The Bible and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Checkmate.

 

Um, no. For I believe neither of those things. There is another conclusion, and that is that verse 6 is also inspired and true. You are talking like verse 6 is false. If you really believe verse 6 is true, then the previous verses are good advice and not commands, not necessary to avoid sin.

Yes, I agree they are *inspired*. That doesn't mean it is *sinful* to not consistenly have sex if you are married.

1 Tim 5:23, which is also inspired, says to drink a little wine for the stomach's sake. If one never drinks wine for their stomach's sake, are they sinning?

The above are NOT commands - that's exactly what verse 6 says! Again you are saying verse 6 is false.

 

Sorry to rain on your Victory Parade, but I for one haven't been silenced. I've just been travelling. I'll reply to your "juggernaut" this evening.

 

I know many RC's have taken leave in light of Lent. Happens every year here and the anti-Catholics declare victory for 40 days at the sudden silence.

 

Brian, your interpretation of 1 Cor. 7 is shady at best. When Paul makes his concession in 1 Cor. 7:6, he is not talking about the negotiability of husband and wife having sex with one another, he is talking about his recommendation that men ought not to take wives. The words of A.T. Robertson are appropriate here. He says the following of the "not of commandment" clause of v.6 - "Paul has not commanded people TO MARRY. He has left it (marriage, and not sex within marriage) an open question." Thus, your application of 1 Cor. 7:6 to the words of 7:5 are erroneous, and your attempt to use 7:6 as a disregard for 7:5 is just further proof that you are trying to prove an "a priori" doctrine without doing the appropriate research and using proper exegesis and hermeneutics.

Further, you still haven't dealt with Gen. 2:24, which clearly commands that husband and wife are to become "one flesh" (ie. - consumation of the relationship). Also, you said nothing about Gen. 1:28 which is a clear command of God that husband and wife are to procreate (unless of course they are physically not able to do so).

By remaining a virgin, Mary would have not only denied the command of Scripture to consummate the relationship, but she would have been neglecting her role as a wife to do her part in "multiplying the earth." And for such neglect, Mary would have been guilty of sin by having remained a virgin throughout her marriage. It really doesn't get much plainer than that!

 

Brian, one other thing I failed to mention - by using 1 Tim. 5:23 in an attempt to prove your point, you were guilty of comparing apples and oranges.

This is why: First, you pulled that verse out of its context. You said nothing of the often-stagnant and bacteria-infested water supply of the ancient world. Second, you assert that the command of Paul to young Timothy in 5:23 is without conditions - it is always obligatory. Obviously, that is an incorrect interpretation of the passage because why would someone use wine to treat their stomach if they are not sick. Thus, Paul's imperative to young Timothy is conditional, based upon his sickness. That was just one little tid-bit you failed to mention. While 1 Tim. 5:23 is conditional, the only condition for the clear commands of Gen. 1:28, 2:24, and 1 Cor. 7:5 is that a man and a woman be married. If they are married, then the commands are obligatory - if they aren't married, then obviously a man and a woman aren't bound to commands that are reserved for those who are wed.

Let's try and stick to the verses mentioned without pulling other verses out of their context that have no bearing upon the issue at hand. Such uses of isogesis only make your arguments look weaker.

 

Brother Adam, I'd like to see you weigh in on this theological problem that has been raised with Perpetual Virginity - get off the sidelines and get in the game!

 

???? You're saying verse 6 is about the verses after it, and not the verses before it? If so, I disagree.

I'm wrong because A.T. Robertson is our authority, the source of our interpretation?

Yes, husband and wife are to become one flesh. Nothing there says it's a sin if it doesn't happen though. There are many reasons why married couples don't or can't consummate their marriage. That doesn't make them sinners, that only means for some reason (sometimes valid, sometimes not) they are not following the normal plan for marriage.

A few problems here: First, if you want to be literal, this was commanded to Adam and Eve, and it would be a stretch to say this is doctrinally binding for every married couple for the rest of eternity. Second, nothing is said about the sinfulness of a couple NOT having children, you are assuming and reading into the text. Third, Mary *did* multiply, she *did* have a child.

You got after me for not addressing all your scriptures, yet you did not address my question about 1 Tim 5:23. Are we sinning when we don't exchange a holy kiss when we meet (Rom 16:16, 1 Cor 16:20, 2 Cor 13:12, 1 Thess 5:26)?

Sorry, unconvincing.

Just so you know, I'm not arguing for Mary's perpetual virginity. I personally don't know, and actually don't see what the big deal is. So what if she was? Why is it so important to you that she wasn't?

