The ever-virginity of Mary

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,553
3,534
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟240,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I realize this topic has been brought up before, and in some other threads in here, but I didn't go looking for them. Sorry about that. :blush: I noticed the talk about the Theotokos having children or being ever-virgin, so I looked up some info, and I thought I'd share it here because I found it quite interesting. :)


WHAT SOME PROTESTANTS THINK ON THIS…

I will first turn to the "Fathers of the Reformation" to speak for Orthodoxy in defending the teaching that Mary was "Ever Virgin". First I will let Ulrich Zwingli (leader of the Swiss Reformation, divided from Lutheran Reformers because he denied Christ's real presence in any form in the Eucharist) speak to this:

"She (Mary) had to be a virgin and perpetually a virgin..." (Reformed Dogmatics, p. 422, by H. Heppe).

And in a prayer he calls her:

"the pure and ever virgin..." (Prayers of the Eucharist, p. 184, by Jasper & Cuming).

Regarding the verse that "Joseph kept Mary a virgin until" [Matthew 1:25], John Calvin maintains in his commentary:

"Those words of Scripture do not mean that after His birth they cohabitated as man and wife..." (John Calvin NT Commentaries Vol. 3, p. 71).

And on the subject of Jesus' brethren he said:

"In the Hebrew manner relatives of any sort are called 'brethren'...It is therefore very ignorant to imagine that Mary had many sons because there are several mentions of Christ's brethren" (John Calvin NT Commentaries Vol. 3, p. 71).

This has always been the undisputed theology regarding Mary. From the Apostles on down nobody disputed the perpetual virginity of Mary for nearly 1600 years. This teaching is even considered to be prefigured in the Old Testament as reflected in the hymnology of the Orthodox Church:

"The shadow of the law passed when grace came, as the bush burnt, yet was not consumed, so the virgin gave birth yet remained a virgin, the Sun of Righteousness has risen instead of a pillar of flame, instead of Moses, there is Christ, the Saviour of our Souls" (Theotokion, tone 1).

THE ORTHODOX VIEWPOINT: BIBLICAL ANALYSIS


The word "brother" has a broader meaning in the Bible. It is not only used to mean the actual brother, but also the cousin or even the nephew.

For instance, Lot is called "Abraham's brother" whereas in reality he is his nephew (Gen. 14:14). Jacob is called a brother of Lavan whereas in reality Lavan is his uncle i.e. Jacob is his nephew (Gen 27:43. 29:15).

Kis's sons are called brothers, whereas in reality they are cousins of Eleazar's daughters (1 Paralip. /1 Chron. 23:21-22). 2 /4 Kings 10:13-14 talks about 42 brothers of Ochozius. Clearly, it must talk about people related to him but in a more general sense of the word.

The reason for this "brother" word problem is that neither the Jewish nor the Aramaic tongues have a special word in order to express the notion of a "cousin". When they wanted to mention the actual cousin as such they would do so periphrastically i.e. "son of the [father's] uncle" or "son of the brother of the mother". For this reason the actual cousin is expressed by the word "brother" when mentioned at one word. Thus, from the other verses will we only be able to (hopefully) understand if it really means “brother” or some other form of relation.

OK, so how can we be sure though that when the NT talks about "brothers of Jesus", it uses the word "brother" with a broad meaning and not the narrow one?

There are many reasons which force us to adopt the general meaning. Here are a few typical ones:

1. - The angel, when he evangelised the Theotokos (the Mother of God), said: "Here, you will conceive in your womb and bear" (συλλήψει εν γαστρί και τέξη). He speaks to her about conceiving and giving birth (τέξη - to give birth). Both are in the future structure. In the future also belonged her marriage with Joseph. She replied: "how come this, for I know no man?" (Luke 1:34). If the Virgin Theotokos was planning to come in matrimonial relations with Joseph, to have children, how come she places this question "Man I know not"? Isn't it more reasonable to accept that she had decided to stay a virgin after her betrothal by living under the protection of a male and not aim to become truly married, since had she intended to get married to Joseph in the first place she would not have said "man I know not"?

