# Can you be "really, really" Reformed and hold to virginal mary?



## RamistThomist (Apr 9, 2008)

I do believe that Mary consumated her marriage with Joseph, and not just "spiritually" 

However, is there a contradiction between holding to perpetual virginity and being really Reformed?


----------



## N. Eshelman (Apr 9, 2008)

Wilhelmus a'Brakel believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. I will attempt to find the reference, but it is in volume 1 of _A Christian's Reasonable Service_. 

I would not doubt a'Brakel being 'really Reformed'!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 9, 2008)

nleshelman said:


> Wilhelmus a'Brakel believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. I will attempt to find the reference, but it is in volume 1 of _A Christian's Reasonable Service_.
> 
> I would not doubt a'Brakel being 'really Reformed'!



as did Calvin. (and Luther, but he's not "really, really Reformed")


----------



## CarlosOliveira (Apr 9, 2008)

Well....if you consider Calvin, Beza, Turretin (Institutes, 2:345-347) and our Matthew Winzer (check this thread) reformed ones...I think the answer is YES.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Apr 9, 2008)

So.. all her other children were concieved by the Holy spirit as well?


----------



## dannyhyde (Apr 9, 2008)

From the Second Helvetic Confession, chapter 11:
. . . We also believe and teach that the eternal Son of the eternal God was made the Son of man, from the seed of Abraham and David, not from the coitus of a man, as the Ebionites said, but was most chastely conceived by the Holy Spirit _*and born of the ever virgin Mary*_ (_et natum ex Maria semper virgine_) . . .


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 9, 2008)

To those who hold to her perpetual virginity, she didn't have any other children. Those referred to as the brothers of Jesus were either step-brothers (this is where the tradition of showing Joseph as much older than her arises...the assumption he already had been married and had children) or cousins. 

Apparently in Greek the word often used for brothers is also frequently used for cousins, too. Russian is largely based on Greek, and I was startled to be told at some point during the adoption process that Dmitry had a sister!

No, he has a first cousin. ;^)

But he calls her his sister, and she calls him her brother. It's interesting, but in Greek-based-Russian, it really is normal to use one term to cover both relationships.

Mind, I think the theory of her perpetual virginity is wholly unproven and unscriptural.

But that's how those who do believe in it get around the mentions of Jesus having brothers.


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Apr 9, 2008)

Yeah.. trying to find this in scripture...


----------



## danmpem (Apr 9, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> I do believe that Mary consumated her marriage with Joseph, and not just "spiritually"
> 
> However, is there a contradiction between holding to perpetual virginity and being really Reformed?



I don't think I'm familiar with the issue you are speaking of. In "perpetual virginity", do you mean in the way that some people teach that Mary was always a virgin for the rest of her life?


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Apr 9, 2008)

danmpem said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > I do believe that Mary consumated her marriage with Joseph, and not just "spiritually"
> ...


 
That is what methinks the concept is


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 9, 2008)

That's it. (Sez the ex-RC.)


----------



## Poimen (Apr 9, 2008)

In reference to Jacob's question I would answer no.

However I would be concerned with why they thought this was the case. Did Joseph die soon after Jesus was born? (impossible since he was looking for Jesus when he was teaching in the temple)

Why then was the marriage not consummated? This would be outside the norm and possibly an occasion for stumbling (1 Corinthians 7:5)


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 9, 2008)

Josh, which post are you dittoing? I can't tell. ;^)


----------



## SRoper (Apr 9, 2008)

There is no contradiction between being reformed and holding to the perpetual virginity of Mary. It's not an issue the WCF or the 3FU addresses, and it is not clearly contradicted by Scripture.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Apr 9, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> I do believe that Mary consumated her marriage with Joseph, and not just "spiritually"
> 
> However, is there a contradiction between holding to perpetual virginity and being really Reformed?




The Roman Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception means that Mary was conceived by the Holy Ghost of a virgin and that she was sinless and maintained her virginity even after Christ was born. Hence, she was never really married to Joseph because the marriage was never consummated (i.e., they were never one flesh). Matthew 1:24-25, in the Received Text poses serious problems for this position: "Then Joseph being raised from sleed did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her *firstborn* son: and he called his name Jesus."

Firstborn is a doubled edged sword (Heb 4:12), its cuts in two directions - one it affirms her virginity and two it indicates her marriage was consummated and that she had other children.

With Christ as the "seed of the woman" in Genesis 3:15, Mary becomes a co-mediator with Christ in the Roman Catholic doctrine - hence the concept of the "perpetual virginity" of Mary includes the Immaculate Conception as a virgin born virgin. This principle is taken from the Origenistic syncretisim of Christianity with the pagan religious cult of Rome, not Scripture. Origen was an Ebionite and he is the author of the rescensions of Scripture found in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the textual base which Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate, and upon which modern versions of the Bible are based.

In this syncretised system Mary becomes the Queen of Heaven in the religion of the Vestral Virgins in and through which Constantine carried forth the title of Pontifex Maximus (High Priest) of Augustus and every Pope since maintains. The Queen of Heaven is a co-ruler of Rome, in which Livia being adopted by Augustus as a Patrician before his death took the title with Tiberius.

So, if you remember the discourse of Christ with the Herodians concerning the tribute and the denarius. The coin reads: "Tiberius Caesar Divi Filius Divi Augustus" (Tiberius Caesar Divine Son of the Divine God) on the obverse, and Pontifex Maximus ( High Priest) with Livia seated as the Pax (Queen of Heaven, Mother of God) on the reverse.







So, if you mean that the "perpetual virginity" of Mary includes what it actually means, that she is a virgin born virgin and co-mediator with Christ, then yes it poses a serious contradiction. If, however, you mean that Joseph and Mary never consummated their marriage and maintained a married estate based upon false witness, defrauding one another (1 Cor 7:5), yet raised a sinless Christ teaching him to honor his father and his mother which is the first commandment with Promise (Ephesians 6:1-3), then I think this poses some serious problems because legally He would not be entitled to the Throne of David.


----------



## brymaes (Apr 9, 2008)

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not mean that Mary was born of a virgin, but that she was born without the stain of Original Sin.

See here.

Obviously, I don't hold to such a doctrine, I'm just sayin'.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Apr 9, 2008)

"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus."

This verse does indeed pose problems for those that hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary. If Mary was perpetually virgin why does the verse not read like this instead, "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not." and then word differently somehow regarding the birth of the Saviour?


----------



## Christusregnat (Apr 9, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> I do believe that Mary consumated her marriage with Joseph, and not just "spiritually"
> 
> However, is there a contradiction between holding to perpetual virginity and being really Reformed?



Ivanhoe,

There are two issues about being "really, really" reformed ("RRR"). One is, is a particular _person _RRR; the other is about whether an _idea _is RRR. Discussions like this often get confused by equivocation about which of these two questions we are discussing, and an endless series of ad hominem vs. ideal discussions ensue.

In the ad hominem sense, sure, Calvin et al may have been RRR. Does that mean that every idea he held is RRR? NO! Emphatically NO!

Is the idea of a so-called perpetual virginity within the scope of a Reformed system of interpretation? NO! Emphatically NO!

From my vantage point, every word of God is to be interpreted exactly as it is written, unless Scripture _itself _(and Scripture only) gives you reasons to interpret the plain meaning in a different light. Thus, for Jesus to have brothers and sisters who hung out with the holy Virgin (Matt. 12:46-47; note the contrast in the passage between the literal mother and brothers in vv.46-47 and the figurative mother and brothers in vv.48-50 - a point made crystal clear by Jesus) means that Joseph and Mary got it on. The evangel tells us that Joseph "knew her not _*till *_she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus." 

