Perpetual Virginity alluded to at Annunciation

[PaperMoon]

I’ve often thought of it this way:

If you were engaged, and about to be married, and an angel told you that you’d give birth soon, you’d probably assume that your future husband was going to be the father.

But Mary does not respond in that way at all. She says (and here is the literal translation) “I know not man.” Protestants may argue that she speaks in present verb tense, thus supposedly implying that she will know man eventually (and hence destroying the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity).

However, May does speak in the present tense because she is describing her state, her vocation: she knows not man. Given the number of virgins in that time period (see Dead Sea Scrolls), we can be pretty sure that Mary took a vow of virginity.

Sorry, I wrote that in a hurry. I hope it answers your question.

That is a good way to put it, I never thought of it that way. That does make sense. God came to someone who was going ot take a vow of chastity and said that because it’s true that if you were about to be married at that time and someone told you you would have a baby you would think oh okay by my soon to be husband. Okay that makes sense but she said how could this be that she did not know a man. And if she was planning to get married someday she would be like oh okay by my future husband. But she did not see how it could be, so it makes sense that that was because she was not planning on marrying ever. Very good I see.

 

[Good_Fella]

I’m a Protestant Christian, not Catholic, so although the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity isn’t a NEW concept to me, I’ve always wondered how Catholics support that claim.

The passage at what you guys call the “Annunciation” (of course we don’t talk about it at all) is interesting, but could be taken so many different ways.

Could someone please point me in the direction of more verses that support the claim, and also some books? I know Saint Augustine is a good one, but his books are REALLY hard to get through. I tried reading City of God, and couldn’t get very far. I can only read maybe six pages at a time, lol.

I really am genuinely interested in this. I know Martin Luther believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity, so I wonder why this doctrine hasn’t survived in the Protestant church.

You claim that Luke 1,34 can “be taken so many different ways.” Could you explain how? It is perfectly clear that Mary is asking the angel Gabriel “by what manner” she will conceive the child. Do not suggest that she was inquiring about the nature of a miraculous birth, for like all Jews Mary expected a messiah born of paternal lineage. There is no “Son of the living God” in Judaism. In Judaic eschatology the Messiah will be a man just like Moses, only greater in status, a son of David. Moreover, Isaiah 7,14 is not interpreted by Jews as it is by Christians. The virgin with child is a near term sign referring to the time of King Ahaz. True, the text stands by itself and is not an oracle about Christ, although it’s part of a path that points towards the Messiah and is fulfilled in his birth taken in context with the Old Testament as a unified whole. The Jews still reject our interpretation of this text.

There is not only one foundation (Scripture) of the body of teaching in the historic Christian faith. The other essential foundations are the Apostolic Community, The Fathers, the Creed, (Tradition), and the Councils (Magisterium: the single inerrant authority in interpreting the inerrant Word of God.) The Three pillars of the Catholic Church are Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary was defined and declared a dogmatic truth by Pope Martin 1 at the Lateran Synod of 649 in Rome. All Christians are required to give their assent in faith to this universal truth. In the Gospel of John (14, 25-26; 16, 12-13), our Lord lays the foundations of the authoritative teachings of the historic Christian faith through his Church: “These things I have spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you…I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. But when the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all truth.” It would appear that Jesus is talking about divine guidance in the interpretation and understanding of the Word of God upon the birth of the Church at Pentecost. The Apostolic community was acutely conscious that in its teachings it was guided and preserved by the Holy Spirit: “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things” (Acts 15, 28). Long before the canon of the New Testament was established in the late fourth century, the initial version of the Apostles Creed was developed in Rome by the Apostolic Church in the second century. This is an early instance of discerning divine revelation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Catholic theologian Frank Sheed points out that the Creed “goes straight from the Holy Spirit to the Holy Catholic Church, without mention of Scripture.” Traditionally, the first early Church Father to mention the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is Tertullian (On Monogamy) in A.D. 213. Most of the ECF’s consistently taught this doctrine before it was declared dogma by Pope Martin. It would also appear that Luke 1,34 expresses a traditional belief of the Church in Jerusalem held before this Gospel was written. Scripture comes from Tradition, and it is infallible only because the latter is infallible, being guided by the promised Holy Spirit. :yup:

Modern day Christians (notably 20th century Fundamentalists) who have no connection with the historic Christian faith, reject the Church’s Marian doctrines because they feel these teachings contradict Scripture. Basically these Christians believe that the idea of Marian mediation and intercession are contrary to the concept of salvation by faith alone (sola fide). The thought of prayers to Mary for her intercession before Christ leads to a theology of slavation by works and denies the all-sufficiency of Christ’s redemptive death and his unique mediatorship (sola Christus).Yet Paul tells us “we are laborers with God.”

