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

[Gryphonette]

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]

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]

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]

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.

1. To; used of time.

He and his sons were priests of the tribe of Dan, until the day of the captivity. Judges 18.

2. To; used of objects. Obs.

3. Preceding a sentence or clause, to; that is, to the event mentioned, or the time of it; as, until this hour; until this year.

The scepter shall not depart from Judah - until Shiloh come. Gen. 49.

4. To the point or place of.

In open prospect nothing bounds our eye,

Until the earth seems join'd unto the sky.

5. To the degree that.

Thou shalt push Syria, until they be consumed. 2Chron. 18.

Note. Until is always the same part of speech in fact, and has the same signification. The only difference is, that it is followed sometimes by a single word denoting time, and in other cases by a verb denoting an event, or a word denoting place or degree. The sense is in all cases to; and till may be used as its substitute, and in modern usage it is most common.

 

[Archlute]

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.

1. To; used of time.

He and his sons were priests of the tribe of Dan, until the day of the captivity. Judges 18.

2. To; used of objects. Obs.

3. Preceding a sentence or clause, to; that is, to the event mentioned, or the time of it; as, until this hour; until this year.

The scepter shall not depart from Judah - until Shiloh come. Gen. 49.

4. To the point or place of.

In open prospect nothing bounds our eye,

Until the earth seems join'd unto the sky.

5. To the degree that.

Thou shalt push Syria, until they be consumed. 2Chron. 18.

Note. Until is always the same part of speech in fact, and has the same signification. The only difference is, that it is followed sometimes by a single word denoting time, and in other cases by a verb denoting an event, or a word denoting place or degree. The sense is in all cases to; and till may be used as its substitute, and in modern usage it is most common.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

First, the biblical issue --

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


I agree that Mary & Joseph did not have sexual relations until the birth of Christ but it seems to be a stretch to maintain that a married couple had no sexual relations in their marriage. Marriage is a creation ordinance, so they would have violated that ordinance. Rome teaches that her perpetual virginity was necessary for her to be the "mother of God." We cannot fall into the RC trap of making more out of the Virgin Birth than what Scripture teaches.

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.

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.

(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]

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]

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]

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.

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,