# Do You Believe In The Perpetual Virginity of Mary?



## KMK

In the course of studying Luke 2, I finally came to understand Rev Winzers post: http://www.puritanboard.com/352776-post9.html

I don't know where Rev Winzer stands on the issue, but the Reformed position seemed to allow for either view. What are the views here on PB?


----------



## Knoxienne

No way.


----------



## PresbyDane

Jesus names the names of his brothers and the fact that he has sisters so NO


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

I think the idea behind perpetual virginity is that it is necessary (in RC teaching). If she had one son or two isn't important if you don't think perpetual virginity is necessary. However, I do think she had more than one child.


----------



## MW

Biblically, there is no indication either way, so one cannot be dogmatic. Historically, it has been maintained thoughout the centuries, so one may believe it in the same sense as tradition holds that Paul wrote Hebrews.


----------



## KMK

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> I think the idea behind perpetual virginity is that it is necessary (in RC teaching). If she had one son or two isn't important if you don't think perpetual virginity is necessary.



Interesting thought. Without the Roman doctrine, we would hardly give it a thought either way.


----------



## Theognome

armourbearer said:


> Biblically, there is no indication either way, so one cannot be dogmatic. Historically, it has been maintained thoughout the centuries, so one may believe it in the same sense as tradition holds that Paul wrote Hebrews.



His brothers and sisters by Mary are mentioned in the Gospels- as well as James claims to be Christ's brother in the book of the same name. That does seem to give some biblical indication that Mary had other children by Joseph.

Theognome


----------



## puritanpilgrim

i dare someone to pick yes...


----------



## Berean

It's necessary for her role as co-redemptrix in Romanism. She is equal to Christ in their teaching. And no, I don't believe it for the reasons Martin mentioned.



> 1985: Pope John Paul II recognized Mary as co-redemptrix" during a speech in Guayaquil, Ecuador. He said, in part, "Having suffered for the Church, Mary deserved to become the Mother of all the disciples of her Son, the Mother of their unity...In fact Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son."



The Virgin Mary as co-redemptrix, mediatrix and advocate


----------



## Kevin

Theognome said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biblically, there is no indication either way, so one cannot be dogmatic. Historically, it has been maintained thoughout the centuries, so one may believe it in the same sense as tradition holds that Paul wrote Hebrews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His brothers and sisters by Mary are mentioned in the Gospels- as well as James claims to be Christ's brother in the book of the same name. That does seem to give some biblical indication that Mary had other children by Joseph.
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...


The traditional explanation is that they are children of Joseph, before he married Mary.

I remain unconvinced, but it is as Rev Winzer points out a valid & legitimate view.


----------



## MW

Theognome said:


> His brothers and sisters by Mary are mentioned in the Gospels- as well as James claims to be Christ's brother in the book of the same name. That does seem to give some biblical indication that Mary had other children by Joseph.



We don't believe the word "brother" means "blood brother" any more than we believe "father" describes Joseph as a "blood father." And the book of James claims nothing of the sort.


----------



## Kevin

Berean said:


> It's necessary for her role as co-redemptrix in Romanism. She is equal to Christ in their teaching. And no, I don't believe it for the reasons Martin mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1985: Pope John Paul II recognized Mary as co-redemptrix" during a speech in Guayaquil, Ecuador. He said, in part, "Having suffered for the Church, Mary deserved to become the Mother of all the disciples of her Son, the Mother of their unity...In fact Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Virgin Mary as co-redemptrix, mediatrix and advocate
Click to expand...


not the same issue AT ALL.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

also, I don't think it would be very virtuous for her to stay a virgin after Jesus was born.


----------



## Theognome

Kevin said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biblically, there is no indication either way, so one cannot be dogmatic. Historically, it has been maintained thoughout the centuries, so one may believe it in the same sense as tradition holds that Paul wrote Hebrews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His brothers and sisters by Mary are mentioned in the Gospels- as well as James claims to be Christ's brother in the book of the same name. That does seem to give some biblical indication that Mary had other children by Joseph.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The traditional explanation is that they are children of Joseph, before he married Mary.
> 
> I remain unconvinced, but it is as Rev Winzer points out a valid & legitimate view.
Click to expand...


Matthew 1:25 does state that Joseph knew his wife. Again, that is quite a biblical indication, despite traditional explanations.

Theognome


----------



## satz

armourbearer said:


> Biblically, there is no indication either way, so one cannot be dogmatic. Historically, it has been maintained thoughout the centuries, so one may believe it in the same sense as tradition holds that Paul wrote Hebrews.



If there is no indication either way, why wouldn't we presume that Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage after the birth of Jesus Christ?


----------



## Kevin

puritanpilgrim said:


> also, I don't think it would be very virtuous for her to stay a virgin after Jesus was born.



I agree.

I think that this is probably the best direction to persue.

After all she is called the "Blessed among women". And the scripture seem (to me) to clearly teach that "blessing" when used of a women almost always includes children.


----------



## ww

puritanpilgrim said:


> i dare someone to pick yes...



 if they do....


----------



## Theognome

armourbearer said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> His brothers and sisters by Mary are mentioned in the Gospels- as well as James claims to be Christ's brother in the book of the same name. That does seem to give some biblical indication that Mary had other children by Joseph.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't believe the word "brother" means "blood brother" any more than we believe "father" describes Joseph as a "blood father." And the book of James claims nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...


Concerning James, my bad- the reference to him being Jesus' brother is in Galatians 1:19. Concerning the context of the mentioning of 'brothers and sisters' in the Gospels, I'm not in your camp- I do believe that that is exactly what was intended, particularly when in Matthew Joseph is not referred to as His father. 

Theognome


----------



## Kevin

Theognome said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> His brothers and sisters by Mary are mentioned in the Gospels- as well as James claims to be Christ's brother in the book of the same name. That does seem to give some biblical indication that Mary had other children by Joseph.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The traditional explanation is that they are children of Joseph, before he married Mary.
> 
> I remain unconvinced, but it is as Rev Winzer points out a valid & legitimate view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matthew 1:25 does state that Joseph knew his wife. Again, that is quite a biblical indication, despite traditional explanations.
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...


Sorry but it does NOT state what you assert.

It says "until" the "proto-tokon". That does not demand or require that he "knew" her after the first born.

I happen to believe (for other reasons) that she is not "ever-virgin", but it does bother me when our side acts silly over this issue.


----------



## MW

satz said:


> If there is no indication either way, why wouldn't we presume that Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage after the birth of Jesus Christ?



Why put in the qualifier, "after the birth of Jesus Christ?" The fact that you have to qualify means that the Scriptures already indicate that this was no "normal marriage."


----------



## MW

Theognome said:


> Concerning the context of the mentioning of 'brothers and sisters' in the Gospels, I'm not in your camp- I do believe that that is exactly what was intended, particularly when in Matthew Joseph is not referred to as His father.



Amongst those who believe in the virgin birth, you would be the only one who considers "brother" to mean "brother." Even amongst those who think there were other children of Mary, they are only prepared to go as far as to say that they were half-brothers.


----------



## satz

Kevin said:


> Sorry but it does NOT state what you assert.
> 
> It says "until" the "proto-tokon". That does not demand or require that he "knew" her after the first born.
> 
> I happen to believe (for other reasons) that she is not "ever-virgin", but it does bother me when our side acts silly over this issue.



Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

Kevin, 

Sorry, but could you explain what you mean?

The verse says Joseph did not know Mary until she had brought forth her son. I don't see how it is possible to interprete that any other way than that he did know her afterwards.


----------



## Theognome

armourbearer said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Concerning the context of the mentioning of 'brothers and sisters' in the Gospels, I'm not in your camp- I do believe that that is exactly what was intended, particularly when in Matthew Joseph is not referred to as His father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amongst those who believe in the virgin birth, you would be the only one who considers "brother" to mean "brother." Even amongst those who think there were other children of Mary, they are only prepared to go as far as to say that they were half-brothers.
Click to expand...


