Luke 1:34: Mary's INTENT to REMAIN a VIRGIN

  • Thread starter Thread starter AHJE
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AHJE

Guest
God reveals through this verse that Mary intended to* remain* a virgin and not only that. God tells us that she was morally blameless in raising her question to St. Gabriel, which means that there was no doubt in her mind (like Zechariah)* and *there was no defiance in her will (like Jonah). Mary was left totally unpunished (unlike Zechariah who received swift justice at his unbelief and unlike Jonah who suffered being thrown into the sea due to the storm that God sent).

Her question was completely and utterly blameless. In fact, I will argue that her question is actually praiseworthy since it is an expression of her desire to remain faithful both to God’s call to become Mother and to her conscientious intention to remain a Virgin.

The only way that her intention to remain a virgin be kept morally blameless and pleasing to God it requires and necessitates that her will be*** bound by a previous commitment***, and therefore, the Blessed Virgin Mary’s question would not be an act of defiance. On the other hand, if her will was free to have normal marital relations with her betrothed Joseph, her question would, in effect, have been an act of defiance. And I believe that she would have been punished like Zechariah. But, we know that she wasn’t punished.

This is Mary’s Question:
**
“And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?” (St. Luke 1:34, DRB)**

This is the translation most faithful to the original greek. There is no word for “virgin” in the original AND there is no indefinite article (‘a’ or ‘an’) by the fact that andra is used instead of “anthropos” for the word “man”.
Here is a situation that sheds light on the GRAMMAR of St. Luke 1:34:
A cross-country runner, 33 years old, who is really into health and working out goes to his physician for a check up.

The doctor diagnoses him and tells him that he shall get lung cancer …

**And the man said to the doctor: How will this be done, since I smoke not tobbaco?
**_____________________________________________________________

This is a parallel GRAMMATICAL structure to St. Luke 1:34, don’t you think?
**
“And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?” (St. Luke 1:34, DRB)**
Finally, I invite you to contrast Sarah from the Old Testament and Mary in the New.

Sarah was unable to conceive because she was barren.

Mary was unable to conceive because of something also, her will was already bound.

In both cases there was an incapability which prevented normal conception from taking place.

In Sarah’s case, she was unable due to a biological impediment (in the physical order).

In Mary’s case, she was unable due to a spiritual impediment (in the moral order).

" … Hail, full of grace Kecharitomene], the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women." (St. Luke 1:28, DRB)

Any questions or comments?
**“But we renounce the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor adulterating the word of God; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience, in the sight of God.” (2 Cor. 4:2)

“For we are not as many, adulterating the word of God; but with sincerity, but as from God, before God, in Christ we speak.” (2 Cor. 2:17)

**I invite you to receive St. Luke 1:34 AS IT IS, pure and unadulterated, in its virgin form … even as Almighty God has revealed it in Sacred Writing by the Divine Inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

May the Holy Spirit come to your assistance as you search this matter out.

God bless you.

A. H. J. E.
After the Heart of Jesus Evangelist
 
Please keep in mind that Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli (three of the most influential leaders in the Protestant movement) each believed that Mary was and is Ever-Virgin.

This is for your consideration, since they also had some devotion to the Holy Bible.
 
Peace be to all. 🙂

Take a look at these considerations:
  1. God preannounces through the message of St. Gabriel that Zachary’s ***barren ***wife Elizabeth shall bear a son in her old age. St. Luke 1:13
  2. Days afterwards Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist. (Lk 1:24)
  3. Therefore the word **“shall” **indicates a future event.
  4. Zachary doubts the good news. (Lk 1:18)
  5. Swift punishment ensued and Zachary was struck dumb. Lk 1:19
  6. Mary was a young maiden betrothed or espoused (maybe about 14 years old) Lk 1:27
  7. She was, according to Jewish eyes, practically married already. Mt. 1:19
    She was not a single woman.
  8. Joseph was declared **“a righteous man” **(uncommon in the Bible) Mt. 1:19
    Perhaps even a chaste righteous man like Joseph from the OT
  9. Mary knows how babies are conceived. Lk 1:34
  10. God preannounces through the message of St. Gabriel that Mary (who has no reason to believe that she is barren) would conceive (in the future tense) Lk 1:31
11.The Archangel did not tell her that it would be a miraculous conception.
  1. Mary is “FULL OF GRACE”, a Holy Woman.
  2. If Mary had any intention AT ALL to have a child with Joseph it appears that she should have understood this Message as a call to have a natural conception as it NORMALLY happens between spouses. At least, this is what the context may suggest. She was betrothed already.
  3. Unlike Zachary, Mary is not punished, which means she is not asking in doubt but rather in wonderment and awe at the Mystery. (Never before in all of history has it been heard that a woman conceived without a man.) And yet Mary has NO CLUE how she might conceive? Isn’t she practically married already?
15.Her wonderment and puzzlement comes from another source.

