every woman was once a virgin and the first time she has sex, people stop calling her a virgin.


You took one word that doesn't necessarily, well wasn't used the way it was in your interpretation. You turned it into a command from God!

The word 'until'

• 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?
• 
  
• 
  
• 1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? no! Luke 1:33 says, and of his kingdom there shall be no end."

5:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: "But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until I could send him to Caesar."
Does this mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was "sent" to Caesar? Not according to the bible. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16).

So you see the word doesn't mean that God commanded Joseph to have sex with Mary. It doesn't even mean she had sex with Joseph.

(KJV) And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.




heōs
heh'-oce
Of uncertain affinity; a conjugation, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place): - even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-) til (-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while (-s).
Total KJV occurrences: 148


You can look up the occurrences of that word here:

Greek Concordance: ἕως (heōs) -- 146 Occurrences


However you wish to interpret this--in each and every case---there was a time period involved that marked the end of something.

The birth of Jesus marked the end of celibacy for them. It is the presence of God--Jesus--that makes something holy. Not the object itself. Mary was Holy as long as the child was in her. It was the presence of God that made the burning bush holy--that made MT, Zion holy, the made the ark of the covenant holy, not the objects themselves.

Did his birth create some kind of covenant with Mary? That is the question.

The blood covenant that Jesus made was the shedding of His blood only--nothing about the sinner having to shed blood. The blood covenant with Mary, was done at the cross, the same as with all of us.

 

[Eloy Craft]

"God with us" is the closest that the Jews got to understanding the Messiah was the Son of God. The angel never told either Mary or Joseph He was the Son of God.

The Incarnation was not revealed to the Jews by earthly means. Only heaven could reveal the Incarnation because it can't be believed otherwise. That the one Incarnated in that way is God isn't a vague notion. Why would any other human be born that way if they weren't God? I think it would be the only answer that satisfied reason for those who heaven revealed it to.

Thanks for validating that Joseph and Mary's marriage didn't violate the requirements of Jewish law. Except the one you didn't mention for some reason. Apparently you missed my point. According to Jewish law consummation is necessary. Necessary to the point that witnesses could be called in for some cases. Joseph and Mary were husband and wife even without the marriage being consummated. To the Jews it isn't a marriage unless that has happened. It was also customary for it to initiate or occur during the betrothal. But this isn't the case with Joseph and Mary and wouldn't be necessary anyway. Heaven told Joseph could be Mary's husband.

As for the rest of your post, those points are far from new and have all been argued to no end.

I think I offered fresh and reasonable answers to your objections that have been left ignored.

 

[mmksparbud]

The Incarnation was not revealed to the Jews by earthly means. Only heaven could reveal the Incarnation because it can't be believed otherwise. That the one Incarnated in that way is God isn't a vague notion. Why would any other human be born that way if they weren't God? I think it would be the only answer that satisfied reason for those who heaven revealed it to.

Thanks for validating that Joseph and Mary's marriage didn't violate the requirements of Jewish law. Except the one you didn't mention for some reason. Apparently you missed my point. According to Jewish law consummation is necessary. Necessary to the point that witnesses could be called in for some cases. Joseph and Mary were husband and wife even without the marriage being consummated. To the Jews it isn't a marriage unless that has happened. It was also customary for it to initiate or occur during the betrothal. But this isn't the case with Joseph and Mary and wouldn't be necessary anyway. Heaven told Joseph to be Mary's husband.

As for the rest of your post, those points are far from new and have all been argued to no end.

I think I offered fresh and reasonable answers to your objections that have been left ignored.

There is nothing in the bible to indicate that Joseph and Mary knew the whole truth of who Jesus was. The Jews did not know. The Holy Spirit would come with Pentecost. I wasn't ignoring anything--didn't notice what you meant. The way it went, they were betrothed before the marriage ceremony--however, they were considered married legally and could not go to another without a divorce. The betrothal could last for several years even, as if they were espoused before becoming old enough to marry. The marriage feast was held, and then the marriage was consummated.

Mat_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.
Luk_1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Luk_2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

They were betrothed until after the birth of Jesus, then the marriage feast and consummation would have taken place.

 

[Eloy Craft]

There is nothing in the bible to indicate that Joseph and Mary knew the whole truth of who Jesus was. The Jews did not know.

Joseph and Mary knew that a pregnancy had happened without the will of man. They knew that a human father did not generate the child. They new that this child is not of Adam's generation like every other human being. These were simple deductions that they would know that the rest of the Jews would never know without the divine revelation that Joseph and Mary received among others.

