Interesting News article

Hi DHK,

One man's opinion in this matter does not matter if it is the wrong opinion.

You should listen to your own advice.

You obviously quoted one of your infamous liberal scholars as you are prone to do.

Ad hominem.

One is able to quote a dozen conservative scholars arguing for her virginity in this case if you want to have a battle of the scholars. In this case you are plain wrong.

Thanks for your opinion.

Your problem, just as in other threads that I have encountered, is a failure to believe the Word of God.

You mean, "believe the Word of God as DHK infallibly interprets it".

How can you be a seminarian student and not believe God's Word??

I'm not a seminarian. But, I do believe God's Word.

Mary was a virgin and you are insinuating, even against the Catholic's teaching, that she may not have been.

Considering that I'm arguing for Mary's Perpetual Virginity, that's an odd accusation to make.

She did not take a vow of virginity.

Thanks again for your opinion.

If she did it would be in Scripture as such.

It is, implicitly.

You cannot argue from silence.

I'm not. I'm arguing from the spoken Word of God and the logic that follows from it.

But we do know that she was betrothed and remained a virgin because she was not yet married, as was the custom to do, as does the Scripture say.

I agree. And, you still haven't shown how Mary's response is appropriate when she is supposedly going to inevitably have conjugal relations with Joseph on her wedding night.

This is the crux of the matter, and until you address it, we will get nowhere and your opinions will remain merely opinions unfounded upon the Word of God, namely, Mary's initial response to the Annunciation.

Will you not believe the Scripture?

Absolutely.

Bless you,

Carson

 

After further examining the passage of Luke 1:26-38, taking into account the context and that "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" would more literally read "How can this be, since I am betrothed?", here is my conclusion (an obvious conclusion that I should have made earlier):

31 "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you (39) shall name Him Jesus.
32 "He will be great and will be called the Son of (40) the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him (41) the throne of His father David;
33 (42) and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, (43) and His kingdom will have no end." - Luke 1:31-33 NASB

Imagine that you are a young Jewish woman living 2000 years ago. Imagine that you are betrothed to a man named Joseph and somebody has just told you that you will conceive and bear son who will be called Son of the Most High. If Mary had sex with Joseph and conceive and bore a son, the son would not be the Son of the Most High (sorry Carson your argument fails miserably). It is of no surpise in the slightest that Mary replied the way she did:

34 Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am [betrothed]?" - Luke 1:34 NASB with my amendment to reflect a more literal translation of the word used in the original language

Mary is not asking "how can this be since I took a vow of virginity?", an idea that the text does not at all hint. Rather she is asking "how can I conceive and bear a son who will be called the Son of the Most High (Luke 1:32), when the man that I am betrothed to is named Joseph (Luke 1:27)?", this is supported by the text as the text explicitly states that 1) Mary is betrothed to Joseph (Luke 1:27) and 2) the son whom she would conceive would be called the Son of the Most High (Luke 1:32).

 

Carson, I am glad we all agree that Mary was a virgin during her betrothal period. I see no need to try and prove that she could have been immoral before that time. It is irrelevant. The fact is that we can agree she was a virgin. She was about to marry Joseph. Joseph found out that she was with child. His immediate thought was that she had been immoral before the wedding date, during the time of betrothal, a time when she was supposed to be a virgin. Of course she was still a virgin. An angel had to reassure Joseph that she was, and that which was in her was conceived of the Holy Ghost (not by some other man), and that there was no need to put her away, or divorce her. She had not been immoral. Mary herself was astonished at the announcement of the angel that she was to bear a son.

Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

See the question: "I know not a man?" I do not know a man sexually, how therefore can I conceive a child? This speaks nothing of a vow of virginity. I speaks only of her betrothal to Joseph, and that they had not yet come together sexually. They were betrothed, not married.

Mat.1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

And Joseph did not "know" her, i.e., have sexual relations with her until she had brought forth her firstborn son, a veiled reference that she had a secondborn also. So in verse 25, the inference is that he did know her, after Jesus was born ("till she had brought forth..."). And other Scripture (Mat.13:55) harmonizes with that, as Jesus did have other brothers and sisters. This is born out not only by Scriptures, but also by tradition and history.
DHK

 

Care to comment Carson?

