Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View?

Answers in Genesis ^ | 5/31/2011 | Bodie Hodge

[sigzero]

Mary was a virgin who was to conceive by being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and give birth to the Son of God. Few in Christian realms would deny Mary was a virgin and remained a virgin through pregnancy and the birth of Christ. This was the ultimate fulfillment of a prophecy from Isaiah:

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14, emphasis added)

However, Mary’s virginity after the birth of Christ can become a heated debate in some circles. Though some may think this is a Roman Catholic versus Protestant view, it is not. Many Protestants, including people like Martin Luther and John Calvin, have held to Mary remaining a virgin for the duration of her life. Let’s look at the issues in a little more detail.

[RobRoy]

>>I did. The article makes some good points, but if you are interested the other side has some good points also.<<

No, they don’t. That’s the point here. This is very much like the homosexuals arguing that the bible does not condemn homosexuality. They have “good points”, but they are straw men and red herrings.

Likewise with the ever-virgin crowd. All of their “good points” are extra biblical and the ones from the bible are not “good points”. They are a gross twisting of meaning. The “cousin” thing is but one example.

A resonable person reading the bible for the first time would make the logical assumption that Mary was a virgin up to Jesus birth. Any claims of virginity past that point are not supported in the bible, and there is plenty of clear reference in the bible that she was not ever virgin.

It’s amazing people cling to it so. Seriously.

[it_ürür]

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Also “brothers” could have theoretically been Joseph’s children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Actually, there is a far simpler reason why Jesus, in a patriarchal culture, might have been known as "the Son of Mary" by His enemies: believe it or not, people back then could count to nine. Mary took off for Elizabeth's house after the Annunciation, and stayed there three months. Granted, "the first baby can come any time; the rest all take nine months," but when a full-term baby shows up three months early, people notice. To call Jesus "the son of Mary" was a sneering insult, the equivalent of "father unknown."

Married couples who are "fully consecrated to God" normally, routinely, as a rule, by God's command, to honor Him and to bless one another, enjoy active and fruitful marital lives. I fail to see how a sham marriage glorifies the God Who made us sexual beings.

(parenthetically, the term "celibate" refers to the Earth Mother Celebes, whose priests castrated themselves.)

[oilwatcher]

For all those who rely on the Bible as their “sole authority,” realize that you are still relying on the Catholic Church. It was the Catholic Church that definitively resolved which of many spiritual writings in circulation in the early period of Christian history were in fact the Word of God, and therefore belonged in the Bible (New Testament).

Also, you can’t definitively resolve any close interpretive question by reference to an English translation many times removed from the original text. You have to go back to the earliest available version, which in many cases is the Latin Vulgate (again, a Catholic product).

In short, if you can’t rely on the infallibility of the Catholic Magisterium, then you can’t rely on the Bible either.

[RobRoy]

>>Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “first-born” son of Mary. But “first-born” is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.<<

It is circumstantial evidence for Him being one of many. Meanwhile it does in no way support the case for Him being her only child.<<

See my comment above.

>>Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the “first-born” son had to be sanctified. “First-born” status does not require a “second” born.<<

See my comment above.

>>Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.<<

Sez who? I would interpret it to mean that no man shall be born of a virgin birth with God as the father.

Etc.

[will of the people]

“In short, if you can’t rely on the infallibility of the Catholic Magisterium, then you can’t rely on the Bible either.”

A stopped clock is right twice a day. I’m sure even the the Roman Catholic Magisterium managed to get a few things correct over the years

Will

[RobRoy]

>>Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Also “brothers” could have theoretically been Joseph’s children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.<<

Oh, for crying out loud. I am referred to as the son of my father, but I also have a brother. It was common to, when talking of someone in that day, when identifying a man, say he was “the son of so and so”. It does in know way imply that “so and so” had only one son. To infer that would be silly.

Etc.

[MeganC]

I know I’m a little snarky on that, but I also mean it seriously. After all, if Mary remained celibate all the rest of her life and she had that intention from the start of her marriage to Joseph then did she lie when she made her vows? Of course not. I can only logically conclude that after Jesus was born she was a good wife to Joseph just as he’d been a good husband to her. To do otherwise would make a mockery of her vow to be his wife...a vow she made to God.

[RobRoy]

>>Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.<<

I think he was the only one they were looking for. When one of our daughters didn’t come out of the grocery store with the rest of the family, we went back to find her. When we did, we said we found her and nobody else. The story was not about the other kids.

