The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary
Question #1, What is your understanding of the difference between betrothed and marriage?
Without looking up the specific words, right off hand, I would say that betrothed would be the same as our engaged, and marriage would be when it is legalized by the civil courts or a Church, so with that said, I’ll do a little researching.
Deut 20:7 And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.
Now, here it is asked, (paraphrased) who is the man who is engaged (has betrothed) a wife, to be, but hasn’t married her, he should go back home and marry her, lest he die in battle before he marries and has a child.
This clearly states that the betrothed is a wife before they are married.
Deut 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman ….married to an husband,…. then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
23. If a damsel that is a ….virgin be betrothed unto an husband,…. and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
V-24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
V-25 But if a man find a ….betrothed damsel…. in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die
V- 27. For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
.This makes it clear that a betrothed woman is his wife, but not in the same sense as we use today. When they are married, she remains his wife, but the partnership is completed, and she becomes a ….“married wife.”….
This same term is used in Isaiah.
.Isaiah 54:1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of ….the married wife,…. saith the Lord.
So, back to your question. What is your understanding of the difference between betrothed and marriage?… Betrothed is one who is committed to marriage, and is called the man’s wife, but she is not a married wife, until it has been completed legally by the authorities.
Question #2, Do you believe that the first comes before the second, and carries the full responsibilities of marriage without the benefits of consummation, as is consistent with Jewish tradition of the time?
Yes, short of living together, and her cooking his meals and tucking him in at night. Lol
Question #3, If Joseph and Mary were ever more then betrothed, were (they) ever married, why is this not mentioned in scripture?
But, it is mentioned in scripture, as we learned from before, a woman was betrothed and considered a wife at the same time, the difference was that they could not consumate the marriage until they had taken the final step of marriage.
In Israel, there were two phases to becoming married,
Phase #1, our word betrothed, was called erusin, or Kiddushin,
Phase #2 was called “nesuin,” which was the finalizing act of the marriage ceremony.
Deut 20:7 And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.
Here is a situation where a man has betrothed a wife, but has not gone to phase # 2 of the marriage. It is suggested he go back home and (taken) her, take her, took her, all meaning the same thing when used in the context of marriage..
Now notice Mt 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Joseph took unto him his wife, that was phase #2, marriage, complete except for the physical consummation, with “took” being the marriage word.
Took her, as one took in marriage, Deut 24:3, and Luke 20:30
Taken her, as to take in marriage, Deut 20:7, and Gen 12:19 and 20:7
Take her as in marriage, Deut 27:7, and Deut 25:5
This conclusively proves that Joseph and Mary were legally married.
Question # 4, When were all of Mary’s additional children supposed to have been born?
Quite possibly all were born by the time Jesus was 12 years old, but it could have been a few years longer. Remember, since God used her womb to bring the Savior to us, God surly left Mary in better physical condition then when he found her.
Question # 5, Why does Luke 2 make no mention of other small children in the account of the journey to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12?
The fact that there is no mention of small children is not the uncommon thing but the common, and would have been rare indeed if they had been mentioned.
Throughout the Bible, there is never an emphasis put on any child under the age of seventeen with the exception of course of Joseph being 17, and David was considered a child, and Jesus of course, but nowhere does the Bible elude to the image of little children running around that I can recall,
Just how would you suggest that the Holy Spirit or Matthew could have brought small children into the scripture, since they were never talked about until they were considered responsible?
Matthew and Luke had both made it a point to give all the names of Jesus brothers, and to mention he had two sisters, don’t you feel they thought this was plain enough for anyone to understand, and for the first time in the Bible, all their names are given, even though I can never recall that happening anywhere before, that a whole family is named before any of them had made a significant contribution to the Bible.
Question #6, And why would Christ commend Mary to the care of John from the cross if she had other children whose place it would have been to care for her on the death of her only son?
I’m sure you meant on the death of her oldest son rather then only son, but the reason is clear,
Mt 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. V-48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? V-49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! V-50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Jesus put his money where his mouth was. He had told them that a spiritual brother was even more of a true brother then a blood brother, such as James, who wasn’t a believer at that time, but it looks as though that may have changed shortly afterwards since the apostle Paul said that Christ saw James alone 1 Cor 15:7, and this was quite possibly when James gave his life to his Lord.
Question #7, Why is the burden of proof in this discussion on those who believe that Mary remained ever-virgin, when Scripture does not state that she bore additional children?
But it does state she had additional children, when in Mt 13 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? V-55 And his sisters, are they not all with us? V-56
If this is not a clear referral to the whole family of Joseph and Mary I don’t know what could be.
And, if this wasn’t enough, it was repeated in Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Regardless of whether John Mark wrote this from memory with the Holy Spirit or if he peeked over Matthew’s shoulder, it is clear that it is written differently enough that some thought had to go into it, and we know he would not have repeated this false hood of Matthew’s if he had know it to be untrue now would he?
Some make the claim there was no Greek word for cousin, but in Acts 23:16, Paul had no problem distinguishing between a cousin and a brother now did he? V-16. And when Paul's sister's son heard of their lying in wait, he went and entered into the castle, and told Paul.