 

Why should I have to mention bacteria? Not even Paul mentioned bacteria. Paul said to drink wine for the stomach's sake. Would someone *living in Paul's ancient world* be sinning if they abstained from wine, ever for the stomach's sake?

I don't assert that. I'm simply showing you that one *can* assert that, just as one *can* assert that consistent sex is obligatory. I don't assert that either is obligatory or else one is sinning.

Again, because I don't see the relevance. We need to rationalize historical conditions and undertand biology before we simply obey scripture?

 

Todd,

I've been through the same arguments so many times I'm worn out on it. It always ends up going in circles as this forum has been a testament to several times now. I'm also in the midst of a deep scriptural study of the Eucharist and I'm reading the Catachism cover to cover, so that takes up most of my time. As my mom always taught me, its good to pick and choose your battles carefully!

Have fun though!

 

Your assumption that becoming one flesh primarily refers to sexual relations is not supportable. Look at the end of Ephesians 5, and at the structure of the Trinity, and ponder the coming marriage between Christ and His Church, to see the true implications of becoming one flesh. It's all about a love that is so strong and so self-giving that the distinction between "me" and "you" fades away. To imagine that becoming one flesh is just about having regular sex is a sad and weak diminishment of the true ideal of the union of marriage. I guess you don't believe that couples incapable of having sex, either temporarily or permanently, can possibly become one flesh through their love for one another.

Twice in this section Paul emphasizes that his advice (not command) is given to help avoid immorality through lack of self-control. Considering that Mary, as the mother of Christ, and Joseph, as the earthly father of Christ, were certainly given an abundance of Grace (you do believe this, don't you?), then it is safe to assume that they were given enough Grace to resist such temptaions. If any two people in the bible were given the Grace to resist temptation, surely it would be the mother and earthly father of Jesus.

I've seen that some non-Catholics hold a rather low view of Mary in order to oppose Catholic teachings on her, but I see now that they also hold a rather low view of Joseph. Paul says that it is better for a man not to touch a woman, but when Catholics apply this teaching to Joseph, the one man chosen (and Graced) by God to father His Son on earth, you object and suggest it's an impossible burden to place on the poor hapless fellow.

On that note I think I'll follow the example of some of my other Catholic brothers and sisters and retire from the board for the duration of Lent. It'll be a good chance to clear my head and heart of the anger, bile and lack of charity that can build up here. If I have been un-Christian to any here, I apologise and ask your forgiveness, and resolve to do better in the future.

May the Grace of Our Lord be with each of you as you seek to know, love and serve Him.

 

I Corinthians 7:6-8 indicates that it is just as Christian to be unmarried as to be married. It is as spiritual to be married as to be unmarried. The Apostle Paul remained unmarried. (vs.8)

When a person becomes married both persons, a man with a woman, should protect the other from temptation of looking for satisfaction from outside his or her own home. According to Pauline doctrinal ideas, if Mary wanted not to be intimate she should have never married Joseph at all. But, we know from Scripture that she did marry him apparently until his death. I say this because Joseph was not at Jesus' crucifixion scene.

And in that the virgin {Mary} did conceive Jesus by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit and our Lord was born to Mary, it seems to me that would have ended her virginity, even if she had not married Joseph.

 

I cannot believe this debate is still going on. Why MUST Mary be a PERPETUAL virgin. It ain't logical nor natural. The Bible gives no indication to that effect. HOWEVER, the Roman Catholic church has sort of stuck it's foot in the door by claiming doctrinal perfection.

Where does the Bible claim that humans and their organizations are perfect? Not in my Bible...
Just read Revelations for one.

 

Brian,

Clearly, v.6 is a reference back to v.1 where Paul concedes that it would be more profitable for a man not to take a wife. This concession is not about sex within marriage (as you assert that it is), but it is about whether a man chooses to marry or not to marry. Read any trustworthy commentary - you will find this to be the consistent interpretation of the passage.

Oh, my apologies...I didn't know that you were more learned, and as such, a greater authority on the interpretation of the NT Scriptures than A.T. Robertson. I won't dare make that assumption again.

Further, even if A.T. Robertson hadn't offered us this interpretation, it would still be accurate based on the sound exegesis of the passage. The statement that Paul makes in 7:1 is not an obligatory statement, and it is this statement that Paul was looking to when he wrote 7:6. The reason why we know this? Because in vv.2-5, Paul begins to make commands, not concessions, regarding the necessity of the marriage relationship as it pertains to sexual intimacy. For instance, Paul makes use of the imperative mood in 7:5 by using the word apostereo , a present imperative verb. Therefore, his words in v.5 are a command, not a suggestion as has been asserted by you. Thus, consistent sexual intercourse marriage is expected of husband and wife within a marriage, and neglecting that command is sin.