PLUS, God is *not *anti-sex. There is nothing evil, dirty, shameful or unclean about sex, sexual desires, etc. The only thing wrong with them is their abuse by wicked men.

The reason anyone would assume that Mary had to be perpetually virginal to be a "holy" woman would not (as far as I'm aware) be based on Scriptural teaching, but rather on a depraved conception of human sexuality (contrary to Song of Solomon's extoling the virtue of sexuality and sexual love in marriage). If we react against our culture, as the monkish sort reacted against theirs, then we will become ascetic, and follow doctrines of demons. I'm not saying that holding to the perpetual virginity of Mary is a doctrine of demons, but it is related to the ascetic ideal, which most emphatically is.

Thus, I would argue that the hermeneutical notions that lead one to the perpetual virginity of Mary are not RRR, though someone who holds to such a notion may very well be more RRR than me (that was intended to rhyme). 

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Gloria (Apr 9, 2008)

Simply_Nikki said:


> So.. all her other children were concieved by the Holy spirit as well?



My question as well.


----------



## dannyhyde (Apr 9, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> The Roman Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception . . .



Thomas, the issue at hand is not the immaculate conception, but the perpetual virginity of Mary . . . for clarity's sake.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 9, 2008)

nleshelman said:


> Wilhelmus a'Brakel believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. I will attempt to find the reference, but it is in volume 1 of _A Christian's Reasonable Service_.
> 
> I would not doubt a'Brakel being 'really Reformed'!



Here is the citation in a'Brakel:



> Christ, being man out of man, was born out of the Virgin Mary. She was a virgin when the Lord Jesus was formed within her and remained a virgin throughout her entire pregnancy, during which time Christ’s body developed in a normal human manner. She was a virgin when, after the normal period of time, she gave birth to Christ in a normal manner, and it is credible that she remained a virgin until the day of her death. The prophecy was as follows, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son” (Isa. 7:14), which was fulfilled in Matthew 1, and in Luke 1 and 2.
> a Brakel, W. (1996, c1992). The Christian's reasonable service, Volumes 1 and 2 (1:502).



I disagree with a'Brakel. But he did teach it.


----------



## Ravens (Apr 9, 2008)

I think this thread is skimming the surface of the waters, while great beasts are battling in the deeps. That is, there are hermeneutical issues, e.g., "brothers/cousins", the relevance of "until", etc. However, this thread equally brings up issues of tradition, authority, dogma, private belief, etc., that, I would wager, many, including myself, still need to sift through.

I am actually more open to this position than I was in the past. By open, I mean "could be either way; I wouldn't have a problem if she did remain a virgin." Why? Because I think that most of us (including myself) ultimately have a very disrespectful view of church history, albeit unknowingly. On some issues, such as the Incarnation, the Trinity, the canon, infant baptism, etc., we give the fathers a great deal of respect and see them as learned and pious. When we say, "All of the apostles save John did for their faith" or "Paul and Peter were executed under Nero", we are largely drawing from the memory of the church. But when something smacks of catholicism, i.e., the perpetual virginity of Mary, we have a sharp reaction to that same ecclesiastic memory deposit.

That being said, I am moving more towards giving a judgment of charity to the fathers, tradition, etc., on some things, and not simply assume that they were wrong, foolish, primitive, and superstitious from the outset. That being said, I also realize that you can't have an uncritical assessment, and I think that the great divide between East and West, both in doctrine and practice, severely hurt their case against Protestantism that we stand aside from the true visible church. 

So before I would render an opinion, I would need to study it more closely, the Greek-Aramaic issue of brothers/cousins, as well as the first recorded references to perpetual virginity, what century, the context, etc.

As it stands, however, one thing stuck out to me in glaring fashion that hadn't occurred to me over the past two threads on this issue. Actually (5 minutes later), having reread it, it's a non-issue. For some reason I thought Rev. Hyde referenced the Heidelberg Catechism, rather than the 2nd Helvetic Confession. Does any Reformed communion receive the 2nd Helvetic Confession as constitutional? I.e., does it serve as the confessional basis for any church? If so, I would see that as an obvious double-standard, since that church would seem to be doing the same thing that Protestants accuse Rome of doing, namely, receiving a part of tradition as public, binding, and constitutional. That is very different from holding a private belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 9, 2008)

Interesting discussion; I definitely *do not* hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary.


----------



## Galatians220 (Apr 9, 2008)

If Mary were a perpetual virgin, then she could not have been "sinless," for it was never God's design that marriage was to be _-ahem-_ "without love." 1 Cor. 7:5.

The Roman Catholic Church has never taught that Mary's parents, Ann and Joachim, were sinless, but it does teach that she was conceived without original sin (the Immaculate Conception, as you say, Bryan). This is not Scriptural. 

Did not Calvin and Luther still consider themselves, for a time, to be priests of what was then the only church? They did not let loose of certain false doctrines all at once; I've always seen the Reformation as a work of God Himself, not that of these few individuals. All the more reason to thank God alone for the doctrines of grace - and for the finished work of Jesus Christ alone! 

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Simplified, here's the current teaching about Mary: Mary's Prerogatives. One who is "really, really Reformed" -- I don't see how that one can still believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, given the five "solas," given TULIP, etc. Another revealing "Mariology" vs. Reformed theology article is this: Catholic Culture : Library : Martin Luther's Devotion to Mary.  to them.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Apr 9, 2008)




----------



## Archlute (Apr 9, 2008)

Since being "Reformed" is a truncation of the phrase "Reformed according to the Scriptures", and Scriptures clearly do not support the perpetual virginity of Mary in any straightforward manner of interpretation (regardless of the rather arbitrary employment of adelphoi/adelpheis as "cousins, step-sisters, etc." by those attempting to defend this doctrine in these passages), I would say, no, one cannot be "really Reformed" and hold to a doctrine that is not only positively absent from Scripture, but relies upon a broader theology which is problematic (as both Thomas and Margaret gave note above).


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 9, 2008)

At this point I agree with wiseman's post. Textually and logically, there isn't much support for Mary's perpetual virginity. that being said, I can understand why the patristics said what they said.


----------



## Stephen (Apr 9, 2008)

theologae said:


> The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not mean that Mary was born of a virgin, but that she was born without the stain of Original Sin.
> 
> See here.
> 
> Obviously, I don't hold to such a doctrine, I'm just sayin'.




Yes, you are correct that the false doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary teaches that from the moment of her conception she was preserved immune from all stain of original sin. It seems to me that it would be logical to state that if she is free from original sin she had to be born without a human father just like Jesus. If you think about it from their postion it would make sense. It is a rather strange doctrine but it does logically have to lead to the doctrine of Mary as co-redeemer.


----------



## Stephen (Apr 9, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Interesting discussion; I definitely *do not* hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary.




I am not sure Calvin did either.


----------



## Stephen (Apr 9, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> To those who hold to her perpetual virginity, she didn't have any other children. Those referred to as the brothers of Jesus were either step-brothers (this is where the tradition of showing Joseph as much older than her arises...the assumption he already had been married and had children) or cousins.
> 
> Apparently in Greek the word often used for brothers is also frequently used for cousins, too. Russian is largely based on Greek, and I was startled to be told at some point during the adoption process that Dmitry had a sister!
> 
> ...



You are right, but they have a week argument. I clearly believe that Mary had other children naturally.


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 9, 2008)

Are you sure about that? I was an adult convert and was an active, devout RC for a dozen years and I don't recall anything about Mary's conception being miraculous except for her being without original sin. 

I truly think you're mistaken. Mind, I can see where the error arises...it seems to logically follow, doesn't it?...but years of being in the RC makes me confidant that, as much as it goofs, it hasn't goofed by teaching _that_.


