A Textual Challenge to the “Mary and Joseph Had Later Relations” Position

[Pavel Mosko]

M

If Mary expected to conceive naturally through Joseph, why does Gabriel respond with a description of miraculous, non‑sexual conception and reinforce it by citing Elizabeth — a woman whose conception was naturally impossible? What relevance would Elizabeth’s impossibility have if Mary’s conception were expected to be natural?


These questions arise directly from Luke’s narrative logic. If the text supports the expectation of normal marital relations, it should be possible to explain why Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention. Impossibilities in Scripture are tied to physical obstructions — barrenness, age, infertility, or lack of a husband. Mary has none of these. Under Her circumstances, natural conception through Joseph is entirely possible. Yet She speaks as though conception is impossible under Her expected future circumstances. I ask that responses address these questions directly, without shifting to unrelated topics or assumptions.

This is an interesting presentation and a little different than what I'm used to. I sort of made a similar kind of argument to an Evangelical woman on a web site in the early 2000s. It always stuck out for me the title "Virgin Mary". It is really funny for people to believe the Helvidian position of the thread and use that. Really if you were to believe that confessionally speaking you should be using a title similar to those proposed by Nestorius 16 centuries back calling her "The Mother of our Savior", "The Mother of our Lord". Yet these people literally believe she lost her actually virginity 2000 years ago a few weeks or months after giving birth, and made her a perpetual honorary virgin perpetually because of the original virgin birth, in spite of that actually being totally. And then of course you got to mention, all the proof of virginity stuff that was around back then, when stoning people for adultery was in and that just would add another layer to things. Like why it would be a miracle.

 

[sondring7]

This is an interesting presentation and a little different than what I'm used to. I sort of made a similar kind of argument to an Evangelical woman on a web site in the early 2000s. It always stuck out for me the title "Virgin Mary". It is really funny for people to believe the Helvidian position of the thread and use that. Really if you were to believe that confessionally speaking you should be using a title similar to those proposed by Nestorius 16 centuries back calling her "The Mother of our Savior", "The Mother of our Lord". Yet these people literally believe she lost her actually virginity 2000 years ago a few weeks or months after giving birth, and made her a perpetual honorary virgin perpetually because of the original virgin birth, in spite of that actually being totally. And then of course you got to mention, all the proof of virginity stuff that was around back then, when stoning people for adultery was in and that just would add another layer to things. Like why it would be a miracle.

Do you believe that Mary did NOT have sex with Joseph AFTER the birth of Christ ?

 

[rwb]

Thank you for replying.

My questions are not about “doctrines of man” — they come directly from Luke’s narrative.

Could you please answer the two specific textual questions I asked?

1. Why does Mary ask how conception will occur if She expects normal marital relations?
2. Why does Gabriel respond with a description of miraculous conception rather than simply telling Her it will happen through Joseph?

Your reply didn’t address either of these, and they are the core of the discussion.

1. Because Mary knew that conception could not normally occur without copulation between man and woman.
2. Gabriel replies in a manner that we as well as Mary might know the child conceived in her womb was miraculous proof the child is the Son of God. That the prophesy would come to pass.

As further confirmation the angel of the LORD appeared to Joseph in a dream telling him the same thing, which is fulfillment of that which was spoken by the prophet saying the Lord Himself would given a sign, a virgin would conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel, meaning God with us.

According to the law for a thing to be true there must be testimony given by at least two people.

Mt 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Mt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mt 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Mt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Mt 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Mt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

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

John 8:17 (KJV) It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

The truth established spoken by the prophet Isaiah, confirmed of both Mary and Joseph.

 

[Moonwood]

1. Because Mary knew that conception could not normally occur without copulation between man and woman.
2. Gabriel replies in a manner that we as well as Mary might know the child conceived in her womb was miraculous proof the child is the Son of God. That the prophesy would come to pass.

As further confirmation the angel of the LORD appeared to Joseph in a dream telling him the same thing, which is fulfillment of that which was spoken by the prophet saying the Lord Himself would given a sign, a virgin would conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel, meaning God with us.