So then, do you mean to say that humans are without sin when they deny God's plan for the Christian household? If you are bent on making exceptions for those who seek not to please God, then that is your business. I choose to live by God's standard, not my own, for living by our own standards is always sin in the Scripture because it is show utter disregard for the will of God. If you don't think that constitutes sin, like I said that is your business. To me it just appears that you're grasping for anything that will allow you to talk around the issue at hand.

Further, how many couples are actually unable to consummate their marriage? I understand that some do have physical handicaps that forbid them from doing so, and certainly God will not hold them guilty of sin for not doing something that they are unable to do. But for those who are married and are able to enjoy a conjugal relationship, God's Word commands that they are to do so (as I demostrated by exegeting 1 Cor. 7:5). And regardless of what spin one puts on it, disobedience to the commands of God is ALWAYS sin! According to your logic, if my wife and I decided to never have sex again, that would be OK because we would not be sinning by making such a commitment. But how can you square that with the words of Paul who commanded that husband and wife are not to deprive one another, but for a temporary time of prayer and fasting?

Oh really...the psalmist didn't seem to think that it was a stretch when he said, "Children are a heritage from the Lord, blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them" (Ps. 127:3). Again, while I recognize that not all couples are physically able to have children, those couples that are able to procreate and neglect the opportunity to do so are despising the manifest blessings of God. Again, I would charge that such neglect for the favor of God within marriage is nothing short of sin. If you can find one place in the Scriptures where God did not charge with guilt those who denied his blessings, then I would be happy to retract my comments here. What I think you will find though is that rejecting the blessings of God (and in this case a blessing coupled with a command in Gen. 1:28) is always a sin in the Scriptures.

Further, if Mary were the great and godly woman that Catholics believe her to be, then certainly we would want to follow her example. But if her example seems to validate the rejection of God's blessings, is that really an example that we want to follow?

Let's go through this real slow: You have two options as to how you interpret Gen. 1:28 - it is either a blessing or a command. For the sake of brevity, I will not go into all the exegetical evidence that requires that this verse be treated as a command. What I will do though is remind you that the RCC has consistently used this verse to argue against the use of artifical means of birth control within marriage. And how have they done so? By asserting that this verse is a COMMAND, and not a blessing. Therefore, if they are going to be consistent, then this verse must be treated as a command. And if it is a command, then not obeying that command is sin, which is exactly what one is left with if they accept the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Again, you have reverted to comparing apples and oranges to make your case. The fact that Mary did conceive and a bear a Son by the power of the Holy Spirit doesn't negate the fact that she was to seek to have children with her own husband, in compliance with the clear precepts of the Scriptures. We are talking about Mary's relationship to her husband, and not of the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit in her life when Christ was conceived. Thus, this argument accomplishes nothing to prove your point.

First of all, I did reply to your use of 1 Tim. 5:23 - you just didn't look far enough. You may want to read me entire reply before deciding to give a rebuttal to my arguments.

Further, this is just more apples and oranges. For starters, you continue to remove texts from their context in order to validate the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity. Further, the command to greet one another with a holy kiss was given during a time in which that was a common cultural practice, just as shaking hands is now. The command in Rom. 16:16, the Greek word aspazomai , is to "greet one another," but the method of the greeting could be a kiss, a handshake, or any decent gesture that seeks to demostrate true concern and love for one anther. Also, you continue to pull texts kicking and screaming from their historical and linguistic contexts that have no bearing on the issue at hand. How much longer will you insist on doing so? Just deal with the verses at hand.

Is it really so much that my arguments are unconvincing, or that you have no real exegetical response to them? Your claim that my arguments are unconvincing reminds me of the Athenians, some of whom after they heard Paul preach his great sermon on Mars Hill "mocked him" (Acts 17:32), without proving that they were able to successfully rebut his message. If my arguments are really that "unconvincing," then provide us all with the exegetical evidence that proves that they are so. Otherwise, admit defeat and let someone else take a crack at it, but don't just cry "unconvincing" from the ivory tower without providing a satisfactory rebuttal.

Now your lack of knowledge regarding what's at stake with this issue is very clear. You may not know this, but Perpetual Virginity is just one of several doctrines taught by the RCC in an attempt to "deify" Mary. If you don't believe me, here's the proof:

1. Mary officially given the title "Mother of God" - circa AD 400.
2. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary officially accepted as RC dogma - circa AD 650.
3. The Immaculate Conception of Mary officially accepted as RC dogma at the First Vatican Council of 1870.
4. Mary officially acknowledged as "co-redemptrix" and "co-mediatrix" by the RCC throughout the 20th century and of course until now.

