What happened to Joseph the father of Jesus

We know very little about the years of Jesus prior to His public ministry. The gospels are without notation of any childhood events beyond Christ's birth except one reference that is found in Luke. It is the very last time that Joseph, the adoptive father of Jesus, is ever mentioned.

Luke 2:41 reads: "Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, 'Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.' 'Why were you searching for me?' he asked. 'Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?' But they did not understand what he was saying to them. Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men."

It is supposed that Joseph, the father of Jesus, died during the quiet years of Jesus' life. We do know that he trained Jesus in his trade, as that of a carpenter. He do know that Joseph and Mary had children after Jesus was born: James, Joses, Simon, and others.

Perhaps the cause or timing of his death is not nearly as important as the strength of character he displayed. In first hearing about Mary's pregnancy, Joseph did not want to subject Mary to public scorn. After hearing from the angel who confirmed Mary's incredulous story, Joseph obediently accepted the role as surrogate father for the baby Jesus, the Christ child. Matthew 1:24-25 says, "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."

The last reference about Joseph in Luke confirms that Joseph was a devout follower of the customs of his religion with his observance of Passover. It implies that Joseph made certain of good spiritual training for the children in his family. Joseph proved his integrity and willingness to be obedient to God's direction and guidance.

Sinlessness of Mary
Printer Friendly Format
QUESTION:

How exactly does the Orthodox Church view the sinlessness of Mary? In the Liturgy it is said, "One is Holy, One is Lord, Jesus Christ, to the Glory of God the Father" and in other places that Jesus is the only sinless one. Also, in reference to 1 John 1:8 where it says, "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." How can these be reconciled? Is the Theotokos all-pure, all-holy, all-blameless because of her deification through her Son, so that she is those things because her Son is, as we are holy, pure, etc. through our union to Christ?

Also, how is it that she is referred to as the only refuge for sinners, and various phrases like this? Isn't Christ our only refuge and the salvation of sinners?

This is the main stumbling block I have with Orthodoxy right now. There seems to be varying beliefs within the Orthodoxy on the Theotokos. Didn't St John Chrysostom teach that Mary had sinned at least once? When I read the earliest Church Fathers there seems to be little focus on Mary apart from the Christological issue of whether she was the Mother of God, or only of Christ. Doesn't the teaching that Mary was sinless from birth state the same general concept, that Mary is more than the rest of humanity, as the Immaculate Conception (apart from the idea of original sin) except that it moves the moment of the supernatural grace of God to birth from conception?

I am not trying to answer my own questions, but am simply not understanding how these contradictions, at least seemingly, can be resolved.

ANSWER:

While I would love to be able to fully answer your question, it is far beyond the scope of an e-mail, especially because full understanding of the Orthodox position, based on the tenor of your question, on the Virgin Mary requires a thorough explanation of some of the secondary issues to which you refer, such as original sin, the Immaculate Conception, supernatural grace, etc. As such, I would highly recommend that you meet in person with the parish priest at the Orthodox Church you have been visiting -- he will no doubt be glad to answer the question at some depth.

I can say, in short, that the Orthodox Church believes that Mary, as a human being, could indeed have sinned, but chose not to. In the Roman Catholic understanding, it seems that Mary, who according to Roman doctrine had been exempted from the guilt of original sin [the Orthodox do not accept that humans share the guilt of the first sin but, rather, only the consequences] before all eternity, and thus could not have sinned. This is where the complexity comes in on a number of levels and which puts your question beyond the scope of an e-mail.

Jesus Christ is Mary's Savior, as well as ours, as testified in her own statement in St Luke -- the Magnificat -- where she says, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior." If Mary had been "sin-proofed," so to speak, from all eternity, the Orthodox would argue as to why she would need a Savior.

Mary is the "new Eve" who said "yes" to God where the first Eve said "no." She did have a choice, and you may wish to ask your local parish priest to share with you the text of the Kanon from Matins for the Great Feast of the Annunciation, in which you will see a beautiful dialogue between Mary and the Archangel Gabriel in which she debates whether or not to accept the archangel's news, only in the end accepting that which he announced.

