Meat The Low Estate of His handmaiden

[frederick]

While I agree that there is no evidence to suggest that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Yeshua nothing you pointed out actually proves your point. All of the family relationships could be explained by Joseph having additional wives. The family relationships mentioned in Matthew 13 are in the context of "carpenters son" (we understand that he wasn't actually his biological son) but in that context he would be brother to the children of Joseph's other women as well...

Sorry my friend, your argument is pure speculation. Luke 2:4-5 Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child.

There is nothing in the text to indicate Joseph had more than one wife with him. Then, according to Matthew 1:55; and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. The word "till" is translated from a particle marking a limit; that limit being till the birth of "her firstborn Son." The text is quite clear, Joseph and Mary did not have a sexual relationship until after the birth of the Christ Child, and Jesus had brothers and sisters later on. If we stick with what is written there is no problem with the understanding. We don't need to speculate when the text is so clear. Cheers

 

[Pacman]

Sorry my friend, your argument is pure speculation. Luke 2:4-5 Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child.

There is nothing in the text to indicate Joseph had more than one wife with him. Then, according to Matthew 1:55; and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. The word "till" is translated from a particle marking a limit; that limit being till the birth of "her firstborn Son." The text is quite clear, Joseph and Mary did not have a sexual relationship until after the birth of the Christ Child, and Jesus had brothers and sisters later on. If we stick with what is written there is no problem with the understanding. We don't need to speculate when the text is so clear. Cheers

I agree that she did not remain a virgin. No disagreement there. But you are still arguing from silence. Just because another woman isn't mentioned does not prove she did not exist. She could even have been taken after Mary had birthed Yeshua. My point is not to claim that he definitely had additional women only that him having them would explain the family relationships and does not contradict the text. Truth is I think some of those siblings were Mary's children and some of them were from other women. Neither of us can prove either viewpoint so we are both speculating.

 

[frederick]

Neither of us can prove either viewpoint so we are both speculating.

But we do agree that Mary didn't remain a virgin and Jesus had brothers and sisters because that's what we are told in the Bible. It's just that we aren't told Joseph had other wives and we aren't told those speculative wives had children. That I agree with. Cheers

 

[IshChayil]

Matthew 1:17
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.

Problem here is that only 13 generations are recorded from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah. There is a problem with the English and there is evidence to suggest that verse 16 should read Joseph the father of Mary and not the husband of Mary (Joseph was a common name) making it fit the generations number as well as giving us the proof genealogy from Yeshua's only earthly Parent. This idea goes deeper into the original Hebrew than I claim to understand. Perhaps @IshChayil or @Nikud knows something about it?

Wether the theory I present is correct or not there is a definite problem with the numbers to be resolved somehow...

The NA28 text follows:
7 * Πᾶσαι οὖν αἱ γενεαὶ ἀπὸ Ἀβραὰμ ἕως Δαυὶδ γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες, καὶ ἀπὸ Δαυὶδ ἕως τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος ἕως τοῦ Χριστοῦ γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες.
Aland, K., Aland, B., Karavidopoulos, J., Martini, C. M., & Metzger, B. M. (2012). Novum Testamentum Graece (28th Edition, Mt 1:17). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

The bold part says "Babylon to Messiah, 14 generations."
They may be counting the borderline generation, i.e. seems the 14th generation is the signifance of ANOTHER deportation as the Romans murdered us and drove us out of Jerusalem.

 

[sambowers]

Where?

Where?

Luke 1:34; John 19:26-27

 

[FollowingHim]

@sambowers: Luke 1:34 states that she was a virgin when the angel visited her. All agree on that point, it does not imply that she remained one, only that she began one.

John 19:26-27 says that Jesus instructed John to care for Mary as his own mother. I can see how this could imply that she had no other children and needed his protection, but on examination it actually does not imply this.
Even if the "brothers" mentioned elsewhere were actually Jesus' half-brothers or cousins, as the Catholic church teaches, this means that Mary had either stepsons or nephews.
1 Timothy 5:4: "But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God."
By default, these cousins of Jesus therefore had a duty to care for Mary, and she was not destitute of care in her old age even if she was a virgin. Jesus did not need to give her to John if she had children - but he also did not need to give her to John if she was a virgin. So the fact that he gave her to John does not provide any evidence for whether she was or was not a virgin.
However Jesus knew the future, and knew that John was the only apostle who would live out his natural life without being martyred. Presumably he knew he could care for Mary, while his natural brothers / cousins may have been unable to, so he gave John this duty. But we don't know the reason, that is speculation, we just know He did this.

I am very aware that this passage is a "proof text" used to back this doctrine. But it is just like 1 Cor 7:2 being used as a proof-text to support monogamy. If you already believe it, the verse can be read in a way that appears to back up your belief, but on closer examination you find it says no such thing.

 

[steve]

Samuel, you may not be factoring in the possible politics of the situation.

IF the half brothers/brothers were not sympathetic to the offshoot of Judaism that that he founded but his mother was a true believer, their care for her would likely have been less than adequate.
Therefore he HAD to provide in another way for her.

 

[The Revolting Man]

What sometimes gets forgotten is that Jesus may not have been giving Mary to John but giving John to Mary. John was a very young man and may have lost any and all familial support because of Jesus.

 

[steve]

What sometimes gets forgotten is that Jesus may not have been giving Mary to John but giving John to Mary. John was a very young man and may have lost any and all familial support because of Jesus.

It may have been both needing each other.

 

[Kiwi_Lion]

Mary was also descended from David so Yeshua's claim to be the offspring of David can come thru her, not necessarily thru Joseph.

 

[smilingjack]

This is great insight and I think along the lines of 'possible,' but far from certain. In Luke 1:48 δούλη (servant) has the sense of 'servant of God' rather than, say, Galatians 4:25 and the slave of a person (δουλεύω). I understand they sound like the same word, but they are not. δουλεύω is similar to Exodus 21:7 אָמָה (slave or concubine) vs the self-designation of δούλη by Mary, which is more like the use of אָמָה (same word as E 21:7) in 1 Sam. 1:11 "your servant" (same word, different context). As a self-designation, anyone could call themselves a δούλη of God, but not everyone could call themselves a δουλεύω of man (so to speak) without actually being one. I think it's a stretch, although interesting, to read that Mary was referring to herself as a concubine rather than simply assuming a posture of gratitude and humility for what God had blessed her with.

However, as I was reading The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (ca. AD 215), "A concubine, who is a slave and has reared her children and has been faithful to her master alone, may become a hearer; but if she has failed in these matters she must be rejected. If a man has a concubine, he must desist and marry legally; if he is unwilling he must be rejected." The early church accepted faithful concubines as 'hearers,' that is those whose next step is baptism basically. We might call them 'first-time visitors' haha. All of this is to say that IF Mary was a concubine of Josephs's, it wouldn't have prevented her from early church fellowship, being seen as his mother, and would explain the overall absence of Joseph from NT accounts. However, it wouldn't explain the early animosity towards the practice as Rome gained influence. I would imagine someone would have accounted for this, but then again they also said men shouldn't brush their hair since it would induce the wiles of married women into their arms and a man's nice shoes would make women feel harlot thoughts haha.

 

[frederick]

This is great insight and I think along the lines of 'possible,' but far from certain. In Luke 1:48 δούλη (servant) has the sense of 'servant of God' rather than, say, Galatians 4:25 and the slave of a person (δουλεύω). I understand they sound like the same word, but they are not. δουλεύω is similar to Exodus 21:7 אָמָה (slave or concubine) vs the self-designation of δούλη by Mary, which is more like the use of אָמָה (same word as E 21:7) in 1 Sam. 1:11 "your servant" (same word, different context). As a self-designation, anyone could call themselves a δούλη of God, but not everyone could call themselves a δουλεύω of man (so to speak) without actually being one. I think it's a stretch, although interesting, to read that Mary was referring to herself as a concubine rather than simply assuming a posture of gratitude and humility for what God had blessed her with.

Would you please be so kind and give some references for the meanings of the Greek words you have used. I don't see how you get the connection with a concubine except that some female slaves became concubines but it's different words.
δουλεύω is the verb, to serve; to serve as a slave.
δούλη is the feminine nominative singular noun; a female slave.

As a self-designation, anyone could call themselves a δούλη of God

Only a female would call herself a δούλη of God because that is a female/feminine slave. A male would call himself a δοῦλος of God as Paul did in e.g. Titus 1:1; Παῦλος δοῦλος Θεοῦ. Shalom

 

[rockfox]

However, as I was reading The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (ca. AD 215), "A concubine, who is a slave and has reared her children and has been faithful to her master alone, may become a hearer; but if she has failed in these matters she must be rejected. If a man has a concubine, he must desist and marry legally; if he is unwilling he must be rejected." The early church accepted faithful concubines as 'hearers,' that is those whose next step is baptism basically.

This is reflective of their culture combining with Christian morality. While GrecoRoman culture is typically thought of as monogamous, this was only true with respect to legally recognized marriage. Orgies, affairs, and mistresses were common and often accepted. The word concubine in English comes from the Latin and describes what was in practice typically a mistress. In Greek culture they were usually war captives (slaves).

None of this reflects on the OT use of the term. The Greeks had a term for concubine (from the same loanword as the Hebrew term) but it is not used in the NT. I see no reason to read concubine into the text.

Nor do I know of any justification for doulē to mean anything other than slave in some sense (literally or metaphorically). There is contemporary push to make it mean servant (see most any modern translation) but that's a theological bias not justified by the ancient language.

 

[MemeFan]

This is reflective of their culture combining with Christian morality. While GrecoRoman culture is typically thought of as monogamous, this was only true with respect to legally recognized marriage. Orgies, affairs, and mistresses were common and often accepted. The word concubine in English comes from the Latin and describes what was in practice typically a mistress. In Greek culture they were usually war captives (slaves).

None of this reflects on the OT use of the term. The Greeks had a term for concubine (from the same loanword as the Hebrew term) but it is not used in the NT. I see no reason to read concubine into the text.

Nor do I know of any justification for doulē to mean anything other than slave in some sense (literally or metaphorically). There is contemporary push to make it mean servant (see most any modern translation) but that's a theological bias not justified by the ancient language.

Children of concubine don't inherit. Taking her was good idea for preserving wealth.