Mt 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. V-48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Here again, is the opportunity to distance himself from his so called cousins, and Matthew or the Holy Spirit could have done so easily at this time, but Christ doesn’t question the one who went to the door, the door man ID’d them as his brethern, and Christ even repeated it, a second time.
When Christ said these are my brethern,
V-49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! Jesus was saying that the spiritual bond between a brother who shares God’s Spirit is closer then these my blood brothers, and would it have made sense if Jesus had said, these my spiritual brothers that my Father has given me, and they are so much a part of me they are like a distant relative…. NOT!…He was demonstrating a closeness of a blood brother, a mother and sisters.
Question # 8, Why don’t the two sides here agree that the sources we are examining provide no definitive proof?
Well, it’s because I see no proof of your claims what so ever, not one. When I do a long research on a subject, many times I find things that disagree with the point I am trying to make, and I have to work out these discrepancies before I can put all the facts together and sum up what I’ve found, but I’ll be completely honest, other then when I thought the term “wife” meant they were married, and then found out that a betrothed is a wife, and when they marry she is still a wife, but a married wife, this was the only problem I encountered.
When all the research and debating is done, there is one thing to remember, there is one truth on the matter, and only one, either Mary remained childless after Jesus, or she didn’t, there is no compromising on the truth.
Unless you can show more scripture to support your belief, then I have to support what I see as the truth, then you have no leg to stand on. Every statement must be disproved before you have a case. JH
See the PVM thread that was locked. Lots of good information there. Again, we will agree to disagree ;)
Excellent research...it's a keeper.
As with your great response on the question of "firstborn," I'm going to devote some time to prayer and study and speaking with some of my Orthodox mentors, and then respond more. But I'll give a few thoughts now.
Without looking up the specific words, right off hand, I would say that betrothed would be the same as our engaged, and marriage would be when it is legalized by the civil courts or a Church, so with that said, I’ll do a little researching.
This is consistent with my understanding as well.
Question #2, Do you believe that the first comes before the second, and carries the full responsibilities of marriage without the benefits of consummation, as is consistent with Jewish tradition of the time?
Yes, short of living together, and her cooking his meals and tucking him in at night. Lol
Ouch. My apologies, on second reading my question comes across as rather arrogant in tone. I seem to remember being rather worked up at the time. Thank you for not responding in kind.
Now notice Mt 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Joseph took unto him his wife, that was phase #2, marriage, complete except for the physical consummation, with “took” being the marriage word.
Took her, as one took in marriage, Deut 24:3, and Luke 20:30
Taken her, as to take in marriage, Deut 20:7, and Gen 12:19 and 20:7
Take her as in marriage, Deut 27:7, and Deut 25:5
This conclusively proves that Joseph and Mary were legally married.
I readily admit that this appears to be a valid interpretation of the words. I won't admit that its the only valid interpretation. Let's assume for argument's sake that my interpretation is correct. If a man had a betrothed wife (as you say, the term "wife" is accurate even at the betrothal stage), and had been commanded by God to not consummate the marriage, but to in all other ways make the marriage appear "normal" for the sake of public appearances and public acceptance and protection, how would this be worded?
I also fully admit that IF this is the truth of the nature of the relationship between Mary and Joseph, there would be no Scriptural precedent. How could there be? Nowhere else in Scripture - in all of history - has God endorsed a woman bearing a child and pretending that someone else is the father. IF that is what happened here, can you think of how Scripture might have worded it? If Joseph and Mary proceeded with legal marriage for the sake of appearances, but never in practice moved past the stage of being "betrothed," isn't it very plausible that Scripture would have still used the language that is used in Matthew 1:24?
I admit to only having a rudimentary understanding of Hebrew society during the time of Christ. But I've heard it maintained on this thread that it would have been wrong for a man and woman, fully and legally married, to NOT consummate their marriage as soon as possible. Obviously, Joseph and Mary did not do this. In your interpretation of Matthew 1:24, they are legally married right after Joseph wakes from his dream of the angel. Thus, it seems to me that the term "married" cannot have included consummation. If it means marriage-with-delayed-consummation, likely an offense against social mores, why can't it just as easily mean marriage-with-permanently-delayed-consummation?
I apologize if this doesn't seem clear. I understand why, if you approach the passage expecting to reach your conclusion that they consummated the marriage, the evidence seems to be there. I'm trying to see if I'm being reasonable in saying that if you approach the passage expecting to reach my conclusion that they never consummated the marriage, the evidence seems to be there as well. I think I am.
The fact that there is no mention of small children is not the uncommon thing but the common, and would have been rare indeed if they had been mentioned.
Very fair answer. However, even though it is the common practice, it does not change the fact that the lack of any mention of them does not prove that they existed.
Question #6, And why would Christ commend Mary to the care of John from the cross if she had other children whose place it would have been to care for her on the death of her only son?</>
I’m sure you meant on the death of her oldest son rather then only son, but the reason is clear...
Actually, I meant her only son because that is what I believe to be the truth.
