Was Mary a virgin?

[Scott Shahan]

Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 indicate that Jesus had natural half-siblings (same mother). In the Old Testament when "brother" refers to someone in the wider clan, such as a cousin, the necessary information about the actual relationship is always given somewhere in the immediate context. In other words, "brother" means brother unless clues in the context point to a more distant kind of relationship. Neither Matthew 13 nor Mark 6 has any clue of that sort. These verses talk about Jesus' (legal) father Joseph, his mother Mary, and his brothers and sisters. That constitutes a nuclear family. Protestants read these verses in the natural sense.

In Matthew 1:25 the preposition "until" by itself doesn't imply much, but taken in the context of the overall statement it does. Joseph did not know her (as a husband normally would do) "until" she brought forth a son. If what is expected did not happen "until" some point in time, the presumption is that the expected thing did begin to happen after that point. The verse teaches that Joseph and Mary remained virgins until after Jesus was born, then had a normal marriage. Matthew 13 and Mark 6 add that they had a family. Ever afterwards, the church spoke of Jesus as having "brothers" (e.g. Acts 1:14; 1 Corinthians 9:5).

Between the 2nd and the 5th centuries certain sectors of the patristic church imbibed ascetic ideas from the religious environment of North Africa and became prudish about even marital sexuality. It was during those centuries that the legend developed about Mary remaining an ever-virgin.

 

[SRoper]

"While I agree with this general idea, I think it stretches the imagination to suggest that the use of the word 'until' would not be normally taken to mean that they did have a normal marriage after the birth of Christ."

"'The Lord said to my Lord,
Sit at my right hand,
until I put your enemies under your feet'?"
--Matt. 22:44

So he is sitting at his right hand up until that point and afterwards he departs?

 

[satz]

Originally posted by SRoper
"While I agree with this general idea, I think it stretches the imagination to suggest that the use of the word 'until' would not be normally taken to mean that they did have a normal marriage after the birth of Christ."

"'The Lord said to my Lord,
Sit at my right hand,
until I put your enemies under your feet'?"
--Matt. 22:44

So he is sitting at his right hand up until that point and afterwards he departs?

That's kind off apples and oranges though.There is a plain presumption in scripture that married couples should have sexual relations. With no evidence that it would be somehow wrong for Mary and Joseph to do so, I can't understand why we wouldn't assume that they did, regardless of how you construe the word 'until'.

 

[Cuirassier]

Eeeek!

"regardless" - ouch ... like fingernails on the chalkboard .... Sorry - couldn't resist!

I believe that if there indeed ends up being such a thing as purgatory, mine will be a room where people use "like" every 4th word, "supposably" and "regardless" at least once a minute, and pronunce nuclear as "nuke-uh-ler" ...

On topic - Excellent point, Mark. In the absence of any Scriptural record to the contrary, presuming their marriage conformed to what God intended seems like a safer presumption than that theirs was a unique marriage in this respect.

I'm still not convinced that the kin from the Matthew and Mark passages can be interpretted as other than step-brothers/sisters, though I respect my brothers whose opinions dissent on that point.

I've flagellated the deceased equus sufficiently on this one!

blessings to all,

dl

[Edited on 9-27-2006 by Cuirassier]

 

[CDM]

For those that argue Mary was perpetual virgin, you must also take the position that Mary, daily, was disobeying God's law to not withhold one's body from the other except on short agreed upon times.

Mary would then be the perfect model of a disobedient wife, would she not?.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by mangum
For those that argue Mary was perpetual virgin, you must also take the position that Mary, daily, was disobeying God's law to not withhold one's body from the other except on short agreed upon times.

Mary would then be the perfect model of a disobedient wife, would she not?.

But she was commanded to for at least a time before the birth. Was she disobeying then?

 

[mgeoffriau]

except on short agreed upon times

That should answer it.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by armourbearer
Patrick, the text explicitly says that abstinence took place for a prolonged period of time -- at least nine months -- and there is no presumption of guilt.

I agree. But as you say, it was temporary, which was allowed. The law forbids the withholding of due benevolence permanently. As upright folks they would obey the law would they not? We do not read of anything physically debilitating which would prevent normal and godly marital affection after the birth of Jesus. The fact of brothers and sisters in the picture would seem to imply that they did have an obedient marriage afterward. Otherwise we have to find loopholes in the law to allow Mary to remain a perpetual virgin and yet still legally married.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by armourbearer
Rich, the word heos (until) does not have a prima facie meaning of ceasing at that time. So there is no natural understanding of the text which suggests a terminating point to what Matthew is describing.

Patrick, the text explicitly says that abstinence took place for a prolonged period of time -- at least nine months -- and there is no presumption of guilt.

Scott, even if brother means brother, there is no basis for alleging that this was a natural as differentiated from a legal relationship. As Joseph was "supposed" to be the father of our Lord, there is nothing to say that these men were not merely "supposed" to be the brothers of our Lord.

[Edited on 9-28-2006 by armourbearer]

OK Matthew. Then, in the English, what would be a better translation of the text rather than until?

Until implies something in the text in the English. What is a better word there that the translators should have considered.

Why even mention sex at all? The text has already established that she became pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit. It's already established that Joseph didn't know his wife prior to his discovery of her pregnancy.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm deriving the idea of the use of until from the English meaning of the phrase:

un·til (n-tl) Pronunciation Key
prep.
Up to the time of: We danced until dawn.
Before (a specified time): She can't leave until Friday.
Scots. Unto; to.

conj.
Up to the time that: We walked until it got dark.
Before: You cannot leave until your work is finished.
To the point or extent that: I talked until I was hoarse. See Usage Note at till2.

Are you aware of another English usage of the word? What I would like to know from you is how should the translators have put the verse if the Greek does not imply the meaning that the English word "until" gives it.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by armourbearer

Originally posted by Puritan Sailor

Originally posted by armourbearer
Patrick, the text explicitly says that abstinence took place for a prolonged period of time -- at least nine months -- and there is no presumption of guilt.

I agree. But as you say, it was temporary, which was allowed. The law forbids the withholding of due benevolence permanently. As upright folks they would obey the law would they not? We do not read of anything physically debilitating which would prevent normal and godly marital affection after the birth of Jesus. The fact of brothers and sisters in the picture would seem to imply that they did have an obedient marriage afterward. Otherwise we have to find loopholes in the law to allow Mary to remain a perpetual virgin and yet still legally married.

I am not sure I understand where the idea of sin comes in, or of physical debilitation being the only grounds for abstinence. That seems to be a Christian counsellor's concept based on an application of 1 Cor. 7; but how does it become a moral standard for Joseph and Mary? Joseph may have applied the same reasons for abstinence after Jesus' birth as before.

Would not Jewish couples have understood the command to "be fruitful and multiply" as more than a suggestion? Marriage brings with it obligations. I'm usre both Jospeh and Mary would have understood that. Paul states that abstinence was only allowed temporarily. What reason would Joseph have to continue abstaining after Jesus was born? She was his wife. In order for the normal conditions of marriage to continue to be altered for them after teh borth of Jesus there would have to be further light. God had already revealed what the obligations of marriage were. To argue that they did not keep those obligations requires more proof.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by armourbearer

Originally posted by SemperFideles
I'm deriving the idea of the use of until from the English meaning of the phrase:

un·til (n-tl) Pronunciation Key
prep.
Up to the time of: We danced until dawn.
Before (a specified time): She can't leave until Friday.
Scots. Unto; to.

conj.
Up to the time that: We walked until it got dark.
Before: You cannot leave until your work is finished.
To the point or extent that: I talked until I was hoarse. See Usage Note at till2.

Are you aware of another English usage of the word? What I would like to know from you is how should the translators have put the verse if the Greek does not imply the meaning that the English word "until" gives it.

Look at your own definition. "Before (a specified time): She can't leave until Friday." It doesn't mean she left on Friday.

Honestly you are being very obtuse. I don't know if you are intentionally doing so just to be argumentative.

The "until" in that phrase is restraint: "You may not leave until Friday".

The point of the word, however, is that it DOES imply a terminus. The point is that until means "up to the time of" or "before a certain time".

The way it is used in the passage does not restrain Joseph in the same sense. The phrase is not: "Joseph was not permitted to know his wife until Jesus was born..." It is "that he didn't know her until Jesus was born..."

In either case, until is still a terminating point. If it is used in restraining sense (as in you may not do something until) then the restraint ends when the goal is reached.

