The not so virgin Mary

[dianaiad]

The angel tells Mary God wants her to give birth to the Messiah.
Logically Mary would think okay I guess Joseph and I will have to have sex, cause that’s how you get pregnant.

Yet she says how can this be since I do not no man? Rather than being a stupid woman (certainly not what Gregory implies) she would have been aware of how babies were made, so unless she intended to have sex with Joseph, why the question?

…Alfred Adersheim, in his Sketches of Jewish Social Life, p. 148, says there was a distinction between betrothal and marriage. He immediately adds, however, that from the moment of betrothal the woman was treated as if she were married;…In other words, Mary and Joseph were legally married but had not yet begun living together as husband and wife when Mary as a virgin became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit. When an angel informed Joseph in a dream of Mary’s condition, he believed the angel and took Mary to his home. If any of the neighbors noticed Mary was pregnant, they would not have suspected impropriety; they knew the couple had been married for some time. Mary’s condition wouldn’t have been too obvious to the community in any case because Mary soon went into the hill country for three months to visit her cousin Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-40, 56). It is important to understand that no slightest hint of impropriety—much less of immorality—could have been permitted in the carrying out of the birth of Christ, upon whose life, death, and resurrection the whole plan of redemption depended. Deut. 23:2, for example, forbids participation in the Lord’s assembly by a person of illegitimate birth or by any of his descendants to the tenth generation. If there had been any such suspicion, Jesus would have had no possibility of being accepted by the common people. (See Mark 6:2-3 and John 7:46.)

Problem with your presentation of this is that Joseph didn’t find out about Mary’s condition through an angel. He found out about it after she got back from her cousin’s home, over three months pregnant. Her pregnancy was obvious enough that Joseph had to make a decision regarding her. He COULD have had her stoned to death, but 'being righteous, and not willing to make her an example, dis wish privately to send her away." After deciding to send her away, THEN an angel visited him and told him to keep her around.

In other words, everybody knew she was pregnant; it was a bit of a scandal, evidently.

After all, if God had wished Jesus to have no human father what were the possibilities? He could have chosen a virgin who was not betrothed, or a widow who would have been willing to have a baby and be known as a “single mother” (always insisting that her baby had no human father). In both cases the baby would have been deprived of the important presence of a father in the home, and the mother would have been in danger of punishment under the Jewish law. As for the son, any claim he might make or any good he might do would be rejected as coming from a man of illegitimate birth.

God could have chosen a woman already married and living with her husband. It would not, then, have been a “virgin birth,” but it could have been a birth by the Holy Spirit without a human father. The nature of the birth, then, could have been kept secret (as in the case of Mary) until the appropriate time. But how could even the mother and her husband be sure that there was no earthly father for the baby?

The only other possibility, it would seem, was what God actually did: he chose a pure young woman, betrothed and legally married to a godly young man, but who had not…had any sexual contact with her husband. In this situation the baby could be conceived by the Holy Spirit. The husband could receive his wife…

• goodnewsmag.org/library/articles/greenlee-nd90.htm

Everything you say is true (with the exception of the timing of what Joseph knew and when he knew it) but…doesn’t affect what happened between Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth.

 

[dianaiad]

The Church’s traditional belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary isn’t culturally conditioned. The Holy Spirit transcends any human culture.

Neither the Son of Man, John the Baptist, nor the apostle Paul ever married. Haven’t you ever wondered why? Certainly it wasn’t because they thought marriage would make them less holy or something lesser. Perhaps they had a higher object of love in sight.

Whatever makes you think that Joseph and Mary would feel intimidated as you might feel under the same circumstances?

You forget Mary had already conceived a child of another Person while she was betrothed to Joseph before the consummation of their marriage.

Is this the eleventh commandment?

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were a family which served God like no other family.

So, it is holy, since it is a commandment. So holy a thing is it that messing around with sex outside the marriage bonds is considered (by us, at least) to be one of the most serious of sins–akin to blasphemy; it is a desecration of the bodies God created for us.

Marriage is a holy sacrament of the Church.

Try putting yourself in the shoes of Mary and Joseph instead of trying to put them in your shoes. You presume they shared your way of thinking.

I’m sure neither Mary, Paul, nor John the Baptist chose not to get married or abstain from having marital relations because they thought sex was intrinsically evil.