16.Mary appears to be asking because she has NO INTENTION whatsoever to
be intimate with any man, including the righteous Joseph. But doesn’t this
appear defiant in light of the fact that she doesn’t KNOW that it will be
done through a miracle? Can’t Mary take the hint that God is probably calling
her to “know” Joseph in the Biblical Sense of the word “know”?
Is Mary having a bad case of hesitation/lukewarmness or is she being downright defiant?
If that were the case, so much for all of her grace – which she received from God.
  1. But she was not PUNISHED! In fact she was later*** praised by St. Elizabeth for her faith!*** (Lk 1:45) So if she is so humble (1:48) that God exalted her…
    If she is so docile to God, surrendering her will to God in her “YES” (1:38)
    there has to be some other reason for her question. Knowing Mary’s holiness, it CANNOT be defiance. Besides the angel showed no displeasure.
  2. This is the only possible alternative: … She was a Virgin not only by
    her own personal choice or preferrence, but by a previous commitment that she made with God … (like a promise or a vow). So her motive for asking
    was: that she was concerned as to how she could BOTH keep her vow AND
    conceive a child. … … HER QUESTION WAS MOTIVATED BY PURE FAITHFULNESS.
**“Now to him that is able to establish you, according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret from eternity, (Which now is made manifest by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the precept of the eternal God, FOR THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH,) known among all nations; To God the only wise, through Jesus Christ, to whom be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen” (TO THE ROMANS 16:25-27, Douay-Rheims Bible)
**

Thanks be to God for Mary.
 
Based upon St. Luke 1:34,

**And Mary said essentially to St. Gabriel:

How shall I become MOTHER, since I am a VIRGIN by vow?**

Now does everyone see what I mean? I cannot put it anymore clearer.

May the Holy Spirit be praised, loved, adored, worshipped, and glorified together with the Father and the Son!
 
Does no one who denies Mary’s perpatual virginity ever stop to think why she, who was betrothed to be married, and who knew that children were produced via “relations with man”, when confronted by the fearsome and stupefying appearance of the supernatural Archangel, would even think to ask just how this conception was going to happen? Hello? Ever virgin.

Does no one ever stop to ponder why she vowed to Gabriel that she was the “hand maid” or “bond slave” of her own Son? Why she dedicated her life to that same Divine Son, knowing that Gabriel would relay her permission directly to God Himself? Why she would freely give her life to Him, and Him alone? By the very words of her Divine Son: “No man may serve two masters” Hello? Only Child.

Does no one ever stop to wonder why all of those alleged other children: were not present when Jesus remained behind int he Temple? Why those “other children” were unaccounted for at the wedding feast at Cana? Why those “other children” were completely absent at the crucifixion? So notably absent that Jesus gave His mother to John, whose mother was also there!

Those “other children” were certainly shown no respect, or were ostracized from society. They must have been such horrible sinners that they were not even allowed in Jesus’ presence, and cared not that He was dying for them. Hello? No other children. Gabriel told Mary "You will bear “a Son.” Hello? One Child.
 
po18guy said:
Does no one who denies Mary’s perpatual virginity ever stop to think why she, who was betrothed to be married, and who knew that children were produced via “relations with man”, when confronted by the fearsome and stupefying appearance of the supernatural Archangel, would even think to ask just how this conception was going to happen? Hello? Ever virgin.

Does no one ever stop to ponder why she vowed to Gabriel that she was the “hand maid” or “bond slave” of her own Son? Why she dedicated her life to that same Divine Son, knowing that Gabriel would relay her permission directly to God Himself? Why she would freely give her life to Him, and Him alone? By the very words of her Divine Son: “No man may serve two masters” Hello? Only Child.

Does no one ever stop to wonder why all of those alleged other children: were not present when Jesus remained behind int he Temple? Why those “other children” were unaccounted for at the wedding feast at Cana? Why those “other children” were completely absent at the crucifixion? So notably absent that Jesus gave His mother to John, whose mother was also there!