Mt 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. V-48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? V-49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! V-50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Jesus put his money where his mouth was. He had told them that a spiritual brother was even more of a true brother then a blood brother, such as James, who wasn’t a believer at that time, but it looks as though that may have changed shortly afterwards since the apostle Paul said that Christ saw James alone 1 Cor 15:7, and this was quite possibly when James gave his life to his Lord.
Sorry, but I don't see this as "direct Scriptural evidence" at all. On what basis do you link these two passages? By your reasoning, Christ should have been just as diligent about commending all the other women among his followers to different people for caretaking - are they not, as He says in the verse you quote, His "mothers" too?
Your scenario is plausible, but no more than that. Is there any proof at all as to when James became a believer? As you say, we know he was by not long after Christ's Resurrection, but what evidence do you have for saying that he wasn't a month earlier?
As I said, your theory is plausible. But certainly no more plausible than the tradition passed down within the Orthodox Church.
Question #7, Why is the burden of proof in this discussion on those who believe that Mary remained ever-virgin, when Scripture does not state that she bore additional children?
But it does state she had additional children, when in Mt 13 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? V-55 And his sisters, are they not all with us? V-56
No, you are wrong. It does not state that she had additional children. It states that the people in the crowd thought of these people as the blood relations of Christ. The true nature of Christ's Father would have been kept from the neighbors. So they would have thought that Joseph was Christ's father. If these other children were Joseph's by a previous marriage, which is what the Orthodox Church teaches, the crowd would have always thought that they were Jesus's half-brothers and half-sisters. And so, they would have called them his brothers and sisters.
So my question still stands. Why does my position bear the burden of proof and yours does not?
If this is not a clear referral to the whole family of Joseph and Mary I don’t know what could be.
Easy. "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? Don’t we know her other children, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" This is a clear referral. As it is written, it does not support your position any more than mine unless we come to it with our mind made up already.
And, if this wasn’t enough, it was repeated in Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
And in this passage as well, it does not say that these are the children of Mary. It says that they are believed to be the brothers and sisters of Jesus.
Some make the claim there was no Greek word for cousin
OK, let me ask a question that I absolutely don't have an answer to - is there a Greek word for half-brother different from the word for brother? Is there a Hebrew word? I've never said that the "brethern" of Jesus were cousins. I've been taught that the Church position is that they were half-brethern. There is a crucial difference. Would it have been normal for the Gospel writers, and for the crowds they quote, to refer to half-brothers as cousins? Or as brothers? Or as something else entirely? I have no idea what the answer is, and whether or not it supports your position or mine.
Here again, is the opportunity to distance himself from his so called cousins, and Matthew or the Holy Spirit could have done so easily at this time, but Christ doesn’t question the one who went to the door, the door man ID’d them as his brethern, and Christ even repeated it, a second time.
Again, they are "so-called cousins" by you, not me. I call them half-brothers, children of Joseph by a previous marriage that were "around and about" during Jesus's early years. This is what the Orthodox tradition maintains. Of course he would have felt a special kinship with them. I have two half-brothers. I do not think of them as anything but my brothers, but that does not change the fact that they were not born of the same woman as I am.
He was demonstrating a closeness of a blood brother, a mother and sisters.
Sorry, same answer. I see nothing in Scripture to conclusively support your proposition, or even to make your proposition any more reasonable than mine. If these "brethern" were indeed Joseph's by an earlier marriage, as the Orthodox Church has taught for so many centuries, they would have been the "older siblings" that the young Jesus looked up to and learned from as a child. Of course there would have been a special bond between them, even if there was no blood connection.
I see no proof of your claims what so ever, not one.
And as I've tried to make clear, I see no proof of yours either. The question remains, if neither of us presents proof, why am I definitively wrong and you’re definitively right?
When I do a long research on a subject...
Your diligence shows in this post, and it is appreciated.
When all the research and debating is done, there is one thing to remember, there is one truth on the matter, and only one, either Mary remained childless after Jesus, or she didn’t, there is no compromising on the truth.
I agree completely. And I have yet to see any proof from the only source you recognize, the Scripture itself, that contradicts the interpretation I've been taught. The Orthodox teaching still seems to be in full compliance with the Scripture. Please let me know if you think I'm being completely unreasonable. Obviously, I don't believe I am.
Unless you can show more scripture to support your belief, then I have to support what I see as the truth, then you have no leg to stand on. Every statement must be disproved before you have a case.
I agree that you believe you have evidence to support "what I see as the truth." I do not think this evidence is compelling. It is your belief, not mine, that the only authoritative source for teachings is the Scripture itself. I readily admit that my belief comes from the Orthodox tradition and not from the Scripture. But, as I've tried to show, the relevant passages in Scripture do not conflict one whit with this teaching. Nor do they conflict with your belief. Coming full circle, this is why I asked to begin with why don't NC's and RC's/Orthodox call a truce on the matter. I’m not trying to convince you to adopt my position. I’m trying to demonstrate that I, and the RC’s and Orthodox in general, are not being at all unreasonable or irrational or Scripture-denying in maintaining our tradition.