Annunciation

[Rhamiel]

When the angel Gabriel tells Mary that she will give birth to the Saviourb she said "how can this be seeing that I know not a man"
now if you think that Mary and Joseph were planning to have normal marital relations why would this be such a problem for her to understand?
If a person who was about to get married was told that she was going to have a child why would the current state of virginity be an issue?

 

[Standing Up]

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be [in the future], seeing I know not a man [in the present]?

Mary understood what makes a baby.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

But isn't that point? She knows what it takes. If she had planned to have babies in the "future" why would her virginity matter at the moment the angel says this?

If we assume she planned to have babies with Joseph, then her response makes no sense. Angel says she is going to have a baby, what to name it and that He would be great. "Awesome" would be appropriate.

Up to this point the angel never said when this would occur or that it would not be Joseph's baby, only that it would happen (future). Asking how am I going to get pregnant makes no sense if we say that is exactly what she expected/planned to do with Joseph in the "future".

 

[Standing Up]

Maybe she knows about Jeptha's (sic?) vow and his daughter being 'set aside for life to the LORD'. But does that make sense given her betrothal?

IOW, if she planned to remain a virgin, does it make sense to know she is to be married?

 

[Rhamiel]

Maybe she knows about Jeptha's (sic?) vow and his daughter being 'set aside for life to the LORD'. But does that make sense given her betrothal?

IOW, if she planned to remain a virgin, does it make sense to know she is to be married?

good point
one theory is that Joseph was very old at the time she was bethrothed to him, I have heard some people talk about Mary being a consecrated virgin or something but I do not know a lot about this
I just think her response shows that she had no intention of having children with Joseph, or else she would just have said "oh ok" to the prophesy of having a child, it would have been no surprise for most young married people

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Maybe she knows about Jeptha's (sic?) vow and his daughter being 'set aside for life to the LORD'. But does that make sense given her betrothal?

IOW, if she planned to remain a virgin, does it make sense to know she is to be married?

Jeptha's vow (leading an army) was that if the Lord gave him victory in battles he would sacrifice to the Lord the first living thing he saw upon returning home. Unfortunately for him that living thing happened to be his daughter.

Maybe I misunderstand but am not sure how that tragic story from the OT would weigh on Mary’s response to the angel telling her she would have a child. Or even why one in her shoes would think of that story in that moment.

But to answer your question, of how it makes sense to be engaged when one is promised in marriage; it makes sense in light of tradition regarding Mary’s childhood, a need to remove her from working in the temple, the selection of widowers to take care of her, the ire of the temple leaders when she comes up pregnant.

But back to the OP and your first response, I agree with Rhamiel. You said that Mary’s "how can this be(future)" IOW the claim is she meant "how can I be pregnant right now since "I know not a man (present)". Except the angel has only told her she would have a child (future), not that she is already pregnant (present).

Furthermore, the line of reasoning which says Mary does know a man, Joseph, with whom it is claimed she shortly (future) intends on having children with, then it makes no sense for to ask "how can this be" (in the future) when she allegedly fully intends on having children with Joseph. IOW of course she will have a child, one of Joseph’s! "How can this be" makes no sense in that context.

 

[Standing Up]

good point
one theory is that Joseph was very old at the time she was bethrothed to him, I have heard some people talk about Mary being a consecrated virgin or something but I do not know a lot about this
I just think her response shows that she had no intention of having children with Joseph, or else she would just have said "oh ok" to the prophesy of having a child, it would have been no surprise for most young married people

I guess the difference is in how we understand the immediacy or not of the angel's proclamation.

And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me [optative mood] according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

BlueLetterBible.org
The optative mood is generally used in the so-called "fourth-class" conditions which express a wish or desire for an action to occur in which the completion of such is doubtful. By the time of the New Testament, the optative mood was beginning to disappear from spoken and written Greek, and such rarely occurs in the New Testament.

(Thought that interesting about the mood.)

Would Mary's consent be the moment and she did not know a man, so how could it be?

 

[Standing Up]

Jeptha's vow (leading an army) was that if the Lord gave him victory in battles he would sacrifice to the Lord the first living thing he saw upon returning home. Unfortunately for him that living thing happened to be his daughter.

