Mary and her Virginity

[Sellers1]

Are you trying to put everything past present and future upon this very verse while igoring where Joseph did not have union with Mary until Jesus was born?? That’s what it looks like to me which would be totally anti-Scriptural.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

What don’t you get here?? Mary was a virgin. How could she be expecting a child if she never had sex before is what she is asking.

How much simpler could this be?

The angel told her that she *would *conceive. Why would she not assume that the child would be conceived after she was married?

 

[Sellers1]

The angel told her that she *would *conceive. Why would she not assume that the child would be conceived after she was married?

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Selene]

What you have said is legitimate; however, part of the nature of prophecy is its ambiguity. The passages were written before, not after the birth of Christ: while the case could certainly be made that the Ezekiel’s prophecies regarding the Temple refer in fact to Jesus (who referred to Himself as a temple), it is not something that can be proved absolutely.

Hello Ted,

I agree that prophecy is ambiguious. That is why we leave it to the church to interpret Scripture. I did not interpret this scripture on my own. I actually got it from a Catholic book about Mary’s virginity, and it referred to that verse in Ezekiel.

We read the Old Testament in light of the New Testament because the Old Testament was about Christ Himself. God revealed Himself to the Jews in their history, but to the Christians, He revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. As my Catechists taught me, Christ’s life is found even in the Old Testament.

1. From the Old Testament, God took the Israelites out of Egypt.
   In the New Testament, God called His Son out of Egypt. (Matthew 2:15).
2. In the Old Testament, the Israelites crossed the Red Sea and this was a baptism for them where they were consecrated by God
   In the New Testament, Jesus was baptized in the River Jordan.
3. In the Old Testament, the Israelites spent 40 years in the desert and were tempted 3 times and they failed to overcome temptation.
   In the New Testament, Jesus spent 40 days fasting in the desert and was tempted 3 times by Satan and he overcame temptation.
4. In the Old Testament, the Israelites came upon a mountain, where they received the Ten Commandments.
   In the New Testament, Jesus preached and perfected the Ten Commandments.
5. In the Old Testament, the Israelites came upon 7 nations whom they had to conquer to reach the promise land.
   In the New Testament, Jesus conquered the 7 sins of mankind and brought mankind to redemption.

In all this, we learn that God had been with the Israelites all that time even when they doubted him and didn’t know it.

Peace be with you,
Selene

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Hello Ted,

I agree that prophecy is ambiguious. That is why we leave it to the church to interpret Scripture. I did not interpret this scripture on my own. I actually got it from a Catholic book about Mary’s virginity, and it referred to that verse in Ezekiel.

We read the Old Testament in light of the New Testament because the Old Testament was about Christ Himself. God revealed Himself to the Jews in their history, but to the Christians, He revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. As my Catechists taught me, Christ’s life is found even in the Old Testament.

1. From the Old Testament, God took the Israelites out of Egypt.
   In the New Testament, God called His Son out of Egypt. (Matthew 2:15).
2. In the Old Testament, the Israelites crossed the Red Sea and this was a baptism for them where they were consecrated by God
   In the New Testament, Jesus was baptized in the River Jordan.
3. In the Old Testament, the Israelites spent 40 years in the desert and were tempted 3 times and they failed to overcome temptation.
   In the New Testament, Jesus spent 40 days fasting in the desert and was tempted 3 times by Satan and he overcame temptation.
4. In the Old Testament, the Israelites came upon a mountain, where they received the Ten Commandments.
   In the New Testament, Jesus preached and perfected the Ten Commandments.
5. In the Old Testament, the Israelites came upon 7 nations whom they had to conquer to reach the promise land.
   In the New Testament, Jesus conquered the 7 sins of mankind and brought mankind to redemption.

In all this, we learn that God had been with the Israelites all that time even when they doubted him and didn’t know it.

Peace be with you,
Selene

This is all very beautiful, and I certainly agree with it, but that does not mean that these ought to be used as proof-texts.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

What does that have to do with anything?

You’ll see, just as soon as you answer the question: why did Mary ask what she did?

 

[Selene]

Are you trying to put everything past present and future upon this very verse while igoring where Joseph did not have union with Mary until Jesus was born?? That’s what it looks like to me which would be totally anti-Scriptural.