The Holy Spirit would come with Pentecost.

Well, we don't even know the whole truth do we? Even after Pentecost. You ignore the knowledge that being filled with the Holy Spirit gives. Divine Revelation. Pentecost is the birth of the Church's power to preach Divine Revelation already revealed. John the Baptist experience the Divine Revealtion that comes with being filled with The Holy Spirit. It's obvious from waht he taught that he knew Jesus was divine. Elizabeth and Simon the prophet they too may have known that the Savior is divine. Divine Revelation isn't exclusive to the manifestation of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

The way it went, they were betrothed before the marriage ceremony--however, they were considered married legally and could not go to another without a divorce. The betrothal could last for several years even, as if they were espoused before becoming old enough to marry. The marriage feast was held, and then the marriage was consummated.

If their marriage was true to Jewish law Jesus would be a bastard with an adulteress mother. Then the marriage would not be in the story. A private divorce would be. Even though Jesus was born before consummation God revealed that Joseph could still be Mary's husband. His bloodline is still contaminated if they consummate. None but those heaven revealed the Incarnation to knows that Jesus is not Joseph's son. Your claim of consummation is not in this story or anywhere else in the bible. But the teaching that marriage is possible without consummation is. That leads to the conclusion that the marital bond is possible without sex. It does require the state of matrimony. hmmm. Why would the bible teach that in this story? Just sayin' This view is biblical. This view adds teaching about marriage and the character of Joseph and Mary's betrothal. That it would violate the Jewish Law but not the Gospel message that love is the sum of the commandments. What does your view add or does it take away?

 

[AlexDTX]

let me think out loud with you. If the unborn incarnate was responsible for either directly or indirectly the tearing of Mary's hymen what does this mean and how can it relate to a blood covenant?

Jesus is the bridegroom his church is the bride; "My beloved is mine, and I am his". If Mary is the flesh of Adam and Jesus the divine made flesh then Jesus perhaps enters into this marriage blood covenant as suggested by Sheila Cooley by an act that started as Mary's submission to the divine. The tearing of the hymen perhaps is one of these nested revelations that show Jesus as the bridegroom.

With many mythical accounts the divine comes down and essentially rapes or seduces women where the product is sort of demi-god. It is comforting to know that the incarnation is nothing like this. What I like is this perspective seems to show entering legitimately into this marriage covenant without the need of a sexual act which would compromise the whole thing.

Wow. I like that thinking. I did not think about the mythological stories as a contrast. Thank you for actually thinking about the subject that I posted. It fits with Jesus saying that he had to suffer all righteousness. Our God is a good God indeed.

 

[AlexDTX]

Was it a blood covenant with Mary? It was a blood covenant for the entire human race, was it not?!

I think it was with all humanity.

 

[mmksparbud]

oseph and Mary knew that a pregnancy had happened without the will of man. They knew that a human father did not generate the child. They new that this child is not of Adam's generation like every other human being. These were simple deductions that they would know that the rest of the Jews would never know without the divine revelation that Joseph and Mary received among others.

That's righy---0only a few knew--John the Baptist, Simeon, and so on.
Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Luk 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Luk 2:16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
Luk 2:17 And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.
Luk 2:18 And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.
Luk 2:19 But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.

She still, along with the disciples, did not fully comprehend until the resurrection. Even with Jesus telling them that He would ne killed and raised the 3rd day--they still didn't get it. Jesus had to explain it to them after the resurrection
Luk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Luk 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

If their marriage was true to Jewish law Jesus would be a bastard with an adulteress mother. Then the marriage would not be in the story. A private divorce would be. Even though Jesus was born before consummation God revealed that Joseph could still be Mary's husband. His bloodline is still contaminated if they consummate. None but those heaven revealed the Incarnation to knows that Jesus is not Joseph's son. Your claim of consummation is not in this story or anywhere else in the bible. But the teaching that marriage is possible without consummation is. That leads to the conclusion that the marital bond is possible without sex. It does require the state of matrimony. hmmm. Why would the bible teach that in this story? Just sayin' This view is biblical. This view adds teaching about marriage and the character of Joseph and Mary's betrothal. That it would violate the Jewish Law but not the Gospel message that love is the sum of the commandments. What does your view add or does it take away?

