7

After much editing and clarifying through comments this question seems to have asked and had answered from Catholic perspective why Mary stayed a virgin throughout her pregnancy.

Yet many Christians do not agree with perpetual virginity doctrine but still agree that Mary did remain virgin until after giving birth based on Matthew 1:25:

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS (KJV).

What biblical reasons are there for the necessity of Mary and Joseph to abstain from sexual relations during the time she was carrying the baby Jesus?

Kris
  • 7,068
  • 5
  • 34
  • 69
  • One thing to note is that a Catholic could accept a purely Biblical answer to the linked question, if it were sourced as a Catholic interpretation of the Bible (so you could get a 2-fer with minor tweaks) But here you'd have to explain why your doctrine is consistent with your interpretation. @kris Mightn't this just be speculation that people who hold this viewpoint actually exist? – Peter Turner Jan 26 '18 at 22:39
  • @PeterTurner which viewpoint do you refer too? – Kris Jan 26 '18 at 22:52
  • Who says there is a necessity of Mary refraining from sexual relations with Joseph during her pregnancy? – Flimzy Jan 27 '18 at 11:54
  • 1
    @Flimzy People who believe in the virgin birth of Christ. – aska123 Jan 27 '18 at 12:57
  • 1
    @aska123: People believe that because the Bible said it happened. That does not imply that it is somehow "necessary." But this question is examining the claim of necessity, so I'm asking where that claim is made. – Flimzy Jan 27 '18 at 13:01
  • 1
    @Flimzy if you want to answer that it was not necessary with biblical support that would be fine. It seems that most Christians believe it was necessary. I’m asking non Catholics why – Kris Jan 27 '18 at 13:16
  • @Kris: If most Christians believe it was necessary, it should be easy to point to such a claim. Can you do so? I've never heard any Christian even address the issue, let alone claim it was necessary. (Note I have heard Christians talk about the necessity of a virgin conception, but that's obviously a separate issue). – Flimzy Jan 27 '18 at 13:22
  • @Flimzy I’ve never heard a Christian claim it wasn’t necessary. If Mary and Joseph didn’t think it was necessary they wouldn’t have refrained it seems since it was “ necessary” for the Bible writer to tell us that Joseph didn’t have relations until after the child was born. There are schools of thought among Christians that it was necessary because Mary’s body became a holy place like the temple while she carried the baby and ritual cleanness had to be maintained. I’m hoping an answer touches on that aspect if not I will self answer. – Kris Jan 27 '18 at 13:34
  • @Flimzy I would imagine that most Christians would agree that Mary and Joseph remained abstinent for some reason, or else they wouldn't have done it. They were legally married by the act of Joseph bringing Mary to his home, so waiting to consummate their marriage would have been against custom. –  Jan 27 '18 at 15:22
  • @Flimzy the necessity comes from Isaiah, book 7. It's a prophecy fulfillment element. – KorvinStarmast Jan 28 '18 at 04:18
  • @KorvinStarmast: That doesn't make it necessary. That makes it foretold. – Flimzy Jan 28 '18 at 09:39
  • @4castle: That's a non sequitur. You may as well say "The Bible says Paul was a Roman citizen. There must have been a reason. Therefore, why must Paul have been Roman?" In other words: Just because the Bible mentions a fact, doesn't make that fact "necessary". And second, just because there's a causal reason for that fact, also does not make that fact "necessary." – Flimzy Jan 28 '18 at 09:42
  • Maybe the question really being asked here is "Why did Mary remain a virgin during her pregnancy?" That would probably be a much easier question to answer, and doesn't imply the much deeper claim that I'm challenging: That this was somehow "necessary". – Flimzy Jan 28 '18 at 09:48
  • @Flimzy That easier question is the one I thought we were discussing all along. That's what my previous comment was talking about. My existing answer talks about why it wasn't necessary, but it did serve a purpose. –  Jan 28 '18 at 13:34
  • @Flimzy If Mary was familiar with scripture, and had an understanding of what she was being charged with, it becomes a motivation and a reason. As far as I know, on that detail scripture is silent but one can put two and two together in terms of her being raised to be a proper young lady by a Jewish married couple. – KorvinStarmast Jan 28 '18 at 13:52
  • @KorvinStarmast: Mary's familiarity with scripture may well be a reason for her behavior, but it doesn't explain the necessity of that behavior. If Mary had not abstained during her pregnancy, and prophecy had not foretold that action, how and why would that have negatively affected God's purpose? That's what I interpret "necessity" to mean. Nobody has so far addressed that, even though that's the core of the question, as currently worded. – Flimzy Jan 29 '18 at 08:37
  • @Flimzy You appear to be going toward a question of "explain what God needs" which I don't think is answerable; the "necessity" of a Messiah is bound to the entire prophecy fulfillment scheme, and Mary's obedience to God's will points toward her understanding that she (as the vessel holding the Messiah) had to be treated specially. – KorvinStarmast Jan 29 '18 at 12:28
  • @KorvinStarmast your last sentence is the direction I hope to explore – Kris Jan 29 '18 at 12:30

4 Answers4

4

Ever-virgin dogma is the belief that Mary was a virgin during pregnancy, during birth, and after Christ's birth in her marriage to Joseph.