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[PaperMoon]

Hello Nichols,

Mary’s words are multi-faceted. First of all, some would argue that she doubted the angel or God for that matter and therefore use this passage to indicate that Mary was not sinless because Zechariah did the same thing and was renedered mute until the birth of John the Baptist. Therefore, Mary’s comment to the angel was not only that she “knew not man” but that her vow of virginity was perpetual, she did not have the intention of knowing man. Not that she was ignorant of how a man and a woman become one flesh etc etc…she was testing to see if the angel understood her vow. Which is why the angel explained to her. And not to Zechariah who knew that nothing was impossible to God and doubted that at his age and his wife’s age could do anything to bring about the birth of the Baptist.

I hope I didn’t muddle that up

Yeah because anyone engaged and planning to have children at any point in the future would not be confused or shocked by an angel telling them they would have a child. It would be the natural thing and somehting they had planned. For her to be confused means she was not planning on having kids. Makes sense to me.

 

[inchrist101]

Basically Mary was confused as to how she would get pregnant because she was virgin at that time. Saying she did not know a man was another way of stating that she had not had sex with a man. All through the Bible we read that a man knows his wife and they have a child. It’s right in Genesis. Adam knew Eve and they bore a son Cain. This was the language of the day to describe having sex. Mary tells the Angel I do not know a man, meaning she had not had sex yet.

Matthew tells us in his Gospel that Joseph did not know Mary until after she gave birth to Jesus. Meaning they did not have sex until after Jesus was born. If Mary’s perpetual virginity had such significance then I believe the Gospel writers would have placed more of an emphasis on it. Trying to strip out statements from the Bible to support a claim is the wrong way to interpret the Bible. Mary’s perpetual virginity is of no signficance to our salvation. If she was great, if not so what. It doesn’t change the fact that Jesus was born and died for our sins.

Instead of worrying about Mary’s virginity I think we should be more focused on Jesus. Anytime we focus on other issues that are not pertinent to our salvation we take the focus away from Jesus which is exactly what Satan wants us to do.

PEACE!!

 

[PaperMoon]

St. Augustine wrote about this same exact thing in a homily on virginity. He speaks about Mary making a vow of virginity and that it is seen in the statement ‘how shall this be since I know not man.’

“Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her conception; How,’ saith she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man?’ Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, How shall this take place ?’ and had not added, seeing I know not a man,’ certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. She might have been bidden also to continue a virgin, that in her by fitting miracle the Son of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a pattern to holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be a virgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexual intercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of command; through love of choosing, not through necessity of doing service. Thus Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free.” *Augustine, Of Holy Virginity, 4 (A.D. 401). *

Yeah I like that idea better too, that she had already decided to dedicate her virginity to God even before she knew she would have Jesus, so God did not go to someone who planned to have sex & kids and did this plan, but He went to someone who had already decided that was how she would serve God by being a perpetual virgin. That idea like that makes it even more special.

 

[ryanoneil]

Could someone please point me in the direction of more verses that support the claim

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-IV

 

[PaperMoon]

Basically Mary was confused as to how she would get pregnant because she was virgin at that time. Saying she did not know a man was another way of stating that she had not had sex with a man. All through the Bible we read that a man knows his wife and they have a child. It’s right in Genesis. Adam knew Eve and they bore a son Cain. This was the language of the day to describe having sex. Mary tells the Angel I do not know a man, meaning she had not had sex yet.

Matthew tells us in his Gospel that Joseph did not know Mary until after she gave birth to Jesus. Meaning they did not have sex until after Jesus was born. If Mary’s perpetual virginity had such significance then I believe the Gospel writers would have placed more of an emphasis on it. Trying to strip out statements from the Bible to support a claim is the wrong way to interpret the Bible. Mary’s perpetual virginity is of no signficance to our salvation. If she was great, if not so what. It doesn’t change the fact that Jesus was born and died for our sins.

