The Bible and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

The answers are convincing enough and quite simple if your willing to accept them.
There is an obvious necessity of Mary's virgin birth (even apart from what Isaiah said in Isaiah 7:14), and that is, without the virgin birth Jesus would be born a sinner having inherited a sin nature like the rest of us, disqualifying himself as a sacrifice--the perfect lamb of God, without blemish, slain for the sins of mankind.
</font>[/QUOTE]Explain how being born of a virgin is required to allow Jesus to have a sin-free nature. I thought nothing was impossible with God.

Just to clarify, I am not asking why Joseph could not be the father of Jesus. I'm not suggesting that possibility at all. I am only asking why Mary had to be a virgin when the Holy Spirit brought forth Jesus in her womb.

 

Mike S,

I had said, 'If the mother of our Lord had been married previously and had a 'built in family' {children} the Prophet Isaiah could never have written the words in Isaiah 7:14.'

You said, 'C'mon Ray God could just as easily have inspired Isaiah to say something
else! '

Ray is saying, 'If Mary would have lost her first husband in death, she no longer could have presented herself to God and to Joseph as a maiden virgin. The point is that Isaiah didn't phrase other thoughts, but clearly wrote that Jesus would be born of a virgin. The people from her town knew she was a pure preteen, and Joseph was surprised that she was with child.'

You said, 'It is not Isaiah's words that are the reason Jesus was borne of a virgin!'

I am saying with you that 'there must have been a much deeper meaning and import to the fact that God desired the purity of a virgin to bring our Lord into this human experience that we call life. Also, Isaiah predicted a virgin born Savior. If some other woman would have claimed to have birthed the Messiah, and she were not the best kind of person morally, we would have known that her child would not have been the Savior.

You said, 'What reason did God have for having a virgin bear Jesus?'

I personally, do not have an answer to your question, but will gladly listen to what the real reason was in having a maiden virgin as the mother of Jesus, our Lord. I do know as Catholics and Protestants we always claim that Jesus was virgin born, and that is a good thing. Why? Because we believe the Word of God through the Prophet Isaiah.

I ready to listen to other comments.

 

I also believe (of course!) that Mary was a virgin. What I'm wondering about is what is the essential quality of virgin-ness that God desired for the mother of His Son, and if He might not have continued to desire that quality for the mother of His Son after Jesus was born.

I maintain that there is something unwholesome about the thought of Mary bearing children to two different, living and involved persons (God and Joseph). It is something that, I believe, is just about universally frowned upon in human society.

 

It has been said, 'There is an obvious necessity of Mary's virgin birth (even apart from what Isaiah said in Isaiah 7:14), and that is, without the virgin birth Jesus would
be born a sinner having inherited a sin nature like the rest of us, disqualifying
himself as a sacrifice--the perfect lamb of God, without blemish, slain for the
sins of mankind.'

You seem to be saying that the virgin Mary did not personally have Original Sin or the Adamic nature until after she birthed Jesus our Lord.

I cannot back this following statement with the Word of God, but in Bible College my professor said that one of the theories is that the fact of Original Sin is passed on to newborns via the male meaning the man. This is only a possibility.

My belief is that Mary had Original Sin but it was not passed on to the virgin born Son, our Savior. If she did not have Original Sin Mary would have lived forever and would have never died. One of the results of the Adamic nature is that eventually all human beings die.

God ordained that the Prophet Isaiah would predict that a virgin would conceive the Son.

Indeed, Jesus was perfect man and perfect God. He was the Son of Man and the Son of God.

As to the baptism factor: I Corinthians 10:1-4 indicates that the Lord Himself baptized Moses and the whole household of Israel as they passed through the Red Sea. And I am sure some on the board will try to prove that no infants or children were involved in God's sovereign act of water baptism.