 

Carson?

 

Are you there Carson?

 

Hi Dualhunter,

I apologize for not checking the board before midnight tonight in order to meet the expected deadline that you have set forth. I'll try to be quicker to the task in the future in order to please your vice of impatience.

would more literally read "How can this be, since I am betrothed?"

No, that would be a dynamic translation. The most literal translation would be "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be seeing I know not a man?". In saying "would be more literally", you are actually saying "this is how I interpret it and so I impose this particular text upon the Greek and am naming it as a literal rending though it really isn't". A synonym for "literal" is "verbatum" or "word for word".

If Mary had sex with Joseph and conceive and bore a son, the son would not be the Son of the Most High

A Syllogism for you to consider:

Major premise: The Davidic Kings, beginning with Solomon, shared in divine sonship by means of the Davidic covenant. Cf. God's covenant with David in 2 Samuel 7 (especially verse 14).

Minor premise: Joseph has a royal pedagree; Cf. Matthew's genealogy of Jesus through his foster father.

Conclusion: A Son born of Joseph would qualify for the royal Davidic inheritance, which includes divine sonship.

Hi DHK,

See the question: "I know not a man?" I do not know a man sexually, how therefore can I conceive a child? This speaks nothing of a vow of virginity. I speaks only of her betrothal to Joseph, and that they had not yet come together sexually. They were betrothed, not married.

Your argument would have import if the announcement by Gabriel spoke of a past or present conception event due to Mary's present presumed virginal status.

However, Gabriel announces a future conception event by saying, "you will conceive". Since Mary is legally bound to Joseph by betrothal (which can only be undone by divorce or death), she will inevitably have relations with Joseph when they are married, which is less than one year.

(1) Inevitable sexual relations + (2) Announcement of future conception = (3) The Announcement will be fulfilled accordingly.

But, Mary immediately responds by seeing an immediate problem with (2) in light of (1).

This is the difficulty that you have not unravelled. And, you cannot unravel it without the vow of virginity. The Fathers of the Church saw this, I see this, why can't you see this?

I spoke yesterday evening with the author of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, Curtis Mitch, about this issue (click here), and he brought up a valid and insightful point that I had never considered:

Mary is singularly and unexpectedly approached by an Angel of God and is told of God's specific will for her life (a revelation almost every devout believer craves to receive). Mary immediately responds to this theophany of supernatural revelation for God's specific will in her own life with "Um, Angel, we have a problem here. I don't have sexual relations with man, and I don't see how this can be true." Curtis noted that if Mary is planning on having conjugal relations with Joseph on their marriage night, whether it is to be within a week or 12 full months, Mary's response is irreconcilable with the unique solemnity and profound demeanor of the supernatural angelic presence. Basically, the difficulty of remaining betrothed virginal time is no difficulty at all in relation to the immense profundity of the occasion.

yours in Christ,

Carson

[ November 03, 2002, 02:39 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Poor Mary...

She didn't know how to use a future plu perfect verb tense.

 

Hi Clint,

If you have something worthwhile to contribute to the dialogue, I encourage you to speak up. Otherwise, I suggest keeping to yourself for the sake of charity. I see your comment above as antagonistic, unfruitful, and unnecessary, which seems quite out of character for one who holds the position as moderator.

your brother in Christ,

Carson

[ November 03, 2002, 02:44 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

When the angel made the announcement to Mary:
(Luke 1:31) "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS."
Certainly the verb tense of "thou shalt conceive" is in the future, but what does that mean in context to Mary? Does Mary understand that she will conceive a child ten years after her marriage to Joseph, or does Mary understand that she will conceive a child in the very near future (perhaps as soon as nine months), and thus answers the angel in awe and wonder:

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

Again, this has nothing to do with a vow of virginity. That is simply reading into Scripture something that is not there. Mary was told some astonishing information about the future of her life. In amazement she answered how is this possible??

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

The angel explains to her how it is possible. It is a miracle of God. He is basically describing here the incarnation of Christ, and his miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit. The angel further reassures Mary:

37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
--And with that Mary was satisified:

38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.

