Mary a virgin?

~Anastasia~ said:

And I will remind everyone once again of where you are posting. This is specifically NOT the place to try to prove Tradition wrong. You are free to try that in General Theology. Please read the Statement of Purpose if you haven't already - the note is in red for this forum. I don't want to see folks getting a ban.

Click to expand...

Benjamin Calvary said:

Scripture agrees with this.

Scripture does not agree with this.

If you would like to consider this with me, then please let us do so. Please cite the text or texts that you believe teach that Mary, the wife of Joseph, had any further children from her womb.

The 'brothers' (four named) and 'sisters' (at least two) of Jesus were the sons of Joseph from a previous marriage (Joseph was a widower), before being betrothed and married to Mary. There are several texts, which we can look at upon request, which implicitly help us to know this.

Click to expand...

Martin Tom said:

That's nonsense.

Click to expand...

Benjamin Calvary said:

Correct. The 'brothers' and 'sisters' of Jesus were so, by Mary's marriage to Joseph, whose children they were from a previous marriage.

God who opened the womb of Mary for Jesus, also closed the womb of Mary after Jesus.

This does not mean that Joseph and Mary did not have normal marital relations, as properly due them as Husband and wife after Jesus.

What about the "firstborn" text?

An Answer is as follows:

Before we begin, please pray, and open your Bible.

We can know that Jesus was the ‘firstborn’ of Mary, as per St. Mattew 1:25; St. Luke 2:7.

Now, because of the term, ‘firstborn’, many incorrectly teach that it automatically implies, further children (of Mary, by Joseph), but this is not necessarily the case, as the word ‘firstborn’ has a range of meaning, from simply the original child of inheritance, and also the first to be born among others later to come (1 Samuel 8:2; 1 Chronicles 3:1,15, 8:1,39, 26:2,4, &c.), and even has a greater meaning, than simply ‘first child to be born’, but is used to describe even those who are not a first child, but that which is the child through whom the inheritance or blessing or rulership comes:

Consider that Numbers 3:42,43, 18:15, 33:4; Judges 11:34; or Nehemiah 10:36; Psalms 78:51, 105:36, 135:8; or Luke 1:7-80, 9:28, &c. In some of those cases there was only a single child, and yet, would be the “firstborn”. Even the ‘only’ children in those cases are ‘firstborn’, even if they never had another child after. There is no indication that all the Israelites, or all the Egyptians had other child after their ‘firstborn’, though many would have. In the cases of John the Baptist, Jesus and the daughter of Jephthae, and the son of the man who came to Jesus, &c. they are only children, yet would be considered ‘firstborn’.

Genesis 10:15, 19:31,33,34,37, 22:21, 25:13,25, 27:19,32, 29:26, 35:23, 36:15, 38:6,7,28, 41:51, 43:33, 46:8, 48:14,18, 49:3; Exodus 4:23, 6:14, 11:5, 12:12,29, 13:2,13,15, 22:29, 34:20; Numbers 3:2,12,13,40,41,42,43,45,46,50, 8:16,17, 18:15, 33:4; Deuteronomy 21:15,16,17, 25:6; Joshua 6:26, 17:1; Judges 8:20; 1 Samuel 8:2, 14:49, 17:13; 2 Samuel 3:2; 1 Kings 16:34; 1 Chronicles 1:13,29, 2:3,13,25,27,42,50, 3:1,15, 4:4, 5:1,3, 6:28, 8:1,30,39, 9:5,31,36, 26:2,4; 2 Chronicles 21:3; Nehemiah 10:36; Psalms 78:51, 105:36, 135:8, 136:10; Micah 6:7; Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7; Hebrews 11:28.

Continuing with the ‘firstborn’, in the greater sense, see:

Isaac over Ishmael: Genesis 22:2,12,16.

Ephraim was made firstborn, over Manasseh: Genesis 41:50-52, 48:16-20; Jeremiah 31:9.

Joseph over Reuben: Genesis 49:3; 1 Chronicles 5:1.

Jacob/Israel over Esau: Exodus 4:22; Genesis 25:25-26; Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:13-15.

Levites over the others: Numbers 3:41-45, 8:14-18.

David over others: Psalms 89:20,27; 1 Samuel 16:10-11. David is a type of Christ (Luke 24:27; John 5:39).

Simri, over others: 1 Chronicles 26:10.

Jesus over all: Colossians 1:15-18; see also 2 Corinthians 1:20, and Romans 9:5; Colossians 1:26, 2:10; Ephesians 1:21-23, 3:9, 4:15; Hebrews 7:26; John 1:3.

However, Jesus is also the ‘firstborn’ (spiritually; Luke 1:35) of the ‘woman’, that ‘church in the wilderness (Acts 7:38), among many 'brethren": Isaiah 9:6; Luke 2:11; Hebrews 2:10-12; Revelation 12:1-5,13.

and there are other uses: Job 18:12-13; Isaiah 14:30.

The virginity of Mary before Jesus, see Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:18,23,25; Luke 1:27, 2:7

This means that Mary had no children before Jesus, since He is called her “firstborn son” and she was a “virgin”, thus we can immediately eliminate any others before that time for herself.

What then of afterwards, since it is written that Joseph “knew her not till she had brought forth” Jesus?, which would help indicate that their marriage was eventually consumated after her purification [Luke 2:22], as is the rightful God-gifted/given position of the married, Husband and Wife, before God [Genesis 2:24; Proverbs 5:18, 18:22; Matthew 1:25, 19:5; Mark 10:7; Ephesians 5:31; Hebrews 13:4, etc], Joseph fulfilling and “perform[ing] the duty of an husband” [see and compare Exodus 21:10; Deuteronomy 25:5,7, but in the case of an original husband to a new wife, etc], which includes intimacy of marital relations, and not remaining away from her forever, since that would lead to greater temptation for them both [1 Corinthians 7:5]. Though such marital relations are indeed indicated in the Scripture between Joseph and Mary [let us tread carefully in such areas, for they are personal, and generally private], this does not necessarily lead to further children, as is found the case with many a couple in Scripture, and as it is written, that those things are written about Jesus [John 5:39], being types in their lives pointing to Him and His life, etc.

Contextually, we do see that the Bible mentions that Jesus had “brothers” [named] and “sisters” [unnamed]:

“Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.” Matthew 12:47

“Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?” Matthew 13:55

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.” Mark 6:3

when we come to the event of the Cross itself in the Gospel accounts, we see that Jesus entrusts Mary into the hands of John the Apostle, and not to any previous family members who were born of Joseph previously, which would have been their duty to do, in taking care of a widower like Mary, if they were her actual blood children.

“When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!” John 19:26

“Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.” John 19:27

Another, is when Jesus previously had stated, that he had no inheritance on this earth to speak of, and therefore was not the eldest, by any means, but like King David before Him, was the youngest, even though Mary's “firstborn”, and would have received only from His father a portion which remained after being divided among the “sons” of Joseph, and since his earthly 'father' [not by blood/flesh, but by care/commission from Heaven] was deceased, His inheritance could only come from His Heavenly Father.

“And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” Matthew 8:20

“And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” Luke 9:58

The “brothers” of Jesus, being older, from Joseph, at a point in the Gospel record, convince Mary that Jesus was possessed of devils, for they did not follow Jesus, nor believe on Him, but rather they had listened to and believed the Pharisees, which were accusing Him of being used of Satan to cast out Satan, and since they were older, they were using their authority to convince Mary to get Jesus to cease what He had been sent to do:

“But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.” Matthew 12:24

“While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.” Matthew 12:46

“Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. “ Matthew 12:47

“And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.” Mark 3:20

“And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.” Mark 3:21

“And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.” Mark 3:22

“Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.” Mark 3:30

“There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.” Mark 3:31

“And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.” Mark 3:32

“Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press.” Luke 8:19

“And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.” Luke 8:20

At another time, the “brothers” spoke to Jesus in tones of authority, something only which elders would do to their youngers, declaring His path before Him, apart from The Father's instruction:

“His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.” John 7:3

All of this, would point to God, lovingly, preserving from Mary and us, from the utter and total confusion it would have been, for the people of that day and of now, in considering any further children of Mary, as being also God, or Messiah, or Saviour, or etc, or thinking that some flesh/blood line was more pure or holy than another, or of entrusting the future of the religion of Christianity to a blood line of Mary, instead of the spiritual line of Christ. Think, briefly, for a moment, of how that would have been, if Mary had other children, or that were around, or still existed, once Christ ascended. Would they have looked Heavenward, or to flesh and blood, knowing the heart of men? The Wisdom of God is indeed Wise.

A lesson we can learn, from these things, is that we ought to remain focused upon Christ Jesus, rather than upon trivial things, though truthful they may be, and to be followers of Christ, as James, a brother of Christ, came to be [James 1:1]. Satan will always attempt to cause unnecessary and harmful division amongst the people of God, to get them to sin, to lose their focus of mission from Christ Jesus, etc.

If others, choose not to accept any of these things [for people are free to choose], and reject, and/or explain away the Scriptural accounts, or the Testimony of Jesus, which reveal the “proof” of them, -- have compassion upon them, and treat them kindly as brother or sister, not desiring to stir up strife over it, but praying for them and yourself, and us, that we may finally, and all, be of the same mind, which mind is in Christ Jesus.

The powerful lesson is, that Christ is no respecter of persons [Acts 10:34], neither of blood/flesh [Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11], but if we accept Him, then we are truly His real “brothers” and “sisters” [Matthew 12:49-50; Mark 3:34-35; Luke 8:21]. He can bring us from Enmity to Him, into Enmity with Sin! Amen!

Click to expand...

~Anastasia~ said:

Indeed - there are differences within our differing traditions. That isn't a problem.

Just ask Catholics and Orthodox whether the Pope was always in charge or the Church was counciliar.

But we are not here to debate which of us is right or wrong. And we are not here to debate whether Tradition is right or wrong or should be followed or not.

If Anglicans have traditionally doubted the ever-virginity of Mary, that would bear mentioning.

I'm aware of the "three-legged stool" metaphor, and I like it, though it's possible that I envision it differently than you might interact with it. To be honest, though I was seriously considering a Continuing Anglican parish when I was deciding where to end up, and many of the folks I highly respect are Anglicans, I did seem to have more trouble getting a concrete answer about what Anglicanism teaches than I had from any others I asked (which mainly included Orthodox, Lutherans, and Catholics). I'm not sure if that's a lack of codified beliefs or ... ? Or maybe it's just the particular folks I asked. The priest (rector?) here was very hard to pin down precisely lol. He wouldn't even comment exactly on the Eucharist.

I very much like the idea of S/T/R - but I would expect them always to work together and not arrive at conflicts or novel opinions. Maybe that's just reflecting how we (Orthodox) interact with Scripture and Tradition.

Click to expand...