 

Why are you trying to circumvent both God's plan, God's nature, God's clear-cut promises in his Word?
What you are doing is taking the position of a skeptic or even an atheist. The unbelieving Jews accused Jesus saying: "We be one not born of fornication. The implication was clear. They denied the virgin birth. They accused Christ of being born outside of wedlock. It was an attack on his deity.
Being born of a virgin, conceived of the Holy Spirit, is an evidence of the deity of Christ. There was no other way in God's plan. Who are you to question God?
The liberal theologians of late have done the same thing saying that Jesus was born out of a union between Mary and a Roman soldier. Have you ever heard such balderdash? It is plain blasphemy that takes away from the deity of Christ. People do not want to believe that Christ is God.
Christ is the "seed of the woman" (Gen.3:15). The seed of the woman does not exist. Only man has seed. This has a double meaning. The spiritual seed of the serpent is the fallen race. The physical seed of Adam is the Adamic race through which our Adamic fallen natures are passed on from one generation to another. If Christ was not born of a virgin then he would have inherited a sinful nature. Is Christ a sinner. That is what you are making Christ out to be. That is blasphemy. You are taking away his deity, when you take away his virgin birth. He was born of a virgin, conveived of the Holy Spirit, demonstrating his deity.

God himself foretold of this. If you deny this in the prophet of Isaiah, and other prophets, you are saying that their prophecies are untrue, and that by the law they should have been taking out and should have been stoned to death. But they weren't. Their prophecies were believed, and they did come true as prophesied. It was God who put those word in their mouths. God had a plan to fulfill.
Gal.4:4 "In the fulness of time God sent forth His Son, made of a woman."
Christ is God. He was born of a virgin. To say that He wasn't is to deny His deity. It is that important. It is making him a common man, a sinner and not God.
DHK

 

Why are you trying to circumvent both God's plan, God's nature, God's clear-cut promises in his Word?
</font>[/QUOTE]Good grief!

I'll say it one more time: I'm not suggesting that Jesus could have been fathered by Joseph. I'm asking why it was necessary that Jesus be borne of a woman that had not known man. They are not the same question!

I'll keep asking until you at least understand the question: why was it God's design that the woman in whom the Holy Spirit incarnated the Son of God was required to be a virgin? Why could not have had children by Joseph before Jesus (who was NOT fathered by Joseph -- we agree on this!) was born?

 

So what else was Calvin wrong about? Was he wrong on any of the points where you and he agree?

 

Perhaps not the same. The alternative is even more scandalous. You are suggesting fornication. If Mary had known man (not Joseph), then the Jews would be right in accusing Christ as one being born of fornication. Then Joseph would have been right had he carried out his intention of divorcing Mary for the cause of fornication were it not for the intervention of the angel who reassured him that that which was in her was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and not another man. What you propose is plain blasphemy, even as the Jews blasphemed against Christ in doing the same.

I'll keep asking until you at least understand the question: why was it God's design that the woman in whom the Holy Spirit incarnated the Son of God was required to be a virgin? Why could not have had children by Joseph before Jesus (who was NOT fathered by Joseph -- we agree on this!) was born? [/QB][/QUOTE]
The Scripture calls Jesus the firstborn. He was the firstborn in every way--the pre-eminent One, the one that was born first, the one that would receive the blessing, the one that would receive the inheritance. The picture had to be complete.
The Scripture calls Mary a virgin. She was a virgin because way back 700 years before Christ was born Isaiah told Ahaz that the Lord would give him a sign-- a virgin would conceive. Ahaz did not live to see the ultimate fulfillment of that sign, but it was a sign.
It was a sign to all mankind that the Messiah had come. They knew of the prophecies and were looking for the Messiah. This was a sign to them. Such things don't happen every day you know.
If Mary was not a virgin then there would be no way of proving that Joseph had not fathered Christ. It was very obvious to all the public that Mary was well on in her pregnancy before Joseph actually married her. How then did she become pregnant (in the public's eye)? She did not commit fornication. She was a virtuous woman. The only explanation was that it was miraculous in nature. With all the other accompanying miraculous events surrounding both his birth and the following events of his life, it was not difficult for them to accept his virgin birth either, which befor explained was necessary to attest to his deity.
The brothers were obviously born some time afterward so that there was no way that they could confuse this miraculous event with Mary's normal married life. The Bible says that she conceived while she was still betrothed. Now see what you are suggesting?
DHK

 

Harley4Him,

If you are asking me at what other points Calvin was in error I would say, nearly at all points.

