Where Does Scripture Say Mary Was Ever-Virgin?
The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a virgin before, during and ever after the birth of Christ (CCC 496 - 507). Most non-Catholic Christians (I will use "Protestant" from this point on in the colloquial sense) believe and teach that Mary was a virgin at the time of conception to the time of birth - although, by rejecting a unifying, interpreting, authority that can declare the truth of a matter (the magisterium), some Protestant pastors are no longer teaching that either. Virtually all Protestants reject that Mary was a virgin throughout her life, although that was not always the case. I don't believe many Protestants (or Catholics for that matter) have ever considered whether or not she was a virgin in partu.
There are several reasons why the Catholic Church teaches Mary's Perpetual Virginity; some are logical; some based on Scripture and some based in God's Tradition (1 Thes 2:15). As with all the Marian teachings, they "re-echo" the most important aspects of Christ and to miss it on Mary - and keep a consistent Christology - is to miss it, eventually on Christ.
It's Scriptural
In the Old Testament if a woman becomes the wife of a second man, due to divorce, but then the second husband dies or divorces her, the first man can still never have relations with her again. (Dt 24:1-4) We see this played out with King David. When David's son, Absalom, tries to take over the kingdom one of the things he does is sleep with 10 of David's concubines (2 Sam 16:22). After Absalom is killed and David returns to Jerusalem, David takes back the concubines, but puts them in a separate house where he provides for them, but never again has relations with them (2 Sam 20:3).
The New Testament describes Joseph as a "righteous man" (Mt 1:19). Among other things this means he knew and followed all the precepts of the Old Testament. When Joseph learned that Mary was pregnant he decided to divorce her. (Unlike what some modern translations say, Mary and Joseph were in a ratified marriage, but not yet consummated. This is equal to the time after the wedding ceremony but before the wedding night. In Jewish custom this ratified marriage state could last several months but this is not mere 'engagement'.) Notice this was "before they came together." This phrase means before they engaged in marital relations.
Joseph is then approached by the angel who tells him "...do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife..." The "take" here is a different word than the one above. In this case the Greek word is "paralambano." Unlike the previous phrase "synelthein", paralambano (to take with) has no connotation of marital intimacy. It can be properly translated "to walk along with." Other uses in Scripture of paralambano show this: Acts 12:25, Gal 2:1 as just 2 examples.
Joseph would have recognized his situation as akin to what King David had. Joseph would have protected and provided for Mary, but since she was essentially the spouse of the Holy Spirit, Joseph would never have marital relations with her.
The Vow
When Mary is visited by Gabriel and told what God wants of her, Mary replies, "How shall this be seeing I know not man?" As the Christian writers of the first few centuries commented, this question reveals a vow of virginity. It is significantly different than Zechariah's question in the previous chapter because unlike Zechariah, Mary's question accepts that it will happen, she is merely asking how this will happen.
Anti-Catholic author James White says the notion of a vow is not in the text. Mr. White believes that Mary knew the angel meant this will happen RIGHT NOW and since there were no men around, Mary was inquiring how this was going to happen, RIGHT NOW.
The problem with this is the text never says WHEN this is supposed to happen. The angel merely makes a vague reference to the future with "will." Mr. White is reading his bias against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary into the text.
Let's make a reasonable parallel. If a new bride, at the reception, is told she will have a child in what way will she believe this will happen? I think it's reasonable she will think in the normal course of her marriage, she will get pregnant and have child. Why, then, would Mary ask the question unless she had taken a vow of virginity.
Let's make a reasonable parallel. If a new bride, at the reception, is told she will have a child in what way will she believe this will happen? I think it's reasonable she will think in the normal course of her marriage, she will get pregnant and have child. Why, then, would Mary ask the question unless she had taken a vow of virginity.
Why would a vowed virgin marry then? We need to place this in the ancient context: women could not work and if they did not have a man taking care of them they would starve to death. This is one of the reasons it is so important in all of Scripture to take care of widows and orphans (e.g. Jas 1:27). Mary and Joseph's marriage would have been one of provision and protection of Mary, as she still would need support.
Common Objections
There are several objections to the Catholic teaching of Mary's perpetual virginity. I will only take a look at a few.
Brothers of the Lord
The most common objection to Mary's Perpetual Virginity comes from the references to "the brothers of the Lord" (Mt 13:55-56; Mk 3:31; Gal 1:19). "The Bible clearly show that Jesus had brothers. How much clearer does Scripture have to be you Catholics?" I've heard the objection phrased very similar to this at times.
The problem with this objection is several fold: 1) The word "brother" in an ancient Jewish context did not always mean "uterine brothers;" 2) Scripture shows these men cannot be uterine brothers; 3) if Jesus would have had uterine brothers Jesus would have broken Mosaic Law.
In the ancient Middle East, many of the languages (Hebrew and Aramaic) did not have words for "uncle," "cousin," "nephew" etc. They would use circumlocutions to describe the relationship: "the son of my brother," "my father's brother," "the son of my mother's sister" etc. But these can become cumbersome in casual conversation. The solution was to call all relatives "brother." Not only is this well documented in history, it is also found in Scripture. In Genesis, Lot is Abraham's nephew yet they call each other "brother" (Gen 14:14).
Even in English, we don't use the term "brother" as exclusively referring to uterine brothers. "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime" was a very popular song, sung by Bing Crosby, during the Depression. No one believed Bing was referring to only his uterine brother. In religious circles we call monks, "Brother" as well as fellow believers "Brothers and Sisters" yet no one thinks we're mistaking them for our blood siblings.
