Vintage Saints: Mary, Part 1 Mark Driscoll Preaching Pastor at Mars Hill Church

"My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” – Mary worshipping God in Luke 1:46–47

Mary was simply a very godly young woman who loved the Lord and trusted in Him despite great risk to her own reputation. She repeatedly appears as a devout woman who loved God and was a loving mother to Jesus. Contrary to some aberrant teaching, she did not remain a virgin, but mothered other sons such as James and Jude, who visited Jesus with Mary during His ministry (Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:31–35; Luke 8:19–21) and later became pastors who penned books of the New Testament bearing their names.

Therefore, the Mary of Scripture greatly differs from the Mary of myth, legend, and folklore.

"The real Mary is a wonderful example for all women of what it truly means to trust God in all things, obey God even when His call is difficult, worship God in faith that He is good for His promises, fellowship with God’s people in the church, and love God, the Lord Jesus Christ."

"Each May it seems curious to me that many Protestant Christians do not focus on Jesus’ mother, Mary, in conjunction with the celebration of Mother’s Day. This may be, in part, an overreaction to the improper emphasis upon and false teachings about Mary among many Catholic and Orthodox Christians." ~ Mark Driscoll

3. How could Mary be sinless if in the words of the Magnificat she said that her soul rejoices in God her savior?

The Church does not hesitate to profess that Mary needed a savior. This should be the first issue to address if this question arises. It was by the grace of God—and not the work of Mary—that she was saved from sin in a most perfect manner. By what is called “preservative redemption,” Mary was preserved from sin at the time of her natural conception. John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb prior to his birth (Luke 1:15), and Mary was sanctified at her conception. It is no difficulty that Christ distributed the grace of Calvary some forty-five years or so before it happened, just as he bestows it upon us two thousand years after the fact. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that this gift was given to Mary, making her “redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son” (492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

God can “save” a person from a sin by forgiving them, or by providing them the grace never to fall into that particular sin. An ancient analogy is often useful to explain this: A person can be saved from a pit in two ways; one can fall into it and be brought out, or one can be caught before falling into it. Mankind is saved in the first manner, and Mary in the second. Both are saved from the pit of sin. If Jesus wished to save his mother from the stain of sin, what is to prevent him?

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102sbs.asp

Vladimir, thank you for your respectful responses and sources you post. Here are my issues with what the website describes:

Their main line of defense is not found in the main canon of Scripture, but in a source outside of the Bible called the “Protoevangelium of James.” If affirming Mary’s sinlessness and perpetual virginity was of utmost importance, why did the *original* Church fathers not feel it necessary to include this so-called Protoevangelium in the Bible? The reason: becuase there were lots of false texts and false gospels making their rounds everywhere!

The site does not adequately refute what exactly is meant then by those “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels of the Bible? It does not take a super-theologian or rocket scientist to figure out that in context, BIOLOGICAL relatives from his house and hometown are explicitly implied.

Lastly, the site claims that Protestant Reformers such as John Calvin held to the perpetual virginity of Mary? That could not be further from the truth. Read this excerpt from John Calvin’s commentary on the Gospel of Matthew:

Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 2. “The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned.”

^ Calvin. “Commentary on Luke 1:34”. Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 1. “The conjecture which some have drawn from these words [’How shall this be, since I know not a man?’], that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews.”

You wrote:

“Vladimir, thank you for your respectful responses and sources you post.”

No problem.

“Here are my issues with what the website describes: Their main line of defense is not found in the main canon of Scripture, but in a source outside of the Bible called the “Protoevangelium of James.” If affirming Mary’s sinlessness and perpetual virginity was of utmost importance, why did the *original* Church fathers not feel it necessary to include this so-called Protoevangelium in the Bible?”

It was not included because it was not inspired. That does not mean what it relates is untrue. Also, why do you assume this is of the utmost importance?

“The reason: becuase there were lots of false texts and false gospels making their rounds everywhere!”

No. That is not the reason why the text was not included. The number of false books in no way impacts the either the truthfulness of the text in question nor its lack of inspiration. If it is inspired or not is determined solely by whether or not it is inspired or not. That’s all. You are essentially drawing a false conclusion.

“The site does not adequately refute what exactly is meant then by those “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels of the Bible?”

Why the question mark? Are you making a statement or asking a question?

“It does not take a super-theologian or rocket scientist to figure out that in context, BIOLOGICAL relatives from his house and hometown are explicitly implied.”

It takes no super theologian to figure out that the text does not imply that either. Wasn’t Lot described as Abraham’s brother (Genesis 14, twice)? Were they brothers? No.

“Lastly, the site claims that Protestant Reformers such as John Calvin held to the perpetual virginity of Mary? That could not be further from the truth. Read this excerpt from John Calvin’s commentary on the Gospel of Matthew: Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 2. “The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned.”^ Calvin. “Commentary on Luke 1:34”. Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 1. “The conjecture which some have drawn from these words [’How shall this be, since I know not a man?’], that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews.””

Did you actually read what you just posted? I’m not so sure you did since it doesn’t say what you think it does.

4.^ Calvin. “Commentary on Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3”. Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 2. “The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned.”

So, there John Calvin is saying that ‘brothers’ doesn’t always mean ‘brothers’. Read the passage again if you don’t believe me.

“5.^ Calvin. “Commentary on Matthew 1:25”. Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 1. “Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

And there Calvin rejects they idea that Matthew 1:25 means Mary and Joseph had sexual intercourse and children. Calvin also says that Jesus being called ‘first-born’ does not mean that there were other children but that the inspired author was highlighting Mary virginity before Jesus’ birth.

