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

[Moonwood]

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".

But where does Luke tell us that Mary understood the conception would occur immediately?

Gabriel says:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

He does not say:

"You will conceive before you come together with Joseph."

Nor does he say:

"You will conceive immediately."

Those details are being supplied by the interpretation, not by the text itself.

My point is that Mary's response is not phrased as a timing question.

She does not ask:

"When will this happen?"

Nor:

"Will this happen before I come together with Joseph?"

Rather, She asks:

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

And Gabriel answers with a mechanism:

"The Holy Spirit will come upon You..."

If Mary's concern were merely timing, one would expect Gabriel to resolve the issue by clarifying the timing.
Instead, he explains a miraculous mode of conception.

What in the text itself indicates that Mary understood Gabriel's announcement as referring to an immediate conception rather than simply a future conception?

 

[rwb]

How can Mary's question be based on the fact that Jesus must be born of a virgin when Gabriel has not yet told her that the conception will occur virginally?

She would have known this even before the angel, Gabriel told her. Mary, being a Jew would have known the prophecy of the Messiah foretold to come. And as I've already shown you, Isaiah's prophecy specifically says He will be born of a virgin.

 

[Moonwood]

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.

If Mary's question arises from Isaiah's prophecy, then why does Luke not present Her as appealing to the prophecy? Instead, Luke presents Her as appealing to the fact that She "knows not man," and Gabriel responds by addressing that very point.

 

[rwb]

If Mary's question arises from Isaiah's prophecy, then why does Luke not present Her as appealing to the prophecy? Instead, Luke presents Her as appealing to the fact that She "knows not man," and Gabriel responds by addressing that very point.

When Joseph heard that Mary was with child, even though he no doubt loved her, he had no way of knowing the child at that moment was the Holy child the prophets foretell would be born from the womb of a virgin. It wasn't until AFTER the angel of God appeared to him in a dream that Joseph believed and understood that Mary had been chosen by God to bring forth the Son who would be called Jesus and save His people from their sins. For that reason, that the prophecy would be fulfilled Joseph took Mary unto his wife, and would not know her intimately until AFTER the child was born.

Mt 1:18 ¶ Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mt 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
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.

 

[Moonwood]

When Joseph heard that Mary was with child, even though he no doubt loved her, he had no way of knowing the child at that moment was the Holy child the prophets foretell would be born from the womb of a virgin. It wasn't until AFTER the angel of God appeared to him in a dream that Joseph believed and understood that Mary had been chosen by God to bring forth the Son who would be called Jesus and save His people from their sins. For that reason, that the prophecy would be fulfilled Joseph took Mary unto his wife, and would not know her intimately until AFTER the child was born.

Mt 1:18 ¶ Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mt 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
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.

I don't disagree with what Matthew says about Joseph. Joseph initially did not understand Mary's pregnancy, and the angel later revealed to him that the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit and fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy.
But I'm not sure how Joseph's later reaction answers the question I asked about Mary's earlier conversation with Gabriel.

Your argument was that Mary's question arises from Isaiah's prophecy.
My question is: where does Luke say that?
Luke explicitly gives Mary's reason for asking:

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

Luke does not say:

"How will this occur, since the prophet says the Messiah must be born of a virgin?"

Instead, he presents Mary's difficulty as arising from the fact that She does not know man.
More importantly, Gabriel responds to the concern Mary actually raises. He doesn't explain Isaiah. He explains how conception will occur:

"The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you."

In other words, both Mary's question and Gabriel's answer focus on Her not knowing man and on the miraculous means of conception.

So my question remains:

If Mary's question is really about Isaiah's prophecy, why does Luke present Her as appealing to the fact that She "knows not man," and why does Gabriel answer that specific concern rather than discussing the prophecy?

It seems to me that the narrative itself focuses on Mary's virginity and the miraculous mode of conception, not on Mary's attempt to work out how Isaiah 7:14 could be fulfilled.

 

[rwb]

I don't disagree with what Matthew says about Joseph. Joseph initially did not understand Mary's pregnancy, and the angel later revealed to him that the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit and fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy.
But I'm not sure how Joseph's later reaction answers the question I asked about Mary's earlier conversation with Gabriel.