At the time of the announcement when the Angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she will give birth to a son, she was a virgin. When the Holy Spirit overshadowed her and Christ was in her womb, she was still a virgin. When she married Joseph, they never consummated their marraige. She still remained a virgin. And after she gave birth, the Catholics still believe that she still remained a virgin. From the Angel Gabriel, Mary learned that she was called to be the mother of Jesus period. This was her calling and Joseph also understood this. The verse “He had no relations with her until she bore a son” (Matthew 1:25) does not mean that she gave up her virginity because the Greek word “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth. However, Church tradition says that she remained a virgin.

Furthermore, there is no mention of Jesus’ having brothers or sisters. James and Joseph, brothers of Jesus in Matthew 13:55 are the sons of another Mary (Matthew 27:56). And when Jesus was dying, he entrusts His mother to the care of a disciple, which suggests that she had no other son. Apart from this, it is known that in the semitic world the name “brother” is applied to close relations and relations by marriage.

Peace be with you,
Selene

 

[Good_Fella]

This is completely false. There are no scriptures that say Mary remained a virgin. When she was conceived she was already betrothed to marry Joseph. She did marry Joseph and it would be foolish to believe that she remained a virgin. They had other children as scripture tells us.

A garden enclosed is my sister (achoth), my spouse (kallah); a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.
Songs 4, 12

But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” And the angel said to her in reply, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”
Luke 1, 34-35

The Old Testament prophecy alluding to the Virgin and Spouse of the Holy Spirit is fulfilled in Luke’s gospel. The evangelist has Mary speak in the simple present tense to indicate the permanance of her virginal state. He wrote his gospel at least eight years after Mary’s dormition and assumption, so Mary’s words aren’t spoken arbitrarily. A Protestant translation (NIV?) errantly has Mary speak in the perfect present tense (“I am not having relations with a man.”) to accommodate the Protestant bias of Mary having had relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus.

The word “overshadow” spoken by the angel is translated from the same Greek word (episkiasei) used to describe the glory cloud (shekinah) overshadowing the ark of the Old Covenant (Ex 24:15-16; 40: 34-38; 1 Kgs 8: 10-11; 2 Mac 2:4-8).

The brothers of Jesus James, Jude, and Joseph are both his cousins and apostles. The term *achoth * obviously refers to female relations other than siblings.

What you are saying is simply not true. If so, then please list the scriptures saying that she remained a virgin or that she took a vow of virginity.

If Mary hadn’t committed herself to a life of chastity, then she wouldn’t have asked the angel Gabriel “How can this be?” Unless she was ignorant of the facts of life. After all, Mary was betrothed when the angel appeared to her and announced an indefinite future birth.

Please list the writings of the early church fathers (2nd and 3rd century) that mention Mary remaining a virgin. This only came into being in the third or fourth century.

Irenaeus equates Mary’s chastity with her sinlessness, contrasting her with the sinful Eve, who at the time of her disobedience was still a virgin. He refers to Mary as “the Virgin” (Against Heresies, 3:22, A.D. 180).

A universal acknowledgement of Mary’s perpetual virginity had existed by the third century. Please see Origen, Commentary on John 1:6 (A.D. 232). Mary is referred to as ever-virgin more often and explicitly in the writings of the 4th and 5th century Fathers who were responding to the Christological and Marian heresies that had cropped up then with the likes of Helvidius and Jovanianus. Nobody appears to have seriously challenged the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary until this time which could explain the earlier relative silence.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[adstrinity]

This is not at all what Scripture says therefore you cannot prove any of what you claim by Scripture. You are performing mental gymnastics, not interpreting Scripture.

What’s not what the Bible says? The part where Jesus IS God or the part in Genesis.

If it’s the former, this is what we need to know, if it’s the latter, I am not performing mental gymnastics, I am reading the Bible in light of Tradition, the way it has been understood for the past 2000 years. This is what these passages say, you’ve just been brainwashed accept an incorrect interpretation of these events.

 

[PRmerger]

You’ll see, just as soon as you answer the question: why did Mary ask what she did?

Exactly!!

The archangel Gabriel tells Mary that she’s ***going to ***conceive and bear a child.

Now, remember, she’s bethrothed to a man. What the angel Gabriel is telling her, under “normal” circumstances would be met with, “Of course! That’s what usually happens when people get married and engage in marital relations!”

But, no, the Blessed Mother’s response is, “How can this be since I know not man?” That is, how can I conceive a child when I’m planning to remain ever-virgin?

Certainly this is Scriptural evidence that she was a virgin, and planned to stay a virgin.

 

[erigby27]

That’s really stretching it…This verse has absolutely nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. This was simply instructions how to set up the Jewish temples and who could come and go, etc.

