| |
A DISCUSSION ABOUT MARY
Just for
amplification.
THE SINFULNESS OF MARY
1. All have sinned and have come short of the glory of God.
A. Scripture excepts Jesus Christ: 2 Cor. 5.21; Jn. 8.29,46
Heb. 4.15; 7.26; 1 Pet. 2.22; 1 Jn. 3.5
B. Scripture makes NO OTHER EXCEPTIONS including Mary.
2. I don't see that this man's proclamation reverses the
OT proclamation of man's sinfulness. Gen. 8.21; Jer. 17.9; Is.64.6
3. I don't see that it reverses the apostle John: 1 Jn. 1.8, 10
Or the apostle Paul: Rom. 5.12
GRACE UPON MARY
4. Luke 1.28 - does not establish Mary as sinless, but as the
recipient of special favor from God.
A. charitoo - perf. p. part. - lit: having received grace;
thus, graced one - it is explained at v. 30 - charis -grace.
"You have found grace with God."
B. It does not mean "full of grace." "Full of grace" is found at
Acts 6.8 in reference to Stephen -
pleres charis = full of grace. And it means that grace was
exuding from his life as he served God.
C. It means she has received grace - been graced or favored
by God - but the meaning must be sought in the Hebrew
culture - thus, the OT usage. This is what Mary would
understand and what we must accept as what God meant.
D. Gen. 6.8 - Noah found grace with God - the Hebrew is chen -
and the Greek of the LXX is CHARIS. Noah found special
favor with God and was given a special job to do.
E. Ex. 33.12, 17 - Moses found grace with God - the Heb. is
chen - and the Greek of the LXX is charis. Moses found
favor with God and was given a special job U to do.
F. Even Israel in the wilderness found grace with God - Jer. 31.2
G. The principle of God giving grace to those who are right with
Him is found at Ps. 84.11 - He gives grace (chen/charis) &
glory Prov. 3.34 - He gives grace to the humble -which is
explained at 1 Pet. 5.5-6 as referring to special favor and
promotion from God.
H. And this is exactly how Mary would understand Gabriel's
message. And then Gabe explains to her the nature of this
"grace-promotion." She will be the mother of the Messiah.
I. and in her "exaltation" of v.46-55, Mary recognizes the nature
of her promotion from her "humble state" so that all
generations shall "consider me under a blessing of happiness"
(makaridzo - to consider happy - only here and James 5.11)
MARY'S VIRGINITY
Mt. 1.25, "And he was not knowing her,"
Greek, ginosko, imperfect active indicative, clearly used to
indicate sexual intercourse in this context.
1. the imperfect tense - continuous action in past time- indicates
that the action was not (plus the negative) going on.
2. Sometimes, (the inceptive imperfect, Dana & Mantey, page 190)
the idea of beginning an action is indicated by the imperfect.
thus, did not begin to know her - -
3. In either case, the clear intent of the language is that no
sexual activity took place during a certain period of time -
ie, prior to the birth of the Lord.
4. and then the use of the adverb heos - with this action verb -
clearly indicates the in tent of the writer to say that normal
sexual activity would and did take place after his birth.
5. Now that is the clear and simple intent of the narrative.
Any reason for finding something other than that intent, must
be found in the apostolic writings.
The issue is not consummation of the marriage - but - normal sexual activity
within the marriage. That is the reason for using the imperfect tense. the
imperfect tense speaks of continuous action (taking place in the past) it
thus, is the perfect way to speak of that which is a continuous activity
within the marriage relationship.
The angel told Joseph to take Mary as his wife. This would imply
that normal sexual activity would take place during the time from
when the marriage began. We would expect 1 Cor 7.3 to take place - where the
present tense of fulfill the duty - is used to indicate a continuous
mutually fulfilling sexual relationship.
So as the reader continues at Mt. 1, the writer tells us the opposite
of what we would expect - -
v. 24 - Joseph took her as his wife - here is that aorist tense -
which indicates a point of time action of formally "getting married."
So we would expect 1 Cor. 7.3 type activity. But the writer is not
going to tell us - and they had a great sex life. But of course, we
would expect it - right?
So instead we have the language which indicates that this normal
sexual activity was not TAKING place.
And so we think.
But then I read - UNTIL - and I realize the INTENT of the writer is to tell
me that during the pregnancy, there was no sexual activity - but that , what
one would normally expect to take place in a
marriage, would then be taking place after the birth of Jesus.
Now, in any other "story" this is the way we would see it.
There is nothing in the context that even HINTS otherwise.
and it is not until many years later when some men want
to teach a perpetual virginity that they come back to this
passage and try to read into it what is not there.
THE THEORY OF MARY'S VOW
Discussion:
The opposition viewpoint is contained within the >..< format.
>I asserted that Mary made a vow of perpetual virginity even in
>marriage with the following question --
> "How can this be, since I do not know a man?" (Luke 1:34)
>There is no indication that Mary planned to AFTER marriage either.
>Remember, Mary was ALREADY "betrothed" to
>Joseph (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27). When the angel said to her --
> "you WILL conceive in your womb and BRING FORTH a Son" (Lk 1:32)
>it would NOT make sense for her to ask -- "HOW can this be...."
>since she was engaged to be married! Her response "....since
>I do not know a man" implies a lifelong vow of virginity.
It implies no such thing. This is totally unreasonable.
Such a suggestion violates common sense and the context.
Such a vow violates scripture in a marriage context. Prov. 5.15-19; 1 Cor.
7.3-5
If she had wanted to make a vow - then she should have
followed principles which Paul taught about later. 1 Cor. 7.25-38
Make a vow? Fine - do not get married.
No woman has the right to make a vow at the expense of her husbands MANDATE.
1 COR. 7.3-5
And no man has a right to make a vow at the expense of his wife's mandate.
>As Catholic apologist Karl Keating says --
> "If she anticipated having children and did not intend to maintain
> a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask 'HOW' she was to
Keating's, etc, logic fails to convince me, because I view her understanding
of the angels message as saying that she would conceive a child before
sexual activity.
The question makes perfect sense if we allow Mary to interpret the message
in this way.
And I simply see this as more logical than to read into her life a "vow of
virginity" which would violate the whole intent of marriage in the first
place.
MARY'S VIRGINITY and UNTIL
Matthew 1:15, UNTIL
>Gen 8:7 -the raven "did not return TILL the waters were dried up..."
> Question: Did the raven return? NO!<
Corrected translation (CT):
"And he sent out a raven, and it went out, going and returning
until the water was dried up from the earth."
In other words, this "guy" was flying all over the place - and
did not stop UNTIL there was land to rest upon.
Did the raven stop "going and returning?" YES!
(The Hebrew word for "until" is -adh- which has a whole
handful of uses - as far as, even to, up to, until, while
the LXX has the Greek word heos - until)
>Deut 34:6 -- Moses died "and no one knows his grave TILL this day."
> Question: Have we found Moses' grave? NO!<
CT: "and no one man knows his burial place UNTO this very day."
(the Hebrew has the same prep. - adh <same choices>
the LXX has the Greek - heos - until).
The intent of the writer here is not to say that the grave would
never be found (that is not relevant), but to say that "up to" a certain
point in time
it has not been found. ie, this very day.
Mt. 1.18 says the same thing - a certain activity does not take
place "up to" a certain time. After that "history" determines
what happens.
In the case of Moses - never found
In the case of Mary's virginity - brothers AND SISTERS at
Mt. 13.55-56.
>2 Sam 6:23 -- Michal "had no children TILL the day of her death."
> Question: Did she have children after she died? NO!<
These passages just do not address the issue. This is to be
viewed in the same way as above. (although in this case,
it is an obvious permanent cut off point.)
>1 Macc 5:54-"...not one of them was slain TILL they had returned in
>peace." Was Judas M and his troops killed when they returned? NO!<
>Luke 1:80 -- John the B "was in the deserts TILL the day of his
>manifestation to Israel." Did John the B stay in the desert? YES!
>(cf. Matt 3:1; Mark 1:3-4; Luke 3:2-4).
The area "all the district around the Jordan" is NOT wilderness only?
It simply means that the desert was basically his "home."
He did not stay there 24/7.
>John 4:49 -"Sir, come down BEFORE my child dies!" Did he die? NO!<
No issue here. The Greek is not heos, but prin - "before."
>Rom 8:22 -"...the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs
>together UNTIL now." Is it still groaning? YES! <groan> :)
No issue here. The Greek is not heos, but achri.
>1 Cor 15:25-"For He must reign TILL He has put all enemies under His
>feet." After all enemies are put away, will Christ be reigning? YES!<
No issue here. The Greek is not heos, but achri.
>Eph 4:12-13 -"...for the equipping...for the work of ministry....
>for the edifying....TILL we all come to the unity of the faith...."
>Once we become unified, will equipping, ministry, and edification
>still be necessary? YES!<
No issue here. The Greek is not heos, but mechri.
>1 Tim 4:13 -"TILL I come, give attention to reading, to
>exhortation, to doctrine." When Paul arrives, no more reading,
>no more exhorting, no more doctrine? NO!<
Hey we found heos! I think you are stretching the intent of Paul here.
the intent is that while he is absent - study, etc. - and when he
is present, he himself will provide the teaching.
>1 Tim 6:14 -"....that you keep this commandment without spot,
>blameless UNTIL our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing..." When Jesus
>comes back, we should disobey these commandments? NO!<
Whoops! back to mechri again. (not heos). It is no issue.
>Rev 2:25-26 -- "But hold fast what you have TILL I come.
>And he who overcomes and keeps My works UNTIL the end, to him I
>will give power..."
>Should we stop holding fast and stop obeying when Jesus returns? NO!<
And here we have achris - not heos.
>Now ", regarding the use of "TILL" or "UNTIL" (-heos-)
>On Genesis 8:7 --
>Deut 34:6 -- Moses died "and no one knows his grave TILL this day."
> Question: Have we found Moses' grave? NO!
RW> The intent of the writer here is not to say that the grave would
RW> never be found (that is not relevant), but to say that "up to" a
RW> certain point in time it has not been found. ie, this very day.
>That is precisely the meaning I am giving to Matt 1:25 -- "UP TO".
>That Mary was a virgin UP TO the point of the birth of Jesus.
This is correct. Where is the disagreement?
After the birth of Jesus normal marriage activity would take place.
And Mary had other sons and daughters.
The significance of "until" depends on what comes after it.
In the case of Deut. 34.6, it is clarified by - "this day."
This is a common idiom used in both the OT and NT
to indicate that there has been no change TO DATE.
Since the issue of TO DATE, is not in view at Mt. 1.25,
this example as well as the couple dozen other examples -
which include, "until now" do not address the use of
UNTIL at Mt. 1.25. For the writer does not say that
Joseph was not knowing her UNTIL THIS VERY DAY.
For this reason, do not rely too heavily on Deut. 34.6 to
prove your point.
>Whoah! Wait a second. The question is what does the text in
>Matt 1:25 mean? The use of -heos- in the LXX of Deut 34:6 shows that the
meaning of "UP TO" is possible. <
And as I have shown that the context at
Mt. 1.25 speaks sensibly of a change of activity after the birth.
>2 Sam 6:23 -- Michal "had no children TILL the day of her death."
> Question: Did she have children after she died? NO!<
RW> These passages just do not address the issue. This is to be
RW> viewed in the same way as above. (although in this case,
RW> it is an obvious permanent cut off point.)
>What do you mean "do not a address the issue." I thought the
>issue here in Matt 1:25 is what does -heos- imply? The LXX of
>2 Sam 6:23 -heos- is another example of "TILL" not implying any
>change of condition --unless you wish to say Michal had children
>after she died?<
Every use of "until" looks to a cut off point when there is some
kind of change. Here it should be rendered "unto the day of
her death." Thus, no particular activity up to the cut off point.
At the cut off point, there is a change.
The cut off point as indicated in each particular context determines
the duration of the activity. In this case, the duration of the
activity is further defined by the NATURE of the cut off point.
ie, physical death - at which point, it is obvious that the activity would
cease.
In all the other examples - where the cut off point is not defined as a
final,
permanent condition such as death;
OR where the cut off point is not defined as a TO DATE idea -
The continuation of the activity is logically assumed to continue.
Now I will concede the point that the continuation of the activity is not
GUARANTEED to take place.
But as I see it, we should view the continuation as a logical probability
unless and until other BIBLICAL factors can be summoned to determine the
actuality of such continuation.
>1 Macc 5:54 "...not one of them was slain TILL they had returned
>in peace." Was Judas M and his troops killed when they returned?<
>If -heos- is used in the LXX here then this is another
>verse that shows "TILL" does not necessarily imply any change of
condition.<
Well now, I can view this differently.
TILL is used to indicate a period of victory during a military conflict.
And when they returned that period of conflict which was
a time for the potential death of the soldiers was over.
It does not mean they all died - but that the occasion
that might have caused their death was now resolved.
>On Rom 8:22; 1 Cor 15:25; Eph 4:12-13; 1 Tim 6:14; Rev 2:25-26
>you responded --
RW> No issue here, Phil, the Greek is not heos, but achri.
RW> [or mechri or achris]<
>These texts I might concede to you. The point is the use of "TILL"
>or "UNTIL" in English -- I tried to show with these examples that
>the word does not necessarily imply any change of condition after
>the event.
>Please explain the significant differences between the
>use of -achri-, -achris-, -mechri-, and -heos-.
Actually, although these words do have some unique
differences from one another, they still have a usage which
in some cases is similar to heos.