Instead of worrying about Mary’s virginity I think we should be more focused on Jesus. Anytime we focus on other issues that are not pertinent to our salvation we take the focus away from Jesus which is exactly what Satan wants us to do.

PEACE!!

The point you are missing though is that anyone planning to have sex and get married at ANY time in their life would not be confused by someone telling them they will have a son. The natural reaction would be like oh okay one day I will have a son cool. No one would be confused by that unless they had already decided to vow themselves to celibacy. Then that person would be like how could this be, surely God must know that they have taken the vow so how or why would God send an angel to say they are going to have a child. Get it? This makes more sense this way. Someone plannig to have kids some day in the future would not be confused by an announcement that they will have a son.

 

[HailMary]

**to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. **Luke 1:27

** But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”** Luke 1:34

By definition, betrothal is a relation. In fact, in Jewish custom, it was common for sexual relations to already be existing between the couple. It was only in the second stage of Marriage were the man actually brings her into her house.

There is so much you can draw about Mary and Joseph from the following:

Mary would not have deceived Joseph and agreed to a betrothal if She had not revealed her consecration to God in body and soul.

Joseph, being a just man, the heir to the throne of Israel, accepted this and knew that Mary was the virgin prephesized, the Ark of the Covenant. The only other option is that Mary was violated (raped) or She cheated on him.

Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. Matt. 1:20

The sentiment of a man who suspects either

1. the violation of Mary
2. the adultery of Mary
   would not be that of fear. St. Joseph, being a just man, knows his Scripture, was probably very familiar with with happened to any one touched the Ark of the Covenant, which explains his fear. That may still be a stretch, but Joseph must have surely thought this may be the woman prophecised that would in Isaiah 7:14 which would also explain his fear (out of this womans holiness).

Without digressing to far into the life of St. Joseph, I think its fair to say that the only reasonable interpretation of why Mary asked that question to the Angel Gabriel is because if she were to interpret the words of the Angel in the normal sense, the sense of a non-consecrated person, the natural conclusion of would be that Mary and St. Joseph would have to have engage in the Marital Act (the Liturgy of the Body). But because Mary is wise and would like to keep her vow to God (her total consecration) she is prudent and asked the angel for clarification, lest she go back on her word.

 

[Good_Fella]

Basically Mary was confused as to how she would get pregnant because she was virgin at that time. Saying she did not know a man was another way of stating that she had not had sex with a man. All through the Bible we read that a man knows his wife and they have a child. It’s right in Genesis. Adam knew Eve and they bore a son Cain. This was the language of the day to describe having sex. Mary tells the Angel I do not know a man, meaning she had not had sex yet.

Matthew tells us in his Gospel that Joseph did not know Mary until after she gave birth to Jesus. Meaning they did not have sex until after Jesus was born. If Mary’s perpetual virginity had such significance then I believe the Gospel writers would have placed more of an emphasis on it. Trying to strip out statements from the Bible to support a claim is the wrong way to interpret the Bible. Mary’s perpetual virginity is of no signficance to our salvation. If she was great, if not so what. It doesn’t change the fact that Jesus was born and died for our sins.

Instead of worrying about Mary’s virginity I think we should be more focused on Jesus. Anytime we focus on other issues that are not pertinent to our salvation we take the focus away from Jesus which is exactly what Satan wants us to do.

PEACE!!

The angel Gabriel gives no indication to Mary that she is to conceive a child at the present moment. He is speaking to Mary in the future tense, referring to an undetermined future event. Moreover, Luke does not present Mary literally telling the angel that she is not having having relations with her betrothed husband at the present time. This would be inconsistent with the author’s earlier verse: “Hail, full of grace” (Lk 1,28). Luke does not raise any allusion to the question of promiscuity on Mary’s part. He has already presented her as a woman in a state of sanctifying grace. Keep in mind, that the Gospel is a literary work, and the author is mindful of being consistent in what he means to tell us about his subject.

Protestants misinterpret Matthew 1,25 by isolating the verse. It must be taken in context with v 23: All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means “God is with us.” Matthew is assuring us in v 25 that Mary was indeed a virgin before she gave birth to Christ. He is emphasizing that this birth fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah 7, 14. He is strictly concerned with the time before the birth of Jesus. The conjunction “until” (eos) can refer to either before or after the event. There is no reason for Matthew to allude to the time after Jesus was born. He is concerned only with the universal truth of the virgin birth.

