A Question With Regard to the Betrothal of Mary and Joseph

Another Festival of Light (FOL) is at hand, and with it, a wonderful opportunity to extol our Lord’s greatness as a creative God through the creative gifts He has endowed upon us. This ministry has grown in scope and magnitude over the years, and with it comes a greater reach into our community. For some, FOL is the closest they will come to the gospel message over a 12-month period. Therefore, it is imperative that the witness our guests receive is both joyful in fellowship and truthful in fact, as we represent not only our Lord but His revelation to us.

Overview of Prospective Issue

Often, when Christians are led to draw upon their creative talents to present God’s truth through the medium of drama, extra-biblical materials or extraneous interpretations are applied to fill in the cracks that historical narrative within the Bible has not definitively revealed. Occasionally, these accounts may appear to reside outside of the purview of orthodoxy. While dramatic renderings and the details of extra-biblical nuances may help us to better communicate the greater story in a novel way to people who may not have ever heard the gospel, this in no way supplants or subordinates the Word of God as our ultimate authority. We must be clear to preface this undergirding fact before the performance.

Given that, it has come to my understanding that given the delicate topic of Mary and Joseph’s relationship before the birth of Jesus is a central motif in this year’s FOL, some questions have arisen as to the orthodoxy in which their relationship is being portrayed. Namely, the nature of their being “betrothed,” and what that means as far as their living situation and inter-personal relations. These are legitimate questions in a day and age where more and more unmarried people are living together in cohabitative states. As means to remain true to the text and historicity of the Jewish culture where Mary and Joseph lived, as well as to provide a means to contextualize this question to modern times where we are unfortunately seeing the same issue increasingly lived out, please allow me to examine this matter in closer detail to provide better clarity for you and any members of the choir that might be struggling with how this matter is being presented within the 2013 FOL.

Text

There are three key texts that speak to the formal arrangement and living situation of Joseph and Mary prior to the birth of Jesus. The first is Matthew 1:18-25, the second is Luke 1:26-35, and the third is Luke 2:1-7.

The first text reads (all texts shown are ESV translations):

Matthew 1:18-25

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord 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 from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel”(which means, God with us). 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

Luke 1:26-35

26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” 35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.

Luke 2:1-7

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 And all went to be registered, each to his own town. 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. 6 And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. 7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

Analysis

There is a range of varying interpretations to the three texts at hand, with significant implications that arise from some of those interpretations that stray from the fringe of orthodoxy. Our objective is to form an opinion based on sound hermeneutics that places the utmost weight on the specific biblical text revealed to us, and not adding to, or taking away from, the text at hand. Supplemental support comes from our knowledge of the historical and cultural customs prevalent in ancient Palestine at the time of Jesus’ birth.

Some culture background is salient at this point which helps bring contest to the text. Starting with the text from Matthew, we find one word that recurs in all three texts: betrothed. It is difficult to import this word into use in our modern culture, as the word to the ancient Jew was far more formal than the pre-marital form we refer to as “engaged.” Betrothal in Jewish culture was a formal contract between a woman and a man that often originated well before they were of age to marry, and consisted of two phases. The first phase of betrothal was when two families selected the future spouse of one of their children. Typically, the boy’s parents selected a girl for him to marry between the ages of 12 and 13, and the two families informally worked out the details of future wedding. The wedding would not typically occur until the boy and girl were around 15, but rabbinic texts have revealed that some males were not married until they were around 18.

The second phase of the betrothal require more formal arrangements where the boy and girl (now likely matured to the state of being a “man and woman”) entered into a contractual agreement that gave the man legal rights over the woman. This prenuptial contract had to take place in the presence of witnesses, and served as almost a testing period for the couple to make preparations for their life together where they would be bound as one flesh. The couple would use terms such as “husband” and “wife” to refer to each other, which is what we see in Matthew 1:19 when Joseph is referred to as Mary’s husband, even though in the prior verse it is made clear that they are still in a state of betrothal and not yet legally married. The betrothal period would generally take about 12 months, and then the formal wedding ceremony would occur, when the couple would establish their own home and be considered legally married.

While there is scant evidence to the contrary, during the betrothal period, the woman remained living at her parents’ house. Sexual relations between betrothed partners were forbidden as adultery, with the penalty being stoning. So while the couple a betrothed couple did not live together, betrothal was so formal and so binding that to break the agreement required a certificate of divorce as if the couple was in fact married. It could be considered a form of marriage. Therefore, infidelity, as Joseph originally surmised had occurred, made divorce essentially obligatory pursuant to the Mosaic Law.

When the formal wedding ceremony occurred, around a year after the betrothal was enacted, a special wedding ceremony would be held. The ceremony began by the bride and groom — dressed in special wedding garments – leading a procession to the bride’s home which next flowed to the groom’s home where special wedding feast was held where the friends and parents of the couple blessed them. The new couple would then enter a specially-prepared “nuptial chamber” at the home to consummate the marriage, while the guests waited. The consummation of the marriage was a necessary ingredient to the legal status of the marriage, and to that end, the couple would bring a blood-stained cloth out of the nuptial chamber as proof of the bride’s virginity. The festivities would then resume, some up to a week, where the man and woman would begin living under the same roof, sometimes with extended family staying there as well.