You also might want to take note of the following:

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) }

[But] Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. The early Reformers even applied, though with some reticence, the title Theotokos to Mary . . . Calvin called on his followers to venerate and praise her as the teacher who instructs them in her Son’s commands.

{J.A. Ross MacKenzie (Protestant), in Stacpoole, Alberic, ed., Mary’s Place in Christian Dialogue, Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1982, pp.35-6}

You wrote:

“I am not saying that Calvin’s own expositions should be enough to convince you of course, merely that those Catholic sites are being dishonest in saying that Calvin and the Reformers held to the perpetual virginity of Mary.”

Really? How do you deal with these ‘Reformers’ then?:

Martin Luther (1483-1546):

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, but that she conceived Christ through Joseph and had more children after that. – Martin Luther, “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 45, ed. Walther I. Brand, 1962, Muhlenberg Press, p. 199.

The form of expression used by Matthew is the common idiom, as if I were to say, “Pharaoh believed not Moses, until he was drowned in the Red Sea.” Here it does not follow that Pharaoh believed later, after he had drowned; on the contrary, it means that he never did believe. Similarly when Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her. Again, the Red Sea overwhelmed Pharaoh before he got across. Here too it does not follow that Pharaoh got across later, after the Red Sea had overwhelmed him, but rather that he did not get across at all. In like manner, when Matthew [1:18] says, “She was found to be with child before they came together,” it does not follow that Mary subsequently lay with Joseph, but rather that she did not lie with him. Elsewhere in Scripture the same manner of speech is employed. Psalm 110[:1] reads, “God says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.’” Here it does not follow that Christ does not continue to sit there after his enemies are placed beneath his feet. Again, in Genesis 28[:15], “I will not leave you until I have done all that of which I have spoken to you.” Here God did not leave him after the fulfilment had taken place. Again, in Isaiah 42[:4], “He shall not be sad, nor troublesome, till he has established justice in the earth.” There are many more similar expressions, so that this babble of Helvidius is without justification; in addition, he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom. (“That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew,” pp. 211-13)

Helvidius, that fool, was also willing to credit Mary with more sons after Christ’s birth because of the words of the Evangelist: “And [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son” (Matt. 1:25). This had to be understood, as he thought, as though she had more sons after the first-born Son. How stupid he was! He received a fitting answer from Jerome. (“Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi” [1543], St. L. XX:2098; quoted in Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. II [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951], p. 308)

Then he [Luther] questioned whether Mary knew [i.e., had sexual relations with] Joseph even after the birth of Christ, as Matthew calls him “the firstborn son” [Matt. 1:25]. He answered, “The church has left this alone and has not determined this. But nevertheless the same consequence is firmly demonstrated because she remained a virgin, but on the other hand she was viewed as the mother of the Son of God. She was not judged to be the mother of human sons and remained in that state.” (Table Talk #4435 [1539], in Luther on Women, p. 56)

Then he [Luther] was asked whether Mary also had intercourse with Joseph after the birth of Christ, for Matthew says that he “knew her not until she had borne a son” [Matt. 1:25]. He replied, “The church leaves this [to us] and has not decided. Nevertheless, what happened afterward shows quite strongly that Mary remained a virgin. For after she had perceived that she was the mother of the Son of God, she didn’t think she should become the mother of a human child and adhered to this vow.” (Table Talk #4435 [same as above], in Luther’s Works, Vol. 54 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967], p. 341)

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531):

I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

I give an example: taught by the light of faith the Christ was born of a virgin, we know that it is so, that we have no doubt that those who have been unambiguously in error have tried to make a figure of speech of a real virgin, and we pronounce absurd the things that Helvidius and others have invented about perpetual virginity. – Huldrych Zwingli. “Friendly Exegesis, that is, Exposition of the Matter of the Eucharist to Martin Luther, February 1527,” in Selected Writings of Huldrych Zwingli, Volume Two, trans. and ed. by H. Wayne Pipkin, Pickwick Publications, 1984 p.275.

Then the pious mind finds wonderful delights in searching for the reasons why the lamb chose to be born of a perpetual virgin, but in this other case it finds nothing but a hopeless horror. [The other case that Zwingli here refers to is the Real Presence] – Huldrych Zwingli. “Subsidiary Essay on the Eucharist, August 1525,” in Selected Writings of Huldrych Zwingli, Volume Two, trans. and ed. by H. Wayne Pipkin, Pickwick Publications, 1984 p.217

Last time I checked, Luther and Zwingli and Calvin were all Reformers. Luther and Zwingli emphatically supported the ancient doctrine. Calvin may not have been emphatic, but it is clear he did NOTHING to oppose it. What he did so was oppose what he considered to be excesses in defense of the doctrine.

* Calvin of COURSE held to the Virgin birth of CHRIST, he merely maintained that there is no evidence to suggest Mary REMAINED a virgin.

* I do not know much about Zwingli to tell you the truth, but I do know that Luther was a devout Catholic before unearthing the truth of Scripture. He maintained a lot of Catholic practices and did not challenge Rome’s teachings on side issues of doctrine for quite awhile. He became more “progressively” Protestant as time went on and searched the Scriptures more deeply though, and this is true with regard to his views on Mary.

In **1532** he preached:

Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are…For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person. [36]

In **1534** Luther explained that Christ was “born of a young maiden, as you and I are born of our mothers. The only difference is that the Holy Spirit engineered this conception and birth, while in contrast we mortals are conceived and born in sin.”[37] Mary functioned in Luther’s theology as “the guarantee of the reality of the incarnation and of the human nature of Christ.”[38]

Pay attention to the dates of his writings and his evolving views.

http://www.ntrmin.org/Luthers%20Theology%20of%20Mary.htm

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.