The possibility exists for some interesting dialogue to emerge when one compares how different passages of the Gospels refer to Mary. And of course, we are a bit limited in our ability to discuss the marriage of Mary and Joseph, hampered as we are by the near-total absence of Joseph from the rest of the Gospel narratives, apart from what we learn of him during the accounts of Jesus' birth. And let's be yet more honest, O Reader: can we, personally and individually, actually recall one word that Joseph has said which was recorded by the authors of the Gospels?

Anyhow, that wasn't really a relevant comment, so let's move on to the topic at hand. We've looked at the Annunciation to Mary, and we more or less ended that discussion with Luke 1:34, which is a rather pivotal Biblical verse in support of the idea that Mary remained perpetually virginal after bearing Christ. This is, of course, the verse in which she posed the question to the angel, "how can this be?"

We didn't really move on to the angel's response, though, did we?

[35] And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;
therefore the child to be born will be called holy,
the Son of God.

The reason that I put this verse in this section of my analysis, rather than in the section pertaining to the Annunciation, is that this verse actually references a concept that can be found in the Old Testament. The concept of being "overshadowed" is a less-commonly used euphemism for sex, but to Jews living 2,000 years ago the word would have had that meaning. It's a little like how we say people are "sleeping together", when we really mean that they are doing something else that typically involves a) a bed, and b) not sleeping, at least not at the time.

But more than that, the concept of overshadowing — or, alternatively, spreading a cloak or a wing over someone — would have been understood by the Jews to refer, more specifically, to marital sexual relations, not just to sex in general. Consider Ruth 3:

[7] And when Bo'az had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain. Then she came softly, and uncovered his feet, and lay down.
[8] At midnight the man was startled, and turned over, and behold, a woman lay at his feet!
[9] He said, "Who are you?" And she answered, "I am Ruth, your maidservant; spread your skirt over your maidservant, for you are next of kin."
[10] And he said, "May you be blessed by the LORD, my daughter; you have made this last kindness greater than the first, in that you have not gone after young men, whether poor or rich.
[11] And now, my daughter, do not fear, I will do for you all that you ask, for all my fellow townsmen know that you are a woman of worth.
[12] And now it is true that I am a near kinsman, yet there is a kinsman nearer than I.
[13] Remain this night, and in the morning, if he will do the part of the next of kin for you, well; let him do it; but if he is not willing to do the part of the next of kin for you, then, as the LORD lives, I will do the part of the next of kin for you. Lie down until the morning."

The astute Reader will catch the meaning of Ruth's statement concerning Boaz being "next of kin" (and if not, the Reader should look up Mark 12:18-27, in which Jesus is tested on a curious aspect of marital law in Judaism). Her meaning, in saying what she does, is that she desires Boaz to take her as his wife.

So let's come back to Mary, overshadowed by the Spirit. The angel's choice of words is, as I said, no accident, for it communicates a very important truth not only about the conception of Christ, but also concerning Mary's sexuality as well. In essence, Mary became the spouse of the Holy Spirit — of God — when the Spirit overshadowed her; moreover, having been overshadowed by the Spirit, Joseph was actually forbidden to approach Mary sexually (c.f. Genesis 49:3, 2 Samuel 20:3).

For Joseph to have later had any sexual relationship with Mary which was legitimate and non-sinful in nature according to Mosaic Law (the extant covenant between God and mankind at that time, which both Mary and Joseph would have observed), Mary's husband would either have had to divorced her or died. And since we know, from Jesus, that divorce is immoral in God's eyes, and since we likewise know that God is not dead…it only makes sense to conclude that Joseph never approached Mary sexually. Consequently, we are again pointed in the direction of the conclusion that Mary remained perpetually virginal.

Possible Objection #5: but Scripture mentions the brothers and sisters of Jesus! "Jesus' brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus' mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Later, in Galatians 1:19, it mentions that James was Jesus' brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood siblings."

Response to Objection #5: it should be noted that in Hebrew, there aren't really notions of extended family; even distant relatives will get lumped under the general category of "brothers and sisters" (or "bretheren", which might be a more accurate translation of the Biblical text).

Possible Objection #6: you silly Catholic! The Gospels were written in Greek, not Hebrew.

Response to Objection #6: quite correct. But the writers of the Gospels were themselves Hebrews, and would have imprinted their cultural biases onto the text they were writing, regardless of the language they were writing in.

Consider: if I am a priest standing before a congregation, and I greet "my brothers and sisters" in English, I am going to greet them in the same way if I switch to French. More importantly, just because I have switched to French does not mean I am in any way obligated to now be more specific in referring to the assembled people according to more precise descriptions of my relationship to them.

The fact that the Gospels were written in Greek is likewise meaningless, as far as this objection is concerned. The authors were Hebrews, and would have written as Hebrews, but in Greek. They would have used modes of speaking common to Hebrews, transliterated into Greek. And indeed, the Greek word adelphos, which is the relevant word here, does not always refer to same-womb siblings. Indeed, as Randall notes, the phrase adelphos "can mean same nationality (Acts 3:17; Rom 9:3), any man, or neighbor (Mt 5:22; Lk 10:29), persons with like interests (Mt 5:47), distant descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23,26; Heb 7:5), persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9), mankind in general (Mt 25:40; Heb 2:17), the disciples (Mt 28:10; Jn 20:17), [and] all believers (Mt 23:8; Acts 1:15; Rom 1:13; 1 Thess 1:4; Rev 19:10). In other words, just because certain people are referred to as brethren of Jesus, this certainly does not automatically mean that they were His first-degree siblings."

And in fact, there are other parts of the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life which further suggest that he had no brothers and sisters by Mary's womb. Consider, for example, Luke 2:

[41] Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover.

[42] And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom;
[43] and when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it,
[44] but supposing him to be in the company they went a day's journey, and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintances;
[45] and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking him.
[46] After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions;
[47] and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.
[48] And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously."
[49] And he said to them, "How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?"
[50] And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them.
[51] And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.

The context here suggests that Jesus was still an only child at age 12. If memory serves, it is commonly held that Jesus was in his mid-30s when he went up to be crucified, so it would stand to reason that if he had had any adult siblings present during portions of his ministry (which, again, the text of the Gospels would seem to imply), then one would expect that there might be early mention of such siblings, that some confirmation would exist that Mary and Joseph had given rise to additional offspring. This is especially true of the Gospel of Luke, which pays closest attention to the Holy Family.

Instead, we hear nothing of it. And coming back to what I noted before, about the objection that some have to the perpetual virginity of Mary based on the difficulty of believing that a Jewish woman 2,000 years ago could have been married and yet remained celibate, I might note that if we accept that objection as being true, we must also think it strange that Jesus had no siblings — at least, none that are mentioned — unto his 12th year of age.

Indeed, it would also appear that the residents of Jesus' home town of Nazareth had not heard of Mary giving birth to and additional children even when Jesus had reached adulthood and begun His ministry. From Mark 6, we hear of this exchange:

[1] He went away from there and came to his own country; and his disciples followed him.

[2] And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands!
[3] Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
[4] And Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."
[5] And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands upon a few sick people and healed them.
[6] And he marveled because of their unbelief.

At first, Mark 6:3 would appear to imply that Jesus has direct familial siblings. But look at the text closely. Jesus is "the" son of Mary and Joseph, not "a" son of Mary and Joseph. We've already discussed how "brothers and sisters", even in Greek, can refer to people of the same town or region, more distant relatives, and other people of familiarity to, but not necessarily directly related to, a person. But what's really telling is how Jesus is singled out as the son of the Holy Family, not one son out of many.

