The Annunciation by Eustache Le Sueur,
“The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding.” Leonardo da Vinci
I have often joked with my husband that my goal is to avoid being mentioned by name in any future creed. I am thinking about Pontius Pilate, who is remembered whenever any Christian, anywhere, repeats the Apostles’ Creed.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell.
The third day He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Christian Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen
Many Eastern churches celebrate Pilate and his wife as saints who converted to Christianity. If true, I wonder how he might feel about his sin being remembered repeatedly by millions of people until Jesus returns.
The Virgin mother who had a name: Mary
My Lutheran church repeats the Apostles’ or Nicene Creed each week. I have been contemplating Mary for the last week, and her name jumped out at me in the Creed: “born of the Virgin Mary.” There are only two names in the Creed” Pontius Pilate and Mary. The Old Testament prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 prophesied that A Virgin would conceive and bear a Son who was to be called Immanuel.
The Apostles’ Creed put a name to that virgin so that everyone would not only remember that she was a virgin, a nameless, pristine womb but a young Jewish woman, probably around 14-15, with a name. The writers of the Creed decided that everybody needed to remember her name and to repeat it regularly as they repeated the Creed.
Interestingly, these creeds didn’t mention the names of the disciples, not even Paul, who had quite a conversion experience and would go on to write most of the epistles. No prophecies in the Old Testament prophesied the rise of Calvinism, and indeed, no creeds which are repeated regularly mention John Calvin or John Piper. Mary is remembered.
The Creed didn’t call her “Joseph’s wife who was a virgin until the birth of Jesus.” Nope. They wanted us to know her name, “Mary.” A simple, beautiful name of a beautiful and significant woman. Yet, mention her name and ask why we don’t feature her more often, and one might get an answer like:
“You know those Catholics who made up lots of stuff about her means we good Proestants need to avoid going down that path.”
I had a Catholic friend who told me that we “evangelicals” would understand women better if we paid more attention to Mary. I didn’t fully understand him then, but I think he had a point I missed. Mary is important, and some of us think about her in passing. I am pointing fingers at myself and many pastors I have known.
Mary was the first to experience the indwelling presence of Jesus.
As a Lutheran, I believe in the real presence of Jesus in communion. All Christians speak of Jesus being “alive in me.” Those of us who have experienced the miracle of pregnancy can talk about the profound nature of a child growing inside and the tremendous pain and overwhelming joy of childbirth. I wonder how even more profound it was for Mary, who had Jesus alive and present in her.
I began to think about the genuine danger of childbirth in Mary’s day. However, Mary was given a promise by the angel who visited her. Luke 1:26-38 NIV:
The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”
29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be.30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.”
38 “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Then the angel left her.
- Mary is told she is highly favored and has been chosen to bear the Son of God.
- Mary is troubled at first and is told to be at peace. She was given the “peace that passes all understanding.” I believe it was supernatural.
- She was told she would conceive and give birth to a son. Therefore, the fear of dying in childbirth is removed from her.
- She was told the delivery would go so well that she could name him Jesus.
- She was told that Jesus would be given the throne of David. This would remove the fear of him dying of childhood illnesses.
- She would conceive via the Holy Spirit.
- She was given a friend to talk to during this difficult and unusual time. Elizabeth, her cousin, was also experiencing an unexpected pregnancy. Elizabeth’s unborn child leaped in the womb when pregnant Mary visited.
- Joseph is not discussed, but an angel (was it the same one?) told him to stay with Mary.
- Mary is not told, at this time, of the pain Jesus would experience in his 30s.
- She assented to what was going to happen. One need only read the Magnificat to know that she was all in on this one. At her age, she learned about childbirth and the community’s rejection if one was pregnant outside of wedlock. The best part of it was this. She would have the very real presence of Jesus with her in an amazing way, starting with the “Holy Embryo.”
Mary and Simeon: Another encouragement and a hint of pain to come.
When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”[a]), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”[b]25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him. 26 It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah. 27 Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, 28 Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying:
29 “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you may now dismiss[c] your servant in peace.
30 For my eyes have seen your salvation,
31 which you have prepared in the sight of all nations:
32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and the glory of your people Israel.”33 The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him. 34 Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, 35 so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.”
36 There was also a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37 and then was a widow until she was eighty-four.[d] She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. 38 Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.
39 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. 40 And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was on him.
- Simeon says this Jesus was to be a light to the Gentiles, which probably caused some concern in the Temple and confusion for Mary.
- Mary heard Simeon say Jesus would be Israel’s glory, which was an encouragement.
- Then Mary is told that a sword would pierce her heart which probably caused her concern. One day, she would remember this when during Jesus’ suffering. Yet, she carried on.
- Jesus grew up strong and was full of wisdom which gave Mary peace for a time.
- Anna was a prophetess who lived in the Temple for around 60 years and told them Jesus would redeem Jerusalem. Did they keep a woman in the Temple for 60 years? Was she in charge of the infant ministry? Nope: she was a prophetess.
Mary daily experienced the presence of Jesus.
Mary kept silent about what living with Jesus was like. We know she must have learned a lot from him due to this experience when he was 12.
41 Every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Festival of the Passover. 42 When he was twelve years old, they went up to the festival, according to the custom. 43 After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44 Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45 When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”
49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”[a] 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.
51 Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.
I remember when a good friend left her son at Chuck E Cheese. Thankfully, I was still there when she called me, crying, and I brought him home. Mary got a bit of a surprise when she “misplaced” Jesus.
- Jesus was 12 when this happened.
- Jesus was so obedient that Joseph and Mary assumed he was traveling home with a family and friend group.
- They realized he was missing and went to look for him. It took them four days to find him, and they were put out by it. They blamed him for their anxiety.
- Jesus was in the temple courts asking questions and giving answers, and the teachers were impressed by him.
- Jesus told his parent that they should have known he would be in “my Father’s house.”
- Mary and Joseph didn’t understand what he was saying. Was Jesus giving them hints about what was to come?
- He went home with them and was obedient.
- He grew in wisdom and stature and found favor with God and man.
- Mary didn’t talk much about what had happened. Why? Was she told by God, Jesus, or the angel not to talk about what was happening at home?
- Mary didn’t understand why Jesus didn’t tell them where He would be. Why? My guess is Jesus hinted at things, but she was distracted, a lot like me, and didn’t pick up on His clues. It is possible that she had difficulty understanding what He was teaching her.
There is more to write, and I may do so this week. At this point, I have some questions for Mary.
- Jesus was brilliant. When you told him stories, did he ask you lots of questions?
- Did you have to teach him to buckle his sandal or how to get dressed?
- Did you worry about him choking on a cookie?
- Did He refuse to eat foods He didn’t like, did he change the flavor of the foods He didn’t like or did he like all foods? For example, instead of eating broccoli, did he turn it into ice cream?
- Did He come to you crying when he fell or felt sick?
- Were the prophecies confusing? Did you worry about the difficult one that would “pierce your soul?”
- Did you ever cry after you went to bed?
- Did the child Jesus ever comfort you when you were sad?
- Did the Pharisees act uncomfortable around you?
- Did any of the teachers come to you to ask what you thought about all of this?
- Were you embarrassed around people who whispered about your child conceived out of wedlock?
- Did you ever feel like saying, “You think your little Moishe is so special? My kid is God?” I know you wouldn’t say it but did you ever feel like it?
- If you got into a fight with Joseph or the other kids, did Jesus intervene and tell you to calm down?
- Did you ever ask Jesus hard questions like “Why me? What makes me so different than any other Jewish girl?”
- Did you ever sit with Jesus and let Him explain the Scriptures?
A question for all: Would today’s complementarians have a problem with a woman coming to the pulpit to speak the words of the Magnificat?
Rich Mullins had some questions for Jesus. Sort of like my questions for Mary. I thought it would make an interesting ending to this post.
“Would today’s complementarians have a problem with a woman coming to the pulpit to speak the words of the Magnificat?”
Well, the menfolk would. No doubt.
However, If it happened in my presence, I would thoroughly enjoy taunting them a little with this: The very first mortal human that Jesus touched was a young woman. He spent 9 months with Mary before he ever even looked at a man with his physical eyes.
Well, it is true.
“Anna was a prophetess who lived in the Temple for around 60 years and told them Jesus would redeem Jerusalem. Did they keep a woman in the Temple for 60 years? Was she in charge of the infant ministry? Nope: she was a prophetess.”
Good point here, Dee.
“ and indeed, no creeds which are repeated regularly mention John Calvin or John Piper.”
Say what!?
Nice post, Dee. The Mary revealed in Scripture is neither the fictional sinless ever-virgin of Catholicism nor the marginalized woman of Complementarianism. She bore other children. She consummated her marriage to Joseph, being obedient to God’s plan to fill the earth with image-bearers. One of her other children would become the “first pope,” James, the leader of the Jerusalem church. Mary was a sinner who struggled to fathom the mission of her eldest son. In her weakest moment she attempted with her other unbelieving children to stop Jesus from fulfilling his ministry, assuming that he had lost his senses. She was entrusted and empowered to be the guardian of the God-child, an incredible responsibility.
Mary is not the co-mediatrix to whom we should pray for assistance in finishing our uncompleted salvation, as in my dearly departed sister’s favorite prayer, the Memorare. She is rather a fine example of a woman truly blessed by God with an important ministry. All believing women in a spiritual sense are blessed as Mary was, because they have the real presence of Christ in them, the hope of glory.
All church tradition before a few hundred years ago affirms her perpetual virginity. If she had other children, it seems like this should have been documented in early writings. Even Calvin chastised those who rejected her perpetual virginity.
Hi Ken. Actually Calvin did not hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary. He claimed that this would be “absurd” and “make a mockery of the covenant of marriage.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin%27s_views_on_Mary#:~:text=At%20the%20same%20time%2C%20Calvin,treachery%20by%20allowing%20herself%20to
He spoke both ways about it. Here is a RC sources with quotes from Calvin about it.
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/calvinism-affirmed-perpetual-virginity
Well, here is Calvin’s commentary on Luke 1:34:
“The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, 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.”
While Calvin may have considered James and Jude as cousins of Jesus, he did not accept her perpetual virginity.
If the bible is real, I don’t believe that Mary remained a virgin. the new testament talks about Mary’s other children, James is mentioned by name.
Like the idea Peter never married when the bible mentions his mother in law.
The whole perpetual virgin idea dehumanizes Mary and makes her more than human.
By extension this ‘virginity’ becomes a feminine ideal impressed on all women. It’s another patriarchal control, women are either need to be protected from wolves or controlled to prevent them becoming temptresses.
For this forum, I’ll put on my old Christian hat.
I always believed that Jesus was human like me. This was the point of the exercise.
I also believed that Mary was a woman, like my mom. She nursed Jesus when he was sick, changed his diaper, wiped his face.
I believe that Joseph took him to work, taught him his trade, gave him advice.
Jesus and his family were humans in every sense of the word. That’s why Jesus resonated with others during his ministry. He looked like you, he spoke like you and spoke to you. The divine came into everyday experience.
I read a book a while ago about the Gospels that didn’t make it into the bible.
My favorite was the toddler Christ having a temper tantrum and smiting his playmates. Mary and Joseph not knowing what to do with their holy powered son. happy ending, Jesus comes to his senses and makes everything right.
I think this illustrates how people humanized the Holy family and made them their own. Who hasn’t dealt with a child temper tantrum?
If Jesus was truly human, who knows?
Also Calvin:
“There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company….And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second.”
(Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.)
Even Calvin rejected the view that the Bible says she did not remain a virgin. His only reason to reject it boils down to conjugal rights.
As far as I have been able to find, belief in her perpetual virginity was universal before the reformation. It was one of the facts I did not want to find when I started diving into church history. Do you have any evidence showing when the belief in her perpetual virginity started? If it was not believed from the beginning there should be evidence for when it started.
I’m Protestant, and have moved squarely into the Paleo-Orthodox camp. Last Sunday, and in 2021, I preached on Luke 1 and Mary’s experience, in an Advent series. I had three points: The Annunciation, The Theotokos, and The Magnificat.
I especially enjoy teaching on the Theotokos, quotng Saint Cyril of Alexandria and Saint Athanasius when I can. I think most Protestants are unaware of Mary’s significance. I know I was, even through Seminary, until I began reading the Fathers.
My Greek Orthodox and Russian orthodox speak about the Theotokos and St Cyril! I am sold on this view. Write a bit more if you have time.
I have always believed that this is true. However, we do not have absolute proof. We know there were other children and especially James, who would eventually follow Jesus and become a martyr. There are theories that they were children of family members who died, etc. They could also have been children of Joseph from another marriage in which the wife died.
I do know that many in the early church and the church of the Middle Ages believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity. I have no problem with this belief since the Scripture is not adamant on this point. However, I still lean toward the traditional evangelical view, but I could possibly be convinced elsewise.
In the end, it is not necessary for salvation.
Pastor John,
I couldn’t resist.
Burwell Stark,
Mr. Stark, I’m glad you found your way to ‘the Fathers’ . . . they belong to all who believe in Our Lord 🙂
“Thy way is in the sea, and Thy path in the great waters, and Thy footsteps are not known”
(Psalm 77:19)
Because Mary is too ROMISH, i.e. Enemy Christians.
“If we Must stand because Enemy Christians kneel, that is Protestantism taken to its most sterile extreme.”
— Thomas Howard, Evangelical is Not Enough
dee,
I will. Thank you.
Bible: Mark and John are silent as regards whether Jesus’s mother (Mary in Mark, unnamed in John) was a virgin when Jesus was born or not. Luke says she was. Matthew implies she was and also states the marriage was not consummated until Jesus was born. John never names Jesus’s mother though she is depicted (wedding at Cana and at the foot of the cross). Matthew and Mark mention Jesus having brothers (Mark also mentions sisters); Luke and John do not mention siblings. Paul mentions James as a brother of the Lord and a/the leader of the Jerusalem group (Acts mentions James leader of the Jerusalem group but does not give a relationship to Jesus).
Josephus mentions the death of James brother of a wonder working Jesus.
The belief of Mary being ever virgin was widespread by the late second century though in two parts: did her hymen remained unbroken even after giving birth to Jesus and did she ever know Joseph and have later children. It was debated; for instance Jovian (late 300s) argued against the former.
Catholic tradition is the mentioned brothers and sisters are cousins. Orthodox tradition is that they are older half-siblings, children of Joseph by a previous marriage.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
“The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, 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.
We must reply, however, to another objection, that the virgin refers to the future, and so declares that she will have no intercourse with a man. The probable and simple explanation is, that the greatness or rather majesty of the subject made so powerful an impression on the virgin, that all her senses were bound and locked up in astonishment. When she is informed that the Son of God will be born, she imagines something unusual, and for that reason leaves conjugal intercourse out of view. “(Calvin Commentary on Harmony of the Gospels).
But on the other hand Augustine in De Virginitate says “ IV] 4. Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her her conception; “How,” saith she, “shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, “How shall this take place?” and had not added, “seeing I know not a man,” certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. She might have been bidden also to continue a virgin, that in her by fitting miracle the Son of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a pattern to holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be a virgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexual intercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of command; through love of choosing, not through necessity of doing service. Thus Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free.”
There are three main views
“The three major views have come to be known by the names of their fourth-century proponents: Helvidius, Epiphanius and Jerome. The Helvidian view, which probably most modern exegetes, even including some Roman Catholic scholars, hold, is that the brothers were sons of Joseph and Mary, born after Jesus. The Epiphanian view, which is the traditional view in the Eastern Orthodox churches, is that they were sons of Joseph by a marriage prior to his marriage to Mary, and so were older than Jesus. The Hieronymian view, which through Jerome’s influence became the traditional western Catholic view, is that they were first cousins of Jesus.” (Richard Baukham in Themelios)
What I am about to say is just my opinion, and I will be blunt, but here goes……
Concerning the question of Mary’s perpetual virginity: Marriage is a holy commitment that two people make to one another, before God, with certain expectations. I do not believe that God would have asked two people, two of His “chosen” to commit themselves to what would basically be a mock marriage, for any reason.
I dunno. Maybe Mary and Joseph both said okey-dokey. I just don’t think so.
Lowlandseer,
There is also a lengthy and detailed account of the views in “A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels” edited by James Hastings, 1906.
Nancy2(aka Kevlar),
My view also.
Nancy2(aka Kevlar),
Well, Nancy2, I agree, as long as you went first in being blunt, I will too and say that I have been very amused today while reading some very long responses today debating (discussing) the state of Mary’s virginity. Mary. The Mother of Jesus. Born roughly two millenia ago.
I’m easily amused though. Forgive me.
Nancy2(aka Kevlar),
Double Amen here Nancy.
Mary knew more about Jesus, than Peter, Paul, Andrew, John, or whomever.
They can craft their ‘theology’ from now until hell freezes over, and I’ll still pick Mary every time.
That feller had a little somethin’ to say about the physical relationship between a husband and a wife, didn’t he??!!!
I like these posts about Mary. I haven’t taken a lot of time to go through them and all the comments, thoroughly, but it is interesting to reflect on. As I can, in these busy times, I’ll likely go over them again. I haven’t dug into the historical view of how Mary was viewed by early and later church “fathers” or “mothers.” It is generous of those who have done much research to post a bit of your knowledge here for the rest of us. Some days I have time and attention for long posts, at other times, I need to skim and prioritize. Did the church “mothers” voices make it into the records? I wonder, too, what happened to Mary Magdalene’s story, really? This Mary also has a special relationship with Jesus, although, definitely not the same role as Mary, the Mother of Jesus, did.
I’ve never been Catholic. Mary was not emphasized in the conservative church that I spent time in when I was young, which was the Church of Christ, in a very small farming community. My parents and grandparents were not big players in church leadership, although my mom connected more often than her parents, or my dad, did with church life. My great grand parents, on my mother’s side, were devout and happily married and passionate about church life from what I’ve been told.
Later as a middle-aged adult, I had warmth for the consideration for Mary’s special role with Jesus, that Catholics practiced. I didn’t know about the perpetual virginity thing until much later in my life. I have mostly thought that the physical resurrection of Jesus was a priority, but given belief in that, Mary being a virgin while pregnant with Jesus would be easy to accept if one accepted the resurrection. God is greater than the created, so when God desires to intervene in the natural, tweak the stuff made by his own hands, it makes some sort of sense to me that that could happen.
Jesus is unique and Mary had a unique role in Jesus’ story and life. It doesn’t seem as important whether she was perpetually a virgin, or not, after Jesus’ birth. In speculating (possibly a bad habit, especially since I haven’t researched this topic for myself) maybe early church leaders put both the virginity of Mary at conception and the later resurrection at the same level of “essential” and in order to shore up that same level they spun a “perpetual” virginity teaching.
From my context, I believe Mary and Joseph were husband and wife and Joseph accepted the terms and followed God sent angelic instructions. I also believe Mary never forgot God headship, meaning, in part, IMO, that she could relate to Joseph as a cultural brother, even at her young age, (an equal) and not as her rescuer, also that Joseph was being used by God, in agreement with God, to help Mary, but not at the same level as God. So, her awareness of God headship, her favor and unique role and equal partnering (not the same role) with Joseph would be “perpetual God-awareness” and more important than “perpetual virginity,” IMO.
That is what I had always believed and wanted to believe, until I investigated church history and found the belief in her perpetual virginity was universal before the reformation, and even most of the reformers affirmed it. This was not the information I was hoping and expecting to find.
The Eastern Orthodox reasons for believing it are compelling. Most of the arguments against it by protestants boil down to the assumption pelvic needs must be met (see quotes by Calvin above).
This article is representative of the EO view, but it does not mention the EO beliefs that Joseph was an elderly widower who was tasked to marry her because the lot fell to him when Mary, who had been dedicated to the temple as a young child by her parents, became of age and had to leave the temple.
https://www.saintjohnchurch.org/was-mary-always-a-virgin/
I taught a two-year course on church history that I put together with another person. Since joining the LCMS church, I have constantly been challenged as a former SBC/nondenominational person. They have taught me much-especially about the interaction of the Law and the Gospel. However, the thing that startled me, and I was not aware of it, was that the early church practiced the presence of Jesus in the communion.
I spent a long time thinking about this. We have no problem believing the Holy Spirit resides in us, so why would we be opposed to the thought that Jesus is present in communion?
Before I joined the LCMS, I came to terms with this teaching and decided they had a carefully thought-out theology that I accepted. So much so that most evangelical groups also accept them. The older I get, the more I realize I have much to learn.
Another good point.
perhaps the ‘literal’ translation of sacred Scriptures was a problem that arose in those centuries following the ‘Reformation’,
when it became the practice of ‘sola Scriptura’ to the point where a faulty literal translation or misunderstood passage was adopted that ‘ruled out’ the traditions handed down through the ages in the RC and the EO (the centers of the Christian faith coming out of Jerusalem to the first areas to be Christianized . . . Alexandria, Rome, etc.
The thing is that even BEFORE there was a ‘written Word’, there was a spoken Word and prayers were said and traditions were formed prior to the ‘writing down’ of the accounts in the NT
in fact, one of the ‘tests’ for inclusion of something into the formal NT was for the Councils to examine whether or not something had been in practice (spoken or ritual) in ALL of the main five centers that grew out from Jerusalem. It is said that much of the NT was spoken and prayed BEFORE it was written down,
and when the Lord ‘tarried’ (did not immediately return), it was thought to write down accounts so that ‘the treasure that was handed down’ would not be lost to the future. . .
but not EVERYTHING was written down, so the ‘sola Scriptura’ contained enough of what was necessary to know for purposes of salvation, but not all that the Lord said and did.
Even the Bible speaks of this. . . .
concerning ‘virginity being perpetual’, even an old mountain song of the Scots-Irish speaks to that:
‘When Joseph was an old man, an old man was he
He married Virgin Mary, the Queen of Galilee
He married Virgin Mary, the Queen of Galilee . . . ‘
dee,
One of the quotes I used in last week’s Advent sermon is:
IMO, that reducess the “Theotokos” argument down to the main idea: if we believe that Jesus is the eternally begotten Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, then we must refer to Mary as the “God-bearer”, for the Child in her womb is God. If we refer to her in any other way (e.g., Christokos or “Christ-bearer”), then we are implying that the Child is something less than God, which is blasphemy, intentional or not.
Blinkers, I was a Christian for about 30 years and I still have no clue what the Trinity was about.
God was his own son, ok, time to retreat from theology for a while.
Apparently my Anglican confirmation classes were not effective.
That is a misrepresentation of historical Christianity. The Trinity is no more possible to understand than any other info infite deity. EO say we cannot know God in his essence, we can only know him through his energies. Search on “orthodox essence energies” for details.
Jack,
The writings of theologian Alister Mcgrath have been an enormous help to me in this area.
*Anglican theologian
Burwell Stark,
I had to re-read, and think a bit, but this makes perfect sense to me. After all, the Son of God existed for -seriously – God only knows for how long before Mary did.
Burwell Stark,
The song I played two blog posts ago says that this Baby in her womb was the maker of the moon. It was not only a good rhyme.
Burwell Stark,
I like McGrath! Good suggestion
Great point. If Christ is God then mafry was the God-bearer.
Thanks for the info. No harm in seeing what he says.
Ok, I’ll check it out. I’m in the market for reading material. I have a trans Pacific to prepare for in February.
Trans Pacific flight…..
Jack,
Excellent points Jack, and I concur.
Yeah, and supposedly never married.
I take Paul with a little more than a few grains of salt.
Yeah, I know, pure heresy in some circles.
But oh well as they say, I am what I am.
People might want to read the Infancy Gospel of James also called the Protevangelium of James which is not canonical but does contain stories that the relatively early church (mid to late second century) circulated about Mary, Joseph, and baby Jesus
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html
Note that much of the debate about Mary and her virginity also had to do with what many then perceived as the better worth of the virgin state to the non-virgin post wedding state.
Erp,
I read it yesterday afternoon but have to admit I found the argument based on it, subsequently used by RCC to promote Mary, a bit of a stretch.
I also looked through the Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries and found that only 9 of the 127 declared the perpetual virginity of Mary. The most surprising thing for me was to see that Beza agreed with it in his two Confessions.
I’ve clearly got too much time on my hands. :-j
A great read on Mary:
“I am the Lord’s Servant” https://www.1517.org/articles/i-am-the-lords-servant
That.
That.
christiane,
From Elizabeth Poston, The Second Penguin Book of Carols (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1970)
“Joseph and Mary (‘The Cherry Tree Carol’) – really a ballad and widely current in European folklore, bearing traces of its early antecedents in the legend from the apocryphal gospel of pseudo-Matthew in which the tree, true to local colour, is a date-palm. In European versions it becomes apple and cherry. The cherry tree version is in the Coventry play of The Miraculous Birth and the Midwives; also in English broadsides, and in Hone, Sandys, Sylvester and Husk. Sharp and Karpeles collected it in the Southern Appalachians (Folk Songs from the Southern Appalachians, Oxford, 1932, i, 90 ff., six variants); John Jacob Niles in Kentucky (Seven Mountain Songs, 1928, G. Schirmer Inc., New York). A!so: JAFL xlv, 13; xxix, 293 and 417; JFSS iii, 260. This exquisitely meditative tune from Kentucky (AFS 1010 A1) is a solo-type folk ballad of outstanding beauty, the simple parable a quaint and touching instance of the domestic scene as envisaged’ through the eyes of simple folk and applied to the Holy Family
“The allusion in stanza 9 to Christ’s birthday is in keeping with the song’s antiquity. 25 December was appointed by the Roman emperor Aurelian in 274 as the festival in Rome of the unconquered sun (natalis soils invicti), celebrations of the winter solstice that were transformed by the Christian church into the festivals of Christmas and Epiphany in which various pre-Christian elements survived. The date of Christ’s birth, near to the Feast of the Passover, is unknown. The first mention of the Feast of the Nativity as being on 25 December occurs in a Roman almanac for Christians of A.D. 354, although Christmas had been celebrated on that date in Rome since at least eighteen years earlier. In the eastern part of the Roman empire the birth and the baptism of Jesus were celebrated on 6 January, the day on which Christmas is still observed by the Armenian Church. In the course of the fourth century the celebration of Christmas on 25 December was adopted in the east except by Jerusalem. In the west its observance on that date spread from Rome to become general in the sixth century, the two great Christian festivals of winter remaining closely linked in the Twelve Days of Christmas.”
All of these comments and contributions from people of various backgrounds have made me wonder …….. how many different versions of the Bible are there, or have there been. I know there have been around 1,000 versions of the King James alone. What about Christian faiths that do not use the KJV?
“Christian hateth Mary whom God kissed in Galilee…”
— G.K.Chesterton, “Lepanto”
It’s a Litmus Test of “Whose Side Are You On?”
Like Married or Single Clergy.
Like a lot of ha-Tanakh.
Oral tradition that was later written down, though on a much tighter timeline.
Headless Unicorn Guy,
“ the last hurrah for the united European ideal at the heart of Roman Catholicism – united by ‘swords about the Cross’. ” I’ll stick with the reformers.
Sorry this is going to be longish.
A lot depends on what one means by ‘the Bible’. Jews use the Tanakh in Hebrew (with a few small bits in Aramaic). Tanakh is an acronym of the names of the three parts of Torah (Law), Nevi’im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings). Samaritans use only their version of the Hebrew Torah (Hebrew but written in a somewhat different script, there are a few significant differences). A very early translation was into Greek (the Septuagint) along with some books that were originally written in Greek (and a few where there is debate). The modern “Old Testament” in Christianity is the Tanakh though with some serious rearrangement of the books after the first 5 (the Torah part). Because most early Christians didn’t know Hebrew but did know Greek (the lingua franca for the eastern part of the Roman empire) most used the Greek Septuagint and later translations were often done from that.
In the early centuries of the Christian Era both Jews and Christians were deciding which books were canonical; those in the Torah and Nevi’im (Prophets, note this includes Joshua, Judges, 1&2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings but not Daniel) had been accepted long before. Christians accepted what Jews call the Ketuvim (Writings) though the books of Daniel and Esther are notably extended. Early Christians also generally accepted what are now called the Deuterocanonical books or Apocrypha with the Orthodox accepting a few more than the Roman Catholic (and the Ethiopian church accepting even more). Christians generally agree on the books that make up the New Testament though this took several centuries.
The Protestant reformers dropped the status of the Deuterocanonical books and removed the non-Tanakh parts of Esther and Daniel. If they show up in Protestant Bibles, they are clearly separated (the Apocrypha).
So we have Hebrew, Samaritan, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Bibles (leaving aside the Ethiopian collection and some other variants). Two other factors affect how many Bible variants there are. First is until the printing press books were copied by hand and changes could easily creep in such as scribal errors in copying or scribal correction of what they saw as previous scribal errors or even scribal inclusion into the text of what were originally notes on the text that the scribe didn’t recognize as notes. Jews recognized this as an issue so at some point introduced ways of trying to ensure a copy of a book of the Tanakh especially of the Torah was exact (the Masoretic Text); however, this was after many centuries of not so careful copying. Second is translation; translation of any lengthy text can never be exact as far as meaning so every single translation is a different work (see the debate about translating Almah). As far as translations, I think German speaking Protestants look to Luther Bible much like English speaking Protestants look to the KJV though I’m not sure whether there are any Luther Bible only groups out there.
However early translations can give us information about what the original (or at least an earlier) text had. For example consider an original written work, the Ur text, scribes copy directly from it producing text A, B, C and so on, each slightly different. Text A is sent elsewhere and copied to produce texts A1, A2, A3 and so on; these in turn are copied to produce A1A, A1B,…, A2A,…. Similarly for texts B and C and so on. Time causes the original written work to be lost as well as many copies. Lets say version C5B2A4 gets sent to Egypt where it is translated into Greek to produce GrA and that translation spawns more copies. In version C1A2C4C7A1 a scribal error happened so that a piece of text says a king died at age 7 (the text he was copying had 37) and his son ruled after him. Fast forward and all we have left are texts descended from C1A2C4C7A1 with ‘7’ and texts descended from GrA with ’37’. A scholar looking at these will have to weigh whether the original language ‘7’ or the translated language ’37’ is more likely to be closer to the original. This case is fairly straightforward since 7 year olds rarely have sons. Less straightforward if the texts had ’37’ and ’73’.
Erp,
“The belief of Mary being ever virgin was widespread by the late second century though in two parts: did her hymen remained unbroken even after giving birth to Jesus”
+++++++++++++++++++++
well, if one needs a new way to say “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”, this is an alternative.
Erp,
Longish – yes, but definitely worth the read! Some of this I knew, but quite a bit didn’t.
Thank you!!!
….and no arguing (in the negative or hurtful sense). Comments and contributions are (and have been) done and made with respect, even when there might be disagreement(s).
I’ve read things I’ve never heard of before (meant in a positive sense), read many different perspectives (and could understand how different people might define and / or interpret a single word, and how that single word, defined and / or interpreted in different ways by those people, might lead to a completely different understanding), and no one’s had the equivalent of an online “meltdown”.
Thank you to everyone (including those whose articles and posts I read) for your comments and contributions.
The real question about the angels, is what are they dancing to?
1)The Blue Danube?
2)In the Mood (Glenn Miller)?
3)Disco Inferno?
The heart of a woman is deeper than the ocean.
Those kinds of guys have no inkling.
And even if they did, they’d never cotton to it.
This one may be a bridge too far for some, but…… uhmmmm….. I’ll throw it out there anyway:
The Doobie Bros.- Jesus Is Just Alright with Me ???
Nancy2(aka Kevlar),
Regarding the dancing of angels, this:
“I don’t care how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin. It’s
enough to know that for some people
they exist, and that they dance.
Mary Oliver (1935 – 2019)
Love Love Love Mary Oliver! She gets it. The ‘wonder’. 🙂
(I slept earlier and have got up.) All, there’s no cause to throw your hands up about true theology. Just be open, commonsensical and dig for it.
Muff Potter,
1 – Peter says Paul’s style of teaching is hard to follow (not to keep)
2 – The phrase is hedged about because it is a metaphor. The weight of meaning is about Christ and the (real) church as depicted in what I have written below about Holy Trinity and the voice of children.
3 – All Scriptures – like all words on all subjects – are meant to have meanings, unlike what religious authority tells you
4 – TRIGGER ALERT BEGINS: Paul may not have been fit to marry after having been flogged so many times. That world was not like the Reformed British Navy (in theory) became, only on the back, only above the belt. END OF TRIGGER ALERT
5 – Why would you want to misinterpret like the wimpish and snakish misinterpreters that have dominated the scene? Why not develop your own examination?
6 – It’s just like I keep saying, Scriptures are God’s gauntlet to the church and not to the world, not to keep lying.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
Holy Trinity models space for the other other, namely the orphan. This goes right beyond Buber and Scheler.
dee,
They were called upon to discern the Body “and for this reason many have died”. This means:
i – they became dead hands, a dead weight, dead in the water, dead on their feet, just like their dead hand, dead weight, dead in the water, dead on its feet god – the god of Bismarck, which Nietzsche gently proposed we consider writing off.
ii – to discern the Body is to hear the voice of children. That is what Real Presence is. Protestants neurotically swallowed whole, superstitions about the sense of “substance”, watering them down instead of searching for a real paradigm. (The early Orthodox saw communion as part of initiation into the whole gospel.) When any of us ceases to tread down the gifts that were distributed unvetoed, when we trust Holy Spirit in each other, we are discerning the Body.
That is what it is to “eat My Body and drink this cup”: to sacrifice our level of “comfort” to ensuring the integrity of our fellow and of the young who are following us – especially by supplication and by talking with them the walk (because they can only mete the measure that was meted unto them) – because they will need it because of the hardships they will face (the dominionists failed in their “policy goal” of making it be a better world from now on).
BUT when these latter conditions are fulfilled the reality of Presence might enter into experience as supposed. No amount of sentimentality will make it so otherwise. I think it’s fair enough to hold differing stances AS LONG AS the gifts in the little ones are honoured and Holy Spirit is trusted in them, otherwise those stances are no use either.
Is faith a boutique accessory for the upper crust? Three of my grandparents changed religion twice because of Kaiser Bill. Are Christians supposed to think history is – “history”?
Muff Potter,
I meant to add, you are only a heretic if you follow the big time heretics, not otherwise.
dee,
Nice one.
This is the obvious sole real solution, which is why it gets rejected.
Nancy2(aka Kevlar),
Another good choice.
I’ll second the motion.
That.
Many protestants don’t know the historical importance of this title, so in their fear of Mariology they start sounding like Nestorians. Chistotokos was literally the title the heretical Nestorians insisted was correct. I remain surprised by how strongly many protestants continue to reject the historically correct title even after having been informed about the Nestorian heresy and its rejection at the 3rd ecumenical council.
Muff Potter,
disco inferno, without a doubt.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
Many Protestants simply do not want to know.
Ignorance is strength as Orwell once observed.
Muff. You’re making a typo in your email address which is causing your comments to be moderated. GBTC
Thanks GBTC, the fix is in.
The Blue Danube, and the second movement of Beethoven’s 7th Symphony, have something in common: that is, they were both used as the background music for a sci-fi film. There, however, the similarities end. One of those pieces is a towering work of genius; the other is the Blue Danube.
That….so many people seem to have difficulty with mystery, with the unexplainable (like Mary – Jesus’ mother, the Trinity).
Nick Bulbeck,
I would agree somewhat, and the only ‘somewhat’ is that you can’t refill your champagne glass and dance to the Allegretto – Beethoven’s 7th.
Different stuff for different purposes I guess.
Yep, I used to just accept it but as I got older, saw and experienced more of life, it just stopped making sense.
The nature of faith.
elastigirl,
Disco inferno would be my choice too.
Well, I certainly like your style there!
It’s a Threat to their Sacred Testosterone.
Like medieval Witches stealing the shlongs of Godly Christian Manly-Men.
As in ESS?
Muff Potter,
This is a sad situation because on rare occasions that I see Beethoven played with some swing, I feel that is the real Beethoven (likewise Schumann et al). Additionally modern “orchestras” are too big and some instruments don’t sound like the sound composers wanted. Shutting out listeners and players alike.
You Said Da Sekrit Woid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG8TyIEAqps