Can you see the progression there - first they wanted to say she was the "spiritual mother" of Christ, then they argued that she never had intercourse with her husband, then they said that she was born without the taint of original sin, then they finally went so far as to say that Mary actively participates in the redemption of sinful men and the mediation that must be made between God and man.

Now, you may not think that those things constitute a very big deal, but since when has attributing extra-biblical legends to human beings not been a "big deal." What if I started saying that I was born without original sin - would that be a non-issue? No big deal? Obviously it would be a very big deal, because it would be in violation of the Word of God, whose truth we are taught to "contend for" (Jude 3). I challenge you to reconsider whether or not this is just some "theological sandbox," or whether it is a truly important discussion. Determining that it is an important discussion may force you to deal more faithfully with the text rather than relying on your own presuppositions to make your case.

You may not "assert" that consistent sexual intercourse within marriage is obligatory, but I just hope you understand that your problem is with the Word of God and not me (as has been clearly demonstrated by Paul's use of the imperative mood in 1 Cor. 7:5).

If you are waiting for me to apologize because I think it is apporpriate to consider a passage's historical and linguistic context before forming doctrine, then you'll be waiting a long time. Your method of hermeneutics reminds me of the young man who wanted to study his Bible much more seriously than he had in the past - the only problem was that he really didn't know how. To that end, he just decided to flip through the Bible and read whatever passages his finger stopped at. His first stop was Matt. 27:5 - "And he (Judas)...went and hanged himself." Not about to obey that passage, he searched further in the Bible for some answers. His next stop was Lk. 10:37 - "Go and do likewise." Concluding that God must've really wanted him to take his own life, the young man went out and hung himself.

Here's my point - you can pull passages from their original context and make them say what you want, but in doing so you are guilty of "isogesis" and not sound exegesis. Either prove your point with sound exegeis, or admit defeat - that is my challenge to you.

 

Christ's truth stands forever! The illiterate hearing the legends from the Dark Ages were inclined to believe whatever the priest or arch-bishop said to them. After all they were held over Hell if they did not believe the (holy) Roman Catholic Church and even in some ways today.

We are in the 21st. century and the scales and blinders are slowly falling off the erring ones. The fables of men bring no inner peace only receiving Christ accomplishes this human need. [John 1:12]

 

Todd

I'll be *very* brief, because immediately after this response I'm offline to leave for a few days:

If it was "clear", we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I don't claim to be. I'm just saying we're free to disagree with him.

I was with you until you added the part about neglecting it being sin. That part is not stated in the passage, you added it yourself.

No. In fact, I said nothing about "deny". I said that one doesn't have to do the "general ideal plan" to prevent them from being in sin.

I don't think Mary was seeking to not please God.

Actually, you are living by your interpretation of God's standard - which is still commendable, but not necessarily infallible.

Again, I agree. Where I don't agree is what you claim is a universal command.

Yes, I think that's what I'm saying.

How can I square it? That's what I've been explaining for several posts now - because I think it is the "general plan" but not a universal "command".

Nothing in that verse indicates the passage from Genesis is a universal command.

Actually, I think that's the Catholic view on it, yes.

Again, I would disagree.

Wine is a blessing from God (abuse of that blessing is sin), as numerous scriptures attest. I can find no one charged with guilt and sin for abstaining from wine. In fact, as I see you're a Baptist pastor, I suggest you preach next Sunday that abstaining from wine is sinful, and see what kind of reaction you get.

Well, obviosly we cannot fully follow her in all details. I sadly am unable to carry the Messiah in my womb, in fact I am wombless.

I think it's both. But not a univeral command - nothing in the text suggests this procreation is a command for all couples, or else God is commanding some couples to do the impossible. If it is not a command for ALL couples, it is not a command for all couples + your added biological disclaimer.

First of all, I did reply to your use of 1 Tim. 5:23 - you just didn't look far enough. You may want to read me entire reply before deciding to give a rebuttal to my arguments.
</font>[/QUOTE]My apologies, I started my reply before your second post was online. It wasn't there yet when I was responding.

I'm not validating Perpetual Virginity. I'm just expressing my disagreement that your comments are 100% conclusive.

Look, no need to get testy. As I've indicated above, it matters little to me if Mary was perpetually a virgin or not. Thus, I'm not about to go postal in my exegetical responses. Telling you that I don't agree that your interpretation is conclusive does not mean I must admit defeat, it means I don't have the time or the interest to get into it deeper with you.