Mary knew she was betrothed, and knew she was going to have conjugal relations after marriage vows. The language of the angel spoke of something far more urgent and immediate than her marriage, and what was to take place afterwards. She was going to have a baby, and soon! She had better be prepared for it.
DHK

 

Hi DHK,

I suggest responding to my post instead of restating your interpretation. I've demonstrated above how your interpretation is unstable, and it is your duty to examine my explanation critically. Simply restating your opinion is fruitless.

Certainly the verb tense of "thou shalt conceive" is in the future, but what does that mean in context to Mary?

It means that Mary will conceive a child in the future. Since Mary is betrothed to Joseph, she has the means to this conception, which is hers inevitably within one year unless if there is death or divorce.

Does Mary understand that she will conceive a child ten years after her marriage to Joseph, or does Mary understand that she will conceive a child in the very near future (perhaps as soon as nine months)

The act of conceiving does not occur nine months after conception. Birth occurs nine months after conception. You're mixing your terminology.

Mary understands that the angel is announcing that she will conceive a son in the future.

Again, this has nothing to do with a vow of virginity. That is simply reading into Scripture something that is not there.

Thank you for your repeated opinion. However, I have shown above, in my previous post, how the vow is present implicitly and how it is necessary in order to make sense of the situation.

You did not address my rebuttal. Instead, you merely restated your argument. You can repeat yourself numerous times, but repetition does not address the inherent problem that your interpretation encounters.

Mary was told some astonishing information about the future of her life. In amazement she answered how is this possible??

No, Mary did not answer "How is this possible?" That is not her full answer. She answered, "How shall this be seeing I know not a man?" which gives purpose to her questioning: she does not have sexual relations. Since she is betrothed, she will have sexual relations. Therefore, her response is unintelligible without a promise of virginity.

Mary knew she was betrothed, and knew she was going to have conjugal relations after marriage vows.

If Mary knew that she was going to have conjugal relations, then she should have no problem with the original statement of Gabriel: "you will conceive".

The language of the angel spoke of something far more urgent and immediate than her marriage, and what was to take place afterwards. She was going to have a baby, and soon! She had better be prepared for it.

Where does Gabriel say that Mary will conceive before her marriage to Joseph? He doesn't. You're reading your conclusion into the text.

God bless,

Carson

[ November 03, 2002, 03:23 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

The answer to most of your questions can be found in Mat.1:20
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Here Gabriel says to Joseph "that which is conceived in her," or that which has already been conceived. The act is done. it is past. All that Mary and Joseph have to do now is wait for the birth of this Son. I am not reading into the Scriptures, but rather harmonizing what they say here. On the one hand the angel says to Joseph that Mary has already conceived. On the other hand you say I am reading into the text when I suggest that Gabriel means that Mary will conceive a child before her marriage. I think that conclusion can rightly be deduced here. The angel was not announcing some far off event like Isaiah was to King Ahaz (Isa.7:14). In fact the angel was announcing the fulfillment of Isa.7:14.
DHK

 

Wow, Carson, you read more into my post than you do into Luke 1:31-34!

 

"No, that would be a dynamic translation."

My Updated NASB had a margin note by "virgin" saying "or betrothed" but it did not say "Lit betrothed". So yes, in actuality it would be dynamic not literal.

DHK has pointed out how the account in Matthew harmonizes with the one in Luke.

"If Mary knew that she was going to have conjugal relations, then she should have no problem with the original statement of Gabriel: "you will conceive"."

I don't think you realize how utterly your argument fails however.

Think about it, she will conceive and the son will be called Son of the Most High. It's bad enough that Catholics have tried to deify Mary, are they now trying to do the same with Joseph? If Mary had conjugal relations with Joseph, any child that resulted would be the son of Joseph, not the Son of the Most High.

 

Hi DHK,

Here Gabriel says to Joseph "that which is conceived in her," or that which has already been conceived. The act is done. it is past.

You have moved away from the narrative in Luke to another narrative in Matthew, which describes events taking place after the Incarnation.

What you quote from Matthew presents Joseph's reaction to verse 18, "before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit."

