# Matthew 1:19-20



## sastark (Feb 18, 2005)

So I just read through the entire "Sex as the seal of the Marriage Covenant" thread, and noticed that several times reference was made to Joseph being called Mary's husband in Matt. 1:19 and then to Mary being called Joseph's wife in Matt. 1:20. I was curious, so I looked up these passages at http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm and found that the Greek word for "husband" (Strong's #435) can mean "male", "husband", OR "betrothed or future husband." Likewise, the Greek word for "wife" in Matt 1:20 (Strong's #1135) can mean "a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow", "a wife", OR "a betrothed woman." 

I am not a Greek scholar and don't claim to be one, so I am not going to die for this cause, BUT, could some one please show why in Matt 1:19 the greek is translated "husband" and in Matt 1:20, the greek is translated "wife" and not "betrothed to be husband" and "betrothed to be wife"?

I would refer everyone to Matt 1:18, Luke 1:27, and Luke 2:5 for instances where it is clearly stated that Mary was betrothed to Joseph and they were not yet husband and wife. And of special note is Luke 2:5 which establishes that Joseph and Mary were not yet married at the time they went to Bethlehem.


----------



## sastark (Feb 18, 2005)

Oh, and in case there is any confusion, I use the New King James Version and unless otherwise noted, that is the version I always quote.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 18, 2005)

Because the NKJV and KJV are in error in the way they express these verses in English. Every other major translation states it differently; as in, "to take Mary as your wife" not "to take Mary your wife".


----------



## sastark (Feb 18, 2005)

Yes, but I am curious as to whether this is a mistranslation on the part of the KJV/NKJV or if this is a textual variant with the Westcott-Hort text. Any idea?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 18, 2005)

I am not sure. I don't think it is a manuscript difference, but rather a result of the Elizabethan English rendering compared to how it would be rendered in modern English (which the NASB, NRSV, ESV, and HCSB correct). The translators of the KJV were not inspired and are not infallible. They simply made a poor translation, and newer versions of the Bible, with a greater understanding of Biblical languages being had by their translators, have now corrected this error.


----------



## sastark (Feb 18, 2005)

Gabriel, just to make it clear, I am not a King James only person (which I'm sure was clear from the fact that I use the NKJV), but I am a Textus Receptus/Majority Text only person. If this is a textual variant (which, again I am not sure if it is or not, and am curious to find out), then I will side with the TR/MT over the NIV, ESV, etc. An interesting note: The 1599 Geneva Bible translates Matt. 1:20 as "fear not to take to [thee] Mary, thy wife," but has the following not on "thy wife":

"Who was promised, and made sure to you to be your wife."

This seems to back the idea that Mary was not yet Joseph's wife, but rather only promised to be his wife, or as we would say it in the 21st century: They were engaged.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 18, 2005)

Right, like I said, I don't believe there is a textual variant on this passage - just some confusion over the translation into English.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 18, 2005)

The Greek word used in Matthew 1:19 and 20 is the word that is translated almost every time in the entire Greek corpus as either simply a "woman" or if it is in relation to a man "a wife." It is not, and so far as I know, not translated as "betrothed" ever. The reason for the difference in translation is because the GReek word in Luke 1:27, 2:5 and Matthew 1:18 is a different word. Why the Holy Spirit chose to use a different word, I don't know - but it is different. The "as" in 1:19 is an editorial translation that has no basis in the manuscript. It is an interpolation based on the other passages.

The other critical thing is that the Jewish concept of "betrohal" is nothing like our engagement. It is quite honestly more like marriage - it required a bill of divorce to sever, whereas we only require divorce for a marriage.

And the point is simply also made void by Matt 1:24, in which it is said "When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: *he took his wife*," (ESV) "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and *took Mary home as his wife*." (NIV)

So we have Joseph either being married to Mary and continuing that marriage, or marrying her immediately afterward, and yet still being called his "betrothed" in Luke 2:5 (which is later in time than Matt 1:24)

The answer appears to me that there is precious little difference between Jewish betrothal and marriage


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 18, 2005)

precisely


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 18, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> The answer appears to me that there is precious little difference between Jewish betrothal and marriage



Exactly, other than living together and sexual union, which is why it was taboo for Mary to be pregnant yet.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 18, 2005)

Taboo is she was not pregnant by him. They would have looked down upon, but probably said nothing if the child was known to be his.


----------



## DTK (Feb 18, 2005)

Yes, I think I can answer your question without recourse directly to the Greek, but to context. When he discovered she was with child, Joseph would never have been minded to put Mary away privily if the betrothal wasn't legally binding so as to regard them as husband and wife.

Blessings,
DTK

Oops, I see Mr. Greco is ahead of me once again, and I'm thrilled to have it so. 

[Edited on 2-19-2005 by DTK]


----------



## sastark (Feb 18, 2005)

Fred, thanks for clearing that up. But, I am still curious as to why Mary is referred to as betrothed to Joseph in Luke 2:5, which, as you said, is later in time than Matt 1:19-20, 24. At the time they went to Bethlehem they were not married (or at least they would appear to be not married from Luke 2:5). 

But, if this is not a textual variant, then when did Joseph and Mary become married, and not simply betrothed? Could a man and woman be "betrothed" even after they were married?

Also, I understand that the modern idea of "engagement" is different from the ancient idea of "betrothal". Sorry if I didn't make that clear before.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 19, 2005)

We can't expect our gospel writers to put every word or even event into a temporal sequence, as if the gospels were a chronology of Jesus' life. They have an historical progression about them. They generally move in a single direction. But we shouldn't ask of them what we wouldn't demand of any other writer--that they resolve all ambiguities to our satisfaction.

The very situation of the virgin birth, the custom of extended hyper-formal engagements, the absence of any marriage ceremony, the rapid sequence of events culminating in a flight to Egypt, a return to Nazareth after perhaps a couple years of absence--is it any wonder that the language of the writers reflects some of the irregular manner of the settling out of this situation?

To the text:
We could render v 19: "And Joseph, her _man..._
We can render v 20 literally: "Do not be afraid taking Mary the _woman_ of you." How are you going to put this into good, understandable English? Maybe there's a couple equally good ways. 

The important thing verse 24 tells us is that, in conformity to God's word by the angel, Joseph did not do as he was contemplating and divorce Mary. Rather he took and married her, i.e. he let the engagement continue on its course, end goal being marriage which they did reach. But it is not significant to Matthew to fix when exactly that formal moment passed. Perhaps it passed in ambiguity or without fanfare. Matthew doesn't record the trip to Bethlehem, and it surely happened after Joseph knew Mary was pregnant. But again, the important thing comes out in the following verse, that he had no marital relations with her until she was delivered of the child. This is key--there must be no doubt for the reader that Mary was a virgin with child.

So, Luke speaks accurately of them as still being betrothed at the time of the trip to Bethlehem. Evidently the marriage formality (whatever/however) did not take place until some time (when?) after the trip to Bethlehem. But God so providentially ordered even the social custom of the day so as to provide a suitable parental and legal arrangement (this extended, extra-formal engagement period) into which the Son of God would be born.

That's my


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 19, 2005)

Amen.


----------

