Posted on 11/20/2002 6:41:02 PM PST by az4vlad
Was Mary perpetually a Virgin? Are Catholics right to challenge people to be virgins for life like nuns and priests?
The box of bones is exciting as a "find." But for Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox theologians, it poses a real problem that could take some of the fun out of it.
These two branches of Christendom believe that Mary was perpetually a virgin. That is, obviously, she and husband Joseph never enjoyed God’s good gift of sex in marriage.
Of course, there is no biblical support for this. In fact, biblical support states that the two had sex. Matthew 1:25 states just that; that is, that after Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph enjoyed conjugal relations. Further, Mark 6:3 lists Jesus’ four brothers’ names, and mentioned that He had "sisters."
So there you have it. And when you have it, you can’t have it both ways.
Yet why is this perpetual virginity such a big deal to Catholic and Orthodox? Could it be because celibacy is such a big deal for priests and nuns? So youths are then challenged to be virgins for life like unto the Blessed Mother.
However, once again, there is no biblical backing for this. Instead, the Scriptures state just the opposite regarding Mary.
(The Orthodox believe that Joseph had James by a first spouse. After she died, he married Mary, she birthing only Jesus, thus remaining virginal for life. This is legend with no historical foundation.
Catholics footnote their Bibles by stating that Jesus had no brothers and sisters but that such scriptural statements refer to His cousins. The trouble here is that, in Greek, the terms for "brothers" and "sisters" is not the same as the term for "cousin.")
Other articles by Joseph Grant Swank can be found in the Men's News Daily archive. Therefore, when Andre Lemaire, a specialist in ancient inscriptions at France’s Practical School of Higher Studies, writes in Biblical Archaeology Review that there is very probably an authentic reference to Jesus of Nazareth on an ossuary—the box of bones—it sets up a major problem for Catholics and Orthodox.
The find was in Israel. It would give us the oldest archaeological evidence of Jesus Christ as an historical figure. "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" appears in Aramaic (the language of Jesus) on an empty ossuary—the limestone burial box for bones. Lemaire speculates its date to be 63 AD. He banks that the writing style sets the inscription smack in the time of Jesus and James, leader of the Early Church in Jerusalem.
He states that only 20 Jameses would have had Joseph as father and Jesus as brother in the holy city at that time. Further, inscribing the name of both father and brother on an ossuary was "very unusual." Therefore, this Jesus must have had some unusual notoriety.
Two Israeli scientists with the Geological Survey, having seen through a microscopic exam of the box, inform that there is "no evidence that might detract from the authenticity."
Josephus, first century Jewish historian, scribed that "the brother of Jesus. . .James by name" was martyred by stoning in AD 62. If his bones were stored in a box, such could date to AD 63.
The ossuary’s anonymous owner had not known the value of his possession until Lemaire examined it last spring. Mr. Anonymous says he does not want to deal with pesty reporters or the cost of insurance and protecting the artifact. We might also add that his anonymity will also keep the packs of excited theologians from his door...
Matthew 1:25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus NASB
Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. KJV
You either don't read well, don't understand English or are intentionally trying to obscure the passage and it's plain meaning for your own purposes (now THAT's deceitful). It SAYS that he didn't have relations with her UNTIL (Before or up to the time of) Jesus was born. Do we need to diagram this sentence? It DOESN'T say he had no relations with her whatsoever. (It certainly could have, couldn't it? Unless you suspect that God left this one passage inexplicably vague in order to confuse His own children.) Like it or not, it is the word of God. Argue with Him.
The one who should be ignored is not the one who points to the scripture in order to defend a position and implores others to actually study for themselves, but rather the one who tries to obfuscate and confuse and implores the listener to "Ignore the dangerous rantings of the misguided fanatic" and "just listen to" him (or her).
Not to everyone else: This is not necessarily a defense of the position that Mary was (or was not) a lifelong virgin. You are encouraged to study the relevant passages and decide for yourselves.
If the emphasis of the first chapter of Matthew were sexual relationships, then your understanding of the until would make more sense, but the highlight of this chapter is the birth of Christ and Matthew says what things happened until He was born. He emphasizes the fact that Christ was born of a Virgin.
Never in the ancient Christian tradition, were the brothers and sisters of Jesus interpreted as the actual siblings of Jesus and children of Mary. It is more than obvious that Mary and Joseph had a bunch of relatives, and it is obvious that their children, peers of Jesus, would be mentioned somewhere in the Gospels, therefore we have the brothers and sisters.
Our Lady's perpetual virginity isn't any more difficult to accept than the virginal conception and birth of Our Savior, or His Resurrection, so -- what's all the big fuss about? Incompliance with the sexual revolution?
A Protestant inquirer recently wrote the Orthodox Christian Information Center to ask why it is a dogma of the Orthodox Church that the Blessed Virgin Mary is ever-virgin. This page was compiled as a response.
Two dogmas concerning the Mother of God are bound up, in closest fashion, with the dogma of God the Words becoming man. They are: a) Her Ever-virginity, and b) Her name of Theotokos. They procede immediately from the dogma of the unity of the Hypostasis of the Lord from the moment of His Incarnation-the Divine Hypostasis.
A. The Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God
The birth of the Lord Jesus Christ from a Virgin is testified to directly and deliberately by two Evangelists, Matthew and Luke. This dogma was entered into the Symbol of Faith of the First Ecumenical Council, where we read: Who for the sake of us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man. The Ever- virginity of the Mother of God is testified by Her own words, handed down in the Gospel, where she expressed awareness of the immeasurable majesty and height of Her chosenness: My soul doth magnify the Lord... For behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed... For He that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is His Name (Luke 1:46-49).
The Most Holy Virgin preserved in her memory and in her heart both the announcement of the Archangel Gabriel and the inspired words of righteous Elizabeth when she was visited by Mary: And whence is this to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to Me? (Luke 1:43); both the prophecy of the righteous Symeon on meeting the Infant Jesus in the Temple, and the prophecy of the righteous Anna on the same day (Luke 2:25-38). In connection with the account of the shepherds of Bethlehem concerning the words of the angels to them, and of the singing of the angels, the Evangelist adds: But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart (Luke 2:19). The same Evangelist, having told of the conversation of the Divine Mother with the twelve-year-old Jesus after their visit to Jerusalem on the Feast of Pascha, ends his account with the words: But His mother kept all these sayings in her heart (Luke 2:51). The Evangelists speak also of the understanding of the majesty of her service in the world by the righteous Joseph, her espoused husband, whose actions were many times guided by an angel.
When the heretics and simple blasphemers refuse to acknowledge the Ever-virginity of the Mother of God on the grounds that the Evangelists mention the "brothers and sisters of Jesus," they are refuted by the following facts from the Gospel:
a) In the Gospels there are named four "brothers" (James, Joses, Simon and Jude), and there are also mentioned the "sisters" of Jesus?no fewer than three, as is evident in the words: and His sisters, are they not ALL with us? (Matt. 13:56).
On the other hand, b) in the account of the journey to Jerusalem of the twelve-year-old boy Jesus, where there is mention of the "kinsfolk and acquaintances" (Luke 2:44) in the midst of whom they were seeking Jesus, and where it is likewise mentioned that Mary and Joseph every year journeyed from faraway Galilee to Jerusalem, no reason is given to think that there were present other younger children with Mary: it was thus that the first twelve years of the Lords earthly life proceeded.
c) When, about twenty years after the above-mentioned journey, Mary stood at the cross of the Lord, she was alone, and she was entrusted by her Divine Son to His disciple John; and from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home (John 19:27). Evidently, as the ancient Christians also understood it, the Evangelists speak either of "half' brothers and sisters or of cousins.
*From Fr. Michael Pomazansky, trans. Fr. Seraphim (Rose), Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1994), pp. 187-189.
The seedless birth of Christ can and could be denied only by those who deny the Gospel, whereas the Church of Christ from of old confesses Christ incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary." But the birth of God from the Ever-Virgin was a stumbling stone for those who wished to call themselves Christians but did not wish to humble themselves in mind and be zealous for purity of life. The pure life of Mary was a reproach for those who were impure also in their thoughts. So as to show themselves Christians, they did not dare to deny that Christ was born of a Virgin, but they began to affirm that Mary remained a virgin only until she brought forth her first-born son, Jesus (Matt. 1:25).
"After the birth of Jesus," said the false teacher Helvidius in the 4th century, and likewise many others before and after him, "Mary entered into conjugal life with Joseph and had from him children, who are called in the Gospels the brothers and sisters of Christ." But the word "until" does not signify that Mary remained a virgin only until a certain time. The word "until" and words similar to it often signify eternity. In the Sacred Scripture it is said of Christ: In His days shall shine forth righteousness and an abundance of peace, until the moon be taken away (Ps. 71:7), but this does not mean that when there shall no longer be a moon at the end of the world, God's righteousness shall no longer be; precisely then, rather, will it triumph. And what does it mean when it says: For He must reign, until He hath put all enemies under His feet? (I Cor. 15:25). Is the Lord then to reign only for the time until His enemies shall be under His feet?! And David, in the fourth Psalm of the Ascents says: As the eyes of the handmaid look unto the hands of her mistress, so do our eyes look unto the Lord our God, until He take pity on us (Ps. 122:2). Thus, the Prophet will have his eyes toward the Lord until he obtains mercy, but having obtained it he will direct them to the earth? (Blessed Jerome, "On the Ever-Virginity of Blessed Mary.") The Saviour in the Gospel says to the Apostles (Matt. 28:20): Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Thus, after the end of the world the Lord will step away from His disciples, and then, when they shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel upon twelve thrones, they will not have the promised communion with the Lord? (Blessed Jerome, op. cit.)
It is likewise incorrect to think that the brothers and sisters of Christ were the children of His Most Holy Mother. The names of "brother" and "sister" have several distinct meanings. Signifying a certain kinship between people or their spiritual closeness, these words are used sometimes in a broader, and sometimes in a narrower sense. In any case, people are called brothers or sisters if they have a common father and mother, or only a common father or mother; or even if they have different fathers and mothers, if their parents later (having become widowed) have entered into marriage (stepbrothers); or if their parents are bound by close degrees of kinship.
In the Gospel it can nowhere be seen that those who are called there the brothers of Jesus were or were considered the children of His Mother. On the contrary, it was known that James and others were the sons of Joseph, the Betrothed of Mary, who was a widower with children from his first wife. (St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, Panarion, 78.) Likewise, the sister of His Mother, Mary the wife of Cleopas, who stood with Her at the Cross of the Lord (John 19:25), also had children, who in view of such close kinship with full right could also be called brothers of the Lord. That the so-called brothers and sisters of the Lord were not the children of His Mother is clearly evident from the fact that the Lord entrusted His Mother before His death to His beloved disciple John. Why should He do this if She had other children besides Him? They themselves would have taken care of Her. The sons of Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus, did not consider themselves obliged to take care of one they regarded as their stepmother, or at least did not have for Her such love as blood children have for parents, and such as the adopted John had for Her.
Thus, a careful study of Sacred Scripture reveals with complete clarity the insubstantiality of the objections against the Ever-Virginity of Mary and puts to shame those who teach differently.
*From St. John (Maxomovitch), The Orthodox Veneration of Mary, The Birthgiver of God (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1994), pp. 31-33.
The following was sent to me by Deacon Fr. John Whiteford. It is part of an exchange he had with another Protestant inquirer:
In response to appeals to Matthew 1:25:
First of all we must remember that the Bible was not written in English. The word translated "TILL" in this verse is the same word translated "UNTIL" (or "unto" in the KJV) in Matthew 28:20: "...And behold I am with you always, even UNTIL the end of the age."
Following your logic, we would have to assume that this teaches that after the end of the age Christ will no longer be with us. Also even in English, when we say "Joe did not repent TILL the day he died"?obviously he did not repent afterwards either.
The point of the verse you have cited is plain. It leaves no room for doubting that Christ was not the result of relations between the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph?it says nothing about what happened thereafter, one way or the other.
St. Jerome wrote a very detailed treatise on this subject that one can find in several readily available translations?it is titled "The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary".
Not only was this view held universally in the Early Church, but the Early Reformers all believed it as well. John Wesley did too.
By the way, where in the NT does it say that the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph ever moved beyond betrothal? The Bible speaks of St. Joseph's "espoused" wife?but never mentions anything beyond it.
You Baptists are likely not familiar with the rite of betrothal, but the Traditional understanding thereof is that a betrothal gives a couple all the responsibilities of marriage, but none of the privileges. Once betrothed, one can only break the betrothal with a divorce. Nevertheless, the couple were not permitted to have marital relations until after the marriage ceremony.
In response to the question of whether or not this doctrine only brings glory to the Virgin Mary, and not to God:
This doctrine is not taught for the sake of upholding the sanctity of the Virgin Mary, but because of the uniqueness and holiness of her Son. Consider the following verse:
"Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut." (Ezekiel 44:2).
This has always been interpreted by the Fathers of the Church to be a typological reference to the Virgin Mary and the Incarnation. When we consider that God took flesh from the Virgin's womb, it is not difficult to imagine that this womb would remain virgin.
The bottom line is this has been the consistent and universal view of the Church from the time of the Apostles until today.
This does not mean that sex is dirty, though the Apostles taught that it was better to remain in virginity?though only those who can accept such a life are called to do so. Certainly some are called to this life, and it is blessed by God.
Why then did the Virgin need St. Joseph? That question is valid even if one believes she had other children later?why did she need St. Joseph to give birth to Christ. The answer is obvious: virgins do not as a rule give birth, and Christ would likely have grown up an orphan had he been born to a single mother.
You ask: "So then was Jesus born out of wedlock? Why then did they travel together to be taxed? Why does Luke write Luke 2:48 ?And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.??"
I could ask you the same questions: Why does she refer to Joseph as Christ's Father? Obviously not because he really was his father. Why did they travel together to be taxed when they were clearly only at that time "espoused" or betrothed: "To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child (Luke 2:5). Do you think they were married on the way to Bethlehem, because they clearly were not when they set off in that direction? Furthermore there is no mention of such a marriage ever having taken place?and certainly it would be odd for them to have had such a ceremony with a women "great with child" or even thereafter with a women who had a nursing baby. As I stated, a betrothal gives one all the responsibilities of a marriage without the marital privileges thereof. It can only be broken by a divorce?so in a sense they were married when they were betrothed.
In the Orthodox Church we still have the rite of betrothal, but because it is so serious?and is considered a marriage even if never consummated?it is almost always done these days immediately prior to the wedding ceremony.
You said: "Mary had other children. James is called The Lord's brother. The brothers and sisters who came for Jesus while he was teaching are not cousins as catholic footnotes try to make out, like there is no Greek word for brother."
Do you really believe that the Virgin Mary had another sister from the same parents who was also named Mary (John 19:25)? Also, if these brothers were the children of St. Joseph's brother Cleopas (as the second century Palestinian Christian history Hegessipus records), and if as St. Jerome contends Cleopas had reposed and St. Joseph had taken his brothers widow and children under his care (as was Jewish custom) then these children would of course be called brothers and sisters of our Lord.
Also, I will again point out that the Bible only refers to the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph as being "betrothed" or "espoused". Unless they were subsequently married, they had all the responsibilities of marriage, but would have sinned to have had marital relations with one another. It is clear from the Gospels that they were still only betrothed when they left Nazareth and when the Virgin was "Great with child". Do you suppose they could have gotten married at some point after that without being stoned to death first?
You said: "There's no need to be that specific. Can't it be understood from several Scripture passages (John 2:12; Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; especially Matthew 13:55,56 and Mark 6:3,4; etc.) that what's referred to are Mary and Joseph's offsprings?"
How do you deal with the Mary who is not Christ's mother but who also just happens to be the Virgin Mary's sister and who happens to have kids with the same names as Christ's brothers? How do you deal with the very early testimony of Hegesippus who states plainly that the brethren of the Lord were the Children of St. Joseph's brother Cleopas and his wife Mary?"
See: Matt 27:56, Mark 15:40, 16:1; Luke 24:10; John 19:25 The Matthew account has Mary the mother of James and Joseph. Mark has Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses. John has "his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas". All accounts mention Mary Magdalene separately and Matthew mentions the mother of the sons of Zebedee (who could not also be married to Clopas). This suggests that Mary the wife of Clopas, who is Mary's sister, is the mother of James and Joses, etc.
[Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3:11] "After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and the disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions, with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive), to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with once consent pronounced Symeon, the Son of Cleopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention [note the Gospels only list Symeon as one of the Brother's of the Lord], to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Savior. For Hegesippus records that Cleopas was a brother of Joseph." [note: Hegesippus was a 2nd Century Palestinian Jew. Eusebius preserves one of the few fragments left of his works, since he had access to the great library of Ceasarea and of Alexandria?the contents of which were mostly lost later.]
A few additional points on this subject:
1) The Apostle James, the Son of Alpheaus is not necessarily the same as James the less. They are not connected in the Gospels, though this connection is possible. James the less was the son of Cleopas, but as I have read up on this, it is possible that "Cleopas" is a variant helenized transliteration of the Aramaic name "Chalphi".
