Mary's Vow of Virginity Revealed, Luke 1:34: The Perpetual Virginity Verse

A detailed and extensive Biblical exegesis on St. Luke 1:34 (examining (1) the grammar, (2) the context, and (3) Holy Mary's character) which unveils and reveals that Mary already had a Vow of Virginity at the moment of the Annunciation and even before the Incarnation of her Divine Son, Immanuel, Jesus Christ, God-with-us, the Eternal Word of the Father, the Only Begotten Son of God, by Nature Himself True God.

This video is in honor of the Feast of the Annunciation, 3-25-2014, (9 months before Christmas Day).

Special thanks to my brothers in Christ, Moses and June for all their assistance in producing this video (with the sound, equipment, and editing). Couldn't do it without your help!

Praised be Jesus Christ, the Word Incarnate, the Son of the Ever-Virgin Mary!

________________________
A. H. J. E.
After the Heart of Jesus Evangelist

For more info. and light concerning the topic of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary please consider watching the following short videos which I believe are EXCELLENT:

[herlinemargareth]

Nice video explain about grammar. I always believe that Mother Mary forever Blessed Virgin.

[vaticancitybride]

Wholeheartedly Amen Amen Amen GOD’S Dogmatic TRUTH Be Told Boldly !

[leostmark]

This video is awesome!  It is such a thorough examination of the original Greek text and really helps to understand the Scripture.  The conversation between Gabriel and Mary makes so much more sense now that you've explained it so well.  When Gabriel says 'you shall conceive' (future tense) then interpreting Mary to say 'I have not had sex' or 'I am a virgin' makes no sense because it's irrelevant to what Gabriel has just said.  You rightly point out the correct translation 'I know not man' is in the present continuous tense, meaning she'd already made a commitment to remain a virgin for her whole life even though she was going to marry Joseph in the future.  Thank you for posting it.

[vaticancitybride]

Alex Santana
Please continue Your Graceful channel of Teaching and Preaching the True Catholic Vatican Gospel of our Most Holy Redeemer and Divine Bridegroom Jesus Messiah
Amen

[alexsantana]

Who among you is ABLE and WILLING to read St. Luke 1:34 with intellectual honesty and spiritual discernment?

[TuyenPham-jmeq]

He who denies Mary's virginity denies God's words and here's why:

God never changes. If God changed, He could only change for the better or for the worse. Since God is perfect and is always perfect; He neither can become better nor worsen. This, however, does not in any way mean God cannot change His plan. He can change whatever in His plan He wants, but He himself never changes.

The Word is God and the Word never changes. Since the Word never changes, when the Word is spoken, as in Mat 1:23, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel”, these spoken words will never change; therefore Mary, a virgin, is always a virgin. If Mary were a virgin for only a number of years in her life, then the Word would become untrue after these years had passed. The Word, however, is the truth and is always true; so, Mary, a virgin, must always be a virgin. Moreover, as the Word was spoken, Mary, “a virgin shall conceive and bear a son”, not sons, these words will never change; thus Mary gave birth to only one son, Jesus. Though Mary gave birth only to one Son; through Baptism, many have become children of God by being incorporated into the Body of Christ. Therefore, all those who belong to Christ’s body are also sons and daughters of Mary. So Christians, honor Mary, our evervirgin Mother. He who denied Mary’s virginity denied the words of God.

The Universal Church, the Body of Christ, teaches: The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 and so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Evervirgin".156 (Catechism of The Catholic Church 499, see CCC for foot notes 154, 155, and 156).

[Robskit]

Thanks for posting. I needed this. I did think that it sounded stupid for a woman to ask " How is this possible? when she is betrothed to a man unless of course she is a consecrated virgin. Now I know.

[desaint]

Thanks for the link AHJE! You hit many important points. Looking forward to future videos. (DeSanto)

[katherineelisabeth]

This is one of the best youtube videos I have ever listened to.  Gorgeous.  So full of truth that I cried.  Thank you for it.

[adriancombe]

Great video, thanks so much for taking the time to put this together and share it.

However, there is some misleading info in your video, that could result in some of the more knowledgeable doubters not coming into the fullness of truth.

At 8:33, you imply that Greek has indefinite articles, whereas it actually doesn't. Then, you cite Matthew 8:9 as a counterexample, but the indefinite article occurs only in translation to languages like English, which have indefinite articles.

Please consider revising, or let me know if I am missing something. God bless you, and thanks again.

[alexsantana]

Any posts which are not directly related to St. Luke 1:34 and this video shall be removed. Fair enough? (Please stay on topic). Thank you. :-)
 

[kevinjoseph]

Hello I want to ask.
If Mother Mary takes a vow of perpetual virgin since she was a child. It should be she always "single woman".

I'm confused
why does she accept Joseph for engagement?
She had taken a vow of ever virgin but she engaged with man??
Why? .

Explain it, please.
Thank you so much.
God bless

[alexsantana]

The KJV has this verse (Luke 1:34) as: "How will this be, seeing I know not a man?"

The first part "How will this be" maintains the future tense (which is good) but there are a couple of problems in the second part.

The word "SEEING" is wrong.  There must be a causal connection word such as "BECAUSE or SINCE". Is "SEEING" the same thing?  ... I am not sure that it is (unless "seeing" can mean "because").

And I explain in the video how there is no indefinite article ('a') before "man" where "andra" is used instead of "anthropos".

It is good that the KJV preserves the proper Present Indicative Active form of the verb GINOSKO ("KNOW"). That is VERY GOOD.

[BJ-rghj]

And he *_knew_* her not, till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus. Matthew 1;25
And his *_mother_* and *_brethren_* came unto him: and they could not come at him for the crowd. And it was told him: Thy *_mother_* and thy *_brethren_* stand without, desiring to see thee. Who answering, said to them: My mother and my brethren are they who hear the word of God and do it. Luke 8;19-21

[alexsantana]

Extra info from Catholic Answers on Luke 1:34

[muhammadtufail]

Was Jesus born without a father?

3/47 Sura Al Imraan :-
سُوۡرَةُ آل عِمرَان
قَالَتۡ رَبِّ أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لِى وَلَدٌ۬ وَلَمۡ يَمۡسَسۡنِى بَشَرٌ۬‌ۖ قَالَ ڪَذَٲلِكِ ٱللَّهُ يَخۡلُقُ مَا يَشَآءُ‌ۚ إِذَا قَضَىٰٓ أَمۡرً۬ا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُ ۥ كُن فَيَكُونُ (٤٧)
Exposition:-Maryam said O my Rubb! How son can be possible by me ( when I being NUN) is the biggest hurdle in my Nikkah. I have no possibility the touch of my husband nor I am corrupt 19/20) (messenger Zikriyya said). It is like that!(No doubt your condition of Nun is the biggest hurdle in your Nikkah which is easy for Allah to remove that 19/21). To whom Allah creates; always according to His Mashiyyat . Whenever He orders something;He says( in the language of Mashiyyat Law) Be! And it is done.
References above :
19/20 SuraMuryam
سُوۡرَةُ مَریَم
قَالَتۡ أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لِى غُلَـٰمٌ۬ وَلَمۡ يَمۡسَسۡنِى بَشَرٌ۬ وَلَمۡ أَكُ بَغِيًّ۬ا (٢٠)
Murayam said “How son could be by me when( My nun condition is the biggest hurdle in my Nikkah.
In this way my husband has not touched me nor am I corrupt”
( MessengerZikriyya said (No doubt your nun condition is the biggest hurdle against your Nikkah . Allah creates anybody to whom He wills according to His Law of Mashiyyat. When He decides anything; He says “Be! And it is done. It is completed after the fixed time) (All hurdles will be removed and this work will be done)
19/21 SuraMuryam
سُوۡرَةُ مَریَم
قَالَ كَذَٲلِكِ قَالَ رَبُّكِ هُوَ عَلَىَّ هَيِّنٌ۬‌ۖ وَلِنَجۡعَلَهُ ۥۤ ءَايَةً۬ لِّلنَّاسِ وَرَحۡمَةً۬ مِّنَّا‌ۚ وَكَانَ أَمۡرً۬ا مَّقۡضِيًّ۬ا (٢١)
(the purpose of this glad tiding of a son ) Is this “We may keep the witness ;(This is the son of married Nun ); keeping blessing from our side ;( He may give the law of blessings to the mankind) .In reality, this is the settled order (which has to happen so!)
Some clarifications:-
Out of this verse QAALA KAZAALIKEقَالَ ڪَذَٲلِكِ . Most of the translators have assumed that the birth of Eesa by Maryam will be without a father. Let us see what the Quran mentions about this:-1- About the evolution of mankind when there was no sign of the mankind 76/1 and then also it found the sign of mankind 38/71 and the offspring has been mentioned as 32/7-8 and also mentioned that the earth is the main source of the mankind 71/17 as the early beginning. For the Next offspring, a woman is the origin of the generation/generations 2/223 and the same is important for Allah even that without a wife Allah can also not have a son.6/101.. Conclusion:- Man without wife or woman without a husband cannot/never conceive a child/children.2- Now QAALA KAZAALI KEقَالَ ڪَذَٲلِكِ is actually the Divine rule /QANOON E MAASHIYYAT . This term has been used in the Quran many times which never opposes the Divine rule/QANOON E MASHIYYAT anywhere Just see 51/28-30.(QAALOO KAZAALI KE ) .
(سُوۡرَةُ الذّاریَات
فَأَوۡجَسَ مِنۡہُمۡ خِيفَةً۬‌ۖ قَالُواْ لَا تَخَفۡ‌ۖ وَبَشَّرُوهُ بِغُلَـٰمٍ عَلِيمٍ۬ (٢٨) فَأَقۡبَلَتِ ٱمۡرَأَتُهُۥ فِى صَرَّةٍ۬ فَصَكَّتۡ وَجۡهَهَا وَقَالَتۡ عَجُوزٌ عَقِيمٌ۬ (٢٩) قَالُواْ كَذَٲلِكِ قَالَ رَبُّكِ‌ۖ إِنَّهُ ۥ هُوَ ٱلۡحَكِيمُٱلۡعَلِيمُ (٣٠) ) The barren wife of Abraham got a child as she was fertilized as per Divine Laws. This has also proved the barren state of His wife had remained childless no child could be expected. Therefore QALOO KAZAALIKE(قَالُواْ كَذَٲلِكِ ) means as per divine Laws.

[marioduzek]

There is no reason to not believe Catholic Church interpretation of Bible. Bible came out of Catholic TRADITION. 

[Mayestroh]

Matthew 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."
If the above verse doesn't obviously indicate that Joseph did in fact "know" Mary sexually AFTER she gave birth to Jesus, then please give us your "honest" treatment of it. I hope you could do it without having to appeal to various supposed intricacies of Greek. (I also speak Russian, natively, which is heavily based on Greek, and uses virtually the same grammatical structure/syntax, and the Synodal translation of the russian Bible has long been recognized as extremely accurate and true to the original texts... just fyi... And Luke 1:34 reads simply as "I do not know a man presently/as things stand now", and the suffix "a" on the end of the russian word for "man", would be something of an equivalent of an indefinite article "a" in the english "a man". In russian this verse indicates "one man" singular, just not any specific man. Pretty much the exact sense as is conveyed in KJV.)

It's too easy to isolate the argument to one verse, and then appeal to a superior understanding of Greek to read a desired understanding into that particular verse.
While most Bible scholars will recognize that many doctrines are obtained through deductive analysis, (i.e., there isn't a verse that says "God is a Trinity", but we simply deduce it from passages such as Matt 28:19) they all will also tell you that you have to rely upon the rest of Scripture to properly exegete any one specific passage. But for any of it to work, it is of course assumed that you are coming at it without a predisposed position, not wishing to find any possible roundabout way to see some preferred position or meaning as the intended one in a text.

And how about Galatians 1:19 "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." Here again, a plain reading in it's context shows that referring to James as the "Lord's brother", was obviously done in order to clearly identify which James is being referred to (as there were at least two). Or must we again appeal to the intricacies of translating Greek...
I trust better scholars than you and I both have done the translating adequately. KJV and Synodal (RU) are extremely well regarded, and what I personally use. Generations of later scholars have vetted and confirmed that the work was done honestly. Even if the translators held personal convictions one way or the other, honest God-fearing ones would never dare fudge the text to favor their personal view - which is hard to resist, but that's why the best translations were usually done by panels of scholars, or were vetted by others down the line, where personal preferences get checked, and a consensus of the best-educated, God-fearing experts yielded the most honest, accurate rendering into the receptive language.

Today unfortunately, there are so many such "simile" thought-for-thought "translations", some done honestly, others to push a particular view (often the work of one man or some "organization"), that people can get misled or confused.

Still, whatever views Jerome or others may have held on these topics, even their translations don't give any solid ground to build "perpetual virginity". You literally have to strain to "see" it in the text.

Besides all this, there is absolutely no need from any standpoint for Mary to have to remain a virgin perpetually. As if it would somehow take away from her any credit or worthiness, if she bore natural human children later on within a holy matrimony with Joseph. This view is merely a human tradition. Some people jump to the conclusion that having physical relations with Joseph would somehow adulterate Mary as the mother of Jesus. This is such a prime example of human conjecture, its appalling - as if Mary is the "Wife of Jehovah" - that is a heretical idea anyways. Let's not miss that the definitions for loyalty and purity are established by God in the first place, and when a man and woman marry, it is only because God has joined them, (so let not men separate that). And when they consummate their union, and the man plants a seed in his wife's womb, it is again God who opens that womb to conceive or shuts it up, as shown multiple times in Scripture. And once a woman conceives, it is again God himself who personally knits every human being in their mother's womb, as the Psalmist says. So there is absolutely nothing unclean for God to take a believing maiden, and work a great miracle by supernaturally planting life within her without the use of any male involvement, and then later to allow that same womb to resume its natural and God-ordained, God-enabled life-giving function.
If fact there are numerous picture types of this same principle throughout scripture.

Anyways, God is good, and there is only one Saviour and one Mediator, the God-Man Christ Jesus.
I'm eternally grateful for such champions of faith as Mary, Abraham, David, Paul and others, but Jesus created and knit them all, and then revealed His word to them, and enabled them to walk by faith, leaving us good examples. So to Him be ALL Glory and Honor! Be blessed in the Lord!

[alexsantana]

More on the Marriage between Joseph and Mary

[alexsantana]

Check out this article by Dr. Taylor Marshall on the subject of Temple Virgins in Israel