So going back to texts in question, we see there are multiple definitions for 'brother.' All are still on the table: Scripture could be referring to other son's of Mary OR to some other relationship. However, when we add in other Scriptural references we see one of these definitions is impossible, while the other is most likely. Scripture tells us that the brothers of the Lord are "James, Joseph, Simon and Judas." However, when we reference Mt. 27:56 and Jn 19:25 we see something very interesting: James and Joseph's mother is, "the other Mary," Mary wife of Clopas, not Mary, Mother of Jesus.
Looking at Gal 1:19, we see the Apostle James is also called "the Lord's Brother." Yet in the lists of the Apostles, there are only two James', both of whose fathers we know and neither father is Joseph (James son of Zebedee; James son of Alphaeus). So, at least for James, Joseph and the Apostle James, "brother" is used to mean some other relation other than "other sons of Mary Mother of Jesus".
Jesus Sinning?
When Jesus was on the Cross he said seven things, commonly called, "The Seven Last Words of Christ." To say something while nailed on a cross is truly an unbelievably painful experience. One would have to push up on the nail through your feet and pull up on the nails in your wrists, and in Jesus' case, scrape your flayed back up the rough wood, just to get a breath enough "speak. Christ used one whole time of this to say to his mother, "Woman, behold your son. [John,] Behold your mother."
Jesus took the time, took on the excruciating pain and effort to give his mother to John. Why? If Jesus had uterine brothers the Law of Moses dictated that the next oldest would be the one to take care of Mary. The only explanation is that Jesus was an only child and there was no one else charged with taking care of Mary.
Mr. White says it's because none of Jesus' brothers believed in him. But there's a major problem with this: Jesus was God. One of Jesus' brothers, according to Gal 1:19, was James the Apostle. Wouldn't Jesus know - as he knew about his crucifixion, the destruction of the Temple and many other things - that his brothers, or at least James, would come back to the faith enough to die for it? The idea that Jesus gave Mary to John just because Jesus' brothers were non-believers - or a kissing cousin objection says just because no one else was around - shows a very low view of Jesus as God. But on top of that, again, it would be breaking Mosaic Law. The next eldest brother was to take care of their mother, regardless if he was around at the time of the eldest brother's death; regardless if he was a non-believer or not.
Until next time...
Often Protestants (and even Catholics who want to deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary) will point to a verse like Mt. 1:25 "...but he [Joseph] knew her not until she had borne a son..." "See," the objector continues, "it says 'until.' That means Mary and Joseph had marital relations afterward."
To be completely fair, let's start by acknowledging that the word "knew" does in fact mean marital relations. But what about the "until?" That does sound pretty convincing on the surface.
We must realize that even in English the word "until" does not mean a 100% change after the stipulations related to the word are fulfilled. For example, if someone says, "Until we meet again, may God bless you." Do we also mean by saying this, "Next time we meet, God curse you!"? No.
But the case is even stronger in Greek. The word in Greek is "heos". Heos means the time up to the stated event and does NOT necessarily mean there was a change afterward. We see this in numerous other places in Scripture where heos is used: Mt. 28:20 says, in part, "Behold, I am with you till the end of the age." "Till" there is heos. Is Jesus also saying by this, "After the end of the age I am no longer with you."?
"For he [Jesus] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." (1 Cor 15:25). Is Paul saying that once all Jesus' enemies are put under his feet, Jesus no longer reigns, i.e., he is no longer King? No, absolutely not.
I had an interlocker try to say that, yes, every time heos is used it necessarily means a 100% change after the event is fulfilled. Of course his main reason for saying this was to deny Mary's Perpetual Virginity. But as we saw with denying Mary as Mother of God, it is very easy to deny something, but to make a coherent theology that logically follows from that denial is not very easy. After pointing out these, and numerous other verses, this particular confused Protestant had Jesus only temporarily as King, him abandoning the Church after a time and many, many other strange things.
The Reformers Believed it
One of the more interesting aspects of studying the history of the belief of Mary Ever Virgin, is the fact that almost all of Protestantism believed and taught Mary was perpetually a Virgin until the 18th Century! Here are just a few quotes to make the point:
Martin Luther
“Christ,
our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This
was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”
{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann
(vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia:
Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4
(1539) }
“A new
lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written
that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth
of Christ . . .”{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew
(1523) }
John Calvin
“Helvidius
displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons,
because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned. “{Harmony of Matthew, Mark
& Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr.
William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}
Helvidius was someone who denied Mary as Perpetual Virgin in the 4th / 5th Century.
“Under
the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations,
whatever may be the degree of affinity. “ {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 /
Commentary on John, (7:3) }
Ulrich Zwingli
Re-echoing Christ
Ultimately everything about Mary, especially the dogmas, flow from, re-echo and protect a proper understanding of who Jesus Christ is. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary helps teach us that once we give ourselves to Christ, we cannot be used for any other purpose again. To do so would be to profane that which God has made holy. If you want to know how serious it is to profane something God has made holy, just ask Uzzah (2 Sam 6). And Uzzah was only dealing with the Old Testament Ark. How much more should the New Testament Ark, Mary, should be untouched by sinful man? And we are the Body of Christ, the Church. How much more importance is it that the Body of Christ, the Church be used only for the purpose for which God set us aside?
Do not be afraid to share your faith with everyone!
God Bless,
Fidei Defensor
Do not be afraid to share your faith with everyone!
God Bless,
Fidei Defensor
No comments:
Post a Comment