----------



## Stephen (Apr 9, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> > Wilhelmus a'Brakel believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. I will attempt to find the reference, but it is in volume 1 of _A Christian's Reasonable Service_.
> ...



I would strongly disagree with Brakel as well, but I would like to look at this further and see why. Remember these godly men did not have all of their doctrine perfect. The church is to be ever reforming itself to the word of God.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 9, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> Are you sure about that? I was an adult convert and was an active, devout RC for a dozen years and I don't recall anything about Mary's conception being miraculous except for her being without original sin.
> 
> I truly think you're mistaken. Mind, I can see where the error arises...it seems to logically follow, doesn't it?...but years of being in the RC makes me confidant that, as much as it goofs, it hasn't goofed by teaching _that_.



Here is a citation that agrees with Gryphonette's version of the story . . .



> According to Ephiphanius it was maintained even in the fourth century by some enthusiasts that St. Anne conceived without the action of man. This error was revived in the West in the fifteenth century. (Anna concepit per osculum Joachimi.) In 1677 the Holy See condemned the error of Imperiali who taught that St. Anne in the conception and birth of Mary remained virgin (Benedict XIV, De Festis, II, 9). In the Orient the cult of St. Anne can be traced to the fourth century. Justinian I (d. 565) had a church dedicated to her. The canon of the Greek Office of St. Anne was composed by St. Theophanes (d. 817), but older parts of the Office are ascribed to Anatolius of Byzantium (d. 458). *Catholic Encyclopedia*


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 9, 2008)

Well, yes, but it's _saying_ that it's an error. I didn't say _no_ one had ever made such a claim; I said it's not taught by the RCC.

And it's not. 

Look, it's no skin off my nose. Y'all want to insist it's what the RCC teaches, go right ahead, but if you say it within the hearing of any half-way knowledgeable Catholics, they'll smirk, roll their eyes, and think "These ignorant Protestants, criticizing what they don't understand! They don't know diddly-squat about the Church."


----------



## MW (Apr 9, 2008)

First, the biblical issue --

1. "Until" does not indicate a cessation point either in English or Greek.

2. The "firstborn" was a legal title irrespective of whether other children followed.

3. "Brethren" are not necessarily blood brothers. Joseph was not the blood "father" of Jesus; so already it is acknowledged that the Scriptures use these terms with elasticity.

4. 1 Cor. 7 is applicable to ordinary relationships; that this was not an ordinary relationship is clear from the fact that Matt. 1:25 at least indicates that they did not have a sexual relationship prior to the birth of Christ.

Secondly, the historical issue -- teachers in the reformed tradition have taught the perpetual virginity of Mary as best accounting for the biblical and theological facts, but without making it a dogma. It is impossible to deny the perpetual virginity on the basis of biblical teaching without twisting Scripture testimony. Theologically, taking into account the Jewish ritualist context from which Joseph and Mary sprang, it makes sense that the body which was consecrated by the Almighty presence of God for the holiest of purposes would be honoured with perpetual sanctification.


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 9, 2008)

Y'know, I'll grant you that I've assumed Mary and Joseph didn't, um, consummate their marriage until after the birth of Jesus. 

But how does perpetual virginity equate to perpetual sanctification?

Unless one is going to say that it's more sanctifying to remain celibate. If that's a given, then I suppose the argument could be made, but I'm not conceding that to _be_ a given.


----------



## Galatians220 (Apr 9, 2008)

Stephen said:


> theologae said:
> 
> 
> > The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not mean that Mary was born of a virgin, but that she was born without the stain of Original Sin.
> ...


 
Um, I attended Catholic schools for over 18 years, through grade and high school in a convent school (semi-cloistered order of nuns), a minor in theology under Jesuits and graduate school, and I never heard, until today, that some have taught that Joachim did not "participate" in the conception of Mary. This must have been an Eastern or orthodox teaching, for it certainly wasn't in the western European or American corpus of beliefs and/or doctrine about her.

Thanks for the citation, Mr. McFadden... Who'd have thunk a cradle ex-Catholic would have had to find her way to the PB to learn something about Catholicism *so far *out of the mainstream?!   (Cue up the "Twilight Zone" theme...  )

Margaret 

P. S. I still don't think she was a perpetual virgin!


----------



## Galatians220 (Apr 9, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> 4. 1 Cor. 7 is applicable to ordinary relationships; that this was not an ordinary relationship is clear from the fact that Matt. 1:25 at least indicates that they did not have a sexual relationship prior to the birth of Christ.


 
Please forgive me, Rev. Winzer, for I'm still learning, but could it have been that Mary and Joseph did not have a sexual relationship prior to the birth of Christ because they were in their betrothal period at that time and it would have been immoral? Why would Joseph have been "minded to put her away privily" (Matthew 1:19, KJV) when she was obviously pregnant, had it been ordinarily expected at this time that if Mary was pregnant, the baby was his and everything was fine?

Margaret


----------



## MW (Apr 9, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> Y'know, I'll grant you that I've assumed Mary and Joseph didn't, um, consummate their marriage until after the birth of Jesus.
> 
> But how does perpetual virginity equate to perpetual sanctification?
> 
> Unless one is going to say that it's more sanctifying to remain celibate. If that's a given, then I suppose the argument could be made, but I'm not conceding that to _be_ a given.



For a moment we must stop thinking like post-monastic Protestants and start thinking like ritually cleansed Jews. Abstinence was important in various contexts within Jewish ritual. In this instance virginity was necessary as a precondition of the sanctified womb. Her body was set apart for this holiest of purposes. Joseph was told to take her to be his wife because that which was conceived in her was OF THE HOLY GHOST. That was at least the reason why they abstained prior to the birth of Christ; and there is no reason why it might not have been the motive for perpetual abstinence.


----------



## MW (Apr 9, 2008)

Galatians220 said:


> Please forgive me, Rev. Winzer, for I'm still learning, but could it have been that Mary and Joseph did not have a sexual relationship prior to the birth of Christ because they were in their betrothal period at that time and it would have been immoral? Why would Joseph have been "minded to put her away privily" (Matthew 1:19, KJV) when she was obviously pregnant, had it been ordinarily expected at this time that if Mary was pregnant, the baby was his and everything was fine?



They were espoused. He was minded to put her away. The angel instructed him to take her to be his wife. Matt. 1:24 says that he did as he was bidden to do and took her to be his wife. Verse 25 says that in this state they abstained from ordinary sexual relationships. The reason why Joseph was encouraged to take Mary was more than likely in order to protect her under the laws of Jewish society, so that she would not be branded sexually impure. This purpose would have been defeated if they had have waited until after Jesus was born.


----------



## PastorTim (Apr 9, 2008)

to do so is an assumption of scriptural intent rather than reliance on scripture. Let us stick with sola scriptura.

Would James then be conceived of the Holy spirit or can we rationalize that away.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 9, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> Well, yes, but it's _saying_ that it's an error. I didn't say _no_ one had ever made such a claim; I said it's not taught by the RCC.
> 
> And it's not.
> 
> Look, it's no skin off my nose. Y'all want to insist it's what the RCC teaches, go right ahead, but if you say it within the hearing of any half-way knowledgeable Catholics, they'll smirk, roll their eyes, and think "These ignorant Protestants, criticizing what they don't understand! They don't know diddly-squat about the Church."



Woa, Dear Lady, I was AGREEING with you. The citation proved that what you said was true. That was my point. Sorry for the lack of clarity.


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 9, 2008)

[blushing furiously] Oops.

I hate when I do that.

Make a complete fool of myself, that is.

Unfortunately, I have few talents but that's one of 'em. 

Sorry!