How??? Mary and Joseph were betrothed, which meant they were legally married under Jewish law--that made Joseph the legal father of Jesus. Under Jewish law a betrothal was a marriage, the consummation came later. It required a divorce to get out of a betrothal. Sex was not permitted during a betrothal. The wife still remained at her parents home--it was at the marriage feast that it became official and the marriage was consummated.

 

[DamianWarS]

Wow. I like that thinking. I did not think about the mythological stories as a contrast. Thank you for actually thinking about the subject that I posted. It fits with Jesus saying that he had to suffer all righteousness. Our God is a good God indeed.

there may be something as well with the mother/childs blood flowing together but not mixing by means of the placenta which sustains life for the child.

​

I'm not certain what but old/new covenants or old/new wine old/new wineskins parallels comes to mind. This process however is not unique to the incarnation where the hymen theory would be but perhaps could still be discrete underlying parallels that point to Christ. As I said not unique but this is how God created procreation which was ordained for Christ to pass through since the beginning; I would not eliminate these systems to point to the glory of God or even to Christ with these direct parallels.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Jesus had to explain it to them after the resurrection
Luk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and

You dismiss Mary's revelation of Christ as a mother and the person united to Him with the most intimate natursl bond possible. Her suffering is united to His in Simons prophecy, no other person is united to Him in that way. She knew more than anyone. Jer revelation of Him is of higher order than the disciples. You lump her in as 'them' wrongly. I want to address what you posted about her marriage when I have time later. May the peace of Christ be with you.

 

[mmksparbud]

You dismiss Mary's revelation of Christ as a mother and the person united to Him with the most intimate natursl bond possible. Her revelation of Him is of higher order than the disciples. You lump her in as 'them' wrongly. I want to address what you posted about her marriage when I have time later. May the peace of Christ be with you.

No I do not dismiss it. A mothers bond with her child is powerful. How much more so under these conditions. But Mary herself was human, with all our human frailties, and had her own walk with God to deal with. And her love for this child also made her fear the obvious and want to shy away from it--to realize the child would one day leave her in such a way was not one she would have wanted to ponder, no mother would. And seeing her Son on that cross, knowing how very unique and special He was must have been beyond endurance. It doesn't state she knew He would be resurrected, and even if she did--seeing Him on that cross was still unbelievably painful. How much information God choose to give her during Jesus time on earth is not detailed. It is speculation on everyone's part. She knew enough to say this:
Joh 2:5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.

Supposedly this was His first miracle, but she obviously expected something.

Joh 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Luk 2:19 But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.

That's thirty years of pondering. I think she knew some things we still don't know. As for listening and understanding. At Cana they were out of wine. She knew Jesus could turn water into wine. Look at the relatively small matter it was. It wasn't like someone was near death or anything. They ran out of wine, so. And it wasn't like she asked. She just say's , they're out of wine. Do what ever He tells you. She almost makes it seem routine. Anyway, my point is, I think when Jesus said things that confused the Apostles it didn't confuse her when she was at home and heard them. I think if Jesus said He was going to die to her, she listened. If Jesus said He would rise in three days, She listened, believed and who would believe more than the person who gave birth to Him that had no father on earth?

She still, along with the disciples, did not fully comprehend until the resurrection. Even with Jesus telling them that He would ne killed and raised the 3rd day--they still didn't get it. Jesus had to explain it to them after the resurrection

She may not have comprehended it, but I think it was her faith in it that sustained them all. She didn't need them, they needed her.

How??? Mary and Joseph were betrothed, which meant they were legally married under Jewish law--that made Joseph the legal father of Jesus. Under Jewish law a betrothal was a marriage, the consummation came later. It required a divorce to get out of a betrothal. Sex was not permitted during a betrothal. The wife still remained at her parents home--it was at the marriage feast that it became official and the marriage was consummated.

Jesus' siblings, the ones that didn't believe their mother about the Incarnation would have to believe their mother is an adulteress and their oldest brother is the son of an unknown man. If they did believe their mother then they believe their oldest brother is the Messiah. To the kids that don't believe, to them, their mother is an adulteress that their father covered for, their father's bloodline is adulterated with another man's seed. Their family tree is a lie. These things were important to Jewish people back then. Especially pious people. Too complicated to have kids after the Incarnation of God. Not good to do that to the maternal environment if you allow other children to enter life within it afterwards. Not fair to the kids who follow.

