• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Meat The Low Estate of His handmaiden

V

Verifyveritas76

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
I was going thru a book today dealing with the events surrounding the birth of Christ and John the baptizer, and I came across this phrase in Luke 1:48. For He [God] hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.

Combined with what I know about the “espoused” handmaiden of Exodus 21, this makes me think that Mary fit the description.
  • Evidently living in Joseph’s household
  • Still a virgin
  • Self identified of “low estate”. Presumably in the household. Possibly because she hadn’t been taken as a wife yet and so her status in the household is actually that of a handmaiden, waiting for her lord to take her as wife or arrange her marriage with another.
  • Also self identified as a handmaiden. This may be because she was not a wife yet, but now I’m inclined to believe that this was in actuality her position within the household.
IF the above is true, then that would also explain the older sons/brothers disregarding and disrespecting Christ in Matthew 12:46. AND . . . . Wait for it . . . . . It may not have been Mary that was with those brothers, but rather their own biological mother. (Who would have also been known culturally as Jesus’ mother)
This would also explain why Christ entrusted his mother to John the Beloved rather than to James or Jude, both of them brothers.

I believe in the Protoevangelion of James, that it portrays Joseph as an older man who is not very interested in taking on a young woman who is being married off by lot and so he withholds his rod from being included in the lot. After all of the others are rejected, he is instructed to add his to the lot and is subsequently chosen by lot to be Mary’s espoused. If true, this could also explain why she would have remained a virgin in his household. An undesired young woman being foisted upon an older man would not have created the perfect scenario for consummation if he was not happy about it. He could still perform his responsibility by giving her to another in marriage as if she were his daughter. When she became expectant, that was no longer an option as everyone would assume he’d taken her as wife.

Thoughts?
 
It makes a lot of sense to me.
The thing that it explains is why Joseph was aware that she was pregnant, being in his household. If she had been living in her father’s house he would have had to have been informed by her family
 
Very interesting thoughts...
 
You mean handmaid as in household slave?

Verifyveritas76 said:
I believe in the Protoevangelion of James, that it portrays Joseph as an older man who is not very interested in taking on a young woman who is being married off by lot and so he withholds his rod from being included in the lot.
Click to expand...

That text implies he was a widower.
 
The verses dealing with the birth in Bethlehem and the journey to Egypt seem to imply that Joseph had to deal with one wife and one family. Did he leave the others behind during this time?
 
Cap said:
The verses dealing with the birth in Bethlehem and the journey to Egypt seem to imply that Joseph had to deal with one wife and one family. Did he leave the others behind during this time?
Click to expand...
As in so many stories in the Bible, only the main participants are recorded.
To believe that the family consisted of only the two of them would be assumption on our part. The fact that it may have been a larger group may have been the reason that they were turned away from traditional places to stay.
 
True, but it would seem that if the narrative of the birth of Christ and His sojourn to Egypt included other family members that aren't spoken about, that would surely be reflected in the bothers initial faith and understanding from the beginning. They don't seem to share that knowledge and it seems they were in the dark.
 
This reminds me of my first post a few years ago. Wrapping my head around the possibility the Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were part of a larger polygynous biblical family, was mind blowing. Also, it could easily explain how they lost track of Jesus when he was young, and found him at the temple.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
I was going thru a book today dealing with the events surrounding the birth of Christ and John the baptizer, and I came across this phrase in Luke 1:48. For He [God] hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.

Combined with what I know about the “espoused” handmaiden of Exodus 21, this makes me think that Mary fit the description.
  • Evidently living in Joseph’s household
  • Still a virgin
  • Self identified of “low estate”. Presumably in the household. Possibly because she hadn’t been taken as a wife yet and so her status in the household is actually that of a handmaiden, waiting for her lord to take her as wife or arrange her marriage with another.
  • Also self identified as a handmaiden. This may be because she was not a wife yet, but now I’m inclined to believe that this was in actuality her position within the household.
IF the above is true, then that would also explain the older sons/brothers disregarding and disrespecting Christ in Matthew 12:46. AND . . . . Wait for it . . . . . It may not have been Mary that was with those brothers, but rather their own biological mother. (Who would have also been known culturally as Jesus’ mother)
This would also explain why Christ entrusted his mother to John the Beloved rather than to James or Jude, both of them brothers.

I believe in the Protoevangelion of James, that it portrays Joseph as an older man who is not very interested in taking on a young woman who is being married off by lot and so he withholds his rod from being included in the lot. After all of the others are rejected, he is instructed to add his to the lot and is subsequently chosen by lot to be Mary’s espoused. If true, this could also explain why she would have remained a virgin in his household. An undesired young woman being foisted upon an older man would not have created the perfect scenario for consummation if he was not happy about it. He could still perform his responsibility by giving her to another in marriage as if she were his daughter. When she became expectant, that was no longer an option as everyone would assume he’d taken her as wife.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

According to my study of Genealogy this does not work!
Jesus was the first born Not just of Mary not just of the redeemed but had to be of Joseph as well!
Jesus throne rights to the throne of David were inherited through Joseph not Mary If Joseph had an older son then the throne rights would have gone to him. Jesus did not inherit the throne of David by mistake or by subterfuge, Jesus was the rightful heir! Even though He was Joseph's oldest son by adoption it made no difference. The birthright was His! An adopted son had no less rights than a begotten son.
 
Jim an Apostle said:
According to my study of Genealogy this does not work!
Jesus was the first born Not just of Mary not just of the redeemed but had to be of Joseph as well!
Jesus throne rights to the throne of David were inherited through Joseph not Mary If Joseph had an older son then the throne rights would have gone to him. Jesus did not inherit the throne of David by mistake or by subterfuge, Jesus was the rightful heir! Even though He was Joseph's oldest son by adoption it made no difference. The birthright was His! An adopted son had no less rights than a begotten son.
Click to expand...
Solomon was not David's first born. Jacob was second, Judah 4th, etc... many examples in Scripture of God passing over physical firstborn for a consecrated 'firstborn.'

'Israel is My firstborn'
Jesus/Yeshua is the second Adam, but firstborn of creation...

Personally, I think that God adds the twist to 'hide' His face and plan. Isaiah 8:14- He became a stumbling Stone to BOTH the houses of Israel in order to accomplish His purpose.

Just fascinating.
 
I discovered during my scripture study a little while ago that some of the language involving firstborn males defines that role as the first male to open each womb in a man's house and not always a man's literal first male child, therefore he can have more than one firstborn. See that post here: https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/...gns-with-biblical-marriage.15355/#post-204747

By this logic, Adam and Jesus are both firstborn. Like Ishmael and Isaac, one born according to the flesh and one born by the power of the Spirit. Both firstborn sons, see Galatians 4:29

Jesus being the first to open Mary's womb, and a male, makes him a firstborn son in Joseph's house even if Joseph had other wives.

Solomon was not even David's firstborn by Bathsheba, her first son died. (Curiously called a "child" and not a "son", but male by the pronouns used. Personally not sure how to unpack this. He died, paying a debt for David's sin, that the son following him may live. But the first only lived 7 days so was presumably not circumcised, and never named?Maybe someone could shed light on the symbolism there.)


It would seem that polygyny is symbolically extremely important to salvation because it prevents irreparable damage from a firstborn that disregards his father's will, like Adam. The father's line and inheritance of glory may continue by a different son who does seek the will of his father. The beauty is that we can follow Christ's example, die, and be reborn of water and spirit, emerging from a different, spiritual womb. A single womb is a potential single point of failure.
 
Last edited:
The Greek New Testament doesn't make it clear whether the Blessed Virgin Mary was a perpetual virgin or not. However, it does imply that she remained a virgin her entire life. This is why, that Martin Luther, required the belief through the Smalcald Articles.
 
sambowers said:
The Greek New Testament doesn't make it clear whether the Blessed Virgin Mary was a perpetual virgin or not. However, it does imply that she remained a virgin her entire life. This is why, that Martin Luther, required the belief through the Smalcald Articles.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken, sir. The Greek text is very clear. Jesus was born of a virgin but His mother only remained a virgin till He was born; i.e. she had sexual relationships after His birth. We are told in Matthew 1:22-25; So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.

Jesus had brothers and sisters therefore His mother didn't remain a virgin. Matthew 13:55-56 "Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?"

Have a good day. Shalom
 
frederick said:
You are mistaken, sir. The Greek text is very clear. Jesus was born of a virgin but His mother only remained a virgin till He was born; i.e. she had sexual relationships after His birth. We are told in Matthew 1:22-25; So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.

Jesus had brothers and sisters therefore His mother didn't remain a virgin. Matthew 13:55-56 "Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?"

Have a good day. Shalom
Click to expand...

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...
 
Jim an Apostle said:
According to my study of Genealogy this does not work!
Jesus was the first born Not just of Mary not just of the redeemed but had to be of Joseph as well!
Jesus throne rights to the throne of David were inherited through Joseph not Mary If Joseph had an older son then the throne rights would have gone to him. Jesus did not inherit the throne of David by mistake or by subterfuge, Jesus was the rightful heir! Even though He was Joseph's oldest son by adoption it made no difference. The birthright was His! An adopted son had no less rights than a begotten son.
Click to expand...

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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top