Your argument was that Mary's question arises from Isaiah's prophecy.
My question is: where does Luke say that?
Luke explicitly gives Mary's reason for asking:

Luke does not say:
Instead, he presents Mary's difficulty as arising from the fact that She does not know man.
More importantly, Gabriel responds to the concern Mary actually raises. He doesn't explain Isaiah. He explains how conception will occur:

In other words, both Mary's question and Gabriel's answer focus on Her not knowing man and on the miraculous means of conception.

So my question remains:

If Mary's question is really about Isaiah's prophecy, why does Luke present Her as appealing to the fact that She "knows not man," and why does Gabriel answer that specific concern rather than discussing the prophecy?

It seems to me that the narrative itself focuses on Mary's virginity and the miraculous mode of conception, not on Mary's attempt to work out how Isaiah 7:14 could be fulfilled.

I have no desire to continue in a discussion that is clearly becoming repetitive. I don't believe you will receive anything that goes against what you have been taught.

 

[Lambano]

But where does Luke tell us that Mary understood the conception would occur immediately?

We're not told WHY she understood the conception would occur in the immediate future. We only know from the wording and grammar of her question that she did.

 

[Moonwood]

We're not told WHY she understood the conception would occur in the immediate future. We only know from the wording and grammar of her question that she did.

Thank you. But I think that concedes my point.

You acknowledge that Luke does not tell us why Mary would understand the conception to occur immediately.

Therefore the claim that Mary understood an immediate conception is not coming from Gabriel's words themselves. It is an inference being brought to the text.

Gabriel says:

"You will conceive and bear a Son."

He does not say:

"You will conceive immediately."

Nor:

"You will conceive before you come together with Joseph."

Those details are not stated.

You then say that we know Mary understood an immediate conception from the wording and grammar of Her question.

But that seems to be assuming the very conclusion to be proved.

The question is precisely what Mary's question means.

If one first assumes that Mary understood an immediate conception, then naturally Her question will be interpreted in that light.

But the question at issue is whether Luke's narrative itself indicates such an understanding.

Mary does not ask:

"Will this happen before I come together with Joseph?"

Nor:

"How can I conceive so soon?"

Instead She says:

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

And Gabriel responds by explaining a miraculous conception:

"The Holy Spirit will come upon You..."

That is why I continue to find the narrative's emphasis to be on the means of conception rather than its timing.

So I would still ask:

What feature of Mary's actual words requires us to read them as a statement about immediate timing rather than as a statement about conception itself?

 

[Lambano]

Therefore the claim that Mary understood an immediate conception is not coming from Gabriel's words themselves. It is an inference being brought to the text.

It would be more accurate to say that inferences are logically DERIVED from the text. That is normal reading comprehension and cannot be disregarded a priori.

I'm not claiming it would have been culturally ordinary for a betrothed woman to expect lifelong virginity

So, to turn that argument around: What preconceptions (I wish that pun was intentional, but it wasn't) did YOU bring to the text? Your effective translation of ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω as "since I do not have sex with a man" is, um, intriguing. We're not told WHY Mary assumed that her future husband was out of the picture. In an attempt to manufacture a reason, you have inferred the above translation as preferable to "since I have not had sex with a man". "I do not have sex with men, and will not in the future." With that comes logical consequences. Did you also infer that Mary intended all along to (to use Paul's word in 1 Corinthians 7:5 KJV) "defraud" Joseph? That is exactly what you are saying, though you might infer that Joseph knew from the beginning it would be a sham marriage and had agreed to it.

 

[rwb]

We're not told WHY she understood the conception would occur in the immediate future. We only know from the wording and grammar of her question that she did.

Even if it were possible to draw that conclusion from this moment in time, the abundance of verses found elsewhere in the Bible provide us with better understanding the time for this event had come. If not making the announcement to Mary at this point in time for the prophecy to be fulfilled, it makes little sense.

Galatians 4:4 (KJV) But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Galatians 4:5 (KJV) To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

 

[rwb]

It would be more accurate to say that inferences are logically DERIVED from the text. That is normal reading comprehension and cannot be disregarded a priori.

And this also agrees with the abundance of Scripture that speak of this event as though it was to come to pass soon after the angel of the Lord was sent to deliver the message to Mary.

 

[Moonwood]

I don't believe you will receive anything that goes against what you have been taught.

I'm not appealing to what I've been taught.
I'm appealing to what Luke actually wrote.

While I believe Mary knew Isaiah's prophecy, Her question is not presented as an appeal to that prophecy.