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 9, 2008)

*Now THAT is an excellent possibility I didn't consider.*



> Um, I attended Catholic schools for over 18 years, through grade and high school in a convent school (semi-cloistered order of nuns), a minor in theology under Jesuits and graduate school, and I never heard, until today, that some have taught that Joachim did not "participate" in the conception of Mary. This must have been an Eastern or orthodox teaching, for it certainly wasn't in the western European or American corpus of beliefs and/or doctrine about her.
> 
> Margaret



It might very easily be an EOC teaching, thinking about it.

Good suggestion.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 9, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> [blushing furiously] Oops.
> 
> I hate when I do that.
> 
> ...





You have LOTS of talents which we appreciate here daily.


----------



## Galatians220 (Apr 9, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Galatians220 said:
> 
> 
> > Please forgive me, Rev. Winzer, for I'm still learning, but could it have been that Mary and Joseph did not have a sexual relationship prior to the birth of Christ because they were in their betrothal period at that time and it would have been immoral? Why would Joseph have been "minded to put her away privily" (Matthew 1:19, KJV) when she was obviously pregnant, had it been ordinarily expected at this time that if Mary was pregnant, the baby was his and everything was fine?
> ...


 
Still don't get it... _Maybe I'm slow..._  Of course, Mary and Joseph did not have a sexual relationship prior to Christ's birth: for a time, they were only betrothed, and then, at some point before they went to Bethlehem, they were married according to Jewish custom. After all, they traveled to Bethlehem together, apparently without chaperones... But they still didn't have a sexual relationship until after Christ's birth; Scripture tells us that. However, Mary went through traditional, ritual purification after His birth (Luke 2:22) and so, could her body have remained sanctified and "off limits" to Joseph for their entire marriage? I'm not trying to be annoying or belabor the point; I just think that there was a normal marriage there after Christ's birth. If marriage is a picture of the covenant between Christ and the Church, and sex in marriage is a holy unity of husband and wife which God Himself encourages, then...??????

Margaret


----------



## HaigLaw (Apr 9, 2008)

*RRR and question the relevance of this issue?*



Christusregnat said:


> I would argue that the hermeneutical notions that lead one to the perpetual virginity of Mary are not RRR, though someone who holds to such a notion may very well be more RRR than me (that was intended to rhyme).



I'll take that one step further. Can I be RRR and wonder why we're seriously discussing this issue? 

I suppose I'm better off learning that Calvin and other RRR's believed this, but that's all the good I can think of.


----------



## MW (Apr 9, 2008)

Galatians220 said:


> Still don't get it... _Maybe I'm slow..._  Of course, Mary and Joseph did not have a sexual relationship prior to Christ's birth: for a time, they were only betrothed, and then, at some point before they went to Bethlehem, they were married according to Jewish custom. After all, they traveled to Bethlehem together, apparently without chaperones... But they still didn't have a sexual relationship until after Christ's birth; Scripture tells us that. However, Mary went through traditional, ritual purification after His birth (Luke 2:22) and so, could her body have remained sanctified and "off limits" to Joseph for their entire marriage? I'm not trying to be annoying or belabor the point; I just think that there was a normal marriage there after Christ's birth. If marriage is a picture of the covenant between Christ and the Church, and sex in marriage is a holy unity of husband and wife which God Himself encourages, then...??????



We still have the fact that they were married and did not engage in these relations; so the consequence indicated by "then" is ruled out by the actual state of affairs as narrated in the Gospel.


----------



## DTK (Apr 9, 2008)

These are some of my notes on the view of the early church father, Basil the Great (or Basil of Caesarea), one of the Cappadocian fathers, concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary...

The Roman Catholic scholar Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M. noted that Basil the Great once remarked that the *PV of Mary* should not be regarded as dogma. Carol wrote, "The author [Basil] also focuses his attention on the possibility of conjugal relations between Mary and St. Joseph after the birth of Christ; he rejects this possibility, but not by appealing to dogmatic belief; he has no consciousness of any obligation from this angle, and even generously admits that there is no such obligation; faith, he candidly admits, demands only that we believe in the permanence of Mary's virginity up to (and including) the incarnation; after the virginal conception there is no obligation imposed by faith." Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., _Mariology_ (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), Vol. 2, pp. 276-277. The reference for Basil is his _Homilia in sanctam Christi generationem_, PG 31:1457-1476. Though some have attempted to cast this as a "spurious" work attributed to Basil, Carol argues that the attempt has no sound basis, and in favor of its authenticity.

The translation Carol gives of *Basil* comments from his homily on the nativity of Christ is found in one of his footnotes and reads as follows...


> * Basil of Caesarea (329-379): "[The opinion that Mary bore several children after Christ]...does not run counter to faith; for, virginity was imposed on Mary as a necessity, only up to the time that she served as an instrument for the Incarnation, while, on the other hand, her subsequent virginity had no great importance with regard to the mystery of the Incarnation."* _Homilia in sanctam Christi generationem_, PG 31:1468.(See. fn 174 of Carol, Vol. 2, p. 277).



Juniper B. Carol: "For, it is evident from this discourse that in a region of the Greek world, apparently Asia Minor, an important Churchman, without any doubt the Archbishop of Caesarea, St. Basil, did not hold the perpetual virginity of Mary *as a dogmatic truth*, nor did his metropolitan Churches." Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), Vol. 2, p. 277.

In short, though Basil of Caesarea believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, he did not regard it as a "dogma," i.e., a doctrine of faith necessary for salvation.

DTK


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 9, 2008)

*Actually, there are some meaty questions inherent in this question.*



HaigLaw said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > I would argue that the hermeneutical notions that lead one to the perpetual virginity of Mary are not RRR, though someone who holds to such a notion may very well be more RRR than me (that was intended to rhyme).
> ...


How much weight do we put on beliefs held by some of the Early Church Theologians and Reformers that are not strongly supported by Scripture, for one.

How sex is regarded is also a factor. I've argued with both RC's and EOC's about it and it's rather appalling how when push comes to shove, they don't really believe sex is quite, well, _nice._ The bare _suggestion_ that Mary might have done the, er, Marital Mambo with Joseph causes them to react as if that's insulting her.

Even if one says there's reason, due to Captial-T-Tradition to think Mary and Joseph did remain celibate, I can't imagine why the possibility they didn't would be an _insult_.

It's been interesting over the years seeing the various  that open up when this subject arises.


----------



## Archlute (Apr 9, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Gryphonette said:
> 
> 
> > Y'know, I'll grant you that I've assumed Mary and Joseph didn't, um, consummate their marriage until after the birth of Jesus.
> ...



That makes no sense. She was already betrothed to Joseph, and so you cannot say that he was told to take her as a wife _because_ of all this. I have no idea how that point contributes to the argument. 

Furthermore, it is a tremendous assumption that sanctification of her womb for Christ's birth could have led to perpetual abstinence, as if it was temple of holiness everafter. That line of reasoning would permit her womb to be paraded around like the host at a Roman Catholic Eucharist, and is the same type of thinking that contributed to the status of perpetual "holiness" of the relics which were the supposed body parts of the saints.


----------



## Archlute (Apr 9, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Galatians220 said:
> 
> 
> > Please forgive me, Rev. Winzer, for I'm still learning, but could it have been that Mary and Joseph did not have a sexual relationship prior to the birth of Christ because they were in their betrothal period at that time and it would have been immoral? Why would Joseph have been "minded to put her away privily" (Matthew 1:19, KJV) when she was obviously pregnant, had it been ordinarily expected at this time that if Mary was pregnant, the baby was his and everything was fine?
> ...



Again, I find this a pretty weak line of reasoning, and nothing more than speculation. For what it's worth, I've heard the same argumentation used by Dispensationalists and baptists to try and overthrow the weight of the argument in 1 Cor. 7:14 as a principle undergirding paedobaptism. They will argue that Paul commands it in order not to offend the Jews who would have seen the children as being otherwise illegitimate. Of course that is not what the passage is getting at, and I am quite uncertain that your interpretation is what the passage here is getting at either.


----------



## MW (Apr 9, 2008)

Archlute said:


> That makes no sense. She was already betrothed to Joseph, and so you cannot say that he was told to take her as a wife _because_ of all this. I have no idea how that point contributes to the argument.
> 
> Furthermore, it is a tremendous assumption that sanctification of her womb for Christ's birth could have led to perpetual abstinence, as if it was temple of holiness everafter. That line of reasoning would permit her womb to be paraded around like the host at a Roman Catholic Eucharist, and is the same type of thinking that contributed to the status of perpetual "holiness" of the relics which were the supposed body parts of the saints.



Again, we are living in the age of fulfilment, where sanctification does not consist in types and ceremonies. It is easy or us to dissociate the ritual from sanctity, but it was ingrained in the Jewish way of thinking. One only needs to think of Anna serving as a devotee at the temple to see that their world was far removed from ours. We need to be careful not to read either Romanist or Protestant preconceptions into the passage.


----------



## Archlute (Apr 9, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> > That makes no sense. She was already betrothed to Joseph, and so you cannot say that he was told to take her as a wife _because_ of all this. I have no idea how that point contributes to the argument.
> ...



Yeah, I think I've heard FV and NPP proponents say something like this as well 

(of course, not placing you in that camp on those issues)


----------



## MW (Apr 9, 2008)

Archlute said:


> Again, I find this a pretty weak line of reasoning, and nothing more than speculation. For what it's worth, I've heard the same argumentation used by Dispensationalists and baptists to try and overthrow the weight of the argument in 1 Cor. 7:14 as a principle undergirding paedobaptism. They will argue that Paul commands it in order not to offend the Jews who would have seen the children as being otherwise illegitimate. Of course that is not what the passage is getting at, and I am quite uncertain that your interpretation is what the passage here is getting at either.



You are imposing a Christian marital instruction back into a Jewish married state. The anachronism renders it illegitimate.


----------



## MW (Apr 9, 2008)

Archlute said:


> Yeah, I think I've heard FV and NPP proponents say something like this as well
> 
> (of course, not placing you in that camp on those issues)



Not amused!


----------



## Archlute (Apr 9, 2008)

Rather, I think that you assume to much in your speculations regarding "the Jewish mind", how you think that it functioned, and how you assume these passages were intended to be read in light of those assumptions. 

More significantly, even where there could be some truth to your speculation, is that the Scriptures themselves place absolutely _zero_ importance or emphasis upon this point. I think that this in-and-of itself is enough to keep one from trying to defend an assumption, if not to deny the doctrine altogether.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Apr 9, 2008)

dannyhyde said:


> Thomas2007 said:
> 
> 
> > The Roman Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception . . .
> ...



Hi,

This is all neccesarily part and parcel of it. For example, the other gentlemen pointed out that the official dogma after 1860 did not require Mary to be born of a virgin - but federal theology would logically require that. The soteriological implications become quite obvious - if Mary wasn't a sinner, yet was conceived of an earthly man, then the whole definition of "original sin" is quite different. Hence, the basis in which Mary becomes a co-mediator is directly related both forwards and backwards in the logical contemplation of her Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity. Trying to separate them is like trying to separate Treasuries of Merit from Purgatory.


----------



## MW (Apr 10, 2008)

Archlute said:


> Rather, I think that you assume to much in your speculations regarding "the Jewish mind", how you think that it functioned, and how you assume these passages were intended to be read in light of those assumptions.
> 
> More significantly, even where there could be some truth to your speculation, is that the Scriptures themselves place absolutely _zero_ importance or emphasis upon this point. I think that this in-and-of itself is enough to keep one from trying to defend an assumption, if not to deny the doctrine altogether.



In the first paragraph you make no attempt to take in the historical context of the narrative; and in the second you proceed on the false assumption that I am teaching a "doctrine," when it has already been clarified this is not a dogma.


----------



## BJClark (Apr 10, 2008)

> For a moment we must stop thinking like post-monastic Protestants and start thinking like ritually cleansed Jews. Abstinence was important in various contexts within Jewish ritual. In this instance virginity was necessary as a precondition of the sanctified womb. Her body was set apart for this holiest of purposes. Joseph was told to take her to be his wife because that which was conceived in her was OF THE HOLY GHOST. That was at least the reason why they abstained prior to the birth of Christ; and there is no reason why it might not have been the motive for perpetual abstinence.



Joesph must have been a very strong man, I don't know many who could live in a sex-less marriage and not argue with their spouse about it or get very very frustrated in such a situation...even Christian and Jewish men..

I have no doubt that they abstained before Christ was born, but I do doubt she remained a virgin throughout their marriage, given God's command to be fruitful and multiply...that would certainly appear that both of them would be going against God's command.

It would seem to me that she would be like any other Jewish women of the time, desiring to bare as many children as possible for her husband.


----------



## MW (Apr 10, 2008)

BJClark said:


> I don't know many who could live in a sex-less marriage....



Again, the passage is being seen through modern eyes. Let's see it within the context of a culture where this action would be considered noble: "And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing," 2 Sam. 11:11. We must enter their world to properly understand their actions.


----------



## Poimen (Apr 10, 2008)

The extra-ordinary situation concerning the birth of the Son of God does not change the fact that absolute abstaining from sex is out of the ordinary and not recommended by scripture. Even in the (extra) ordinary situation before the fall, abstaining would have been against the norm and even disobedient (Genesis 1:28).

Would we really want to imply that Joseph and Mary would disobey the creation mandate?


----------



## SolaGratia (Apr 10, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> BJClark said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know many who could live in a sex-less marriage....
> ...



In the content of their culture, was not Uriah a Hittite and Joseph an Israelite? 

Therefore, Joseph action not to be with his wife, if that was the case, could have not been seen as noble since he was a Jew and not a reformed (moral) gentile. 

I think the problem is that we cannot enter their world and understand what really happen after the birth of our Lord. 

How does this contribute to our salvation, faith, practice, etc.? Should we imitate Mary and Uriah and Joseph, a la Popery and not Christ.


----------



## MW (Apr 10, 2008)

Uriah the Hittite's action was noble within the Jewish culture. If another more Jewish example is desired, we may consider the priest's answer to David about eating the hallowed bread: "if the young men have kept themselves at least from women," 1 Sam. 21:4.


----------



## SolaGratia (Apr 10, 2008)

"have kept themselves" because of ceremonial (ritual) purposes not because it was a noble thing.

A noble thing was for King David to honor Uriah the Hittite for being faithful to him and not to have had him murdered and to take away his wife.


----------



## MW (Apr 10, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> "have kept themselves" because of ceremonial (ritual) purposes not because it was a noble thing.
> 
> A noble thing was for King David to honor Uriah the Hittite for being faithful to him and not to have had him murdered and to take away his wife.



Why would the reward have been a noble thing if the loyalty wasn't such as deserved it? At any rate, the fact is that within the Jewish world sexual abstinence had its place for a variety of reasons. It is that world we must enter in order to correctly understand the actions of Joseph, and not impose the values of our own worldview on the biblical narrative.


----------



## SolaGratia (Apr 10, 2008)

I will make my point that the actions of Joseph after our Lord was born, we do not know, neither did the early church fathers, the reformers and us.


----------



## MW (Apr 10, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> I will make my point that the actions of Joseph after our Lord was born, we do not know, neither did the early church fathers, the reformers and us.



Fair enough. As noted earlier, it is not dogma, only tradition.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 10, 2008)

You can still be considered Reformed if you believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, but you would also be considered mighty odd.

The text in Matthew is straightforward:

Mary, a virgin betrothed to Joseph, became pregnant by the Holy Spirit.
She remained a virgin until she gave birth to Jesus. After his birth, Joseph and Mary engaged in a normal marital sexual relationship, resulting in several other children, as mentioned briefly in the gospels. It was a perfectly normal marriage after the birth of our Lord.

There isn't a shred of biblical evidence that Mary remained a virgin for the rest of her life. Why? What would be the point? After our Lord's birth, Mary's special purpose was fulfilled, and she lived a normal life, marriage-wise, afterwards.


----------



## MW (Apr 10, 2008)

bookslover said:


> The text in Matthew is straightforward:



Astonishing!


----------



## bookslover (Apr 10, 2008)

If one decides to hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary in spite of the complete lack of biblical evidence for such a doctrine, wouldn't one be in violation of _sola Scriptura_?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 10, 2008)

Why would someone want to defend something so strongly as though it was truth and then say but it is not dogma. Uriah is a bad comparison and so is David and the shew bread. Uriah gave his reason.... My men are not able so why should I be. And David's men needed to be ceremonially clean I believe. 

But to go one step towards the PV way a man or woman was considered unclean in the Old Testament if they had marital relations. They had to clean the bedding and themselves if I am not mistaken and they were unclean until morning. I can't find the reference right now so if anyone can reference it I would appreciate it.


----------



## MW (Apr 10, 2008)

bookslover said:


> If one decides to hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary in spite of the complete lack of biblical evidence for such a doctrine, wouldn't one be in violation of _sola Scriptura_?



Is it a violation of sola scriptura to believe John wrote John's gospel or Jannes and Jambres were the names of the people who withstood Moses? Of course not.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 10, 2008)

This is close to what I remembered.



> (Lev 15:16) And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.
> 
> (Lev 15:17) And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even.
> 
> (Lev 15:18) The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 10, 2008)

Why would someone want to defend something so strongly as though it was truth and then say but it is not dogma? 

Now back to this question. And it is more for clarification than anything else. Is it because dogma is salvific and necessary for salvation? And could it also be that it is possibly not dogma because it may not be true?

Just wondering.


----------



## MW (Apr 10, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Why would someone want to defend something so strongly as though it was truth and then say but it is not dogma. Uriah is a bad comparison and so is David and the shew bread. Uriah gave his reason.... My men are not able so why should I be. And David's men needed to be ceremonially clean I believe.
> 
> But to go one step towards the PV way a man or woman was considered unclean in the Old Testament if they had marital relations. They had to clean the bedding and themselves if I am not mistaken and they were unclean until morning. I can't find the reference right now so if anyone can reference it I would appreciate it.



I'm afraid you have misunderstood the reason for citing those references. They were merely to show the cultural milieu in which the Jews thought, and how it differed from our own. Then, on that basis, that we shouldn't be imposing our Christian ideals of marriage on the historical narrative.

To be clear, I'm not defending the perpetual virginity strongly, but I am defending the Scriptures against misinterpretation by those who are seeking to make Scripture repudiate the idea. It is against the misinterpretation of Scripture that I make a strong defence.

The text you might be referring to is Lev. 15.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 10, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Why would someone want to defend something so strongly as though it was truth and then say but it is not dogma. Uriah is a bad comparison and so is David and the shew bread. Uriah gave his reason.... My men are not able so why should I be. And David's men needed to be ceremonially clean I believe.
> ...



Thanks Rev. Winzer. I posted the Lev. 15 passage on the last post on page 2 of this thread. Here it is again. 




> (Lev 15:16) And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.
> 
> (Lev 15:17) And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even.
> 
> (Lev 15:18) The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.


----------



## SolaGratia (Apr 10, 2008)

In his 1523 treatise, _That Jesus Christ was born a Jew_, Luther said that "Scripture does not quibble or speak about the virginity of Mary after the birth of Christ, a matter about which the hypocrites are greatly concerned, as if it were something of the utmost importance on which our whole salvation depended. Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity... But the Scripture stops with this, that she was a virgin before and at the birth of Christ; for up to this point God had need of her virginity in order to give us the promised blessed seed without sin." 

Luther’s Works, American Edition, Walther I. Brandt, ed., Philadelphia, Augsburg Fortress; St. Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 1962, ISBN 0-8006-0345-1 pp. 205-206; cf. James Swam, Luther's Theology of Mary.


----------



## SolaGratia (Apr 10, 2008)

John Wesley wrote: "I believe that He was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin." Letter to a Roman Catholic, July 18, 1749


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 10, 2008)

Just for clarification, I don't hold to PV of Mary either.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 10, 2008)

Gryphonette said:


> Well, yes, but it's _saying_ that it's an error. I didn't say _no_ one had ever made such a claim; I said it's not taught by the RCC.
> 
> And it's not.
> 
> Look, it's no skin off my nose. Y'all want to insist it's what the RCC teaches, go right ahead, but if you say it within the hearing of any half-way knowledgeable Catholics, they'll smirk, roll their eyes, and think "These ignorant Protestants, criticizing what they don't understand! They don't know diddly-squat about the Church."



Indeed it is important that we do not set up straw-men even of popery; we would not like it if they did that to us.


----------



## HaigLaw (Apr 10, 2008)

*Thanks for clarification!*



armourbearer said:


> To be clear, I'm not defending the perpetual virginity strongly, but I am defending the Scriptures against misinterpretation by those who are seeking to make Scripture repudiate the idea. It is against the misinterpretation of Scripture that I make a strong defence.



I appreciate the difference, Rev. Winzer! Thanks.


----------



## Galatians220 (Apr 10, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> BJClark said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know many who could live in a sex-less marriage....
> ...


 
Doesn't the David/Bathsheba/Uriah story stand as one of those timeless lessons that had and continue to have implications and application even to this day?

God showed the tenor of man that Uriah was: a faithful, loyal subject of his king, David. He would forego the pleasures of marriage if necessary in the service of his king. (We, likewise, are to put our King ahead of even our spouses when called to do so.) David, on the other hand, had done something heinous and was trying to cover it up... Uriah was made a type of sacrifice. Are we not to live our lives as daily sacrifices for our King? Are we not to be living sacrifices? Christ was descended from the line of this sinful king, but He was and is a perfect King. Yet David's heart was called "perfect with the Lord his God." (1 Kings 11:4.) In the face of true repentance, God forgives...

In Uriah, God showed us what true, sacrificial behavior is. In David, He showed us what heinous sin is, and that it can be forgiven, wiped away, remembered no more. After this account, God also showed the King of Kings descending from heaven through the line of (sinful) David and humbling Himself beyond anything that earthly imaginations could ever conjure (Philippians 2:5-8), so that He could fulfill the Father's plan to seek and to save those who were lost. God further showed His love and sovereignty in "working all things for the good of those who love Him," and that in that sovereignty, what was meant for evil was turned to good: the good of all who are His.

I thank the Lord for the account of the story of David and Uriah, and for the priceless lessons that we can learn from it that have nothing to do with marriage _per se._ It also shows us that the price of sin must and will be paid (by death: that of the child of David and Bathsheba; for us, by the death of the Lord Jesus Christ) - but that God *will* have His purposes fulfilled. It teaches us the value of ultimate fidelity to worthy objects, the gravity and horror of sin - but most of all, about God's grace, dispensed to the most undeserving. And that includes us.

All praises to our King of Kings and Lord of Lords!

Margaret


----------



## BJClark (Apr 10, 2008)

armourbearer;



> Again, the passage is being seen through modern eyes. Let's see it within the context of a culture where this action would be considered noble: "And Uriah said unto David, The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing," 2 Sam. 11:11. We must enter their world to properly understand their actions.




