Bible Study Luke 1:34-35

[clark thompson]

Luke 1:34-35
King James Version (KJV)
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
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.

Luke 1:34-35
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation


These are my thoughts, please share yours.
34 Virgins do not have children due to it taking both make and female DNA to make children, now in today’s time it could happen in a lab by inserting the DNA but at this time it was unheard of and impossible.
35 The angel had an answer for this. This would have been an obvious question for her to ask. We when bring God’s message need to be able to answer the obvious questions. The Spirit would be because she to bear the child, this child would be God’s Spirit made flesh.

 

[Chopper]

Hi Clark, from my studies, I understand that Mary's question was not out of unbelief, but as you say, a perfectly obvious one....What a great, Holy Woman! For 2,000 years we have admired Mary and her willingness to receive ridicule and embarrassment, and even the potential of loosing Joseph, to answer the call of the Almighty.

 

[for_his_glory]

I know this was before the cross, but this is the definition of picking up your cross to follow Jesus. I can only imagine what went through Elizabeth's mind knowing she was to bare the forerunner of Christ.

At the ripe age of 59 that I am now I would freak out at first, but then would trust God in his timing and purpose.

 

[iLOVE]

I love Mary's response done in faith;

38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. Luke 1:38 KJV

 

[AirDancer]

Mary was in total obedience to our Lord when she held firm to her faith, despite the potential risks of ostracism and loss of her fiance Joseph.

Would we each answer in accordance to our Lord, as Mary did? I pray we would each stand firm in our faith, and submit to our Lord without any hesitations.

 

[Deborah13]

Mary had to be very trusting that the Lord would protect her, she could have lost her life under the laws of that time.

 

[About the Son of God]

Mary had to be very trusting that the Lord would protect her, she could have lost her life under the laws of that time.

It's rather curious that immediately upon hearing the news, Mary sets out on a journey to the hill country of Judea -- as a young virgin -- and travels to be with a High Underpriest, who would be the most amazing alabi; being as their child is clearly miraculous, and they would know how she came to them:

Deuteronomy 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
Deuteronomy 22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
Deuteronomy 22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

In cases of adultery/betrothal -- there is also a test which is to be administered by none other than a priest of the line of Levi when the act was not witnessed:
Numbers 5:12-31.

I'm not sure, but it seems that the Pharisees refer back to this issue in a backhanded way:

John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

Suggesting that they do what they are doing because they are son's of Abraham, but Jesus is not.
eg: his family pedigree is automatically a product of fornication. ( Psalm 51 / king David's adultery ).
Ruth, Rahab the Harlot (Boos's grandmother), etc. and possibly they thought the same of Mary ?

 

[About the Son of God]

Mary had to be very trusting that the Lord would protect her, she could have lost her life under the laws of that time.

It's curious that she immediately sets off, a virgin alone, crossing the fields on her way to the hill country of Judea all the way from Nazareth; a dangerous and long journey. It was a wise move, in a legal sense -- even if a very dangerous one in a practical sense:

Deuteronomy 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
Deuteronomy 22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
Deuteronomy 22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

Being as Mary went to be with a high priestly line Aaronite, for the entire time following, when she would begin to show her pregnancy; she had an alabi of a very high standing that she could only have become pregnant at the time of her journey or later should there be a trial. (Numbers 5:26-28)

Not to mention the miraculous pregnancy of Elizabeth as testimony that God's favor rested with Zechariah and Elizabeth...

It's also curious that the Pharisees would later refer back to the issue of "fornication" (AKA rape is one kind) as a dividing line between them and Jesus; for Pharisees were very much into genaologies, and knew who was the grandson of any person; and their standing (social) was influenced also in part by how well or badly their individual and collective father's had acted.

Matthew 23:30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Matthew 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

But, the pharisees also saw Genealogy as a dividing line as to whom had God's favor and who did not. Jesus' lack of a pedigree free from defect was something they were surprisingly quick to point out in a backhanded manner; for they simultaneously claimed to be as good as him -- and that he could be separated/persecuted on account of not being a pure son of Abraham:

John 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
John 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father.
!!!!! Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. !!!!

Perhaps they knew of Jesus' mother, and the scandal surrounding when she became pregnant?
A pregnancy with no witnesses?

But, even if Jesus were to claim the line of Abraham through David, it is mixed legally too: for there is the matter of David's wife -- Bathsheba; and David's great grandmother, Rahab the Harlot, not to mention Ruth the Moabitess.

Consider God's judgment, too: David's first child by adultery, God condemned to death.
The Pharisees knew well of the soiled pedigree that is the inheritance of king David (Psalm 51).

So: I don't think it's so much an issue of the laws, as the bias of the judges, which was the primary threat to Mary in those days. The law has exceptions everywhere.... priveleges based on popularity and power.

I also wonder what the Pharisees thought of the Prophecy of Isaiah concerning the virgin:

For Isaiah said the virgin (AKA: the one supposed to be a virgin) shall be with child, hundreds of years before Mary conceived. He said this would be a sign to Ahaz, a king, that he should obey God; so it's a sign that had to happen in his lifetime, if Isaiah was not to be a false prophet -- but Isaiah made his prophecy in a time of war, when enemies raped young women as part of pillaging the land.

If Isaiah's prophecy were false in Ahaz's lifetime, the pharisees father's had right to put Isaiah to death. eg: we don't believe in two virgin births as Christians, after all... do we?

 

[Deborah13]

It's rather curious that immediately upon hearing the news, Mary sets out on a journey to the hill country of Judea -- as a young virgin -- and travels to be with a High Underpriest, who would be the most amazing alabi; being as their child is clearly miraculous, and they would know how she came to them:

Deuteronomy 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
Deuteronomy 22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
Deuteronomy 22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

In cases of adultery/betrothal -- there is also a test which is to be administered by none other than a priest of the line of Levi when the act was not witnessed:
Numbers 5:12-31.

I'm not sure, but it seems that the Pharisees refer back to this issue in a backhanded way:

John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

Suggesting that they do what they are doing because they are son's of Abraham, but Jesus is not.
eg: his family pedigree is automatically a product of fornication. ( Psalm 51 / king David's adultery ).
Ruth, Rahab the Harlot (Boos's grandmother), etc. and possibly they thought the same of Mary ?

I've read that before. I seems to me that where she was already betrothed to Joseph and then Joseph went ahead and married her, I don't know why they would think that of her.
That was something that bothered in the that mini series 'The Bible'. They had Mary obviously pregnant and people shunning her and giving her those gossipy looks. Where did they get that from scripture?
We are studying Deut. I'll sure you know and that law probably would have worked for her, but she never would have lied and said that happened.
Do you know from scripture how long it was before Joseph had the dream and then when he married her. I don't think it says?

 

[Deborah13]

It's curious that she immediately sets off, a virgin alone, crossing the fields on her way to the hill country of Judea all the way from Nazareth; a dangerous and long journey. It was a wise move, in a legal sense -- even if a very dangerous one in a practical sense:

Deuteronomy 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
Deuteronomy 22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
Deuteronomy 22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

Being as Mary went to be with a high priestly line Aaronite, for the entire time following, when she would begin to show her pregnancy; she had an alabi of a very high standing that she could only have become pregnant at the time of her journey or later should there be a trial. (Numbers 5:26-28)

Not to mention the miraculous pregnancy of Elizabeth as testimony that God's favor rested with Zechariah and Elizabeth...

It's also curious that the Pharisees would later refer back to the issue of "fornication" (AKA rape is one kind) as a dividing line between them and Jesus; for Pharisees were very much into genaologies, and knew who was the grandson of any person; and their standing (social) was influenced also in part by how well or badly their individual and collective father's had acted.

Matthew 23:30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Matthew 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

But, the pharisees also saw Genealogy as a dividing line as to whom had God's favor and who did not. Jesus' lack of a pedigree free from defect was something they were surprisingly quick to point out in a backhanded manner; for they simultaneously claimed to be as good as him -- and that he could be separated/persecuted on account of not being a pure son of Abraham:

John 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
John 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father.
!!!!! Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. !!!!

Perhaps they knew of Jesus' mother, and the scandal surrounding when she became pregnant?
A pregnancy with no witnesses?

But, even if Jesus were to claim the line of Abraham through David, it is mixed legally too: for there is the matter of David's wife -- Bathsheba; and David's great grandmother, Rahab the Harlot, not to mention Ruth the Moabitess.

Consider God's judgment, too: David's first child by adultery, God condemned to death.
The Pharisees knew well of the soiled pedigree that is the inheritance of king David (Psalm 51).

So: I don't think it's so much an issue of the laws, as the bias of the judges, which was the primary threat to Mary in those days. The law has exceptions everywhere.... priveleges based on popularity and power.

I also wonder what the Pharisees thought of the Prophecy of Isaiah concerning the virgin:

For Isaiah said the virgin (AKA: the one supposed to be a virgin) shall be with child, hundreds of years before Mary conceived. He said this would be a sign to Ahaz, a king, that he should obey God; so it's a sign that had to happen in his lifetime, if Isaiah was not to be a false prophet -- but Isaiah made his prophecy in a time of war, when enemies raped young women as part of pillaging the land.

If Isaiah's prophecy were false in Ahaz's lifetime, the pharisees father's had right to put Isaiah to death. eg: we don't believe in two virgin births as Christians, after all... do we?

But Isaiah's prophecy was not false. God is so clever. First He speaks of the coming Messiah, who they had heard about before. He is Immanuel, God with us. God would protect the house of David/Judah from total destruction. The Messiah would come from that house.
Then verse 16, speaks of another child that already lived but was an infant, or very young. Verse 7:3.
God tells Isaiah to go to Ahaz and take his son Shear-Jashub with him. Thus the child in verse 16,
is this child. The prophecy came true. Judah was soon delivered from their troubles with Israel and Syria.

 

[About the Son of God]

I've read that before. I seems to me that where she was already betrothed to Joseph and then Joseph went ahead and married her, I don't know why they would think that of her.

The Pharisees made up stories about sleeping guards at the tomb to discredit Jesus' resurrection, and the bible is littered with failed attempts at false witness all through his life. I think the question is rather the other way around -- why wouldn't they purposely think that of her, even though not true?

It's fairly easy to show a pattern of malicious double entendre, when it could compromise Jesus' reputation throughout scripture. eg: forms of mockery.

For example: the strange woman who disrupts a gathering with a loud voice to draw attention to herself, (Luke 11:15 & 27) -- notice how she phrased her expression with subtle sexual double entendre "blessed are the breasts that gave you suck, and the womb which bore you"; Check the Greek; note: SHE NEVER even bothered to mention "mother" or "Mary" but merely gave us body parts to play "rorschack" pattern with. eg: the same body parts commonly emphasized in pornographic usage of "fertility" without legality.

Jesus also answers her just as subtly, and note how negative his response is -- without referencing his mother (who we are told elsewhere "believed") -- For he says to the crowd: "blessed, RATHER, are they who hear the word of God and keep it." ( as in, keep your pants on, hooker! I'm not going to lie on top of your womb.... and my mother's blessing is based on belief. )

Luke 11:27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company [evil generation] lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. [ Think a moment: What does that have to do with demons? and Beelzebub? eg: the topics Jesus was discussing ?? ]
Luke 11:28 But he said, Rather [negation], blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

So, consider:
Marriage feasts in Jewish custom include the part where a man takes a woman into his tent.
Therefore, the community knows when the bride and groom consummate the marriage the first time....
It's part of the reason that wine is so important at Jewish weddings.... perhaps certain guests can be sufficiently intoxicated to be unable to harass the bride and groom in the tent... ;)

So, continue to think about it:
Scripture says that Joseph was afraid to marry her because she was "found" with child.
And it doesn't say Joseph noticed it, but it's merely in the third person. "found".
That's room for gossip, right there.
Even if the couple were going to marry in the "future", they did it early -- and the gossip would be against Joseph, if not Mary. Though the woman is usually blamed...

That was something that bothered in the that mini series 'The Bible'. They had Mary obviously pregnant and people shunning her and giving her those gossipy looks. Where did they get that from scripture?
We are studying Deut. I'll sure you know and that law probably would have worked for her, but she never would have lied and said that happened.
Do you know from scripture how long it was before Joseph had the dream and then when he married her. I don't think it says?

You are correct. I see absolutely no reason that Mary would have lied -- but silence would have been necessary in self defense; When Mary asks the Angel "How can this be since I know not man." -- there is a clear inference that the wedding was nowhere near in the future. For if she was to be with a husband in a matter of days, the question would be pointless.

Given that -- consider that scripture tells us that Elizabeth was *already* in her sixth month when the Angel spoke to Mary, and that Mary stayed with her for three months. Hence -- Mary left immediately, and the wedding couldn't have happened.

So, I'm pretty certain that the scenario was that Mary was with Elizabeth and Zechariah, and begins to show a baby. The wedding for Mary, herself, should have been at Nazareth -- and Mary was in Judea until Elizabeth delivered her child; so I infer that the wedding likely happened after Mary was three months pregnant.

Do you see other possibilities?