According to the law for a thing to be true there must be testimony given by at least two people.

Mt 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Mt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mt 1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Mt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Mt 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Mt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

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

John 8:17 (KJV) It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

The truth established spoken by the prophet Isaiah, confirmed of both Mary and Joseph.

Thank you for replying.

But your response does not actually address the argument I presented.

We already agree that Jesus was conceived virginally and by the Holy Spirit. Quoting Matthew 1 simply establishes a point that is not in dispute.

The question is not whether the conception was miraculous.

Restatement of the Textual Challenge

This challenge is for those who assert that Mary had marital relations with Joseph.
Such an assertion carries clear expectations about what Mary Herself would have anticipated as a betrothed woman.
According to Jewish law, betrothal was a legally binding marriage, and a betrothed woman would naturally expect:

• future marital relations with her husband,
• future conception of children through those relations.

If any of you deny that, then you may as well abandon your position entirely.
If not, let’s continue.

When Mary was betrothed to Joseph, Gabriel announced to Her:

“You will conceive and bear a Son.”

Notice what Gabriel does not say:

• He does not say when She will conceive.
• He does not yet say how She will conceive.

According to your position, at hearing such an announcement Mary would have:

• expected conception to occur through marital relations with Joseph,
• expected conception to occur after the pre‑consummation period,
• and therefore had no reason to ask "How?" at all.

But instead, the narrative gives us something entirely different:

• Mary asks “How will this be?” — a mechanism question, not a timing question.
• She explains Her question with “since I do not know man” — an idiom referring to sexual relations in general, not merely the present moment.
• Gabriel answers Her “How?” with a description of a miraculous, non‑sexual conception: “The Holy Spirit will come upon You… the power of the Most High will overshadow You.”
• Gabriel reinforces impossibility by pointing to Elizabeth’s naturally impossible conception.
  He is explaining why Mary’s conception will happen — precisely because it is impossible under normal circumstances.
  This is the same logiche uses with Elizabeth:
  • Elizabeth’s conception was impossible naturally, specifically because she was barren and advanced in age (Luke 1:36).
  • Mary’s conception is impossible naturally — yet not because of barrenness, age, infertility, or lack of a husband. It is impossible specifically because She “knows not man” (Luke 1:34).
  • God will make both possible, for "nothing is impossible with God" (Luke 1:37).

That is the narrative logic.

Under Mary’s expected future circumstances — a legally binding betrothal, anticipated marital relations, and no physical impediments — natural conception through Joseph was entirely possible.

None of Luke’s narrative fits a scenario where Mary expects conception through Joseph at any point in the future.

Given your own position — that Mary expected future marital relations and natural conception through Joseph — how do you explain that both Mary and Gabriel speak and act as though conception is impossible under those expected circumstances?

That is the narrative tension.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Do you believe that Mary did NOT have sex with Joseph AFTER the birth of Christ ?

Yes, I do not believe in the Helvidian position. Really nobody should that has any background in the Jewish Cultural context of the Bible, especially the Mitzot. or the concept of the sacred, any Godfearing Jew would be afraid to consummate the marriage literally speaking if you actually believed God incarnate or some kind of Divine miracle theophany passed through the birth canal. Furthermore there are linguistic reasons to believe the matter is not as cut and dried as it appears in some kind of English or European translation. I had Grok summarize things for me.


Here are usable quotes on the biblical idiom of “until” (heōs / heōs hou, reflecting Hebrew ʿad / ʿad-kî), which does not require that the contrary state begins afterward.
John Calvin (commentary on Matthew 1:25):

“This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. … Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ.”

John Nolland (The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC):

“Ἕως οὗ is conventionally translated ‘until’, but because the focus is on the period prior to the birth and implies nothing about what happened afterwards, I prefer the translation ‘before’ here.”

Daniel Harrington (The Gospel of Matthew, Sacra Pagina):

“The text neither confirms nor denies the perpetual virginity of Mary; there is no implication about what happened after Jesus’ conception and birth.”

