Were Mary and Joseph Married or Engaged at Jesus Birth?

Luke 2:5 is frequently recited annually to recount the Nativity story to millions of worshippers gathered for Christmas Eve candlelight services, plays, or cantatas. The New International Version (NIV) translation states: “Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.” Chronologically, the narrative had progressed about eight months from Luke 1:26-27, where it stated that Gabriel was sent to a virgin named Mary “pledged to be married to a man named Joseph.” The Greek verb mnēsteuō was translated identically in both verses.

The translation implies that an unmarried Jewish couple was traveling a significant distance unaccompanied by other family members. The woman — still only pledged in marriage — was in an advanced state of pregnancy. If such a situation is still scandalous in the Middle East today, it would have been even more so in first-century Judea![1]

Other modern translations of Luke 2:5 present similar challenges. The English Standard Version (ESV) uses “betrothed,” an archaic Middle English term. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) uses “engaged,” while the New Living Translation (NLT) says “fiancée.” Again, these English versions suggest that the couple’s marriage was incomplete.

Matthew’s Gospel seems clearer. In the genealogy, Joseph is referred to as the “husband of Mary,” who gave birth to Jesus (Matthew 1:16). Describing the background of their relationship, Matthew 1:18 states, “His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph.” Here Matthew uses the same Greek verb as Luke. However, after Joseph decides to divorce Mary because of her unexpected pregnancy, an angel warns him in a dream not to proceed. The angel advises him to “take Mary as his wife” (Matthew 1:20). Upon waking, Joseph obeys the angel's command: He took Mary as his wife (Matthew 1:24). Luke’s version seems to contradicts Matthew’s, according to current English translations.

The Greek verb mnēsteuō is used eight times in the Septuagint (the third-century B.C. Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible). Four instances in Deuteronomy (22:23, 25, 27, 28) address the legal issues surrounding an engaged woman having illicit sexual relations. If the incident occurs in a city (22:23), both the man and the woman are to be stoned to death; if a rape occurs in the country, only the man is to be stoned. The man is considered guilty because he has violated another man’s wife (22:24).

In the three uses in Hosea, God himself is speaking. Regarding Israel’s future day of redemption in 2:16, God declares: “You will call me ‘my husband.’” Then he states in verses 19–20: “And I will take you for my wife forever; I will take you for my wife in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy. I will take you for my wife in faithfulness; and you shall know the LORD.” The NRSV translates “wife” here, while the NIV, ESV and New King James Version (NKJV) all read: “I will betroth you.” Given the context in which God declares that He is a husband forever, it is evident that His relationship with Israel extends beyond an engagement stage; they will metaphorically be husband and wife.

The Hebrew verb aras, translated mnēsteuō in Greek, refers to Jewish marriage practice in which the groom contractually pays a bride-price (mohar) to the bride’s father (Genesis 34:12). According to Old Testament scholar Douglas Stuart, “This was the final step in the courtship process, virtually equivalent in legal status to the wedding ceremony.”[2] According to the Mishnah Ketubbot 5.2, the betrothal would last a year, with the bride remaining in the home of her father. Recalling the legal texts in Deuteronomy mentioned earlier plus the equation of David’s betrothal to Michal as marriage (2 Samuel 3:14), we see that under Jewish law, a betrothed woman was considered to be married.

Returning to Joseph, he would have paid the bride price to Mary’s father at their engagement (Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:27). Despite his doubts, Joseph then obeyed the angel’s command to marry Mary (Matthew 1:20). The time of formal engagement, whether a full year or not, had passed between them. But their marriage was not yet consummated, which typically involved the couple living together after the betrothal period and coming together sexually. The angel's message to Joseph confirmed Mary's pregnancy was from the Holy Spirit, and Joseph was told to take her as his wife, which he did, but he did not have relations with her until after Jesus was born.

In conclusion, Joseph and Mary had begun to live together except for sexual relations (Matthew 1:25). Luke’s understanding of mnēsteuō must be expanded to include both the betrothal/engagement as well as marital cohabitation. Therefore, a better translation of Luke 2:5 would be: “Mary his wife who was expecting a child.” (The NKJV attempts a hybrid with “betrothed wife.”) English translations that suggest the couple was still only in the engagement stage of fiancé/fiancée must be discarded. Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem as a full husband and wife under ancient Jewish law.

Endnotes

[1] In his commentary, The Gospel According to Luke I–IX (New York: Doubleday, 1981), Joseph Fitzmyer includes detailed comments on the historical background and translational considerations of the text. He suggests that readers of Luke 2:5 should not be overliteral because the account does not intend to answer questions such as: “What was she doing on a journey with Joseph, if she were merely his fiancée or betrothed? And worse still, pregnant as well?” To ask such questions, according to Fitzmyer, is to miss the point of Luke’s story. But in liturgical use such authorial nuances are lost. He also notes that Luke never calls Mary the “wife” of Joseph and perhaps was not aware of Palestinian Jewish marriage customs. This article assumes that Luke, because of his knowledge of Jewish customs and possible interview with Mary herself (cf. Luke 1:2), used familiar marital language that had a broader semantic range than translators give it today.

[2] Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 31 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), p. 59.