I don’t think it’s stretching it that much, as the verse is referring to the Holy of Holies, where the Ark of the Old Covenant was. Since Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, I can see the connection.

Also in connection with the Ark of the Old Covenant: God demanded that the Ark be made of “incorruptible wood” because He would dwell there. He also dwelt in Mary. Shouldn’t that Ark be “incorruptible” as well? Before anyone responds that He only dwelt in her until he was born, two things: first, God stipulated that the wood be “incorruptible” not “uncorrupted while I’m in there”; second, while Mary carried Jesus in her womb, they ate the same food, shared the same blood, breathed the same air. We often hear that a woman and her child are always connected- part of the child will always dwell in the mother, and part of the mother will always dwell in the child. It seems that this would apply for our Lord and His mother as well.

It makes sense that, because Jesus loved His mother above all other creatures, He would save her from sin in a special way:

Fundamentalists’ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her “spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.

Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

 

[jlhargus]

But you must read the entire context of the Scripture instead of inserting opinions and your own interpretation of it intermixed with unsupported opinions and dogmas. Biblically, Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ. That’s very central to most any Christian doctrine.

JL: I did not say Mary was not a virgin at anytime of her life, I said just the opposite. And could you clarify what I have taken out of context.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you trying to put everything past present and future upon this very verse while igoring where Joseph did not have union with Mary until Jesus was born?? That’s what it looks like to me which would be totally anti-Scriptural.

The issue of the word “until” as used in Scripture has been addressed earlier, with an excellent example from 2 Samuel regarding Michal not having children “until” she died.

And here’s another example that the word “until” (esp. when used in Scripture) does not mean that a behavior changed afterwards:

1 Timothy 4:13
Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching.

Of course that doesn’t mean that after Paul comes, “public reading of Scripture” should cease, right, Sellers1?

Oh, and just one more:

Hebrews 1:13:But to which of the angels has He ever said,
“SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES
A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”?

Does Jesus sit at the Father’s right hand until the enemies are made a footstool, and then our Lord is cast away??

(taken from another thread in which I posted the above here).

 

[LilyM]

Exactly!!

The archangel Gabriel tells Mary that she’s ***going to ***conceive and bear a child.

Now, remember, she’s bethrothed to a man. What the angel Gabriel is telling her, under “normal” circumstances would be met with, “Of course! That’s what usually happens when people get married and engage in marital relations!”

But, no, the Blessed Mother’s response is, “How can this be since I know not man?” That is, how can I conceive a child when I’m planning to remain ever-virgin?

Certainly this is Scriptural evidence that she was a virgin, and planned to stay a virgin.

Amen! Remember there are several examples in the Old Testament of angels/God announcing forthcoming pregnancies - to Sarah, to Samuel’s mother, to Samson’s mother.

In each case the child was NATURALLY conceived, not a virgin birth! Even Isaiah doesn’t specifically say ‘virgin’ in regard to the birth of the Messiah, he uses a word that can mean ‘young woman’ as well, although Matthew makes clear that it was indeed a virgin birth.

Point being that Mary, being told that she was to conceive, had no reason to think it was going to happen any way other than naturally, as a result of marital relations. No way she was thinking of supernatural conception. Hence her very understandable (for someone vowed to virginity, but not someone planning on marital relations) puzzlement about how the child was going to be conceived.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Hence her very understandable (for someone vowed to virginity, but not someone planning on marital relations) puzzlement about how the child was going to be conceived.

If my understanding is correct and it may well be wrong - Mary was engaged to Joseph at this point. Not married to him. It is not unusual or unreasonable for men and women to remain virgins until they are wed. So her comments that how is this possible as I know not man, makes sense, as she was engaged, not married, and had no intention of having sexual relations before marriage. I dont really see her reaction as a statement of fact that she intended to remain a virgin forever. But I’m happy to be helped out here.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

If my understanding is correct and it may well be wrong - Mary was engaged to Joseph at this point. Not married to him. It is not unusual or unreasonable for men and women to remain virgins until they are wed. So her comments that how is this possible as I know not man, makes sense, as she was engaged, not married, and had no intention of having sexual relations before marriage. I dont really see her reaction as a statement of fact that she intended to remain a virgin forever. But I’m happy to be helped out here.

Gabriel told Mary that she would conceive Jesus: he did not tell her that she had already conceived Him. If Mary had planned to have normal marital relations with Joseph, why would she not have assumed that she would conceive the child after they were married?

