Mary:
Perpetual Virgin?
The churches of
Christ Greet
You (Romans
A while ago the
world was
stunned by the report of a limestone ossuary (bone box), discovered in
Aside from the
obvious
importance of this discovery as such relates to the historicity of
Jesus of
Nazareth, the inscription has rekindled the controversy concerning the
alleged
“perpetual virginity” of Mary. Both the Greek Orthodox Church, and the
Roman
Catholic Church (along with a few Protestant scholars), contend that
Mary and
Joseph, even after the birth of the Lord, remained celibate for life.
The Roman Catholic
Church
alleges that Mary’s parents presented her in the temple when she was
but three
years old, and that “the child herself mounted the Temple steps, and
that she
made her vow of virginity on this occasion” (Maas, 464F). This would
suggest
that at the tender age of three, Mary had considerable knowledge of
human
anatomy. It further hints that she understood the intricacies of sexual
union.
Moreover it indicates that she likely foreknew the fact that she would
bear the
Christ child, and that she perceived somehow that it would be
inappropriate for
her ever to engage in honorable intimacy with a legitimate husband. The
absurdity of this claim is almost beyond belief, but such is the
superstition
that shrouds this deviate theological system.
This theory of
Mary’s
“perpetual virginity” became official dogma at the Council of Chalcedon
in AD
451, and thus is binding upon both the Greek and Roman segments of the
Church
(Pelikan, 14.1000).
The Historical Roots of the Dogma
What is the
biblical evidence
for this dogma? There is none – absolutely none. As one scholar
quaintly
noted, the doctrine “is a matter of dogmatic assumption unmixed with
any alloy
of factual evidence” (Sweet, 3.2003). The theory had its roots in the
pagan
environment of the post-apostolic age when there was a strong emphasis
upon
celibacy within certain heathen religions. In that day, sexual
intercourse,
even within marriage, sometimes carried the suspicion of sin.
Alexander Hislop
has shown a
remarkable concurrence between the Vestal Virgins of pagan
A progressively
deteriorating
church (cf. 2 Thess. 2:1ff; 1 Tim. 4:1ff; 2 Tim. 4:1ff), therefore, was
ever
attempting to accommodate “Christianity” to paganism, in order to
provide a
“comfort zone” that would attract the heathen to the religion of
Christ. This
is an historical reality that not even Catholic scholars deny (see
Attwater,
363). For an historical survey of this phenomenon, see Edward Gibbon’s
famous
work, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Chapter
XXVIII). Gibbon
concludes this chapter with these words:
“The most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves that the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the superstitions of Paganism, if they found some resemblance, some compensation, in the bosom of Christianity” (II.70).
Hence the baseless
notion was
foisted upon the biblical records that Mary remained a virgin for life.
And all
biblical evidence that suggests otherwise is rationalized away with
less-than-imaginative textual manipulations. There is, however, a
compelling
case against the Catholic view.
New Testament Evidence
There are a number
of
passages in the New Testament that argue against the dogma of Mary’s
perpetual
virginity. Note the following:
Matthew affirms
that Mary was
found to be with child “before [she and Joseph] came together” (Matt.
1:18).
The term “came together” (from sunerchomai) includes the idea
of sexual
intimacy (cf. 1 Cor. 7:5; see Danker, 970). The implication clearly is
that
ultimately, they “came together.” H.L. Ellison comments that the
construction
is “incompatible with the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary”
(1188).
Matthew declares
that Joseph
“knew not” (i.e., was not sexually intimate with; cf. Gen. 4:1) Mary
“until [heos
hou] she had given birth to a son” (1:25). While the expression heos
hou
does not absolutely demand that Joseph and Mary were intimate after
Jesus’
birth, that would be the normal conclusion, unless contextual
considerations
indicated otherwise (cf. 2 Sam. 6:23). In fact, “elsewhere in the New
Testament
(17:9 24:39; cf. John 9:18) the phrase (heos hou) followed by a
negative
always implies that the negated action did take place later” (Lewis,
1.42).
There is no valid reason why Matthew 1:25 should be the exception.
In Luke 2:7, Jesus
is called
Mary’s “firstborn” child. While the term prototokon does not
demand
unequivocally that Mary had other children, this term “most naturally
suggests”
that she did (Geldenhuys, 103). If the sustained virginity of Mary is
such a crucial
theological point, why did not Luke simply say that she brought forth
her
“only” son? That certainly would have settled the issue.