But that was a different situation, they were at war, and he was thinking of the other soldiers, it was not a new marriage, where men were not even sent to war within the first year of their marriage, so even this is not even within the same context, and he certainly wasn't giving up sex with his wife for the life of their marriage (at least he didn't realize he would be killed) He was only abstaining during a time of war, which again is completely different than abstaining for a life time marriage...


----------



## DTK (Apr 10, 2008)

*Calvin's view*

As I've read the various passages in Calvin concerning his personal views on Mary's virginity following the birth of Christ, I'm not convinced (or satisfied) in my mind that he held to a belief in her continued virginity. Two of the following passages stand out, in my mind, though there are others...



> 1) *Calvin says of the phrase "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 (Helvidius) 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. 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 (Matthew) does not inform us.* Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation." (Calvin commenting on Matthew 1:25 in his _Commentary On A Harmony Of The Evangelists_, Vol. I, p. 107).
> 
> 2) *Calvin says while commenting on Luke 1:34:* "The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she (Mary) had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. *She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews*...We must reply, however, to another objection, that the virgin refers to the future, and so declares that she will have no intercourse with a man. The probable and simple explanation is, that the greatness or rather majesty of the subject made so powerful an impression on the virgin, that all her senses were bound and locked up in astonishment. When she is informed that the Son of God will be born, she imagines something unusual, and for that reason leaves conjugal intercourse out of view. Hence she breaks out in amazement, 'How shall this be?' And so God graciously forgives her, and replies kindly and gently by the angel, because, in a devout and serious manner, and with admiration of a divine work, she had inquired 'how that would be,' which, she was convinced, went beyond the common and ordinary course of nature." (Calvin commenting on Luke 1:34 in his _Commentary On A Harmony Of The Evangelists_, Vol. I, pp.41-42).



DTK


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Apr 10, 2008)

Regarding this matter I wonder why it is even an issue at all? The Scriptures are clear that God's anointed was to be born and was born of a virgin. We all agree and must all agree up to here. This fact has significant impact on Orthodox Christianity and must be believed.

Now after Christ was born I agree with the quote from Luther (Thank you SolaGratia), "Scripture does not quibble or speak about the virginity of Mary after the birth of Christ, a matter about which the hypocrites are greatly concerned, as if it were something of the utmost importance on which our whole salvation depended." 

I am not so sure how or why Luther concludes that we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity. Why _would _the Scripture even state such if the virgin birth prophecy was already fulfilled? If the scripture never mentioned that the Apostle Peter had children or that he knew his wife, are we to "be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity?" Of course it is implied simply from the fact that a marriage took place. In Mary's case she conceived before marriage took place and was then married and commanded (i.e.Joseph was commanded) to remain a virgin until the virgin birth of Christ. But a marriage still took place so why can we not imply from this marriage the same as we would imply from say the Apostle Peter's marriage?


So why the controversy? What significance would her perpetual virginity have on orthodox Christianity? When if she remained a virgin? Ok now what? When if she did not? Ok now what? The Papists have a vested interest in the one view over the other, but what difference would it make with the Protestants? Is a doctrine at stake? 

The controversy seems to only arise if we presuppose a doctrine before reading the text. My question is what doctrine could the Protestants be concerned with when approaching Mary's marital affairs after the fulfillment of the virgin birth? If she was allowed to know Joseph after the fulfillment then why would the Scriptures even be implicit on such a fact? If she was not allowed, then why not and how does that impact the incarnation and the gospel? What is at stake?


----------



## Stephen (Apr 10, 2008)

Galatians220 said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> > theologae said:
> ...




I did correct my earlier comment. I remember as a Roman Catholic being taught that Anna, the mother of Mary was a Virgin, but I went back and consulted a number of my RC resources and could not find a clear teaching on this. I did not mean to create any confusion over this issue  Part of my reason for stating my earlier comment was that when Rome teaches that Mary's Immaculate Conception means that she enjoys the fullness of holiness and that she is incorrupt, guiltless, untouched by sin, and without fault it would mean that she was conceived without human seed. Therefore her mother would have to be a virgin when Mary was conceived. I also disagree in the dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity. When you look at the teaching of the Roman church on Mary's perpetual virginity is always linked to this doctrine of her Immaculate Conception. I find it to be repugnant.


----------



## Stephen (Apr 10, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Why would someone want to defend something so strongly as though it was truth and then say but it is not dogma?
> 
> Now back to this question. And it is more for clarification than anything else. Is it because dogma is salvific and necessary for salvation? And could it also be that it is possibly not dogma because it may not be true?
> 
> Just wondering.




When Rome uses the term dogma it is always regarded as authoritative and therefore necessary. The dogma of the RC is binding. I am not sure what you mean by saying saying in your quote "it is not dogma." Perhaps I missed something in the discussion.


----------



## Stephen (Apr 10, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> First, the biblical issue --
> 
> 1. "Until" does not indicate a cessation point either in English or Greek.
> 
> ...



*Other than the earlier reference to Brakel, which does not go into any detail, what other references are there for your assertion? I still maintain that the perpetual virginity dogma is based on Rome's false assumption, not on twisting Scripture. Yes, she had to be declared ritually clean, but that would not be necessary for other children who were naturally born. Christ was born of a virgin, not His other sibblings.*


----------



## py3ak (Apr 10, 2008)

Has any discussion of this matter superseded Lightfoot's Dissertation?


----------



## Gryphonette (Apr 10, 2008)

I remember wondering the same thing, that the rationale for Mary's presumably sinless conception would logically have to be pushed back to her parents, then her grandparents, and so on, ad infinitum.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 10, 2008)

It seems apparent to me that the issue is not one that needs to exercise us tremendously. I think what armourbearer is saying is perhaps a necessary corrective to the knee-jerk Protestant view that takes the opposite extreme from the standard RC view as the _necessary conclusion_ of the matter. As he has demonstrated (and as you might see from a perusal of Lightfoot's discussion) that is not the case. It does us no good to argue _contra_ the RC view by adopting a position that is susceptible to criticism *on our own grounds*. Matthew urges caution and consistency, and I think that is most wise.

The better approach in my opinion is to simply dismiss the RC dogmatic assertion as so much of a sand castle. The truly repellent dogmas are ones that have arisen out of the insubstantial cloud of suppositions built upon the vagaries of human opinions. In other words,, you may grant Mary's absolute virginity for the sake of argument, and it will not substantiate RC claims. You do not need a Mary who performed conjugal duties after Jesus' birth to brush aside RC claims. It could conceivably be greater labor, but I really don't see how.

For what it's worth, I take it that Mary did not continue in a virginal state, so Rev. Winzer and I would likely be of different opinions. But I am in agreement with him as to the importance of not letting Protestants raise their view any higher than Scripture allows, just as I am of not letting the RC get away with it.


----------



## KMK (Apr 10, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> First, the biblical issue --
> 
> 1. "Until" does not indicate a cessation point either in English or Greek.



If this is true then the hyperpreterist is correct in partaking of the Lord's Supper eventhough Jesus and Paul say by doing so "ye do shew the Lord's death *till* he come."

How the word 'until' or 'till' does not at least _imlply_ a cessation point is hard for me to wrap my feeble mind around.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Apr 10, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> First, the biblical issue --
> 
> 1. "Until" does not indicate a cessation point either in English or Greek.



I am having difficulty understanding how to read "Until" without it indicating a cessation point. Can it be read as up to the point but not necessarily stopping at that point? What other examples do we have that can clarify this meaning?

From Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828:



> UNTIL
> 
> UNTIL', prep. un and till. See Till.
> 
> ...


----------



## Archlute (Apr 10, 2008)

ChristopherPaul said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > First, the biblical issue --
> ...



And to add to that, from the perspective of the standard in Greek lexicography:

"To denote the end of a period of time, _till, until_" - which is the same as saying that it was the point of cessation.

This terminal use of "heos" (how does one use Greek fonts on the PB?) for Matt. 1:25 is listed on p.423, subheading 1.b.beta.aleph, in BDAG.


----------



## MW (Apr 10, 2008)

The Expositor's Greek Testament (in loc.) states "hews does not settle the question," and the author was one who denied the perpetual virginity. Hendriksen likewise denied it, but commented (in loc.), "This conclusion cannot be based merely upon the negative plus 'until.'"


----------



## MW (Apr 10, 2008)

Stephen said:


> *Other than the earlier reference to Brakel, which does not go into any detail, what other references are there for your assertion?*



The whole reformed tradition from Calvin to a Brakel maintained it, both in Europe and Britain. There is also the tesimony of Romanists themselves that their opponents agreed with them. The perpetual virginity was one of the teachings Romanists leveraged against Protestants so as to assert the authority of tradition. Protestants responded by denying that the teaching is dogma, and asserted the usefulness of non-authoritative tradition for judging questions of history.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 10, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> John Wesley wrote: "I believe that He was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin." Letter to a Roman Catholic, July 18, 1749



Of course, Wesley is asserting without proving.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 10, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Is it a violation of sola scriptura to believe John wrote John's gospel or Jannes and Jambres were the names of the people who withstood Moses? Of course not.



Well, that's different. There is strong extrabiblical tradition that John wrote John's gospel; plus, the truth of that gospel does not depend on a positive identification of its author. In the case of the perpetual virginity of Mary, however, appeals are made to the text itself (however weakly) in order to support that alleged teaching.


----------



## satz (Apr 10, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> You are imposing a Christian marital instruction back into a Jewish married state. The anachronism renders it illegitimate.



Wouldn't Proverbs 5:19 and the surrounding verses provide at least some measure of evidence that Paul's principle in 1 Cor 7 was acknowledged in the Jewish nation? The context of Pro 5:19 and the surrounding verses, of a fulfilling sexual relationship with one's wife being the remedy to the strange woman is extremely similar to Paul's reasoning of marriage as the answer to fornication in 1 Cor 7.


----------



## Galatians220 (Apr 10, 2008)

Stephen said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > First, the biblical issue --
> ...


 
(Stephen, I'm agreeing with you again, as I did before; in looking over my prior response to your post above, I think I was a bit abrupt and *I most definitely didn't intend to be...*  So sorry!) 

Just a couple of tiny points here:

Agree with the statements above re: the definition of "until" or "till." The KJV has the word "till" (Matthew 1:25) which Webster's Dictionary defines as "up to the place of; as far as..." So Joseph did not "know" Mary "as far as" or "till" she had brought forth her firstborn son. (For candor's sake, "till" is given as the synonym for "until.")

Second point: Under Jewish law, women had to be purified after childbirth, as they did also (and Orthodox Jewish women, still do) after having a period (mikveh). Part of the reason for waiting some time after childbirth or a period for the mikveh (purification) was to ensure that fertility had returned (God's plan for fruitfulness and multiplication!). See, for example of the first, Question 8.10: Are there any rituals for purification after childbirth for women?. So Mary's purification after Jesus' birth (although it likely did not occur before, shall we say, we who have given birth could guess from experience that "everything's over with" [that's the most delicate way I can put it... ]), was according to the Jewish ritual laws which would have made it fine for her to start (not resume, as all other women would) a normal marital relationship with Joseph without making him "unclean." It would also have followed the Jewish ritual laws, obviously, that were for the express purpose of making another pregnancy possible.

I would raise the subject of the undercurrent, and sometimes not such an undercurrent, of anti-Semitism and anti-Protestantism that has prevailed in the RCC for hundreds of years in support of that organization's PV teaching on Mary, but that would be  . 

Bottom line as to the purification issue above: God obviously delights in making babies.    Jewish babies, Gentile babies -- all sorts of 'em!

Margaret


----------



## Archlute (Apr 10, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> The Expositor's Greek Testament (in loc.) states "hews does not settle the question," and the author was one who denied the perpetual virginity. Hendriksen likewise denied it, but commented (in loc.), "This conclusion cannot be based merely upon the negative plus 'until.'"



I really cannot believe that you would pit something as academically out of date as the EGT against the lexicography of the 3rd edition BDAG. Hendriksen, like wise, was no great authority in matters of Greek scholarship.

If you want a commentary from that era which asserts the opposite claim (namely, that the combination of heos and the negative particle _always_ implies that the action which was prohibited did or will take place after the point of time indicated by the particle, as found throughout the NT), see the commentary A.H. McNeile, who is also favorably cited by Leon Morris in his commentary on the same. The combination appears in Matthew's Gospel at least five times (see 5:26, 18:30, and 24:39 for good examples) giving direct implication that once that certain point of time is reached the prohibited/negatived/previously unknown action will then occur.


----------



## MW (Apr 10, 2008)

Archlute said:


> I really cannot believe that you would pit something as academically out of date as the EGT against the lexicography of the 3rd edition BDAG. Hendriksen, like wise, was no great authority in matters of Greek scholarship.
> 
> If you want a commentary from that era which asserts the opposite claim (namely, that the combination of heos and the negative particle _always_ implies that the action which was prohibited did or will take place after the point of time indicated by the particle, as found throughout the NT), see the commentary A.H. McNeile, who is also favorably cited by Leon Morris in his commentary on the same. The combination appears in Matthew's Gospel at least five times (see 5:26, 18:30, and 24:39 for good examples) giving direct implication that once that certain point of time is reached the prohibited/negatived/previously unknown action will then occur.



Your evidence above is ridiculous. Read 2 Sam. 6:23 in the LXX. According to your exegetical lesson you would have to conclude that Michal had children after her death. It is obvious that your historical presuppositions are driving your interpretation of the Greek grammar and not vice versa.


----------



## Christusregnat (Apr 11, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Gryphonette said:
> 
> 
> > Y'know, I'll grant you that I've assumed Mary and Joseph didn't, um, consummate their marriage until after the birth of Jesus.
> ...



For a moment we must stop thinking like post-monastic Protestants, and start thinking like sexually excitable Jews:

Genesis 30: Jacob's sex is bartered for: "14 And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them unto his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, Give me, I pray thee, of thy son's mandrakes. 15 And she said unto her, Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son's mandrakes also? And Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie with thee to night for thy son's mandrakes. 16 And Jacob came out of the field in the evening, and Leah went out to meet him, and said, Thou must come in unto me; for surely I have hired thee with my son's mandrakes. And he lay with her that night."

Genesis 26: Isaac feeling up his wife in public " 8And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out at a window, and saw, and, behold, Isaac was sporting with Rebekah his wife."

Proverbs 5: God commands sexual lust towards one's wife to avoid adultery: "8 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love."

Song of Solomon: Whatever else you make of it, God devoted one of the sacred books of the bible to the beauties of foreplay and sexual intercourse.

The reason that Mary and Joseph could not have abstained after the birth of Christ without sin is because GOD COMMANDS SEX. Yes, commands. He commends it, He sings the praises of this marvelous gift, and He commands us to do it.

Married people who avoid sex are sinning against God. In order to fulfill prophecy, and to prove the supernatural character of Christ, God commanded them to stay apart for a time. What's implied in that is that they would have otherwise come together, since they were not anti-sexual ascetics, but pro-sexual children of Isaac, who felt up his wife in public, and Jacob whose sexual love was bargained for, and Abraham who's sex life becomes a public record for God's miraculous power, and Solomon who rejoices in sexual love, and commands his sons to do so. Holiness and sexuality are (for those not given the gift of being a eunuch) inseparable.

Cheers,


----------

