Question on the perpetual virginity of Mary...

[Brandall]

I’m quite willing to obediently accept the teaching of the church in this matter but for the life of me, I can’t think of why it would matter. I’ve had it explained to me with a very compelling explanation but there is nothing in that information that makes a difference in my life.

I’m not trying to be flip or dismissive here but how is this important? If she was forever a virgin or was not, what practical gain does that cause in your life? Either way, I see no importance in this information.

 

[kkollwitz]

To me it adds to the uniqueness of Jesus that Joseph and Mary refrained from sexual intimacy:

out of respect for Mary as the vessel which nurtured God Himself, and

to preclude the possibility of Jesus having any blood siblings.

 

[Dorothy]

I’m quite willing to obediently accept the teaching of the church in this matter but for the life of me, I can’t think of why it would matter. I’ve had it explained to me with a very compelling explanation but there is nothing in that information that makes a difference in my life.

I’m not trying to be flip or dismissive here but how is this important? If she was forever a virgin or was not, what practical gain does that cause in your life? Either way, I see no importance in this information.

Such things, for me, point to the interior life. By that, I mean that as our prayer journey teaches us more about the Lord and His ways, we see the world differently. Our Lord Jesus Christ desires that we live in the world, but not be of it. For a Catholic this means developing a prayer life and receiving the Sacraments with faith, hope, and love.

The things of God that are not understood can be accepted by our finite minds by an act of the will. God is infinitely good, and everything He does is perfect.

I have felt the intervention of the Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin many times in my life. She was made the perfect disciple by her Son, and though she was highly privileged in His Divine Plan, she had to be a woman of deep faith, hope and love.

The Blessed Virgin has deep humility. I read a priest’s description that has remained with me, it goes like this:

Mary is like a clear pane of glass that lets the Light of the Blessed Trinity shine through. She sees herself as nothing, but is aware that all of what she has comes from the Lord. There are no smudges on that pane of glass. She helps me to see who God is and what He expects of me.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I’m quite willing to obediently accept the teaching of the church in this matter but for the life of me, I can’t think of why it would matter. I’ve had it explained to me with a very compelling explanation but there is nothing in that information that makes a difference in my life.

I’m not trying to be flip or dismissive here but how is this important? If she was forever a virgin or was not, what practical gain does that cause in your life? Either way, I see no importance in this information.

If the BVM is a perpetual Virgin, it would prove that the Catholic Church has always been right and the Baptist Church has always been wrong. Would that make any difference in your life?

 

[ezeekl]

I’m quite willing to obediently accept the teaching of the church in this matter but for the life of me, I can’t think of why it would matter. I’ve had it explained to me with a very compelling explanation but there is nothing in that information that makes a difference in my life.

I’m not trying to be flip or dismissive here but how is this important? If she was forever a virgin or was not, what practical gain does that cause in your life? Either way, I see no importance in this information.

On the surface it doesn’t appear to be important but underneath it is vitally so. The early church held, as we do today, that the entire Incarnation of Jesus was miraculous. Not just his conception but his birth as well. There were early heresies which the church defended against that alleged that Jesus was merely humam or that he was half human and half God or that Jesus was created rather than ever existing. In a series of councils starting with Nicea in 325 AD the early church defined what we believe about Jesus and found it necessary to build a wall around those core beliefs so that those core beliefs would not be subject to question. Part of that wall included what we believe about Mary. It went so far as reject the term Christotokos meaning Christ bearer as used by the heretical Nestorians and instead called Mary the Theotokos meaning God bearer. That is not just a difference of semantics as there is a world of difference implicit in the two words. Calling Mary ‘God bearer’ or Mother of God leaves no doubt as to Jesus divine and human natures whereas ‘Christ bearer’ or Mother of Christ leaves open the possibility of Christ being a created human being. So these doctrines about Mary, the so called Marian doctrines, actually glorify Jesus and His Incarnation.

Today we see some protestant neo-Nestorian groups rejecting the term Theotokos and in doing so say that Mary is not the mother of God but only the mother of Jesus. They fail to see that inherent in that logic is a denial of the divinity of Christ. This is what the early church fought against and why they rebuked Nestorius and his followers.

 

[sirach2v4]

the previous post (#25) comes closest to answering the OP question.