Of course, the Protestant will hasten to add here that he or she will not accept the word "ιδού" (= here) in "Here, you will conceive ..." as referring to the future but to the immediate present. For example, the Holy Writ says "ιδού άγγελος Κυρίου εφάνη" (Mt. 2:13), "ιδού μάγοι από Ανατολών παραγίνονται" (2:1) etc.

The word "ιδού" in the Holy Writ does not have the meaning of taking place in the immediate present but it refers to something that will take place unexpectedly. We bring a few examples: "Ιδού η Παρθένος έξει εν γαστρί" (Is. 7:14), "Ιδού ούτος κείται εις πτώσιν και ανάστασιν" (Lk. 2:34), "Ιδού έρχομαι ως κλέπτης" (Revel. 16:14). All of the above verses refer to future and unexpected events.

2. - When Jesus was 12 years old, it is evident that the holy family consisted of three persons only: His mother, Joseph, and Himself. Nowhere are any other brothers of His present (Lk. 2:41) until that age and public appearance of the Lord. Therefore, if other brothers of Jesus were born they must have been born after Jesus' 12th year of age.

But after His 12th birthday, nowhere is Joseph seen any more. Thus Joseph had probably died; the Theotokos seems to be on her own.

But even if we suppose that the so-called "brothers" had been born after the 12th birthday of Jesus, we will have to face the following logical difficulties: These brothers of Jesus were (at least) four (Matt. 12:46. Mark 6:3). The eldest one of these would be younger than Jesus by at least 12 years, whereas the youngest one would have to be younger than Jesus by at least 20 years for the following reason: If we presume that every 2 years one of these brothers would be born, since we have 4 brothers, these would have been born within a period of 8 years. Thus we have 12 + 8 = 20. Therefore when Jesus was 30 years old, the other "brothers" would be: the youngest 30 - 20 = 10 and the eldest would be 30 - 12 = 18. The behaviour, however, of these who behave in everything to Jesus like his guardians (c.f. John 7:3 and Mark 3:21) contradicts the fact that they would be younger than Jesus, who was the firstborn. Why?

Because the Holy Bible says that the eldest brothers, especially the firstborn, preside over the younger ones.

In other words, according to the verses from Genesis 27:29-40 "become master of your brother" and "supervise your brother" that Isaac said to Jacob when receiving Esau's birthrights (πρωτοτόκια), similarly Jesus must command his brothers and not be commanded by them, according to the customs. On the other hand, if we assume that the brothers were older than Jesus, this contradicts the fact that He is called the "firstborn" child (Matt. 1:25. Luke 2:7) [which means the first child that opens his mother's womb, not necessarily having other children following; this is plain Greek for the word "πρωτότοκος"; for more see below at (*)].

Therefore the brothers of Jesus were neither younger nor older than Him, impossible; therefore not real brothers. They were probably older in age and certainly relatives of His in the broader sense of the word (either children of Joseph's with another woman, or cousins of Jesus).

Perpetual Virginity of Mary

continued on next post.
 

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,553
3,534
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟240,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
continued from last post:


3. - In the gospels these brothers are mentioned as brothers of Jesus but not as sons of the Theotokos, as is said specifically regarding Jesus (Mark 6:3). Other than that, the gospels correctly call the Theotokos as woman of Joseph's before Christ is born: "do not be afraid to receive Mariam, your woman" (Matt. 1:20), but not after Jesus' birth. The angel in other words tells Joseph: "rise and take the child and his mother" (Matt. 2:13-21). He doesn't say "rise and take your child and your wife". In other words, if after Jesus' birth the Theotokos had truly taken Joseph as her husband (in other words, had had matrimonial relations with him after a wedding that might have taken place according to the Protestant interpretation, but which is not in fact mentioned in the Bible as ever having taken place, as we only have the information that they betrothed) the angel would have said to him: "take your child and your wife". (Further down we will examine more closely the circumstances surrounding the event with the angel, and see exactly why he calls Mariam as Joseph's "woman" in verse 20).