Whether one submits to this Papal dogma or is someone who believes that Christ was born normally or Mary/Joseph had sex and children sometime after His birth, they both, indeed all Christians, believe the prophecy that the virgin would conceive and bear a son.

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14

The virgin will CONCEIVE (get pregnant) and the virgin will BEAR (bring forth, travail, deliver). Two-pronged prophecy: Conceive and give birth as a virgin.

IOW, even the same question posed for a Catholic answer was given Isaiah 7:14.

So again, the reason why Mary had to remain a virgin during her pregnancy was to fulfill scripture.

PS. This answer really has nothing to do with what came later that the Catholic dogma denies: that is, whether Mary/Joseph consummated their marriage or not (they did), whether Mary took a vow of chastity or not (she didn't), or even whether Jesus was born normally in the normal (human) way (He was). So, try not to derail the same answer that a Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant would give.

SLM
  • 13,666
  • 1
  • 10
  • 44
  • Actually, the perpetual virginity of Mary did not originate as a Papal dogma. It was affirmed by all 5 Sees of the Church (not just Rome) at the 5th Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 553, and also affirmed in the writings of numerous eastern Church Fathers outside the See of Rome, including Methodius of Olympus, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, and John of Damascus. It really wasn't even a serious point of dispute until Helvidius introduced doctrine that Mary did not remain a virgin, sometime in the late 4th century. – guest37 Jan 30 '18 at 15:53
  • 1
    The 5th EC defined that Mary was mother of God (as to His birth, not His preexistence). At Trent, the Roman Church declared the ever-virgin (EV) dogma (virgin before, during, after Christ's birth). Many disagreed with the EV right from the beginning. Scripture, Tertullian, Africanus, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and others. Reread your Cyril of Alexandria; let the female virgins glory because of Mary's nine months (from Christ's conception to birth normal), not because of Mary's life. That honor of a virgin life was given to Christ by him. John of D considered birth from Mary's side. – SLM Jan 30 '18 at 19:14
  • The second Capitula of the 5th Ecumenical Council refers to "the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin". I'd be happy to look at the Fathers you cite if you could provide references. You can find links to writings of the Fathers I cite here. – guest37 Jan 30 '18 at 19:55
  • You will also find affirmation by the See of Rome of the ever-virginity of Mary in Canon 2 of the Lateran Council of 649 - 900 years before the Council of Trent. – guest37 Jan 30 '18 at 20:24
  • Actually, Canons 2, 3, and 4. Canon 3 explicitly condemns those denying the that "her virginity [remained] indestructible even after his birth". – guest37 Jan 30 '18 at 20:50
  • Again, I understand that some thought Mary was ever-virgin both east and west from the writing of Protoevangelium of James onward. If you read my response, however, first paragraph, that's the clear dogma that points to Trent. But hey, that's a question. Which ECFs taught that Mary was not ever-virgin? Bonus: And why? – SLM Jan 30 '18 at 22:35
2

The reason for no sex during Mary's pregnancy with Christ was to fulfill prophecy, to make it very clear to all.

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isa. 7:14

If Mary and Joseph had consummated their marriage prior to Christ's birth, then the prophecy fails.

As well, it would trigger the question about who the father really might have been.

Lastly, Mary and Joseph were betrothed, but not yet married at that time of annunciation. Sex would have been a sin.