In fact, if She already understood that Gabriel was announcing a virginal conception, it's not clear why She would bring up "knowing not man" at all. The entire point of a virginal conception is that no man is involved.

Yet Luke presents Mary's difficulty in precisely those terms:

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

And Gabriel responds by addressing that very concern:

"The Holy Spirit shall come upon you..."

In other words, Mary raises the absence of a man, and Gabriel explains conception without a man.
My question isn't what Mary may have known from Isaiah. My question is why Luke presents both Mary's question and Gabriel's answer as revolving around the fact that She "knows not man."

Even if it were possible to draw that conclusion from this moment in time, the abundance of verses found elsewhere in the Bible provide us with better understanding the time for this event had come. If not making the announcement to Mary at this point in time for the prophecy to be fulfilled, it makes little sense.

Galatians 4:4 (KJV) But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Galatians 4:5 (KJV) To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

I agree that, from the perspective of the broader biblical narrative, the Incarnation occurs at the divinely appointed time. Galatians 4:4 tells us that Christ came "when the fullness of the time was come."

However, my question is not whether God had determined the time of the Incarnation.

My question is whether Mary knew from Gabriel's words that the conception would occur immediately, and whether that conclusion is established by the text of Luke 1 itself.

Galatians tells us about God's timing in salvation history. It does not tell us what Mary understood at the moment Gabriel spoke to Her.

The issue under discussion is Lambano's claim:

"We only know from the wording and grammar of her question that she did."

If that is the claim, then the evidence for it must come from Mary's question and Gabriel's response in Luke's narrative.

So I would still ask: what feature of Luke 1 demonstrates that Mary's concern is the immediacy of the conception rather than the manner of the conception?

Appealing to the fact that the Incarnation occurred at the divinely appointed time establishes that God intended it to happen then. It does not, by itself, establish that Mary understood that from Gabriel's initial announcement before asking, "How will this occur, since I know not man?"

 

[Moonwood]

It would be more accurate to say that inferences are logically DERIVED from the text. That is normal reading comprehension and cannot be disregarded a priori.

I don't disregard inferences a priori. I am questioning whether this particular inference is demanded by the text.
There is a difference between:

• "This is a possible inference from the passage," and
• "This is the inference the passage requires."

My challenge concerns the second claim. What textual feature makes Mary's question necessarily about timing rather than the manner of conception?

So, to turn that argument around: What preconceptions (I wish that pun was intentional, but it wasn't) did YOU bring to the text? Your effective translation of ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω as "since I do not have sex with a man" is, um, intriguing. We're not told WHY Mary assumed that her future husband was out of the picture. In an attempt to manufacture a reason, you have inferred the above translation as preferable to "since I have not had sex with a man". "I do not have sex with men, and will not in the future." With that comes logical consequences. Did you also infer that Mary intended all along to (to use Paul's word in 1 Corinthians 7:5 KJV) "defraud" Joseph? That is exactly what you are saying, though you might infer that Joseph knew from the beginning it would be a sham marriage and had agreed to it.

This thread isn't about my beliefs. That's why I haven't stated them here.

This thread is about the belief that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus, and whether the scriptural case for that position can answer some straightforward textual questions.

If that position is truly confident, scriptural, and well-supported, then it should be able to withstand these simple questions:

1. If Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph, why does she ask how conception will occur and explain her difficulty by saying, "I know not man"?
Gabriel did not merely tell Mary She would be a mother someday. He announced that She would conceive and bear a son. Mary's response is not, "When?" but "How?"

2. If Mary expected to conceive naturally through Joseph, why does Gabriel answer by describing a miraculous, non-sexual conception?
Instead of correcting a misunderstanding about timing, Gabriel explains the means:

"The Holy Spirit shall come upon you..."

3. Why does Gabriel reinforce his answer by appealing to Elizabeth?
Elizabeth's conception is presented as humanly impossible and made possible only by God's power.

If Mary's expectation was simply that She would later conceive through ordinary marital relations with Joseph, what relevance does Elizabeth's miraculous situation have to the question Mary asked?

Those are the questions I am raising.

I am not asking anyone to accept a vow of lifelong virginity, a sham marriage, or any other conclusion.

I am simply asking whether the text itself demonstrates that Mary's question is about the timing of conception rather than the manner of conception.

 

[Lambano]

1. If Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph, why does she ask how conception will occur and explain her difficulty by saying, "I know not man"?

What Gabriel told her was this:

30 And the angel said to her, “31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High."

"He will be called the Son of the Most High."