John Chrysostom (Homily 5 on Matthew; commenting on the same verse):

“He has here used the word ‘till,’ not that you should suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform you that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man.”

The same pattern appears throughout Scripture. Classic examples include:

• 2 Samuel 6:23: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.”
• Psalm 110:1: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”
• Genesis 8:7: the raven “went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth” (and never returned).
• Matthew 28:20: “I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

In each case the “until” clause marks the period under discussion; it does not assert that the opposite state begins once the boundary is reached. That is the ordinary biblical usage of the idiom.

 

[sondring7]

Yes, I do not believe in the Helvidian position. Really nobody should that has any background in the Jewish Cultural context of the Bible, especially the Mitzot. or the concept of the sacred, any Godfearing Jew would be afraid to consummate the marriage literally speaking if you actually believed God incarnate or some kind of Divine miracle theophany passed through the birth canal. Furthermore there are linguistic reasons to believe the matter is not as cut and dried as it appears in some kind of English or European translation. I had Grok summarize things for me.


Here are usable quotes on the biblical idiom of “until” (heōs / heōs hou, reflecting Hebrew ʿad / ʿad-kî), which does not require that the contrary state begins afterward.
John Calvin (commentary on Matthew 1:25):

John Nolland (The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC):

Daniel Harrington (The Gospel of Matthew, Sacra Pagina):

John Chrysostom (Homily 5 on Matthew; commenting on the same verse):

The same pattern appears throughout Scripture. Classic examples include:

• 2 Samuel 6:23: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.”
• Psalm 110:1: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”
• Genesis 8:7: the raven “went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth” (and never returned).
• Matthew 28:20: “I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

In each case the “until” clause marks the period under discussion; it does not assert that the opposite state begins once the boundary is reached. That is the ordinary biblical usage of the idiom.

+++Yes, I do not believe in the Helvidian position
List the verses that PROVE Mary did not have sex with Joseph

 

[Pavel Mosko]

+++Yes, I do not believe in the Helvidian position
List the verses that PROVE Mary did not have sex with Joseph

lol that is ridiculous, the fact you would make this an article of Faith, especially when sex in the Bible was generally a private thing that we would have proof texts on their private relations. There is a name for this type of thinking "the Verbatim Fallacy". Considering this a ridiculous task I set Grok to explain why in great detail.

Grok
"
He demand for explicit verses that “prove” Mary and Joseph never had relations after the birth is foreign to the way Scripture handles private marital life and to the Jewish categories of holiness that the New Testament inherits.
Scripture almost never supplies public, verbatim proof-texts about the private sexual lives of its holy figures. Marital intimacy is treated as something that belongs inside the household, not as a matter that requires documentary confirmation for outsiders. We are not given verses that catalogue the private relations of Abraham and Sarah after Isaac, of Elkanah and Hannah after Samuel, or of any other couple whose children appear in the narrative. The absence of an explicit “they never had relations afterward” statement is the normal pattern, not a gap that needs to be filled by a proof-text. Treating the lack of such a verse as decisive evidence that relations must have occurred is the reverse of how the texts actually work. That is the verbatim fallacy applied to a domain Scripture consistently leaves private.

The same texts that leave ordinary marital life private are very clear about graded holiness and the fear of treating what is set apart as common. Once the birth is understood as the presence of God passing through the birth canal—an event of theophany, not an ordinary human birth—the categories already operating in the priestly and temple material make subsequent ordinary marital relations difficult to reconcile with the logic of set-apartness. Objects and persons connected to the divine presence were excluded from common use precisely because of that connection (the graded holiness of the sanctuary, the restrictions on priests, the distinction between holy and common). The greater the proximity to the divine presence, the more complete the separation from ordinary use. Applying that logic to the mother of the one who tabernacled among us is not an imported later doctrine; it is the same lesser-to-greater pattern the New Testament authors themselves employ.
The request for verses that prove the negative therefore asks Scripture to do something it does not do for any other couple, while ignoring the positive categories of holiness that the text does supply and that would have been intelligible to a first-century Jewish audience. The Helvidian reading has to treat the private silence as permission and the holiness categories as irrelevant. That combination is what sits awkwardly with the Jewish mindset the Gospels assume.