That's one way to understand it, but the other way is she was set aside (dedicated) to the LORD for life. (consecrated virgin, as Rhamiel put it)

Maybe I misunderstand but am not sure how that tragic story from the OT would weigh on Mary’s response to the angel telling her she would have a child. Or even why one in her shoes would think of that story in that moment.

If one assumes Jeptha's daughter's death, then I understand your question. OTOH, if one understands it was the beginning of what developed into the "nunnery" system (with all due respect), then the idea of perpetual virgin would bolster your claim that Mary would remain a virgin, ie dedicated to the LORD for life. This helps your claim for Mary's ever-virgin with a scriptural basis.

But, however, my question, if Mary "made that connection with Jeptha's daughter" of being dedicated to the LORD, why are we told Mary was betrothed?

But to answer your question, of how it makes sense to be engaged when one is promised in marriage; it makes sense in light of tradition regarding Mary’s childhood, a need to remove her from working in the temple, the selection of widowers to take care of her, the ire of the temple leaders when she comes up pregnant.

But back to the OP and your first response, I agree with Rhamiel. You said that Mary’s "how can this be(future)" IOW the claim is she meant "how can I be pregnant right now since "I know not a man (present)". Except the angel has only told her she would have a child (future), not that she is already pregnant (present).

She wouldn't become pregnant, until she consented.

Furthermore, the line of reasoning which says Mary does know a man, Joseph, with whom it is claimed she shortly (future) intends on having children with, then it makes no sense for to ask "how can this be" (in the future) when she allegedly fully intends on having children with Joseph. IOW of course she will have a child, one of Joseph’s! "How can this be" makes no sense in that context.

Well, Mary apparently understood the immediacy of the message. She also doesn't say, I won't ever know a man (in the future).

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Again, if the assumption is Mary is planning on having children with Joseph, then upon hearing she would have a child, why would it make sense to immediately ask how that would happen?

There is no "immediacy" imparted in the angel's message before Mary says this. She has not been "asked" yet in order to give her "consent". She is only told she "will" (future) have a child.

Not to derail this, our tradition includes many things not found in scripture and it supports the explanation of her response traditionally given.

Nonetheless her response does not make sense in the context of a plan to have children with Joseph. To say it makes more sense to disregard the stories we have from tradition because they are not "scriptural" and assume instead that Mary sensed "something", some "immediacy", we do not have in scripture does not work for me. How is that assumption more "scriptural" than our tradition?

It is also a bit odd to say she senses urgency in the message, meaning she will soon be pregnant, and having her say "I do NOT know a man". If she expected from the angel's saying she would have a child to be pregnant that night, wouldn't it make more sense for her to say something about Joseph, the man she alledgedly plans to have children with? Does this version also happen to require Mary to be blonde?

 

[Standing Up]

Again, if the assumption is Mary is planning on having children with Joseph, then upon hearing she would have a child, why would it make sense to immediately ask how that would happen?

I understand your question and have tried to answer it. Again, here's mine, if Mary was planning to remain a virgin, why tell us she was betrothed? The normal thing for the culture is to be fruitful and multiply.

There is no "immediacy" imparted in the angel's message before Mary says this. She has not been "asked" yet in order to give her "consent". She is only told she "will" (future) have a child.

Not to derail this, our tradition includes many things not found in scripture and it supports the explanation of her response traditionally given.

Nonetheless her response does not make sense in the context of a plan to have children with Joseph. To say it makes more sense to disregard the stories we have from tradition because they are not "scriptural" and assume instead that Mary sensed "something", some "immediacy", we do not have in scripture does not work for me. How is that assumption more "scriptural" than our tradition?

It is also a bit odd to say she senses urgency in the message, meaning she will soon be pregnant, and having her say "I do NOT know a man". If she expected from the angel's saying she would have a child to be pregnant that night, wouldn't it make more sense for her to say something about Joseph, the man she alledgedly plans to have children with? Does this version also happen to require Mary to be blonde?

She was betrothed, promised, engaged, but they weren't yet married.

Look at Zecharias and the angel's "same" announcement and "same" reaction---one of disbelief (note the mood tense mentioned earlier).

John announce: But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

Jesus announce: And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

John reaction: And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.

Mary reaction: Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

So, the angel makes a promise and the reaction is similar, how? For all we know, Mary may have thought herself barren, like Elizabeth, her relative.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Asking a question is not answering the one I asked.

And speculation of what Mary may have thought or assumed is hardly something I would call "scriptural" and certainly not something I would call more 'scriptural" than using traditions outside of the Bible as we do.

Again, in this case Mary is told she would have a child (future). If we assume she intends to have children with Joseph the natural assumption for her to make is that the angel is speaking of those child and most likely the first. Putting Mary in that position her recorded response to being told she would have (future) a child makes no sense.

If we then say well maybe (assumption not given in scripture) she understood the angel saying she was to become pregnant soon or even that night it does not change the context she is being placed in. It has her expecting to have children by Joseph, understanding the angel saying she would be pregnant soon, even that night. An appropriate logical response in such a stituation would be an expression of fear (for many reasons) or ok where is Joseph or something about not having consumated the relationship yet. But we do not get any such response.

Am just trying to understand how this view makes sense because it does not make sense to me. If it works for others that is great. But in order to accept it I would need to make assumptions and take leaps of logic that to me are not only not scriptural but unwarranted given we have traditions that support an alternative and logical view without assumptions or leaps of logic.

 

[Standing Up]

All the scripture reactions to the promise of future pregnancy are the same---how shall this be in the future, because at the present [insert reason]

Zacarias--Elizabeth barren
Abram--Sarai barren
Manoah---wife barren
Mary---know no man

Mary's response is no different to any of the others. But she doesn't say, I will never know a man, but today I don't.

OTOH, if do two things: one we tie this to Jeptha's vow and the consecrated to the LORD idea, two we ignore the cultural marriage "be fruitful and multiply", then her answer makes sense.

The problem, again, with this, is we know of her betrothal and Joseph's intent to 'put her away'. Neither of these things supports the assumption of some perpetual vow prior to her marriage.

But look, I don't care one way or the other over the issue. After saying all that, it appears clear to me that Mary was able and willing to be a "normal" Jewish wife---be fruitful and multiply. (Just like Jeptha's daughter.) But God intervened. Mary then chose the consecrated life. (Just like Jeptha's daughter.) Joseph supported that decision (Just like Jeptha.)

 

[Rhamiel]

the angle seems mad at Zacarias, he is made mute because he does not trust God
but Mary's first response is to say "how is this possible?" and she is not made mute

 

[DrBubbaLove]

All the scripture reactions to the promise of future pregnancy are the same---how shall this be in the future, because at the present [insert reason]

Zacarias--Elizabeth barren
Abram--Sarai barren
Manoah---wife barren
Mary---know no man

Mary's response is no different to any of the others. But she doesn't say, I will never know a man, but today I don't.

OTOH, if do two things: one we tie this to Jeptha's vow and the consecrated to the LORD idea, two we ignore the cultural marriage "be fruitful and multiply", then her answer makes sense.

The problem, again, with this, is we know of her betrothal and Joseph's intent to 'put her away'. Neither of these things supports the assumption of some perpetual vow prior to her marriage.

But look, I don't care one way or the other over the issue. After saying all that, it appears clear to me that Mary was able and willing to be a "normal" Jewish wife---be fruitful and multiply. (Just like Jeptha's daughter.) But God intervened. Mary then chose the consecrated life. (Just like Jeptha's daughter.) Joseph supported that decision (Just like Jeptha.)

To make these comparisons equal in my mind, each of the others would have to say it is not possible because they do not know anybody at that moment, "today" to immediately have a child with. That is not what they said. And none of them asked for or were "given" a more suitable partner (in their eyes) at the moment of the announcement.

Additionally in each case, including Mary according to this understanding, they each know someone they could have a child with (future) if not for perceived impediments in these other examples. The other examples express doubt, even scoff that it is possible WITH THE PERSON THEY KNOW for some reason, and/or take matters in their own hands to find someone else to impregnate. Mary does not do any of that.

Mary does not say it is not possible for her to become pregnant with Joseph. She does not say she is barren or Joseph is too old. She asks how is it possible literally. "since I am a Virgin". If she intended to NOT remain in that condition, such a question makes no sense if she understands how women become pregnant. Why would her current state of virginity make it not possible to have a child(future)?


Unless understood in that expression from tradition would be her promise to God to remain so.

God does not have to intervene for a virgin that plans to have children as He does for barren wombs. It is the normal course of things in a marriage. Virginity is not an impediment for becoming pregnant. Mary is presumsblly not barren or too old. The other examples presumably or from experience of apparent failure clearly had some impediment.

So no, those comparisons do not work for me. Again I understand it works for many others and would have to work to deny what is given from tradition. Honestly though I think it is more important in defending such a position to deny anything from tradition is possibly true than to try to make this position on Mary's response a rational conclusion.

Sure that is bias but I just cannot see how making such comparisons from scripture, or assumptions about Mary understanding the angel to mean "pregnant right now" (and if so to not ask "where is Joseph?") is rational or more "scriptural" than accepting from tradition the meaning of the same verses.

I would agree accepting this makes it harder to reject the rest of tradition, so it would be important to fight ALL tradition that is deemed "not scriptural". But am not sure how one would justify picking and choosing what is and what is not "scriptural" since clearly we all accept things from tradition. If each can make their own choice from say reading the Bible alone, am not sure how there could ever be unity. And I have doubts everyone makes such choices from the Bible alone as we all have other influences in our lives that shape our choices for us. For me am happy giving that responsibility to the Church. There is a simplicity and freedom for me in doing so.

 

[Standing Up]

the angle seems mad at Zacarias, he is made mute because he does not trust God
but Mary's first response is to say "how is this possible?" and she is not made mute

Yes, the comparison to Eve has been noted also. Mary was willing. So, was Jeptha's daughter. Neither shirked what had been "planned" for them.

Supposedly around 6bc they were looking for Messiah. I wonder if that also doesn't play a role. But how?

 

[Standing Up]

To make these comparisons equal in my mind, each of the others would have to say it is not possible because they do not know anybody at that moment, "today" to immediately have a child with. That is not what they said. And none of them asked for or were "given" a more suitable partner (in their eyes) at the moment of the announcement.

Except they were barren at the moment. (So Hagar, eh?)

I guess the difference we see is this:

You believe that Mary had already chosen the consecrated-to-God life before the angel encounter. Betrothal in this sense is meaningless.

I believe Mary was a normal Jewish woman who planned a normal be fruitful and multiply life with Joseph. After her "be it so done to me", she changed from normal to consecrated.

As for the tradition vs scripture issue, we all know the truth that people and groups pick and choose their traditions. We could choose the tradition from Epiphaneus who said we don't know what happened to Mary and let it go. Or we could chose the tradition of RC who said, we know and we require you to believe this. If that gives you comfort, have at it.

The association between Mary and Jephthah's daughter (Judges 11) is clear.

do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth
be it unto me according to thy word.

Then they chose consecrationtotheLORD.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Except barren implies they tried and knew it was not working. Mary has not tried. According to some on thread however, Mary knows someone (Joseph) that she intends to try with. So the stories are still very different from that aspect. Mary does not have an impediment in her mind with just having never known a man. Whereas with all these other women it is clear they felt they had impediments because they had known men and nothing happened.

Though thinking now more of your comparison and Mary’s case, I would have to agree Mary's Virginity is indeed an impediment if she truly intends on remaining a Virgin. Which is our point.


As to betrothal being pointless - am not so sure. If Mary needed for some reason a safe place to live, a sugar daddy basically and a widower could have used a young girl's help, the relationship would not be pointless to them. And the same tradition which puts a consecrated Virgin in Joseph’s care has the community outraged assuming that he had violated her vow when she came up pregnant.


As to consecrated, being given to the Lord, we agree just not on when. Would think it somewhat problematic to say something consecrated to the Lord could then be taken back (to later have children with Joseph). Also something unseemly about God taking something as consecrated that has already been betrothed, indeed already consecrated to another - Joseph. That is if one believes marriage is a consecration. Just does not seem right.


I doubt Jewish vows have changed much from Abraham to Mary's day. So the fact all such vows in scripture sound similar is not surprising.


The early history recorded in the Bible is brutal and I do not think we today need to be afraid to face the fact that God was dealing with the hearts of very barbaric people. In that light I accept that human sacrifice was common place in those days and still practiced even by Israelites (though forbidden). We all know they did not always do what they were told. In this case Jephte made a hasty promise in his zeal for victory and has to make good to save face, he has his only daughter sacrificed. The brutality of these people is clear in other passages from Judges and making such rash/harsh vows/deals is also not unheard of. (2 Sam 21 for example).

