When Mary says, "How shall this be? I do not know man.", there's no reason whatsoever to think she'd be suggesting life-long chastity. If an angel had come to me before I got married and said, "Grubb, you're going to have a baby boy, and you're to name him Grubb Jr.", I might reply, "How can this be? I've never had intercourse." That in no way, shape, or form insinuates that I plan to remain celibate after I get married.
I have more to say (surprise, surprise
but need to go for now. I'll post more tonight or tomorrow. I know y'all can't wait
"What king surrounds himself with warped, dwarfish, worthless creatures?"
The implication here is that believing that Mary had a godly and normal sexual relationship in marriage AFTER Jesus was born is "warped", "dwarfish", and "worthless".
Protestant Evangelicals actually honor her MORE by not believing in her perpetual virginity. Yes, I know Luther defended this doctrine. He couldn't part with some of the accretions of traditions of man.
Matthew 12:46-50 and John 7:3-5 with Psalm 69:8 and Matthew 1:18 "before they came together" (further bolstered with I Cor. 7:5) and 1:25 "until" "heos hou" are just too clear and too perspicuous. Psalm 69:8 is interesting, “I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mother’s sons.” While this is not quoted directly in the NT, because so many verses from this Psalm are: 69:4 in John 15:25, 69:9a in John 2:17 and 69:9b in Romans 15:13; 69:21 in Matthew 27:34, 48; Mark 15:23, 36; Luke 23:36; John 19:28-30; and then the imprecations against the Messiah’s enemies are applied by Peter to Judas in Acts 1:20 ( Psalm 69:25); it is not unreasonable to see Psalm 69:8 as clear evidence that Jesus had brothers from His mother.
Only verse 5, obviously is not about the Messiah to come, but David himself, who confesses his sin and folly and wrongs. But many of the Messianic Psalms are like this, a mixture of David’s life with a double fulfillment of some of the Psalm in the Messiah to come. We see this in Isaiah 7:14, which is about Jesus the Messiah, but 7:15-18 is not. Also, 2 Samuel 7:14a "I will be a father to him, and he will be a son to Me" ( Quoted in Heb. 1:5), but part b, "when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men . . ." is NOT about Messiah, who was sinless.
The Canonical Scriptures give us the content of the rule of faith and also the method of proper interpretation. Another example of the truth of "Sola Scriptura".
"What king surrounds himself with warped, dwarfish, worthless creatures?"
Source? Did I miss it in the blog entry? As far as I know Catholic teaching does not say that normal marital relations are bad and celibacy is good, but that marital relations are good, and celibacy is better.
It was part of the quote that Dave gives from Thomas Howard. Read the entire article that Dave wrote. Click on "tolle lege" and you will see it at the very end of the article.
Yes, Celibacy is better for those that are unmarried and have the gift of singleness. ( I Corinthians 7:7, 35, 38, Matthew 19:12 ) But since Mary and Joseph were indeed married ( Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1-2), that was not her gift, neither her calling. It is not better for the married.
Sincerely,
Ken T.
Ken's back! Hope you enjoyed your trip, my friend.
Just curious: if Jesus supposedly having siblings is so obvious, how come virtually no Church Father, and most Protestants throughout history (till about the last 100 years and theological liberalism), and the Orthodox can't see this obvious "biblical" truth?
Don't you find that odd? Or is "tradition" so blinding that it can easily overcome even the most "obvious" of biblical truths? So a guy like, e.g., Augustine or Irenaeus or Athanasius is utterly blinded by "tradition" and can't manage to raise himself up to a level where you are at, regarding biblical exegesis and hermeneutics?
Excuse me if I find that ultimately a bit arrogant. There has to be some place for the history of interpretation and doctrine, beyond a breezy dismissal of all that overwhelming historical consensus among Christians, complete with the usual cliches.
You even mock folks like Luther and Calvin in so doing, as if they can't even be taken seriously on their own terms, when they dissent from what is present Protestant orthodoxy on this, that, or the other (contraception is another similar scenario).
It's yet another case where, if things were supposedly so clear and perspicuous in Scripture, why was there an overwhelming consensus in one direction, whereas now we have seen the light and it is "clear" that the exact opposite is true from what folks thought through all those blinded 1800 years before theological liberalism shone the way bright to biblical truth?
I may take on all your supposed "proof texts." I've provided quite a few of my own for the opposite viewpoint, in my first book and in other places.
