- They were not homeless. Joseph and Mary each came from perfectly good homes in Nazareth, and they were no more homeless than I was during the time we lived in England, when I had to travel from my home in Bristol up to the American Embassy in London to register the births of my children when they were born. I'm sick of the stories that make them sound like vagrants, having to find shelter under the nearest interstate overpass. The inn was full, yes. All the inns were full. Bethlehem was packed full of people. It wasn't out of cruelty that the innkeeper offered them the stable. It was probably done as a favor to them. Inns were notoriously seedy places, and the stable was probably a whole lot cleaner and more private. Homelessness in our society is a sad and tragic thing, caused by various circumstances. But let's not use the Holy Family as a prop in the lobby for the homeless.
- They were not illegal aliens. Joseph and Mary were obeying civil authority when they went to the city of David, because Joseph was descended from King David. They weren't fleeing from an oppressive regime in Nazareth, and they weren't scrounging for work in Bethlehem so they could send some denarii back to the folks in the old country. Whatever one's opinion is about illegal immigration, Joseph and Mary don't lend themselves as examples for any argument one way or the other. The circumstances just don't fit.
- They were not living in poverty. Ok, they weren't rich. But they weren't eating out of garbage cans or subsisting on food stamps, either. Joseph, as a carpenter, had a perfectly respectable trade. In fact, his occupation is described as tekton, which is more like a general contractor. Mary's parents were respectable people. Tradition hints that Anne was descended from one of the high priests of the Temple, and Joachim was well-off enough to have a flock of sheep, indicating that Mary's background was not one of grinding poverty, any more than was Joseph's.
I used to read that stuff and then fire off a letter to the editor. Now I give it a place of honor at the bottom of the bird cage.

7 comments:
I agree with your general point, but only a little later they were fleeing from an oppressive regime. Their stay in Egypt was possibly not illegal but if so then more so because the concept of illegal immigration wasn't really known back then.
Not quite, B. As oppressive as the regime may have been, that's not why they were fleeing. They went to Egypt only because God revealed to them that the Holy Child was marked for death. And the danger wasn't because the government was, per se, oppressive; rather it's because Herod was a crackpot.
Birds deserve better! :)
Well, if murdering every male child isn't your definition of oppressive, I'd like to know what would fit the bill!
Sounds pretty oppressive to me.
CDB, I agree that it is a very oppressive act. But it wasn't the policy of the Roman government. It was because the nut-case Herod was mad that the Magi had deluded him. As oppressive as the Roman government was, they didn't have a general policy of killing off male children two years and under. This was Herod's reaction to a specific situation in which he didn't want to lose his throne.
I don't want to continue beating this horse, but there's a difference between immigrating because of a corrupt or oppressive governmental system, as opposed to fleeing because one individual has threatened to kill your child.
It may be time to repost this classic from England for anyone who has not yet seen it.
The Holy Family in the context you discuss would actually fit quite nicely under the modern definition of a refugee who, according to the UN (which provides the standard definition) has a “well founded
fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
Post a Comment