[crosshairs]

For all those who rely on the Bible as their “sole authority,” realize that you are still relying on the Catholic Church. It was the Catholic Church that definitively resolved which of many spiritual writings in circulation in the early period of Christian history were in fact the Word of God, and therefore belonged in the Bible (New Testament).

Then why are so many Catholic rituals and traditions unbiblical? Is it because they evolved and developed a life of their own?

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

And Joseph knew her not TILL she brought forth a son. He knew her ever since.

[Deo volente]

I do not agree with what you posted almost 100%.

LOL. Well, have fun going your own way. I guess Scripture and the Church Fathers are wrong on this, and sigzero got it right.
/sarc

[FatherofFive]

“all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Let’s put that verse in context. Look at the prior two verses:

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." 16 2 Tim 3:14-15

Now lets look at context and reality:

1. This was written to Timothy
2. Timothy was born around 17 AD
Therefore, the Scripture Paul is referring to – the Scripture Timothy studied from infancy - is the Old Testament. The New Testament was not yet written.

The apostles never assumed that the one Church established by Christ would later be replaced by a book.

The Bible is all we need!

Please show me where in Scripture where you found that verse!

[redgolum]

The tradition that Mary did not have any more kids starts very early. So early, that you don’t really see any mention of James being the full blooded brother of Jesus.

Again, I will not get to bent out of shape about it. Luther and Calvin both believed Mary remained a virgin till her death. Both were quite clear about it.

[RobRoy]

>>Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you “will” conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man.<<

Are you serious? You quote only half of verse 34 to make your point? This is very disingenuous since you fill in your own reason even though the other half of the verse clarifies the question thus:
Verse 34: “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

Your question is answered right there. And please note the word “am”, not “will always be”. And your omission of this information causes me to question your sincerity in getting to the honest truth here.

[Deo volente]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm

The chief objection against the Catholic position is taken from Matt 1:25: “He [Joseph] knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son”; and from Luke 2:7: “And she brought forth her firstborn son”. Hence, it is argued, Mary must have born other children. “Firstborn” (prototokos), however, does not necessarily connote that other children were born afterwards. This is evident from Luke 2:23, and Ex 13:2-12 (cf. Greek text) to which Luke refers. “Opening the womb” is there given as the equivalent of “firstborn” (prototokos). An only child was thus no less “firstborn” than the first of many. Neither do the words “he knew her not till she brought forth” imply, as St. Jerome proves conclusively against Helvidius from parallel examples, that he knew her afterwards. The meaning of both expressions becomes clear, if they are considered in connexion with the virginal birth related by the two Evangelists.

http://www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible/evervirg.htm

1. The conjunction “until” in Scriptural usage expresses what has occurred up to a certain point, and leaves the future aside. Thus God says in the book of Isaias: “I am till you grow old” (Isaias 46:4). Are we to infer that God would then cease to be? Again, God says to His Divine Son: “Sit Thou on My right hand until I make Thy enemies Thy foot-stool” (Psalm 109:1). Will the Messias, once His enemies are subdued, relinquish His place of honor? St. Matthew’s principal aim was to tell his readers that Christ’s birth was miraculous and that Joseph had no part in the conception of Mary’s child. His statement is confined to this point.

In itself the statement, “He knew her not till she brought forth her first-born Son,” neither proves Mary’s subsequent virginity nor contains an argument against it. Speaking as he does, the Evangelist in no wise affirms that the abstention mentioned by him ceased after the expiration of the time indicated.

To say that the exclusion of an event up to a certain point implies that it occurred afterward, is pure cavil. In fact, one would find it difficult to believe that the sacred writer, after insisting so strongly on Mary’s anterior virginity in the opening verses of the chapter, could suddenly imply that it ceased later on. If Joseph abstained from the use of the union preceding the angel’s message, who could think that after Mary had brought forth the Son of God, he should feel less reverence for the temple of the Trinity?

[muawiyah]

The original tongues include FIRST OF ALL Hebrew, then Aramaic, then Greek. Latin is a latecomer ~ same as English.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

Not sure why you posted all that copied and pasted info to me. My response was to the illogical correlation that Brian Kopp used in response upthread. He actually proved the other poster’s point.
Mary was a virgin TILL she had Jesus....

His aunt voted Republican TILL she died...

If the scripture had said Mary was a virgin until she died, he might have a point.

[Sans-Culotte]

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you “will” conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

This was your weakest "point", IMO. Luke says nothing of a "vow of perpetual virginity". However, he does quote Mary as saying "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" By leaving out the second part of her question, you were attempting to make her question take on an aspect a life-long vow. It is obvious from her question that she could not imagine conceiving as she was still a virgin at the time she asked the question.