This discovering of Mary's pregnancy followed the event of the Annunciation and preceded the marriage, which is knowledge that Mary was given after the Angel's initial proclamation, which is the event to which Mary is responding in Luke 1:34.

Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit at the Annunciation; that is clear, and it is the beginning of the Incarnation on the Catholic liturgical calendar. But, you must demonstrate that Mary was given knowledge that the conception would occur at the moment of her fiat before the Angel's initial proclamation, the proclamation that evoked Mary's negative initial response. You are unable to demonstrate this from Scripture.

Hi Dualhunter,

If Mary had conjugal relations with Joseph, any child that resulted would be the son of Joseph, not the Son of the Most High.

You have done the same thing that DHK did in his second-to-last post above. You restated your argument without responding to my syllogism, which demonstrates how "Son of the Most High" is a royal Davidic quality that fits the royal pedigree of Joseph according to Matthew's geneology. Luke is employing literary allusion that demonstrates Jesus' Davidic sonship throughout his account of the Annunciation:

1. Gabriel addresses Mary with "Hail!" (she is the NT reality prefigured by the OT prototype of the "Gebirah")
2. Jesus "will be called the Son of the Most High", which signifies divine sonship - a quality that the Davidic Kings beginning with Solomon shared.
3. The Lord God will give Jesus "the throne of his father David".
4. He will have a "kingdom" of which "there will be no end".

God bless,

Carson

[ November 03, 2002, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

When was David or Solomon ever called Son of the Most High? You're adding to Scripture Carson, read Proverbs 30:6. You keep trying to read Catholic theology into Scripture instead of accepting Scripture on it's own merit as the Word of God. Joseph was not called Son of the Most High, why do you think that a son conceived by him would be called the Son of God? Mary had never had sex with a man and here comes and angel telling her that she will conceive a child who will be called the Son of God, it's no surprise at all that she didn't understand how that could be. What is a surprise is that you think he could be called the Son of the Most High with Joseph instead of God as His father.

 

Hi Dualhunter,

When was David or Solomon ever called Son of the Most High?

If you read about the establishment of the Davidic Covenant in 2 Samuel 7, you will discover this instance. I have already shown you above where this is in the major premise of the syllogism I presented. You should read my posts; in that way, you would not have to ask what I have already answered.

Joseph was not called Son of the Most High

I did not say that he was, nor need he be. Joseph is not a Davidic King. Jesus is.

why do you think that a son conceived by him would be called the Son of God?

If his son were to reign upon the throne of David, then he would be called the son of God.

Mary had never had sex with a man and here comes and angel telling her that she will conceive a child who will be called the Son of God

Which, as I've shown, is a quality shared by the Davidic Kings.

What is a surprise is that you think he could be called the Son of the Most High with Joseph instead of God as His father.

David was Solomon's father, yet Solomon is also the son of God.

God bless,

Carson

 

14 "(25) I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; (26) when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, - 2 Samuel 7:14 NASB

While their was to be a father son relationship between God and Solomon, David and Solomon are not called Son of the Most High.

 

Hi Dualhunter,

While their was to be a father son relationship between God and Solomon, David and Solomon are not called Son of the Most High.

And who do you suppose "the Most High" refers to? Shaquille O'Neal?

God bless you!

Carson

[ November 03, 2002, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Glad we both agree that the Most High is God. David and Solomon are never called Son of the Most High, the son whom Mary conceived was and is called Son of the Most High and was not really the son of Joseph, the man to whom Mary was married.

8
I have become (14) estranged from my brothers
And an alien to my mother's sons.
9
For (15) zeal for Your house has consumed me,
And (16) the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me. - Psalm 69:8-9 NASB

While this entire psalm cannot be refering to Christ, verse 9 is continuing the thought of verse 8 and verse 9 is quote as refering to Christ in the New Testament.

Other verses in this psalm also have references to Messianic prophesy, compare the following with the the Gospel accounts and Isaiah 53.

21
They also gave me [3] (40) gall for my food
And for my thirst they (41) gave me vinegar to drink.
22 - Psalm 69:21 NASB

26
For they have (48) persecuted him whom (49) You Yourself have smitten,
And they tell of the pain of those whom (50) You have wounded. - Psalm 69:26 NASB