You have resolved your own problem. There was no need for the Gospel writers to emphasize Mary’s perpetual virginity because they were primarily concerned with Jesus and our salvation. Paul never wrote about the Virgin Birth, but I’m sure he believed in this divine event. He never even mentioned the empty tomb. The Holy Trinity doctrine wasn’t defined until the Council of Nicea, almost four hundred years later. The apostolic teaching authority of the Church did not expire with the death of the last New Testament apostle. By Apostolic Succession the Church has traditionally carried on teaching divine truths where the NT apostles left off: truths the Church would gradually comprehend and in the words of Jesus “bear” at a given future time.

Unfortunately, the Gospel writers tended to write in an ambiguous way. For this reason over twenty major heresies arose in the Church. For instance, Arians cite several passages, including John 1,14: And the Word became flesh. As you may be aware, Arians deny the divinity of Christ and the Holy Trinity. There is only one Person, God the Father. The Son was created in time; He is not eternally begotten of the Father (Council of Nicea). Christ was thus a son of God not by nature, but by grace and adoption only - like the rest of us with Jesus leading the way. The bible alone is not sufficient. We need the Apostolic authority of the Catholic Church to clarify and define divine truths revealed to us through the agency of the Holy Spirit. By the way, The Church condemned the heretical views of Jovinan and Helvidius against the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Elizabeth_C]

I’ll tell you what. Even moreso, if I were God, and I was given the opportunity of creating my children, I would create THEM sinless (as I think most parents would). But God didn’t create us, his children, as sinless. It just doesn’t make sense to me that he would create Mary as sinless either. None of it just adds up for me. But I guess, it doesn’t really matter. I’ll find the answers someday when I am up there with God. And, boy!, will I be asking!

Everyone else seems to be stating the case for Mary’s virginity well. So, I will address your comment about God making His children sinless… He did! Adam and Eve were created directly by God in a sinless, immortal state. When they chose to disobey God, they committed the first sin. (The eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil… remember that?) We have been living with that first (or “original”) sin ever since. God took special care to remove that taint at Mary’s conception so that she could be a pure vessel for the Son of God.

 

[adam_in_ohio]

I guess I am unclear as to why having relations with her husband would make her unworthy. Jesus had already passed through the womb, and there is nothing morally wrong w/ relations with your spouse…in fact it was something God had designed specifically for the sacrament of marriage. This just doesn’t make any sense to me. No matter how many times I try to wrap my head around it.

With this argument I have to ask. Would it have been wrong for them to have relations before Jesus was born? They were husband and wife but yet didn’t have any relations. But after 9 months of marriage they started to having relations. This seems seems not to make sense.
Also take note in the OT where the man that was not a priest touches the ark and dies. The typology of Mary and the ark is overwelming. If my wife was the ark of the covenit I wouldn’t touch her. I know what happened to that guy in the OT.

 

[Conservative]

WOW ! It’s an interesting thought, which I hadn’t considered. That if the Angel Gabriel was telling Our Lady she would be a Son - why would she make the comment about not knowing man unless she was told she was already with child…hmmm.

I don’t know about Dead Sea Scroll research but I’d thought that Our Lady wanted to consecrate herself as a virgin but her parents wanted her to marry…I don’t know if I read that or saw it in a film but I was totally unaware that a man would agree to marry a woman and agree to her remaining a virgin.

No theologian am I - But we do know that based on the month we celebrate the Annunciation (9 months before Christmas), we’re apparently supposed to believe that it was then, at the time of the Annunciation, that the Holy Spirit came - and Our Lady conceived Jesus. Maybe, the words from Gabriel, that she would bear a son - were given in such a tense that Our Lady understood it to mean she was now, as it is later put - “with Child”.

Just my humble, uneducated observation.

 

[Conservative]

WOW ! It’s an interesting thought, which I hadn’t considered. That if the Angel Gabriel was telling Our Lady she would be a Son - why would she make the comment about not knowing man unless she was told she was already with child…hmmm.

…

I couldn’t leave my post so poorly mistyped and couldn’t get in soon enough to edit, unfortunately. Correcting myself -
“telling Our Lady she would bear a Son” - not “be” a son.

 

[Good_Fella]

With this argument I have to ask. Would it have been wrong for them to have relations before Jesus was born? They were husband and wife but yet didn’t have any relations. But after 9 months of marriage they started to having relations. This seems seems not to make sense.
Also take note in the OT where the man that was not a priest touches the ark and dies. The typology of Mary and the ark is overwelming. If my wife was the ark of the covenit I wouldn’t touch her. I know what happened to that guy in the OT.

It would have been unlawful for Mary and Joseph to have relations during the first stage of their legal marriage: betrothal. But as I already mentioned above, Luke makes no allusion to the question of promiscuity in their marriage. We may naturally infer Mary to mean she is not having relations during the present time, but she is not literally saying that. The declaration “I do not know a man” is to be understood as signifying a condition rather than an instant of time. If I were a religious nun and said “I have no relations with a man,” I would expect to be understood as meaning that I never have relations with a man, including now, and don’t intend to either. My virginity is a religious and spiritual state of existence, not merely a transitory moment in time, in view of my vow of chastity. We can safely assume by what Mary tells the angel that she consecrated herself to God at some point in her childhood. Allow me to briefly reiterate what I discussed in a similar thread.

If a fortune teller happened to tell me that I am going to eventually die of lung cancer, I might respond by asking “How shall this be, seeing I do not smoke?” And I could add “Will I die of lung cancer because of second-hand smoke or on account of air pollution?” I could certainly mean by defining myself as a non-smoker that I have never smoked all my life, I am not smoking now, and I have no intention of starting to smoke in the future.In my state of alarm I might say to the fortune teller “I am not going to ever smoke, so how shall I die of lung cancer? Will I begin smoking after all?” The Virgin Mary finds herself in the same situation in her encounter with the angel Gabriel. Her position is no different than mine in which I would like to know by what manner I am going to die of lung cancer, seeing I don’t smoke at all and don’t intend to.

“Whoever honours the Lord also honours the holy vessel; who instead dishonours the holy vessel also dishonours his Master. Mary herself is that holy Virgin, that is, the holy vessel.”
Epiphanius, ‘Panarion, 78:21’ (A.D. 377)

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[adam_in_ohio]

The point I was making is that they were married before the birth of Jesus. Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. When people say thay had relations because they were married don’t take into acount they were married before Jesus was born and DIDN’T have relations. So there is no reasion to think they would have startede afterward. I believe betrothal is for the most part the same as engaged.

 

[eaglesmark]

Mat 1:24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife,
Mat 1:25 but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.

Hi to everyone…

What would the word “until” a time limiting word be doing in the passage if Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born? Would the verse have other meanings as to Joseph “knowing” his wife after Jesus was born other than having a sex with her?

Gen 4:1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the LORD.”
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son–Enoch.
Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, “For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.”

 

[Ginger2]

Earlier someone said that betrothed couples engaged in sexual relations right away, but didn’t co-habitate until some time later.

I believe this is incorrect. Once betrothed, the relationship was considered a valid marriage, however, the marriage was not consummated until the couple began to co-habitate.

So Mary’s being a virgin at the time is not evidence that she and Joseph never planned to have relations.

Now, I have a question, where do we find evidence that temple virgins were frequently married off? I don’t believe that is accurate, either. It makes no sense for someone to take a vow of celibacy and then place constant temptation before them. I thought temple virgins lived out their lives in the temple. Please direct me to the historical documentation.

 

[HailMary]

Earlier someone said that betrothed couples engaged in sexual relations right away, but didn’t co-habitate until some time later.

I believe this is incorrect. Once betrothed, the relationship was considered a valid marriage, however, the marriage was not consummated until the couple began to co-habitate.

So Mary’s being a virgin at the time is not evidence that she and Joseph never planned to have relations.

Try again, Ginger2

books.google.com/books?id=-tCwHpLFKTYC&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=jewish+betrothal+sexual+relations&source=web&ots=qZ3biKlBHk&sig=ckkrMHt0e2G9Z0iELhco4I1LxZ4

 

[Ginger2]

Try again, Ginger2

That paragraph supports my claim. Jesus was a Galilean.

 

[HailMary]

HailMary;3074339:

Try again, Ginger2

That paragraph supports my claim. Jesus was a Galilean.

John 7:52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.

Your paragraph contrast the “promiscuous” Judaeans with chaste Galileans. Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, but Mary and Joseph were from Galilee.

I’m sorry, this does not support your claim at all. We are not discussing promiscuous vs non-promiscuous Isrelites: the fact is sexual relatinoships were COMMON to betrothed couples before the bride moved with the husband