Do I know that they were half brothers? Of course I do. Did the person who told Him his mother and brothers were waiting for him while he was rebuking the Pharisees know that, or did they simply describe what they saw? Again, there's no 'clear' indication that the speaker understood the virgin birth- and if he was just someone in the crowd telling Jesus that his mother and brothers were waiting for him, then it's likely that it would be described in the face-value manner that it is.

Theognome


----------



## satz

armourbearer said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is no indication either way, why wouldn't we presume that Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage after the birth of Jesus Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why put in the qualifier, "after the birth of Jesus Christ?" The fact that you have to qualify means that the Scriptures already indicate that this was no "normal marriage."
Click to expand...


I admit this was not a normal marriage, but as far as we can tell, the scripture indicates that the way it was not normal was that Mary bore a son prior to having intercourse with her husband. I see no reason to suspect that they would not have normal sexual relations after that. 

If we say that it is possible she was a perpetual virgin just because their marriage was not normal, why not also say she was exempt from submitting to Joseph because their marriage was not normal? There is no evidence that either was the case for their marriage.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

puritanpilgrim said:


> i dare someone to pick yes...




Done. Hey I agree with John Calvin and many if not most of the Magisterial Reformers...


----------



## OPC'n

armourbearer said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> His brothers and sisters by Mary are mentioned in the Gospels- as well as James claims to be Christ's brother in the book of the same name. That does seem to give some biblical indication that Mary had other children by Joseph.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't believe the word "brother" means "blood brother" any more than we believe "father" describes Joseph as a "blood father." And the book of James claims nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...


And Mary really wasn't His blood mother....


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Who is my Mother, who is my Father?


----------



## PresbyDane

well what about the time when Jesus is teaching some place and a person comes in and says that his mother and brothers are outside, then Jesus goes on to explain that his real mother and brother are those who hear the word of God etc.
For that argument to be worth the explanatory hyperberly the ones outside would have to in fact in real life be his mother and brothers.

And the fact that it does not say blood brother, when would it ever say that, that is just as crazy an argument as that genesis does not say specifically 24 hours but just says day, how else would that be said.


----------



## Kevin

satz said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but it does NOT state what you assert.
> 
> It says "until" the "proto-tokon". That does not demand or require that he "knew" her after the first born.
> 
> I happen to believe (for other reasons) that she is not "ever-virgin", but it does bother me when our side acts silly over this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
> 
> Kevin,
> 
> Sorry, but could you explain what you mean?
> 
> The verse says Joseph did not know Mary until she had brought forth her son. I don't see how it is possible to interprete that any other way than that he did know her afterwards.
Click to expand...


As far as I understand it, the meaning is generaly understood as "he did not have sexual relations with her prior to the birth of the 'FIRST-BORN".

I am unaware of any credible comentator that reads it in any other way.


----------



## MW

Theognome said:


> Do I know that they were half brothers? Of course I do. Did the person who told Him his mother and brothers were waiting for him while he was rebuking the Pharisees know that, or did they simply describe what they saw?



The people who refer to father, brothers and sisters in the Gospels simply described what they saw, and therefore accepted at face value that Joseph was the father of Jesus and his kinsmen were his brothers and sisters. We have as little basis for concluding that the brothers and sisters were blood relations as we do of concluding Joseph begat him.


----------



## TimV

> The verse says Joseph did not know Mary until she had brought forth her son. I don't see how it is possible to interprete that any other way than that he did know her afterwards.



The clear implication was that she was a good wife, and she wanted to please her husband.


----------



## Kevin

Re4mdant said:


> well what about the time when Jesus is teaching some place and a person comes in and says that his mother and brothers are outside, then Jesus goes on to explain that his real mother and brother are those who hear the word of God etc.
> For that argument to be worth the explanatory hyperberly the ones outside would have to in fact in real life be his mother and brothers.
> 
> And the fact that it does not say blood brother, when would it ever say that, that is just as crazy an argument as that genesis does not say specifically 24 hours but just says day, how else would that be said.



Sorry, No.


----------



## MW

satz said:


> I admit this was not a normal marriage, but as far as we can tell, the scripture indicates that the way it was not normal was that Mary bore a son prior to having intercourse with her husband. I see no reason to suspect that they would not have normal sexual relations after that.



But normal marriage relations take place after marriage, not after the birth of the first-born. Hence Scripture itself indicates that this was no normal marriage. There is then no reason to presume that sexual relations were "normal" to this marriage.


----------



## Kevin

TimV said:


> The verse says Joseph did not know Mary until she had brought forth her son. I don't see how it is possible to interprete that any other way than that he did know her afterwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The clear implication was that she was a good wife, and she wanted to please her husband.
Click to expand...


I think that THIS is the key to understanding the possibility that Mary was NOT "ever-virgin".


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

armourbearer said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I admit this was not a normal marriage, but as far as we can tell, the scripture indicates that the way it was not normal was that Mary bore a son prior to having intercourse with her husband. I see no reason to suspect that they would not have normal sexual relations after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But normal marriage relations take place after marriage, not after the birth of the first-born. Hence Scripture itself indicates that this was no normal marriage. There is then no reason to presume that sexual relations were "normal" to this marriage.
Click to expand...


Interesting. If this is the case, are we arguing for the necessity of perpetual virginity?


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Joshua said:


> I think we should make this a 10 page thread, because it apparently _matters a lot_.



It's very important!


----------



## PresbyDane

Kevin said:


> Re4mdant said:
> 
> 
> 
> well what about the time when Jesus is teaching some place and a person comes in and says that his mother and brothers are outside, then Jesus goes on to explain that his real mother and brother are those who hear the word of God etc.
> For that argument to be worth the explanatory hyperberly the ones outside would have to in fact in real life be his mother and brothers.
> 
> And the fact that it does not say blood brother, when would it ever say that, that is just as crazy an argument as that genesis does not say specifically 24 hours but just says day, how else would that be said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, No.
Click to expand...


Good argument, my comeback to that would have to be "oh, yes"

this is going to be a serious discussion I can tell


----------



## Theognome

armourbearer said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I know that they were half brothers? Of course I do. Did the person who told Him his mother and brothers were waiting for him while he was rebuking the Pharisees know that, or did they simply describe what they saw?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people who refer to father, brothers and sisters in the Gospels simply described what they saw, and therefore accepted at face value that Joseph was the father of Jesus and his kinsmen were his brothers and sisters. We have as little basis for concluding that the brothers and sisters were blood relations as we do of concluding Joseph begat him.
Click to expand...


My reference in Matthew does give some basis, as nowhere can it be found in that Gospel Joseph being referred to as the Father of Christ. I'm also not aware of such reference in any other Gospel. However, his kinsman and his mother are directly mentioned. Obviously, these would have been the half-brothers of Christ through Joseph and Mary. The exclusion of Joseph in this manner shews some importance on the face value- It's not a theological problem to be blood related to Christ through Mary. And since she is a woman of virtue and Vs 1:25 does state that Joseph didn't have sex with Mary until after the birth of Christ, I find it compelling to state with relative confidence that Mary was not a perpetual virgin and that Joseph sired the other children mentioned in the Bible through her.

Theognome


----------



## drmackulin

*Virginity by Election?*

As a former RC I never thought I'd be able to vote on the "ever-virginity" of Mary. Certainly she was blessed among women, but the bible does give us clear information...

ummm well after reading the posts below, it looks like the bases have already been covered on this one. Wouldn't the whole giving birth thing kind of make her not a virgin anymore? I'm not a doctor but...


----------



## OPC'n

Joshua said:


> I think we should make this a 10 page thread, because it apparently _matters a lot_ in the eternal scheme of things. Of course, given some of the many page threads I've seen on the PB thus far, those things certainly mattered far less!



I think you are completely right!


