The Blessed Virgin and Christian Dogma: Mary, Ever-Virgin

[TriuneUnity]

**II. Mary, Ever-Virgin
**
From the earliest writings of the church, Mary is referred to as “the Virgin.” While this does not by itself prove that the church has always considered Mary “ever-virgin” (semper virgo in Latin), it does strongly suggest it. Mary is not the ‘former Virgin’ or the ‘once Virgin’, but simply ‘the Virgin.’ The first serious controversy in the church over this teaching occurred in the 4th century. Jerome, the protagonist, initially refused to engage with his antagonist, Helvidius of Rome, the latter claiming that Mary bore other children after Jesus, because Helvidius’s teachings were and are so clearly contrary to the apostolic faith. At the Second Council of Constantinople in the year 553, the one holy catholic and apostolic Church put forward the following second anathema:

“If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema.”

The Blessed Virgin is described as “ever-virgin” twice more in the 14 anathemas of the Council, which the church was keen to argue had been received from Holy Scripture, from the Fathers of the Church, and from the four previous councils of the Church catholic. Note once again that this doctrine is primarily Christological, not Mariological. Christ remains at the center.

All of the early Lutheran theologians believed and taught that Mary not only bore Jesus Christ as a virgin, as the Scriptures and the Creeds attest, but that she remained a virgin until her death. As the Conclusion to the Augsburg Confession reminds us, the first Lutherans were keen to note that “in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic.” A denial of Mary Ever-Virgin would have been acceptance of a “new and ungodly doctrine” which the Reformers were determined to protect themselves against.

The Lutheran confessions do not offer us a wholly clear and unambiguous teaching on this matter. However, they certainly lean heavily in the direction of Mary Ever-Virgin.

“Mary, the most blessed virgin, did not conceive a mere, ordinary human being, but a human being who is truly the Son of the most high God, as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty even in his mother’s womb in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin.” (Formula of Concord [Solid Declaration], Article VIII)

Clearly the confessions subscribe to Mary’s virginity both pre partum (before the birth of Jesus) and in partu (during His birth), even if her continual virginity post partum (after His birth) is unclear depending on how we interpret “and yet remained a virgin.” In Luther’s Smalcald Articles (included in the Book of Concord), we find the Lutheran churches’ belief:

“That the Son became man in this manner, that He was conceived, without the cooperation of man, by the Holy Ghost, and was born of the pure, holy [and always] Virgin Mary.” (Smalcald Articles, Part I)

The bracketed phrase “[and always]” appears only in the Latin translation, not the original German. Nevertheless, Mary is referred to as both “pure” and “holy”, suggesting the Latin insertion “semper” is not without just cause. But let us turn to more explicit statements which underlie these confessional statements to discern the beliefs on Mary’s perpetual virginity.

The first comes from Luther’s commentary on the Gospel of John, in which he states

“This [the Incarnation] was without the co-operation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.” (Luther’s Works 22:23)

Note the nearly identical language used in the Solid Declaration quoted above. What did Luther mean by the phrase “she remained a virgin after that”? Only until the birth of her second child? Absolutely not! Elsewhere in the commentary on the Gospel of John, Luther clearly states that Jesus:

“was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him.” (Luther’s Works 22: 214)

 

[TriuneUnity]

Evangelical protestants will protest here. Doesn’t the Bible speak many times of Jesus’ brothers and sisters? Strictly speaking, no. The New Testament was written in Greek, not English. While this may seem like nitpicking and evading the point, it is in fact an important consideration. When the gospel writers or Saint Paul discuss a “brother” or “brothers” of Jesus (Matt 12:46, 13:55; Mark 3:31-32, 6:3; Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12, 7:3-5; Acts 1:14; I Cor 9:5), they are in fact speaking of His “adelphos” or “adelphoi.” Before we rush off with the ‘clear evidence’ that Luther, the confessions and the church catholic are wrong on this point, we need to abandon our 20th century nuclear family assumptions and accept these facts: [1] adelphos does not necessarily mean ‘son of the same mother;’ and [2] extended families were far more important in 1st century Palestine than they are in contemporary North America (or any other ‘modern’ Western society).