Calvinistic Theology

1. The first point of Calvinism is Total Depravity. A sinner can commit any sin in the book, but Calvin neglects the fact of the 'image of God in man.' [Genesis 1:26 & 27] While the image of God is effaced in human beings we are not totally incapable of seeing the truth of the Gospel unto salvation. He never had any interest in believing that Jesus ' . . . lighteth every person coming into the world.' [John 1:9b]

2. Unconditional Election is wrong. The Lord is not a Divine ventriloquist Who chooses some for Heaven and the vast majority for Hell. [John 3:16]

3. Limited Atonement is wrong and is his third point of His Augustinian Calvinism. He believed that Jesus only died for those who He chose. [I Timothy 2:6 & I John 2:2]

4. Irresistible Grace is his fourth point of theology. Calvin believed that when Christ decides to make a person one of His elect, that person cannot refuse His grace. He did not believe in the free will of human beings in deciding to become His disciples, the people of God.

5. Perseverence of the Saints This was Calvin's fifth point of theology. He believed that all who are saved must maintain 'good works' and will continue in a state of grace to the end of their lives.

Arminian Theology

1. Prevenient Grace-this is the working of the Holy Spirit on the life of the sinner before he comes to Christ. God the Spirit goes beforehand wooing, the sinner to Himself.

2. Election Conditioned by faith in Jesus Christ

3. Unlimited Atonement ----this means that Jesus died for every sinner; [I John 2:2] but only those who receive Christ [John 1:12 & John 3:16-18] will be saved.

4. Resistible Grace----the sinner has the ability to reject the calling of the Spirit [Acts 7:51 & John 5:40] and finally become lost and enter Hell.

5. The Possibility of Falling From Grace--- A saved person can fall away from grace and be lost at last.

Personally, I believe in the first four points of Arminian theology but believe in Eternal Security----meaning all who truly receive Jesus into their hearts will be saved by His grace. [John 10:27-29] I however, believe that a Christian may backslide but the Lord will not and cannot send that soul to Hell because of the indwelling of the Spirit of God in the heart/life, [I John 3:9] and for many, many other theological reasons.

Berrian, Th.D.

 

Originally posted by MikeS:

I'll say it one more time: I'm not suggesting that Jesus
could have been fathered by Joseph. I'm asking why it was
necessary that Jesus be borne of a woman that had not
known man. They are not the same question!

I think your question is a good one. I believe the question is hypothetical, because Isaiah prophecied from God-- that Jesus would be virgin born. I am ready to listen, but would there be anything wrong if Jesus had been born through the incarnation, if Mary would have had one or more children before our Savior's birth?

I most certainly do believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

 

It is over simplifying to say that because a document is written 40 years after the death of Christ saying that the Holy Spirit was the source of His incarnate birth "that should have been plenty good enough" for those alive in Christs day.

The virgin birth "draws attention" to the fact - to the origin - to the pre-existing nature of Christ - to the fact that this is incarnation and NOT pro-creation - Hence Mary is NOT the "Mother of God" nor is Joseph "the Father of God".

The virgin birth is a perfect supernatural means of emphasizing a supernatural point. God is good about giving visible literal indications of reality that might normally be beyond our ability to appreciate.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Good list Ray for Calvinism and Arminianism - I myself would be 5 point Arminian.

In Christ,

Bob

 

DHK, keep up the good work.

For the Catholic folks posting here, I think there are many exegetical problems with the perpetual virginity of Mary (which have been discussed many times over), but I would like to present one theological problem that I think is insurmountable for those who espouse the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

The problem is this: If Mary had already taken a vow of virginity before she married Joseph (as the Catholics teach that she did), it would have been nothing short of sin for her to have married Joseph anyway.

The reason: Gen. 2:24 and 1 Cor. 7:5 clearly state that one of the primary responsibilities of the husband/wife is to enjoy a conjugal relationship with their spouse. In fact, in the 1 Cor. passage, Paul actually commands that the husband and wife are to consistently have sex, except for those times when they commit themselves to fasting and prayer, and then abstaining must only be by mutual consent. Therefore, by marrying Joseph after having already taken a vow of virginity, Mary would have been neglecting one of her primary obligations as a wife by abstaining from sex with her husband. And this, of course, would have been sin on her part.