----------



## satz

armourbearer said:


> But normal marriage relations take place after marriage, not after the birth of the first-born. Hence Scripture itself indicates that this was no normal marriage. There is then no reason to presume that sexual relations were "normal" to this marriage.



But there is no reason to presume they were not either. If we were to make a presumption either way, given what the bible says about sex and marriage it seems far more likely that Joseph and Mary had normal sexual relations after she gave birth.


----------



## PresbyDane

Just the sheer fact of a married couple, who never have sex.
The Idea was to become One-flesh and multiply the earth, that is the hole idea of the creator making them male and female.

-----Added 5/7/2009 at 11:57:52 EST-----



drmackulin said:


> As a former RC I never thought I'd be able to vote on the "ever-virginity" of Mary. Certainly she was blessed among women, but the bible does give us clear information...
> 
> ummm well after reading the posts below, it looks like the bases have already been covered on this one. Wouldn't the whole giving birth thing kind of make her not a virgin anymore? I'm not a doctor but...



She was a virgin whe she gave birth to Jesus sure, but not afterwards.


----------



## KMK

TranZ4MR said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we should make this a 10 page thread, because it apparently _matters a lot_ in the eternal scheme of things. Of course, given some of the many page threads I've seen on the PB thus far, those things certainly mattered far less!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are completely right!
Click to expand...


Off to the Translations and Manuscripts Forum!


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

KMK said:


> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we should make this a 10 page thread, because it apparently _matters a lot_ in the eternal scheme of things. Of course, given some of the many page threads I've seen on the PB thus far, those things certainly mattered far less!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are completely right!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Off to the Translations and Manuscripts Forum!
Click to expand...



zzzzzz


----------



## MW

Basically, to make a scriptural argument one is required to show what the Scriptures "teach," not what one might presume they permit. Argument by inferences from the nature of marriage or individuals referring to "brothers" at the most can only establish the possibility of one's position, but it leaves open the other possibility also. If one cannot show that the Scriptures "teach" something in particular then one has no warrant to claim his position as "scriptural."


----------



## Theognome

armourbearer said:


> Basically, to make a scriptural argument one is required to show what the Scriptures "teach," not what one might presume they permit. Argument by inferences from the nature of marriage or individuals referring to "brothers" at the most can only establish the possibility of one's position, but it also leaves open the other possibility also. If one cannot show that the Scriptures "teach" something in particular then one has no warrant to claim his position as "scriptural."



Would it then be reasonable to state that what the scriptures do not specifically "teach" is also not essential to the Christian faith? If so, how would you define the difference between such teaching and mere inconsequential inferences? 

Theognome


----------



## MW

Theognome said:


> Would it then be reasonable to state that what the scriptures do not specifically "teach" is also not essential to the Christian faith? If so, how would you define the difference between such teaching and mere inconsequential inferences?



A consequence must be "good" by being in accord with the analogy of faith and "necessary" as something which is naturally implied by the Scripture itself. Such consequences are a part of the rule of faith and life, and to be received as the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. Inferences of an inductive kind are not certain and therefore not dogma in the proper sense of the term -- although you wouldn't think so the way some scholars speak.


----------



## Theognome

armourbearer said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would it then be reasonable to state that what the scriptures do not specifically "teach" is also not essential to the Christian faith? If so, how would you define the difference between such teaching and mere inconsequential inferences?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A consequence must be "good" by being in accord with the analogy of faith and "necessary" as something which is naturally implied by the Scripture itself. Such consequences are a part of the rule of faith and life, and to be received as the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. Inferences of an inductive kind are not certain and therefore not dogma in the proper sense of the term -- although you wouldn't think so the way some scholars speak.
Click to expand...


Under this guide, how would Scriptural implications be separated from inferences in instances of debated doctrines in order to determine proper Biblical thinking? The OP topic is one such doctrine in which the line is quite muddled. It is also not alone in such debated doctrines, unfortunately.

For example, could historical context be considered an inference that detracts from implication? Could word usages in different idiomatic contexts be a source of such inferences?

Theognome


----------



## shackleton

Theognome said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biblically, there is no indication either way, so one cannot be dogmatic. Historically, it has been maintained thoughout the centuries, so one may believe it in the same sense as tradition holds that Paul wrote Hebrews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His brothers and sisters by Mary are mentioned in the Gospels- as well as James claims to be Christ's brother in the book of the same name. That does seem to give some biblical indication that Mary had other children by Joseph.
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...


That is what I was going to say. But I believe the RCC states that these are Josephs children from a previous marriage.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I voted, "we don't know". My husband is with Calvin on this one though  Not surprisingly, this is where many Calvinists disagree with Calvin.


----------



## tcalbrecht

armourbearer said:


> The people who refer to father, brothers and sisters in the Gospels simply described what they saw, and therefore accepted at face value that Joseph was the father of Jesus and his kinsmen were his brothers and sisters. We have as little basis for concluding that the brothers and sisters were blood relations as we do of concluding Joseph begat him.





> 53 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, that He departed from there. 54 And when He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, "Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?" (Matt. 13)


Matthew’s language here in this account is interesting. Joseph is not referred to as Jesus’ father. Matthew seems to be making a pretty clear distinction between mother/bothers and Joseph, who had no genetic tie to Jesus. 

It is rather difficult to believe that the folks from “His own county” would not know the difference between (half-)brothers (of the household of Joseph and Mary) and cousins.

-----Added 5/8/2009 at 11:11:18 EST-----



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> puritanpilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> i dare someone to pick yes...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Done. Hey I agree with John Calvin and many if not most of the Magisterial Reformers...
Click to expand...


I was not aware that Calvin had a definite position on the matter of Mary's perpetual virginity. Others did, such as Luther and Zwingli.


----------



## jambo

1. Joseph did not have relations with Mary until after the birth of Jesus (Mt 1.25)
2. As has been mentioned in previous replies the brothers of Jesus are named in the gospels whilst there is also reference to his sisters (plural). (Mk 6.3)
3. If Mary remained a virgin then her marriage has never been consummated. Could it therefore be described as a biblical marriage? 

To go on further, what is not always appreciated is that the perpetual virginity of Mary goes beyond the basic idea of Mary remaining a virgin all her days. Closely linked to this is the RC doctrine of the immaculate conception. This would teach that Mary was born of a virgin as was her mother and grandmother before her right the way back. 

Everything about Christ is copied by the RC church onto Mary. Christ was born of a virgin, the RC says so was Mary. Christ lived a sinless life, the RC tells us so did Mary. Christ is the redeemer, Mary is the co-redeemer. Christ intercedes for us, so does Mary. Christ ascended bodily in heaven and the RC church teaches Mary did likewise. Christ crushed the head of the serpent and I can take you to shrines depicting Mary standing on the head of the serpent (as per the old Douey version of Gen 3.15). Christ is the king of kings whilst Mary is called the queen of heaven. Christ suffered for sin, so does Mary suffer in her heart as she feels her sons pain.

I know the thread concerns itself with just the perpertual virginity but there is that interlinking of all aspects of any doctrine developing around Mary. I know Calvin and some of the reformers believed Mary remained a virgin throughout but just as the Pope is not infallible, neither were the refomers.


----------



## smhbbag

For those who believe in Mary's perpetual virginity:

You all evidently believe that the "until" in Matthew 1:25 ("And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son") does not necessarily mean that the he _knew_ her in that way after the birth. That is, Matthew uses the word 'until'...and yet the state before the 'until' remains the case perpetually.

My question: can you name any other time in Scripture, or any other Greek text, where 'heos-hou' is used and the previous action or state is NOT reversed?

All I'm looking for is another example where "X until Y" is used, where X is still the case after the heos-hou.

If your interpretation is legitimate or even possible, there should be other examples of the words being used this way.