Though she was likely confused, suppose she realized one of the consequences of what that meant. She knew right there the child would not be Joseph's. Then the question of "how" becomes very relevant, especially if she was aware of some of the pagan traditions of the Romans occupiers. She brought up her status as a virgin because she knew Deuteronomy 22:13-21 calls for the public stoning of virgins who don't pass the virginity test. Divorce and public humiliation might have been the best-case scenario.

Gabe answers the "how" question, and tells Mary to trust God.

 

[Lambano]

This thread isn't about my beliefs. That's why I haven't stated them here.

The reader can also make inferences about your beliefs based on the prompts you submit. The prompts are clearly intended to guide the reader to a certain conclusion. I do require honesty and transparency about that.

I am not asking anyone to accept a vow of lifelong virginity, a sham marriage, or any other conclusion.

And since the question requires making inferences about Mary's mindset based on a limited sample of text written by a third party two thousand years ago, it is reasonable to require those making such inferences to think through the logical consequences of their position.

 

[Moonwood]

The reader can also make inferences about your beliefs based on the prompts you submit. The prompts are clearly intended to guide the reader to a certain conclusion. I do require honesty and transparency about that.

I don't think I've been lacking in honesty or transparency. In the opening post I explicitly identify myself among those who disagree with the position being challenged.

What I meant by saying the thread isn't about my beliefs is that the discussion is focused on whether your interpretation adequately explains the text.

Obviously the questions are intended to test a particular interpretation. That's what arguments do.

But whether I personally affirm lifelong virginity is distinct from whether the textual questions I've raised have been answered.

So rather than discussing what conclusion the questions may point toward, I'd prefer to keep the discussion on the questions themselves.

And since the question requires making inferences about Mary's mindset based on a limited sample of text written by a third party two thousand years ago, it is reasonable to require those making such inferences to think through the logical consequences of their position.

I agree that it is reasonable to think through the logical consequences of one's position.

In fact, that is precisely what I am asking those who reject lifelong virginity to do.

My questions are not asking anyone to accept a vow of lifelong virginity, a sham marriage, or any other particular conclusion.

Rather, I am asking whether a given interpretation adequately accounts for the details of Luke's narrative.

If we are making inferences about Mary's mindset, then those inferences should be consistent with:

1. Mary's question,
2. Mary's stated reason for asking it,
3. Gabriel's answer,
4. Gabriel's appeal to Elizabeth,
5. Gabriel's conclusion that "nothing will be impossible with God."

That is why I keep returning to those features of the text.

If someone wishes to argue that Mary assumed an immediate conception, that She inferred a virgin conception from prophecy, or offer any other explanation within the framework of Mary expecting normal marital relations with Joseph, they are free to make that case.

But those are also inferences, and it seems reasonable to ask whether those inferences adequately explain the entire exchange rather than only part of it.

My concern is not what conclusion people ultimately reach. My concern is whether the proposed explanation accounts for all the narrative data Luke gives us.

 

[Moonwood]

What Gabriel told her was this:

30 And the angel said to her, “31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High."

"He will be called the Son of the Most High."

Though she was likely confused, suppose she realized one of the consequences of what that meant. She knew right there the child would not be Joseph's. Then the question of "how" becomes very relevant, especially if she was aware of some of the pagan traditions of the Romans occupiers. She brought up her status as a virgin because she knew Deuteronomy 22:13-21 calls for the public stoning of virgins who don't pass the virginity test. Divorce and public humiliation might have been the best-case scenario.

Gabe answers the "how" question, and tells Mary to trust God.

That is an interesting proposal, but consider what Luke actually records.

Gabriel says:

"You will conceive in Your womb and bear a son ... He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High."

From that, you are suggesting that Mary immediately inferred:

"This child cannot be Joseph's, therefore the conception must somehow be miraculous."

But Luke himself gives Mary's reason for asking:

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

He does not say:

"How shall this be, since this child must be the Son of God?"

Nor:

"How shall this be, since Joseph cannot be the father?"

The explanation Mary Herself provides is:

"I know not man."

And Gabriel's response directly addresses that difficulty:

"The Holy Spirit will come upon You, and the power of the Most High will overshadow You."

That is why I keep returning to the same question.

If Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph, then conception through Joseph remained entirely possible.

Why, then, does She present Her not knowing man as an obstacle requiring divine explanation?

The text explicitly gives us Mary's difficulty and Gabriel's answer.

The idea that Mary had already deduced a miraculous conception from the title "Son of the Most High" seems to be an additional inference rather than something Luke actually tells us.

Even if, for the sake of argument, I granted your explanation of why Mary asked "How?", two other features of the narrative still remain unexplained.

First, why does Gabriel answer by describing a miraculous, non-sexual conception rather than addressing the particular concern you believe prompted Mary's question?

Mary asks:

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

According to your proposal, Mary is concerned because She has concluded that Joseph cannot be the father and therefore faces the prospect of public shame, divorce, or even punishment under the Law.

Yet Gabriel does not address those concerns.

He does not explain how Joseph will react.

He does not explain how the community will react.

He does not discuss divorce, public shame, or the penalties of Deuteronomy.

Instead, he explains the means:

"The Holy Spirit will come upon You, and the power of the Most High will overshadow You."

That is an explanation of how conception will occur, not an explanation of the social or legal consequences of an unexpected pregnancy.

Second, why does Gabriel reinforce his answer by appealing to Elizabeth?

Elizabeth's conception is presented as something humanly impossible:

"Your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son ... she who was called barren."

Gabriel then concludes:

"For with God nothing shall be impossible."

Elizabeth's case is relevant because her conception required divine intervention to overcome a natural impossibility.

Elizabeth is presented as both advanced in age and previously barren. Those are the obstacles that make her conception humanly impossible and therefore an appropriate example of God's power.

But if Mary's expectation was simply that She would later conceive through ordinary marital relations with Joseph, where is the analogous impossibility?

Conception through one's future husband is ordinarily possible and requires no appeal to God's power over impossibilities.

And even if it is argued that Mary had already inferred from prophecy or from Gabriel's words that this conception would occur miraculously, that still leaves the same question.

Elizabeth's obstacle is explicitly identified: advanced age and barrenness.

What is the corresponding obstacle in Mary's case that makes Gabriel's appeal to Elizabeth and his conclusion, "For with God nothing shall be impossible," a fitting response?

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

Even granting your proposed reason for Mary's question, I still do not see why Gabriel answers with a description of miraculous conception and then appeals to Elizabeth as evidence that God can overcome what is naturally impossible.

 

[TiberiusMaximus]

Many here — including @Titus, @David in NJ, @Armour of God, @marks, @David Lamb, @sondring7, and @markalan — reject the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity and instead assert that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus. The usual arguments are:

• Marriage is oriented toward procreation (Genesis 2).
• “To know one’s wife” means sexual relations.
• “Joseph knew Her not until She had given birth to a Son” (Matthew 1:25), therefore they must have had intercourse afterward.
• Paul teaches that spouses owe each other conjugal rights except for limited periods (1 Corinthians 7).

If this position is truly confident, scriptural, and well‑supported — and if those of us who disagree, including myself, @BreadOfLife, @Marymog, and @GodsGrace, are mistaken — then it should be able to withstand these simple, text‑based questions.

​

1. Mary’s Question to Gabriel (Luke 1:34)​

When Gabriel announces that Mary will conceive a son, Mary replies:

“How will this occur, since I do not know man (οὐ γινώσκω ἄνδρα)?”

The text shows Mary:

• betrothed (legally married under Jewish law; cf. Matthew 1:19–20) to Joseph (Luke 1:27),
• responding to the announcement of conception by asking how conception will occur (Luke 1:34)
• explaining Her confusion by stating that She “does not know man” (Luke 1:34)

So the question stands:

If Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph, why does She ask how conception will occur — and explain Her confusion by saying She "knows not man"?

​

2. Gabriel’s Answer (Luke 1:35–37)​

Gabriel answers Mary’s question by describing a conception brought about by divine action:

“The Holy Spirit will come upon You, and the power of the Most High will overshadow You.”
“Your kinswoman Elizabeth has conceived in her old age… for nothing will be impossible with God.”

The text shows Gabriel responding to Mary’s question with:

• a description of miraculous conception,
• an example of another woman whose conception was naturally impossible,
• and a statement that God overcomes what is impossible.

So the question stands:

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.

It is a very compelling passage. I've yet to read an argument that denies the historic Christian teaching of the perpetual virginity that handles this passage persuasively. The arguments generally take the form of (1) ignoring the force of Mary's reaction, in context, which is inexplicable if she was soon to be fully married, as you note, (2) attempting to read the present as some kind of past tense ("I did not know a man" or "I have not known a man"), (3) contending that the passage ultimately just can't mean what it says because of other passages of Scripture (or even more attenuated sources like later rabbinic understandings about marriage generally) ostensibly undermining this historic Christian truth (none of which actually do), or (4) claiming this wasn't Luke's point in the passage and so shouldn't be read to support the supposedly later developed dogma (which is just handwaving anyway, not actually a rebuttal).

 

[rwb]

Many here — including @Titus, @David in NJ, @Armour of God, @marks, @David Lamb, @sondring7, and @markalan — reject the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity and instead assert that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus. The usual arguments are:

• Marriage is oriented toward procreation (Genesis 2).
• “To know one’s wife” means sexual relations.
• “Joseph knew Her not until She had given birth to a Son” (Matthew 1:25), therefore they must have had intercourse afterward.
• Paul teaches that spouses owe each other conjugal rights except for limited periods (1 Corinthians 7).

If this position is truly confident, scriptural, and well‑supported — and if those of us who disagree, including myself, @BreadOfLife, @Marymog, and @GodsGrace, are mistaken — then it should be able to withstand these simple, text‑based questions.

​

1. Mary’s Question to Gabriel (Luke 1:34)​

When Gabriel announces that Mary will conceive a son, Mary replies:

“How will this occur, since I do not know man (οὐ γινώσκω ἄνδρα)?”

The text shows Mary:

• betrothed (legally married under Jewish law; cf. Matthew 1:19–20) to Joseph (Luke 1:27),
• responding to the announcement of conception by asking how conception will occur (Luke 1:34)
• explaining Her confusion by stating that She “does not know man” (Luke 1:34)

So the question stands:

If Mary expected normal marital relations with Joseph, why does She ask how conception will occur — and explain Her confusion by saying She "knows not man"?

​

2. Gabriel’s Answer (Luke 1:35–37)​

Gabriel answers Mary’s question by describing a conception brought about by divine action:

“The Holy Spirit will come upon You, and the power of the Most High will overshadow You.”
“Your kinswoman Elizabeth has conceived in her old age… for nothing will be impossible with God.”

The text shows Gabriel responding to Mary’s question with:

• a description of miraculous conception,
• an example of another woman whose conception was naturally impossible,
• and a statement that God overcomes what is impossible.

So the question stands:

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.

Why does this matter so much for you? Are you under the delusion that Mary is pure as long as she does not engage in marital relationship with Joseph, and being pure you believe her to be equal with God?

 

[TiberiusMaximus]

Thank you for replying.

If “I do not know man” simply meant Mary is not sexually active at present, that does not explain why She asks how conception will occur. If She expected normal marital relations with Joseph later, conception would not be puzzling — only the timing would be. In that case She would ask “When?”, not “How?”

More importantly, how does your explanation address Gabriel’s response? Gabriel does not tell Her She will conceive through Joseph once the betrothal period ends. He instead explains a miraculous, non‑sexual conception and reinforces it by citing Elizabeth — a woman whose conception was naturally impossible.

So the question remains:

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

Your reply explains neither Mary’s confusion nor Gabriel’s answer.

A related point adding to the force of your argument (and something the other person got exactly backwards in their response to you): Gabriel is announcing to Mary what is, in effect, a prophecy, being delivered in the future tense ("you will conceive"). Mary's response to Gabriel, in the present active indicative, only makes sense if her response likewise carries "future tense" significance. And use of the present active indicative is a very common way to convey an ongoing condition with such significance (indeed, it's one of the most common functions of the present tense in Koine) - it's a stative verb, conveying what is true past, present, *and* future. We use it in much the same way in the English language - for example, if a friend suggests "you should come take a road trip and visit me sometime" and you respond "But how? I do not drive," you are saying not only that you haven't had a license in the past and don't drive presently but also that that is and will be your foreseeable future state as well (unlicensed/non-driver) rendering impossible what was proposed (a road trip).

In other words, Mary's foreseeable future state was one where conception was not, well, conceivable! Coupled with the fact that she was betrothed to be married (and thus conception was eminently foreseebale in the near future, if an ordinary marriage), the passage demonstrates - as Christians have understood for 2,000 years - that Joseph and Mary were to have an unconventional marriage. Otherwise, as you explained at the outset, this passage of Scripture becomes incoherent.