4. - Why would the Lord, during His Crucifixion, give His mother to be looked after by John (John 19:26-27), since she had other children as well (we 're talking at least four male children)? Clearly Christ would not suggest something like that, contrary to the time's laws! The custom of the time was that if the eldest son died, the other children (male) would look after their mother; and it would never be allowed for the mother to be taken care of by another person altogether without the society commenting harshly on such an event!

5. - The Holy Bible does not only speak about brothers of Jesus, but also about sisters of His, for it says: "all His sisters" (Matt. 12:46. Mark 6:3). Therefore we have a family with (at least) 9 members: 6 brothers and sisters of Jesus', 7th member being Jesus Himself, and His two parents. How come, therefore, the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos came about and was accepted so easily from the times of the Apostolic Fathers - bar a few exceptions, the most important one of which we will discuss below, and which not only does not disprove this point but re-iterates its validity - and all the way not only to the 4th century AD but to 1600 A.D? One would have expected much more of a commotion! Think about it! A 9-member family and the Virgin being called Ever-Virgin? That would not be an easy issue to settle or believe! We should have expected to see a big wave of protests, even riots! But if people knew she only had Jesus as a child, the issue would be much simpler to settle; as it clearly was. And this contradicts and disproves the fact that Mary had other children apart from Jesus.

6. - The Holy Bible considers virgin life superior to married life, because "the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband" (2 Corinth. 7:34), and "both he that giveth his virgin in marriage, doth well; and he that giveth her not, doth better "(v. 38), and Apostle Paul also suggests celibate life: "But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I" (7:8), in particular celibate. (It is also interesting to note that, through History, those who opposed the Ever-Virginity were people who did not like celibacy, because it gnawed on their conscience.)

Perpetual Virginity of Mary

continued on next post.
 
Upvote 0

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,553
3,534
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟240,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
continued from last post:


MATTHEW 1:25 : A PARENTHESIS

But let us turn our attention to this famously misunderstood by Protestants verse.

The famous verse that all Protestants use in favour of non-perpetual virginity is verse Matt. 1:25: "And he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son" (KJV).

And here is the original: "και ουκ εγίνωσκεν αυτήν έως ου έτεκεν τον υιόν αυτής τον πρωτότοκον".

Two points of interest here: the word "πρωτότοκον" (aetiatike structure of "πρωτότοκος") and the words "έως ου".

The word "πρωτότοκος" (firstborn) as we have said, does not imply that other children followed; it means the first born child, the one that opens the womb of his mother, regardless of whether other children follow later on or not. Therefore the verse regarding the word "firstborn" can still not be used as proof for either two beliefs (ever-virginity or children).

Let us proceed.

Something that fails to come straight from translations here is the usage of "έως ου" (= eos ooh). The words "έως ου" mean "never". It doesn't mean, in other words, that after Christ's birth Joseph met her as his wife, but it means that he never did. The "έως ου" in the Holy Bible, is found many a time to mean "never".

For example:

1) The Bible says regarding Noe's raven that it didn't return to the Ark "έως ου εξηράνθη τα ύδατα" (= eos ooh the waters had been dried up). But since it didn't return to the Ark before the waters had dried up, when it had nowhere to stand upon, what happened then; it returned when the waters had dried up?!

2.) The Bible says: "Said the Lord to my Lord; sit on my right έως αν θω τους εχθρούς σου υποπόδιον των ποδών σου" i.e. “eos an” I place your enemies under your feet. I ask therefore: after the submission of His enemies, will Christ cease to sit on the right hand of the Father?!

3.) Elsewhere again the Lord tells His apostles: "with you I am all the days έως της συντελείας του αιώνος" i.e. "until the end of the eon". OK, I ask again: isn't Christ going to be with His disciples after the end of the eon in Heaven?

4.) The OT also says regarding the barren woman, Melchol: "και τη Μελχώλ ... ουκ εγένετο παιδίον έως της ημέρας του αποθανείν αυτήν" ( = "she had no child until the day she died"). According to the Protestant interpretation, i.e. interpreting the word "eos" not as "never", we must deduce that Melchol must have born a child after her death, when she was in her grave!

