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.
Can you be "really, really" Reformed and hold to virginal mary?
- Thread starter RamistThomist
- Start date
- Status
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
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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?
Would we really want to imply that Joseph and Mary would disobey the creation mandate?
SolaGratia
Puritan Board Junior
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.
SolaGratia
Puritan Board Junior
"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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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.
Astonishing!
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
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?
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.
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.
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.
This is close to what I remembered.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks Rev. Winzer. I posted the Lev. 15 passage on the last post on page 2 of this thread. Here it is again.
SolaGratia
Puritan Board Junior
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
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
Just for clarification, I don't hold to PV of Mary either.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
Galatians220
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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
armourbearer;
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...
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...
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...
DTK
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...
DTK
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
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?
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?
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!
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.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.
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.
Has any discussion of this matter superseded Lightfoot's Dissertation?
- Status