Those “other children” were certainly shown no respect, or were ostracized from society. They must have been such horrible sinners that they were not even allowed in Jesus’ presence, and cared not that He was dying for them. Hello? No other children. Gabriel told Mary "You will bear “a Son.” Hello? One Child.
Click to expand...
If I want to ‘copy & paste’ that onto Facebook, how much would you demand?
View attachment 15665
 
AHJE said:
This is Mary’s Question:
**
“And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?” (St. Luke 1:34, DRB)**
Click to expand...
Further to the grammatical analysis, the Greek present tense (“I **know **not man”) infers a condition that exists in the present and will continue to exist in the future. I knew this from my studies before I became a Catholic, and when I started studying Catholicism, it was easy for me to accept the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother.
 
po18guy said:
Does no one who denies Mary’s perpatual virginity ever stop to think why she, who was betrothed to be married, and who knew that children were produced via “relations with man”, when confronted by the fearsome and stupefying appearance of the supernatural Archangel, would even think to ask just how this conception was going to happen? Hello? Ever virgin.
Click to expand...
Indeed, po18guy, … although I am not so sure that Mary was afraid in the same way as Zechariah in St. Luke 1:12. Seems that Zechariah was troubled by the sight and presence of the Archangel, while Mary was troubled at what she heard and the manner of the salutation. If anything St. Gabriel should have been afraid of Mary, … I tend to see it this way due to the fact that Mary is already the New Ark of the Covenant, Immaculately Conceived and Full of Grace. 🙂
Does no one ever stop to ponder why she vowed to Gabriel that she was the “hand maid” or “bond slave” of her own Son? Why she dedicated her life to that same Divine Son, knowing that Gabriel would relay her permission directly to God Himself? Why she would freely give her life to Him, and Him alone? By the very words of her Divine Son: “No man may serve two masters” Hello? Only Child.
Click to expand...
Yes, … awesome insight. If you knew that your Son was God why would anyone want another child?
Does no one ever stop to wonder why all of those alleged other children: were not present when Jesus remained behind int he Temple? Why those “other children” were unaccounted for at the wedding feast at Cana? Why those “other children” were completely absent at the crucifixion? So notably absent that Jesus gave His mother to John, whose mother was also there!
Click to expand...
Good one.
Those “other children” were certainly shown no respect, or were ostracized from society. They must have been such horrible sinners that they were not even allowed in Jesus’ presence, and cared not that He was dying for them. Hello? No other children. Gabriel told Mary "You will bear “a Son.” Hello? One Child.
Click to expand...
👍

Praised be Jesus Christ, the Son of the Ever-Virgin Mary.
 
DaveBj said:
Further to the grammatical analysis, the Greek present tense (“I **know **not man”) infers a condition that exists in the present and will continue to exist in the future. I knew this from my studies before I became a Catholic, and when I started studying Catholicism, it was easy for me to accept the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother.
Click to expand...
Thanks alot, DaveB! This is good to know. 🙂

Congratulations on your conversion. The Lord is Good. 🙂
 
AHJE said:
God reveals through this verse that Mary intended to* remain* a virgin and not only that. God tells us that she was morally blameless in raising her question to St. Gabriel, which means that there was no doubt in her mind (like Zechariah)* and *there was no defiance in her will (like Jonah). Mary was left totally unpunished (unlike Zechariah who received swift justice at his unbelief and unlike Jonah who suffered being thrown into the sea due to the storm that God sent).
/QUOTE]

It is Luke, or somebody who is called Luke later, who writes those things in the 80s or 90s. In the early Messias movement that St Paul is part of, nothing of this is revealed. The fact that the mother of Christ is pregnant with him is a wonderful revelation itself. But don’t ascribe to God what is a very much later text.
Click to expand...
 
Hi peterorigenes,

Peace be with you,

YOU WROTE:
peterorigenes said:
AHJE;10130962:
God reveals through this verse that Mary intended
Click to expand...
to* remain* a virgin and not only that. God tells us that she was morally blameless in raising her question to St. Gabriel, which means that there was no doubt in her mind (like Zechariah)* and *there was no defiance in her will (like Jonah). Mary was left totally unpunished (unlike Zechariah who received swift justice at his unbelief and unlike Jonah who suffered being thrown into the sea due to the storm that God sent).
It is Luke, or somebody who is called Luke later, who writes those things in the 80s or 90s. In the early Messias movement that St Paul is part of, nothing of this is revealed. The fact that the mother of Christ is pregnant with him is a wonderful revelation itself. But don’t ascribe to God what is a very much later text.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Oh? … You do not believe that God revealed St. Luke (the Gospel of St. Luke)? … I’m confused ? ? ?
 