But what really clinches the argument against Jesus having siblings born out of Mary's womb is the scene at the foot of the Cross, in the Gospel of John. From John 19, we hear this:

[25]…standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag'dalene.

[26] When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"
[27] Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

The description of who is assembled at the foot of the Cross is paralleled in Mark 15:

[40] There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo'me,

[41] who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him; and also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem.

This is echoed in Matthew 27:

[55] There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him;

[56] among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb'edee.

From John, we learn that Mary (Jesus' mother) was at the foot of the cross, along with her sister (Clopas' wife), and Mary Magdalene. From Matthew, we actually don't hear whether Jesus' mother is present or not; we see again Mary Madgalene, as well as the mother of the sons of Zebedee (whose name, we learn from Mark, is Salome). And we also see "the other Mary", the wife of Clopas, who is actually the mother of James and John (who are elsewhere referenced as 'brothers' of Jesus).

In other words: the Bible itself confirms that the 'siblings' of Jesus are actually not direct siblings of his, but rather are children of a sibling of his mother's. This is also confirmed, for those who know a thing or two about Jewish familial customs, in Jesus' handing over care of His mother to the beloved disciple. Had she had any extant, living children apart from Christ, they would have been charged with her care. Since, however, Jesus had no blood siblings, He gave care of His mother over to the disciple whom He loved.

Now, the Reader may be beginning to wonder why all this really matters. It's a fair question, and a part of the answer is given by Christ directly when he gives care of Mary over to John, the beloved. "Behold your mother," Christ instructs. It turns out that this is not just a commandment given to one man.

You heard it here first, I guess. Given that I'm being singled out by name, I'm almost tempted to bring in a mod and see what happens. But truth be told, I'm just not offended by what's being said. However, in the spirit of speaking truth in the face of false witness, I feel I should address a few points.

And since I'm not allowed to join the CWU, I'll have to respond here, on the ol' blog.

Dragon has now spoken "Ex Cathedra" on his blog and proclaimed that certain members of this union, that choose not to post on the CU, are not fulfilling their obligation to the Lord. He makes his own assumptions about our beliefs regarding the CU, determines them to be true, and then proclaims, based on his assumptions, that we are not faithful to the Lord if we do not act on his incorrect assumptions and comply with his desires. It sounds a lot to me like he thinks his assumptions, words, and proclamations, carry the same weight as the Word of God. Hanging around the Pope, who believes the same thing, apparently will do that to a person.

First, I can't speak "ex cathedra", unless I have been made Pope without my knowledge. And unless, having been made Pope, I have spoken with the conclave of Cardinals without my knowledge. And unless, having been made Pope and spoken with the conclave of Cardinals, I have written a formal promulgation of doctrine, under the watchful eye of the Spirit, without my knowledge.

Which strikes me as a difficult thing to achieve.

More to the point, I remind the Reader that what is at issue here is not my own role within/view of the CU. I'm a member of the CU, and an officer there, but I don't regard the CU as being peopled with members who have largely fallen away from Christ. If I did, I would speak out against them for it, but as I do not, I don't see the need to evangelize my brothers and sisters in Christ in such a manner.

My point, however, is that the CWU, like the BBU before it, is peopled by those who do think of the CU in just that way. And if they do, 1 John 5 makes it very clear what their response must be to just such a circumstance. If in my heart I believe that a brother or sister Christian has fallen into sin which is mortal (and really, how much more mortal a sin can there be than falling away from Christ?), then I must speak to him or her. If I believe that a whole GS union has fallen away from Christ, then I must speak to that union.

This is not rocket science, nor is it any kind of doctrinal/theological hijinx -- it's a rather simply stated instruction in the Bible which one can only assume is binding upon all Christians.

He also makes the incorrect assumption that when I said I have never observed him spreading the Gospel, even ONCE, that I meant on the OT thread. I meant anywhere, not just on the OT threads. I repeat what I said before. If he thinks that the CU, in which he is an officer, needs evangelizing with the Gospel, then he should do it. The irony of it all is that he is condemming our members for something he, himself is guilty of, not spreading the Gospel on the CU. The Bible speaks to that form of unbiblical judgement.

So let me see. I run my main website, which often features articles about moral and/or theological issues. A search of that same site will also reveal several heated debates I have had with atheists and non-Christians about religious issues, in which my stance has always been partly evangelical in nature.

I also blog, on and off, on GS here, and only the most unobservant reader could fail to note that a goodly number of my posts have something to do with advancing religious ideas for the consideration of the (not necessarily religious) reader. Indeed, I can think of a couple examples off the top of my head of posts I've written that non-religious readers have found to be thought-provoking, and what more could I ask?

Moreover, in the past, I've been a games reviewer for a Christian youth organization's website, I have written articles that have appeared in pro-life periodicals discussing abortion from a theological and "natural law" perspective, I an a contributing guest blogger to another theological study blog that looks at symbolism in Scripture (especially pertaining to flesh and blood). I used to run a blog called Ubi re vera, which was a fairly intensive apologetics blog until such time as my co-author decided to move on to other ventures. My wedding website pulls no punches, from a religious perspective, and that was a deliberate move on my part to show how proud I am to have Christ at the center of my life, despite the fact that many of my family members are lukewarm or ex-Christians.

I was active on the NationStates forums back when that site was cool; I was one of the Christian debaters who was instrumental in the conversion of at least one hard-bitten atheist there. And I've taught theology & apologetics group sessions for university students.

Clearly, I've never lifted a finger to spread the Gospel.

Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

The very fact that he refuses to spread the Gospel, even on the CU, yet claims that the CU is in need of that, clearly reveals his motives. He is once again trying to manipulate others to obey his demands and do anything in his power to demean the CWU, just as he did with the CU when he wasn't a member there, and the with the BBU when he was asked to leave. He is clearly hostile to Biblical Christians and Biblical Christian unions and will do anything in his power to undermine their efforts and even their unions existence.

The thing is: why would I waste my breath to demean the CWU, when they will make themselves look suspect for free? I haven't seen such effusions of hatred directed against Christ as I have seen in response to their "evangelism" on the OT forum since my days as "Aiera" on the NationStates forums. That's saying quite a lot, I hasten to add.

I'm genuinely interested in seeing if the CWU members, as passionate as they are for evangelism, are consistent in their beliefs. Because if they are, and if they honestly believe that we in the CU have fallen away from Christ, the Bible makes it pretty clear what the appropriate response to that is.

It's not about me, or my efforts, or my view of the CU. I think the CU is just fine, and nowhere near "fallen away from Christ." But if others think so, then it behooves them to act on that belief...or else admit that they're not quite so earnest in their devotion to the whole of the Bible as they claim.

The Annunciation is chronicled in the Gospel of Luke, and — along with the wedding at Cana — gives us the best glimpse into just who Mary was. For those who might be interested, it should be noted that the first half of the Hail Mary prayer is derived directly from Luke 1.

In the section concerning Mary as the New Ark, we looked at Mary's visit to Elizabeth, and at how the yet-unborn John the Baptist leapt in Elizabeth's womb at the sound of Mary's voice. This, of course, paralleled David's leaping and shouting before the Ark of the Covenant, and is a part of Luke's confirmation that Mary herself is the New Ark of the Covenant. Prior to this incident, though, is the actual Annunciation, when the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her of God's plan.

Let's look closely at the Luke's detail of the Annunciation.