So let me address them on the same level as I did the other
references - for the sake of the discussion.
1. Rom. 8.22; "until now" is that idiom which really does not
speak to the use of UNTIL at Mt. 1.25.
2. 1 Cor. 15.25; for he must reign until he has put all his enemies under
his feet.
Yes - according to v.28, that particular reign will cease.
3. Eph. 4.13 - here mechri speaks of a purpose rather than a temporal
accomplishment.
4. 1 Tim. 6.14 - keep the commandment until Jesus Comes.
Definitely a change. We will be given a resurrection body
and a begin a new sphere of existence where the
issue for us will not be to keep the commandment.
There will be no sinning when He comes and takes us to heaven.
5. Rev. 2.25 - hold fast until I come
same idea. A change will occur at that time. Once He comes, the issue will
not be for
me to HOLD FAST. Therefore, there is a change in my activity.
I will obviously continue to hold fast after I am taken to heaven.
THE BROTHERS OF JESUS
The reason Jesus put Mary into the care of John is because her other
sons were not "believers" yet.
Jo hn 7.3-6, His brothers therefore said to Him, "depart from here and go
into Judea , that your disciples also may behold your works which you are
doing. For no one does anything in secret, when he himself seeks to be known
publicly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.
For not even His brothers were believing in Him. Jesus therefore said to
them, my time is not yet at hand, but your time is always opportune.
And there is no evidence that these brothers became believers until AFTER
the resurrection of Christ - Acts 1.14, "with His brothers."
And then, we actually only hear about and from James and Jude.
So, Jesus is not going to turn the care of his mother over to a
spiritually rebellious group of unbelievers - sons or not -
but to John, who is probably the most stable of the disciples at this
time.
Although the Greek word, adelphos, was consistently used to refer to a
relative or relatives, that does not mean that it is always used that way.
If that were the intent at Mt. 13.55-56, then adelphos would
have been used ALONE - without the word SISTERS! For adelphos in
the plural includes both male and female relatives. The fact that
the writer uses both adelphos (masc. plural) and adelphos (fem. pl),
shows the clear intent to distinguish between brothers and sisters in the
immediate family of Jesus.
And again, one must ignore the clear intent of the narrative to insist that
those mentioned are "cousins."
To review -
RW> All the references you produced in the past do indeed support
RW> this use for the word 'adelphos' - for relative or relatives.
RW> However, were that the intent at Mt. 13.55-56, then adelphos
RW> would have been used ALONE - without the word SISTERS!
RW> For adelphos in the plural includes both male and female
RW> relatives. The fact that the writer uses both adelphos
RW> (masc.plural) and adelphos (fem. pl), shows the clear
RW> intent to distinguish between brothers and sisters in
RW> the immediate family of Jesus.
RW> You see, one does not use both in the Greek if you are talking
RW> about one's "brethren" as in relative s. adelphos is adequate
RW> for that purpose. But the fact that both brothers and sisters
RW> is used proves what the people were seeing and saying -
RW> his brothers and sisters.
>This appears to be your best argument against the historic,
>orthodox Christian position of the Church that Mary was "Ever-Virgin" --
>believed by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and all the major
>Protestant Reformers -- Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, et al.
>Is there an answer to your objection -- but of course!
>Why do you insist that males and females in the immediate family
>are distinguished here and male and female RELATIVES or COUSINS
>cannot be distinguished with the use of adelphoi/adelphai ?
As I have explained - because of the clear INTENT of the writer
reflecting the clear UNDERSTANDING of the bystanders.
>Check out this OT usage of adelphos in the book of Job -- (NKJV)
"He has removed my BROTHERS far from me, and my acquaintances are
completely estranged from me. My RELATIVES have failed, and my
close friends have forgotten me." (Job 19:13-14)
>You said adelphos ALONE would be enough to include both male
>AND female relatives? According to what you said above, this
>would include BOTH male and female relatives, right?
This does not PROVE a thing. "brothers" - is self explanatory, ie BROTHERS
(also v. 17)
and "relatives", does not MEAN relatives (the LXX actually says
those nearest to me, from adverb - eggus which means "near" and
does not have to refer to relatives and in fact probably does not.
It is best taken as synonymous with "close friends."
The contrast in v. 13-14 is between his brothers and his friends.
There is no necessity to have relatives in view at all.
> "Then ALL his BROTHERS, ALL his SISTERS, and all those who
>had been his acquaintances before, came to him - - -" (Job 42:11)
Here as well. There is no need to have "relatives" in view at all.
brothers and sisters means exactly what it suggests.
