Mathew screwed up. Im sure another bible translation will fix it.
I think 'Luke' fixed up this error along with a few others
2006-10-20 05:46:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by CJunk 4
·
2⤊
4⤋
No, they don't contradict each other. Here is the explanation: both verses describe things that happened before they were married. In Verse 19, "Joseph her husband" means "Joseph, who was later her husband."
That statement is just like saying, "When President Lincoln was a boy ..." That wouldn't mean he was president when he was a boy. It means we're going to tell about when he was a boy, but we know he was president later, so now we'll refer to him as President. And just in the same way, in Verse 19, "Joseph her husband" is like "President Lincoln." It means we know he was her husband later, so we'll now refer to him as her husband.
Then when it says he had a mind to divorce her, so that she wouldn't be disgraced, that doesn't mean they were married. What it means is that to prevent her from being disgraced, he plans to go ahead and marry her --because they're pledged, as it says in Verse 18-- and then he plans to divorce her quietly, later, when it will no longer be disgraceful.
This may come as a shock to you, Jibba Jabba, but in fact there a lot of guys who don't want to get married but they go ahead so that their girlfriend won't be disgraced or embarrassed, with the idea that they'll divorce them quietly, later, when not so many people are looking ... but then, see, like Joseph, they figure it's not such a bad marriage after all and they never get around to divorcing. Go ahead, ask me how I know. You may learn more about such things, Jibba Jabba, when and if you grow older and wiser.
In Verse 19, it's true that Matthew neglects to say that Joseph planned on marrying Mary before they got the quiet divorce that he planned on. I think he should have mentioned that, if he had time, but back in those days they didn't have very high standards of journalism.
2006-10-20 13:03:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by yahoohoo 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
In ancient Judaism, betrothal was the first part of the marriage, constituting a man and woman as husband and wife. Subsequent infidelity was considered adultery.
The betrothal was followed some months later by the husband's taking his wife into his home, at which time normal married life began.
During the betrothal period, Mary got pregnant by someone other than Joseph.
As a devout observer of the Mosaic law, Joseph wished to break his union with someone whom he suspected of gross violation of the law.
Joseph could have had Mary stoned to death for adultery. But he did not want to do this so he planned to divorce her (from the betrothal) quietly.
Then the angel of God visited him, Joseph listened to and followed God's plan, and the rest is history.
Here is the 1st chapter of Matthew: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew1.htm Please read the footnotes.
With love in Christ.
2006-10-21 00:00:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by imacatholic2 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
You have to understand how Jewish marriage works....the commonly used english terms do not convey the essence of the relationship.
They were fully married...insofar as if Joseph wanted to be rid of Mary, he would have had to divorce her.
Jewish marriage happens in two stages. The first, commonly called 'betrothal' in english, is essentially that the contract of marriage is entered into. Like I mentioned above, at this stage, they are fully married, however, they would not have been living together yet nor have consummated the marriage sexually. Even so, she is completely forbidden to another man. Usually, during this time, the man is building his home, or a house for his new wife and the woman is still living in her father's house.
For Joseph and Mary to have been travelling together, as they were, EVERYONE would have considered them to have passed into the second stage in which sexual relations would have taken place. The only exception to this would have been if Mary has been 'sold' to Joseph as a child bride and she was still BELOW the age of majority...and there is no mention that Mary was a mere child when she bore Jesus.
This is why, to Jews, the concept of virgin birth, or God fathering the child Jesus to be so ludicrous. Aside from no prophesy requiring this, how does one prove it? And if it is necessary, why choose a married woman that would make the child a 'mamzer' (child of a forbidden relationship) to all who saw him, and immediately invalidate him as a possible messiah?
Based on the account of his birth, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to have been the messiah....aside from the fact that he fulfilled none of the messianic prophesies as understood by over 1000 years of Jewish tradition (at the time).
2006-10-20 13:45:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by mzJakes 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Jewish customs in Joseph and Mary's day recognized a state called "betrothal" that fell somewhere between our modern commitments of engagement and marriage. A betrothal was more binding than an engagement: it could only be broken wiht an act of divorce. And if a betrothed woman became pregnant, ahe was regarded as an adultress, according to Jewish customs at that time.
When reading the bible it is important to see how all the parts make up one. It's alos important to remember that customs and traditions were somewhat different than they are today. Have a nice day.
2006-10-20 12:54:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Back in the day---you were promised(engaged) to each other--so it was as if you were already married--not like nowadays. Divorce is the word they would have used for dismiss or repudiate. But if you read on you see that Joseph was visited by an angel to give him direction and to not be afraid of what the world thinks--because this son would surely save the world.
2006-10-20 12:52:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by heavnbound 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Let me give you a basic rundown on how it worked
When the marraige was accepted by all parties involved there was a great celebration. They were as good as married, though they didn't live together, or sleep together.
He would go home and build a home to live in, and prepare that home, she would stay with her family getting everything she needed and learning how to care for a home. This time lasted about a year.
She was his wife and he was her husband. As soon as the pledge of marraige was accepted , they became husband and wife, though they had not come together.
2006-10-20 12:51:37
·
answer #7
·
answered by Miss Vicki 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
When Mary was betrothed to Joseph, she would have been between twelve and twevle-and-a-half years old, according to Jewish customs. After their betrothal, Mary lived at her own home for another year before the solemn marriage ceremony after which she went to live in Joseph's home. Even though not living together for the first year, the betrothed couple were legally considered man and wife.
2006-10-20 13:00:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by Stanbo 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
That verse was written long after Jesus was crucified, so yes, Joseph at the time when this verse was written was married to Mary, and the author wrote it like that.
Any other "contradictions" you want me to explain to you
2006-10-20 12:55:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
In Jewish tradition, a couple was espoused from the time a marriage contract was signed. This could be in childhood, or in adulthood. However, the marriage was not sealed until the ceremony. Since there was a contract, there had to be some sort of public declaration that it was declared void. Fornication was one of the acceptable reasons to void a marriage contract.
Mary and Joseph were in this "in between" period when she became pregnant with Jesus.
Peace.
2006-10-20 12:48:13
·
answer #10
·
answered by Suzanne: YPA 7
·
4⤊
2⤋
if they were betrothed, no. because they were already bound. i think maybe you misunderstand how strict the laws were back in those days. men actually respected women and their virginity. if they were bethrothed, they hadnt been married or had sex yet because marriage was consummated by the first sexual act. if he found she was pregnant on their wedding night, the divorce would have been to refuse her completely, leaving her in shame, and for him to not even touch her. who knows if he went ahead and lay with her anyways to show his devotion to her and her word that she was still a virgin.
2006-10-20 12:56:34
·
answer #11
·
answered by Hurray for the ANGELS! 3
·
1⤊
0⤋