[26]In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,

[27] to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

Notice here the rather profound significance that Luke gives to Mary's virginity — two mentions of it in a single verse. This could just be an attempt to give attention to the prophecy concerning the virgin who would conceive and bear a son, but it should be noted that even a goodly number of Jewish scholars note that the relevant passage from Isaiah is more properly translated as "the young woman shall conceive…"

That's not to say that Isaiah was not referring to Mary, of course; he was. The point is that the emphasis on Mary's virginity is significant above and beyond its relevance to prophecy. Luke is drawing our attention to it.

[28] And he came to her and said, "Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!"

This is an off topic observation, but I might note that a slightly different translation of this greeting is basically the first like of the Hail Mary. "O favored one" is often translated as "full of grace". The Greek term used is kecharitomene, which is always used as a description of a characteristic quality of a person, and its use here is an implication on the part of Luke that Mary was in a state of sanctifying grace at least at the time of the Annunciation (that is: prior to her being overshadowed by the Spirit), and possibly from the very beginning.

[29] But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be.
[30] And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
[31] And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.
[32] He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High;
and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,
[33] and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever;
and of his kingdom there will be no end."
[34] And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?"

Luke 1:34 is the most significant line here, for a variety of reasons. First, it should be noted that the line has been translated in a variety of ways. The King James Version, for example, puts the line as follows: "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" Other translations end her question with "since I am a virgin." We've already discussed the concept of "know" as it is used in different parts of the Bible; I trust the meaning here is likewise understood by the Reader.

Now, let's pause and consider something: why did Mary respond in this way?

Mary was betrothed to Joseph — we are told this directly. She was to be married to him in short order, although they had not dwelt in the same house at the time she conceived Christ — this is confirmed by the Gospel of Matthew (c.f. Matthew 1:18). Now, correct me if I am wrong, but if I walked up to a blue-eyed bride and remarked to her that her kids are probably going to have nice blue eyes as well, her response would probably not be "how can this be?" Indeed, if you were to talk to most brides, they probably wouldn't express surprise if you noted that somewhere along the line there might be a baby or two that gets born.

And if any bride did respond with incredulity, what would that mean? Well, in our modern era, it probably means that either she has no idea what sex is, or that she and her husband have decided to make heavy use of various birth control methods. In the past, though, it could have either meant that the bride was indeed in need of a bit of a talking-to regarding "the birds and the bees", or that she had elected to remain celibate even into marriage.

We've already covered how Jewish law allowed for just such an undertaking — that is, how it allowed for a young woman to take a vow of celibacy that her husband would have implicitly assented to if he did not object within the day he learned of the vow. We have likewise covered, O Reader, how if the husband were to withdraw his approval of the vow after that first day, the sin of breaking a promise to the Lord would not be upon the wife: it would be upon the husband. Joseph, being a righteous man, would certainly have been cognizant of this fact, and would not have acted to bring about an occasion of sin for either himself or his wife, if in fact Mary had taken such a vow.

Scripture does not explicitly confirm that she had made just such a vow, of course, but — in noting that point — we still have to come back to her response to the angel. Indeed, if we look at it in context, we note that of the two possible explanations for her incredulity (ignorance regarding sex & reproduction vs. vow of celibacy), only the explanation that she had taken a vow of celibacy makes sense.

Regardless of the translation, the nature of Mary's response in Luke 1:34 confirms, at least, that she knows a thing or two about "the birds and the bees" — she understands that children are a natural result of sex. And even if somehow she did not understand sexuality to that extent, the angel spells it out plainly for her (c.f. Luke 1:31). So we can safely discard the possibility that Mary had absolutely no knowledge concerning the functional aspects of reproduction.

And if we assume that Mary was an observant Jew — that is, that she had found favour with the Lord in part due to her diligent (c.f. Deuteronomy 6:17) observation of the extant covenant between God and man — and that she was even partly aware of the tenets of the law of Moses, we can certainly assume that she knew what sex was, and what it was for. Mosaic law is full of ordinances concerning sexuality, after all.

So the only explanation for Mary's incredulous response that makes sense at all is that she had intended to live out her days under a vow of perpetual virginity.

Possible Objection #3: what about Matthew 1:24-25? It says very clearly that Joseph took Mary as his wife, "but knew her not until she had borne a son." This completely confirms that they must have had sex after the birth of Jesus.

Response to Objection #3: the Greek word that is translated as "until", heos, does not always imply a reversal. Consider its use in Matthew 28:20:

And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.

Are we to infer, then, that Jesus will not be with us after the end of the age? Of course not…but if we are to be consistent in our interpretation of Scripture, we should take care and make sure that when we interpret Matthew's earlier description of the state of marital relations between Mary and Joseph, we do not interpret the verse in a way that we would not dare use to interpret a later verse in the same Gospel account.

Possible Objection #4: but in Matthew 1:25, the term used is heos hou. This is a different phrasing than in Matthew 28:20. It must imply a reversal.

Response to Objection #4: actually, it doesn't; it is, as Clay Randall notes, "a Koine Greek shorthand for the phrase heos hou chronou en hoi (translated "until the time when") and both phrases do not always mean a reversal of the condition being described in the main clause; for example:

"And when Paul appealed that he be held in custody for the Emperor's decision, I ordered him held until I could send him to Caesar" (Acts 25:21)

Does this mean that Paul was no longer in custody by the time he was sent to Caesar? No.

Consider Matthew 13:33, "the kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed with three measures of wheat flour until the whole batch was leavened" Does this mean that once the batch was leavened, the woman removed the yeast? Of course not."

Randall also provides a list of other passages of Scripture in which "until" is used in a non-reversing manner: "Genesis 8:7, 26:13, Numbers 20:17, Deuteronomy 2:15, 34:6, 2 Kings 6:25, 1 Chronicles 6:32, 2 Chronicles 21:15, 2 Chronicles 26:15, Judith 14:8, Judith 15:5, Tobit 2:4, Psalm 57:1, Psalm 72:7, Psalm 110:1, Psalm 123:2, Psalm 141:10, Psalm 142:7, Ecclesiastes 2:3, Song of Solomon 1:12, 2 Samuel 6:23, Isaiah 14:2, 33:23, Ezekiel 24:13, 1 Maccabees 5:54, Matthew 13:33, Matthew 14:22, Matthew 16:28, Matthew 18:34, Matthew 26:36, Matthew 28:20, John 4:49, Romans 8:22, 1 Corinthians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 15:25, Ephesians 4:13, 1 Timothy 4:13, 1 Timothy 6:14, 2 Peter 1:19, Revelation 2:25-26."

And since what is at really under discussion here is a Greek phrase, then if we look at the Septuagint we can note that in the Old Testament, the following passages feature an example of heos hou specifically, in which it is used in a non-reversing manner: "Genesis 26:13, Deuteronomy 2:15, 2 Kings 6:25, 1 Chronicles 6:32, 2 Chronicles 21:15, 2 Chronicles 26:15, Judith 14:8, Judith 15:5, Tobit 2:4, Tobit 2:5, Psalm 57:1, Psalm 72:7, Psalm 123:2, Psalm 141:10, Psalm 142:7, Ecclesiastes 2:3, Song of Solomon 1:12, Isaiah 33:23, Ezekiel 24:13."

Now, as the Reader can see, we are beginning to jump all over the Bible here. This, then, gives us a very natural entrance into the next part of our discussion: how Mary is referenced in the rest of the Gospels, and how these other references pertain to her perpetual virginity.

Let's take just the briefest break from looking at Mary in the Bible, and venture on over once more to the False Witness Union. They have evidently seen, and responded, to my letter...and I wish I could say that the results surprised me somewhat. Alas, they did not. But I feel I should mention that I had earnestly hoped to feel at least a measure of surprise, as much as I had earnestly hoped to find people genuinely concerned not only about the Great Commission -- to which all Christians are called -- but also about things like seeking out the lost lambs, and the exhortation in 1 John 5 to correct those brothers and sisters in Christ whom we believe have fallen into error.

My letter ended with a fairly simple question:

This letter, then, stands as an open invitation from myself to the various members of the CWU who have a passion for evangelism. Obviously, they feel that the CU is peopled with lost, misguided Christians...which would make for a great opportunity for evangelism, would it not? Does not Christ desire the lost lambs to be returned to the fold?

Or is it more important, and more entertaining, to muse about how quickly a thread that has denegerated into a shouting match was locked? Is it more fun to plot occasions of spamming? To test the patience of moderators? To drive an even bigger wedge between people who are likely hurting, in many terrible and intrinsic ways, and the love of Christ?

Just for the sake of providing some evidence for what I say, let's examine the latest "evangelistic" effort that is underway. The discussion about the existence of good and evil begins well enough, but by the time it gets to its 8th page (which, it should be noted, it reached rather quickly -- within 2 hours, in fact) there is already a shouting match beginning to emerge...people are at loggerheads. By the end, it's essentially devolved into a back and forth game of "you said; no you said" and "you're wrong; no you're wrong."

I'm not sure how gainsaying and causing people to talk past each other, rather than listen to each other, serves or gives glory to Christ. If someone can enlighten me as to how, the comments form is always open.

But let's examine the responses to my letter, shall we? I addressed the initial response to it in this blog post, so we'll avoid needless duplication and move on to the next response, which (incidentally) seems to be the only voice of reason in the mix.

He does have a point about most of us not posting on the CU. Aren't they worth our time as well?

This was my only point.

Pace Londo Molari, I was there when the BBU formed, and I watched very closely when the CWU formed. I get that these two unions were basically founded by people who, for one reason or another, were disgruntled about the Christian Union -- they'd had falling outs with the members and/or the leadership there, or (as was the case for me) had been (automatically*) booted out in the aftermath of a particularly nasty, heavily moderated debate.

But equally: who cares? I was bitter toward the CU, and they welcomed me back. Others have likewise returned, and been welcomed back. That's not to say that we all agree -- but then, there are something like 30,000 Christian denominations. If you put two Christians of the same denomination (or non-denomination) in the same room for a long enough period, they'll probably find some point of theology about which they disagree. Historically, the Church has proven adept at nearly tearing itself apart over individual vowels in the middle of words. It's only natural that if you have an internet forum open to all Christians, you'll see discussions emerge there in which people disagree.

The Internet is not an echo chamber. Neither is the CU. Nor could it be, unless the leader and officers were willing to be heavily (read: unreasonably) restrictive about who can join. As it is, though, we're not; if you apply, we'll let you in (unless the Admin panel throws some kind of error at us, such as a "too many unions" warning). We don't do background checks!

I can't join the CWU. I don't conform to every tenet of their statement of faith -- specifically, I don't think the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and I don't accept a 66-book canon as being the complete canon of Scripture. I've tried to join the CWU at least half a dozen times, and kept getting rejected. Finally, I asked the union leader directly if I was being specifically disallowed from joining.

His answer: Yes.

Anyhow, let's work our way back to the point, O Reader. The CWU, like the BBU before it, emerged out of disagreements between the founding members of both unions and some people in the CU (not all of whom have posted there in recent weeks). When the members of the CWU deign to discuss the CU, the general conclusion seems to be that it is principally peopled with liberal/lapsed/marginal Christians, along with a few "true believers" who are quickly shouted down if they say anything out of line.

Which is kind of funny, given the "warm" reception a Mormon just got in the CWU "welcome" thread.

And as I noted, it is true that not everyone on the CU agrees with what anyone else might say. But again...there are 30,000 Christian denominations. The Church didn't get to that point because we all agree with each other at every turn.

And at the end of the day, the issue I was raising, which one person on the CWU actually noticed, comes down to 1 John 5:16-17

[16] If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.
[17] All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

If the members of the CWU a) honestly believe John, and b) honestly believe that even a minority of the members of the CU are lost/misguided/lapsed in Christ, they are obligated to speak out against that directly, for if any sin is mortal, surely the rejection of Christ is it, is it not?

Apparently, for noting as much, I have "motives":

If you cannot see his through his motives as to why he wants members from other Christian unions, specifically this union, to post on the CU, you have less discernment than I thought you had.

Notice what has happened here. The poster of this statement actually commits two separate acts of ad hominem -- one against me, and one against the person who suggested that there might be something to the question I had posed (as noted above).

It gets better:

Do you really think that he, as prideful as he is, is really serious when he uses the false premise, he created, that the CU needs evangelizing? If he really believes that then I ask, why doesn't he do it hinself since he is an officer of that union? If he was serious and that was a valid concern of his, don't you think he would be the first to put forth that effort? It it quite obvious that he is just using that false premise to bait the undiscerning.

Have you forgotten the threads he deleted on the BBU when he disagree with the content?

I deleted those threads because a) they were becoming an occasion of sin, having devolved into a shouting match, and because b) the union leader had asked me to resign so as to bring another user back into the fold (the other user in question had resigned in protest after being moderated for making a blood libel against Catholics).

So I decided to pack up and leave. End of story. In a surprising act of false witness, the poster of the above message forgets that the only threads I deleted were the ones that I, myself, started.

More to the point, though, the issue at hand is not whether I think the CU is in need of evangelizing. The issue is that there are members of the CWU who believe that the CU has fallen away from Christ, which they must certainly confess counts as a mortal sin, if in fact it is true. My point is that if they believe this -- regardless of what I believe -- they are obligated to speak to us and to correct us.

Just as I would do, if I thought the CU had indeed fallen away from Christ. I don't, of course, but so what? The issue is not what I think; the issue is what the members of the CWU think.

One final comment exists that I would like to address:

The ironic thing is that for all of his complaining and demeaning of our efforts to spread the Gospel and the truth of God's Word, to the lost on the OT threads, I have yet to ever see him ONCE, even ONCE, spreading the Gospel.

* evidently, there's a three-strike rule built into the GS forum architecture; the moderators were very apologetic when I was auto-booted from the union.

Within several Christian denominations, but especially Catholicism, the Blessed Virgin Mary is known by several different titles, one of which is "the New Ark". In fact, within Catholic theology, Mary's revelation as the New Ark of the Covenant forms an integral piece of the justification for the Catholic belief in her perpetual virginity, as well as for her unique place and role within Christ's plan of salvation for all people.

That's not just some whimsical Catholic invention, mind you; it is right there in the Bible. Looking back at what we covered regarding hermeneutics, and reading the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, we can see that Scripture itself justifies the belief that Mary is indeed the New Ark: the language used to describe Mary during her pregnancy with the Lord very neatly parallels the language used to describe the Ark of the Covenant.

Brant Pitre notes that "a case can be made that the Ark is in fact an Old Covenant type that points forward to a new Ark, and that this new Ark of the Covenant is the Virgin Mary. Although we don't have the space to go into detail here, suffice it to say that numerous Catholic commentators have noted that Luke's account of the Annunciation bears striking parallels with the Old Testament accounts of the consecration of the Ark (Exodus 40) and the bringing of the Ark by David into Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6; 1 Chronicles 15). Compare the following:

1. The Descent of the Glory Cloud
The glory of the Lord and the cloud cover the Tabernacle (containing the Ark) and "overshadow" (episkiazen) them (Exod 40:34-35, cf. v. 3).

The Holy Spirit comes upon Mary and the power of the Most High "overshadows" (episkiasei) her (Luke 1:35).

2. The Ark Goes into the Hill Country
David "arose and went" to the hill country of Judah to bring up "the ark of God" (2 Samuel 6:2).

Mary "arose and went" into the hill country of Judah to visit Elizabeth (Luke 1:39).

3. How Can the Ark Come to Me?
David admits his unworthiness to receive the Ark by exclaiming: "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" (2 Samuel 6:9)

Elizabeth admits her unworthiness to receive Mary by exclaiming: "And why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

4. Leaping and Shouting Before the Ark
David "leaped" before the Ark as it was brought in "with shouting" (2 Samuel 6:15-16)

John "leapt" in Elizabeth's womb at the sound of Mary's voice and Elizabeth cried "with a loud shout": "Blessed are you among women, and blessed in the fruit of your womb!" (Luke 1:41-42)

5. The Ark Stays for 3 Months
The Ark remained in the hill country, in the house of Obed-Edom, for "three months" (2 Samuel 6:11)

Mary remained in the hill country, in Elizabeth's house, "three months" (Luke 1:56)

In light of these startling parallels, it is reasonable to conclude that Luke is highlighting the parallels between Mary and the old Ark of the Covenant to suggest that she is New Ark. Just as glory cloud had overshadowed the Tabernacle in the Old Testament, so that God might dwell among men, so now the Holy Spirit overshadows Mary, so that the Word becomes flesh and "tabernacles" among us (John 1:14). The New Ark is Mary's body. Just as the old Ark housed the 10 Commandments, the Manna, and the Priestly Rod of Aaron, so too the New Ark houses the Word of God, the Bread of Life, the True Priest.

Now, should there be any doubt that these parallels between the Old and New Testaments in the Gospel of Luke are drawing a connection between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant, it should be recalled that these are not the only texts in the New Testament that connect the Ark and Mary. In another famous text, the revelation of the location of the Ark — in heaven — is juxtaposed with a vision of the Mother of the Messiah — also in heaven:

Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars… (Revelation 11:19-12:2)

Clearly, there appears to be some connection between these two figures: both the Ark and the Woman appear in God's Temple "in heaven." Moreover, a strong case can be made that the woman — who is an individual, just like the "child" (Jesus) and the "dragon" (Satan) mentioned in the same passage are (Rev 12:3-4)—is indeed Mary, the Mother of the Messiah.

In light of passages such as these, Mary was revered in the ancient Church — and continues to be revered today in the Catholic Church — as the new "Ark" of the Covenant."

It would take a very deliberately blinded person to deny that the woman, clothed in the Sun and giving birth to the child within the apocalyptic vision that is the Book of Revelation, is in fact Mary, the Theotokos, the mother of Christ who is God enfleshed.

Now, as I noted, the belief that Mary is in fact the Ark of the New Covenant, the New Ark, is an integral piece of the Catholic belief that Mary remained perpetually virginal unto the day of her Assumption into Heaven. The significance is that Joseph, being a faithful Jew, would certainly have understood the significance of Mary's pregnancy, for he was specifically told by the angel that the child within her womb was holy, and from the Holy Spirit (c.f Matthew 1:20). Out of his earnest Jewish faith, it is likely that Joseph would have immediately grasped to deeper significance of what he was being told, and would have understood that the womb of his wife was a dwelling place of the Lord — the holiest of holies, akin to the innermost area of the Temple.

Now, let's think about where we've gone before, up to this point. We noted that in the Book of Leviticus, even a sexual act between husband and wife would result in ritual defilement until the next evening, provided that there was a discharge of semen that resulted from it. We also know, from numerous descriptions and passages within the Bible, that Jews held the Ark of the Covenant not only in high regard, but in fearful esteem; the power of the Ark was well-attested, and in the common practice of the Jewish Religion only the high priest could enter into its holy presence. It was death to the enemies of the Hebrew people, and full of the power of God.

In short, the Ark ought to have inspired reverence, and yet a most dreadful fear, in the hearts of all who knew its purpose and power. And for the average Jew, it did just that.

We know from Scripture that Joseph was a faithful, righteous Jew who followed the law of Moses. For Joseph, the Ark would indeed have been the holiest of holies, something which he would be (rightly!) fearful to approach, if he beheld it. Of course, at the time that Joseph learned that Mary, his bride-to-be, was with child, the Ark had long been absent from the Temple. But the tabernacle was still present, and every Jew understood its meaning. Joseph certainly would have understood it.

And it is Joseph who provides us with our first hint, in the New Testament that Mary was indeed a virgin for all her days after the birth of Christ. Joseph feared to take Mary as a wife, and had to be reassured by the angel that it was the Lord's will that he do so (c.f. Matthew 1:20). Why would Joseph feel fear? Granted, the passage appears in the context of Joseph suspecting Mary of adultery, and in our modern, sex-saturated culture it would be only too easy to eisegetically assume that this was the source of his fear; the law of Moses imposed a harsh penalty on any man who consorted with an adulteress.

But that isn't really what the angel is saying, is it? The angel tells Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife — that is, Joseph is not to be afraid of Mary herself. And while it seems strange to our sex-saturated culture to think so, the view of Christians throughout history has been that what Joseph actually feared was Mary's sanctity. The angel assured Joseph that the child within her womb was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and it is reasonable to expect that Mary, once Joseph learned of her pregnancy, had shared with him the angel's own words to her (c.f. Luke 1:35). Taken together, these facts would have surely given Joseph pause, and would certainly have made him piously fearful of the body of his wife-to-be, as surely as any faithful Jew would be afraid of the power and sanctity of the Ark.

Thus, I ask you: approximately how anxious do you, O Reader, suppose that Joseph would be to defile, even if only until the evening, the woman standing before him with a holy child from the Lord within her womb? How anxious do you suppose Joseph would be to defile that which was as holy as the very Ark itself, knowing (as he would certainly have known) that for him to engage in even normal marital sexual relations with Mary would have brought about a customary, temporary ritual defilement upon both her and him?

Now, up to this point, O Reader, we haven't directly examined the issue of Mary's perpetual virginity as can be justified directly from Scripture. That is coming up next, and will take us first into the Gospel of Luke. With a little luck, I'll even get it written today…if not, rest assured that it will be the first thing I work on come tomorrow.

The Book of Numbers immediately follows the Book of Leviticus in the canon of Scripture, and in a way could be considered an extension of Leviticus. Almost all of Leviticus is comprised of Moses giving the law to the people, and Numbers consists in large part of Moses giving yet more ordinances for the people to observe. And much like Leviticus, the subject matter covered in each successive chapter of Numbers shifts and changes according to no discernable pattern, covering issues pertaining to all aspects of life.

A while ago, Brant Pitre pointed out a series of vows detailed in Numbers 30, which pertain to different categories of women within the population.

Numbers 30 begins with a discussion of vows which can be taken by an unmarried woman:

[3] Or when a woman vows a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by a pledge, while within her father's house, in her youth,
[4] and her father hears of her vow and of her pledge by which she has bound herself, and says nothing to her; then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand.
[5] But if her father expresses disapproval to her on the day that he hears of it, no vow of hers, no pledge by which she has bound herself, shall stand; and the LORD will forgive her, because her father opposed her.

Here, the vow hinges on the matter of whether the father of the woman hears the vow; unless he objects, his consent is implied and assumed, and every pledge the woman has made is binding on her in the eyes of the Lord. It should also be noted that the father is only afforded a limited window of response; if he has an objection to any vow made by his daughter, he must respond and object to it within the same day it comes to his attention.

Moving a bit further into Numbers 30, though, we come upon vows which can be taken by married women:

[6] And if she is married to a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself,
[7] and her husband hears of it, and says nothing to her on the day that he hears; then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand.
[8] But if, on the day that her husband comes to hear of it, he expresses disapproval, then he shall make void her vow which was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips, by which she bound herself; and the LORD will forgive her.

Two things have shifted here. First, the scope of the woman's utterance has been expanded — whereas the young, unmarried woman's vows were what were binding, the married woman's vows and careless utterances are both binding, if her husband does not object. And that is the second thing which has changed: it is not the role of her father to object any longer; her husband must do so. The terms of his objection, and its consequences, remain the same.

It is probable that the reason that young, unmarried women are not bound by careless utterances, whereas married women are bound thusly, is intended by the author and the Spirit to denote the shift in maturity between the young woman still living with her family and the older woman who has entered into marriage.

A third category of vows is found as we continue reading Numbers 30. In this case, the vows are those which can be taken my a widowed or divorced woman:

[9] But any vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, anything by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her.
[10] And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound herself by a pledge with an oath,
[11] and her husband heard of it, and said nothing to her, and did not oppose her; then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she bound herself shall stand.
[12] But if her husband makes them null and void on the day that he hears them, then whatever proceeds out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning her pledge of herself, shall not stand: her husband has made them void, and the LORD will forgive her.

This ordinance confirms the perpetuity of a woman's vows; if her husband had previously consented to a vow she had made, then that consent — and, by extension, the vow — extends past the time when the husband has died or sought a divorce. The vow is binding on the woman in the eyes of the Lord. Only her husband may overturn the vow, and then only within a limited time period; if the vow was allowed to stand until such time as the husband passed away or left, then the vow would remain binding, in the Lord, even after the departure of the husband.

In other words, the vow would be perpetual.

Now, the Reader should note that in all these cases, the vows are of a general nature. Fortunately, reading still further in Numbers 30, we are given some context regarding the types of vow each category of woman might make.

[13] Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void.
[14] But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows, or all her pledges, that are upon her; he has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them.
[15] But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity.

Here we see all the previous ordinances given context; these vows concern, principally, a woman's oath to "afflict herself", whether as an unmarried woman, a married woman, or a widow. Citing Jacob Milgrom, a preeminent Torah scholar, Brant Pitre notes that the idea of self-affliction "was interpreted by ancient Jews as referring to fasting and refraining from sexual intercourse. Similar terminology is used in descriptions of the Day of Atonement, when Jews were expected to fast and refrain from sexual intercourse (see Milgrom, Harper Collins Study Bible n. Lev 16:29; citing Targum Pseudo-Jonthan; cf. also Exod 19:15). Once this terminology is clear, the whole chapter makes sense. It is discussion three kinds of vows:

1. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a young, unmarried woman.
2. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a married woman.
3. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a widow or divorced woman.

In all three cases, the binding nature of the vow is dependant on whether the male party (whether father or husband), upon hearing of the vow, said nothing and in thereby consented to it. In each case, if he heard the vow and accepted it, the vow is perpetually binding."

And notice something else, O Reader. Numbers 30:15 is the odd note on which the giving of these vow-related ordinances ends, and it provides a final measure of permanence to the vows. All through the ordinances pertaining to the vows in Numbers 30, it is noted that the responsible man — the woman's father or husband, depending on circumstance — has only a day in which to object to the vow. If he does not, the Lord considers the vow binding, and in his silence the responsible man gives his assent to the vow made by the woman to "afflict herself."

Numbers 30:13-14 does technically give the responsible male the option of wiping away a previously-made vow, or at least would seem so to do. However, Numbers 30:15 sounds the final note on the matter, by noting that if the husband of a woman should compel her to abandon a previously made vow which, according to the law, became binding in the eyes of the Lord, he shall bear her iniquity. The sin of breaking a vow with the Lord, in other words, would fall not on the woman, but on the man who compelled the breakage.

And as Pitre notes, "Matthew's Gospel tells us: Joseph was a "righteous man" (Matt 1:19), and obedient to Torah. If Mary took a vow of sexual abstinence — and her words "How can this be, since I know not man?" in Luke are evidence that she did (Luke 1:34) — and if Joseph accepted this vow at the time of their wedding, then he would have been bound by Mosaic Law to honor her vow of sexual abstinence under the penalty of sin."

A common objection to Mary's perpetual virginity that I have heard, although not recently, is simple disbelief that a Jewish woman living 2,000 years ago would have been able to remain celibate even in a marriage; what husband would allow it? And yet, the idea of a consecrated virgin was not alien to the ancient world (both in Hebrew religious tradition and in several pagan Religions as well). Moreover, in the New Testament, Paul offers several teachings on the matter of celibacy and abstinence (c.f. 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Timothy 4) — clearly, even over two millennia ago, there was ample room in religious traditions for women to elect to remain virginal all their days, and for husbands to accept that reality.

Possible Objection #2: could the vows referred to have been temporary in nature? Nothing in the text of Numbers 30 specifically states that they are perpetual.

Response to Objection #2: As Pitre notes, one cannot deny "that the text could be applied to temporary vows, but there are two things that make me think the primary context is permanent vows…First, what meaning would a temporary vow of sexual abstinence have for an unmarried virgin in her father's house?!! This is the first category, and as far as I can see it must primarily refer to a permanent vow of abstinence, of which the father approves. To suggest otherwise would mean that Numbers envisions the unmarried woman having sexual relations outside of marriage. This makes no sense…Second, what meaning would a temporary vow of abstinence have for a widow? If she was taking a vow of temporary abstinence for sexual relations with her husband, she would obviously be automatically be released from the vow by his death!

If a permanent vow of sexual abstinence is in view in both these cases, it makes sense to me to suggest that the primary meaning of the third category is the same: a permanent vow of sexual abstinence. In Mary's case, it is only a permanent vow that explains her response to Gabriel while she is betrothed to Joseph: "How shall this be, since I know not man" (Luke 1:34; present tense)."

At any rate, as the Reader can see, we are verging into New Testament territory here. Coming up next we will take a closer look at Mary, especially as related to us by Luke, and also at Joseph.

The Book of Leviticus is an interesting read, although it should be noted that the shifts in topic can be rather glaring at times. Leviticus 14 seems primarily concerned with leprosy and the response of the community to a leper, and Leviticus 16 concerns the "holy place" (presumably there the Ark of the Covenant was kept), and also discusses sin offerings. And wedged between these two wildly divergent topics is Leviticus 15, which concerns male and female "discharges".

The first half of Leviticus 15 concerns seminal discharge by a man, and concludes its treatise on the attendant ritual uncleanliness that accompanies a discharge of semen with the following observation:

[18] If a man lies with a woman and has an emission of semen, both of them shall bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening.

I don't think it needs to be said that when one is reading the Old Testament, especially the Pentateuch, one should be mindful of the common euphemisms for sex. In the Book of Genesis, the term "know" is the typical euphemism for sexual intercourse; "lies with" is also used quite often, especially in the articulation of the law of Moses.