In fact, the term "έως ου" is used in the same way even today in Modern Greek. For example the teacher tells the children: "Keep quiet 'έως ότου' [eos otou] I return"; until I return ["otou" being the modern Greek equivalent of "ou" here]. Does he mean that, after his return, the children must be noisy? On the contrary! The teacher is only interested that they keep quiet till he comes back. Afterwards, it follows that they must be quiet when he is present!

So clearly the Evangelist is interested to prove that Panagia [the All-Holy Virgin] was a Virgin until (eos) Christ's birth, Who was born supernaturally, from the Spirit the Holy, and He is not son of Joseph's but Son of God. Regarding the issues after the birth, these are of no interest in the semantics of this sentence. It was obvious that she stayed a Virgin, since she had been honoured to bear the All-Holy Word in the first place. (Go back).

Perpetual Virginity of Mary

continued on next post.
 
Upvote 0

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,553
3,534
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟240,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
cont'd from last post:


THE ORTHODOX VIEW POINT CONTINUED

Returning to the issue of the "brothers" of Jesus.

Judaic law stated that a woman without a husband or fiance is to be stoned to death! This is the reason why Joseph was given to her as a fiance; and certainly not husband (he was betrothed to the Virgin). And this is why Joseph is "father" of Jesus in the law. Similarly, his brothers were brothers in the law; and the word brother as we said means something much more general biblically (c.f. Gen. 12:5. 13:8. 29:12. 1 Paralip. / 1 Chron. 23:21-22). Were we to take seriously the view that these were real brothers, we would also have to face the possibility that Joseph was truly Christ's father; but then we're on a slippery slope if we claim that both God and Joseph were Christ's fathers and a multitude of new terrible heresies can spring from such blasphemous words.

After all, we said above that the Apostle in 1 Corinth. 7:7-8 asks people to be like himself, in particular celibate, and also in verse 38, explicitly now: "so then she that marries does well, she that does not does better" (essentially) and stays celibate that is. So the one staying celibate does better. We ask you: wouldn't God want the best for the woman that would bear Him, especially in purity?

Therefore the idea that she was given as a wife to Joseph in the law makes sense for she could stay celibate forever; and be safe of course! For Joseph was protecting her, as the Law asked, and the Pharisees could not do anything regarding the issue of Jesus, as by law Joseph was Mary's "fiance" and the child was legally theirs as they knew (c.f. Luke 4:22) and thus (as Joseph would not make an issue of it after being informed by the angel) neither would the people that would hate Jesus later on say anything nor would the child and His mother be in any danger by them nor would the Virgin's purity and life of purity be in any danger!

But to understand more clearly why the betrothal would grant such priviliges whereas matrimony would not (even if they got married but accepted to have no matrimonial relations) needs more special attention. Let us therefore look more closely into that now.

BETROTHAL vs. MARRIAGE

We cannot stress enough the point that the Holy Bible does not claim that Virgin Mary was ever given to Joseph in marriage. The Holy Bible speaks only of betrothal. The usage of the words γυνή and ανήρ in Greek are not used to exclusively mean "wife" and "husband", but also "woman" and "man", respectively, words that can be used equally to indicate (apart from the obvious gender attribution) the "fiance" or his "fiancee" respectively (i.e. the ones that were betrothed or "engaged" to each other).

So why do we stress this point? What difference does it make? It makes the world of difference because if the word γυνή -- which gives rise to the word γυναίκα that is mentioned by the Angel to Joseph -- does not necessarily mean "wife" but can also mean "betrothed", we need to examine the difference between the two rites: betrothal and marriage.

Betrothed, married ... same thing, right?

No! At those times, the betrothal was performed before a couple got married. Even if they never got to be married in the end, the betrothal required that no matrimonial relations took place during that period (although the couple had all the responsibilities of marriage in every other respect). This is what ensured Virgin Mary's purity. The betrothal with Joseph was the trick.

