Virgin Mary in scripture

[Tom]

In Judaism, the commandment to procreate applies only to the man. Because childbirth has historically been such a dangerous undertaking, and still is in many countries, the woman is not commanded to have children. The rationale being that the commandments should be used to promote life, not death. A man who does not marry and have children has failed to fullfill a mitzvot/commandment.

Interesting theory, but, unless you’re saying our Lord Jesus the Christ is instructing us to sin your theory is in error. Your idea here goes directly against Scripture.
www.drbo.org:

Mt 19:10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

And Paul certainly disagrees with you:
www.drbo.org:

1 Cor 7: 1 Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.
2 “Have his own wife”… That is, keep to his wife, which he hath. His meaning is not to exhort the unmarried to marry: on the contrary, he would have them rather continue as they are. (Ver. 7: 8.) But he speaks here to them that are already married; who must not depart from one another, but live together as they ought to do in the marriage state.
6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

 

[Valke2]

You don’t understand what Josephus was referring to.Go back and read that passage. What he says is that some Essenses were married, but that they begat children/heirs through adoption and conversion. This is how they kept their sect alive. In other words, the Essenes were living the kind of chaste marriages recounted in Matt.19:12 and 1 Cor. 7:36-38, etc. They expected the end of the world to happen soon, and they were not interested in being “fruitful” in the biological sense.

I don’t think so. But I’ll re-read it.

 

[Valke2]

Interesting theory, but, unless you’re saying our Lord Jesus the Christ is instructing us to sin your theory is in error. Your idea here goes directly against Scripture.
And Paul certainly disagrees with you:

IT’s not a “theory” It is Jewish law.

 

[namguy69]

I want to start out by saying that I’ve already searched through the archives looking for an answer to this, and I at least didn’t see it previously, but I could be wrong and would appriciate even a link to a previous post. I have a rather specific question, that hopefully isn’t too redundant as I’ve noted that it’s a bit of a popular topic.

Is there any scriptural basis for believing that Mary was a virgin after Jesus was born, or more specifically that Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage? The only answers I’ve seen to similar questions quote the catechism, not the bible.

Exactly…

 

[Tom]

IT’s not a “theory” It is Jewish law.

So you are saying Jesus is telling us to sin? interesting view.

 

[Valke2]

If and when a woman possesses the right to divorce her husband, which was clearly not the case in ancient Judaism where women were typically regarded as property.

I believe you are mistaken. I’ll do the research but I’m pretty sure there were circumstances when the woman had the absolute right for divorce and failure of the husband to engage in sexual relations was one of them.

 

[Valke2]

So you are saying Jesus is telling us to sin? interesting view.

Are you saying that Jesus preached that one should remain celibate in marriage?

As for Jesus telling us to sin… If a Jew were to follow his teachings, they would be violating certain commandments and would be sinning, yes. Judaism does not view the act of christians practicing christanity as sinning.

 

[Tom]

In Judaism, the commandment to procreate applies only to the man. Because childbirth has historically been such a dangerous undertaking, and still is in many countries, the woman is not commanded to have children. The rationale being that the commandments should be used to promote life, not death. A man who does not marry and have children has failed to fullfill a mitzvot/commandment.

 

[Tom]

To use Moses as an example of how Judaism allowed celebicy in marriage is to emphasize the exception to the rule. Celebiacy in marriage was prohibited. Only with Moses, who had to be ready 24 hours a day to receive the word of God, was permitted a celibate marriage. No other prophets were granted this.

First of all I’d like a link to this “rule” you say, because in reading the book of Numbers, I find reference to a Laws to deal with vows of abstinance from sexual relations both within and outside of marriage. If the Jewish Law covers how to deal with a virgin under a vow of virginity, when she is taken into a house as a mans wife, it would seem to me that it was not prohibited as you claim. In fact since there are Laws covering how a man must act when accepting a woman into his house under a vow I would imagine it was a rather well accepted custom. If you could provide a link to the Law you’re referring to it might help clear this up. The quote you provide by Maimonides does not say, as you claim, that it is against Law to practice celibacy in marriage. Also since you claim that Moses is in fact an exception, would it not be possible for God Himself to allow the same exception for His parents?

Maimonides writes (Laws of Marriage 15:3): “One whose soul constantly yearns for Torah, and he is constantly occupied with [its study] like Ben Azzai, and he cleaved to [Torah] his entire life and did not marry a woman – is not guilty of sin. This is provided that his inclination does not overpower him [with lustful thoughts].” So it is a bit misleading for the author in the link to say “Celibate marriages were not unheard of in Judaism.”

How is at least four examples “not unheard of”? Unheard of is zero examples.

 

[Tom]

Valke, you said there’s a difference between celibacy and celibacy in marriage, there isn’t.

THere’s a difference between celibacy and celibacy in marriage.

The parties entering into marriage could, by mutual consent, enter into a vow of celibacy. These vows were not “uncommon” but were not the norm. How do we know they were not “uncommon”? Because the book of Numbers contains the Laws covering what a fathers rights were when finding a virgin under his house who had entered into such a vow, and what a husbands rights were when taking a wife into his house under such a vow. See Numbers chapter 30. These vows include abstinence from sex (Num 30:14). Mary was under a vow of celibacy as is evidenced by her question of how she “shall” become pregnant. See post #33. Mary was responding to the declaration of the angel, that she would in the future become pregnant. Her future included her marriage to Joseph. There is absolutely nothing in Scripture to lead us to believe Mary wouldn’t have thought the angel was referring to after she and Joseph were married. In fact she would have to have thought an angel of God would be saying she would become pregnant by fornication outside of wedlock which of course can’t be true. Mary was responding to her future state of virginity when asking “how shall this be, since I know not man”.

 

[Tom]

A man who does not marry and have children has failed to fullfill a mitzvot/commandment.

Wrong again. Jesus did not marry, so according to your interpretation of Jewish Law He sinned, and told others to do likewise?

 

[Tom]

In Judaism, the commandment to procreate applies only to the man. Because childbirth has historically been such a dangerous undertaking, and still is in many countries, the woman is not commanded to have children. The rationale being that the commandments should be used to promote life, not death.

The commandment applies only to men? How does a man procreate without a woman?

 

[Tom]

As for Jesus telling us to sin… If a Jew were to follow his teachings, they would be violating certain commandments and would be sinning, yes. Judaism does not view the act of christians practicing christanity as sinning.

Jesus is a Jew, He was teaching Jews, if He had taught a sin He would have been charged with this violation of the Law. The priests were looking for reasons to have Him arrested, if this were a sin why didn’t they use it against Him? You’re trying to stretch the Law to cover something it does not prohibit.

 

[tequilamac]

It seems to me that the teaching itself is merely a novelty. Whether Mary had sex with Joseph or anyone else is irrelevant - it has no bearing on my spiritual relationship with God or my life as a Christian.

Very sorry to hear that. But don’t give up.

 

[Eschato]

What I’m really asking about is if there is a passage somewhere else that tells Joseph that Mary is a holy vessel and he should not defile her, or something along those lines. Ezekiel 44:2 was mentioned a few times that stated that no man shall pass through the gate which the Lord enters, but given the context of that scene, I’m not sure if you can pull out that single line to justify another event without distorting it’s meaning.

I can… Kind of. If we look at the fact that everything in the Old Testament is perfected in the New, we will conclude that Jesus is the new David. He is also the word of God, etc.

In the Old Testament, the was a vessel that carried, among other things, the Word of God. It was called the Arc of the Covenant. Any man whom touched the Arc was immediately destroyed by it’s power. The only man to ever lay hands on the Arc was David.

In the new Testament, the perfected version of the Arc is the pure and perfected Virgin Mary. The only man to touch her was Jesus Christ.

Now, look at it from a logistics standpoint: Would Joseph, after witnessing a virgin birth to the son of God and saviour of all mankind and purity, seek to get it on with the arc of the new covenant? I wouldn’t go near that. I would be fairly humbled actually.

 

[Valke2]

From your side, the argument is that the christian bible perfects the Jewish Bible. From my side, because the Jewish Bible does not support Christian Dogma, Christians have a tendancy to reinterpeted the Jewish Bible in a way that does so.

 

[onenow1]

HI,
The suggestion that the conjugal act is a sin is incorrect;
in fact, I believe it pleases the Lord as long as love is not withheld from either party in doing God’s will. As for other children all things are possible with God, to have or not to have; and who knows, maybe Jospeh was free of sin also
as the two became one. Jesus did pray to God the Father that they all be one even as we are one Father. Just thought I’d throw my 2 cents worth in.

PEACE
ONENOW1

 

[Valke2]

First of all I’d like a link to this “rule” you say, because in reading the book of Numbers, I find reference to a Laws to deal with vows of abstinance from sexual relations both within and outside of marriage. If the Jewish Law covers how to deal with a virgin under a vow of virginity, when she is taken into a house as a mans wife, it would seem to me that it was not prohibited as you claim. In fact since there are Laws covering how a man must act when accepting a woman into his house under a vow I would imagine it was a rather well accepted custom. If you could provide a link to the Law you’re referring to it might help clear this up. The quote you provide by Maimonides does not say, as you claim, that it is against Law to practice celibacy in marriage. Also since you claim that Moses is in fact an exception, would it not be possible for God Himself to allow the same exception for His parents?
How is at least four examples “not unheard of”? Unheard of is zero examples.

They are examples of extraordianary scholars who devoted their lives to studying TOrah and were thus “exempt” from the commandment to be frutiful and multiply.

Give me the number’s verse. I’m sure it has something to do with time, such as for the first year of the marriage or until the vow is fullfilled.

As I said these are exceptions to the rule. To say that celibate marriages were acceptable before or after Jesus in the Jewish community is not correct.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I’ve noticed a tendancy to pick and choose which verses in scritpture are to be taken literally and which are allegorical. To take the position that the new testament perfects the Jewish scriptures is one way to state it. One could also say that, since the Jewish scriptures do not support Christian Dogma, they have been reinterpeted in a way that does so.

As far as I can see some scripture must be literal and some must be allegorical. Do you disagree? Is it all literal or all allegorical in the Jewish interpretation?

It is not entirely surprising that there is a reinterpretation of OT scripture. Christians firmly believe (and I realize and respect the fact that you do not) that one of the reasons Jesus came is the fact that the Jews of the day just weren’t getting it. The leadership was going through the motions of the Law but not understanding the spirit of the Law. After Jesus came, the OT scriptures indeed took on new meaning. It is often said the New Testament is hidden in the Old Testament and the Old Testament is revealed in the New.

Believe me, I’m not attempting to belittle your faith or your intellect. I’m just explaining that yes, the OT has been reinterpreted in the light of the NT and Christians believe we have good reason for doing so.

 

[Valke2]

Jesus is a Jew, He was teaching Jews, if He had taught a sin He would have been charged with this violation of the Law. The priests were looking for reasons to have Him arrested, if this were a sin why didn’t they use it against Him? You’re trying to stretch the Law to cover something it does not prohibit.

there are of course examples of Jesus acting contrary to the Law. As for celibacy, where did Jesus teach that celibate marriages were ok? It’s one thing to say that celibacy is ok. It is another to say that celibacy in marriage is ok. Obviously not ever Jewish male got married. But the vast majority of them did. Those that did not make an effort to marry and have children were in violation of a commandment.

There is specific halacha on how often one is to engage in sexual relations with their wife. It is based on occupation, so that a sailor for example, would be required to do so less often (as he was not always home) as a farmer. You can’t obey that law through a celibate marriage.