Grubb, Mary was engaged at that stage. If she intended to live like any married woman she would know exactly how it would happen. The angel is simply saying she would have a boy called Jesus - he didn't say when. The fact she, an engaged woman wondered how that could come to pass would only make sense if she had vowed virginity.
Matthew,
Where do we learn she vowed virginity her whole life? In her question to the angel she says, "'How will this be,' Mary asked the angel, 'since I am a virgin?'" She doesn't indicate at all that she plans to remain a virgin after marriage. She's simply stating that she's currently a single virgin and doesn't understand how she could get pregnant without normal marital relations.
It seems to me it's more reasonable to view this passage as Mary simply saying she's a single virgin and doesn't understand how she'll become pregnant as such than to assume she's implying a life-long celibacy UNLESS there's other scripture that would encourage us to believe she planned to remain a virgin even after marriage. I'd be interested to see them if they exist.
Good questions Grubb. My point was she isn't just any single virgin but one about to get married.
"Where do we learn she vowed virginity her whole life?"
Provided the argument is valid it is the implied conclusion.
Here's a different way of attacking the issue if that doesn't satisfy you. Mary is the ark of the new covenant. You know - good old scriptural typology. There are many similarities the two. Now, the ark of the old covenant could not be touched by any man. You may remember from the OT a man struck down for touching the ark. Mary likewise is not touched by any man.
Dave,
Thanks! I just got back.
I guess the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity did eventually overshadow the clarity of Scripture.
Since Scripture is older and the oldest beginnings of the Perpetual virginity doctrine start with
1. Odes of Solomon - Gnostic with hideous sayings of God the father having breasts, etc.
2. Ascension of Isaiah ( no pain in childbirth - a gnostic idea and contradictory to Rev. 12, where the woman cries out in great pain in childbirth, thus showing that Mary had a real human down to earth giving birth of Jesus just like other women -- the hymen was broken then, since she was a virgin ( no sexual intercourse).
3. Protoevangelium of James ( idea of vow of virginity)
These three works are much older than the first mention of Mary as "perpetual virgin". Is it Origen and Clement of Alexandria? Both of them have lots of problems. Origen is clear heretic.
Augustine SEEMS to express guilt and shame and struggle over sex because of his former life of promiscuity.
Jerome obviously struggled with lust, mentions the Roman dancing girls and theatre still dancing in his head, and communicates disgust for women and wives and marriage in his writtings. He barely says, "don't think I disparage marriage or sex" with one or two sentences and then writes pages and pages of negativity against women and marriage.
Keeps saying I've already said this, when I haven't. ???
Part 2
The good works orientation gained a foot-hold with neglect of Paul's epistles and justification by faith.
After persecution ended with Constantine, then Theodosius's and Justinian's policies towards heretics, pagans, and unbelievers caused lots of worldiness and externalisms to enter the church. ( lots of nominalism)
The sincere and serious contemplatives like Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome, Origen and others focused on a life of holiness and sanctification, and exalted the desert monks, asceticism, celibacy and virginity.
It certainly has its place ( I Cor. 7 and matthew 19), as I mentioned, but it, along with other good works, life of poverty, etc., eventually over-shadow the gospel of free grace and justification by faith.
To combat worldiness among the general culture, they went to the desert and sought to write about holiness and battling the flesh. Origen castrated himself, wrongly interpreting Matthew 19 and 5:27-30.
Others plucked their eyes out, only later to confess with regret and wailing that they could still imagine the most voluptuous and sexy women in their minds. ( proving that was NOT what Jesus meant.)
Simon Stylitus was tied to a pillar for some 40 years -- maggots eating into his flesh from the rotting rope that kept him from laying down and resting. These guys went over-board, I think! Colossians 2:20-23 says such kind of asceticism is useless against fleshly indulgence and has the appearance of wisdom.
Athanasius for the most part is excellent and so is Augustine. Jerome gets it right on Apocrypha. But they were all out of balance on sex and marriage.
Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine and others exalted the celebate and virginity above the 99 % of folks who would get married. Once they institutionalised this, along with forbiding priests to marry, ( against I Timothy 3, Titus 1, and I Cor. 9); it is easy to see how it took off.
The weight is in volume for your case, but Only after 350 AD and onwards. Tertullian was right ( 180-220 ?) . Basil also left the question open. ( Said either way, believing in it or not is OK.) Luther is not perfect, and not infallible, and there were some things he just couldn't let go of. Calvin only said to fight about it was stupid.
The earliest orthodox writers never say Mary was perpetual virgin, only a virgin until Jesus was born. Nothing in Clement, Ignatius, Ireneaus, or Justin. Zilch. I think the view I believe in is more historical and more biblical.
