No labor pain no sin in her

can this verse be used for the immaculate conception of Mary… I find this verse as a prophecy of the Christ child??

Isa 66:7 "Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son.

Matthew himself in the gospels claims it as the fulfilment of the prophesy see Matthew 1:22-23…Therefore it is the word of God that this scripure of Isaiah refers to Christ’s birth

God put the punishment for sin upon humankind. He suggested no exemptions.

Jesus accepted the human condition and suffering and pain but there was no sin in Him. He was not exempt from pain because He was sinless. “In him there is no sin” (1John 3:5). Up until the time of His public life at age 30, He had to earn His living by the sweat of His brow…or how does anyone suppose He survived from day to day in His adult years?

In His time on earth He became “wearied” (John 4:6) “He knew what it was to be thirsty,” (John 4:7) “and hungry”. (Luke 4:2)

He could be “touched with great sadness, deeply moved in spirit and troubled.” (John 11:33) “He had to be made like His brethren in every respect … He Himself had suffered and been tempted.” (Hebrews 2:17-18)

His heart was moved with human pity eg (Matthew 15:32) "He wept over Jerusalem (Luke19:42) He “began to be greatly distressed and troubled. And He said to them ‘My Soul is very sorrowful even to death’.” (Mark 13:34) He suffered the pain of scourging, crucifixion and He physically died.
Jesus was absolutely sinless, but He suffered like any human being.

Mary, however sinless also suffered the pain that flows from sin, as sin brought suffering into the world…a sword pierced her soul. “Simeon blessed them and said to Mary…a sword will pierce your soul.” Luke 2:35
Mary suffered the agony of losing a child for days, when Jesus was 12, she watched her son die in agony with all the sufferings of a mother’s heart because of the sin of others.

If God incarnate was not spared suffering and work, why would we suppose Mary was? We accept that Mary chose not to sin, but we know as a fact that she suffered.

The punishment for sin came upon all humankind, and through pain, it was redeemed.

Well, there are a couple problems here. First of all, the Immaculate Conception of Mary refers to when she was conceived, free from Original Sin - not when she conceived Christ - and so its definitely unrelated to His birth. Secondly, Matthew was quoting the prophecy from Isaiah 7:14 - a different prophecy.

As far as Isaiah 66:7 is concerned, some Catholics have interpreted it to mean that Mary experienced no pain in child birth, but later suffered pain seeing her Son’s Passion, and beyond. This is not a very good fulfillment of this prophecy, but possibly a secondary interpretation.

Others have interpreted it to be about the Church, since Christ was born first, and later the Church would suffer in persecution. But this isn’t a very good interpretation either since the Church didn’t give birth to our Lord, it was the other way around (figuratively!). Again, a possible secondary interpretation.

But it seems to me, this prophecy is primarily about Israel. Although, the Church makes an appearance too! I’ll amplify the whole prophecy as I understand it:

Isaiah 66
6 Hear that uproar from the city [Jerusalem],
hear that noise from the temple!
It is the sound of the LORD
repaying his enemies all they deserve. [70AD]

7 "Before she [Israel] goes into labor,
she gives birth;
before the pains come upon her, [70AD]
she delivers a son. [1BC]

8 Who has ever heard of such a thing?
Who has ever seen such things?
Can a country be born in a day
or a nation [the Church] be brought forth in a moment? [33AD]
Yet no sooner is Zion [the Church] in labor [the Crucifixion]
than she gives birth to her children. [Pentecost]
(NIV)

In case anyone doesn’t know, 70AD was when Israel was destroyed by the Romans, when God the Son took His vengeance.

Revelation 12:2 says that she was in pain before she gave birth. I think the verse in Isaiah is referring to her “pain” being her fight to keep the devil at bay, or possibly her loss of her only Son.

Am I wrong that the Church doesn’t teach anything on whether or not she had labor pains?

It seems to me that she would have had them. Yes, she was free from original sin, but the effects of original sin seem to apply to all mankind, as both she and her Son experienced death. It would seem only natural that she would also experience labor pains. Is this not right?

I don’t recomend you using that verse to try to prove this doctrine. Because Revelation 12, which is used by Catholics to say Mary was Assumed into heaven, has her crying out in pain as she delivers her son…

This is correct.

If you’re going to say that the effects of original sin apply to all mankind, then that would mean that all mankind would have to have original sin in order to have its effects. Both Mary and Jesus (and possibly some others down the line) were born in a state of original justification, so they would not have experienced the effects of original sin the way we do.

That said, I agree with your theological opinion that Mary experienced labor pains, but for different reasons.

Well I thought this was logical that mary being sinless would be with out labor pains for the curse of gen 3:16 would not apply to her if she is the immaculate conception… and sense the verse is talking about the male child coming into the world then I thought the mother would be the Virgin Mary…

Isa 66:7 "Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son.