----------



## LadyFlynt

smhbbag said:


> For those who believe in Mary's perpetual virginity:
> 
> You all evidently believe that the "until" in Matthew 1:25 ("And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son") does not necessarily mean that the he _knew_ her in that way after the birth. That is, Matthew uses the word 'until'...and yet the state before the 'until' remains the case perpetually.
> 
> My question: can you name any other time in Scripture, or any other Greek text, where 'heos-hou' is used and the previous action or state is NOT reversed?
> 
> All I'm looking for is another example where "X until Y" is used, where X is still the case after the heos-hou.
> 
> If your interpretation is legitimate or even possible, there should be other examples of the words being used this way.



I guess I simply don't know enough Greek to make a truly informed decision. I've heard good arguments from both sides, and in fact used to argue for one side. Like eschatology, this is one of those topics that I haven't had time in recent years to fully weigh out, but have come far enough in my walk to not just tow a particular party line. I'd rather give an honest, "I don't know" than a, "because so many PB members say so..."


----------



## SRoper

smhbbag said:


> For those who believe in Mary's perpetual virginity:
> 
> You all evidently believe that the "until" in Matthew 1:25 ("And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son") does not necessarily mean that the he _knew_ her in that way after the birth. That is, Matthew uses the word 'until'...and yet the state before the 'until' remains the case perpetually.
> 
> My question: can you name any other time in Scripture, or any other Greek text, where 'heos-hou' is used and the previous action or state is NOT reversed?
> 
> All I'm looking for is another example where "X until Y" is used, where X is still the case after the heos-hou.
> 
> If your interpretation is legitimate or even possible, there should be other examples of the words being used this way.



I don't know about Greek, but in English the word "until" does not necessarily imply what happens afterwards. See for example 1 Corinthians 15:25. "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." Does Christ put aside his reign afterwards?


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

He had, I believe, Three Brothers, and at least one sister...but, the import should be on His idea of "family". Who is my mother, my brother and my sister? Those who do the will of my Father are my mother and my brother and my sister.


----------



## smhbbag

> I don't know about Greek, but in English the word "until" does not necessarily imply what happens afterwards. See for example 1 Corinthians 15:25. "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." Does Christ put aside his reign afterwards?



No, Christ of course does not set aside his reign after his enemies are under his feet. But the construction is different here - using 'achri-hou' and not 'heos.'


----------



## YXU

Theognome said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I know that they were half brothers? Of course I do. Did the person who told Him his mother and brothers were waiting for him while he was rebuking the Pharisees know that, or did they simply describe what they saw?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people who refer to father, brothers and sisters in the Gospels simply described what they saw, and therefore accepted at face value that Joseph was the father of Jesus and his kinsmen were his brothers and sisters. We have as little basis for concluding that the brothers and sisters were blood relations as we do of concluding Joseph begat him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My reference in Matthew does give some basis, as nowhere can it be found in that Gospel Joseph being referred to as the Father of Christ. I'm also not aware of such reference in any other Gospel. However, his kinsman and his mother are directly mentioned. Obviously, these would have been the half-brothers of Christ through Joseph and Mary. The exclusion of Joseph in this manner shews some importance on the face value- It's not a theological problem to be blood related to Christ through Mary. And since she is a woman of virtue and Vs 1:25 does state that Joseph didn't have sex with Mary until after the birth of Christ, I find it compelling to state with relative confidence that Mary was not a perpetual virgin and that Joseph sired the other children mentioned in the Bible through her.
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...


Geneva Bible Notes on Matthew 1:25



> The word "till", in the Hebrew language, gives us to understand that a thing will not come to pass in time to come: as Michal had no children "till" her death day, 2Sa 6:23 . And in the last chapter of this evangelist: Behold, I am with you "till" the end of the world.



-----Added 5/8/2009 at 05:57:52 EST-----



smhbbag said:


> I don't know about Greek, but in English the word "until" does not necessarily imply what happens afterwards. See for example 1 Corinthians 15:25. "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." Does Christ put aside his reign afterwards?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Christ of course does not set aside his reign after his enemies are under his feet. But the construction is different here - using 'achri-hou' and not 'heos.'
Click to expand...


Please see Geneva Bible Note on Matthew 1:25.


----------



## DMcFadden

TheFleshProfitethNothing said:


> He had, I believe, Three Brothers, and at least one sister...but, the import should be on His idea of "family". Who is my mother, my brother and my sister? Those who do the will of my Father are my mother and my brother and my sister.



Family of (at least) 9

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him." Mark 6:3 

1. Joseph
2. Mary
3. Jesus
4. James
5. Joses
6. Judas
7. Simon
8/9+? sister*s*

The arguments for natural children, children from a prior (unknown) marriage by Joseph, cousins, and the like are driven more by dogmatic considerations than linguistic necessity. On the face of it, an unprejudiced reader would assume that "until" in Matthew 1:25 (εως) would imply that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations during the course of their marriage following the birth of Jesus. The mention in Mark 6:3 would similarly incline one to presume natural marital relations.

Can it mean something other than natural children such as the offspring of a prior marriage or cousins? Sure. Just as when you introduce your spouse and children to people at church, you may have been married before and the children may not be your own biologically. However, in absence of explanations, most people would assume that the children are yours biologically.

The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary seems tied to RC ideas about the transmission of original sin, attitudes toward sexuality, and the like surfacing well after the period of the NT. As Protestants, I can think of no compelling reason to dispute the view that Joseph and Mary engaged in normal marital relations resulting in at least six more children after the miraculous conception of Jesus.


----------



## smhbbag

YXU, that doesn't really interact with my challenge.

I'm asserting that "heos-hou" requires the 'before' action to be reversed, and asked for a counterexample.

You point out that an unrelated Hebrew word does allow for it. I'm not quite sure how that damages my argument.

What are the notes in the Geneva Bible for Matthew 1:25? Is it what you quoted?


----------



## YXU

smhbbag said:


> YXU, that doesn't really interact with my challenge.
> 
> I'm asserting that "heos-hou" requires the 'before' action to be reversed, and asked for a counterexample.
> 
> You point out that an unrelated Hebrew word does allow for it. I'm not quite sure how that damages my argument.
> 
> What are the notes in the Geneva Bible for Matthew 1:25? Is it what you quoted?



Yes sir. I also find Mr. Calvin's commentary on Matthew 1:25 would be of interest to you. 



> And knew her not This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were
> introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was,
> that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other
> children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s
> perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, *that no just and well-grounded inference can be
> drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ*. He is
> called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin.115 It is
> said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that
> very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to
> have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this
> subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an
> extreme fondness for disputation.


----------



## Matthias

It takes to much effort, and alot of rational and logical gymnastics for me to come to any other conclusion than that Mary was a human woman married to a human man and that together they conceived children who were considered the Lords brethren.. in a physical sense.


----------



## Staphlobob

Matthias said:


> It takes to much effort, and a lot of rational and logical gymnastics for me to come to any other conclusion than that Mary was a human woman married to a human man and that together they conceived children who were considered the Lords brethren.. in a physical sense.



Agreed! 

As the Lutherans might say, belief in the perpetual virginity is "adiaphora." But the difference between papists and Christians is that the former *require* its belief. In fact, according to strict papist theology, those of us who hold that she was not a perpetual virgin are going to hell.


----------



## smhbbag

> And knew her not This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were
> introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was,
> that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other
> children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s
> perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be
> drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is
> called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin.115 It is
> said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that
> very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to
> have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this
> subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an
> extreme fondness for disputation.



Calvin is in error on this point.

To believe that heos-hou does not necessitate a reversal of a previous state (virginity, in this case) is to believe that the phrase can mean something, even though in the entire written history of the language there is no second example of the words being used that way.

If one cannot find a phrase used in similar way even one other time, I'd say it is a reasonable, "just, and well-grounded inference" to say it keeps its proper meaning and usage.


----------



## SRoper

smhbbag said:


> I don't know about Greek, but in English the word "until" does not necessarily imply what happens afterwards. See for example 1 Corinthians 15:25. "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." Does Christ put aside his reign afterwards?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Christ of course does not set aside his reign after his enemies are under his feet. But the construction is different here - using 'achri-hou' and not 'heos.'
Click to expand...


Again, I don't know my Greek, but what of Matthew 28:20? "And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." Is this not the same construction?


----------



## satz

SRoper said:


> I don't know about Greek, but in English the word "until" does not necessarily imply what happens afterwards. See for example 1 Corinthians 15:25. "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." Does Christ put aside his reign afterwards?





SRoper said:


> Again, I don't know my Greek, but what of Matthew 28:20? "And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." Is this not the same construction?



Just going by the english (no knowledge of greek here either) I think the context determines what the word "until" means.

The "reign until he has put his enemies under his feet" in 1 Cor 15:25 is, I think, a build up to 1 Cor 15: "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

In matthew 28 Jesus was going back into heaven, and he was telling his disciples that even though he was physically gone, he would still be with them in spirit (as I see it). But he would only need to be with them in that way until the end of the age because after that they would be together both physically and spiritually. 

So when we look at Matt 1:25, given all the bible says about marriage and sex, I think the context strongly indicates that Mary and Joseph abstained until she had given birth, but carried on normally after that.


----------



## MW

Mt 1:25, And knew her not *till* she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
Mt 5:18, For verily I say unto you, *Till* heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mt 12:20, A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, *till* he send forth judgment unto victory.
Mt 24:34, Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, *till* all these things be fulfilled.

In each case "till" (heos) simply refers to a condition being unfulfilled prior to the terminal point; it does not imply that the condition was subsequently fulfilled after the terminal point.


----------



## satz

I can accept that the bible may not be dogmatic that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, but I don't understand why the suggestion would even come up. 

Even if we accept that their marriage was not typical, there is no indication God placed any restriction on them after Jesus' birth. But there is, from the rest of the bible, every indication they would have had a normal sexual relationship after that. Why would we even think otherwise?


----------



## smhbbag

Rev. Winzer - I don't believe any of those are counterexamples to my assertion. 



> Mt 5:18, For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.



Here, what is the previous state before the "until"? That not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law.

Well, that was true. But, after the 'until' - the previous condition is reversed - there is no Law in heaven, for the law's only purposes (expose sin, reveal God's righteousness, show our need for Christ) - all of those purposes are fulfilled, and the Law is no longer needed.

Before the "until all is fulfilled" = Law.
After all is fulfilled = No Law, in the same sense that there was Law beforehand.

The previous state is reversed/changed.

And besides, this is heos-an, not heos-hou.



> Mt 12:20, A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.



This is also heos-an. 



> Mt 24:34, Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.



Before the "till" = generation will not pass.
After the "till" = the generation does pass - for all men die.

The state before the 'until' is reversed after it, again.

And this one is still not heos-hou.

Again, it doesn't have to be limited to Scripture - I'd settle for ANY Greek sentence from antiquity that uses heos-hou, and the original aspect remains true even after the 'until.'


----------



## MW

smhbbag said:


> Rev. Winzer - I don't believe any of those are counterexamples to my assertion.



That is because you are not reading them according to their linguistic force. The scope of each verse is to depict a condition relative to a terminal point. The fact that you feel the need to speculate as to what happens after each point only proves that the passages themselves do not provide the information you are trying to read into them.


----------



## smhbbag

> That is because you are not reading them according to their linguistic force. The scope of each verse is to depict a condition relative to a terminal point. The fact that you feel the need to speculate as to what happens after each point only proves that the passages themselves do not provide the information you are trying to read into them.



I don't need to speculate - you said it yourself....it "compares a condition relative to a _terminal_ point." That is, a point at which a condition terminates.

I absolutely agree! So in Matthew 1:25 - you have a condition (Mary's virginity / Joseph not knowing her)....and Mary's virginity (the condition) terminates!

Even so - my critique about heos-hou still applies. None of those contain that construction.


----------



## MW

smhbbag said:


> I don't need to speculate - you said it yourself....it "compares a condition relative to a _terminal_ point." That is, a point at which a condition terminates.



Although the words are similar, the syntax of these two statements amount to different meanings.


----------



## satz

armourbearer said:


> smhbbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to speculate - you said it yourself....it "compares a condition relative to a _terminal_ point." That is, a point at which a condition terminates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although the words are similar, the syntax of these two statements amount to different meanings.
Click to expand...


Rev Winzer, 

Even if the language does not demand that Joseph and Mary later consumated their marriage, you still have not explained _why _ we would speculate that they did not, since it is God's normal will for couples to do so.


----------



## fredtgreco

Wouldn't a perpetual virgin wife be in violation of the 7th commandment?



> WLC 138 What are the duties required in the seventh commandment? A. The duties required in the seventh commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections,(1) words,(2) and behaviour;(3) and the preservation of it in ourselves and others;(4) watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses;(5) temperance,(6) keeping of chaste company,(7) modesty in apparel;(8) marriage by those that have not the gift of continency;(9)* conjugal love,(10) and cohabitation;(11)* diligent labour in our callings;(12) shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto. (emphasis added)
> 
> (1) 1 Thess. 4:4; Job. 31:1; 1 Cor. 7:34
> (2) Col. 4:6
> (3) 1 Pet. 2:3
> (4) 1 Cor. 7:2,35,36
> (5) Job. 31:1
> (6) Acts 24:24,25
> (7) Prov. 2:16-20
> (8) 1 Tim. 2:9
> (9) 1 Cor. 7:2,9
> (10) Prov. 5:19,20
> (11) 1 Pet. 3:7
> (12) Prov. 31:11,27,28
> (13) Prov. 5:8; Gen. 39:8-10


----------



## caoclan

Nope


----------



## Matthias

caoclan said:


> Nope



nope what?


----------



## MW

satz said:


> Even if the language does not demand that Joseph and Mary later consumated their marriage, you still have not explained _why _ we would speculate that they did not, since it is God's normal will for couples to do so.





fredtgreco said:


> Wouldn't a perpetual virgin wife be in violation of the 7th commandment?



God's "normal will" for Abaham would have been that he did not kill. In dealing with the history of revelation we recognise (1) progression, and (2) intervention. (1) Paul had not yet written 1 Corinthians 7. (2) The virgin birth was a miracle.

As noted previously, a scriptural teaching is such that an indivudal can say this is the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture, not an idea which can be found to accord with certain inductive particulars found in the Scripture. We should not dogmatise either way. At the very least the threads on this subject show the propensity of man to make Scripture say more than it actually says.


----------



## fredtgreco

caoclan said:


> Nope



How is that possible. The Seventh commandment *requires* conjugal love. (the references in Proverbs clearly indicate it is sexual conjugal love). SO if the commandment requires something, and it is left undone, that is sin, is it not?