SLM
  • 13,666
  • 1
  • 10
  • 44
  • "Sex would have been a sin." Even assuming they were "married at that time of annunciation," "Sex [still] would have been a sin" for her because she vowed her virginity to God. – Geremia Jan 27 '18 at 03:24
  • 2
    The OP is addressed not to Catholics who believe their dogma that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after Christ's birth, but rather to those who believe the virgin conceived and bore Christ to term. Scripture does not tell anyone that she "vowed her virginity to God". You may be thinking of the Infancy Gospel of James wherein it is written her parents vowed her chastity. – SLM Jan 27 '18 at 04:07
  • 1
    The marriage ceremony at that time consisted of bringing the bride from her father's home to her husband's home. This is what happened in Mt 1:24, so they were indeed married. –  Jan 27 '18 at 04:10
  • Why all the down votes? The OP question is why Mary remained a virgin after conception to birth of Christ. The answer is to fulfill prophecy (a virgin will conceive and bear a son who is called Emmanuel). The OP has nothing to do with what happened or didn't happen at birth or afterwards. So what specifically is not agreeable to those downers? – SLM Jan 27 '18 at 15:35
  • I would also like to know why there's downvotes. Your new answer isn't substantially different. –  Jan 27 '18 at 17:47
  • I think the downvotes are because it is generally preferred that one not offer 2 answers but rather edit one to include additional info. – Kris Jan 27 '18 at 18:47
  • The down votes were there before I provided the second answer. I couldn't understand why the reason given to the same question from a non-Catholic POV would be rejected, but voted up in the question asking for a Catholic POV? After all, the answer to the OP in both places is basically the same. Fulfill prophecy (Isaiah 7:14- a virgin conceive and bear to term). The "garnishings" of supposed vows and consummations and the rest really have nothing to do with the question, but address Mary's subsequent life during and after Christ was born. That part was not asked. There religions differ. – SLM Jan 27 '18 at 22:03
  • It seems as if you are saying Mary and Joseph read the prophecy in Isaiah and refrained from sex in order to fulfill it. – Kris Jan 27 '18 at 23:26
  • @4castle, Luke implies that they were still betrothed at the time of Jesus' birth. – Belinda Jan 28 '18 at 14:14
  • @Belinda Could you explain how? Luke 2:5 says Mary had been given in marriage. –  Jan 28 '18 at 14:24
  • 3
    Luke 2:5 translated is espoused or betrothed. She was given to marriage with or promised to be with Joseph. But they were not yet wed; they were only espoused. See Mt. 1:18 and Luke 1:27. In our culture's terms, they would be engaged to be married, but not yet formally married (consummated). The definition of espoused is at Mt. 1:18 "before they came together", which makes them husband and wife. Joseph then has a dream and the angel says fear not to take Mary as your wife. God grants permission. Joseph knows her not until after the birth of Christ (Mt. 1:25). – SLM Jan 28 '18 at 17:09
  • @Belinda I just asked on Biblical hermeneutics. Currently it seems the only reasonable explanation is that Luke 2:5 is commenting on how Mary used to be betrothed, but now they're legally married. It wouldn't have been a sin for them to have sex (it actually would have been expected for the purposes of consumation). Please answer if you have more to add. –  Jan 28 '18 at 21:35
  • @4castle Saw your bh question so didn't feel the need to respond.

    My understanding is that betrothed is legally married but not yet living together (consummated).

    I like the BH answer that Luke is using it to point out that the marriage was not consummated even though they may have been cohabiting. I had never thought of that.

     – Belinda Jan 29 '18 at 09:36
  • Fwiw this question was not about the annunciation – Kris Jan 19 '22 at 22:22
  • FWIW, the OP asks about "During pregnancy", which would be from the time of the annunciation to birth. – SLM Jan 20 '22 at 17:41
  • FWIW op doesn’t question virgin conception which occured prior to marriage – Kris Jan 22 '22 at 13:55
1

According to Jehovah's Witnesses, Joseph and Mary may have remained abstinent until Jesus' birth in order to avoid casting doubt on who the true father of Jesus was. It also showed great respect for Mary's privilege of bearing God's Son.

The Bible says that Joseph “was righteous.” (Matthew 1:19) For example, he did not have intercourse with his virgin wife until after the birth of Jesus. This prevented any misunderstanding as to who Jesus’ real Father was. For a newly married couple to abstain from intimate relations while living under the same roof could not have been easy, but it showed that they both treasured the privilege of being chosen to raise God’s Son.—Matthew 1:24, 25.

—w02 12/15 "Lessons From the Record of Jesus' Birth"

Mary wasn't necessarily required to be a virgin according to Isaiah 7:14 since the Hebrew word used there more broadly translates to "maiden," and can refer to a virgin or a nonvirgin.

Look! The young woman [ft. note: "the maiden"] will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and she will name him Im·manʹu·el.

Nonetheless, Matthew 1:23 is evidently a quotation of the Septuagint version of Isa. 7:14 which uses the Greek word for "virgin" in making an application of Isa. 7:14. (Insight Vol. 2 - "Virgin")