Many Protestants will not disagree with this. However, they might think that eventually Virgin Mary actually married Joseph (after their betrothal), even if they never had children together (what the Protestants sometimes call consummation of wedding). Other Protestants will need to support the very idea of marriage taking place in order to ensure that their theory of children can be true.

Let us put the issue of children aside, for a moment, and concentrate on this question: Did Virgin Mary actually marry Joseph after their betrothal? The Bible does not mention anything on this. The other Tradition of the Church however, tells us that they never did. This also makes sense hagiographically. Let us now examine this point.

Had she got married to Joseph -- even if they actually agreed to have no matrimonial relations -- she would still have had two husbands, God and Joseph! That would cause a lot of theological problems (including questions relating to Joseph being a real step-father of Jesus, and what if he had had children with another woman, a true possibility, and so forth) but we will keep things simple here and concentrate on what we can see immediately.

It certainly contradicts four points (some of which are mentioned later on in these notes in more detail):

a) What Jesus uses, He wants it only for His own use.

b.) She would need to tend to the things of a human husband and not keep her thoughts only of God. The Divine Economy wanted to secure not only her future celibacy (because that could also be secured by being married after their betrothal and agreeing not to come into matrimonial relations) but also to secure her future life of celibacy (something that the betrothal could guarantee but which marriage couldn't, with its many daily distractions).

c.) What about some common sense?

If we accept the fact that she was planning to have no children with Joseph (recall "man I know not?" and the ample proof provided elsewhere in this text), what would be the point of them continuing with marriage? Wasn't the betrothal good enough? As far as the society was concerned, the fact that she was under the wing of a pious old man was good enough to make sure she is not stoned, especially at a time when she was about to give birth to a Child. The betrothal kept her safe from the society and would suffice to assure her safety afterwards as well. The only real reason they would need to continue to matrimony would be because they were in love with each other and in order to have children. But Joseph had been commanded in his dream to take her as his γυνή (= betrothed or wife, unclear) and clearly not with matrimonial aims in the mind of the Angel but so that she does not get stoned to death were she left on her own or sent away thus endangering herself and her Baby. Before the Angel came to him in his dream, Joseph was indeed planning to send her away, and Mary clearly shows no intentions of wanting to get married to Joseph ("man I know not?"). What then? The Holy Spirit forced them then to marry?!

For she did not want to marry Joseph. And Joseph, who was an old man, had no such intentions present anywhere in the Bible (he did not even feel jealous or reprimand her when she came back from Elisabeth fully pregnant). And we are to believe that the Pure All-Holy Virgin, entitled as "The Virgin" in the Old Testament prophecy, uniquely praised among men and women, succumbed to the pleasures of married life and the frivolity of wives, and decided after giving birth to God (not to His divine nature but to Christ fully God and fully human) that she would, after all, follow the "perks" of the Angel's supposed suggestions (as they would have been) and have a few more children with Joseph, realising indeed that having children will make her life complete - and who cares about having given birth to God and to the purity that heaven and earth had praised her for till that moment?!

Oh, the impiety!

And if she had no intention to marry Joseph why not stop at the betrothal and decide to marry and thus risk the temptation of matrimonial relations which would end her virginity, the virginal life being a life higher than the married life, as the Bible informs us, and which is the road followed by many people today, e.g. monks and nuns?

Does this issue perhaps have something to do instead with the fact that Protestants abolished monasticism and virginal life and could not stand to even hear the word Ever-Virginity i.e. Celibacy?

d.) This matter is very important for our salvation (as soteriology coincides with Christology, and the issues on the Virgin are directly related to Christology). Nevertheless, we point out that, once the ignorance of Protestants' koine Greek and ecclesiastical history is corrected, sola scriptura in itself is unable to provide a full answer to this matter because the Bible never actually mentions anything as regards Virgin Mary and the Righteous Joseph having proceeded with the marriage or not, even if the rest of this text clearly shows the absurdity and blasphemy of such an argument.