What I want to know is this? Are the Catholics in this string prepared to say that Mary lived in unrepentance because she never had sex with Joseph? If not, then what other options are there? Clearly, there are only two remaining options:

1. God made an exception for Mary - she was not required to have sex with her husband even though the Scripture teaches that this was God's design, even from the Garden of Eden.
2. The perpetual virginity of Mary is an unbiblical doctrine that has been applied to Mary, and is to be discarded because it rejects God's clear plan for a conjugal relationship between husband and wife in marriage.

This is a theological problem that the perpetual virginity of Mary has no answer for in my opinion. I'd love to see what you think.

 

Hmm - so that would be a difficult sticking point on the subject of Maryiolotry.

Well for the really hard questions - you need a deep thinker - someone that will grasp the depth of that argument and respond in a compelling, objective way to the key salient point.

Harley! Come on out here and post! We need your classic wisdom on this one.

(Because I don't think our RC brethren will get past that point on this question). Something like the way they stalled on the Incarnation vs pro-Creation claims of the RCC for Mary over God. Harley definitely should take the lead on this one.

Bob

 

You're absolutely right Todd. The original command concerning procreation has never been rescinded. It is still God's plan in every married couple.

Genesis 1:27-28 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Psalms 127:3-5 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. 4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.
5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.

Mary was a pious woman who knew the Scriptures. Likewise, Joseph. Their goal in life would be to obey the Scriptures, which would mean to be fruitful and multiply. It would mean to have children, "to have a full quiver," meaning many children.

Would they deliberately sin, in defiance of these Scriptures?
Would Mary go into the sanctity of marriage, take marriage vows involving satisfying her husbands needs, if indeed she had already taken a vow of virginity. That is ludicrous. One vow would annul the other. How can one have a vow of virginity and keep a vow of marriage at the same time. One or the other is sin. You can't have both. RCC theology at this point makes out Mary to be a terrible sinner-- making vows and deliberately breaking them. Both the Old Testament and the New strongly condemns such action.

Ecclesiastes 5:2 Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.

Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.

5 Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.

The Catholics have made Mary out to be a fool, according to Scripture and their doctrine of perpetual virginity.
DHK

 

Well, I just eagerly await the response of Carson B. to this one...haven't heard from him in a while.

 

Well, it's hard to believe, but it looks like all the RC's have finally been silenced on this issue. Evidently the theological issue that has been raised with Mary's "vow" and her relationship to her husband is the juggernaut that even the most devout of the RC's posting here can't argue around.

You know what...they're right - there is no alternative. Either Mary became married to Joseph and remained an unrepentant sinner by never consumating the relationship, or the perpetual virginity of Mary is just a big hoax. I'm inclined to go with the latter.

 

Sorry, I missed where 1 Cor 7 says it is "sin" not not consistenly have sex. In fact, verse 7 says "This is only my suggestion. It's not meant to be an absolute rule." (NLT)

 

I think it is verse 6 that you are referring to:
1 Corinthians 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

If you hang your argument and/or interpretation entirely on this verse then you undoubtedly will end up with one of two conclusions:
1. that the Bible is not inspired. OR,
2. that God is a liar.

You see, either way you look at it the Bible says that ALL Scripture is inspired, and that includes what Paul just said in 1Cor.7:1-5.

1 Corinthians 7:2-5 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

The above are commands to be kept by both husband and wife alike. They are not to defraud each other, that is keep intimate with each other.
Concerning verse 4, Barnes put it this way:

In the light of these verses alone, for Mary to keep her body from Joseph would be a violation of Scripture. It would be sin.
DHK

 

DHK,

Very good post.

As to the I Corinthian chapter seven verse four Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. says,

'Now concerning the things where of ye wrote unto me.' The equivalent of our modern formula, Regarding your letter. It is possible that Paul had been asked to approve celibacy as a duty for all. He grants the state is good. 2. Marriage, however, is a duty for those to whom the evil society and habits of the day might prove too much. This is not a low view of marriage; it is an honest facing of the facts in order to avoid fornication. Literally, fornications, the plural referring perhaps to the many cases at Corinth (cf. 6:12-20). Vs. 3-5. Genuine marriage, however, is a partnership, a union of two people who become "one flesh" (6:16), and involves mutual obligations, conjugal rights.'

S. Lewis Johnson, Th.D., Professor of New Testament Literatureand Exegesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas