Matthew 1:25? Mary not a virgin?

[PRmerger]

I seem to recall that Jesus touched and was touched frequently. If people are not worthy to touch Mary, who ‘contained’ him. how is it that they are worthy to touch Him Himself?

My own personal opinion: because Jesus sanctified through His touch. Mary, not being divine, could not do this and thus was perhaps defiled (or made non-immaculate) by another sinner’s touch.

 

[Hokomai]

Why must we assume this as Catholics? Perhaps if you were speaking to a fundamentalist or evangelical Christian forum this would be a question which gives one pause…

However, as I am certain you know, we as Catholics do not believe that everything we must believe was contained in the written Word.

Yes, this is the strength of the Catholic Church’s 'scripture-plus-tradition-and magisterium approach. One does not have to interpret personally, and resolve all things. One simply accepts the teaching of the Church, and remains confident that assorted mysteries and contradictions will eventually be cleared up, in this world or the next. However, as one who does not believe, I often find the attempts to answer such ‘hard’ points most revealing about the nature of belief, and the deeper thoughts of ordinary Catholics. That’s why I ask about them, because I find the answers interesting, and sometimes challenging to my own ideas.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, this is the strength of the Catholic Church’s 'scripture-plus-tradition-and magisterium approach. One does not have to interpret personally, and resolve all things. One simply accepts the teaching of the Church, and remains confident that assorted mysteries and contradictions will eventually be cleared up, in this world or the next. However, as one who does not believe, I often find the attempts to answer such ‘hard’ points most revealing about the nature of belief, and the deeper thoughts of ordinary Catholics. That’s why I ask about them, because I find the answers interesting, and sometimes challenging to my own ideas.

To tweak your bolded comment just a bit: We do not “simply accept” the teaching of the Church but use fides quaarens intellectum..

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The other issue about this tradition of Mary being 'ever-virgin" is why it arose at all. The Church holds that sex between married people that is open to life is good. And yet this tradition. even if it is true, appears designed in the repeating to argue that celibacy between married couples if ‘better’ or, as I have seen on CAF, that Joseph would have somehow defiled Mary by having sex with her. And then, of course, there is the never-mentioned aspect of Catholic teaching that Mary was in fact ‘physically a virgin’ after the birth of Jesus, which implies some sort of physical status to virginity that I for one cannot fathom.

It’s not that the Virgin Mary’s virginity was somehow super human, but rather that her child Jesus, being the Incarnate God-Man, respected and valued her virginity even in his own birth. Just as Jesus could be transfigured on the Holy Mount, so too was his birth miraculous, in that Mary remained ever-Virgin. This is Church doctrine, therefore we accept this in Faith. We have no obligation to explain it to unbelievers scientifically, but only show it to be rational. Many Catholics, myself included, believe St. Joseph also to be a perpetual virgin. Therefore he would never have touched the Virgin Mary in way to defile her. No, he was chosen by God to protect her virginity, and watch over the Holy Incarnation, among other things.

 

[TinaG]

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 1:25[/BIBLEDRB]

This says, Joseph didn’t have relations with Mary, UNTIL they bore a son. Would this mean that Joseph did have relations, but after Mary gave birth to Jesus?

Well, the Catholic Bible, New American Bible, says this: He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

I don’t see this bridge as carrying anywhere near the freight people are trying to haul across it in either direction. It does not mean either that there were sexual relations afterwards or that there were not. It simply means they had no relations to a certain point - without saying what happened beyond that.

That, to me, is most significant. Had it been important, the sacred author would have said something like “and then they whooped it up” or “and he kept her ever-virgin.” What it tells me is that by attempting to load it with anything else you are missing the point of the passage and focusing on what you should not focus on. Or maybe he just felt that what goes on between a man and his wife is their own business, and nosy people should mind their own business. But he didn’t put in a 'mind your own business" in here.

I find all this speculation about Mary’s private parts and life just plain weird.

-Tina “Not Personally Lacking in Weirdness” G

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I don’t see this bridge as carrying anywhere near the freight people are trying to haul across it in either direction. It does not mean either that there were sexual relations afterwards or that there were not. It simply means they had no relations to a certain point - without saying what happened beyond that.

That, to me, is most significant. Had it been important, the sacred author would have said something like “and then they whooped it up” or “and he kept her ever-virgin.” What it tells me is that by attempting to load it with anything else you are missing the point of the passage and focusing on what you should not focus on. Or maybe he just felt that what goes on between a man and his wife is their own business, and nosy people should mind their own business. But he didn’t put in a 'mind your own business" in here.

I find all this speculation about Mary’s private parts and life just plain weird.

-Tina “Not Personally Lacking in Weirdness” G

It’s different for you because you have no infallible guide interpreting the Scriptures. Catholics do. If you find Church teaching weird, be glad that you were not living in the age of St. Paul the apostle, when you would have rejected him as weird in favor of the written Scriptures (the Old Testament)

 

[TinaG]

I seem to recall that Jesus touched and was touched frequently. If people are not worthy to touch Mary, who ‘contained’ him. how is it that they are worthy to touch Him Himself? I also cannot see that any of the references you have provided show that Mary was regarded during her lifetime as the Ark of the Covenant, let alone that there was a tradition that she could not be touched in any way.

Hmmm. (Amplifying) So her mother got hit by lightning when she changed her diaper? Or random people in crowds got zapped? But this “touching” of course is a euphanism (cain’t spel todayy) for something more. I’m thinking if you carry out this line of argument, perhaps it has to do with the OT Law - semen was unclean as a bodily discharge and a man who had a discharge was unclean until evening (this is from memory and I don’t know if I can find the passage in the Pentateuch).

I would go rather with the idea that Mary was DECLARED righteous in the sight of God, as if she had never sinned, with a manifested sanctification, if you were going to pursue this line of argument from a Reformed perspective. A declaration by God has real consequences (‘Let there be light’ comes to mind).

I do not understand why the Catholic Church insists Mary is eternally virgin. I think Koine Greek has a perfectly good word for “cousin” (I can’t think of it now) that could have been used. I think you go overtime in trying to explain Scripture as supporting Mary as ever-virgin.
If it was important, it would be plainly stated.

-Tina “Not Exactly Ever-Virgin Personally, in Case You Were Wondering” G

 

[TinaG]

It’s different for you because you have no infallible guide interpreting the Scriptures. Catholics do. If you find Church teaching weird, be glad that you were not living in the age of St. Paul the apostle, when you would have rejected him as weird in favor of the written Scriptures (the Old Testament)

Do you consider the Holy Spirit not to be an infallible guide?

-Tina “Truth Can Be Very Weird” G

 

[Hokomai]

It’s not that the Virgin Mary’s virginity was somehow super human, but rather that her child Jesus, being the Incarnate God-Man, respected and valued her virginity even in his own birth. Just as Jesus could be transfigured on the Holy Mount, so too was his birth miraculous, in that Mary remained ever-Virgin. This is Church doctrine, therefore we accept this in Faith. We have no obligation to explain it to unbelievers scientifically, but only show it to be rational. Many Catholics, myself included, believe St. Joseph also to be a perpetual virgin. Therefore he would never have touched the Virgin Mary in way to defile her. No, he was chosen by God to protect her virginity, and watch over the Holy Incarnation, among other things.

AmbroseSJ, I feel there is a question being begged here: why is virginity to be respected, or valued, by Jesus or anyone else, in the case of a married woman? Why is a married perpetual virgin in some way a better mother for God than a married woman who is ‘chaste according to her state’ as a married woman?

 

[Hokomai]

To tweak your bolded comment just a bit: We do not “simply accept” the teaching of the Church but use fides quaarens intellectum..

Definitely better than my expression, which I agree ignores the Church’s long tradition of active investigation.

 

[Good_Fella]

I seem to recall that Jesus touched and was touched frequently. If people are not worthy to touch Mary, who ‘contained’ him. how is it that they are worthy to touch Him Himself?