Mary’s question simply makes no sense if she intended to have normal martial relations with Joseph. It would be as if someone told me “You will earn a degree from Harvard Law School”, and I responded, “How can this be, for I have not been to college?” The natural thing to do would be to assume that the earning of said degree would happen in the future; my response makes no sense.

However, if we take Mary’s response as meaning that she had taken a vow of virginity (that is, she was a consecrated virgin), the conversation seems to make more sense.

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Thanks for the response Tim. I can see it just as easily from the other side though.

For example, my niece is being raised as a good, God fearing girl. She also lives in a very conservative community. I promise you, if I, or someone else said to her right now, Rebecca, you will concieve a child, her response would be how I’m not maried

This would not, and does not mean, she has no intention of ever getting married. She will at some point, I’m sure. But her response would reflect her present position and her understanding of right relations - children are to be born within wedlock.

If someone said to her Rebecca one day you will meet a nice young man, get married, buy a house, and have a child, she’d probably say way to go !!! It’s because the statement she would have a child came in the worng order of things.

Similarily, I can see Mary’s response in the same light. On hearing the news she will conceive a child, her response is, in essence, how, I’m not married. There is an immediacy implied in the Angels words, which may have thrown Mary as the marriage may have been some way off. We don’t know. We’re not told.

It does not necessarily preclude the fact she will get married, and have normal marital relations.

Like I said, I’m open to correction and rethinking.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Thanks for the response Tim. I can see it just as easily from the other side though.

For example, my niece is being raised as a good, God fearing girl. She also lives in a very conservative community. I promise you, if I, or someone else said to her right now, Rebecca, you will concieve a child, her response would be how I’m not maried

This would not, and does not mean, she has no intention of ever getting married. She will at some point, I’m sure. But her response would reflect her present position and her understanding of right relations - children are to be born within wedlock.

If someone said to her Rebecca one day you will meet a nice young man, get married, buy a house, and have a child, she’d probably say way to go !!! It’s because the statement she would have a child came in the worng order of things.

Similarily, I can see Mary’s response in the same light. On hearing the news she will conceive a child, her response is, in essence, how, I’m not married. There is an immediacy implied in the Angels words, which may have thrown Mary as the marriage may have been some way off. We don’t know. We’re not told.

It does not necessarily preclude the fact she will get married, and have normal marital relations.

Like I said, I’m open to correction and rethinking.

Mary was already betrothed to Joseph; while the exact date of the marriage might have been some time away, there is no reason not to assume that Joseph, her betrothed, would be the father. The angel even says that Jesus will inherit the throne of “his father David”- Joseph was a descendant of David, so it would make sense that Joseph would be the father, as it would make the child a descendant of David as well… under normal circumstances.

 

[PRmerger]

Similarily, I can see Mary’s response in the same light. On hearing the news she will conceive a child, her response is, in essence, how, I’m not married. There is an immediacy implied in the Angels words, which may have thrown Mary as the marriage may have been some way off. We don’t know. We’re not told.

Guy, essentially Mary *was *married–betrothal in the ancient world was essentially the same as married–they just lived in 2 different households until the formal wedding ceremony.

So when the angel announces to Mary that she will conceive, the natural response would be, “Yay! When?” not, “How can this be since I know not man?”

 

[jpaul1953]

If I said that I didn’t buy another car until I sold my old one, it wouldn’t make any sense to conclude that I didn’t own another car for the rest of life.

Dear Sellers1,

Can you not believe that words over time carry different meanings. Stop being so literal. For instance, if I said today: “it is raining cats and dogs outside”. You would know that I am saying it is raining very hard outside. Two thousand years from now if some one was going to read this, they could take it literally as you might or take it in a literal sense of what it meant when it was said. There are a multitude of phrases used in our language that make no sense to people trying to learn our language today, forget about 2,000 years from now.

According to the Greek translation the word ‘until’ does not mean that something will occur after ‘until’ is reached. For instance, (I do not know the chapter/verse), but the bible reads: " She did not bear any children until after her death." You know as well as I that she didn’t bear children after she died. The verse was just to explain that she had no while alive.

So when Matt1:25 - “He had no relations with her until she bore a son,* and he named him Jesus.” [The Footnote] The evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated "until"does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.

Please try also to remember that the Church assembled the writings to be put into the NT. At the time, why would the Church care whether Mary was a virgin or not. I would trust that ‘the truth is the truth’ and the Church was defending the truth that the Church had found many years before the Reformation, when, as you probably know, the Reformists still believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

May God always guide us

jpaul1953