Anyway, I still don't see how confidence is arrogant, based on scripture, reason, and evidence.
Sincerely,
Ken
Dave wrote:
"Don't you find that odd? Or is "tradition" so blinding that it can easily overcome even the most "obvious" of biblical truths? So a guy like, e.g., Augustine or Irenaeus or Athanasius is utterly blinded by "tradition" and can't manage to raise himself up to a level where you are at, regarding biblical exegesis and hermeneutics?"
My question and response:
response is above in 2 parts.
Now, I have another question, because I just noticed you included Ireneaus in that group.
Where does Ireneaus say Mary is "perpetual or ever-virgin" ?? Never seen it anywhere. compared to Eve and virgin who undid what Eve did; yes; "a source of salvation" and "advocate", yes, but never "ever-Virgin". (unless, I just have not see that yet.)
Augustine, yes, Athanasius, yes, but only once ( that I know of) in all his works that were published in the Schaff and Wace Volume iV, series 2 of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.
Only when another writing was discovered later, does he supposedly write on the subject much -- "De Virginitate" ( On Virginity) "Pronounced dubious by Montf., spurious by Gwatkin, genuine by Eichhorn . . . But I incline to agree with Gwatkin as to its claims to come from Athanasius. Three hypostases are laid down in a way incompatible with Athanasius' say of speaking in later life." ( P. lxv, Prolegomena of Volume IV of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Schaff and Wace, T & T Clark.)
Hey Ken: does this mean you have no further response on Athanasius and sola Scriptura and have already moved on to other things, with your typical gusto and zeal? I will shortly post that dialogue, minus all our little scuffles along the way.
Matthew,
Not sure I would have ever likened Mary to the Ark. I see where Paul likened baptism to circumcision (which causes problems for some Protestants), but I don't believe there's any scriptural basis for likening Mary and the Ark.
Why did Mary need to remain a virgin until after Jesus was born? I can think of a few reasons: 1) to ensure no man was Jesus' father, 2) to make the birth of Jesus a miracle, and 3) to prevent sin nature from being passed to Him (original sin is passed via the male. I know, I know. I'm opening the "Immaculate Conception" can of worms... ). There's probably other (possibly more important) reasons, but these are what I came up with off the top of my head.
Assuming my reasons are valid, there would be no need for her to remain a virgin afterwards, since the reasons necessitating her virginity would have been satisfied.
And even in the Ark typology, it was untouchable because of what it contained inside. Once Jesus was born, Mary no longer "contained" Him inside and, therefore, could be "touched".
Grubb,
I looked something up. The council of Constantinople, I think it was, in 553, said Mary was a perpetual virgin. I don't know what your religious affiliation is but you don't subscribe to some kind of mass apostasy idea do you? By "apostasy" I mean something false being offically proclaimed dogma.
Here's something I want to see if you have an answer to. If Mary had other children then how come John was the one assigned to look after her?
"Athanasius for the most part is excellent and so is Augustine. Jerome gets it right on Apocrypha. But they were all out of balance on sex and marriage."
If THEY, of all people, were out of balance, how can WE ever be sure we're back in balance?
Another thing Grubb. I don't think you have answered the point I made in response to your comment about what the angel said to Mary.
Let's do a quick recap. You said:
"If an angel had come to me before I got married and said, "Grubb, you're going to have a baby boy, and you're to name him Grubb Jr.", I might reply, "How can this be? I've never had intercourse." That in no way, shape, or form insinuates that I plan to remain celibate after I get married."
Right, put bluntly your response would be a non sequitur because the angel's prediction (and you do use the future tense ie "going to have") would have nothing to do with what you had done up until that point. We could imaging our angel sarcastically replying "Right, but you are getting married aren't you?"
Mary and Joseph were married (Mary just hadn't been taken into Jospeh's home yet). The mere prediction she would have a baby would be quite unremarkable (what was remarkable was in fact WHO the baby would be). Nevertheless Mary is surprised as to how this will possibly come about. If she intended to be a normal married woman then wondering about how it wil happen would be a bit silly.
Dave,
As to the other material on Athanasius and Sola Scriptura, I have not posted anything new, because I was just trying to stay on topic for this thread, which was on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
Interesting that there is no response to my good answer on the history of the perpetual virginity doctrine. The gnostic sources of this doctrine are obvious and older. ( Odes of Solomon, Ascension of Isaiah, Protoevangelium of James) This is an illustration of how later, after the apostles died and the canon was closed and existed; ( only not known as 'one book' with one cover with a table of contents') at the same time other heritical and speculative ideas and imaginations found their way into the church, and they are developed over time. The church must always go back and devote themselves to the apostles teaching, found in the God-breathed scriptures. (Acts 2:42-46, 2 Peter, Jude, 2 Tim. 3:16-17)
Others complained that on other issues, I took discussions off of the original post, so I was trying to "obey the rules" by sticking to the subject. You also say that I talk about too many issues at once. Maybe so, but the whole thing is connected when dealing with Development of doctrine and history, church authority, etc. You have to mention lots of different issues also in many of your papers.
The dogmas of Papal infallibity inherently and necessarily promotes discussions of all the dogmas that are proclaimed infallible, such as Immaculate Conception, Bodily Assumption, Transubstantiation, and 1870 dogma.
After I returned from my trip, I did try to go back and find the archives, ( on our Athanasius discussion) but I could not find them, your archives only gave me half of September, so I have lost lots of details of your arguments and I also never saw any other responses to my last posts.
But, if you want, I can try to interact with more of that issue.
I will post what we've done so far in a new post, and if you want to continue it, I'll make a Part II. Today I'm playing football. I ain't gonna spend all day typing again. Too nice of a day, and I need some R & R.
Grubb
When Mary says, "How shall this be? I do not know man.", there's no reason whatsoever to think she'd be suggesting life-long chastity. If an angel had come to me before I got married and said, "Grubb, you're going to have a baby boy, and you're to name him Grubb Jr.", I might reply, "How can this be? I've never had intercourse." That in no way, shape, or form insinuates that I plan to remain celibate after I get married.
No, if an angel told you while you were engaged that you already had a child, then you might wonder how this was possible. But as it stands, the angel told Mary "you will (future tense) concieve and bear a son." If an angel told you the day before you got married that you were going to concieve, the most logical response would be "great news, I was planning on it!" Mary would have responded likewise, if she were planning on engaging in marital relations.
Ken Temple
Since Scripture is older and the oldest beginnings of the Perpetual virginity doctrine start with
1. Odes of Solomon - Gnostic with hideous sayings of God the father having breasts, etc.
2. Ascension of Isaiah (no pain in childbirth - a gnostic idea and contradictory to Rev. 12, where the woman cries out in great pain in childbirth, thus showing that Mary had a real human down to earth giving birth of Jesus just like other women -- the hymen was broken then, since she was a virgin ( no sexual intercourse).
3. Protoevangelium of James ( idea of vow of virginity)
1. St. Paul of the Cross also speaks metaphorically about nursing at the breast of God the Father. The important thing is you don't take a metaphor too far. Otherwise you run into problems with the Church being both the body and the bride of Christ, for example.
2. The pain in Rev 12 doesn't necessarily refer to any physical pain Mary experienced in Childbirth, but to all she suffered in bringing Christ to the world (e.g. the flight into Egypt).
You mention "heos hou" in Matt 1:25. Surely you are aware of how thoroughly Catholic apologists have refuted Eric Svendsen's thesis concerning this passage. Besides the Septuagint (which is what St. Jerome used to refute Helvidius when he made such a claim), we have Jospeh and Aseneth, the Apocalypse of Moses, and 4 Maccabees.
Reformed Protestant scholar Paul Owen has defended the perpetual virginity of Mary (http://www.communiosanctorum.com/?p=83):
-------------------
The Protestant Reformers, unlike modern Evangelicals, believed in the Perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God.
. . . Since I am a Reformational Christian, I think it wise to also affirm this doctrine. It is wholesome, reverent, Catholic and biblical to do so.
. . . Luke’s description of Mary in his infancy narrative is very carefully crafted. When he records the angel Gabriel being sent to her, he doesn’t call her a woman, but a “virgin” (1:27). Why would he need to highlight this fact? We get a clue in 1:34, where Mary asks Gabriel how it is possible for her to have a child: “How can this be when I do not know a man?” It is important to keep in mind that Gabriel did not announce to Mary that she was pregnant. He announced to her that she would become pregnant in the future (1:31). If all Mary means in verse 34 is that she has not been intimate with a man yet, then her question makes no sense. Obviously, in that case she would simply assume that she will become pregnant after she physically consummates her marriage with Joseph. Since Gabriel’s announcement speaks to a future pregnancy, Mary’s question can only make sense on the assumption that she never will be physically intimate with a man.
. . . This provides us with a clue as to why Luke calls her a virgin in verse 27. It is not simply that she is a virtuous woman who has abstained from sexual intercourse prior to marriage; rather, she is a virgin whose dedication to the Lord involves the renunciation of sexual intercourse.
. . . We get a few brief glimpses of such virgins in the Old Testament. According to one interpretation of Jephthah’s vow in Judges 11:31, Jephthah dedicates his daughter to serve the Lord at the tabernacle. This dedication causes the young girl to weep, because of her virginity (Judg. 11:37). Once the time came for the vow to be fulfilled, from that time forward “she knew no man” (11:39). Jephthah’s daughter became one of “the serving women who served at the doorway of the tent of meeting” (Exod. 38:
. It is these holy women whose virginity was defiled by Eli’s wicked sons, who “lay with the women who served at the doorway of the tent of meeting” (1 Sam. 2:22).
Owen continues:
1) Mary calls herself the doule ( “female servant”) of the Lord in Luke 1:38.
2) Luke mentions another woman named Anna who in her old age “never left the temple, serving night and day with fastings and prayers” (Lk. 2:37). Apparently, such female Temple servants were not prohibited from marrying, though they maintained their virginity. There is no mention of Anna having children, though she “lived with a husband” (2:36). These women apparently did not spend all their time at the Temple during their younger years (until age 60? cf. 1 Tim. 5:9), but performed their service only when called upon, much like the priests (cf. Lk. 1:8-9). In the case of married Temple servants, their husbands would have provided them with a home and companionship when they were not serving at the Temple.
3) A very early Christian text, the Protoevangelium of James (ca. 125) preserves a tradition that Mary’s parents dedicated her to the service of the Temple from her earliest childhood. This tradition appears to be firmly grounded in Luke’s narration of Jesus’ infancy. According to this early Christian text, Mary’s barren mother vowed in a manner recalling the words of Samuel’s mother Hannah (cf. 1 Sam. 1:11): “As the Lord lives, if I bring forth either male or female, I will bring it for a gift unto the Lord my God, and it shall be ministering unto him all the days of its life.”
-----------
John 19:27 tells us that Jesus committed Mary into the care of the apostle John at the time of his death. His words to Mary, “behold your son,” strongly imply that the loss of Jesus would leave Mary without a son. This, in addition to the fact that the commandment to honor your parents (Exod. 20:12) would have obligated Mary’s other sons to care for their aging mother (cf. Matt. 15:4-6), strongly implies that Jesus was Mary’s only son, which in part explains why Jesus entrusted her into John’s care.
The objection that Mary’s other sons were not believers at this time holds no merit, for the obligation to care for one’s mother is rooted in the Law of Moses, not in a distinctive Christian ethic.
Revelation 12:1-6 describes a woman “clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet,” with “a crown of twelve stars on her head” (12:1). The woman’s pregnancy plainly symbolizes the birth of the people of Israel (cf. Isa. 66:7-, and yet she is also identified with Mary in 12:5. The correspondence is rooted in the fact that just as in the Old Testament, Eve gave birth to a nation of twelve tribes (the old Israel), so in the New Testament, Mary gave birth to the Messiah (in whom the Church becomes the new Israel). The cosmic struggle between the Serpent and the seed of the Woman is begun in Eve and consummated in Mary (Gen. 3:15).
1. Svendsen's book and argument of "heos hou" has not been refuted at all. He makes perfect sense, and we are enriched by all of his Greek research, and the Perpetual virginity doctrine was pretty much proven wrong by sound exegesis and good contextual and historical work. I read some of the rebuttals of Robert Sungenis and Jerry Mattatics. They failed to over-come the overwhelming crushing weight of biblical, historical, Greek, and patristic evidence against this doctrine.
2. Since Mary answers in the present tense, "How can this be, since I am not knowing a man?" It seems clear that she does not mean a vow of perpetual virginity, but understands the angel, who uses the future tense as "immediate future".
Otherwise, both Mary and Luke could have it clear by just answering something like, "How can this be, since I have never known a man, and I have taken a vow to not know a man in the future" or "how can this be, since I will not know a man", etc.
Putting it all together, it seems pretty clear that the texts in Matthew and Luke are focused on the virgin conception of Jesus to show us that He is God the Son, the Son of God, without a human father. The Virgin Birth of Christ is essential to Him being God in the flesh and being the perfect sacrifice for our sins.
God could have easily caused Matthew or Luke to give us the details about some kind of perpetual virginity or vow, but we get nothing about this in the sacred, God-breathed scriptures. It is just a stretch of mind beyond the breaking point to squeeze those Marian doctrines and dogmas out of any text in the Bible.
You may say, "you just don't want to submit to the Magisterium of the RCC" or "you are your own god" ( by setting yourself up as a private interpreter) or "you are rebellious" or "you are not submissive to church authority".
You can say that about anything that an authority says and the people are not convinced that it is right. If a leader does something wrong and tells the people to submit, and the people rebel, for example, the Hebrew midwives, Rahab lying about the spies, Daniel refusing to bow down to idols, and the early church refusing to stop preaching ( Acts 3-5, the whole book), then one can always say, "they are rebellious", but God says those were good kinds of civil disobedience.
Paul tells the Galatians that if he comes back to them and preaches a different gospel that the one he at first preached and they received, even he is anathema. ( Galatians 1:8-9)
Church authority is still responsible to exegete Scripture properly. ( 2 Timothy 2:15) The leadership got it right at Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus ( mostly, because after the storm died down, Nestorius actually agreed with Leo's Tome on the two natures of Christ -- Bazaar of Hericleides) and Chalcedon.
Apparently, the angel comes to her at the beginning of the betrothal period.
Matthew 1:18, "When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit."
"before they came together" is too clear to understand it as anything other than, "before they came together" in a normal loving, sexual relationship in marriage. Connect with Matthew 1:25 and I Cor. 7:5, and it becomes even more clear and easily seen.
The text says that the angel came to Mary in the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregency and then stayed with Elizabeth 3 more months. Luke 1:23, 26, 36, 56. The Bible doesn't tell us how much more longer it is until the birth of Christ in Luke 2. It is even made stronger by Mary's use of two different tenses, She says, "how shall this be" ( estai -- Future tense), since a male I do not know? or "a male, I am not knowing". (yinosko - present tense) Mary understands the angel to be saying you will concieve very soon, even immediately, by the answer she gives. Also, along with, Mary's submission, "Let it be according to your word" ( word is rhema - oral, spoken word, and this is also used in the preceeding verse, 37 - for nothing will be impossible with God, every word." Literally, "every word or thing will not be impossible with God." Apparently, God spoke the creative word there, possible through the angel.
The rest of the story, Mary arises in haste and goes immediately to visit Elizabeth and John the Baptist leaps in the womb of Elizabeth and Elizabeth is filled with the Spirit and prophecies and speaks to Mary, calling her "the mother of my Lord", etc. Apparently the conception has already happened. So, the context of time and the way that Mary and Elizabeth talk points to understanding that she could not have a son in that three month period ( at least) because she is not now knowing a man.
3. Revelation 12:2 is clear enough that the pain was physcial pain of labor. "And in the womb, being pregnant, she was crying out, being in labor and being in great pain to give birth." "being in labor" and "being in great pain" are participles. "to give birth" is an infinitive of purpose or result. The two participles go together explaining why she was crying out and are connected to the result or end goal of the pain and labor "in order to give birth" or "so that she gave birth".
4. Paul Owen's stuff is interesting, but not persuasive at all. Just because Luther and Zwingli held onto that doctrine does not make it right or biblical. Calvin only said that it was contentious and making trouble to argue about it.
The text does not say Anna was a virgin when she was married. She was married for seven years.
The Jephthah vow in Judges 11:30-39 was a rash vow, because his vow was to offer whatever came through the door as a burnt offering sacrifice. ( verse 31) His daughter wept for two months because she was a virgin and not married and would die without children, a shameful thing for women of those days, as that was their main purpose in life. If that is the correct interpretation, then Jephthah was sinful in speaking it and sinful in carrying out the vow of offering her as a sacrifice, a stupid kind of zeal, and the true and living God would not hold him to such an evil, rash vow. He sinned by offering her as a sacrifice. If that is the wrong interpretation, and she has to remain a virgin the rest of her life, what does it mean, in verse 39, "And it came about at the end of two months that she returned to her faither, who did to her according to the vow which he had made; and she had no relations with a man. . . " ?? Now this could be interpreted as "she would have to live the rest of her life as single, and a virgin", but what do we do with verse 30-31 ?? Either way, this does not add any strength at all to the doctrine of Mary being perpetual virgin. It has nothing at all to do with Mary.
Protestants, true, have no nuns or formal or institutionalized "vows of life-long virginity", but the commands of scripture are clear that if a woman or a man is not married, then sex is sin, being fornication ( pornea), or "adultery". ( I Thessalonians 4:1-8, I Cor. 6:16-20, and others)
If one has the gift of singleness ( I Cor. 7:7), and dedicates oneself more undistractedly to the Lord ( I Cor. 7:35) in devotion and prayers and service to God and man-kind, this is a good thing. It is better, ( verse 3, if they have that gift, "charismata" ( I Cor. 7:7-9). It is unclear whether the man in verses 36-40 is a father or a potential husband, because of verse 36, "If a man things he is behaving improperly toward his virgin . . ." ( the word daughter is not in the Greek. )
Paul never makes singleness an organized institution, apparently because he knows that most people will and should get married. Very few have the gift ( charismata) of singleness.(I Cor. 7:7, Matthew 19:11 "not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given."
I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are clear, that the proving ground for church leadership is in the home, in marriage and being a servant leader for his wife, and leading and managing his children well. The RCC's rule of discipline of singleness for all priests is out of balance. By institutionalizing it, they over-emphazised only one aspect of all the Scriptures.
About John 19:26-27 and Jesus giving his mother Mary to John to take care of:
Actually, the understanding that at the time of the crucifixion, Jesus' brothers are not believers, and that is the reason why Jesus commissions John to take care of her makes perfect sense. They were not there at the cross.
John 7:5 "For not even His brothers were believing in Him."
Mark 3:21 "And when His own kinsmen (literally, 'ones from the side of him") heard about this, they went out to lay hold of Him, for they said, "He is out of His mind."
Apparently, the brothers thought Mary and the other disciples out of their minds also.
In Matthew 12:46-50, it is obvious that these are real physical brothers, just as Mary is His real physical Mother, but discipleship is based on faith and obedience. Jesus is saying the spiritual brothers and mothers and sisters, thus an even closer relationship, is what really counts. "For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother."
Jewish families disowned their family members who apostated from the God of Isreal. To believe Jesus was Messiah was blasphemy, apostacy, polytheism, the worst sin.
Paul said, "I have suffered the loss of all things for the sake of Christ." ( Phil. 3:7-14) Maybe Paul was married and his wife left him, because of his faith. We cannot be dogmatic about that, but there are hints that he was. Phil. 3:4-6 "Hebrew of Hebrews, a Pharisee". I have heard in some Bible Study and I think I even read this, but admit, I cannot put my fingers on anything right now, that "Pharisees had to be married". IF this is true, the Paul's wife left him, that is why he said what he did in I Cor. 7:15 ( and the whole of chapter 7, as he exhorts those that have been divorced to remain single and be devoted to God) and 9:1-6.
Later, Christ appears in His resurrected body to James, his half-brother ( I Cor. 15:7, calls him an apostle, also Galatians 1:19. Jude also gets saved after the resurrection and both James and Jude qualify as apostles and qualify to write Scripture, because they were apostles or "apostolic".
Luke and Mark and Barnabas ( It is a good guess that Barnabas was probably the writer of Hebrews, as Tertullian says. On Modesty, 20) also qualify to write Scripture because Luke is under Paul's authority, and Mark is under Peter's authority, and Barnabas is called an apostle twice in Acts 14:1-4, 14, and by inference, in I Corinthians 9:1-6. Barnabas probably wrote Hebrews, being a Levite (Acts 4:36) and is the "son of encouragement", and he calls his letter, a "word of exhortation" or "encouragment". ( Hebrews 13:22)
I'll keep this on the front page a few more days, to give a chance for more discussion. As I said, I have neither time nor desire at the moment to enter into this particular discussion. Hopefully someone else will, because you have put a lot of effort into your replies.
Here is Reformed Protestant Dr. Paul Owen's three-part posting on perpetual virginity:
Mary, A Virgin Forever
http://www.communiosanctorum.com/?p=83
Mary: The Virgin Mother of God (Part 1)
http://www.communiosanctorum.com/?p=86
Mary: The Virgin Mother of God (Part 2)
http://www.communiosanctorum.com/?p=87
In the 2nd and 3rd he responds to Eric Svendsen's counter-replies.
Ben Douglass,
Sorry it's taken me so long to reply...I've been busy. You make a good point regarding the fact that Mary was engaged when the angel told her she'd bear a son, but I always (even when I was Roman Catholic) thought he was referring to the immediate future.
This is consistent with what Ken put forth, and he did it much more indepth than I would. I may ponder it some more and write more tomorrow. But for now I have to go teach a bunch of 10 year old girls how to kick a soccer ball well
Grubb
Thanks Dave, an excellent paper.
Grubb, if you are engaged your marriage is in the immediate future anyway so that's a moot point.
The article Dave linked had some great answers. Allow me to quote:
"Svendsen thinks it is significant that the tense of the verb “to know” in Luke 1:34 is present, not future. Therefore, Mary is only saying that she is not “sexually active” at the present time, not that she has taken a vow of virginity. In order to reconcile this with the future tense of verse 31, Svendsen insists that the angel was speaking of the “immediate” future, and that Mary understood that. Yet the fact remains that there is absolutely nothing in the revealed words of Gabriel in verses 31-33 which would point to the immediate future. Why then should we think Mary would have understood such a thing? Furthermore, Mary was already engaged to Joseph. Even if Mary had understood the angel’s pronouncement as immediate, what would have prevented them from marrying immediately and physically consummating the marriage in obedience to Gabriel’s instruction? That is of course assuming that their formal wedding date was not already imminent in any case (something we are not told).
So if Mary had understood Gabriel’s prediction as imminent, she and Joseph could have complied with the instruction by ending the engagement period (assuming it was not already about to end), and consummating their marriage immediately in view of the unusual circumstances. So her question in 1:34 still makes no sense. But in any case, there is nothing to indicate that Mary had reason to understand Gabriel’s words as referring to an immediate event (though it turned out to be such). The fact that Mary rushed to visit Elizabeth after the fact ( “in these days,” v. 39) proves nothing about what Mary understood at the time of her conversation with the angel. She may have simply rushed to share with Elizabeth the news of what Gabriel told her.
Nor does the fact that a present tense verb of “to know” is used in verse 34, as opposed to a future tense verb, prove anything. If Mary has already dedicated herself to a life of virginity, then it is not simply the case that she will not be “sexually active” in the future, but that she is not, never has been, and never will be “sexually active.” The best way to communicate such a state of perpetual virginity would be through the use of a gnomic present: “I do not know a man” (being a virgin, dedicated to the Lord)."
Also I thought your reponse to my point about the connection between Mary being the ark of the New Covenant and her virginity was weak.
Dave had a post up recently that showed the typology between the two so I won't argue the case.
Assuming that to be so I will quote what you said again:
"And even in the Ark typology, it was untouchable because of what it contained inside. Once Jesus was born, Mary no longer "contained" Him inside and, therefore, could be "touched"."
True, but it
Matthew,
Your first few points are well taken, and if I thought Mary was a perpetual virgin, I'd be making the same points. However, when you said, "Nor does the fact that a present tense verb of 'to know' is used in verse 34, as opposed to a future tense verb, prove anything", I disagree; it may very well mean something. It could just as easily mean (and to me it does mean) that she simply is a virgin at present as it could mean that she is a perpetual virgin.
You said, "The best way to communicate such a state of perpetual virginity would be through the use of a gnomic present: 'I do not know a man' (being a virgin, dedicated to the Lord)", but that's not true. The best way to convey what you suggest is, "I will not know a man."
Your message got truncated, so I don't know where you were going with the Ark typology comment. My argument wasn't weak, it just wasn't exhaustive. It addressed the primary point: remove what made it untouchable, and it becomes touchable.
Why is it so important that Mary be a perpetual virgin?
.
Hi Grubb,
>Why is it so important that Mary be a perpetual virgin?
Well, for one thing, the doctrine (which we believe to be simply true, so that "importance" is a non sequitur in a large sense) preserves the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, and hence, indirectly, the Incarnation.
If Mary had become sexually active and had had other children, then everyone would know she had given birth by natural means, and the potential would be there to deny that Jesus' birth was supernatural.
By her remaining a virgin her entire life, this supports the Virgin Birth as the extraordinary miracle that it was. As always, everything about the Blessed Virgin Mary has to do with lifting up our Lord Jesus Christ, not herself.
Beyond that, we believe mainly that it was appropriate or fitting for God the Son to not have brothers and sisters. Talk about sibling rivalry! Would you want to have God for a brother? Or imagine being in the same womb which had held the Incarnate God. It's too weird and strange to even envision.
This was understood by virtually all Christians until later Protestants, due to the influence of Enlightenment liberalism and the usual obsession with sexual "freedom" and denigration of celibacy, started denying it. It seems to be the sort of thing that one either "gets" and intuitively understands or not.
I'll post on the new thread. Thanks for responding.
I think this is a great website chearest price for avapro percocet apap zithromax drink
Commenting by HaloScan