Why, why, why does the Church NOT teach the Grammatical structure of this? God has blessed me to believe that my doubts of the Catholic Church will be dissolved in time (and so far all of them have), as I am a recent convert from Evangelical Non-Denominational Christianity. But this grammatical structure seems to be the only evidence of Mary’s ever virginity and sinless life.

Therefore why is not more widely known?! If Kicharitomene is a present tense that indicates a state of being that has already occurred and the Greek for her virginity indicates a state of being that will continue, then this needs to be spread. Marian doctrine is by far the most difficult to get past as a protestant raised individual. When I went to talk out my doubts (at the time they were more like assaults) with the local Father, he never mentioned this grammatical states. I got them from deep study and only by chance.

Other than the Protoevangelium of James (protestants won’t adhere to it, b/c of sola scriptura), oral history/tradition, or the authority of the church (all of which protestants ignore due to sola scriptura), there is no evidence to present! Therefore this should be the MAIN argument. Unless one can break down the Protestant mindset of sola scriptura, then the other options arise.

Also if I could get the Greek word for the tense that indicates Mary’s virginity as a continuing state afterwards, that would be great 🙂
 
katholikos12 said:
Why, why, why does the Church NOT teach the Grammatical structure of this? God has blessed me to believe that my doubts of the Catholic Church will be dissolved in time (and so far all of them have), as I am a recent convert from Evangelical Non-Denominational Christianity. But this grammatical structure seems to be the only evidence of Mary’s ever virginity and sinless life.

Therefore why is not more widely known?! If Kicharitomene is a present tense that indicates a state of being that has already occurred and the Greek for her virginity indicates a state of being that will continue, then this needs to be spread. Marian doctrine is by far the most difficult to get past as a protestant raised individual. When I went to talk out my doubts (at the time they were more like assaults) with the local Father, he never mentioned this grammatical states. I got them from deep study and only by chance.

Other than the Protoevangelium of James (protestants won’t adhere to it, b/c of sola scriptura), oral history/tradition, or the authority of the church (all of which protestants ignore due to sola scriptura), there is no evidence to present! Therefore this should be the MAIN argument. Unless one can break down the Protestant mindset of sola scriptura, then the other options arise.

Also if I could get the Greek word for the tense that indicates Mary’s virginity as a continuing state afterwards, that would be great 🙂
Click to expand...
Hi, Katholikos12,

I’m so glad to hear that you have come back Home to Holy Mother Church! God be praised!

As for your question on the present tense of “I know not man”. Here is a quote from an Eastern Orthodox clergy who is able to read the Scriptures in Greek. Linsinbigler writes:
"I also uphold the Scriptural truth that Mary is Ever-Virgin. Does this passage prove it? Not by itself, at least not in the English text. In the Greek, however, it is the same perpetual present γινώσκω that we find in the following texts (the first being that in question):

Luke 1:34 V-PIA-1S
BIB: ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω
KJV: be, seeing I know not a man?
INT: a man not I know

John 10:14 V-PIA-1S
BIB: καλός καὶ γινώσκω τὰ ἐμὰ
NAS: shepherd, and I know My own
KJV: shepherd, and know my [sheep], and
INT: good and I know those that [are] my

John 10:15 V-PIA-1S
BIB: πατὴρ κἀγὼ γινώσκω τὸν πατέρα
NAS: knows Me and I know the Father;
KJV: me, even so know I the Father:
INT: Father I also know the Father

John 10:27 V-PIA-1S
BIB: ἀκούουσιν κἀγὼ γινώσκω αὐτά καὶ
NAS: My voice, and I know them, and they follow
KJV: voice, and I know them, and
INT: hear and I know them and

Acts 19:15 V-PIA-1S
BIB: μὲν Ἰησοῦν γινώσκω καὶ τὸν
NAS: and said to them, I recognize Jesus,
KJV: and said, Jesus I know, and Paul
INT: even Jesus I know and "
Source: true2ourselves.com/forum/bible-chat/6852-either-scripture-not-inerrant-mary-perpetually-virgin-make-your-choice.html
" 1097 [e]
ginōskō
γινώσκω ?
I know
V-PIA-1S "
**Source: **true2ourselves.com/forum/bible-chat/6874-seeking-understand-luke-1-34-marys-mysterious-question-50.html

I am not so sure what V-PIA-1S means in grammar … maybe someone can decipher this?

God bless you all!
 
AHJE said:
God reveals through this verse that Mary intended to* remain* a virgin and not only that.
Click to expand...
What follows is vis-a-vis this to Sarah, whom also you later seem to mention as if she were a negative example, but that is not quite correct.

Saint Augustine:

Chapter 19.— Of the Divine Preservation of Sarah’s Chastity in Egypt, When Abraham Had Called Her Not His Wife But His Sister.

Having built an altar there, and called upon God, Abraham proceeded thence and dwelt in the desert, and was compelled by pressure of famine to go on into Egypt. There he called his wife his sister, and told no lie. For she was this also, because she was near of blood; just as Lot, on account of the same nearness, being his brother’s son, is called his brother. Now he did not deny that she was his wife, but held his peace about it, committing to God the defence of his wife’s chastity, and providing as a man against human wiles; because if he had not provided against the danger as much as he could, he would have been tempting God rather than trusting in Him. We have said enough about this matter against the calumnies of Faustus the Manichæan. At last what Abraham had expected the Lord to do took place. For Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who had taken her to him as his wife, restored her to her husband on being severely plagued. And far be it from us to believe that she was defiled by lying with another; because it is much more credible that, by these great afflictions, Pharaoh was not permitted to do this.

Note that St. Augustine sees in Sarah God’s working to preserve her chaste and blameless, obviously because she would bear the child of promise one day, rendering her holy: consequently, God did not suffer any man to violate her or deprive her of her chastity, even to the point of working miracles.

And of course there is the type for the antitype:

Chapter 31.— Of Isaac, Who Was Born According to the Promise, Whose Name Was Given on Account of the Laughter of Both Parents.

After these things a son was born to Abraham, according to God’s promise, of Sarah, and was called Isaac, which means laughter. For his father had laughed when he was promised to him, in wondering delight, and his mother, when he was again promised by those three men, had laughed, doubting for joy; yet she was blamed by the angel because that laughter, although it was for joy, yet was not full of faith. Afterwards she was confirmed in faith by the same angel. From this, then, the boy got his name. For when Isaac was born and called by that name, Sarah showed that her laughter was not that of scornful reproach, but that of joyful praise; for she said, “God has made me to laugh, so that every one who hears will laugh with me.” Genesis 21:6 Then in a little while the bond maid was cast out of the house with her son; and, according to the apostle, these two women signify the old and new covenants—Sarah representing that of the Jerusalem which is above, that is, the city of God. Galatians 4:24-26

There is no question in my mind that all of this is written secondarily in reference -in St. Augustine’s mind- to the Virgin Mary and the Lord’s Conception and Nativity: i.e., the consciousness of the latter realities lead to the correct interpretation or understanding of the former.

Obviously here there is a parallel between what transpired between Sarah and the angels, and the Annunciation and Our Lady’s faith-filled fiat.
 
The_Reginator said:
Tell ya what.
Maybe I’ll PM you some money bags for allowing God’s truth to flow.🙂
Click to expand...
It strikes a nerve when, out of ignorance, someone shows disrespect for the mother that Christ created for Himself. It takes very little thought to realize that such thinking is not so much disrespect of Mary, as it is of Christ.

An excerpt from an interview with Fr. Pedro Barrajon, an exorcist (bolding mine): "At the end, the priest says to the demon, “Go away! Disappear!” The demon usually answers, “No, I don´t want to.” It rebels and revolts. Sometimes it says “You have no power over me. You are nothing to me.” But after a while, its resistance weakens. This usually happens after the invocation of the Holy Mother, she´s very important for that. No demon ever dares to insult her during an exorcism. Never.

Q: Does he have more respect for Mary than for God himself?

Apparently. Otherwise no holds are barred, and everyone is insulted: the priests, everyone present, the bishops, the Pope, even Jesus Christ. But never the Virgin Mary. It´s an enigma.

A very interesting interview: regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/articulo.phtml?id=14318&se=364&ca=118&te=782
 
From St. Augustine we can also infer from Sarah as a type of Mary that Our Lady is most rightly believed to have been and will remain forever very beautiful:

Then Abraham did again at Gerar, with Abimelech the king of that city, what he had done in Egypt about his wife, and received her back untouched in the same way. On this occasion, when the king rebuked Abraham for not saying she was his wife, and calling her his sister, he explained what he had been afraid of, and added this further, And yet indeed she is my sister by the father’s side, but not by the mother’s; Genesis 20:12 for she was Abraham’s sister by his own father, and so near of kin. But her beauty was so great, that even at that advanced age she could be fallen in love with.

This whole part of the Saint’s masterpiece is largely relevant to the Blessed Virgin’s perpetual virginity: newadvent.org/fathers/120116.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top