But I realize it is popular to today to dismiss this traditional understanding for a more modern one of consecration meaning Virginity. I do find it interesting to use this example of Jephte’s daughter to connect to Mary given that the claim is his daughter is not killed, merely consecrated a Virgin to the Lord, put away. Then turn around and have the same crowd say of Mary that perpetual consecration of Virgins is unheard of with the Jews in scripture. Or that it would be ok for someone so consecrated to break that vow (being with Joesph afterwards).

 

[Aeneas]

Good point, Mary's response doesn't really make any sense in the context of a hypothetical romantic relationship. It only makes sense in the tradition that Mary was a young virgin dedicated to God who was being entrusted to an elderly St. Joseph for propriety.

 

[Standing Up]

As to consecrated, being given to the Lord, we agree just not on when. Would think it somewhat problematic to say something consecrated to the Lord could then be taken back (to later have children with Joseph). Also something unseemly about God taking something as consecrated that has already been betrothed, indeed already consecrated to another - Joseph. That is if one believes marriage is a consecration. Just does not seem right.

So, how do you solve your problem? It says she was betrothed? IOW, the bible doesn't fit the old Joseph theory, eh?

Point is she was betrothed. Not consecrated prior to the angel's visit. Jephthah's daughter was also available. Not consecrated. Until she agreed. Life happens.

But I realize it is popular to today to dismiss this traditional understanding for a more modern one of consecration meaning Virginity. I do find it interesting to use this example of Jephte’s daughter to connect to Mary given that the claim is his daughter is not killed, merely consecrated a Virgin to the Lord, put away. Then turn around and have the same crowd say of Mary that perpetual consecration of Virgins is unheard of with the Jews in scripture. Or that it would be ok for someone so consecrated to break that vow (being with Joesph afterwards).

FWIW, it's "my" connection, so one may immediately dismiss it (not enough tradition ). But it's also my opinion that that was the understanding long ago re Jepthah's daughter; except it fits into the Mary story, and so was altered (the tradition changed). But the Hebrew wording remains an either/or --- either I will sacrifice what comes out the door or dedicate it (in either case, it's to the LORD).

Consecrated is Rhamiel's term. Ever-virgin. Either way. We agree Mary remains such, we disagree on the when. Apparently you believe she was born that way, while I see it in her "be it so done". OTOH, there's a certain sense of both being right, eh?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I do not see a problem. Betrothed means promised. I realize we do not hold people to promises today as people once did, but my understanding is that was a pretty serious vow in those days. Likewise consecration denotes a dedication to something, in this case a promise of marriage to each other.

Also realize the idea of someone dedicating themselves to support of another is not popular today or the idea that someone would solemly vow to do so even without the promise of sexual favor. But the Bible is full of stories of such lifetime devotion to another person, even without sex. Devotion that in my mind at least, represents a consecration to that cause, support of another.

So no, I do not see a problem at all with the idea of Mary being betrothed to Joseph, his being a widower and much older than a person (Mary) we would consider a child today. Tradition explains why this has occured, there was a need to remove her from Temple service as she came of age (monthly risk of defiling the temple) and the lot to take her in was to fall to widowers (older men) in the Church.

It also explains Joseph reaction. If she were consecratted a Virgin to God's service it would be inappropriate for him to violate that promise. Tradition suggests people were angry with him when they found out she was pregnant. That anger would be out of place if this were a normal arrangement of marriage. It explains his being afraid and wanting to keep this quiet. So no I do not see a problem.

It is not just "your" connection. Been a common one for the last maybe 400 hundred years or so (even Reformers believed in the Virgin Mary).

Am not sure how the OT daughter could be viewed as being a "long ago" depiction of "putting away" a woman when the people who held that tradition and recorded that story beleived she was sacrificed. Again rather than a "long ago" view that is a modern (20 centuries later) twist to that story and removing the violence of it to sooth modern sensibilities disregards the very real brutality of that age and even of God's people.

Mary is born that way? Am not sure how virginity relates. Believe the tradition is she is dedicated to God by her parents as an infant, but voluntarily commits herself to God's service as a child. Not something is "born" with. In any case the angel of the Lord clearly indicates something already special about Mary in his greeting to her. Something else most protestors fail to recognize or if they do never consider when did she achieve such a state to recieve such a greeting.