on "Bible Betrothal
and Marriage"
|
click on
your selection: |
Today's sermon here really got my attention. It was on the birth of Jesus, taken from the book of Luke. It was said that Mary and Joseph were not married till after the birth of Jesus. That they were only betrothed. Now, I know their marriage was not consummated till after Jesus' birth, but in Matthew 1:23-24 it says that after the angel of the Lord came to him in a dream, that he woke and obeyed what the angel commanded him to do and took Mary as his wife. Tonight I got the preacher in a Bible lesson on it and he is convinced that they did not marry till after Jesus was born. Then I asked, what was she doing with him in Bethlehem if they were not man and wife? And would she not have been put to death by the people if it was known she was with child and not married, I am confused ...he says to believe otherwise would make Luke's account wrong. Of course I have to disagree with him. I told him that to believe that our young people could just say, it is o.k. to live together just don't have sex.
Were Joseph
and Mary married when Jesus was born?
Is there a contradiction between Matthew's
account and Luke's?
I suppose your teacher is referring to the following passage in
Luke:
Luke 2:5 "To be taxed with Mary his espoused
wife, being great with child." {taxed: or, enrolled}(KJV)
Luke 2:5 "To enroll himself with Mary,
who was betrothed to him, being great with child."(ASV)
BIBLE "ESPOUSED/BETHOTHED"
The following information is typical of the historical use
of the word "bethothed" or
"espoused" as used in Luke.
"Betrothal" in Jewish law
The term "betrothal" in Jewish law must not be
understood in its modern sense; that is, the agreement of a man and a woman to
marry, by which the parties are not, however, definitely bound, but which may
be broken or dissolved without formal divorce. Betrothal or engagement such
as this is not known either to the Bible or to the Talmud, and only crept
in among the medieval and modern Jews through the influence of the example of
the Occidental nations among whom they dwelt, without securing a definite
status in rabbinical law.
Several Biblical passages refer to the negotiations requisite
for the arranging of a marriage (Gen. Xxiv.; Song of Songs viii. 8; Judges xiv.
2-7), which were conducted by members of the two families involved, or their
deputies, and required usually the consent of the prospective bride (if of
age); but 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.
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 the passages 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.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=995&letter=B
I have to agree with you and the preacher both. I admire your wisdom in trusting in Matthew's
account for harmony in understanding the custom of that day even without
having a Jewish encyclopedia.
Matthew's account:
Matthew
1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After
His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was
found with child of the Holy Spirit.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her
a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.
20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord
appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be
afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of
the Holy Spirit."
The
passage teaches us that...
1. Joseph was Mary's "husband." (verse 19).
2. Mary was betrothed to Joseph. (verse 18).
3. "Do not be
afraid to take to you..." Mary is identified as "YOUR WIFE". (verse 20).
4. Joseph could have made
Mary a public example ("disgrace") and she could have been killed according to the Law of
Moses (Deuteronomy 22:23-24) ...although I understand according to my research that it was rarely exercised during the first
century. Joseph wanted to "put her away*
". This refers to "half of act" of divorce Deuteronomy 24:1-3. The
term is used in the New Testament in discussing divorce (e.g., Matthew 19:3-9). Can a person
"divorce" or "break up a marriage" without its existence?
In Jewish custom the betrothal period began with the exchange of solemn vows as binding in their society as those of a modern wedding ceremony. The marriage is not consummated until the husband "takes" her which is usually after a year. http://www.ccel.us/mary.ch4.html ["take" (Greek: paralambano - G3880 "an intimate act"; compare to Exodus 21:10, etc.] In Joseph's case though he would have arisen from his sleep and taken Mary home (this togetherness could not be done until the conclusion of the betrothal). The Scripture is plain that he did not have sexual relations with Mary until after she had delivered Jesus (Matthew 1:25).
| "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused (NIV: "pledged") wife, being great with child" (Luke 1:4,5). Note: the NIV translation is misleading: it is not a pledge in the sense of a promise that we are used to seeing in America. It was a stage in a legal marriage. |
Since Luke says Mary and Joseph were still betrothed when it was time to go to Bethlehem, then the angel's appearance to Joseph was at this time or Luke is accommodatingly pointing out to the reader that the marriage had not been consummated by Joseph and Mary (which is the meaning of "making one flesh"- GW). Yet, publicly Joseph had "taken her in the eyes of the public" for them to be together. Perhaps this may be a modern illustration: I knew an elderly couple around the ages of 90 that were married in Alabama. They married strictly for companionship. The husband told me that they did not have sexual relations. However, before the town they were husband and wife, living together in a decent manner.
PUT AWAY: A
TERM ASSOCIATED WITH A STATE OF
*The Greek word: ἀπολύω
(Strong's definition) "From G575 and G3089; to free fully, that is, (literally)
relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon,
or (specifically) divorce:
- (let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away,
release, set at liberty."
A. Matthew 19:7-
They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"
B.
The following is another example of translating "put away" into American English:
King James Version:
1 Corinthians 7:10 And unto the married I
command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be
reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If
any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with
him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that
believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave
him.
New King James Version:
1 Corinthians 7:10 Now to the married I command,
yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband.
11 But even if she does depart, let
her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his
wife.
12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any
brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him,
let him not divorce
her.
13 And a woman who has a husband who does not
believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him.
In
summary, you did well to be confused with an interpretation on Luke's account
that does not harmonize with Matthew's account. Both are from the Holy
Spirit and He doesn't make any mistakes. They were married in the eyes of
the public and not condemned. Jesus was understood by the people to be
the son of the carpenter (Matt.
We make the
mistake of accepting modern definitions of words rather than studying the
meanings of words as used in their context of the times. "Baptism",
"church", "betrothal" are just a
few examples.
If we have a
computer and the Internet, we have an inexpensive library of information
at the touch of our fingers. We don't have to depend on a small
English dictionary.