Joseph in fact had probably been married to another woman, who had probably died; and now stayed only with Mariam, which itself is not strange of course for even in those times the Jewish community placed the woman higher than other areas did, and even though polygamy was allowed, people tended to stay with one woman. Men however were allowed to have more than one woman at the time. The fact that Joseph might have had another woman stems also from the fact that he was much older than her; she was only 16 when the annunciation happened, as sources from ecclesiastical history and Tradition certify.

And one final point as regards married life in betrothal or marriage that is of interest to us.

Some Protestants may claim that the fact that Virgin Mary stayed betrothed only and never got married was sin. However that is not how the law worked in those times. In those days it was very common to bring a young girl home to an elderly man and it was permitted for a man to have more than one woman (of either the "betrothed" or the "married" stage or both). The people would stone adulteresses to death but they did not interfere with a couple's personal life. (And if the reader finds this society harsh, they should realise that pagan societies were a lot harsher than the Jewish society in those days! This is why God first brought the Law into the society, which was harsh, and slowly prepared the Jews and the rest of mankind for the arrival of His Son). Since marital bond held legal value in those times, the "trick" of the Divine Economy is in fact totally legal. This way the Law was not violated (although of course afterwards it was complemented with the arrival of our Christ and Saviour Jesus Christ).

All these things make sense both hagiographically and based on the situation of the times; even the situation with Elisabeth. Let us turn our attention to that now, for it will help us understand the situation with the angel and Joseph better when we return to examine the aforementioned event with the angel.



for the rest of the information, please go to this link:
Perpetual Virginity of Mary
 
Upvote 0

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,381
5,253
✟816,720.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Well said Dorthea!
thumbsup.gif
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I just wonder why some people are so vehement on Mary not being a virgin.

Frankly, I don't think it any of our business.

The problem is that it is a building block to other things. It looks like a step on the path, in some people's minds, to her deity. Did they deify her then? No. Is she deified by some now? Yes.

So, I don't think it matters one way or the other, nor really care, but for some, it's a peg on which to hang other stuff.
 
Upvote 0

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,381
5,253
✟816,720.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I just wonder why some people are so vehement on Mary not being a virgin.

Frankly, I don't think it any of our business.

The problem is that it is a building block to other things. It looks like a step on the path, in some people's minds, to her deity. Did they deify her then? No. Is she deified by some now? Yes.

So, I don't think it matters one way or the other, nor really care, but for some, it's a peg on which to hang other stuff.

Scripture, as quoted in the posts above does lead us toward this conclusion. Likewise the traditions handed down to us by those who were historically closer to and even contemporaries of the Apostles do not conflict with Scripture.

Those who deny this, use this denial also as a peg to hang stuff on; and use it as another tool to discredit those of us who hold historically orthodox doctrines; thereby supporting their own personal interpretation of this and the rest of the Bible.

While our Denomination (Confessional Lutheran) holds this belief, we do not hold that this belief is is necessary for salvation, but may be considered "Pius Opinion". We do however hold that the BVM is to be commemorated and honored because Scripture does tell us "For behold, from henseforth; all generations shall call me blessed".

So, for me, the doctrine of Semper Virago as held by the Church for 2000 years, is good enough for me to hold for my short time here also.:)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Anglian

let us love one another, for love is of God
Oct 21, 2007
8,092
1,246
Held
✟20,741.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Dear Dorothea,

Excellent points. Can I add this from a Jewish perspective?

'On the issue of Mary's perpetual virginity, one of the most important facts that non-Catholics fail to grasp is that both Mary and Joseph were Jewish. In fact, the Gospel describes Joseph as being "a righteous man". Do you know what that means to a Jew?

Answer: It indicates that Joseph kept the Torah. He was obedient to the law of God.

And what does the law of God (i.e, Scripture) say?
1. "From the earliest biblical days adultery carried with it a sense of defilement, so that a woman who had known contact with another man, even if by force, was considered no longer fit to be visited by her husband (Genesis 49:4; 2 Samuel 20:3, re ibid. 16:21-22; Book of Jubilees 33:6-9; Epstein, Marriage Laws in the Biblical Talmud, p.51)."