>The following is from a booklet available - - - It is called
>REFUTING THE ATTACK ON MARY which answers all of CRI and Elliot
>Miller's objections to the Marian dogmas. Here's your answer --
>The point at issue in the "brothers/sisters of Jesus" texts is the
>translation of the Greek words -adelphos- (brother) and -adelphe-
>(sister). CRI admits that the Greek Septuagint uses these words not
>ONLY for brother/sister, but ALSO for remoter relatives - - -
But I do not agree with or accept CRI's admission concerning
adelphe -sisters. This has not been adequately demonstrated.
>I invite the reader to examine Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, & Jn 19:25.
>In these James and Joses (Joseph), who are mentioned in Matthew 13:55
>with Simon and Judas (Jude) as Jesus' -adelphoi-, are called
>sons of Mary, wife of Clopas, a DIFFERENT Mary from our Blessed Mother.
>This "other" Mary (Matt 27:61; 28:1) is called our Lady's -adelphe-
>in John 19:25. It is wholly unlikely that two daughters of the same parents
were given the same name, "Mary." Our Lady and the "other Mary" were related
only in the wider sense of -adelphe-. They were RELATIVES, but not sisters.<
The identity of "Mary the wife of Clopas" as Mary's sister, can
not be established beyond a doubt. Jn. 19.25, upon which this is
based can correctly be viewed as showing 4 women present.
Mary's sister is one; and the wife of Clopas is another.
The question is whether Mary is in apposition to "sister" or not.
If we view 2 pairs in the verse, it would not be a construction
without precedent in the NT.
The 2 men, James and Joses of Mt. 27.56 need not be identified as
the same men mentioned at Mt. 13.55.
1. Mt. 13.55 - the brothers of Jesus - James, Joseph, Simon & Jude.
2. Mt. 10.2 - James the son of Zebedee
3. Mt. 10.3 - James the son of Alphaeus (identified as Clopas)
Known as James the Less. Mk. 15.40)
Thus, there is no real proof here that adelphe must refer to a
female relative instead of an actual sister.
1. Mt. 27.56 lists 3 women
A. Mary Magdelene
B. Mary, mother of James and Joses
C. The mother of the sons of Zebedee.
2. Mk. 15.40 lists the same 3 women
A. Mary Magdelene
B. Mary, mother of James the less and Joses
C. Salome (mother of sons of Zebedee)
3. Jn. 19.25 lists the same 3 women + 1 (mentioned first)
A. Mary Magdelene (mentioned last)
B. Mary, wife of Clopas (mother of James the less)
(same as wife of Alphaeus)
C. Mary's (mother of Jesus) sister - corresponds with Salome
the mother of the sons of Zebedee (makes them cousins)
D. His mother (Mary) (only mentioned by John)
>Texts which call James, Joses, Simon, Judas, and the unnamed
>women the adelphoi and adelphai of Jesus cannot be understood
>except by calling these people Jesus' RELATIVES, not his uterine
>brothers and sisters.
Well, as you can see, it can be understood differently.
And when trying to decide which way to go with both sides of
gymnastics - I must appeal to the logical SENSE of the contexts
involved as I've said before.
There is a whole handful of "specifics" which, when taken separately,
might with difficulty be explained otherwise, BUT when the whole
handful is taken collectively, the force of the argument is
cumulative. There are just too many items which need to be
explained away in order to establish a perpetual virginity theory.
>A further point is noted by John McHugh, author of THE MOTHER OF JESUS
>IN THE NEW TESTAMENT that I mentioned earlier. After quoting Mark 6:4
> But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in
his own country, among his own RELATIVES, and in his own house."
>McHugh notes the following -- (p. 241)
> "Why does Mark not write 'in his own country and AMONG HIS BROTHERS
and in his home'? Perhaps it was to maintain a crescendo from 'his
own country' through a narrower circle (his kinsmen [relatives])
to a still smaller group (his own home). All the same, the choice
of 'kinsmen' [relatives] in v. 4, coming straight after v. 3, might
be an indication that the 'brothers' just mentioned could also be
described as 'kinsmen' [relatives], i.e. not full blood-brothers.
It MIGHT also simply be making a distinction between one's brothers who have
THEIR OWN households and the "prophet" who would have HISown household.
> "Thus this second Synoptic periscope does not supply clear and
> irrefutable evidence for the Helvidian theory [that Mary had
> other children];
Actually, it doesn't need to "supply clear and irrefutable
evidence." The burden of proof is on those who want to read into
the Messianic history, a theory which grates against the clear,
logical sense of divinely sanctioned human behavior.
|
|
