BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY
(See other posts in this series and check out Edward’s book)
The Virgin Mary was the first person to “receive Christ into her life” (as Evangelicals like to say), and she did so in a far more literal manner than any of us will ever be asked to do. If bearing, giving birth to and bringing up to adulthood the incarnate Word of God is not enough to warrant respect, I do not know what is. Mary’s willing obedience to fulfilling the will of God – without which the incarnation would not have happened and none of us would be saved – is even more impressive when you consider what it must have cost her. Mary’s version as to how she became pregnant may not have been widely accepted by the community in which she lived. Even Joseph was suspicious enough to need an angelic visitation to assure him of the miracle (an interesting fact, perhaps, for those who would assume early societies to be, somehow, more intrinsically credulous than our own concerning miracles, or ignorant of the facts of life). Even decades later, there is more than innuendo in the accusation of Jesus’ enemies, “We were not born of fornication!” (John 8.41) Let us not forget also, that Mary was, according to the Scriptures, an eye-witness of Jesus’ crucifixion, and, as such, had to endure the agony of watching her son (many would say her only son) being tortured to death.
This reference to Jesus possibly being Mary’s only son is somewhat controversial, since it implies that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ, a doctrine known as the “perpetual virginity” – not a teaching much held in Evangelical circles today. For most of my Christian life I would have said, had anyone asked, that I didn’t believe in it myself. Not, as I have indicated above, out of any lack of respect for the blessed Theotokos, but rather because it always seemed to me to be unscriptural. Surely, it was contradicted by the “until” in Matthew 1:25 and by the frequent scriptural references to Jesus having brothers and sisters. As a Bible-believing Evangelical, that was enough for me, or so I thought.
However, a nagging doubt remained. The doctrine of the perpetual virginity was held by a number of early Christian writer (including Origen, Athanasius, Jerome and Ambrose of Milan) at least as far back as the third and fourth centuries. It appears in the Creed of Epiphanius of 374 A.D. and moreover is mentioned in the 2nd and 6th canons of the Second Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.) which was the fifth Ecumenical Council of the undivided Church. This means that this teaching was accepted, without much controversy, by the church as a whole for at least thirteen centuries prior to the Reformation (assuming no explicit support prior to the third century). Furthermore, while the doctrine is often seen as Catholic or Orthodox, it does appear to have been held by a number of Reformers, including Luther and Zwingli (and possibly Calvin), as well as by some subsequent Protestants (such as John Wesley).
However, the point at which my opposition to the doctrine really started falling to pieces came from within the Bible itself, namely, from John 19:27. According to this verse, Jesus gave his disciple John responsibility for caring for his mother, which is significant because the expectation of Jewish custom (and, obliquely, the Mosaic Law – see Leviticus 22:13 for the case of a widow who “has no child”) would be for Mary’s surviving children (if she had any) to care for her. To teach that Mary had other children seemed to me, in light of this, to imply that Christ was departing from the Law in his command to John, a serious issue indeed.
But what about the many references in the New Testament of Jesus having brothers and sisters?
The traditional answer given to this objection is that these were half-brothers and half-sisters of Jesus from an earlier marriage by Joseph (see, for instance, the Protoevangelium of James, chapter 9), or else cousins. This is consistent with Biblical usage of the words “adelphos” and “adelphē” and so doesn’t, by itself, prove the doctrine false.
But doesn’t the use of the word “until” in Matthew 1:25 contradict the idea?
I used to think so too (in fact this was my standard objection), however, the words translated “until” in Matthew 1:25 (“heōs ou”) are used elsewhere in the New Testament in contexts where no change in status is implied, e.g. Matthew 28:20 (Christ is with us UNTIL the end of the age – but surely this doesn’t mean that he won’t be with us in eternity?) and 1 Timothy 4:13 (the church is to devote itself to the public reading of Scripture, exhortation and teaching UNTIL Paul arrives – but surely this doesn’t mean that their devotion is to come to an end as soon as he turns up?). So, again, the use of the “until” in Matthew 1:25 doesn’t, by itself, refute the doctrine, (especially when one bears in mind how many of the early Church fathers were native Greek speakers).
But doesn’t the doctrine of the perpetual virginity mean that Joseph disobeyed the angels’ commandment to “take Mary as his wife” (Matthew 1:20) whereas Scripture confirms that he obeyed it (see v 24)?
This is one of the best Scriptural arguments that I’ve heard. The Greek, “mē phobēthēs paralabein Marian tēn gynaika sou” is probably best translated, in context, as “don’t be afraid to take Mary [as] your wife” (with all that that implies) although again “paralambanō” seems to have a wide enough range of meanings as to not rule out the doctrine in question. I don’t know how the angel’s words would have been expressed in Aramaic.
But isn’t the idea of a man not sleeping with his wife absurd?
Presumably being told by an angel that his fiancée was going to give birth to the incarnate Son of God might have indicated to Joseph that this was not going to be a normal marital arrangement! It would also appear to be the case that Joseph was a much older man, which may have some bearing on the question. Catholic and Orthodox theologians at this point in the discussion would probably also point to the idea of Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant, which makes her untouchable (see 2 Samuel 6:5-7) or would interpret Ezekiel 44:1-2 as referring to Mary – although, I admit, that such arguments sound odd to Protestant ears.
In terms of other Marian doctrines, I certainly believe that Mary is the Theotokos or “God-bearer” (as declared by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD) although this is, strictly speaking, Christology rather than Mariology, since it concerns the incarnation. I am currently somewhat agnostic about the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption (both of which are controversial in the East as well as among Protestants) and I remain very wary of any idea of Mary being a “co-mediatrix” of redemption, although it could be that this involves a misunderstanding of the term on my part.
See other posts in this series on the Apostle’s Creed and for more great teaching on church history check out Edward’s book.