> WLC 99 What rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the ten commandments? A. For the right understanding of the ten commandments, these rules are to be observed: 1. That the law is perfect, and bindeth everyone to full conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire obedience for ever, so as to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to forbid the least degree of every sin.(1) 2. That it is spiritual, and so reacheth the understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul; as well as words, works, and gestures.(2) 3. That one and the same thing, in divers respects, is required or forbidden in several commandments.(3) 4. That as, where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden;(4) and, where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded;(5) so, where a promise is annexed, the contrary threatening is included;(6) and where a threatening is annexed, the contrary promise is included.(7) 5. T*hat what God forbids, is at no time to be done;(8) what he commands, is always our duty;*(9) and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times.(10) 6. That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded together with all the causes, means, occasions and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto. (11) 7. That what is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places, to endeavour that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their places.(12) 8. That in what is commanded to others, we are bound, according to our places and callings, to be helpful to them;(13) and to take heed of partaking with others in what is forbidden them.(14)
> 
> (1) Ps. 19:7; James 2:10; Matt. 5:21,22
> (2) Rom. 7:14; Deut. 6:5 compared with Matt. 22:37,38,39; Matt. 5:21,22,27,28,33,34,37,38,39,43,44
> (3) Col. 3:5; Amos 8:5; Prov. 1:19; 1 Tim. 6:10
> (4) Isa. 58:13; Deut. 6:13 compared with Matt. 4:9,10; Matt. 15:4,5,6
> (5) Matt. 5:21-25; Eph. 4:28
> (6) Exod. 20:12 compared with Prov. 30:17
> (7) Jer. 18:7,8; Exod. 20:7; Ps. 15:1,4,5; Ps. 24:4,5
> (8) Job 13:7,8; Rom. 3:8; Job 36:21; Heb. 11:25
> (9) Deut. 4:8,9
> (10) Matt. 12:7
> (11) Matt. 5:21,22,27,28; Matt. 15:4-6; Heb. 10:24,25; 1 Thess. 5:22; Jude 23; Gal. 5:26; Col. 3:21
> (12) Exod. 20:10; Lev. 19:17; Gen. 18:19; Josh. 24:15; Deut. 6:6,7
> (13) 2 Cor. 1:24
> (14) 1 Tim. 5:22; Eph. 5:11


----------



## caoclan

My "NOPE" just answered the poll question. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## fredtgreco

armourbearer said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if the language does not demand that Joseph and Mary later consumated their marriage, you still have not explained _why _ we would speculate that they did not, since it is God's normal will for couples to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't a perpetual virgin wife be in violation of the 7th commandment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God's "normal will" for Abaham would have been that he did not kill. In dealing with the history of revelation we recognise (1) progression, and (2) intervention. (1) Paul had not yet written 1 Corinthians 7. (2) The virgin birth was a miracle.
> 
> As noted previously, a scriptural teaching is such that an indivudal can say this is the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture, not an idea which can be found to accord with certain inductive particulars found in the Scripture. We should not dogmatise either way. At the very least the threads on this subject show the propensity of man to make Scripture say more than it actually says.
Click to expand...


But first, the divines proof text was in Proverbs (which was written) and not 1 Corinthians 7.

Second, are we really prepared to say that any duty under the 10 commandments can be completely and totally disregarded without contrary revelation?

In the case of Abraham, for example, we can say that Abraham had revelation *directly on point* from God.

Third, the fact of a miracle does not militate against future conduct. Are we to presume that other miracles in Scripture permit us to disregard (or nullify) a commandment?

I agree that we should not be dogmatic. But it would appear that there is no good Biblical (textual) reason for holding to a perpetual virginity. At least I can find not a shred of positive evidence _for such_ in the Bible.


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> Second, are we really prepared to say that any duty under the 10 commandments can be completely and totally disregarded without contrary revelation?



Matthew 1:25 at the very least states that she remained a virgin at least until the birth of Christ; so this is something you have to wrestle with regardless of your view of what may have happened after His birth. Let it be noted that Protestants and Romanists both maintain the virgin birth of Christ.

Even under normal marital conditions there are sometimes providential reasons for abstaining from "conjugal love."


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> I agree that we should not be dogmatic. But it would appear that there is no good Biblical (textual) reason for holding to a perpetual virginity. At least I can find not a shred of positive evidence _for such_ in the Bible.



Hence its definition as a "pious belief."


----------



## satz

armourbearer said:


> God's "normal will" for Abaham would have been that he did not kill. In dealing with the history of revelation we recognise (1) progression, and (2) intervention. (1) Paul had not yet written 1 Corinthians 7. (2) The virgin birth was a miracle.
> 
> As noted previously, a scriptural teaching is such that an indivudal can say this is the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture, not an idea which can be found to accord with certain inductive particulars found in the Scripture. We should not dogmatise either way. At the very least the threads on this subject show the propensity of man to make Scripture say more than it actually says.



I don't think 1 Corinthians 7 is a example of progression. As was mentioned, the principle is found in proverbs 5:18-19.

The virgin birth was a miracle, agreed. But after the birth was accomplished, there is no other reason to believe there was anymore restriction on their marriage.



> Hence its definition as a "pious belief."



While Mary's perpetual virginity may be a possibility, I really can't understand what is "pious" about this belief. Not only would it be contrary to God's revealed will in both Old and New Testaments - the reason for God's intervention now having passed since the virgin birth was accomplished - it would also be incredibly cruel to both Joseph and Mary.

I am not trying to dogmatise, but I really find it confusing why the possibility is so strongly defended.


----------



## MW

satz said:


> While Mary's perpetual virginity may be a possibility, I really can't understand what is "pious" about this belief.



If we understand the Jewish concept of sacredness in terms of the old dispensation's insistence on being physically separated, some of the traditional theologians' statements about maintaining the inviolate nature of the sacred womb make alot of sense. It is only under the spiritual conditions of the new dispensation that this could be seen as problematic.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I admit this was not a normal marriage, but as far as we can tell, the scripture indicates that the way it was not normal was that Mary bore a son prior to having intercourse with her husband. I see no reason to suspect that they would not have normal sexual relations after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But normal marriage relations take place after marriage, not after the birth of the first-born. Hence Scripture itself indicates that this was no normal marriage. There is then no reason to presume that sexual relations were "normal" to this marriage.
Click to expand...


But the pure conjecture that it was not a normal marriage after the birth of Jesus is just that, pure conjecture. There is no scriptural support that there was anything but a normal marriage, and every translation from Greek/Hebrew (rather than RC from Latin) puts the connotation (rather than denotation) that Joseph and Mary had no sexual relations prior to Jesus being born ... with an implication that all bets were off after he was born.

With no Biblical grounding for a perpetual virginity of Mary, the only conclusion is that this is at best extra Biblical, and should be anything but supported. That there is at least Biblical support that Jesus had brothers and sisters that the world would recognize as brothers and sisters, even with the conjecture that there is a possible explanation with no evidence of support and no ordinary meaning of what scripture says, it is prudent to put the perpetual virginity of Mary into the same category as conjecture about anything else in scripture.

The use of εωϚ (until) in the text would be totally superfluous if Joseph never had sex with Mary. Why the qualifier if no qualification were needed? If he never had relations with Mary, then why not say "and Joseph had no relations with Mary." Testify in court that you did not commit a murder prior to Tuesday at 7:00pm, and the people will take it to mean that you did commit the murder after Tuesday at 7:00pm. While denotation may not require it, connotation does. I do not believe that God purposely obfuscates meaning in scripture, and it would seem that all the writers that mention this at all, state it the same way. While the word can clearly be cast to mean never (the idea contained in "he will not put out a smoldering wick until (εωϚ) he leads justice to victory" which has no connotation of ending as the related text does) no translation from the Greek ever attempts to clarify this as anything but up to the time of Mary giving birth.

Why even have the conjecture? There is no doctrine which requires Mary to be anything other than a normal wife to Joseph after the birth of Jesus. Mary is to be praised as a woman of God, the mother of Jesus, who is the God-man (and therefore she is the God-bearer). But perpetual virginity? What scripture does that come from?


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> With no Biblical grounding for a perpetual virginity of Mary, the only conclusion is that this is at best extra Biblical, and should be anything but supported.



Are you saying that you don't support anything that is extra-biblical; e.g., the existence of Athanasius?


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that we should not be dogmatic. But it would appear that there is no good Biblical (textual) reason for holding to a perpetual virginity. At least I can find not a shred of positive evidence _for such_ in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hence its definition as a "pious belief."
Click to expand...


Please clarify ... pious can mean "reverence for God" or "hypocritical virtue or sanctimonious" and I do not know which you are using. If the later, I would agree completely, it is a pious belief.


----------



## fredtgreco

armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> With no Biblical grounding for a perpetual virginity of Mary, the only conclusion is that this is at best extra Biblical, and should be anything but supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that you don't support anything that is extra-biblical; e.g., the existence of Athanasius?
Click to expand...


Not to speak for him, but when the ordinary teaching of Scripture is contrary to something extra-Biblical (e.g. the 7th commandment above) it would seem a distinction.

Put another way, is there any reason to support the view that there are sentient created beings on Mars or Venus?


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> Not to speak for him, but when the ordinary teaching of Scripture is contrary to something extra-Biblical (e.g. the 7th commandment above) it would seem a distinction.



Joseph decided not to have sexual relations with his wife for upward of nine months, yet this is not deemed contrary to the seventh commandment. There is no reason why different moral standards should be applied post and ante-natus. The fact is that the Scriptures give no indication that sexual relations were initiated after the birth of Jesus. The person who insists that they must have had sexual relations is creating extra-biblical dogma.


----------



## fredtgreco

armourbearer said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to speak for him, but when the ordinary teaching of Scripture is contrary to something extra-Biblical (e.g. the 7th commandment above) it would seem a distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph decided not to have sexual relations with his wife for upward of nine months, yet this is not deemed contrary to the seventh commandment. There is no reason why different moral standards should be applied post and ante-natus. The fact is that the Scriptures give no indication that sexual relations were initiated after the birth of Jesus. The person who insists that they must have had sexual relations is creating extra-biblical dogma.
Click to expand...


I respectfully disagree. There is a distinction between abstaining for a time, and _never_ having relations, which are a requirement of the 7th commandment.


----------



## MW

fredtgreco said:


> I respectfully disagree. There is a distinction between abstaining for a time, and _never_ having relations, which are a requirement of the 7th commandment.



Turretin: "Although copulation had not taken place in that marriage, it did not cease to be true and ratified (although unconsummated) for not intercourse, but consent makes marriage. Therefore it was perfect as to form (to wit, undivided conjunction of life and unviolated faith), but not as to end (to wit, the procreation of children, although it was not deficient as to the raising of the offspring)." (Institutes, 2:346.)


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to speak for him, but when the ordinary teaching of Scripture is contrary to something extra-Biblical (e.g. the 7th commandment above) it would seem a distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph decided not to have sexual relations with his wife for upward of nine months, yet this is not deemed contrary to the seventh commandment. There is no reason why different moral standards should be applied post and ante-natus.  The fact is that the Scriptures give no indication that sexual relations were initiated after the birth of Jesus. The person who insists that they must have had sexual relations is creating extra-biblical dogma.
Click to expand...


I highlighted what may be a problem ... for husband and wife to have sexual relations is pure and undefiled. There is no moral err for married folk to engage in sexual relations, and it is immoral for a married person to deprive their spouse of conjugal relations. If either Joseph or Mary had a whim of sexual interest after the birth of Jesus, and the other did not comply, it would be sin. It is immoral to say "no" to a spouse outside of extraordinary circumstances.

There is no reason for differing *moral* standards, that is true, but actions are either moral or immoral based on what has already occurred. If I had copulated with my wife before marriage, it would be immoral. If I refuse to copulate with my wife now, it would be immoral. The standard is holiness, but the action required of a married person for holiness is immoral for an unmarried person.

That Mary was to be virgin until the birth of Jesus was in fulfillment of scripture ... there was no need after his birth, and the evidence of scripture points to the contrary (James as prima facia evidence). In the face of James being referred to as "the brother of Christ" not only in the gospel accounts, but also in Gal 1:19, it would take more than just conjecture to conclude he was not a child of Mary. If there were solid evidence that Joseph had a prior wife (there is none that I have seen) then it would have some traction, otherwise it is mere superstition to think Joseph and Mary were not, as typical for the day, sexually active and had more children.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> There is no reason for differing *moral* standards, that is true, but actions are either moral or immoral based on what has already occurred. If I had copulated with my wife before marriage, it would be immoral. If I refuse to copulate with my wife now, it would be immoral. The standard is holiness, but the action required of a married person for holiness is immoral for an unmarried person.
> 
> That Mary was to be virgin until the birth of Jesus was in fulfillment of scripture



This only pushes the moral dilemma back one stage, from the point of Joseph's action to the point of scripture imposing certain marital conditions on him. If it is deemed absolutely immoral then the Scriptures must be charged with that immorality because they laid the condition on him. One would be better off simply acnowledging that there are providential reasons for abstinence in marriage, so that it is not absolutely immoral to abstain from sexual relations.


----------



## py3ak

Anyone who hasn't should read this essay by Lightfoot.


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason for differing *moral* standards, that is true, but actions are either moral or immoral based on what has already occurred. If I had copulated with my wife before marriage, it would be immoral. If I refuse to copulate with my wife now, it would be immoral. The standard is holiness, but the action required of a married person for holiness is immoral for an unmarried person.
> 
> That Mary was to be virgin until the birth of Jesus was in fulfillment of scripture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This only pushes the moral dilemma back one stage, from the point of Joseph's action to the point of scripture imposing certain marital conditions on him. If it is deemed absolutely immoral then the Scriptures must be charged with that immorality because they laid the condition on him. One would be better off simply acnowledging that there are providential reasons for abstinence in marriage, so that it is not absolutely immoral to abstain from sexual relations.
Click to expand...


There is no moral dilemma, Joseph would morally have to provide sex to his wife, and Mary to Joseph, after the birth of Jesus. While scripture allows for abstinence for a time, it does not allow for total abstinence. The issue is that the only way for Mary to have remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus would be for the couple to have sinned. The "argument" that they had to before Jesus was born is a red herring. That was "for a time" and not total abstinence which would have been a sinful restriction. Given a general requirement of scripture, it would take some specific requirement of God to allow for the general to be circumvented. Prior to the birth of Christ, there was a specific requirement. After the birth of Jesus there was no requirement, and therefore I would not impose sinful behavior to Mary or Joseph in continuing to abstain. Without specific reason, abstaining is sin for married folk. Once the reason for Joseph and Mary abstaining was removed, continuing to do so would be sin.


----------



## Quickened

In answer to the poll question I checked "no".

When i read Matthew 1:28 i see that there is a time that passes where Joseph did not have relations prior to the birth of Christ. This falls in suit with 1 Cor as noted previously by other posters that we are not to deprive one another except perhaps by a limited agreement for a time. But then immediately following that states that they come together again after that period of time so that they may be tempted.

Then i think about what I know about the institution of marriage as what is displayed in the bible.

Why would Joseph and Marys relationship be different then the blueprint shown throughout the course of the bible. They were people. Sinful regular people that were just as in need of a savior as us. For whatever reason people start attributing these extra special holyness to mary that develops into ideas like this.

This idea of perpetual virginity is not in the bible. One would have to read matt 1:28 with the idea that Joseph never knew Mary which the bible doesnt state nor does it go with the sexual unions in marriage as displayed in the bible.

You'd think that if Mary went the extra mile and remained a virgin throughout the course of her life that someone writing these books would have taken note of that.


----------



## Rich Koster

Scripture teaches that a husband and wife should come together [to avoid being in temptation (1 Cor 7)] except for an agreed season of prayer. Scripture says they had an agreed season until the birth of Jesus. Beyond that I would expect for Jesus to be raised in a normal godly home.
Both viewpoints involve speculation and/or presuppositions.


----------



## MW

Brian Withnell said:


> The "argument" that they had to before Jesus was born is a red herring. That was "for a time" and not total abstinence which would have been a sinful restriction.



Either the marriage required consummation or it didn't. What you are suggesting is that it would not have been a lawful marriage if there was no consummation, but we know for a fact that Jesus was born of a virgin and born within the bonds of marriage. Your moral classifications are therefore unbiblical.


----------



## Iconoclast

Genesis 4
1And Adam * knew* Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD

17And Cain * knew* his wife; and she conceived

25And Adam *knew* his wife again; and she bare a son

24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 

25And * knew* her not till 

No one questions what the word * knew* meant in Genesis,Why question it in Matthew 1. 
Even in the account of Sodom and Gommorah it is clear several times.

5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may * know* them

8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not * known* man

The bible is not "unclear" on this point at all. Joseph knew who Mary was, but he did not * know her until*after the birth of Jesus.
Some of the reformers might not have broken away from Romes error in total.
I am glad they broke away substantially on so many areas however, they were not apostles.


----------



## chbrooking

While I do not believe Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus, I do not think it can be proven either way. The "until" does not logically or linguistically tell us anything about what happened afterward. I think it is a reasonable assumption -- and I would lean on the reasons cited as to marital duty. I believe that her not knowing Joseph until the birth of Jesus was necessary to fulfill prophecy. After all, the prophecy reads that the virgin will conceive AND bear a son -- not that the virgin will merely conceive. The references to siblings are not specific enough to build a case upon. So, while I think it is plausible that she knew Joseph after she gave birth, I don't believe you will be able to prove it either way. I'm not sure I understand why it matters though. I don't believe the reformers were hanging on to Mary as co-redemptrix. I believe they were just conservative and careful generally with what they asserted from the text.


----------



## bookslover

KMK said:


> In the course of studying Luke 2, I finally came to understand Rev Winzers post: http://www.puritanboard.com/352776-post9.html
> 
> I don't know where Rev Winzer stands on the issue, but the Reformed position seemed to allow for either view. What are the views here on PB?



As others have already noted, it is obvious, from Scripture, that Mary and Joseph had other children together (4 boys and at least 2 girls) after Jesus' birth. To believe otherwise is to slide into the Mariolatry of Roman Catholicism.

-----Added 5/11/2009 at 01:03:07 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> Turretin: "Although copulation had not taken place in that marriage, it did not cease to be true and ratified (although unconsummated) for not intercourse, but consent makes marriage. Therefore it was perfect as to form (to wit, undivided conjunction of life and unviolated faith), but not as to end (to wit, the procreation of children, although it was not deficient as to the raising of the offspring)." (Institutes, 2:346.)



So Turretin can state dogmatically that Joseph and Mary never had sex? Where's his proof? He certainly is in disagreement with Scripture.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turretin: "Although copulation had not taken place in that marriage, it did not cease to be true and ratified (although unconsummated) for not intercourse, but consent makes marriage. Therefore it was perfect as to form (to wit, undivided conjunction of life and unviolated faith), but not as to end (to wit, the procreation of children, although it was not deficient as to the raising of the offspring)." (Institutes, 2:346.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Turretin can state dogmatically that Joseph and Mary never had sex? Where's his proof? He certainly is in disagreement with Scripture.
Click to expand...


Richard, I'm not sure where you consider Turretin to have made a dogmatic statement. The translator uses "had" rather than "did," which I assume represents a conditional statement in Latin.


----------



## jawyman

The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary is not biblical and is popish drek.


----------



## reformedminister




----------



## Knoxienne

jawyman said:


> The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary is not biblical and is popish drek.



Thank you!


----------



## Prufrock

armourbearer said:


> The translator uses "had" rather than "did," which I assume represents a conditional statement in Latin.



_Licet copula non adfuerit isto conjugio, non desiit esse verum et ratum, etsi non consummatum; quia non concubitus, sed consensus facit matrimonium._

Further, no one is being dogmatic (least of all Turretin) by saying the scriptures *aren't* dogmatic on this point, but that there is warrant for "pious belief" in this area based upon ancient tradition. I am quite surprised at how long this thread has become. A legitimate understanding of the word "until" has been presented; let's not just keep ignoring it, claiming that we have found one obvious piece of scripture which the previous Reformed have missed. If you still disagree -- that's fine, but please present reasoning that takes previously given explanations into account. Surely we can, at the very least, have more respect for our Reformed tradition than to all but impugn our greatest predecessors as closet-Papists. Several have made good, well-reasoned arguments for both sides in this thread; let's try to emulate these.


----------



## sgtdabney

Has anyone considered the early influences of monasticism and asceticism in Christian thought on the development of the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity? Even a sympathetic reading of the church fathers (whom I do love to read) shows an increasing tendency towards these positions as the centuries wore on, where those who deprived themselves were looked upon as greater Christians than the rank and file. I think a fair dealing with church history has to at least consider some of the possible reasons why this doctrine became so important. Though it is certainly associated with (and indeed, necessary to) the RC doctrines of her being immaculately conceived, sinless, Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix, there is also a strong sense among many in the early fathers that remaining celibate is a higher calling than those who have normal marital relations. I don't think that is what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 7:1-9. God has gifted some with the gift of singleness for a particular reason, but it doesn't make one an 'uber-Christian' or intrinsicly holier.

This is one of the historical reasons I reject the doctrine (besides many of the biblical reasons stated above). It seems to me that it flows out of an ascetic idea (that developed over time) that glorifies celibacy for the wrong reasons. Indeed, with some writers, you almost get the idea that though sex is necessary, it is still somehow kinda dirty. I don't think this is why the Reformers held it. I agree with the post above that they were simply being conservative and on this particular issue, were simply the products of their time. We shouldn't over-fault them because we certainly wouldn't have done any better if we were in their shoes.


----------



## KMK

Prufrock said:


> If you still disagree -- that's fine, but please present reasoning that takes previously given explanations into account. Surely we can, at the very least, have more respect for our Reformed tradition than to all but impugn our greatest predecessors as closet-Papists. Several have made good, well-reasoned arguments for both sides in this thread; let's try to emulate these.



C'mon man. This would require that people read the whole thread before posting a reply!


----------



## sgtdabney

One verse that I'd like to see dealt with is also Malachi 2:14b-15. This explicitly says that the purpose of marriage is "He seeks a godly offspring". It seems to me that this (especially when looked at with the obligations of the 7th commandment and 1 Corinthians 7:3-5) makes sexual intercourse obligatory for married couples. Indeed, a celibate marriage is a bit of an oxymoron, if the purpose of marriage is to produce godly offspring (and yes, Mary had Jesus but He was conceived of the Holy Spirit before Mary married Joseph), and marriage partners are commanded not to deprive each other, then sexual intercouse was not optional for Mary and Joseph unless God commanded them to perpetually abstain, which He didn't, and which would create a host of ethical problems if He did. Additionally, unless someone can direct me to a source I have not run across (which is certainly probable), it would be totally foreign to a first century Jewish context. That being the case, I would expect it not to receive any further mention than it does, sexual intercourse would be a given.

I think the explanation of why Joseph temporarily abstained until Mary gave birth as the fulfillment of prophecy is perfectly valid, and that without any indication otherwise, normal marital relations would ensue. Indeed, I believe that though the Scriptures don't come right out and say "And Mary gave birth to James, etc...", the cumulative case (the purpose of marriage, the command to procreate, the command not to deprive your spouse, the mentioning of Jesus' brothers, the normal meaning of the word 'until') is strong enough that the burden of proof lies on the supporter of perpetual virginity, not the naysayer. Granted, if only one of these were present in Scripture, the case may not be so strong. But taken all together, I think it is pretty strong. Perhaps we cannot say Mary had children with the certainty we may have on something like the doctrine of Justification, but I believe the total picture makes the idea of perpetual virginity so extremely unlikely that it doesn't garner to it much respect.

And besides, it is completely unnecessary. And since it is unnecessary, I'm goin' to bed brothers and sisters. Thanks for the interesting discussion.


----------



## MW

sgtdabney said:


> It seems to me that it flows out of an ascetic idea (that developed over time) that glorifies celibacy for the wrong reasons.



It is right to conclude that the ascetic idea is unbefitting believers living under a spiritual dispensation, but it seems out of place to impose this spiritual standard on believers under the old dispensation where holiness was understood in terms of "the elements of the world" and physical separation. In Luke's gospel Anna the prophetess is called in as a credible witness to the advent of Christ, and one of her credentials is that as a long term widow she departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day, Luke 2:37. No doubt such monasticism is deemed inappropriate today, but it was truly pious under the earthly order of things.


----------