Against this backdrop we find Matthew Chapter 1. The text tells us that Joseph not only was referred to as Mary’s husband (v. 19) in their state of betrothal, but the angel explains the Christological miracle conception to assuage Joseph’s concerns of infidelity, and instructs Josephs to proceed in the process of taking Mary through betrothal and sticking with her to the final state of legal marriage (v. 20). Some scholars argue that when verse 24 ends, “… he took his wife,” it means that Joseph took her into his home and that they began living together. However, to take such a view requires that one read more into the text than is present. Remember, the context of the passage and what preceded the visit from the angel: Joseph was exploring what he saw as his only two options: 1) Either publically proclaim Mary as an adulteress where he might be cleared of shame at the expense of her possibly being stoned at worst, or made a public pariah at best, or 2) privately put here away by rescinding the marriage by obtaining a certificate of divorce, which by the law required two-to-three witness but also by the law did not have to be made public. Joseph was considering the latter option because he obviously loved Mary and did not want harm or public shame to come upon her.

Therefore, the angel visits Joseph and basically convinces him to cease and desist from his plan, and instead, to accept the betrothal as-is and not reject Mary. The Greek word for “took,” as it appears in verse 24, paralambanō, has a number of meanings, but given the context of the passage, the definition given as, “accept or acknowledge one to be such as he professes to be; not to reject” appears to be the most reasonable fit. Accepting this definition does not require one to read into the text that Joseph suddenly rebelled against the Jewish culture and custom of his day, even the law, by having Mary live with him. Instead, by taking his wife, he simply agreed to continue on with Mary as his betrothed, and not put her away as he had been contemplating. While neither interpretation is conclusive, one opts to take what the text gives and the other adds to it.

Matthew 1: 25 next confirms that Joseph did not have sexual relations until after Mary had given birth to Jesus. Sexual abstinence was widely held in first century Judaism, and the deviation of this practice would have led to Joseph being considered impure. The implication of this is that their marriage could not have been consummated and declared as a legal marriage until after Jesus had been born. Surely, as Joseph indicates an willingness to keep the law in verse 19, it would appear out of place for him to suddenly be inclined to live in violation of it by having sexual interactions with Mary during her pregnancy. The basic logic of this argument also cuts toward their living arrangement, as their living together would likewise have been in contrast to a lifestyle Joseph goes out of his way to retain as righteous.

The texts from Luke chapters 1 and 2 give additional evidence to Mary and Joseph’s living arrangement. First, only a hint is giving in Luke chapter 1, when in verse 27 when we are told that not only that she is a virgin, which in the original Greek primarily means “unmarried,” but secondarily, “typically a virgin” but that Mary is also betrothed. The second clue in chapter one of Luke is that we are told in verse 56 that Mary went and stayed with her cousin Elizabeth (John the Baptist) for three months, and returned to her home after this visit. Such would indicate that she was not living with Joseph, which would violate custom for a new wife to leave her new husband for such duration.

Chapter 2 of Luke gives us some insight as to Joseph and Mary’s status. We can establish from verse 4 that Joseph traveled to Bethlehem, from Galilee, where he evidently resided. Verse 5 is important, because it not only establishes that Joseph and Mary were betrothed at the onset of the trip to Bethlehem, but also that Mary accompanied him. While this might sound unusual if they were not yet living together, when one considers the legal ramifications and rights that accompany betrothal, i.e., that Mary was contractually of Joseph’s namesake. Thus, given Mary was contractual part of his family line, and no longer part of her own, she would need to be counted with Joseph’s family for census purposes. Also of relevance is the fact that many translations use the word “wife” in verse 5. The same Greek word used in Matthew 1:20 for wife, “gynē,” is used here in Luke 2:5. The inclusion of this word is significant in that we can establish both that Mary is both betrothed to Joseph, but is also referred to as his wife, supporting evidence that the terms “husband” and “wife” were applied to people in the state of betrothal.

While we are not told how long Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem before Jesus was born, some have speculated that Mary and Joseph were married while in Bethlehem, but before Jesus was born. This speculation has no biblical basis, however. Furthermore, getting married while in Bethlehem before the baby was born not only would likely have required some urgency, but also was would have been unusually in how it would run contrary to common Jewish marriage ceremony customs, as they would not have been in the home of Marys’ family, or in Joseph’s house where the marriage feast would be held and the consummation would take place.

Conclusion

Based foremost on the analysis of what is present in the text, and on a more ancillary level on generally accepted Jewish cultural customs of the day, it is my conclusion is that Joseph and Mary did not cohabitate and live together until after Jesus was born. The use of terms such as “husband” and “wife” do not present a problem to this conclusion given those terms were commonly applied to those who were committed to a covenant of betrothal. A more literal approach, one that takes the text at face value, would conclude that 1) Joseph assented to retain Mary through the process of betrothal after the Angel confirmed her child was not due to infidelity, which was why he was inclined to seek a certificate of divorce (Matt 1:24); 2) that Joseph did not have sexual relations with his wife until she had given birth to Jesus (Matt 1:25), which would be in keeping with cultural customs and Mosaic law that a marriage was not an official and legal marriage in good standing until it had been consummated at which time the couple would begin their life together under one roof; 3) Mary was stayed with her cousin for 3 months during her pregnancy and not Joseph, supporting a betrothed status; 4) Mary and Joseph were still betrothed when they left for Bethlehem, and again, not only do cultural practices make it unlikely they were married out of expedience while in Bethlehem, but the Bible never suggests such, and such a claim is tenuous at best with no textual support. While some alternative interpretations have been presented above, with implications that could be abused to advocate for cohabitation, I believe the text and Jewish cultural at the time of Jesus’ birth militate against that view, and are congruent with the orthodox treatment of these passages of text.