Catholics haven’t been raised to believe that marital relations are “intrinsically evil” or “unholy” or “sinful”. We perceive Mary’s chastity in a more positive light.

PAX :harp:

Why would abstaining from something that is part of the sacrament of marriage be a positive thing? I have yet to see, for instance, that one is asked to give up going to Mass for lent.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Everything you say is true (with the exception of the timing of what Joseph knew and when he knew it) but…doesn’t affect what happened between Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth.

Right. But we’re saying the Mary made a vow of virginity. If we accept that to be the case, then it would most certainly follow that it DOES affect what happened between Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth.

You were saying previously that want proof of that. Since it is clear that you have not accepted what has been said as acceptable proof to you, then I can see how it can be obvious that “of course Mary and Joseph had sex! They were married!”

But if you (general “you,” not you specifically Dianaiad) accept that Mary took a vow of virginity and was betrothed to Joseph, and he to her as a protector, then it can be easier to accept that no, they did not have sex.

It really does rely on whether you believe about Mary what we are saying: she promised to God to perpetually be a virgin. If you don’t, well… there’s no reason to even think her and Joseph would abstain from relations. Because really, they’re married? Why not?

 

[MrS]

Why would abstaining from something that is part of the sacrament of marriage be a positive thing? I have yet to see, for instance, that one is asked to give up going to Mass for lent.

You are limiting your opinion to how you understand the words of Scripture. Again, the great advantage of the Catholic Church is first - the centuries of study and discussion, and second - the promise of guidance by the Holy Spirit.

Those who know the nuances of the Greek and the Hebrew better than I (that would include most of the known world), have opined just what was meant in Luke when the angel knelt and addressed Mary.

Mary’s response is understood from the Greek to mean

“How can this (pregnancy) be, for I will not know man?”

You can choose to reject that meaning. But, when all the verses are put together with Catholic teaching… is all works. Not so outside the Church where questions arise and dissent rules - most often just for the sake of questions and dissent.

.

 

[Primox]

I’ll tell you what sells me on it:

1. The Bible seems, if nothing else in either direction, ambiguous about Mary’s perpetual virginity
2. So let’s take a look at what the understanding was from the early Church’s persepective
3. Mary seems to’ve been perpetually virginal.
4. Therefore (from 1 - 3), Mary remained a virgin following the birth of Jesus.

 

[GodIsGracious]

I’ll tell you what sells me on it:

1. The Bible seems, if nothing else in either direction, ambiguous about Mary’s perpetual virginity
2. So let’s take a look at what the understanding was from the early Church’s persepective
3. Mary seems to’ve been perpetually virginal.
4. Therefore (from 1 - 3), Mary remained a virgin following the birth of Jesus.

This is probably one of the better attempts at a reasoned follow through on Mary’s perpetual virginity that I have seen laid out.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Canto - Thanks for your reply I greatly appreciate it! I found the Greek Lexicon for heos. I’ll have to doing some more reading as far as it being only refers to past present and not the future. Though you have to agree that if no future state is mentioned then the conclusion that Mary stayed a virgin can’t be made any more than she didn’t remain.

Just to add my two cents here (still reading through the thread), the statement you make assumes that Catholics rely on the bible verse you cited to support the doctrine concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. But we do not look to this passage alone, nor to we rely solely upon Scripture for the belief.

So, while it is correct that the verse neither proves nor disproves the perpetual virginity of Mary, it does not follow that there is no argument to be made for her perpetual virginity.

Thanks for starting the thread. It’s been a while since I took part in a discussion regarding the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Problem with your presentation of this is that Joseph didn’t find out about Mary’s condition through an angel. He found out about it after she got back from her cousin’s home, over three months pregnant. Her pregnancy was obvious enough that Joseph had to make a decision regarding her. He COULD have had her stoned to death, but 'being righteous, and not willing to make her an example, dis wish privately to send her away." After deciding to send her away, THEN an angel visited him and told him to keep her around.

In other words, everybody knew she was pregnant; it was a bit of a scandal, evidently.

Everything you say is true (with the exception of the timing of what Joseph knew and when he knew it) but…doesn’t affect what happened between Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth.

I know I’ve read the passages concerning the virgin birth (and have heard them read) many times. But where does it say that Mary’s condition was a public scandal? I thought Joseph’s decision to quietly divorce was to avoid public scandal, which implies the opposite of your position, doesn’t it?

