Archive: What Did the Neighbors Think?

Were Nazareth’s backyard gossips abuzz about betrothed Mary’s pregnancy?

By Harold F. Greenlee

A young faculty member, my translator at a Bible seminary in Indonesia, was engaged to be married. I asked him when he planned to marry. He told me his fiancée was a medical school student, and they planned to wed in about a year when she completed her degree. I asked him about the ring he was wearing, which looked to me like a wedding ring.

As we talked, I learned he and his fiancée had signed the government marriage register; legally, they were married. At any time they could begin living together, and if either of them wanted to break the relationship it would require a legal divorce. They planned to have a church wedding and would not live together or consider themselves married until then, but that was by their choice and the custom of the Christian community. The fact remained that they were legally married and could not have been accused of immorality if they began living together—even without the Christian ceremony.

What does this have to do with the birth of Jesus? I believe Mary’s situation has too often been misunderstood because we have tried to apply our culture and customs to the relationship of Mary and Joseph.

Just recently I was reading a discussion about the visit of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. The writer stated that since Bethlehem was Joseph’s ancestral home, he doubtless had relatives there, but the relatives probably would not welcome Mary and Joseph because of the questions about the propriety of Mary’s pregnancy. In John 8:41 the Jews retorted, to Jesus, “We were not born of fornication.” William Hendriksen’s commentary, Edward Burton’s commentary (citing the ancient church father Origen), and the 1988 edition of International Standard Bible Encyclopedia suggest that the Jews mentioned may have been implying, “We weren’t born of fornication, but we’re not sure about you (Jesus).”

There has been an American cultural assumption that Mary was merely engaged to be married and wasn’t actually married until she was several months pregnant, and that she, her son Jesus, and (to some extent) her husband Joseph lived under a cloud of suspicion by people who did not believe the story of the virgin birth. I am confident these are totally mistaken views.

Let’s ask some obvious questions as we look at the biblical text.

First, what was Mary’s relationship to Joseph when the angel Gabriel visited her with his amazing announcement? Both Matt. 1:18 and Luke 1:27 say she was betrothed to Joseph, which has often been understood as merely engaged. (This “engagement,” I propose, is very similar to the “engagement” of my Indonesian friend.) Matthew adds, “before they came together” (Matt. 1:18), which in our culture would mean “before they were married,” but which actually means “before they began living together as husband and wife.”

Second, what was Mary’s initial response when the angel Gabriel told her that she would bear a Son? The RSV reads, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” (Luke 1:34); the NIV reads, “… since I am a virgin.” The Greek text actually reads, “… since I do not know a man,” meaning, “since I do not have sexual relations with a man.” Mary’s comment does not indicate her legal status; it indicates only that she was not in a sexually-active relationship.

Even if Mary did not need to concern herself with what the neighbors might think, she did have some legitimate concerns. How could she expect Joseph to believe such an incredible story? It is a tribute to her trust in God that she was willing to reply to the angel, “May it be to me as you have said,” and to leave it to God to help Joseph understand.

Third, what was Joseph’s thought when he learned of Mary’s pregnancy? What the text does not say is that Joseph decided to break their engagement; rather, it says, “he decided to divorce her quietly” (Matt. 1:19). A divorce would be necessary because they were bound in marriage.

Fourth, what was the angel’s comment of reassurance to Joseph? The NIV reads, “do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife” (Matt.1:20). This must not be interpreted that Mary was not already his wife; the Greek text does not include the word “as,” but corresponds to the RSV “do not fear to take Mary your wife.” Joseph’s response, according to the NIV, is that he “took Mary home as his wife.” Again, there is no “as” in the Greek text; it reads, as the RSV states, that he “took his wife.” There is no mention of an additional ceremony.

Alfred Adersheim, in his Sketches of Jewish Social Life, p. 148, says there was a distinction between betrothal and marriage. He immediately adds, however, that from the moment of betrothal the woman was treated as if she were married; that only divorce could dissolve the relationship; that she was guilty of adultery if she were unfaithful; and that her property belonged to her betrothed husband.

In other words, Mary and Joseph were legally married but had not yet begun living together as husband and wife when Mary as a virgin became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit. When an angel informed Joseph in a dream of Mary’s condition, he believed the angel and took Mary to his home. If any of the neighbors noticed Mary was pregnant, they would not have suspected impropriety; they knew the couple had been married for some time. Mary’s condition wouldn’t have been too obvious to the community in any case because Mary soon went into the hill country for three months to visit her cousin Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-40,56).