I however decided to mount a positive scriptural defense! And requested Grok to give me just verses that describe prohibitions in having a seminal emission and taking part in Tabernacle/temple activities.


Here are the main Torah passages that restrict someone after a seminal emission from immediate participation in the sacred assembly or Tabernacle service. They show that even an ordinary bodily emission tied to sexuality required purification before a person could approach what was holy.
Leviticus 15:16–18

“If a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water and be unclean until the evening. And every garment and every skin on which the semen comes shall be washed with water and be unclean until the evening. 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.”

Deuteronomy 23:10–11

“If any man among you becomes unclean because of a nocturnal emission, then he shall go outside the camp. He shall not come inside the camp, but when evening comes, he shall bathe himself in water, and as the sun sets he may come inside the camp.”

Exodus 19:15 (preparation for the theophany at Sinai)

“And he said to the people, ‘Be ready for the third day; do not go near a woman.’”

1 Samuel 21:4–5 (consecrated bread at Nob)

“And the priest answered David, ‘I have no common bread on hand, but there is holy bread—if the young men have kept themselves from women.’ And David answered the priest, ‘Truly women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition. The vessels of the young men are holy even when it is an ordinary journey. How much more today will their vessels be holy?’”

These rules do not treat seminal emission as moral sin; they treat it as a temporary state of ritual impurity that excludes a person from the sacred assembly or from handling holy things until evening and washing. The greater the proximity to the divine presence, the stricter the separation from ordinary bodily processes. That is the same graded-holiness logic already operating in the Tabernacle material. Applying it to the mother through whom the divine presence itself passed is simply the further step of the same pattern.

 

[rwb]

According to your position, at hearing such an announcement Mary would have:

• expected conception to occur through marital relations with Joseph,
• expected conception to occur after the pre‑consummation period,
• and therefore had no reason to ask "How?" at all.

No, you misunderstand my position. Once Mary learned she would be the mother of the Son of God through the Holy Spirit, she only desired to know how this supernatural impregnation would come to pass. Because the normal way could not come through the Holy Spirit since the Spirit has not flesh & bone as natural flesh does, and it is through natural/physical/man & woman of flesh and bone that copulation must occur for any woman to be found with child.

Of course, curiosity alone would have made wonder how this supernatural event would take place since spirits, at least in her human mind do not procreate with humans.

Mary asks “How will this be?” — a mechanism question, not a timing question.

Exactly, as I've just said. Not when, but how.

God will make both possible, for "nothing is impossible with God" (Luke 1:37).

Yes, just as God made it possible for both, Sarah, and Elizabeth, both well advanced in age, past the age of natural conception to become pregnant, since all things are possible with God, so too with Mary, but Mary was not past the age of natural conception but before knowing any man would become naturally pregnant with a human, who is the Son of God in the same way both Sarah and Elizabeth had. Mary desired to know how? The answer given Mary SUPERNATURALLY! The Holy Spirit would come upon Her and she would miraculously conceive the Son of God.

Under Mary’s expected future circumstances — a legally binding betrothal, anticipated marital relations, and no physical impediments — natural conception through Joseph was entirely possible.

None of Luke’s narrative fits a scenario where Mary expects conception through Joseph at any point in the future.

Given your own position — that Mary expected future marital relations and natural conception through Joseph — how do you explain that both Mary and Gabriel speak and act as though conception is impossible under those expected circumstances?

Both Mary and Joseph understood the child growing in Mary's womb was the Son of God. Since the prophet foretells His birth would supernaturally come through a virgin, if Joseph and Mary had natural marital relationship before the birth of Christ the prophecy would be a lie. Both Mary and Joseph could attest to the FACT that birth of Jesus did not come naturally but supernaturally because Mary did not engage in a sexual relationship with Joseph until AFTER the birth of the Holy Child, Jesus, was born.

John 8:17 (KJV) It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

Deuteronomy 19:15 (KJV) One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

Matthew 18:16 (KJV) But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

That's why it is written of Joseph, "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." Once the Holy Child was born it's foolish to think that Mary and Joseph lived their entire married lives in celibacy. Thus fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah. This clearly implies there was a normal, physical relationship between husband and wife AFTER the birth of Christ. And for those of us who accept what is clearly recorded in the Bible, we understand that Jesus had siblings from Mary and Joseph, that He was not an only child of Mary.

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

From the testimony of two witnesses the word of prophecy is established truth.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Still reading your thread with great interest @Moonwood. I believe there are hints there in the depiction of events in some of the Gospels on the traditional orthodox position of Mary compared to the popular modern Helvidian position of most Evangelicals, Fundamentalists etc. I guess I have always believed this passage is the best one.

"John 19: 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman,[b] here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home."

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America​

From the GOARCH article “The Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God”:

“Also, consider the moving passage from St. John’s Gospel in which our Lord commits His Mother into the care of St. John as He dies on the Cross. Why would He do so if she had other children to look after her? Jewish custom dictated that the care of a mother would fall to the second born if the firstborn died, and if the widow had no other child she would be left to take care of herself. Since she is without other children, her Son gives her into the care of the beloved disciple.”

 

[sondring7]

lol that is ridiculous, the fact you would make this an article of Faith, especially when sex in the Bible was generally a private thing that we would have proof texts on their private relations. There is a name for this type of thinking "the Verbatim Fallacy". Considering this a ridiculous task I set Grok to explain why in great detail.

Grok
"
He demand for explicit verses that “prove” Mary and Joseph never had relations after the birth is foreign to the way Scripture handles private marital life and to the Jewish categories of holiness that the New Testament inherits.
Scripture almost never supplies public, verbatim proof-texts about the private sexual lives of its holy figures. Marital intimacy is treated as something that belongs inside the household, not as a matter that requires documentary confirmation for outsiders. We are not given verses that catalogue the private relations of Abraham and Sarah after Isaac, of Elkanah and Hannah after Samuel, or of any other couple whose children appear in the narrative. The absence of an explicit “they never had relations afterward” statement is the normal pattern, not a gap that needs to be filled by a proof-text. Treating the lack of such a verse as decisive evidence that relations must have occurred is the reverse of how the texts actually work. That is the verbatim fallacy applied to a domain Scripture consistently leaves private.

The same texts that leave ordinary marital life private are very clear about graded holiness and the fear of treating what is set apart as common. Once the birth is understood as the presence of God passing through the birth canal—an event of theophany, not an ordinary human birth—the categories already operating in the priestly and temple material make subsequent ordinary marital relations difficult to reconcile with the logic of set-apartness. Objects and persons connected to the divine presence were excluded from common use precisely because of that connection (the graded holiness of the sanctuary, the restrictions on priests, the distinction between holy and common). The greater the proximity to the divine presence, the more complete the separation from ordinary use. Applying that logic to the mother of the one who tabernacled among us is not an imported later doctrine; it is the same lesser-to-greater pattern the New Testament authors themselves employ.
The request for verses that prove the negative therefore asks Scripture to do something it does not do for any other couple, while ignoring the positive categories of holiness that the text does supply and that would have been intelligible to a first-century Jewish audience. The Helvidian reading has to treat the private silence as permission and the holiness categories as irrelevant. That combination is what sits awkwardly with the Jewish mindset the Gospels assume.


I however decided to mount a positive scriptural defense! And requested Grok to give me just verses that describe prohibitions in having a seminal emission and taking part in Tabernacle/temple activities.


Here are the main Torah passages that restrict someone after a seminal emission from immediate participation in the sacred assembly or Tabernacle service. They show that even an ordinary bodily emission tied to sexuality required purification before a person could approach what was holy.
Leviticus 15:16–18

Deuteronomy 23:10–11

Exodus 19:15 (preparation for the theophany at Sinai)

1 Samuel 21:4–5 (consecrated bread at Nob)

These rules do not treat seminal emission as moral sin; they treat it as a temporary state of ritual impurity that excludes a person from the sacred assembly or from handling holy things until evening and washing. The greater the proximity to the divine presence, the stricter the separation from ordinary bodily processes. That is the same graded-holiness logic already operating in the Tabernacle material. Applying it to the mother through whom the divine presence itself passed is simply the further step of the same pattern.

+++lol that is ridiculous, the fact you would make this an article of Faith,
LOL you can't prove Mary NEVER has sex, no surprise
Keep GROKKING away :)

 

[Moonwood]

No, you misunderstand my position. Once Mary learned she would be the mother of the Son of God through the Holy Spirit, she only desired to know how this supernatural impregnation would come to pass. Because the normal way could not come through the Holy Spirit since the Spirit has not flesh & bone as natural flesh does, and it is through natural/physical/man & woman of flesh and bone that copulation must occur for any woman to be found with child.

Of course, curiosity alone would have made wonder how this supernatural event would take place since spirits, at least in her human mind do not procreate with humans.

The problem with this answer is that Luke places Mary's question before Gabriel tells Her anything about conception by the Holy Spirit.

At the moment Mary asks, "How will this occur, since I know not man?", She has only been told:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

She has not yet been told:

"The Holy Spirit will come upon You."

Therefore, Her question cannot be based on knowledge of a miraculous conception that Gabriel has not yet revealed.

It seems, then, that your explanation assumes information Mary does not possess until after She asks the question.

Am I misunderstanding your position?

Before I continue, do you affirm that Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph at the time of the Annunciation?

 

[rwb]

The problem with this answer is that Luke places Mary's question before Gabriel tells Her anything about conception by the Holy Spirit.

At the moment Mary asks, "How will this occur, since I know not man?", She has only been told:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

She has not yet been told:

"The Holy Spirit will come upon You."

Therefore, Her question cannot be based on knowledge of a miraculous conception that Gabriel has not yet revealed.

It seems, then, that your explanation assumes information Mary does not possess until after She asks the question.

Am I misunderstanding your position?

Before I continue, do you affirm that Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph at the time of the Annunciation?

Mary asks how after hearing she, being a virgin shall be found with a child in her womb, a son she shall call Jesus AFTER the angel tells her "thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS." After this the angel says to her "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." IOW Mary, just as thy cousin Elisabeth was supernaturally able to conceive a son in her old age, so too this shall happen supernaturally within you through the power of God. "For with God nothing shall be impossible."

Lu 1:26 ¶ And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
Lu 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Lu 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Lu 1:29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
Lu 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
Lu 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Lu 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Lu 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Lu 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Lu 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Lu 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
Lu 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

There is no reason to doubt that after the birth of the Holy Child, marital life between Joseph and Mary would have been no different than it would be for any other newly married couple. However, after hearing the news that she would give birth to the Son of God, I seriously doubt at that moment she had any future children in her mind.

 

[Moonwood]

Mary asks how after hearing she, being a virgin shall be found with a child in her womb, a son she shall call Jesus AFTER the angel tells her "thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS." After this the angel says to her "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." IOW Mary, just as thy cousin Elisabeth was supernaturally able to conceive a son in her old age, so too this shall happen supernaturally within you through the power of God. "For with God nothing shall be impossible."

Lu 1:26 ¶ And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
Lu 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Lu 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Lu 1:29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
Lu 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
Lu 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Lu 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Lu 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Lu 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Lu 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Lu 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
Lu 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

There is no reason to doubt that after the birth of the Holy Child, marital life between Joseph and Mary would have been no different than it would be for any other newly married couple. However, after hearing the news that she would give birth to the Son of God, I seriously doubt at that moment she had any future children in her mind.

So we agree that Mary's question was not based on knowledge Gabriel had already given Her about conception by the Holy Spirit.
We also agree that Mary was betrothed to Joseph and, according to your position, had every expectation of a normal marital relationship with him after the birth of Christ.