While much that the Orthodox say of Mary "sounds" similar to that which is taught by Roman Catholicism, there are serious differences on many levels. You are correct in saying, however, that the Orthodox Church does not seem to have such a highly developed mariological tradition as the Christian West; it is, at least in my experience, only in recent times, with the growing interest in Orthodoxy especially among many evangelicals, that we have had to delve so deeply -- and sometimes deeper than we should -- into the role of Mary. Sometimes our answers seem somewhat lame, but in reality there is only so much one can say before one must acknowledge that, while there are certain things we simply cannot fully understand about this, reasoned faith, as defined in St James, becomes the only recourse.

Do you have a question on the Orthodox Faith, Christianity, or the Orthodox Church in America? Contact Fr. John Matusiak at info@oca.org

http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=116&SID=3

Immaculate Conception
This article or section needs a cleanup to bring it to a higher standard of quality. Recommendation: See talk page.More detailed comments may be noted on the talk page. You can help OrthodoxWiki by editing it, especially to conform to the Style Manual and the suggestions in How to write a great article.
The Immaculate Conception is a Roman Catholic dogma which asserts that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was preserved by God from the transmission of original sin at the time of her own conception. Specifically the doctrine says she was not afflicted by the privation of sanctifying grace which afflicts mankind, but was instead filled with grace by God, and furthermore lived a life completely free from sin. It is commonly confused with the doctrine of the virgin birth, though the two doctrines deal with separate subjects.
Contents
[hide]
1 The Orthodox Church and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
1.1 From modern Orthodox theologians
1.2 Relevant quotations from the Fathers
2 History and background
3 History of the doctrine
4 Roman Catholic statements
5 Roman Catholic Polemical Articles
[edit]
The Orthodox Church and the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

This article or section is a stub (i.e., in need of additional material). You can help OrthodoxWiki by expanding it.
St. Augustine & Original Sin - a typical Orthodox perspective, by Fr. John Matusiak
The Immaculate Conception: The Holiness of the Mother of God in East and West - Dr. Alexander Roman (Ukrainian Orthodox Church)
The Immaculate Conception: A Question - response by Dr. Roman
What do the Orthodox believe about the "Immaculate Conception"?
On the Immaculate Conception, by Patriarch Bartholomew I (Archontonis) of Constantinople
Zeal Not According to Knowledge - The view of St. John of Shanghai on the issue.
On the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the dogma's proclamation, a general objection by Derek Power (User:Fedya911)
[edit]
From modern Orthodox theologians
"Like other human beings, such as St John the Baptist, whose conception and birth are festivals of the Church, the Holy Virgin was born under the law of original sin, sharing with all other human beings their common responsibility for the fall." Vladimir Lossky, "Panagia," in E. L. Mascall, ed., The Mother of God: A Symposium by Members of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius. Westminster: Dacre Press, 1959. Page 31.
"The Orthodox church does not accept the Catholic dogma of 1854 -- the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin, in the sense that she was exempt at birth from original sin. This would separate her from the human race, and she would then have been unable to transmit to her Son humanity. But Orthodoxy does not admit in the all-pure Virgin any individual sin, for that would be unworthy of the dignity of the Mother of God." Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church. Crestwood: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1997.
"I do not see any irresoluble conflict between the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the full humanity and freedom of Mary as of the same race as Eve." - alleged to Vladimir Lossky but not verified.
[edit]
Relevant quotations from the Fathers
"...being Himself at once God and man, His flesh and soul were and are holy - and beyond holy. God is holy, just as He was and is and shall be, and the Virgin is immaculate, without spot or stain, and so, too, was that rib which was taken from Adam. However the rest of humanity, even though they are His brothers and kin according to the flesh, yet remained even as they were, of dust, and did not immediately become holy and sons of God."
- St. Symeon the New Theologian, Discourse XIII in On the Mystical Life, vol. 2, trans. Alexander Golitzin (SVS Press, 1996)
[edit]
History and background

The Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus, published December 8, 1854 (the Latins' Feast of the Immaculate Conception). From 1483, Pope Sixtus IV had left Roman Catholics free to believe that Mary was subject to original sin or not, after having introduced the celebration; this freedom had been reiterated by the Council of Trent.
The Roman Catholic Church believes the dogma is supported by scripture and by the writings of many of the Church Fathers, either directly or indirectly. Roman Catholic theology maintains that since Jesus became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, she needed to be completely free of sin to bear the Son of God, and that Mary is "redeemed 'by the grace of Christ' but in a more perfect manner than other human beings" (Ott, Fund., Bk 3, Pt. 3, Ch. 2, §3.1.e).
The doctrine is generally not shared by either Eastern Orthodoxy or by Protestantism. Protestantism rejects the doctrine because it is not explicitly spelled out in the Bible. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox often say that the immaculate conception of the Theotokos would contradict the doctrine of the redemption of humanity, as the Virgin Mary would have been cleansed before Christ's own incarnation, making his function superfluous. Orthodox Christians say that St. Augustine (d. 430), whose works were not well known in Eastern Christianity until perhaps the 17th and 18th centuries, has influenced the theology of sin that has generally taken root in the West. Many Orthodox consider unnecessary the doctrine that Mary would require purification prior to the Incarnation. Eastern Orthodox theologians believe that the references among the Greek and Syrian Fathers to Mary's purity and sinlessness may refer not to an a priori state but to her conduct after birth.
Roman Catholics counter with Scripture (e.g., Romans 5, Wisdom of Solomon 2:24, I Corinthians 15:21, the experience of St. John the Baptizer in his mother's womb, etc.) and the writings of Church Fathers prior to St. Augustine.
[edit]
History of the doctrine

Aside from the acceptability of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and its necessity or lack thereof, is the history of its development within the Roman Catholic Church. The Conception of Mary was celebrated in England from the ninth century. Eadmer was influential in its spread. The Normans suppressed the celebration but it lived on in the popular mind. It was rejected by Bernard of Clairvaux, Alexander of Hales, and Bonaventure (who, teaching at Paris, called it "this foreign doctrine," indicating its association with England). Thomas Aquinas expressed questions about the subject but said that he would accept the determination of the Church (his difficulty was in seeing how Mary could be redeemed if she had not sinned).
The Oxford Franciscans William of Ware and especially John Duns Scotus defended the doctrine despite the opposition of most scholarly opinion at the time. Scotus proposed a solution to the theological problems involved with reconciling the doctrine with the doctrine of universal redemption in Christ by arguing that Mary's immaculate conception did not remove her from redemption by Christ but rather was the result of a more perfect redemption given to her on account of her special role in salvation history. Scotus' defence of the immaculist thesis was summed up by one of his followers potuit, decuit ergo fecit (God could do it, it was fitting that he did it, and so he did it). Following his defence of the thesis, students at Paris swore to defend the thesis and the tradition grew of swearing to defend the doctrine with one's blood. Arguments ensued between the immaculist Scotists and the maculist Thomists, and the former tried to link this doctrine with that of the primacy of Christ (which says that Christ would have become man even if Adam had not sinned) since both groups reject the idea that God's plans were determined by human sin.
Popular opinion was firmly behind accepting this privilege for Mary, but such was the sensitivity of the issue and the authority of Aquinas that it was not until 1854 that Pius IX, with the support of the overwhelming majority of Catholic bishops, felt safe enough to pronounce the doctrine infallible.
The contemporary statement of the teaching can be found here in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The actual text of the doctrinal declaration is: "We declare . . . that the most Blessed Virgin Mary in the first moment of her conception was, by the unique grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ the Saviour of the human race, preserved intact from all stain of original sin."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Immaculate_Conception

You can get a fuller context for this HERE.

"[Some] insist that "brethren of the Lord" must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: "[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as "till") she brought forth her firstborn son."

They first argue that the natural inference from "till" is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called "first-born"? Doesn’t that mean there must have been at least a "second-born," perhaps a "third-born," and so on?

But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of "until," instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.

Consider this line: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave "until this day" (Deut. 34:6). But we know that no one has known since that day either.

The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word "till" in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: "He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son" (New American Bible); "He had not known her when she bore a son" (Knox).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.