I love you too.

I am well aware of the Catholic views on Mary, and the history of these views. Others *reasons* for stating something does not make that thing impossible, or even mandatory for us to argue against. Maybe Mary was a virgin all her life anyway, *despite* all the Catholic reasons and argumentation. Would that be impossible? No. Would that affect my faith in the slightest? No. Thus, is it a big deal to me? No.

For some reason, I always get a kick when people say that.

If you think I think it is inappropriate to consider a passage's historical and linguistic context before forming doctrine, then you missed my point.

Oh, tee-hee! Good one! You sure showed me! Please pray for me so I can grow up and have a High Horse of my own to ride on, just like you! And thanks for implying I'm a complete nitwit - it makes the conversation so much more enjoyable.

I think I'll take what's behind door #3: walk away and find something better to do with my time, with someone else.

 

Um, no. For I believe neither of those things. There is another conclusion, and that is that verse 6 is also inspired and true. You are talking like verse 6 is false. If you really believe verse 6 is true, then the previous verses are good advice and not commands, not necessary to avoid sin.

Yes, I agree they are *inspired*. That doesn't mean it is *sinful* to not consistenly have sex if you are married.
</font>[/QUOTE]Your operative word in that last statement is "consistently." Depending on your meaning of it (like 'continually') nobody can. But the Lord does command or state that it His will for couples to be intimate with each other which includes sex.

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Here is your problem concerning verse 6.

1 Corinthians 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

If this was simply Paul's advice, and not the inspired word of God, then rip it out of your Bible. It doesn't belong. It is of no use to you. It is not inspired. It was simply some old age advice to the Corinthians that has no bearing on us today whatsoever. So get rid of it. It isn't inspired. Rip it out of your Bible.

On the other hand, if it is inspired, then Paul's advice (whether before verse 6 or after) does apply to you. If you say it doesn't you are calling God a liar if you say it is inspired, and at the same time saying it can't apply to Mary. Mary and Joseph were married and expected to have the same conjugal rights as every other married couple. Or is God a liar.

Is this the inspired Word of God? Yes or No? If it isn't rip it out of your Bible; it doesn't belong. That will help solve part of your problem.
If it is inspired clearly you are calling God a liar if continue maintaining this perpetual virginity of Mary nonsenses, for that is not God's will. "Defraud not one another." That is as clear as one can be."

Verse 6 speaks volumes about inspiration. Paul knew when he was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He knew when he was writing Scripture. He didn't have to wait until the Catholc Church came four centuries later and said: "Hey, did you know these epistles of yours were Scripture, Paul?" He knew already. When he penned those words which he says he writes "by permission," he is admitting that he is not writing under the influence of what would be normally inspired. However, God over-ruled and saw fit that these words were inspired and put into the canon of Scripture anyway. Every word that is in this epistle is inspired of God. All Scripture is given by inspiration--every word of it (2Tim.3:16). The Holy Spirit of God saw fit to include these words of Paul in the inspired Scriptures whether or not Paul intended them to be inspired. The fact remains that they are the inspired Word of God. You can deny that fact, and tear them out of the your Bible, or simply call God a liar. The choice is yours. Either way it does not look good for your perpetual virginity doctrine.
DHK

 

DHK, is *verse 6 itself* true and the inspired word of God? If so, then what it refers to is not commands. If not, rip out verse 6, because it is wrong.

 

It is true and inspired. To understand it you must understand the context in which it is written. Why would Paul go on to say: in 1 Corinthians 7:7,

"For I would that all men were even as I myself."

Paul was single. Why is he wishing that all men would be single like himself. Later on he advises others not to marry but if single to remain unmarried. Why such contrary advice to marriage? One needs to know the context of the passage before understanding verse six and the rest of these verses. Paul was writing this letter to the Corinthians, who at that time were undergoing an intense persecution under Nero, who had burnt the city of Rome, blamed it on the Christians and was persecuting the Christians to the extent that he was throwing them to the lions in the Coliseum. Under such circumstances, Paul advises not to get married. What profit would it be for a couple to get married only to see the newly wed spouse get martyred? Under such circumstances it is better to remain unmarried. These were not normal circumstances. Under normal circumstances. If you study the rest of the Bible, you find that "it is not good that man should be alone." That God created a help-meet for man. That the bed is honourable in marriage and undefiled. And most of all, God has used the family as a picture of the family of God, with Christ as the bridegroom coming for His bride--the marriage feast of the lamb still awaiting us in Heaven. The sanctity of marriage is very important in God's eyes. It is the first institution ordained of God.
DHK