2. "In rabbinic law a woman who has committed adultery is "defiled" and cannot remain the wife of her husband, but must be divorced (Sifre on Dt, edit. M. Friedman (1864) 270 p. 122b; Sifre on Numbers, edit. M. Friedman (1915) 7 p. 4a and 19 p. 66). Furthermore any intimate male contact by the wife with Jew or gentile, potent or impotent, natural or unnatural makes divorce compulsory (Sotha 26b; Yebamoth 55a, b, 87b; Kethuboth 9a, Babylonian Talmud; Kethuboth 25a; Sotah 27a, Yad, Sotah 2,2, Jerusalem Talmud)."

3. "In Jewish Law a man betrothed to a woman was considered legally married to her. The word for betrothed in Hebrew is Kiddush, a word that is derived from the Hebrew word Kadash which means "holy" "consecrated," "set apart." Because by betrothal (as in Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27) , or marriage, a woman became the peculiar property of her husband, forbidden to others."

4. "The Oral Law of Kiddushin (Marriages and Engagements) states; "The husband prohibits his wife to the whole world like an object which is dedicated to the Sanctuary" (Kiddushin 2b, Babylonian Talmud)"

5. "...when Mary was told by the archangel Gabriel "Behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus" (Lk 1:31), he also added that this was to come about because "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the Holy one to be born shall be called the Son of God" (Lk 1:35).

By stating it in those terms the archangel declared to Mary that God would enter into a marital relationship with her, causing her to conceive His Son in her womb, For "to lay one's power (reshuth) over a woman" (Targum to Dt 21:4) was a euphemism for "to have a marital relationship with her."


"Likewise "to overshadow" (Lk 1:35) by spreading the "wing" or "cloak" over a woman was another euphemism for marital relations. Thus, the rabbis commented (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 39.7; Midrash Ruth Rabbah 3.9) that Ruth was chaste in her wording when she asked Boaz to have marital relations with her by saying to him "I am Ruth you handmaid, spread therefore your cloak ( literally, "wing": kanaph) over your handmaid for you are my next-of-kin" (Ruth 3:9).
Tallith, another Aramaic-Hebrew word for cloak, is derived from tellal = shadow. Thus, "to spread one's cloak (tallith) over a woman" means to cohabit with her (Kiddushin 18b, see also Mekhilta on Exodus 21:8). Did not the Lord say to His bride Israel: "I am married to you" (Jr 3:14) and "your Maker is your husband"? (Is 54-5:5; Jr 31:32)? And what is more intimate than what the Lord said to His bride: "You developed, you grew, you came to full womanhood; your breasts became firm and your hair grew... you were naked... and I saw that you were now old enough for love so I spread my cloak over you... I gave you My oath, I entered into a covenant with you and you became Mine, says the Lord God" (Ezk 16:7, 8).

And so,
"We know from the Gospel of Matthew 1:14 that Joseph the husband of Mary was a righteous man, a devout law-abiding Jew. Having noticed that Mary was pregnant and that he, her betrothed, had nothing to do with the pregnancy, Joseph had either to publicly condemn her and have her put to death for adultery (Dt 22:22-29) or put her away privately.

Joseph, however, follows the teaching of the Scriptures (Numbers 30:6-7, which says: "If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand." He does not take the issue public, he is free to accept the situation, because:
His decision was made when an angel appeared to him in a dream, saying: "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins" (Mt. 1:20-21). The angel does not use the phrase for marital union: "go in unto" (as in Gn 30:3, 4, 16) or "come together" (Mt 1:18) but merely a word meaning leading her into the house as a wife (paralambano gunaika) but not cohabiting with her.


For when the angel revealed to him that Mary was truly the spouse of the Holy Spirit, Joseph could take Mary, his betrothed, into his house as a wife, but he could never have intercourse with her because according to the Law she was forbidden to him for all time."
To deny the perpetual virginity of Mary renders Scripture inaccurate...as Joseph would NOT, then, have been "righteous" by Jewish law. Catholics did not "develop" the teaching of the perpetual virginity...God Himself did, through Sacred Scripture.'