Community
  • 1
  • Is there anything you found regarding Jewish law and cleaness/uncleaness and Mary carrying something holy within her? Somewhere in my mind there was a point made about it being improper for her to become unclean according to Jewish law during her pregnancy. – Kris Jan 26 '18 at 23:47
  • @Kris Lev 18:19 says not to have sex during the woman's period, but I'm not aware of any verses which say not to have sex during a pregnancy. – curiousdannii Jan 26 '18 at 23:52
  • @Kris That didn't come up in my research. However, I did find mention of how Jesus would have needed to be a firstborn in order to be the legal heir to David's throne. (Luke 1:32) –  Jan 26 '18 at 23:55
  • @curiousdannii thanks but I was thinking about how a husband and wife were unclean according to Jewish law fir a time after having sex. And how that unclean state even for a short time was not something to be visited upon Mary while carrying the holy clean Jesus – Kris Jan 26 '18 at 23:57
  • Casting doubt to who? Appart from his close followers, everyone thought he was the biological son of Joseph. (Mat 13:55 & John 6:42) – aska123 Jan 27 '18 at 00:03
  • @aska123 I'm not quite sure if I understand your question, but it would have proved to his followers that Jesus was conceived miraculously. –  Jan 27 '18 at 00:13
  • @4castle The only witnesses to the Virgin birth are Gabriel, Joseph, Mary and Jesus. It would have been sufficient for Mary, Joseph and Jesus to explain that she got miraculously pregnant and still had sex during pregnancy. Which could still prove to his followers that he was conceived miraculously. – aska123 Jan 27 '18 at 00:20
  • @aska123 If there's more than one proof that Jesus was conceived miraculously, why wouldn't Matthew write about it? –  Jan 27 '18 at 00:29
  • 1
    @Kris Unless Catholicism teaches that Mary never had a period, the ritual uncleanliness cannot impact her sinlessness etc... – curiousdannii Jan 27 '18 at 01:14
  • @curiousdannii this question is not asking for catholic answers the one I reference in my question did. – Kris Jan 27 '18 at 01:18
  • @4castle The book of Matthew fails to mention the annunciation (to Mary) & the visitation, therefore the purpose of the book is not to provide an exhaustive proof of miraculous conception. – aska123 Jan 27 '18 at 09:01
  • @aska123 Right, it's not an exhaustive proof, but neither are any of the other gospels. The gospels as a whole provide the full picture. (Also, these comments aren't the place to discuss this. I've answered the question according to a denomination's perspective. It's a factually correct answer, regardless of your agreement. You're welcome to write an answer too.) –  Jan 27 '18 at 13:54
  • 1
    @4castle in terms of needing to be the firstborn to be heir to the Davidic line Solomon was neither the first born nor the oldest of David's sons living at the time of his death so I don't see that as necessary. – Belinda Jan 28 '18 at 14:11
1

At some point in my studies I recall a discussion about how Mary and Joseph were spiritual persons who would have been very familiar with Jewish religious traditions and practices.

They were told that what was growing in Mary’s womb was holy. (Matthew 1:20) They would have understood that the protocols that were involved with being ceremonially clean when coming into the holy place (temple) would be fitting for one favored to carry the holiest of God’s possessions, his son, inside her body.

For this reason Mary would have felt it necessary, even mandatory, to maintain herself ritually clean to the fullest extent possible.

The Law given to Moses spelled out certain protocols that had to be followed by persons who were going to temple. Among these was the command that when a couple engaged in sexual activity, they were ceremonially unclean. They were to wash and would not be clean until the evening.

Leviticus 15:18 (NWT)

When a man lies with a woman and has an emission of semen, they should bathe in water and be unclean until the evening.

Knowing this and fully aware that for 9 months she was in effect the bearer of the holiest utensil of God’s temple, Mary would have indeed seen the necessity to refrain from sexual relations with her husband.

Expanding on this school of thought Peter Leithart wrote:

He Did Not Know Her

Joseph did not know his wife until she gave birth to a Son (Matthew 1:25). Why not?

In Matthew’s account, the conception of Jesus is attributed to the “Holy Spirit” (1:20), and Luke makes it explicit that the one conceived by the Holy Spirit is Himself holy: “the holy thing begotten shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35).

Joseph might have reasoned: Since Mary was inhabited by the Spirit, and by the Holy One conceived by the Spirit, she was, or at least her womb was, holy space. If she is holy space, he cannot have sex with her, since by the rules of Torah sex defiled both the man and the woman (Leviticus 15:18). Having sex with Mary during her pregnancy would have been like a leper or a menstruant entering the temple of God. It would have been like having sex in the temple court itself.

If this is the reasoning, it sheds some light on the question of perpetual virginity. Matthew’s phrasing implies that Joseph did have sex with Mary after Jesus was born, and the reasoning above would imply the same. Temples are holy only when the Holy One inhabits them. Once Yahweh abandoned the temple, it was an empty shell for demolition and burning. If Mary was holy because the Holy One lived in her, then His birth exodus from her body would have ended her temporary holiness. She would have reverted to normal “common” status. And Joseph would have known her as his wife. Joseph refrained from sex with Mary because she was the ark, bearing the glory; but only for nine months.

This article by Leithart captures much of what I recall as to why it was necessary for Mary to remain a virgin during the entire course of her pregnancy.

Kris
  • 7,068
  • 5
  • 34
  • 69