One of the bloggers on yesterday’s post said:
At the same time, I am reminded of the statement of Jesus to the effect that he was homeless, that he had no place to lay his head. Perhaps there is “voluntary poverty” involved?
The statement to which he is referring is:
And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.” Then He said to another, “Follow Me.”
Because of our current debates, we have a tendency to oppose the rich to the poor. But, that has more to do with class warfare than it does with Scripture. Scripture is indeed concerned with justice for the poor and the oppressed. It repeats that over and over. Consistently the prophets, the apostles, the patriarchs, the saints, the priests all speak to the issue of justice for those who are mistreated by both the power structure and by individuals. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament consistently speak clearly and at times even violently against those who mistreat God’s creation, and most especially those who mistreat the human beings whom God has created.
But, Scripture speaks positively of those whom obey God’s call, whether rich or poor. The issue is not whether one is rich or poor. The issue is whether one is willing to follow God and to behave properly towards his Creation. It is true that those who follow God will behave appropriately towards all of God’s creatures. As a result Scripture speaks positively of those who behave appropriately to all of God’s creation, whether rich or poor. Thus, Scripture approves of Abraham, Joseph, Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, etc., because of their appropriate behavior towards all of God’s people.
Having said that, one blogger brought up a very important point:
As to whether Joseph and Mary were poor… Luke 2:24 records that the sacrifice given to atone for Mary’s ceremonial uncleanness was “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.” Leviticus 12:8 says that this was the sacrifice given if the woman was too poor to sacrifice a lamb and a bird.
I had completely forgotten that Scripture. But, the poster is correct. That Scripture clearly gives evidence that Joseph and Mary were poor. This would point towards the idea that the tradition that Joseph was well off is not a sound tradition. This leaves the more “Roman Catholic” tradition that Joseph was a young man and that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were his first cousins. Am I upset? Not in the least. But, this does mean that I will point towards the more “Roman Catholic” tradition of a young Joseph.
Nevertheless, this whole discussion points to the need to read Scripture as written and to receive Holy Tradition as it is rather than building a set of interpretations that have little to do with what is actually written and what is actually received.
Nevertheless, this whole discussion points to the need to read Scripture as written and to receive Holy Tradition as it is rather than building a set of interpretations that have little to do with what is actually written and what is actually received.
Absolutemente!
In terms of the doves versus the lamb for a sacrifice–I was wondering if there is something there that might speak to betrothed versus married–ie Mary was clearly pregnant before she was married to Joseph–she herself might have been not very well off and the sacrifice relates to HER lack of wealth–just a thought–the other thought I had was that Joseph might have once been well off as a small businessman–but his refusal to put Mary away even though she was pregnant might have alienated the more self-righteous people of his area-and his customer base therefore dwindled. I have seen “religious” people decide to boycott people who were thought to be not acting in accordance to their idea of right–and Joseph might have erred in their eyes by NOT putting her away. The tradition that says Joseph was an older man makes more sense to me.
Alix
The remark “is this not Mary’s son?” might lend at least some support to that theory. If Joseph was well off prior to his marriage to Mary that may have changed after he married her and there was sufficiently widespread speculation that Jesus was an illegitimate child that this legitimacy polemic gets mentioned in at least two gospels. I have wondered if questions about Jesus’ legitimacy have been understated as a contributing factor to why his adversaries believed he needed to be eliminated. Weren’t there prohibitions against illegitimately born children entering the assembly of the Lord in Deuteronomy 23?
First, regarding your main point here: somewhere one or more of the fathers tells us that the rich are given to the poor to supply the needs of the latter while the poor are to given to the rich in order to facilitate the salvation of the latter. What you are saying resonates with that.
I also think that Joseph being an older man makes more sense (this understanding is also older and it is very possible that the current RC understanding is in fact more ideologically driven than anything. See the link below.)
http://arturovasquez.wordpress.com/2010/08/11/the-holy-family/
I may be totally wrong, but I have a sense that pretty much everybody was offering two birds instead of the lamb or whatever at this point. Why? Because two small birds are easier for everybody to handle. I can imagine this being rationalized by something like the following: “We’re an occupied nation. We’re all poor.”
Finally, does anybody have any idea as to what the Jewish population of Palestine was during this time? It couldn’t have been huge. I wonder if everybody, from the high priest down to the beggar in the street, pretty much knew everybody else.
Hm, this goes with a current attitude in the USA. I am surprised at the number of people who are above the poverty level, as defined by the USA government, who talk about themselves being poor despite the fact that they are clearly into middle-class earnings. It is an unusual self-delusion, as they may be middle class in the USA, but live a lifestyle that would be considered well-off in most of the world.