If Mary is the immaculate conception then the curse of gen 3:16 would not apply to her and this would make Isa 66: 7 a prophecy of the mother of christ with out pain:

Gen 3:16 To the woman he said: I shall give you intense pain in childbearing, you will give birth to your children in pain. Your yearning will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.

Isa 66:7 "Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son.

I think the church does teach she had not labor pains interpretation of the gospel of Luke, Catholics seen Mary as the only one helping in her birthing of Jesus and Augustine thought that Mary virginity was not destroyed by Jesus birth that he came out like light going through a diamond …

Mary was exempt from original sin. Original sin is what caused women to have pain from childbirth. Therefore, Mary could not have had labor pains when she delivered Jesus because she was free from original sin. I don’t think that Jesus was born in the natural way (vaginally) since Mary is ever-virgin. But, I don’t plan to explain why.:blush:

Pax,
SHW

Ok, Original Sin DID cause the curse of pain during Child Birth. But just because Mary was exempt from Original Sin, does NOT mean she is immune to its consequences. Baptism washes away the stain of Original Sin from us, and women who are baptized still have pain during child birth. Also, Original Sin caused concupiscence, our ability to sin. Temptation is a part of concupiscence. Jesus was tempted, Many times I am sure. Why would Mary be any different?

To say that Mary was exempt from Original Sin says ONLY that she is free of that stain. Not that she is free from the repercussions.

Look at it this way, when you drop a nuke on an island ( like disobeying god and eating of the fruit from the tree of good and evil ) you cause a permanent effect on the island and it’s inhabitants ( we who can fall from grace ). Now, once that effect is there, it can never go away. It can change and become different is many ways, but it will always be an effect ( concupiscence ). When the scientist ( Jesus ), who is to come up with a way to shield the people against early death ( spiritual death ) because human reveling in that effect, is born, he and his mother, and the rest of the island must still suffer the consequences of that effect. The only thing that goes away is the early death, unless you decide to not accept the shielding, or take it off.

I think Mary, just like every other woman, had pain giving birth. The pressure, and the moving of joints all cause pain during child birth.

Why would Mary have had Jesus any other way? Just because you have a vaginal birth does NOT mean that you are not a virgin. Virgin means that you have never had sexual/vaginal intercourse with a male/female. Not that something/someone hasn’t passed through the vagina.

I hope that the following passage will end this debate, or at least give us a metaphor, a euphemism, if it is to continue.

Ezekiel 44
1 Then the man brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, the one facing east, and it was shut. 2 The LORD said to me, “This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered through it. 3 The prince himself is the only one who may sit inside the gateway to eat in the presence of the LORD. He is to enter by way of the portico of the gateway and go out the same way.”

And yes, this passage is also a proof for the perpetual virginity of Mary.

I like this passage. Good reference.

Yes, its a beautiful and prophetic passage. The Church Fathers recognized its significance, and its one of the many reasons they insisted that Mary was “ever-virgin”.

Hi adolfo, :slight_smile:

I read a similar explanation but I do not remember where I read it.

This is private revelation but interesting: I read Anne Catherine Emmerich’s visions and she did say that Jesus was born while Mary was praying in ecstasy. If this is true, then she had no labor pains.

Pax,
SHW

so if Mary have no pain in labor then this prophecy is about her :

Isa 66:7 Before being in labour she has given birth. Before the birth pangs came, she has been delivered of a child.

Hi Adolfo, :slight_smile:

Thank you for pointing out that Scripture verse.

Pax,
SHW

no problem…

Technically, the Church teaches that this verse is talking about the joy that Zion proclaims when a new person turns to God, essentially how the entire Body of Christ rejoices when a new person converts and obeys the Gospel call. This also fits with the passage. If you read on, it is talking about “her”, Zion, God’s people. It goes on to talk about spreading prosperity to her, and wealth. It then talks about God’s people being nursed by her, and comforted by her. This is not necessarily a prophecy.

Sorry, but no worky worky. Not in this case anyways.

:yup:

Mary’s Virgin Birth of Jesus simply means a birth initiated without sin – born of the Holy Spirit.

Gen 3:16 To the woman he said: I shall give you intense pain in childbearing, you will give birth to your children in pain. Your yearning will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.

The pain associated with natural pressure and tissue/joint movement during natural child birth is a reference to human life struggling with original sin.

Mary – Ever Virgin – without sin –
Jesus Christ – conceived by the Holy Spirit born of the Virgin Mary

Did Mary feel the weight of pregnancy? Yes
Did Mary feel the discomfort of labor/birth? Yes
Did Mary’s breasts engorge painfully with milk shortly after the birth of Christ? Yes

Mary wasn’t/isn’t a statue. She came as sinless human flesh to bear Christ made flesh – fully human, Fully Divine.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.