Why would Mary remain a virgin...after marriage?

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus did not have any siblings who were the children of Joseph and Mary.

Wow. Just this morning I printed that exact post from when you had posted it back in 2013. I want go through it and mine very carefully to make I haven’t missed anything.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You wrote, “While this passage does not provide any evidence that Mary had taken a vow of chastity, it does demonstrate that vows to God did occur in ancient Jewish society and that they were to be taken very seriously.”

Just because “vows to God did occur in ancient Jewish society” proves that some people could have taken vows to God but just as you said, “this passage does not provide any evidence that Mary had taken a vow of chastity”.

No, Tom, it does not.

I provided biblical support for the taking of these types of vows in direct response to your question:

…was it a common practice for women who took a “vow of perpetual virginity” to get married?

I guess you missed this:

6 "If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself 7 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 8 But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Mary’s genealogy is given by Luke. You may have noticed that the two are different?

Yes, they are different but they are both called Jesus’s genealogy, neither one is called Mary’s genealogy, however they are both Joseph’s genealogy.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Also if you don’t mind if I add a small piece. Joseph was going to marry her and then divorce her quietly. Why?

Simple when chosen to be the Man for Mary he said I cannot, for I am but a old Man, what could I give to such a young girl.

But the Angel revealed to Joseph to trust God and do as he says. Joseph trusted God and indeed did as asked of him.

As far as the defense of Mary, she was always addressed as Mary the Mother of Jesus. And of course brothers and sisters in the O.T. were always referred to as relatives.

Are you serious about why you think that Joseph was going to quietly divorce Mary?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, they are different but they are both called Jesus’s genealogy, neither one is called Mary’s genealogy, however they are both Joseph’s genealogy.

You have two parents, I presume?

Then you know that you have grandparents on your dad’s side and another set on your mom’s side. You can trace your family back on both sides.

Similarly, one theory is that Matthew traced Jesus’ lineage back through Joseph while Luke traced it back through Mary.

There are other theories as prodromos has pointed out.

 

[Tom_Baum]

God revealed himself as human through the Son Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is indeed human, although also Divine he is indeed human.

Jesus always existed, he took on his human nature in addition to his Divine at the Incarnation, but Jesus is still God and revealed himself as God the Son in his human nature.

The only way you can say God did not take on a Human Nature is to deny Jesus as God. And I disagree with you.

I am saying that “Jesus” was always God but was not always human, Jesus became human when Mary said YES.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am saying that “Jesus” was always God but was not always human, Jesus became human when Mary said YES.

God is always in the present.

There is no before or after for Him.

 

[Randy_Carson]

December 12, 2014
Were Joseph and Mary Married at the Time of the Annunciation?
By Tim Staples
timstaples.com/?p=blog&id=513

 

[clem456]

God is always in the present.

There is no before or after for Him.

Christ is God eternal outside of time, and has divine personhood,.
He became human. He took on, or assumed, human nature, “in the fullness of time”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Christ is God eternal outside of time, and has divine personhood,.
He became human. He took on, or assumed, human nature, “in the fullness of time”.

Agreed.

 

[prodromos]

You have two parents, I presume?

Then you know that you have grandparents on your dad’s side and another set on your mom’s side. You can trace your family back on both sides.

Similarly, one theory is that Matthew traced Jesus’ lineage back through Joseph while Luke traced it back through Mary.

There are other theories as prodromos has pointed out.

Neither geneology mentions Joachim, Mary’s father.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Neither geneology mentions Joachim, Mary’s father.

Neither does scripture. In fact, no one does until the Gospel of James which dates from the second century.

But I’m not going to argue this point…I like the Heli/Jacob theory better.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I apologize if this has been mentioned already but let’s think about this.

You have Mary, who has been told by God that she is going to bear the Son of GOD. She is going to be responsible for Him- the promised Messiah, the one who is to save the people from their sins. This Messiah is basically the One who will be the culmination of Jewish history --THE most important person in the entire universe, EVER. . . and He’s going to be born to this young woman in a small, unimportant town.

So what does she do? Hey, I have God to care for, she thinks, but I have a ‘life’ of my own too. (never mind for the moment that her statement “how shall this be because I know not a man” reflects a woman who never intended to consummate a marriage, because any woman who was already betrothed would have understood that message from Gabriel as a prophecy for her to have a child WITH Joseph). . .

SO, she bears the Son of God, a helpless baby. Herod is searching to destroy the child. She and Joseph have to flee to Egypt for at least a few years. What’s a woman to do? Why, in the midst of all this, have more babies. Of course. Never mind the fact that most women would have a large extended family to care for the baby already there, and Mary, ON THE RUN, in a FOREIGN COUNTRY, had no support system at all. Never mind that having another child would strain their already thin resources. Never mind that adding a child who was ‘half blood’ to GOD on the mother’s side but full blood for Joseph would mean inheritance issues and would further intensify the doubts of Jesus’ paternity and stain Mary’s name. Never mind that having a perfect child (Jesus) and then other ‘mortal’ children would involve the whole family in rivalries where the other children could never 'live up to" Jesus. Never mind that instead of having her complete attention on Jesus, Mary and Joseph would be focused on others whom they could not help but feel were ‘all theirs’. Never mind that childbearing was RISKY and with each pregnancy, Mary ran the risk of dying and leaving behind not just Jesus but all the other children.

No, Mary and Joseph were just like any sex-saturated people of today. Life was only about sex. . .and hey, life then, being so much shorter, and with a need for ‘hands to help out’, was all about having lots and lots of babies. Of course they couldn’t possibly set aside their ‘sexual selves’ and focus on the task of raising the Son of God only. Pftt. How HARD is it to raise God? Surely He’d understand that it was ENOUGH for Mary to just say 'yes", have the first pregnancy ‘special’, and then get on with real life. Let Jesus know from the start the real ‘facts of life’ --it’s all about Mary and Joseph getting physical, and hey, what better way for God to be raised than with a bunch of other people. Put Him in His place. The family could holler for Him to perform a miracle if needed, the rest of the time, let Him sit back and try not to get in their way.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

But Luke 1:15 is not recounting a vow made by John vow; it is telling us the angel’s prophecy about John.

So, what you’re saying is possible, but it only works if the angel is in effect prophesying the vow that John would make.

It’s possible, I suppose.

Jesus Himself gives witness to John the Baptist lifestyle of a Nazorite vow; Luke 7:33. It is not recorded verbatim of John taking a Nazorite vow, but there is plenty of evidence that John lived the life of a Nazorite vow both the angel preannounces and Jesus reveals John the Baptist lifestyle.

Mark’s Gospel has John the Baptist dressed and eating like the prophet Elijah who is revealed by his hair and shaving to have taken the Nazorite vow.

Paul is revealed to have taken a vow recorded in Acts 18:18 to the likes of the Nazorite Vow.

Although the vows taken by John and Mary are silent in scripture, nevertheless scripture supports their Nazorite vow according to their lifestyles and first century Jewish practiced traditions, especially the different Marriage laws between a maiden and her betrothed, who was selected by the high priest to marry a woman who is in service to the temple of God by support and not necessarily by conjugal relations.

Mary followed the purification Mosaic traditions which Luke reveals, when the holy family takes Jesus to be presented and circumcised Luke 2:22-24 if one researches these purification rites entails details similar to a Nazorite vow.

I don’t get the confusion?, what does being a first century Nazoreen have to do with taking a Nazorite vow?

 

[PaulDupre1]

I apologize if this has been mentioned already but let’s think about this.

You have Mary, who has been told by God that she is going to bear the Son of GOD. She is going to be responsible for Him- the promised Messiah, the one who is to save the people from their sins. This Messiah is basically the One who will be the culmination of Jewish history --THE most important person in the entire universe, EVER. . . and He’s going to be born to this young woman in a small, unimportant town.

So what does she do? Hey, I have God to care for, she thinks, but I have a ‘life’ of my own too. (never mind for the moment that her statement “how shall this be because I know not a man” reflects a woman who never intended to consummate a marriage, because any woman who was already betrothed would have understood that message from Gabriel as a prophecy for her to have a child WITH Joseph). . .

SO, she bears the Son of God, a helpless baby. Herod is searching to destroy the child. She and Joseph have to flee to Egypt for at least a few years. What’s a woman to do? Why, in the midst of all this, have more babies. Of course. Never mind the fact that most women would have a large extended family to care for the baby already there, and Mary, ON THE RUN, in a FOREIGN COUNTRY, had no support system at all. Never mind that having another child would strain their already thin resources. Never mind that adding a child who was ‘half blood’ to GOD on the mother’s side but full blood for Joseph would mean inheritance issues and would further intensify the doubts of Jesus’ paternity and stain Mary’s name. Never mind that having a perfect child (Jesus) and then other ‘mortal’ children would involve the whole family in rivalries where the other children could never 'live up to" Jesus. Never mind that instead of having her complete attention on Jesus, Mary and Joseph would be focused on others whom they could not help but feel were ‘all theirs’. Never mind that childbearing was RISKY and with each pregnancy, Mary ran the risk of dying and leaving behind not just Jesus but all the other children.

No, Mary and Joseph were just like any sex-saturated people of today. Life was only about sex. . .and hey, life then, being so much shorter, and with a need for ‘hands to help out’, was all about having lots and lots of babies. Of course they couldn’t possibly set aside their ‘sexual selves’ and focus on the task of raising the Son of God only. Pftt. How HARD is it to raise God? Surely He’d understand that it was ENOUGH for Mary to just say 'yes", have the first pregnancy ‘special’, and then get on with real life. Let Jesus know from the start the real ‘facts of life’ --it’s all about Mary and Joseph getting physical, and hey, what better way for God to be raised than with a bunch of other people. Put Him in His place. The family could holler for Him to perform a miracle if needed, the rest of the time, let Him sit back and try not to get in their way.

Excellent

I can just picture Mary saying to her second son “why can’t you be more like your brother?”

 

[Tom_Baum]

See post #54.

Do you think that Mary ever mentioned to Jesus that there was something about His conception that was out of the ordinary?

Even tho in post #54 you wrote, “I understand perfectly where Joseph and Mary were coming from.”

Did either your step-son or your step-daughter not have an earthly father and have God Almighty as their immediate Father?

You may understand quite a bit about Joseph and Mary’s situation but to say that you understand “perfectly”, I think is off the mark, since their’s, to say the least, is quite a unique situation, wouldn’t you say?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus Himself gives witness to John the Baptist lifestyle of a Nazorite vow; Luke 7:33. It is not recorded verbatim of John taking a Nazorite vow, but there is plenty of evidence that John lived the life of a Nazorite vow both the angel preannounces and Jesus reveals John the Baptist lifestyle.

Mark’s Gospel has John the Baptist dressed and eating like the prophet Elijah who is revealed by his hair and shaving to have taken the Nazorite vow.

Paul is revealed to have taken a vow recorded in Acts 18:18 to the likes of the Nazorite Vow.

Although the vows taken by John and Mary are silent in scripture, nevertheless scripture supports their Nazorite vow according to their lifestyles and first century Jewish practiced traditions, especially the different Marriage laws between a maiden and her betrothed, who was selected by the high priest to marry a woman who is in service to the temple of God by support and not necessarily by conjugal relations.

Mary followed the purification Mosaic traditions which Luke reveals, when the holy family takes Jesus to be presented and circumcised Luke 2:22-24 if one researches these purification rites entails details similar to a Nazorite vow.

I don’t get the confusion?, what does being a first century Nazoreen have to do with taking a Nazorite vow?

You make a compelling case. My post simply said that it should not be overstated. John’s vow, like Mary’s vow of consecration and perpetual virginity, are not explicitly recorded in scripture.

 

[Tom_Baum]

You have two parents, I presume?

Then you know that you have grandparents on your dad’s side and another set on your mom’s side. You can trace your family back on both sides.

Similarly, one theory is that Matthew traced Jesus’ lineage back through Joseph while Luke traced it back through Mary.

There are other theories as prodromos has pointed out.

If you actually read them both, they are both traced back thru Joseph, neither thru Mary.

Matthew: “Eliud the father of Eleazar. Eleazar became the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary.”

Luke: “When Jesus began his ministry he was about thirty years of age. He was the son, as was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,”

You don’t need any theory, just look in the bible and either believe what is clearly written or not, neither is exactly like the other but one thing that is the same in both is that they are both thru Joseph, neither thru Mary.

If either were thru Mary than it would be from the bible, rather than only thru tradition, that we would know the name of Mary’s mother and/or father, wouldn’t we?

If one actually believes that God is Jesus’s Dad, conception wise, than Joseph’s lineage would not be Jesus’s lineage.

 

[Tom_Baum]

God is always in the present.

There is no before or after for Him.

Are you saying that the Second Person of the Trinity was always human?

Are you saying that Mary’s YES was/is meaningless?

Of course this is only my opinion but I do NOT consider eternity and time the same thing.

I, personally, consider time as a creation of God, just as space is a creation of God.

Time: that which is time, not our ability to put a “measure” on it.

Space: that which contains and is part of material creation, not just that which is away from earth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If you actually read them both, they are both traced back thru Joseph, neither thru Mary.

Matthew: “Eliud the father of Eleazar. Eleazar became the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary.”

Luke: “When Jesus began his ministry he was about thirty years of age. He was the son, as was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,”

You don’t need any theory, just look in the bible and either believe what is clearly written or not, neither is exactly like the other but one thing that is the same in both is that they are both thru Joseph, neither thru Mary.

If either were thru Mary than it would be from the bible, rather than only thru tradition, that we would know the name of Mary’s mother and/or father, wouldn’t we?

If one actually believes that God is Jesus’s Dad, conception wise, than Joseph’s lineage would not be Jesus’s lineage.

The idea that Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary is widespread, The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges this:

According to Patrizi, the view that St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary began to be advocated only towards the end of the fifteenth century by Annius of Viterbo, and acquired adherents in the sixteenth. St. Hilary mentions the opinion as adopted by many, but he himself rejects it (Mai, “Nov. Bibl, Patr.”, t. I, 477). It may be safely said that patristic tradition does not regard St. Luke’s list as representing the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin.

So, it is incorrect, but it is a common view.

It’s what I grew up with, and I have been corrected. Thanks.