Special feasts marking the beginning of a marriage are mentioned in the gospels: e.g., Matt.9:15 and parallels, Matt. 25:1-13, and John 2. There is, however, no mention of such a feast in the case of Mary and Joseph. I believe we can conclude that not all marriages were celebrated with a feast. If it is legitimate to look back so far, there is no record of any special ceremony for the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah (Gen.24:67), although there is perhaps one for Jacob’s unwitting marriage to Leah (Gen.29:22)—which, however, evidently served for his marriage to Rachel a week later as well (Gen.29:27-28).

It is important to understand that no slightest hint of impropriety—much less of immorality—could have been permitted in the carrying out of the birth of Christ, upon whose life, death, and resurrection the whole plan of redemption depended. Deut.23:2, for example, forbids participation in the Lord’s assembly by a person of illegitimate birth or by any of his descendants to the tenth generation. If there had been any such suspicion, Jesus would have had no possibility of being accepted by the common people. (See Mark 6:2-3 and John 7:46.)

After all, if God had wished Jesus to have no human father what were the possibilities? He could have chosen a virgin who was not betrothed, or a widow  who would have been willing to have a baby and be known as a “single mother” (always insisting that her baby bad no human father). In both cases the baby would have been deprived of the important presence of a father in the home, and the mother would have been in danger of punishment under the Jewish law. As for the son, any claim he might make or any good he might do would be rejected as coming from a man of illegitimate birth.

God could have chosen a woman already married and living with her husband. It would not, then, have been a “virgin birth,” but it could have been a birth by the Holy Spirit without a human father. The nature of the birth, then, could have been kept secret (as in the case of Mary) until the appropriate time. But how could even the mother and her husband be sure that there was no earthly father for the baby?

The only other possibility, it would seem, was what God actually did: he chose a pure young woman, betrothed and legally married to a godly young man, but who had not yet had any sexual contact with her husband. In this situation the baby could be conceived by the Holy Spirit. The husband could receive his wife but have no sexual relations with her until her baby was born. Until the proper time to reveal the miraculous story, perhaps no one except the mother and her husband would have the slightest indication that there was anything unusual about the birth. There would be no cloud of suspicion on mother, husband, or child.

Who, then, knew about the virgin birth of Jesus? I am convinced that until years later no one knew or even suspected that there was anything unusual about the birth of Jesus except Joseph and Mary themselves.

Is it possible that Mary shared her secret with her cousin Elizabeth? Scripture seems to indicate that Elizabeth recognized through divine inspiration that Mary’s baby was someone special when, in Luke 1:43 she cried, “Why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Even so, how could Mary have possibly expected Elizabeth to believe this baby had been conceived before Mary and Joseph had had any intimate relationship? No, I do not believe even Elizabeth had any hint that this baby was anything other than the child of Joseph and Mary.

Did Jesus Himself know the secret of His birth? In His divine nature He could presumably know everything. In His human nature, however, Mary hardly could have expected even Him to believe such a remarkable story. Possibly she may have felt she should share the story with Him after she had seen His miracles and knew He was not a mere man.

When did the followers of Jesus learn about His miraculous birth? The only two gospels which refer to his birth refer to it as a birth from a virgin mother. The fact that the Apostle Paul makes no specific mention of the Virgin Birth—his comment that Jesus was “made from a woman,” as Gal.4:4 literally says may or may not hint at it—is of no special significance; its implications were not central to his arguments.

Perhaps Mary felt free to tell the disciples the miraculous story during the days of prayer and sharing in the Upper Room. By that time, it was clear that Jesus was truly the Son of God. The memory of His wonderful teachings, of the miracles He had performed, and of His supernatural resurrection were making their impact on His followers. Mary may have felt that only at this point could she be believed.

I do not know when Mary shared her remarkable story. We can see, though, to the Jewish community there was nothing unusual about the birth of Jesus.

So let us have done with the thought that Mary and Jesus lived under a cloud of suspicion by any of their contemporaries—believers or unbelievers. God fitted His miraculous plan for the birth of Jesus into a situation which would provoke no doubts concerning the integrity of Mary, Joseph, or Jesus. It would seem to our human reasoning that only in this way could God’s great plan have been implemented with no unnecessary or reasonable doubts.

Dr. J. Harold Greenlee is a missionary of OMS International on loan to Wycliffe Bible Translators. He is the author of several books, including A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek, An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, and Scribes, Scrolls and Scriptures.