Three Biblical pieces of evidence which I find particularly convincing are as follows:

* Nowhere in the Bible is any *adelphos* of Christ said to be the Blessed Virgin Mary's son.
* In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by the gospel writers (e.g. Matt. 1: 23), the Greek word *adelphos* is used to translate the Hebrew word '*ach*', which can be rendered in English as "brother" or as "relative" or "kinsman" (e.g. Gen. 14: 14, Gen. 29:15, Deut. 23:7, 2 Kings 10:13-14, 1 Chron. 23:21-22, Neh. 5:7, Jer. 34:9). There is no reason to believe that Paul or the gospel writers used *adelphos* to mean 'son of the same mother' any more than to assume they used *adelphos* to mean 'relative' or 'kinsman'.
* Whereas the first two cast considerable doubt on the premise that *adelphos* necessarily means 'son of the same mother', a final piece of Biblical evidence suggests strongly that these *adelphoi* were not sons of Mary. Paul speaks on several occasions of James, pillar of the church in Jerusalem and "the brother of the Lord" (Gal. 1: 19). And yet, at the foot of the cross, Christ does not turn responsibility for the care of His mother over to James, the future bishop of Jerusalem and a witness of the resurrection, supposedly also son of Mary. No, instead he says to his mother, indicating the Apostle John, "Woman, behold, your son", and to John, the 'disciple whom Jesus loved', "Behold, your mother." (John 19: 26-27). How can we possibly explain this if James is the son of Mary as well and would naturally be expected, as her son and as a believer, to take her into his care upon the death of her first-born? And lest we claim that James was not a believer until after the death of Christ and thus would not be granted this honor and responsibility until after he believed, we remember John 19:27b: "And from that hour the disciple took her into his home" where she lived the remainder of her life.

Of course, the best positive evidence for Mary Ever-Virgin is that it was the faith of the apostles handed down through the ages, kept by the Church, remaining basically unchallenged by Christians for over 1600 years.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I’ll go further.

Mary, Joseph and Jesus lived in a tribal society, a type of culture that persists in many parts of the world even today. In such a culture, “Mom” and “Aunt” are virtually indistinguishable, ditto “Father” and “Uncle”. “Brother” or “sister” and “cousin” are similarly indistinguishable. Just because our culture makes these distinctions does not mean others throughout the world, and those that lived in other times, made the same ones. We cannot impose our understanding of contemporary culture on the past with any validity. Hence, when someone discusses Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” they may very well be discussing what we would understand to be “cousins”.

I have had occasion to experience the operation of a “tribal” understanding within my own family. I once had a brother-in-law, very beloved and now deceased for many years, whose origins were such a tribal society. He very seriously told me at one time that his marriage to my sister created a number of obligations for him which he undertook freely. In his culture, the fact that he was uncle to my children gave him the same obligations towards my children as if he were their father. (Would that he had lived! I have no doubt my childrens’ lives would have been enriched beyond measure!)

So there is the “tribal” aspect of 1st Century life that has to be taken into account in any attempt to understand both the culture of the time and those things expressed in Scripture. But that aside, the most compelling reason for Mary to be “Ever Virgin” is, to me, the same reason for the Immaculate Conception. God gave Mary the gift of being without original sin, or any sin at all, in preparation for the Incarnation, because God cannot exist in a place that is not Holy. After the birth of Jesus, this status continued, so that the Holy Place for the Incarnation could never be questioned. When viewed properly, this is just logical.

 

[TriuneUnity]

So there is the “tribal” aspect of 1st Century life that has to be taken into account in any attempt to understand both the culture of the time and those things expressed in Scripture. But that aside, the most compelling reason for Mary to be “Ever Virgin” is, to me, the same reason for the Immaculate Conception. God gave Mary the gift of being without original sin, or any sin at all, in preparation for the Incarnation, because God cannot exist in a place that is not Holy. After the birth of Jesus, this status continued, so that the Holy Place for the Incarnation could never be questioned. When viewed properly, this is just logical.

All very good points, Melanie. I think your last one is especially important, not in regards to the doctrines you mentioned (though those, too), but also for the Messianic prophecies themselves. If Mary did not remain a Virgin and had other children besides Christ, I think a probable implication is that this would have weakened the apostolic proclamation of the virgin birth of Christ. The lack of any other children from Mary, as well as her celibacy, would have spoken strongly to Christ’s divine incarnation. Especially given that large families were the norm back then.

 

[choy]

i had a friend from China, who’s already in the generation affected by the “One Child Policy”

now, i know Chinese and Japanese cultures have specific words regarding the birth order, and the gender of a sibling. if you were the third child and you have two older brothers, you will address your oldest brother differently than your second oldest brother. and the oldest brother will have a different term for the one following him and the youngest. now if there are girls in there, the terms would change as well

but curiously, since she has no natural brothers and sisters, she simply translated in english her cousins as her brothers and sisters

just a modern example of some cultures that would see relatives as something when translated into english would just simply mean brothers and sisters

 

[KathleenGee]

(MelanieAnne and Choy, thank you for your experiences. I am married to a foreign born Asian and so understand. My husband is first born son and I noticed my own rank in family being married to him…and how they all look out for one another.

I think your experiences also share my point that we cannot look to Scripture alone or to individual past theologians outside the spirit of the Church, that is, without the authority of Peter and the successors to the Apostles, and the faith we continue to share with them.

Catholicism is not individualistic. Doctrines are only approved by consecrated authorities – who also represent all believers through our bishops – in our church…not Fr Pfleger and his inclinations, for example, if you know who I mean.

Catholicism is similar to Judaism in that ours is a gathering of believers, and that we and our lives center more around God. Protestantism relates to God looking up to Him and His will. Different ways of relating to Him and the Word. And yet many Catholics and Protestants can share practices of common faith of sharing and relating, many doing the same practices or ‘works’ in their congregations…works of mercy.)
You have to look at how doctrine combined with the faith of the people developed.

 

[VetA]

iv heard evangelicals say that when Jesus was on the cross and said to Mary and the apostle he loved “mother behold your son…(ect)” is proof that she had other children. they ignore the fact that women could not live alone in that time, and since joseph had died she had to live with Jesus. that means that she had to go live with the beloved apostle and because of that she was now his (and all of our) mother(s)

 

[MelanieAnne]

iv heard evangelicals say that when Jesus was on the cross and said to Mary and the apostle he loved “mother behold your son…(ect)” is proof that she had other children. they ignore the fact that women could not live alone in that time, and since joseph had died she had to live with Jesus. that means that she had to go live with the beloved apostle and because of that she was now his (and all of our) mother(s)

You are correct. In the culture of that time and place Mary would have had no place to go once Jesus was gone, so Jesus put her into the care of someone He could rely on. And in so doing He also gave her to all of us, just as you say.

The statement on the cross is hardly proof of Mary having other children. Had she had other children, Jesus would not have needed to tell her, she would have known herself. Trust me, as a mother myself, I wouldn’t need one of my children to tell me, no matter what the situation, whether I had another child. When someone makes a statement like that, it is to give the responsibility over to someone else who does not have it naturally.

 

[Wesley7]

“If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema.”

I read and quote this anathema.

 

[rev_kevin]

In Luke 1:36 it says, “Elizabeth…is going to give birth to A SON.” meaning one son or one child.
In Luke 2:6 It says, "While they were there, the time came for her child to be born. Verse 7, And she gave birth to her FIRST-BORN SON. Meaning she would have more than one son or child.

Matthew 1:25 says, “And he [Joseph] knew her [Mary] not TILL she had brought forth her first-born son.”
“He knew her not”- Joseph had no materimonial intercourse with Mary-“Till she had brought forth that son of hers.” The first-born, the eldest of the family, to whom the birthright belonged, and who was miraculously born before she knew any man.
Here it clearly states that after Jesus was born Mary and Joseph had relations of a normal married couple.
Luke 2:6-7 confirms this: “So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her first-born son.”
The Greek word for “first-born” is PROTOTOKON it means 'first-born" it does not describe an “only child.”
In Luke 7:12 the word MONOGENES is used, when describing a person who was “the only son of his mother.”
The Jews knew that Jesus was not the only son of Mary. They knew that he had brothers and sisters. Matthew 13:53-56 says, " Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, that he departed from there. When he had come to his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
Here the Jews make it clear that Jesus had siblings when they mentioned the names of his brothers and that he also had sisters.

Some teach that Jesus’ brothers were in fact his cousins. Now this has been recently criticized by some Catholic Scholars who have concluded that the brothers were, in fact, Jesus’ read brothers and not his cousins. The word for brothers is ADELPHOS. This word is used in Matthew 1:2 and 4:21, clearly referring to literal brothers. The word for cousin is EXADELPHOS, meaning “from brothers.” When the Jews pointed out in Matthew 13 that Jesus’ brothers were with them, they used the word ADELPHOS not the word EXADELPHOS.