The perpetual virginity of Mary was required to fulfill the prophecy of Is 7:14-15 that a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and that this (the virginity) would be a sign of the importance of the birth.

so, the virginity of Mary, while stressing the divine conception (as opposed to merely an ordinary conception) of Jesus, also fulfills the prophecy.

my Jewish Study Bible (Oxford Press) denies the virgin birth idea, but then it hits a wall trying to explain what was special about the birth described in Is. So, it denies what is special and then says they can’t figure out what the sign was or what it meant.

There you go.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

sirach2v4:

my Jewish Study Bible (Oxford Press) denies the virgin birth idea, but then it hits a wall trying to explain what was special about the birth described in Is. So, it denies what is special and then says they can’t figure out what the sign was or what it meant.

There you go.

In the Knox Bible under Isaiah, he also mentions that no one has ever come up with a good explanation for the contemporary fulfillment of the prophecy (under King Achaz), and that the Virgin Birth is the ONLY real explanation that seems to fulfill this prophecy and SIGN given by God Himself.

 

[JamesTheJust]

If I may continue that quote…

Only the Prince may sit in it
to eat bread before the Lord;
He shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gate,
and shall go out the same way

“eat bread before the lord” does not quite make sense here, because he was not seated at the right hand of the father during his tenure here on Earth.

I feel that it is rather a prophecy regarding Jesus’ ascension into heaven, and his coming return at the end of days. Only Christ will “enter this gate”, the gate of the Kingdom of Heaven, preserved for him, upon his death. He will sit at the right hand of the father . And then, he will leave that gate of heaven when he returns and lays his judgment upon us.

In other words, the means by which Christ descended and ascended into heaven, a virgin birth, and a “rising on the third day”, will not be open to any other human being.

Prophecies have immediate fulfillment as well as greater fulfillment. Ezekiel 44:2’s greater fulfillment is Mary’s perpetual virginity.

 

[nmgauss]

the previous post (#25) comes closest to answering the OP question.

The perpetual virginity of Mary was required to fulfill the prophecy of Is 7:14-15 that a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and that this (the virginity) would be a sign of the importance of the birth.

so, the virginity of Mary, while stressing the divine conception (as opposed to merely an ordinary conception) of Jesus, also fulfills the prophecy.

my Jewish Study Bible (Oxford Press) denies the virgin birth idea, but then it hits a wall trying to explain what was special about the birth described in Is. So, it denies what is special and then says they can’t figure out what the sign was or what it meant.

There you go.

If an event in the Bible is written briefly, there is a tendency to fill in the gaps. Isaiah 7:14 is a case in point. This passage is ripe for eisegesis. Although the original Hebrew term “almah” depicted a young woman who has not yet given birth or a married young woman, it did not necessarily depict the young woman as a virgin. The Greek translator decided to use the term “parthenos” for this woman, thus injecting a note of eisegesis.
This interpretation thus supposes that the woman was a virgin. This is wishful thinking.
There is no proof positive that she was a virgin, but believing it to be so probably influenced the translator to use “parthenos” instead of another Greek word for a young woman. The supposition that this was a special sign from God meant that it had to be uncommon, and what better way than to describe it has happening to a virgin.

 

[zz912]

I’m quite willing to obediently accept the teaching of the church in this matter but for the life of me, I can’t think of why it would matter. I’ve had it explained to me with a very compelling explanation but there is nothing in that information that makes a difference in my life.

I’m not trying to be flip or dismissive here but how is this important? If she was forever a virgin or was not, what practical gain does that cause in your life? Either way, I see no importance in this information.

I would suggest some study and reflection on why the Ark of the Old Covenant was so important, and why it was revered and honored under the Old Covenant. Really dig into the important the Ark had.

And then reflect on the fact that Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant.

 

[phil19034]

If an event in the Bible is written briefly, there is a tendency to fill in the gaps. Isaiah 7:14 is a case in point. This passage is ripe for eisegesis. Although the original Hebrew term “almah” depicted a young woman who has not yet given birth or a married young woman, it did not necessarily depict the young woman as a virgin. The Greek translator decided to use the term “parthenos” for this woman, thus injecting a note of eisegesis.
This interpretation thus supposes that the woman was a virgin. This is wishful thinking.
There is no proof positive that she was a virgin, but believing it to be so probably influenced the translator to use “parthenos” instead of another Greek word for a young woman. The supposition that this was a special sign from God meant that it had to be uncommon, and what better way than to describe it has happening to a virgin.

Are you saying that you don’t even believe in the virgin birth?

 

[nmgauss]

Are you saying that you don’t even believe in the virgin birth?

What I believe is irrelevant. We have no proof of the exact meaning of Isaiah 7:14. We can read into the text whatever we feel like, as long as it does not directly contradict the original.

As to the virgin birth of Jesus, if Matthew and Luke say that it happened, we have no information at hand to contradict it. It is not mentioned at all by St. Paul, St. Mark or St. John. So, are they just ignoring this significant event, or in their view, it did not happen?

One can choose to believe whatever is written and not put any emphasis on the fact that it was not written in other writings of the time.

 

[JamesTheJust]

What I believe is irrelevant. We have no proof of the exact meaning of Isaiah 7:14. We can read into the text whatever we feel like, as long as it does not directly contradict the original.

As to the virgin birth of Jesus, if Matthew and Luke say that it happened, we have no information at hand to contradict it. It is not mentioned at all by St. Paul, St. Mark or St. John. So, are they just ignoring this significant event, or in their view, it did not happen?

One can choose to believe whatever is written and not put any emphasis on the fact that it was not written in other writings of the time.

So if one biography of, say, John F Kennedy mentions his education at Harvard, but another biography doesn’t, that means JFK didn’t attend Harvard? Or does it just mean that different biographers emphasize different aspects of a person’s life?

 

[nmgauss]

I’m quite willing to obediently accept the teaching of the church in this matter but for the life of me, I can’t think of why it would matter. I’ve had it explained to me with a very compelling explanation but there is nothing in that information that makes a difference in my life.

I’m not trying to be flip or dismissive here but how is this important? If she was forever a virgin or was not, what practical gain does that cause in your life? Either way, I see no importance in this information.

Whether one believes one way or another seems to be of prime importance among Christians. The see their adherents practicing orthodoxy: : a belief or a way of thinking that is accepted as true or correct.

Among Jews and Muslims, orthopraxy is the dominant theme: correct behavior: eating kosher, avoiding various purity taboos, honoring the Sabbath and so on. A Jew is unlikely to be criticized for believing incorrectly, but he might be accused of behaving badly

 

[nmgauss]

So if one biography of, say, John F Kennedy mentions his education at Harvard, but another biography doesn’t, that means JFK didn’t attend Harvard? Or does it just mean that different biographers emphasize different aspects of a person’s life?

How important is it that we learn that he went to Harvard? If not important, then who cares? But if the Virgin Mary gives birth to the Messiah and it is not mentioned in writings which purport to tell us about Jesus, this is very serious. This oversight implies that the virgin birth story is not fully credible.

This is my take. I do not want to insult anybody that chooses to accept the virgin birth story. That is their exegesis, not mine.

 

[JamesTheJust]

How important is it that we learn that he went to Harvard? If not important, then who cares? But if the Virgin Mary gives birth to the Messiah and it is not mentioned in writings which purport to tell us about Jesus, this is very serious. This oversight implies that the virgin birth story is not fully credible.

Maybe it’s important because Harvard is where JFK first became interested in politics? But that is irrelevant. The point is: just because one author omits a detail, however important, and another author includes said detail, that is in no way proof of the falsity of that detail.

 

[ezeekl]

If an event in the Bible is written briefly, there is a tendency to fill in the gaps. Isaiah 7:14 is a case in point. This passage is ripe for eisegesis. Although the original Hebrew term “almah” depicted a young woman who has not yet given birth or a married young woman, it did not necessarily depict the young woman as a virgin. The Greek translator decided to use the term “parthenos” for this woman, thus injecting a note of eisegesis.
This interpretation thus supposes that the woman was a virgin. This is wishful thinking.
There is no proof positive that she was a virgin, but believing it to be so probably influenced the translator to use “parthenos” instead of another Greek word for a young woman. The supposition that this was a special sign from God meant that it had to be uncommon, and what better way than to describe it has happening to a virgin.

Let’s not cloud our interpretation of the text by injecting modern day morality into it. Virginity was highly praised way back when and Mary was indeed a virgin. In fact, scripture states it very clearly. Look at Mary’s own words to the angel in Luke 1:34:

“34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” [KJV]

Mary asserts her virginity to the angel who does not disagree with her and does not contradict her either.

 

[ezeekl]

How important is it that we learn that he went to Harvard? If not important, then who cares? But if the Virgin Mary gives birth to the Messiah and it is not mentioned in writings which purport to tell us about Jesus, this is very serious. This oversight implies that the virgin birth story is not fully credible.

This is my take. I do not want to insult anybody that chooses to accept the virgin birth story. That is their exegesis, not mine.

Once again we see the old sola scriptura dragon breathing fire and smoke. The old, “If it isn’t written down then it doesn’t count” battle cry of the protestant revolution. But written down where? In books that were written decades after the fact by men who, it could be said, had a motive to write because they needed to justify dedicating their lives to a cause. Let’s face the facts. What is scripture was and still is, determined by man not by God. It was man who said what books were inspired by the Holy Spirit. God did not issue an inspired Table of Contents. Jesus did not tell the Apostles Matthrew and John to write gospels. Neither did He tell Mark and Luke. In fact there is no evidence that any of the New Testament authors knew that what they wrote was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Furthermore there is noreason to believe that Matthew’s only written work was his gospel. We know Luke wrote more than one and Paul wrote fifteen letters but only fourteen were determined, by men, to be inspired. So why do you place so much trust in writings that you have absolutely no evidence to show that they are worthy of such trust. Now if, on the other hand, you could show that God verified these writings as inspired, then that would be different. But where is it written that God did so? It would have to be written to satisfy sola scriptura. So where is it? Unfortunately, it isn’t written anywhere.

But even if something is written in scripture that does not make it worthy of belief to sola scripturists. In 2 Thess 2:15 Paul wrote to the Thessalonians that they should hold onto the teaching they received by word of mouth as well as by letter.

“15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” [2 Thess 2:15 KJV]

That is inspired scripture and the immutable word of God. That means it is as valid today as the day it was penned by Paul. I guess it is hard to see it with all that fire and smoke emanating from the dragon.

 

[sirach2v4]

If an event in the Bible is written briefly, there is a tendency to fill in the gaps. Isaiah 7:14 is a case in point. This passage is ripe for eisegesis. Although the original Hebrew term “almah” depicted a young woman who has not yet given birth or a married young woman, it did not necessarily depict the young woman as a virgin. The Greek translator decided to use the term “parthenos” for this woman, thus injecting a note of eisegesis.
This interpretation thus supposes that the woman was a virgin. This is wishful thinking.
There is no proof positive that she was a virgin, but believing it to be so probably influenced the translator to use “parthenos” instead of another Greek word for a young woman. The supposition that this was a special sign from God meant that it had to be uncommon, and what better way than to describe it has happening to a virgin.

Yeah, but you’e second-guessing the Septuagint, aren’t you? The NT accepts Is 7:14 as “virgin.” Doesn’t it?

You’re (you in general, that is) assuming that the Masoretic text is foundational for the Hebrew. We DON’T know what the Hebrew text was that was the basis of the Septuagint. Those Jewish translators must have had a good reason for using the word they did.

In my previous post, I explain how the early church fathers accepted Mary’s perpetual virginity as fundamental to understand who Jesus is, what his nature is. This was big stuff by the time of the Council of Nicea.

 

[PoorKnight]

How important is it that we learn that he went to Harvard? If not important, then who cares? But if the Virgin Mary gives birth to the Messiah and it is not mentioned in writings which purport to tell us about Jesus, this is very serious. This oversight implies that the virgin birth story is not fully credible.

This is my take. I do not want to insult anybody that chooses to accept the virgin birth story. That is their exegesis, not mine.

But what is GOD’s exegesis? If what God wants to communicate with us is that the Blessed Mother was perpetually a virgin, then there is great importance there.

So it comes down to: is YOUR exegisis infalible? How do you know what you have been taught is 100% correct?

Another thought: The Virgin Mary is clearly shown in Scripture as the Ark of the New Covenant.
agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Virgin%20Mary%20as%20the%20Ark%20of%20the%20New%20Covenant.htm

Could the old Ark ever be used for everyday ordinary uses? I mean, could I store my dirty laundry in the old Ark? No! That would be unthinkable!

R.C. Sproul says that the old Ark was SO Holy it could not even be touched. Sproul says that the reason Uzzah was killed was because of the sin of presumption: he presumed he was cleaner than the dirt the Ark was going to fall on.

So how is it any different with the New Ark? Do you think the womb of The Mother of the Lord of lords could be used for ordinary purposes again?

Meditate on this before you dismiss it, for if you dismiss any truth, you are dismissing Christ (Jn 14:6).