By “touching” Mary, the poster meant “to have conjugal relations”. I’m sure Mary and Joseph lovingly embraced each other and held hands. But we should bear in mind that Mary’s womb served as the LORD’S sacred tabernacle, and that she belonged by right as bride exclusively to God who overshadowed her by his power (resuth) and begot the holy child together with her. The Hebrew word in parenthesis is an euphemism for having marital relations, and it is employed by Luke in 1:35 of his Gospel. So if Joseph had “touched” Mary, their marriage would have positively become putative: immoral although lawful according to Mosaic law, for Mary had begot Jesus with another Person. Joseph knew very well as a just man and a devout Jew who observed the Torah that he could not ever touch Mary now that she had conceived and bore the holy child. Before he received Gabriel’s message in a dream, Joseph was entitled to divorce Mary and break the betrothal because of her pregnancy. If he had wanted to, he could have had her stoned to death for being unfaithful to her husband. Hypothetically no righteous Jewish husband would take his wife’s conception of a child by another person for granted, especially Joseph who learned that Mary had conceived a child by the Holy Spirit.

I also cannot see that any of the references you have provided show that Mary was regarded during her lifetime as the Ark of the Covenant, let alone that there was a tradition that she could not be touched in any way.

The ark travels to the house of Obed-edom in the hill country of Judea (2 Sam 6:1-11), Mary travels to the house of Zecharaiah and Elizabeth in the hill country of Judea (Lk 1:39); David asks, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Sam 6:9), Elizabeth asks Mary: “How can this be, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk 1:43); David, donned as a priest, leaps and dances for joy before the ark (2 Sam 6:14), John the Baptist, of priestly lineage, leaps in his mother’s womb upon the sound of Mary’s voice (Lk 1:41); the ark remains in the house of Obed-edom for three months (2 Sam 6:11), Mary remains in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Lk 1:56); the ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem where the presence and glory of God is revealed in the temple (2 Sam 6:12; 1 Kgs 8:911), Mary returns home and eventually goes to Jerusalem where she presents God the Son in the temple (Lk 1:56; 2:21-22). Within the ark of the Old Covenant were the stone tablets of the law - the word of God inscribed in stone, the urn filled with manna - the miraculous bread that fell down from heaven to God’s people in the wilderness, and the rod of Aaron that budded to affirm the true high priest. Within the womb of Mary for nine whole months were the Word of God made man (Jn 1:14), the bread of life come down from heaven (Jn 6:41), and the true eternal High Priest in the order of Melchizedech (Heb 5:1-10). Finally, when the ark was completed, the glory cloud of the Lord (Shekinah glory) “covered” the tent of meeting where the ark rested, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (Ex 40:34-35; Num 9:18,22). The Greek word for “cover” or “overshadow” is episkiasei, which Luke also uses in 1:35 of his Gospel in reference to Mary. Clearly Luke used typology to tell us something unique about Mary’s position in God’s plan of salvation.

The ark of the covenant was fashioned of the purest gold for God’s word (Ex 25:11-21). Since it was God’s sacred dwelling place, the Lord slew Uzzah for having touched it (2 Sam 6:7). Mary was fashioned as the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh. The angel Gabriel greeted her with these words: “Hail, O favored one!” In the Greek we have kecharitomene (favored one), meaning " one enduringly endowed with and perfected by grace." In other words, Mary was created pure and undefiled just as the ark was in its composition. Catholics believe this passage (Lk 1:28) alludes to Mary’s immaculate conception (her preservation from the stain of original sin) in view of her divine maternity. Thus Mary’s singular predestination to grace precludes a normal married life, when we consider that God knit Mary in her mother’s womb to beget and bear a holy child together with Him and graced her with perfect chastity because of her predestined divine espousal and motherhood.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[PRmerger]

I find all this speculation about Mary’s private parts and life just plain weird.

-Tina “Not Personally Lacking in Weirdness” G

If you’re really perplexed about all this speculation about Mary’s private parts* after *Jesus’ birth, Tina, then you ought to find this speculation about her private parts *before *his birth “weird” as well.

Or is it that each and every teaching regarding Mary really only serves to help us understand Jesus better?

We understand Mary to be a virgin before Jesus’ conception because it fulfills the prophesies of Isaiah et al, and it confirms that Jesus is truly divine.

And we understand Mary to be a virgin after Jesus’ conception because it fulfills the prophesies of Isaiah et al and it confirms that Jesus is truly divine.

 

[TinaG]

If you’re really perplexed about all this speculation about Mary’s private parts* after *Jesus’ birth, Tina, then you ought to find this speculation about her private parts *before *his birth “weird” as well.

Or is it that each and every teaching regarding Mary really only serves to help us understand Jesus better?

We understand Mary to be a virgin before Jesus’ conception because it fulfills the prophesies of Isaiah et al, and it confirms that Jesus is truly divine.

And we understand Mary to be a virgin after Jesus’ conception because it fulfills the prophesies of Isaiah et al and it confirms that Jesus is truly divine.

Then you get into the thing of “well it fulfills the prophecy” and “the prophecy was made so it would be fulfilled later.” WHY born of a virgin (moving away from anatomical references)? Why not “born on a camel” or “in a Jacuzzi” or something?

How does it confirm that Jesus is truly divine? Popping out from under a rock would have accomplished the same thing.

I like the argument that “it was fitting”. I still haven’t figured that one out but it sounds nice.

-Tina “Thinking about Spending a Lot of Time under a Rock” G

 

[PRmerger]

Then you get into the thing of “well it fulfills the prophecy” and “the prophecy was made so it would be fulfilled later.” WHY born of a virgin (moving away from anatomical references)? Why not “born on a camel” or “in a Jacuzzi” or something?

How does it confirm that Jesus is truly divine? Popping out from under a rock would have accomplished the same thing.

I like the argument that “it was fitting”. I still haven’t figured that one out but it sounds nice.

-Tina “Thinking about Spending a Lot of Time under a Rock” G

Because there is no human father, if Mary was a virgin.

And if there’s no human father, who was it that placed that little babe in Mary’s womb? (which, BTW, I don’t consider to be a “private part”, but that’s just me. Anyone who wants to take a look at my womb can certainly take a look. )

The answer: God placed that little babe in Mary’s womb, and therefore God is the father and that makes the little babe divine.

 

[TinaG]

Because there is no human father, if Mary was a virgin.

And if there’s no human father, who was it that placed that little babe in Mary’s womb? (which, BTW, I don’t consider to be a “private part”, but that’s just me. Anyone who wants to take a look at my womb can certainly take a look. )

The answer: God placed that little babe in Mary’s womb, and therefore God is the father and that makes the little babe divine.

Let’s do a “what if or two” - not believing the “what-if”, but looking to see what the consequences would be. If there are no adverse consequences then it makes no difference.

-What if He had been born the second son?
-What if there was a verse about him having brothers, sons of Mary and Joseph?
-What if Mary was proved otherwise to be a non-virgin before His birth? After?

-TIna “Proved to Be a Sinner:blush:” G

 

[Gorgias]

Let’s do a “what if or two” - not believing the “what-if”, but looking to see what the consequences would be. If there are no adverse consequences then it makes no difference.

-What if He had been born the second son?

Then he wouldn’t have been a first-born, with all the inheritance rights that this carries. He’s a Son of David, and inherits his kingship … so he can’t be the second-born (or else his brother would have those rights!).

-What if there was a verse about him having brothers, sons of Mary and Joseph?

If older brothers, then what would you do with the prophecy about him being born of a virgin?

If younger brothers, then why hand over Mary to the protection of John? That would be a slap in the face of his brothers – care of Mary would fall to them!

What if Mary was proved otherwise to be a non-virgin before His birth? After?

Again, if before, then what of the prophecy?

If after, well … I have a thought experiment for you:

If Mary weren’t a virgin following Jesus’ birth, then either she had (additional) kids or not. If she had kids – well, I already mentioned that the “son, behold your mother” doesn’t make sense. So, let’s “what-if” that she wasn’t a virgin, but still had no additional kids. That would make Mary barren; by extension, then, she would be presumed to be not in God’s favor (after all, look at all the barren women in the Bible – that’s how they were viewed!).

So, if you presume she didn’t remain a virgin, then you’re saying that the kecharitomene wasn’t, in fact, highly graced, but exactly the opposite – highly unfavored, thus making Gabriel (and therefore, God (!)) a liar.

 

[TinaG]

Then he wouldn’t have been a first-born, with all the inheritance rights that this carries. He’s a Son of David, and inherits his kingship … so he can’t be the second-born (or else his brother would have those rights!).

Agreed.

If older brothers, then what would you do with the prophecy about him being born of a virgin?

Then the prophecy might have been “a messiah will be born to you, the second son of a left-handed redhead who can really play a mean oboe” or something. The prophecy would have matched the circumstances IOW.

If younger brothers, then why hand over Mary to the protection of John? That would be a slap in the face of his brothers – care of Mary would fall to them!

Some people WERE called His brothers and sisters. Whoever they were, whether this was metaphorically or they were cousins, should have been there. I’ve heard this argument before and it is unconvincing.

Again, if before, then what of the prophecy?

See above.

If after, well … I have a thought experiment for you:

If Mary weren’t a virgin following Jesus’ birth, then either she had (additional) kids or not. If she had kids – well, I already mentioned that the “son, behold your mother” doesn’t make sense. So, let’s “what-if” that she wasn’t a virgin, but still had no additional kids. That would make Mary barren; by extension, then, she would be presumed to be not in God’s favor (after all, look at all the barren women in the Bible – that’s how they were viewed!).

So, if you presume she didn’t remain a virgin, then you’re saying that the kecharitomene wasn’t, in fact, highly graced, but exactly the opposite – highly unfavored, thus making Gabriel (and therefore, God (!)) a liar.

The first point falls, per above. The second: she, having had Jesus, was not barren. You seem to be arguing that she was not highly favored because the only child she has was Jesus, and look how He turned out.

-Tina “I think He turned out rather well, if I do say so myself” G

 

[PRmerger]

Some people WERE called His brothers and sisters. Whoever they were, whether this was metaphorically or they were cousins, should have been there. I’ve heard this argument before and it is unconvincing.

Yes, but you’ll find nary a verse that says these brothers and sisters were “children of Mary”.

 

[TinaG]

Yes, but you’ll find nary a verse that says these brothers and sisters were “children of Mary”.

Psalm 69:8 is certainly worthy of mention.

-Tina “Not that I would Mention It” G

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s do a “what if or two” - not believing the “what-if”, but looking to see what the consequences would be. If there are no adverse consequences then it makes no difference.

I’m game.

-What if He had been born the second son?

Then he would not have been “the first-born of all creation” and not fulfilled all the OT foreshadowings of the first-born sons.

-What if there was a verse about him having brothers, sons of Mary and Joseph?

If there were a verse that said that Mary had given birth to other children then that calls into question how special Jesus really was. Why would the womb which was set apart for the divine hold some other creatures?

It’s like the Ark of the Covenant, after carrying the Word, later being a container for some pretty pebbles. Doesn’t seem fitting, does it?

If I were a Muslim, questioning the divinity of Christ, that would certainly be an argument I’d proffer: i*f your Jesus is divine, then why is the womb which carried Divinity Himself able to carry sinful flesh as well? It makes me wonder how special his flesh was. *

-What if Mary was proved otherwise to be a non-virgin before His birth? After?

-TIna “Proved to Be a Sinner:blush:” G

If Mary not a virgin before his birth: calls into question Jesus’ divinity. Maybe Joseph was the father.

If Mary not a virgin after his birth: calls into question Jesus’ divinity. Maybe the guy’s really not that special. After all, his dwelling place for 9 months, where he was intimately united with flesh and blood, wasn’t all that set apart and holy in the first place–it held common man a few years later. How special could this Jesus be?