 

[mmksparbud]

That's thirty years of pondering. I think she knew some things we still don't know. As for listening and understanding. At Cana they were out of wine. She knew Jesus could turn water into wine. Look at the relatively small matter it was. It wasn't like someone was near death or anything. They ran out of wine, so. And it wasn't like she asked. She just say's , they're out of wine. Do what ever He tells you. She almost makes it seem routine. Anyway, my point is, I think when Jesus said things that confused the Apostles it didn't confuse her when she was at home and heard them. I think if Jesus said He was going to die to her, she listened. If Jesus said He would rise in three days, She listened, believed and who would believe more than the person who gave birth to Him that had no father on earth?

She may not have comprehended it, but I think it was her faith in it that sustained them all. She didn't need them, they needed her.



Jesus' siblings, the ones that didn't believe their mother about the Incarnation would have to believe their mother is an adulteress and their oldest brother is the son of an unknown man. If they did believe their mother then they believe their oldest brother is the Messiah. To the kids that don't believe, their mother is an adulteress that their father covered for, their father's bloodline is adulterated with another man's seed. Their family tree is a lie. These things were important to Jewish people back then. Especially pious people. Too complicated to have kids after the Incarnation of God. Not fair to do that to the maternal environment and then allow other children to enter life within it.

They all thought Joseph was the father. Nowhere does it say that they did not think Joseph was His father. As I said--by law--the legal father of the child was the man the mother was married to at the time of birth. Everyone thought of Him as the son of Joseph. His brothers, did not believe that Jesus was anything but the son of Joseph. Nowhere does it say that Mary told anyone who the real Father was--except Joseph and Elizabeth.

Luk 4:22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his
mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?
Joh 7:3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
Joh 7:4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
Joh 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

 

[Eloy Craft]

When Joseph knew Mary was pregnant and didn't understand what happened. I wonder if the material evidence down there made a difference about her innocense, or if the hymen even looked at. I somehow think the people back then knew better. That it didn't really prove anything, that it is unreliable evidence.

 

[mmksparbud]

When Joseph knew Mary was pregnant and didn't understand what happened. I wonder if the material evidence down there made a difference about her innocense, or if the hymen even looked at. I somehow think the people back then knew better. That it didn't really prove anything, that it is unreliable evidence.

Until the Holy Spirit spoke to him, Joseph only knew that he was not the father--which meant another man was as far as he was concerned. He didn't need to check her innocence. He already felt she was guilty, he just didn't want her stoned as an adulteress so he wanted to quietly put her away--
Mat 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

He accepted his role--he publicly accepted her as his bride, which meant, he was publicly the legal father of her child. It doesn't say he told anyone he wasn't the father--she would have been stoned. They were betrothed, which was a legal marriage and if he said he was not the father--she would have been an adulteress.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Joh 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

If what you say is true, I don't blame them. They weren't told the truth about their brother. They didn't get to see the things Mary pondered about I guess.

 

[mmksparbud]

If what you say is true, I don't blame them. They weren't told the truth about their brother. They didn't get to see the things Mary pondered about I guess.

It's not what I say, just quoting scripture. It doesn't say they weren't told---it just says they did not believe in Him. But then, Mary and Joseph were not given any instruction to tell anyone--or not to. But for Joseph to have publicly denied being the father, would have gotten her stoned. Everyone involved may have decided it best to say nothing, and see what the future brings. After the resurrection, they had to believe in Him.

 

[AlexDTX]

there may be something as well with the mother/childs blood flowing together but not mixing by means of the placenta which sustains life for the child.

View attachment 220582
​

I'm not certain what but old/new covenants or old/new wine old/new wineskins parallels comes to mind. This process however is not unique to the incarnation where the hymen theory would be but perhaps could still be discrete underlying parallels that point to Christ. As I said not unique but this is how God created procreation which was ordained for Christ to pass through since the beginning; I would not eliminate these systems to point to the glory of God or even to Christ with these direct parallels.

Thank you again for your thoughtful input. I have no sense in the Spirit of the significance of these things, but as you said, God designed the system of birth and knew that He would have to go through it Himself in His incarnation. Perhaps someday He will let us know.

 

[Eloy Craft]

It's not what I say, just quoting scripture. It doesn't say they weren't told---it just says they did not believe in Him. But then, Mary and Joseph were not given any instruction to tell anyone--or not to. But for Joseph to have publicly denied being the father, would have gotten her stoned. Everyone involved may have decided it best to say nothing, and see what the future brings. After the resurrection, they had to believe in Him.

At any rate, if it's true, they weren't told the truth about their own brother or, if they were told, and don't believe, they believe their mother and father are liars and mom committed adultery polluted their fathers bloodline and theirs too, and their brother is illegitimate.