But that returns us to the difficulty I have been raising from the beginning.
At the point Mary asks Her question, Gabriel has only told Her:

"You will conceive and bear a son"

He has not told Her when She will conceive.
He has not yet told Her how She will conceive.

According to your position, Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph, and therefore future conception through those relations was entirely possible.
So why does She present Her virginity as an obstacle?
If She expected conception through Joseph in the ordinary course of married life, then the announcement "you will conceive" already has an obvious natural explanation.
Yet Mary does not respond as though conception through Joseph is the expected solution.
Instead, She raises a difficulty:

"How will this occur, since I know not man?"

And Gabriel answers that difficulty by explaining a miraculous conception and concluding:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible."

The comparison with Elizabeth strengthens the point. Elizabeth's obstacle was old age and barrenness. Mary's obstacle is not old age, barrenness, infertility, or lack of a husband. The obstacle She herself identifies is:

"I know not man."

So my question remains unchanged:

If Mary expected future marital relations and future conception through Joseph, why does She react to Gabriel's announcement as though conception is impossible under those expected circumstances?

That is the narrative tension I still do not see addressed.

 

[Lambano]

According to your position, Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph, and therefore future conception through those relations was entirely possible.

Please explain why would Mary NOT expect future lovemaking with her betrothed husband? That would be highly unusual for that and almost any culture.

The better answer (the one explicitly mentioned in the NET translation notes) is that Mary's answer shows that she understood the pregnancy would occur in the immediate future. That Gabe hadn't mentioned timing yet is irrelevant.

 

[rwb]

Please explain why would Mary NOT expect future lovemaking with her betrothed husband? T>xhat would be highly unusual for that and almost any culture.

The better answer (the one explicitly mentioned in the NET translation notes) is that Mary is revealing that she understood the pregnancy to in the immediate future. That Gabe hadn't mentioned timing yet is irrelevant

Exactly! Mary, like every other healthy, Jewish young virgin would have known and believed what is written.

Psalm 127:3 (KJV) Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

If Mary expected future marital relations and future conception through Joseph, why does She react to Gabriel's announcement as though conception is impossible under those expected circumstances?

That is the narrative tension I still do not see addressed.

It's only a tension you're trying to force. From what Mary learned from Gabriel, she would have understood the holy child, Jesus must come FIRST by VIRGIN birth. After His birth Gabriel gave her no reason to believe or even to think more children after Him would not be possible. In fact, it seems it would be cruel for God to withhold children and not further bless her with more fruit of the womb.

 

[Moonwood]

It's only a tension you're trying to force. From what Mary learned from Gabriel, she would have understood the holy child, Jesus must come FIRST by VIRGIN birth. After His birth Gabriel gave her no reason to believe or even to think more children after Him would not be possible.

You say that Mary would have understood that the holy child had to come first by a virgin birth.
But according to Luke's narrative, Gabriel does not reveal a virgin conception until after Mary asks:

"How will this occur, since I know not man?"

Prior to that question, Mary has only been told:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

She has not yet been told that the conception will occur through the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, on what basis would She already conclude that the conception must be virginal?

Furthermore, your comments about possible children after Jesus do not address my argument. My challenge is not about what Mary may have thought after Gabriel explained the miracle. Nor is it about whether She later desired children.

My question concerns Mary's reasoning before Gabriel explains how the conception will occur.
You acknowledge that Mary was betrothed to Joseph and expected a normal married life.
If that is so, then future conception through Joseph was already entirely possible.
Therefore, why does Mary treat conception as requiring explanation at all?
Why does She appeal to the fact that She "knows not man"?
And why does Gabriel respond by describing a miraculous conception and concluding:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible"?

That is the narrative tension I am asking about. Simply asserting that Mary somehow already knew it would be a virgin conception does not resolve the tension, because that is precisely the information Gabriel reveals in response to Her question.

 

[Moonwood]

Please explain why would Mary NOT expect future lovemaking with her betrothed husband? That would be highly unusual for that and almost any culture.