Possible Objection #1: We could just take "lies with" at its plain meaning, and assume that it does not refer to any actual act of sexual congress.

Response to Objection #1: True enough. But were we to concede that point, we would likewise have to concede that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 likewise do not refer to any homosexual sex act. And I think most faithful Christians would disagree with just such a conclusion.

Anti-Marian Christians tend to believe that even if Mary did have sexual intercourse, this would not would not have prevented her from e.g. being called "blessed" of all nations. This is technically true, but where some anti-Marians have gone wrong is with the assumption that, under Jewish law, "sex in marriage is not sinful", that "Mary would have in no way defiled herself by having sexual relations with Joseph, her husband."

Let us come back to Leviticus 15:18, then. The verse would seem to suggest that, according to Jewish law, any sexual act between a man and a woman that results in an emission of semen renders both man and woman unclean until the evening. It's a minor defilement, admittedly, but it is still a ritual defilement.

Jumping ahead to Leviticus 20:10, we note that adulterers — male and female — are to be put to death. Given the absence of mention of any death penalty in Leviticus 15, it is probably safe to assume — since pre-marital and extra-marital sex carry death penalties under Levitical Law (c.f. Levititus 20, almost the entire chapter) — that Leviticus 15:18 refers to normal sexual relations between husband and wife (or between a man and a slave woman, as per Leviticus 19:20-22, but that is another matter).

Let us be clear, then: if a husband and wife have sex, and if there is a discharge of semen as a result of that sexual act, then this results in a minor ritual defilement for both man and woman: both are unclean until the evening (presumably, this means the next evening). So when the concerned anti-Marian Christian objects that proper marital sexual relations do not bring defilement upon the couple, he or she is actually incorrect, and perhaps a bit ignorant of Levitical Law.

I will grant, of course, that Christians do not need to follow all the ordinances of the Law of Moses (although most Christians tend to think that at least a few select ordinances thereof are still binding), because Christ has fulfilled the law. But let us not forget that both Mary and Joseph were Jews, not Christians, and would have lived according to the law. Had they had any sexual relations, they would certainly have observed the tenets of the law pertaining to seminal discharge…and in doing so, they would have been following the extant covenant between God and mankind at the time.

Now, it would be tempting to jump ahead at this point and begin looking at, for example, the Gospel of Luke. However, before we do that, we need to look at the Book of Numbers for a moment, and at what I am sure is, for many Christians, a little-known aspect of Jewish religious devotion: vows of sexual abstinence taken by women, married and unmarried.

Often, when raising opposition to the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, Christians will insist that we take Scripture at its plain meaning, that we pay attention to the "clear and unambiguous teaching of God's Word." The latter sentiment is a good one; the former is not.

How should we approach Scripture, hermeneutically speaking? This could make for a lengthy topic in and of itself, I suppose, and then one I don't have much time to get into in detail. Most anti-Marian Christians that I have encountered tend to suggest that we employ a firmly literal hermeneutic when interpreting Scripture, and that (as noted above) we take what is written in the Bible at its plain meaning.

The problem with insisting on the use of literal hermeneutics, and with insisting that Scripture be taken at its "plain meaning", is that nobody really does that with any kind of consistency. Let me put that more plainly: no Christian ever takes Scripture at its plain meaning at every opportunity — indeed, many of us are often guilty of a certain hypocrisy when we insist upon just such an approach. More often than not, what we really mean when we insist on taking things at their plain meaning is: "let us use my interpretation of Scripture; let us take it at what I say its meaning is."

That's a rather harsh thing to say, I admit, but let's consider a few examples. There is not a perfect 1:1 correlation between anti-Marianism and a rejection of e.g. Eucharistic doctrine, but most of the Christians I've met who denounce the perpetual virginity of Mary as a flawed Catholic teaching tend to likewise denounce the Eucharist — the real, literal presence of Christ in the bread and wine — as false. And yet, if we take John 6 at its plain meaning, we should have no other choice but to assume that Christ intended for us to receive that which was literally his flesh and blood in our repetition of the Last Supper.

[53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

There's really no two ways about that: if our hermeneutic is to always take Scripture at its most obvious meaning, on a passage-by-passage basis, then we should all be Eucharistic Christians. That we are not all Eucharistic Christians means that we do not always take Scripture at its plain meaning; we only do so when it is convenient to the point we are making.

But let's take a few more generalized examples, to better illustrate the point. Consider Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5:

[27]"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'

[28] But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
[29] If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into Hell.
[30] And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Taking this passage at its plain meaning, it would be very easy for Christians to justify, say, plucking out the eye of a person caught reading Playboy magazine. Likewise, it would be very easy for Christians to justify lopping off the hands of thieves. And yet, no legal system which as a Judeo-Christian basis to it issues such punishments; moreover, many Christians rightly denounce Islamic countries which do effect such disfiguring punishments upon convicted criminals. Here again, then, we see that we do not always take Scripture at its plain meaning; we only do so out of convenience, when it suits our point to do so.

Similarly, rare indeed is the Christian who takes the Book of Revelation at its plain meaning. The last book of the Bible is full of fantastic imagery and whimsical creatures; it simply cannot be taken at any kind of plain meaning, but is instead widely understood to be a profound metaphor, both for things to come and for things that have already transpired (Revelation is not just an eschatological prophecy; there is strong evidence to suggest that it was also intended as a message of hope to the persecuted churches of the day, using its amazing imagery to describe events happening under the reign of Nero).

In like manner, rare is the Christian who takes James 2:20-24 at its plain meaning — to do so would be to advocate for works-based salvation, which is of course incorrect. Similarly, when Christians look at the Song of Songs, we do not take it at its plain meaning, at least not directly. That book of the Bible mentions God very rarely (you can easily count the instances of His mention in it on one hand, and then probably without using all five digits), and at its most basic meaning is nothing more than page after page of erotic love poetry, a back-and-forth dialogue between two lovers. The most plain meaning at which Christians take that book's contents is as a powerful image of the love that should bless the marital union of man and woman; more often, however, the Song of Songs is understood as a metaphorical image of the intensity of God's love for humanity, which Paul tells us is imaged in the marital union (c.f. Ephesians 5:21-33).

To put it plainly, then, and succinctly: no Christian takes Scripture at its plain meaning at every opportunity — were we all to do so, we would all be Eucharistic in our faith practice, and we would lop the hands off of convicted thieves. Taking the plain meaning of what is written in Scripture can be an important hermeneutical step, to be sure, but it is not a valid hermeneutic on its own. Indeed, Paul confirms this when he instructs us to hold to the traditions by which we were taught (2 Thes 2:15), and to trust in the Church — the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) — to reveal the manifold wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:10) according to those traditions.

This, then, begins to point us in new direction by which we should attempt to understand Scripture and its teachings, and it is this direction which I propose to use in the analysis that follows: let us take Scripture at its intended meaning.

Of course, this is a difficult proposition. Living as we do nearly 2,000 years after the authors of the New Testament, and many additional centuries after the authors of the Old Testament, it is impossible for us to fully know the minds, or the intent, of those who wrote the various books of the Bible. We can only see in a mirror dimly, and can know only in part.

But we are not totally blind, either. The Spirit wove its breath and intent through the whole of Scripture (c.f. 2 Timothy 3:16-17), and one truth cannot contradict another. Therefore, it must be the case that there exists a coherency between the teaching of any one particular part of Scripture and the whole of Scripture.

Jesus actually gives us an example of this principle in action, when he met Cleopas and the other disciple on the road to Emmaus (c.f. Luke 24:13-31). He opened the Scriptures to the two men and, beginning with Moses and all the prophets, interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. He didn't just enumerate His own teachings, or his own acts, but tied all of those things into the broader picture of history and prophecy, demonstrating the consistency of the whole of Scripture as it pertained to His own life, death, and resurrection.

That's a lesson for us, in our own attempts to make sense of Scripture and its teachings; it is the model for our own hermeneutics. We should take care to consider each passage and teaching in Scripture in the context of the whole of the Bible. This helps us form an understanding not only of the intent of the authors of any particular part of Scripture (who would, of course, have been mindful of other, pre-existing written texts that eventually became the books of the Bible), but of the intent of the Spirit when and as it inspired them.

So, as we turn now to the formal matter of Mary's perpetual virginity, let us attempt to take Scripture not at its most plain meaning, but at its intended meaning. To do that, we must first journey into the Old Testament, to help us understand a few things about Judaism, the law of Moses, sex and marriage within that paradigm, and celibacy.

Let's begin with the Book of Leviticus.

It is interesting to note how quick many Christians are to take the worldly view and deny that Mary, after giving birth to Christ, remained celibate for the remainder of her days. Exactly why some Christians feel the need to argue against Mary's virginity mystifies me — did not Paul teach us that to remain celibate for the sake of the Kingdom was a high calling indeed? (c.f. 1 Corinthians 7) Is it not possible that Mary chose this path of devotion for herself, knowing that it was pleasing to the Lord? Is it not possible that Joseph, her faithful and righteous husband, would have been unwilling to defile his wife in the sexual act (c.f. Leviticus 15) after her body had given birth to the Son of God, meaning in turn (as Luke reminds us, in how he structures his account of the Annunciation) that she was the New Ark of the Covenant?

We live in a sex-obsessed world, and moreover we live in a world which has been getting more sex-obsessed as the centuries have rolled along. Look back at the early church; even in Martin Luther's time, as well as long before that, the virginity of Mary was an accepted part of Christian teaching. Martin Luther certainly believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and it should be noted that his tomb is inscribed with an image of the Assumption of Mary, the Blessed Virgin.

Indeed, the mainstreaming of the denial of Mary's virginity is a fairly recent thing, and I think it has quite a lot to do with the direction the world's attitude toward sex has taken. Many Christians don't even want to acknowledge that Mary is, according to the Bible, to be called "blessed" by all nations (and then presumably in all ages). I would wager that many Christians also don't want to admit, with any kind of frequency, that Mary is the foremost example of Christian devotion to the will of the Lord.

And I'd wager, following along from that, that many Christians, too worldly in their thinking about sexuality, don't want to consider the possibility that the Mother of the Son, the foremost example of Christian devotion to God's divine will, she who is "blessed" to all the nations, the woman clothed with the Sun…was also virginal for the remainder of her life on Earth. The Church sets forth this example against the changes of the ages, as a reminder to all that God's way is a higher way, above the whims and fancies of men. The example of Mary is many lessons all bundled into one, not the least of which is that the world does not revolve around pelvic issues, despite what the magazines tell us.

Lately, though, this special recognition of Mary has been dismissed, by some Christians, as a "vain philosophy" and a "tradition of men", yet one more example of how Scripture has apparently been "twisted" by the Church. This despite the fact that historically, Christians of all stripes have accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary as factual.

Moreover, the Catholic belief (and, by extension, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox belief) concerning Mary's perpetual virginity is attacked as being against Scripture. Verses that are often cited in support of this claim are sourced from all four of the Gospels, and much of the rest of the New Testament, and include verses which reference the "brothers and sisters" of Christ (Matthew 13:55-56, Acts 1:14), logistical analysis of e.g. the flight to Egypt (c.f. Matthew 2:13-15), or the implication of sexual relations between Mary and Joseph after the birth of Christ (Matthew 1:25).

Were I of a more facetious bent, I might opt to congratulate an anti-Marian Christian for citing such verses, which the Church has obviously never encountered in its nearly 2,000-year history. Surely the existence of these new-found passages from the New Testament must be immediately brought to the attention of the Pope, I might suggest, and the whole of Catholic doctrine concerning the Blessed Virgin must be re-examined (if not cast down entirely). Because we all know that no Catholic has ever read the first few chapters of the Gospel of Matthew!

Actually, the Church is fully cognizant of the existence of these passages of Scripture, and yet stubbornly continues to promulgate the doctrine — long-accepted by the vast majority of Christians, it should be noted — that Mary remained virginal even after the birth of Jesus. Indeed, Catholic doctrine pertaining to the virginity of Mary makes reference to many of the same verses that are often thrown out against it!

How can this be?

Well, as it turns out, the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity is actually supported in Scripture; moreover, it is supported by all of Scripture, not just a handful of carefully chosen (read: cherry-picked) verses. I will be exploring this as thoroughly as I can as the day rolls on, beginning with what might be, for some, an unexpected foray into the Old Testament. But to get there, we have to take a detour through a discussion of hermeneutics.

It is interesting to note how quick many Christians are to take the worldly view and deny that Mary, after giving birth to Christ, remained celibate for the remainder of her days. Exactly why some Christians feel the need to argue against Mary's virginity mystifies me -- did not Paul teach us that to remain celibate for the sake of the Kingdom was a high calling indeed? (c.f. 1 Corinthians 7) Is it not possible that Mary chose this path of devotion for herself, knowing that it was pleasing to the Lord? Is it not possible that Joseph, her faithful and righteous husband, would have been unwilling to defile his wife in the sexual act (c.f. Leviticus 15) after her body had given birth to the Son of God, meaning in turn (as Luke reminds us, in how he structures his account of the Annunciation) that she was the Ark of the New Covenant?

The haste with which many deny the ongoing virginity of Mary is, as I noted, something of a worldly view, for it is not well-supported in Scripture. Oh, I'm aware of the passages concerning Jesus' brothers and sisters...and I'm equally aware that the language of the Hebrews had few words with which to describe extended family; often, in Hebrew writings, assemblies of family members were abstracted as "brothers and sisters". And yes, the Gospels were written in Greek...but the writers themselves were Hebrew, and would have written with the cultural biases of their native land in mind.

We live in a sex-obsessed world, and moreover we live in a world which has been getting more sex-obsessed as the centuries have rolled along. Look back at the early church; even in Martin Luther's time, as well as long before that, the virginity of Mary was an accepted part of Christian teaching. Martin Luther certainly believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and it should be noted that his tomb is inscribed with an image of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin.

Indeed, the mainstreaming of the denial of Mary's virginity is a fairly recent thing, and I think it has quite a lot to do with the direction the world's attitude toward sex has taken. Many Christians don't even want to acknowledge that Mary is, according to the Bible, to be called "blessed" by all nations (and presumably in all ages). I would wager that many Christians also don't want to admit, with any kind of frequency, that Mary is the foremost example of Christian devotion to the will of the Lord.

And I'd wager, following along from that, that many Christians, too worldly in their thinking about sexuality, don't want to consider the possibility that the Mother of the Son, the foremost example of Christian devotion to God's divine will, she who is "blessed" to all the nations, the woman clothed with the Sun...was also virginal for the remainder of her life on Earth.

I'll follow this up tomorrow with some more in-depth analysis, but I just wanted to throw that out there for the moment.