(The quoted information above is excerpted from an article from the late Brother Anthony, a Hebrew convert and expert on rabbinic and scriptural teaching.)

peace,

Anglian
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Livindesert

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2005
2,314
59
✟2,834.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I still find it funny that the church canonized a Gospel that says Mary had relations. It is like they are going from the physical being a good thing (Matthew) to a more Gnostic "the Physical is bad" by saying Mary is somehow corrupted by being a loving wife.
 
Upvote 0

Anglian

let us love one another, for love is of God
Oct 21, 2007
8,092
1,246
Held
✟20,741.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I still find it funny that the church canonized a Gospel that says Mary had relations. It is like they are going from the physical being a good thing (Matthew) to a more Gnostic "the Physical is bad" by saying Mary is somehow corrupted by being a loving wife.

Well, had the Church done that, it would be 'funny'. As it is, perhaps all that is 'funny' is that in the face of the testimony of the Greek speaking Churches and Greek speakers, English speakers with a Greek dictionary think they know better.

Do read my post above from a Jewish convert describing how these things are regarded in Jewish law.

Then, what becomes 'funny' is that a twenty first century person thinks they know better than the early Church and those familiar with the Jewish practices described above.

No one, except you, is suggesting that St. Mary was corrupted. What we are suggesting goes along the lines of my last post. To imagine that a righteous Jew and his betrothed would regard themselves as just another married couple after what had happened to them is 'funny peculiar'; just think about it.

peace,

Anglian
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Anglian

let us love one another, for love is of God
Oct 21, 2007
8,092
1,246
Held
✟20,741.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Anglican you are married do you feel that marital relations has corrupted your wife, that she is now second class because she is no longer pure?
I am not a 'righteous Jew' of the first century and my wife has not been overshadowed by the Holy Spirit.

You are insisting on applying twenty-first century Western standards to a 1st century Jew; you are insisting on applying those standards to a unique event.

Only one woman has ever borne Our Saviour. Are you really saying that after that she and her husband would have thought nothing special had happened and carried on as usual? Would you?

Do re read the post from the Jewish convert, it explains why your question isn't going to get to the heart of what is going on here.

peace,

Anglian
 
Upvote 0

Livindesert

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2005
2,314
59
✟2,834.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I am not a 'righteous Jew' of the first century and my wife has not been overshadowed by the Holy Spirit.

You are insisting on applying twenty-first century Western standards to a 1st century Jew; you are insisting on applying those standards to a unique event.

Only one woman has ever borne Our Saviour. Are you really saying that after that she and her husband would have thought nothing special had happened and carried on as usual? Would you?

Do re read the post from the Jewish convert, it explains why your question isn't going to get to the heart of what is going on here.

peace,

Anglian



Why would I talk to a Jewish convert about Judaism? It would be like talking to a ex-catholic now born again pentacostal about Catholicism.

So I ask you again has your wife been defiled by your "touch" ?
 
Upvote 0

Anglian

let us love one another, for love is of God
Oct 21, 2007
8,092
1,246
Held
✟20,741.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Why would I talk to a Jewish convert about Judaism? It would be like talking to a ex-catholic now born again pentacostal about Catholicism.

So I ask you again has your wife been defiled by your "touch" ?
Of course not, but then nor has she been overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, so I'm not sure of the point of your question.

It would only make sense if you were asking it of someone whose wife had been overshadowed by the HS; since we know of only one such, and since neither Scripture nor tradition tells us that the two people concerned ever had marital relations, you will only get the answer you want by insisting you are right.

peace,

Anglian
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Livindesert

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2005
2,314
59
✟2,834.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Anglican when you go home and inform your wife that she has been defiled by your touch and is no longer holy then will I look at the possibility that I may be inncorrect. "Until" then I am done with Christianity as I am a monotheist not a henotheist(Where Mary is deified) and believe God created Male and Female to live as one flesh making a whole, not as Paul incorrectly suggested that celibacy is the true way we should live.

Later :wave:
 
Upvote 0