There are several
passages
that mention the siblings of Jesus (Matt. 12:46ff; 13:55-56). Catholic
apologists appeal to the fact that the term “brother” (adelphos)
is
sometimes used in a broader, kindred sense, e.g., “cousins.” While adelphos
(which literally means, “out of the same womb”) is employed loosely on
occasion
in some literature, in the New Testament adelphos is never used
for a
“cousin.” The word anepsioi signifies that relationship (cf.
Col. 4:10).
Moreover, Jesus is
said to
have had “sisters” (Matt. 13:56 - adelphe). Why should it be
assumed
that Matthew’s use of “mother” was literal, but that the terms
“brothers” and
“sisters” were used figuratively? If “sister” is literal in Acts 23:16
(Paul’s
sister), what would compel one to view the same term in a different
sense in Matthew 13:56? Terry notes: “It is an old and oft-repeated
hermeneutical principle that words should be understood in their
literal sense
unless such literal interpretation involves a manifest contradiction or
absurdity” (159).
The alleged
perpetual
celibate state of Joseph and Mary’s relationship is contrary to the
divine
ideal. Marriage, as designed by God, was intended to bring a man and
woman
together as “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24; cf. Matt. 19:5-6). Subsequent to
the
initial physical bonding is the responsibility to “render” to one
another what
is “due” – these terms expressing a sacred obligation (1 Cor. 7:3). If
there is
to be abstinence, it is to be by mutual concession, and that only
temporarily
(7:5).
The Defense
The Catholic
defense for the
dogma of Mary’s “perpetual virginity” is as barren as one will ever
encounter
in a religious controversy. James Cardinal Gibbons, in his apologetic
for the
concept, did not introduce a solitary scriptural argument in its favor.
Rather,
he appealed solely to the creeds of the post-biblical age (Apostles’
Creed and
Nicean Creed), which are bereft of divine authority (Gibbons, 168).
There is,
perhaps, nothing so revealing as this “no-evidence” line of approach.
The few
passages that sometimes are employed in a defense of the dogma do not
even
approach the borders of the territory.
But the reality of
the matter
is this: the Catholic clergy believes its needs no authority – save
that of its
own pontificating voice. It creates its own dogma, writes its own
rules, and
has become its own “god” (cf. 2 Thess. 2:4; see Jackson, 106ff). It is
a sad
reality that numerous people, quite noble in many respects, should
sincerely,
though uncritically; follow an autocratic system that stands so adverse
to
divinely revealed truth.
The doctrine of
Mary’s
perpetual virginity is bereft of any reasonable evidence. It is an
ancient
superstition that has been thrust upon sincere souls who have been
taught to
never question the voice of the Church. Many of these good people,
however, are
now reviewing their faith with a more critical eye. May their tribe
increase.
As a side note, there is absolutely no support for the “adoration of Mary” as such is practiced by the Roman Catholic Church. That ideology did not evolve until the 5th century A.D., far too late to have the sanction of Scripture. “Cardinal” Gibbons conceded that Mary was not venerated as the “Mother of God” until the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 (James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, Baltimore: John Murphy Co., 1917, p. 168).
As an angel once instructed the apostle John, “Worship God” (Revelation 22:9).
SOURCES
Attwater, Donald
(1961), A
Catholic Dictionary (New York: The Macmillan Co.).
Danker, F.W., et al. (2000), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament
and other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of
Chicago).
Ellison, H.L. (1979), The New Layman’s Bible Commentary (Grand
Rapids:
Zondervan).
Geldenhuys, Norval (1956), The Gospel of Luke Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans).
Gibbon, Edward (n.d.), The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
(New
York: The Modern Library), Three Volumes.
Gibbons, James (1917), The Faith Of Our Fathers (Baltimore:
John Murphy
Co.).
Hislop, Alexander (1959), The Two Babylons (New York: Loizeaux
Brothers).
Jackson, Wayne (1995), Select Studies in the Book of Revelation
(Stockton, CA: Courier Publications).
Lewis, Jack (1976), The Gospel According to Matthew (Austin:
Sweet).
Maas, A.J. (1912), “Virgin Mary,” The Catholic Encyclopedia
(New York:
The Encyclopedia Press, Inc.), Vol. XV.
Pelikan, J.J. (1958), “Mary,” Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago:
Britannica,
Inc.).
Sweet, L.M. (1939), International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,
James
Orr, Ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Terry, Milton (1890), Biblical Hermeneutics (New York: Eaton
&
Mains).