Also, how is it that you conclude Joseph first learned of the pregnancy after Mary returned from her cousin’s home? Is this your own interpretation of the passages or are you relying on some other source or scripture commentary?

I’m not questioning your sincerity, I’m just curious to know how you came to these conclusions. If possible, could you share your sources so I (and perhaps others) can read more about this perspective. It would be much appreciated.

Peace,
-Robert

P.S. - Thanks for coming to the CA forum and sharing your perspective. It takes courage to speak your own beliefs among those who do not share them.

 

[dianaiad]

Right. But we’re saying the Mary made a vow of virginity. If we accept that to be the case, then it would most certainly follow that it DOES affect what happened between Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth.

That’s a very big ‘if.’…and the question that is being begged here. I see nothing, and I mean NOTHING, that indicates that she did any such thing.

You were saying previously that want proof of that. Since it is clear that you have not accepted what has been said as acceptable proof to you, then I can see how it can be obvious that “of course Mary and Joseph had sex! They were married!”

But if you (general “you,” not you specifically Dianaiad) accept that Mary took a vow of virginity and was betrothed to Joseph, and he to her as a protector, then it can be easier to accept that no, they did not have sex.

It really does rely on whether you believe about Mary what we are saying: she promised to God to perpetually be a virgin. If you don’t, well… there’s no reason to even think her and Joseph would abstain from relations. Because really, they’re married? Why not?

Precisely.

What I am seeing here is an attitude of ‘we don’t want to think of Mary as having had sex with her husband, therefore she didn’t.’

So from where I sit, the question is really “why is it so distasteful to think of Mary being a wife in all ways to her lawful husband?”

Because, frankly, I see no evidence other than speculation that she abstained. Quotes from early church leaders say that she must have been perpetually virgin because, well…it’s just wrong to think of Mary having sex. The question isn’t about Mary, but about present (and past) attitudes about sex, even sex between husband and wife.

There really isn’t any prima facie evidence that she made any vow of celibacy, or indeed that she did stay celibate.

After all, it seems to me that something that important would be more clearly stated in scripture…and not constrained to documents that even the church concedes to be fiction.

Diana

disclaimer…I do not insist that Mary have been a wife in full to Joseph. I simply do not see any evidence that she was not, and in the absence of such evidence, the assumption whould be that she–a perfect example of Jewish womanhood so special that God chose her to be the mother of His Son–would have obeyed God’s laws in this regard. Those laws declared that a husband and wife be fully together.

 

[dianaiad]

You are limiting your opinion to how you understand the words of Scripture. Again, the great advantage of the Catholic Church is first - the centuries of study and discussion, and second - the promise of guidance by the Holy Spirit.

Those who know the nuances of the Greek and the Hebrew better than I (that would include most of the known world), have opined just what was meant in Luke when the angel knelt and addressed Mary.

Mary’s response is understood from the Greek to mean

“How can this (pregnancy) be, for I will not know man?”

You can choose to reject that meaning. But, when all the verses are put together with Catholic teaching… is all works. Not so outside the Church where questions arise and dissent rules - most often just for the sake of questions and dissent.

.

No literal translation from the Greek that I have ever seen puts that in future tense. They all stick strictly to the present or past tense, as would be expected in a young betrothed (and not yet married) righteous girl. "“How shall this be, seeing a husband I do not know?” (Youngs literal translation)

In fact, I went through twelve translations of that verse, including the Douay-Rheims, and every single one of them translate that statement as present tense.

I’m sorry, but nobody translates that the way you just did, as ‘will not know.’

So, since the Douay-Rheims says “I know not man…” (present tense…) where do you get the notion that it really means “I will not know?”

Just asking.

 

[dianaiad]

I’ll tell you what sells me on it:

1. The Bible seems, if nothing else in either direction, ambiguous about Mary’s perpetual virginity
2. So let’s take a look at what the understanding was from the early Church’s persepective
3. Mary seems to’ve been perpetually virginal.
4. Therefore (from 1 - 3), Mary remained a virgin following the birth of Jesus.

In other words, she was because a bunch of people a hundred years or more later thought she should have been?

 

[dianaiad]

I know I’ve read the passages concerning the virgin birth (and have heard them read) many times. But where does it say that Mary’s condition was a public scandal? I thought Joseph’s decision to quietly divorce was to avoid public scandal, which implies the opposite of your position, doesn’t it?

“put her away privily” doesn’t quite mean sneaking her out. It means…not subjecting her to an official trial, condemnation and stoning. However, you have a point. We don’t really know how Joseph found out about this, or how many people knew. One would assume that her parents did; they might have been the ones who told Joseph. (shrug) Nobody knows. The bible simply says that she was 'found with child of the Holy Ghost." Which means that someone else figured it out. The language used does not seem to indicate that Mary told him, so someone else did. Who?

Also, how is it that you conclude Joseph first learned of the pregnancy after Mary returned from her cousin’s home? Is this your own interpretation of the passages or are you relying on some other source or scripture commentary?

Timeline. She has the visit from the angel, then goes to see Elizabeth, then the kerfufle with Joseph happens after her return. It’s the natural assumption, that the story happened in the order it was presented to have happened.

I’m not questioning your sincerity, I’m just curious to know how you came to these conclusions. If possible, could you share your sources so I (and perhaps others) can read more about this perspective. It would be much appreciated.

Peace,
-Robert

P.S. - Thanks for coming to the CA forum and sharing your perspective. It takes courage to speak your own beliefs among those who do not share them.

 

[RedSoxWife]

In other words, she was because a bunch of people a hundred years or more later thought she should have been?

I’m just wondering where you get your timeline on this and how you “know” that no one discussed this for “a hundred or more” years later? Just curious.

 

[MrS]

“put her away privily” doesn’t quite mean sneaking her out. It means…not subjecting her to an official trial, condemnation and stoning. However, you have a point. We don’t really know how Joseph found out about this, or how many people knew. One would assume that her parents did; they might have been the ones who told Joseph. (shrug) Nobody knows. The bible simply says that she was 'found with child of the Holy Ghost." Which means that someone else figured it out. The language used does not seem to indicate that Mary told him, so someone else did. Who?

.

Try Matthew 1:

18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. 20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,c] because he will save his people from their sins."
22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"d]—which means, “God with us.”
24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

When you miss the obvious, it is not hard to understand missing the not so obvious… like the longstanding Jewish customs which have been explained to no avail.

.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Doing this in two parts since my post got a bit winded.

PART ONE

That’s a very big ‘if.’…and the question that is being begged here. I see nothing, and I mean NOTHING, that indicates that she did any such thing.

That’s why I brought up the story about family legends. Yet, people (not you in particular Diana) will quickly and easily believe what their family tells them about familial legends. Because they trust their family.

That’s where I am coming from regarding what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary. I trust in the Holy Spirit to use the Catholic church to teach me.

What I am seeing here is an attitude of ‘we don’t want to think of Mary as having had sex with her husband, therefore she didn’t.’

Well, I don’t see that attitude at all. And that is not anything I have ever gotten while growing up in the Catholic church, nor what was taught to me. I never got the feeling that it had anything to do with sex.

Now, I’ve heard other people make this same comment as you and when I asked why, they just figured that because the Catholic church was against sex (it’s not) that it doesn’t want to think about Mary having had sex.

I assure you, it’s not that at all. So I do request that you at least consider that is not the attitude Catholics have about Mary, nor that it is because the Catholic church “feels” or hsa the attitude of “ewwie! ewwie! Mary had sex? eeeeewwww…” It’s not that at all.

What I am getting from you, and others, is that there is no possible way that a human being could actually act any differently than anyone else, not even our Blessed Mother because she was “only” human. There have been some very extraordinary human beings in the world. Both good and bad. Mary being one of them. Even Joseph!

So from where I sit, the question is really “why is it so distasteful to think of Mary being a wife in all ways to her lawful husband?”

The “distaste” comes from what we teach and the idea that people present. Since we teach that she made a vow of virginity to God, the fact that our Blessed Mother would break a promise to God is what we, well, at least I, personally find distasteful. It has nothing to do with sex. Personally, I find that to be a rather base assumption, to boil this whole thing down to sex.

Because, frankly, I see no evidence other than speculation that she abstained.