The better answer (the one explicitly mentioned in the NET translation notes) is that Mary's answer shows that she understood the pregnancy would occur in the immediate future. That Gabe hadn't mentioned timing yet is irrelevant.

But that's precisely the question at issue.

I'm not claiming it would have been culturally ordinary for a betrothed woman to expect lifelong virginity. I'm asking why Mary responds the way She does in Luke's narrative.

Gabriel announces that Mary will conceive and bear a son. If Mary expected ordinary marital relations with Joseph, conception would not be impossible. At most it would be a matter of timing.

Yet Mary doesn't ask "When will this happen?" She asks:

"How will this occur, since I know not man?"

And Gabriel's response is not to clarify timing. He does not say:

"After you begin married life with Joseph."

Instead, he explains a miraculous conception:

"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee."

He then points to Elizabeth's pregnancy as another example of God overcoming what is naturally impossible.

That's why I find the "immediate future" explanation unsatisfying.

If Mary's only concern were timing, Gabriel's answer should address timing.

Instead, his answer addresses the means of conception itself.

The narrative moves from Mary's question about how conception can occur, to Gabriel's explanation of a supernatural conception. That seems to suggest Mary's difficulty was not merely that She wasn't pregnant yet, but that She did not understand how conception could occur at all.

So my question remains:

Why do both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention if Mary expected normal marital relations?

That is the narrative feature I am trying to account for.

 

[Lambano]

Yet Mary doesn't ask "When will this happen?"

She doesn't ask about the timing because she believes it is in the immediate future, before her marriage with Joseph will be consummated. That much is obvious from her response. That then leads to the question of "how".

 

[rwb]

But that's precisely the question at issue.

I'm not claiming it would have been culturally ordinary for a betrothed woman to expect lifelong virginity. I'm asking why Mary responds the way She does in Luke's narrative.

Gabriel announces that Mary will conceive and bear a son. If Mary expected ordinary marital relations with Joseph, conception would not be impossible. At most it would be a matter of timing.

Yet Mary doesn't ask "When will this happen?" She asks:



And Gabriel's response is not to clarify timing. He does not say:



Instead, he explains a miraculous conception:



He then points to Elizabeth's pregnancy as another example of God overcoming what is naturally impossible.

That's why I find the "immediate future" explanation unsatisfying.

If Mary's only concern were timing, Gabriel's answer should address timing.

Instead, his answer addresses the means of conception itself.

The narrative moves from Mary's question about how conception can occur, to Gabriel's explanation of a supernatural conception. That seems to suggest Mary's difficulty was not merely that She wasn't pregnant yet, but that She did not understand how conception could occur at all.

So my question remains:

Why do both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention if Mary expected normal marital relations?

That is the narrative feature I am trying to account for.

It's not the when, but the how that Mary asks about. Mary asked the question in verse 34 in reference to what Gabriel told her. She wants to know how she can give birth as a virgin, (as the prophet foretells) and "conceive in thy womb" also. Mary was not slow to learn, she understood natural conception could only take place in the womb of a woman no longer a virgin. So, naturally she wanted to know how she could conceive the Christ child in her womb and it still be called a virgin birth. That's why Gabriel tells her it will be done through the power of God as the Holy Spirit comes upon her. Again, Mary knew of the Holy Spirit, throughout the Old Testament there are examples of the Spirit coming upon certain people for specific tasks ordained of them by God, and when the task is finished the Holy Spirit would depart.

Lu 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Lu 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Lu 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Lu 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

 

[rwb]

Why do both Mary and Gabriel speak as though conception is impossible without divine intervention if Mary expected normal marital relations?

That is the narrative feature I am trying to account for.

If Mary were thinking of her life beyond the birth of the Christ child, why would she not believe that martial life for she and Joseph would be a normal relationship and she would be blessed by God with more children, because children are a heritage from God, a blessing. Why would God deny this godly woman more sons and daughters, especially since Gabriel says . "Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women"....."Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God."