So, again, what word would you suggest?

Based on your argument as to what the verse implies it should read something like:

He knew her not while she was pregnant.

That would be acceptable because while does not imply a terminus like until clearly does.

 

[Scott Shahan]

Mathew,

Quick question; Does anyone know what the Greek Orthodox Church teaches concerning the virgin Mary?
Mathew EXPLAIN THIS;
Between the 2nd and the 5th centuries certain sectors of the patristic church imbibed ascetic ideas from the religious environment of North Africa and became prudish about even marital sexuality. It was during those centuries that the legend developed about Mary remaining an ever-virgin.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by armourbearer
Rich, I might sound stupid to you, but anyone who knows anything about language knows you are simply wrong, both in Greek and English. If changing the word to "while" gives you a better grasp of it, then do so, though it takes the smoothness away from the reading. Either way, there is nothing in the text which requires us to think that the Evangelist was telling us something about the couple's sexual relations after Jesus was born. I may be stubborn, but I am not stupid!

I meant to say you were being stubborn by using obtuse.

Are you suggesting I should have used another word?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think you're being unduly obstinate in this case.

 

[BJClark]

Puritan Sailor,

Some hold to the belief that Joseph was an elderly man who
had been married previously and had other children, and because Mary was so young he wasn't expecting to consumate the marriage at all.

What I don't understand though, is if that were true why it would have mattered to him IF she was a virgin when they married. I mean, if he wasn't planning on having sex with her, then it shouldn't have mattered, because they would not have proven her virginity one way or another.

I mean, that was the tradition, IF a husband were to claim his wife was not a virgin the parents would have gone in and got the bed sheets to find out if their was blood on them or not.

If it was proven she wasn't a virgin the husband had every right to divorce her at that point, and if he was found to be lying he couldn't divorce her.

So IF they never had sex, how would He have known for sure she was still a virgin?

[As upright folks they would obey the law would they not? We do not read of anything physically debilitating which would prevent normal and godly marital affection after the birth of Jesus. The fact of brothers and sisters in the picture would seem to imply that they did have an obedient marriage afterward. Otherwise we have to find loopholes in the law to allow Mary to remain a perpetual virgin and yet still legally married.

 

[bookslover]

I completely disagree brother - Scripture is amply clear on this erroneous Roman heresy. The use of the term "know" of Matt 1.25 is the same term used in reference to Adam in Genesis 4.1, 17, 25, I Samuel 1.19, etc. There is no other interpretation of "know" here other than sex.

Even clearer evidence comes to us from Matt 27.56, Mark 6.3, Mark 15.40 - all of which name her other other sons (James, Joses, Judas, Simon and some unnamed sisters)...

To assume she intended to remain a virgin is not only outlandish speculation, but contrary with the accounts of Christ's earthly family.

Perpetual virginity is a popish heresy that clearly contradicts Scriptures and serves only to give Mary a pseudo-divine status rather than the Bible tells us she herself acknowledged - that He (Christ, her Saviour) had done great things for her - a fallen sinner (Luke 1.46).

************

RZ's response (for some reason, the quote box thingee didn't kick in):

Amen, brother. I believe the Scriptures are quite plain on this subject. Joseph and Mary abstained from sex until after Jesus was born, thus making sure readers understand that Jesus was conceived only by the Holy Spirit. After Jesus' birth, Joseph and Mary engaged in normal sexual relations, just like all the other married people they knew, just as the existence of our Lord's several half-brothers and sisters shows.

Frankly, I'm surprised this discussion has made it to two pages!

 

[javacodeman]

I mean, that was the tradition, IF a husband were to claim his wife was not a virgin the parents would have gone in and got the bed sheets to find out if their was blood on them or not.

If it was proven she wasn't a virgin the husband had every right to divorce her at that point, and if he was found to be lying he couldn't divorce her.

So IF they never had sex, how would He have known for sure she was still a virgin?

Slightly off topic:

Unless there was a supernatural birth that was not recorded in scripture, Joseph would have never "known" that she was a virgin even after consumation because the hymen would have been torn during delivery.

Back on topic:
I would add that it seems very plain from scripture that Mary had other children after Jesus. (It must have been very hard for them in their big brother's shadow.) I don't see use of any other method of fertilization other than the one humans have been using for centuries.