You keep saying that it is speculation on our part. That’s only because you do not accept oral tradition as a basis for why Mary is perpetually virginal. But we don’t see it that way. For Catholics, it is not speculation. It is fact. Her perpetual virginity is fact to us. So the fact that her and Joseph had no relations ever, is not, to a Catholic, speculation.

It is not any more speculation than you Mormons believing that Joseph Smith had revelations.

Quotes from early church leaders say that she must have been perpetually virgin because, well…it’s just wrong to think of Mary having sex.

I originally had, “Please provide proof of this.” but I’m sure you will be able to. So to expand on what I mean by this. Please provide proof that the Church teaches it is wrong for Mary to have sex because of some “ew” factor that you have been postulating.

The question isn’t about Mary, but about present (and past) attitudes about sex, even sex between husband and wife.

Not when it is pertaining to the Mother of God.

And I don’t disagree about attitudes of sex. Which is why the Church has actually been teaching about sex in the context of marriage differently, rather than the “if you’re having sex you must be a wh___.” Or what have you. I don’t think anyone denies that there has been a particular attitude about sex in the past. But when it relates to Mary and her perpetual virginity, attitudes about sex (at least I’ve never seen it) was not even a factor.

There really isn’t any prima facie evidence that she made any vow of celibacy, or indeed that she did stay celibate.

I was thinking about you and this thread as I walked to my car for lunch today. We keep presenting you with where we come from as our proof. However, you continue to disregard it. You know, that’s fine and all, but when you continue to disregard what we present, well… it sort of castrates the other person in a debate. There has to be some sort of agreed upon document. I suppose in this context the agreed upon document would be scripture.

The only thing I could do is refer to this page in the CCC about Mary:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm#502

I am not saying that YOU must accept this, but this IS to say that Catholics do accept it.

After all, it seems to me that something that important would be more clearly stated in scripture…and not constrained to documents that even the church concedes to be fiction.

Diana

I remember you posted something about that previously in this thread. I need to go back and find that post and do more research.

 

[GodIsGracious]

PART TWO

disclaimer…I do not insist that Mary have been a wife in full to Joseph. I simply do not see any evidence that she was not, and in the absence of such evidence, the assumption whould be that she–a perfect example of Jewish womanhood so special that God chose her to be the mother of His Son–would have obeyed God’s laws in this regard. Those laws declared that a husband and wife be fully together.

I can see where you are coming from, especially since you do not accept the Catholic Church’s teachings on Mary.

You’re right. A married couple can (and should!) have relations. We’re not arguing that at all. I think it was precisely because she was so special that God chose her. God also chose Joseph too. I don’t always hear about how Joseph was also chosen by God. They were some very special people. And considering the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ birth, God was very careful in who He chose. And He also had to choose very special people for His very special Son.

I don’t know what else to say. There are far better apologists out there than I. I just know that I believe and trust in the Holy Spirit. I know He would not steer me wrong. I believe Christ when He promised He would protect his Church - the Catholic Church - like a groom would protect his bride.

 

[Primox]

In other words, she was because a bunch of people a hundred years or more later thought she should have been?

That’s right. The same bunch of people that brought you the very faith you live and breath (give or take a few hundred revisions to what was once an undisputed Christianity - there’s a bit of a theology gap between Catholicism and Latter Day Saints, as you know).

 

[Canto]

Have you ever played that game where people sit in a circle, and someone whispers a sentence into the ear of the person sitting in the next chair, and that person whispers what was heard to the next person, and so on around the circle? The object of the game is to see how much the sentence changes from the first speaker to the last listener. It is not, please note, to see IF it changes, but how much.

In other words, oral history isn’t worth the paper it’s not written upon. Not when something as important as this is under discussion, anyway.

No offence but I think many an historian would disagree

In the Bible oral tradition is part of the word of God
St Paul said to hold onto tradition wether written OR spoken
Do we ignore the spoken bit against what the Bible clearly says?
Surely the Holy Spirit does not allow the oral part of word of God to delve into a game of Chinese Whispers

 

[Good_Fella]

Why would abstaining from something that is part of the sacrament of marriage be a positive thing? I have yet to see, for instance, that one is asked to give up going to Mass for lent.