2) Yesterday I quoted from Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History in which a fragment from St. Hegesippus was preserved. As I dug about last night, I found some more:
"Some of these heretics, forsooth, laid an information against Symeon the son of Clopas, as being of the family of David, and a Christian. And on these charges he suffered martrydom when he was 120 years old, in the reign of Trajan Caesar, when Atticus was Consular legate in Syria. And it so happened, says the same writer, that, while inquiry was then being made for those belonging to the royal tribe of the Jews, the accusers themselves were convicted of belonging to it. With show of reason it could be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the [wife] of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father. The same historian mentions others also, of the family of one of the reputed brothers of the Savior, named Judas, as having survived until this same reign, after the testimony they bore for the faith of Christ in the time of Domitian, as already recorded. He writes as follows: They came, then, and took the presidency of every church, as witnesses for Christ, and as being of the kindred of the Lord. And after profound peace had been established in every church they remained down to the reign of Trajan Caesar: that is, until the time then he who was sprung from an uncle of the Lord, the aforementioned Symeon son of Clopas, was informed against by various heresies, and subjected to an accusation like the rest, and for the same cause, before the legate Atticus; and while suffering outrage during many days, he bore testimony for Christ: so that all, including the legate himself were astonished above measure that a man 120 years old should have been able to endure such torments. He was finally condemned to be crucified...." [St. Hegesippus [who reposed 170 ad], Fragments from his five books of commentaries on the acts of the Church, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 8, p 762]
Please post a link to where someone calls Mary a goddess or I'll be forced to consider your statement an example of false witness. Thank you.
Well des when I see titles that belong to God given to her that is troublesome to me..I do not want to do another thread on it I think we talked it to death ...When I see almost all prayer (petitions) prayed to Mary it is troublesome to me..
God has told us He is a jealous God and things will not go well with people that give that HIS glory to someone else..
I "like " Mary ..both my girls carry Her name. She is a perfect model in how a godly woman lives her life
This is not about Mary..it is about the transfer of what belongs to the Father to her..or the transference of what belongs to Jesus to her
I do not believe the people doing it are even aware they are doing it ..but trust me God is
Except all of the translations I have seen don't say "before", they say "until" or "till". Up to the point of. Even if the author's intent was not specifically to make a blanket statement on the virginity of Mary, the easier (and more precise and clear) construction would have been to simple say that Joseph had no relations with Mary. There is NO reason to use the "until" (or even before) unless something different happened after.
I do not believe that anybody's salvation depends upon whether they believe in Mary's perpetual virginity or not. If you want to believe that, go ahead. I don't think it takes away from Mary one bit if she consumated her marriage to Joseph after Jesus was born. Nothing wrong with that, is there? My mother and your mother both did. But maybe you're the one with the problem with the sexual revolution. All sex dirty?
(Some sarcasm attached to last comment. Don't get too offended.)
Repeat a lie long enough and…it’s still a lie.
The bottom line it seems to me is that whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or not doesn't matter one wit to Christ's plan for salvation, and Christ's plan for salvation is all that really matters. Marian theology is actually kind of nice, but irrelevant to the basic tenants of Christianity. You can agree with that right?
It seems to me that a person could be a Christian and a Catholic and it wouldn't matter a bit whether the person accepted Marian theology because even in the Catholic world Marian theology is irrelevant to what is fundamentally important to being a Christian. Am I right, fellow Catholics? If not, why?<p
Doesn't it drive you nuts that the bible isn't always clear?
And what makes you believe Matthew would be so eager to imply that?
The scripture citations are given in the article. I don't believe it will be helpful to have me repeat them. I believe that that has already been "boiled down" to the simplest level while still remaining complete.
I know this disrupts the pattern of discussion for those who like to fling out single lines of scripture devoid of all context and subjected to their own personal interpretation of scripture, but we Orthodox have never been comfortable with "bumper sticker" theology.
No. No. No. No. No. No.
I hope your beginning to realize that you do not understand that which you criticize.
"Marian theology" will irk some purist theologians, it should be "Mariology" rather.
What makes Mary so special is the fact that Jesus -- Her Son -- is true God and a true man. Both His humanity and divinity place Mary in a very extraordinary position. The Savior could have come among us in an ordinary family (mom + dad), or directly on a spacecraft, but He was born of a Virgin overshadowed by the Holy Spirit.
Mary is the one human being having the closest relationship with the Holy Trinity, chosen by God the Father to be the Mother of God the Son, overshadowed by God the Holy Spirit.
That's pretty special to me :-)
Of course, that would be "I hope you're beginning" in English! Sigh.
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.