The priests of the temple were required to abstain from having conjugal relations with their wives while serving in the temple. The Israelites were forbidden to have relations with their spouses while Moses ascended Mount Sinai. We are talking about the presence of Someone infinitely holier than the consummation of the sacrament of matrimony, who takes precedence over what he has instituted in a higher order of creation. The Blessed Virgin Mary was in the presence of God throughout her marriage. And as the Lord’s handmaid, she served God with an incomparable dedication in her consecrated life.

Lent is the time of liturgical year when Catholics are called to draw even closer to the presence of our Lord. The last thing they should do is abstain from receiving the Holy Eucharist at Mass. The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is really present in the Blessed Sacrament, body and blood, soul and divinty, is not included among the good created things we Catholics should abstain from partaking of as we try to focus purely on God and spiritual things of the highest order. Chastity and Temperance belong to the highest order of God’s creation.

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, 35

The Holy One who sanctified the union of man and woman in the bond of holy matrimony united himself with Mary at the Incarnation.

A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.
*Songs 4, 12 *

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[Good_Fella]

dianaiad:

What I am seeing here is an attitude of ‘we don’t want to think of Mary as having had sex with her husband, therefore she didn’t.’

It isn’t that “we don’t want to think” otherwise. We just can’t with the knowledge we’ve received through the voice of the Holy Spirit, who speaks what he hears from the One who sent him to guide the Church to all truth (cf.Jn 16:12-13).

… the question is really “why is it so distasteful to think of Mary being a wife in all ways to her lawful husband?”

The question actually is: Why is it so “distasteful” to think of Mary having remained chaste in her marriage, now that the Church has been aware of her perpetual virginity for 2,000 years?

I see no evidence other than speculation that she abstained. Quotes from early church leaders say that she must have been perpetually virgin because, well…it’s just** wrong** to think of Mary having sex.

Inappropriate would be a more precise judgment.

The question isn’t about Mary, but about present (and past) attitudes about sex, even sex between husband and wife.

The question is about a young woman who had the freedom to choose God over socio-religious norms and attitudes.

There really isn’t any prima facie evidence that she made any vow of celibacy…

We find confirmation of Mary’s vow as a temple virgin in the private revelations granted to Blessed Mary of Agreda, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, and St. Bridget of Sweden.

… it seems to me that something that important would be more clearly stated in scripture…I do not insist that Mary may have been a wife in full to Joseph. I simply do not see any evidence that she was not.

Shout for joy, O daughter Zion!
sing joyfully, O Israel!
Be glad and exult with all your heart,
O daughter Jerusalem.
The Lord has removed his judgment against you,
he has turned away your enemies;
the King of Israel is in your midst,
you have no further misfortune to fear.
On that day, it shall be said to Jerusalem:
Fear not, O Zion, be not discouraged!
The Lord your God is in your midst,
a mighty savior.
Zephaniah 3, 14-17

And coming to her he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.” But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.”
Luke 1, 28-31

And Mary said, "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;

Sing and rejoice, O daughter Zion! See, I am coming to dwell among you, says the Lord.
Zechariah 2, 14

• "my spirit rejoices in God my savior. *

Rejoice heartily, O daughter Zion,
shout for joy, O daughter Jerusalem!
See, your king shall come to you;
a just savior is he.
Zechariah 9, 9

“For he has looked with favor on his handmaid’s lowliness.”

But you, O Lord, will arise and have compassion on Zion,
for it is time to show favor to her;
the appointed time has come.
Psalm 102, 13

The Judeo-Christians of apostolic time perceived Mary as the personification of daughter Zion, Israel, through whom salvation has come to all the nations. They couldn’t have consistently held this notion if they knew Mary had children other than Jesus. Nor could Luke have faithfully referred to the Old Testament in his portrayal of Mary as daughter Zion in accord with Church Tradition.

This is the word the Lord has spoken concerning him: "She despises you, laughs you to scorn, the virgin daughter Zion! Behind you she wags her head, daughter Jerusalem.
2 Kings 19, 21

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring.”
Genesis 3, 15
*
Eve is the biological mother of all the living. Mary is the spiritual mother of all those who bear witness to Jesus and keep his commandments, the brothers and sisters of her divine Son (Jn 19: 26-27; Rom 8:29; Rev 12:17).

Up, escape to Zion! you who dwell in daughter Babylon.*
Zechariah 2, 11

“The Virgin received salvation so that she may give it back to the centuries.”
Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (ante A.D. 450)

Pax Christu :harp: