BACK TO ARCHIVE

THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY

Mary is a “hot button” for most Protestant Christians coming into the Church. But most of their issues are misperceptions and assumptions based on their rejection of Roman Catholicism. As a recent article in Christianity Today (Nov. 2003) states, it is time for Evangelicals to re-examine Mary in light of Scripture and the whole of Christian tradition, and not merely from a reaction to perceptions of Roman Catholicism.
The article calls Evangelicals back to a balanced view of Mary. The reality is that the Orthodox Church has held Mary in balance from the beginning: She is not worshipped (as many Evangelicals believe that some Catholic Christians seem to do), nor is she ignored as virtually all Protestant Evangelical Christians do. The reality is that many facts regarding Mary have not been evaluated on their own merit by many modern Protestants, but have been lumped together and wholesale discarded simply because they are found within the scope of Roman Catholic piety.

We will examine the issue of the perpetual virginity of Mary and what the Scriptures say, what the early Church Fathers taught and believed, and what the pillars of the Reformation taught and believed.

In Luke 1 Mary says: “From henceforth ALL GENERATIONS shall call me blessed.”
What has happened in Church history is that all generations up until the 18-19th centuries did that.
Since then Mary has been at best ignored and at worst denigrated by Protestant Christians since then. The current attitude toward Mary we find among Evangelicals today is a recent innovation in Christian thought in the grand scope of Church history, including the Reformation.

The Church Fathers on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

St. Athanasius (293-373); Epiphanius (315-403); Jerome (345-419); Augustine (354-430); St. Cyril of Alexandria, (376-444); St. Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, St. John Chrysostom, St. Epiphanius, St. Basil, St. Isidore, St. Ildefonsus, St. Jerome devotes his entire treatise against Helvidius to the perpetual virginity of Mary (see especially nos. 4, 13, 18). All these affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary.

The contrary doctrine is called:
- "madness and blasphemy" by Gennadius (De dogm. eccl., lxix),
- "madness" by Origen (in Luc., h, vii),
- "sacrilege" by St. Ambrose (De instit. virg., V, xxxv),
- "impiety and smacking of atheism" by Philostorgius (VI, 2),
- "perfidy" by St. Bede (hom. v, and xxii),
- "full of blasphemies" by the author of Prædestin. (i, 84),
- "perfidy of the Jews" by Pope Siricius (ep. ix, 3),
- "heresy" by St. Augustine (De Hær. h., lvi).
- St. Epiphanius probably excels all others in his invectives against the opponents of Our Lady's
virginity (Hær., lxxviii, 1, 11, 23).

It is clear that the Early Fathers believed in the perpetual virginity and thought it was a very important doctrine. (More on why it is important later).

Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestant Reformers on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

All of the early Protestant Founders accepted the truth of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
The Marian doctrine of the Reformers is consonant with the great tradition of the Church in all the essentials and with that of the Fathers of the first centuries in particular. For 1700 years the virtual unanimous teaching and belief of all Christians was that Mary was perpetually virgin.

“In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how unanimous they are in all that concerns Mary's holiness and perpetual virginity . . .{Max Thurian (Protestant), Mary: Mother of all Christians, tr. Neville B. Cryer, NY: Herder & Herder, 1963 (orig. 1962), pp. 77, 197}

“The title 'Ever Virgin' (aeiparthenos, semper virgo) arose early in Christianity . . . It was a stock phrase in the Middle Ages and continued to be used in Protestant confessional writings (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Andrewes; Book of Concord [1580], Schmalkaldic Articles [1537]).

“ Mary was formally separated from Protestant worship and prayer in the 16th century; in the 20th century the divorce is complete. Even the singing of the 'Magnificat' caused the Puritans to have scruples, and if they gave up the Apostles' Creed, it was not only because of the offensive adjective 'Catholic', but also because of the mention of the Virgin . . .”
{Raymond E. Brown et al, ed., Mary in the New Testament, Phil.: Fortress Press / NY: Paulist Press, 1978, p.65 (a joint Catholic-Protestant effort) }

“[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}

(NOTE: The title “Theotokos” was the term affirmed by the 4th Ecumenical Council in opposition to the heresy that Mary was “christotokos”, the bearer of Christ, who BECAME God. The Church called her “Theotokos”, the bearer of God, preserving the dogma of the Incarnation. To this day all of the hymnography of the Orthodox Church calls Mary the Theotokos.)

Martin Luther
Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.
{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

(NOTE: This calling of cousins as “brothers” is found in the Old Testament and still exists today among the Middle Eastern cultures. When trying to understand these verses, the first thing to note is that in the Semitic world of the Bible, in the Aramaic that Jesus spoke, as in Hebrew, the term "brother" has a very wide meaning. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half- brother. The Old Testament shows that the term "brother" had a very wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, members of the family by marriage or law though not related to you by blood, and even friends or political allies (1 Samuel 9:13; 20:32; 2 Samuel 1:26; Amos 1:9). Lot, for example, is called Abraham's "brother" (Genesis 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham's brother (Genesis 11:26-28), he was actually Abraham's nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Genesis 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish.
These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chronicles 23:21-22). The terms "brother" and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives, as in the above examples. Sometimes they meant kinsman (Deuteronomy 23:7, Nehemiah 5:7, Jeremiah 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kings 10:13-14).

For more on the use of “brother” as cousin, see 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 Brothers 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.])

Now, more on Luther:
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 . . .
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .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 . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

(NOTE: The idiom Luther refers to here is a particular Greek construction. The grammar of this Greek construction is used in other places in the NT:
Matt. 17:9 Jesus tells his disciples do not speak of Him until He is risen.
John 13:38 The cock will not crow until you have denied me 3 times
Acts 23:12, 14, 21: The Jews took a vow that they would not eat or drink until they killed Paul.
Now, what this says is there was a condition that existed to a certain point in time. However it does not demand that the condition stated ended AFTER that time. It merely makes the statement that this is what was happening to the point of a specific event. Nothing demands that Jesus' disciples preached him after He rose (even though they did), or that the cock would or would not crow after the event, or that the Jews ate and drank after they killed Paul. The conditional statement only deals with the status of he events up to the stated point in time. There are other constructions of "until" that infer the future events (ie., the woman
searched for the coin until she found it... which means she stopped searching after she found it), but that is a different construction and has a logical inference within the statement itself. Joseph and Mary's sexual union AFTER the Birth of Christ need not be inferred, nor is it inferred based on the Greek.

Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:
Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}

John Calvin
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.
{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . 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 . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}

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) }

Huldreich Zwingli
He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .
'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}

Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon titled: 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.'
{Thurian, ibid., p.76}

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.
{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}

Heinrich Bullinger
Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . .

'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'
{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}

John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)
I believe... he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she
brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. {"Letter to a Roman Catholic," quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495}

What’s the “Rub” With the Perpetual Virginity in Modern Times?

If the early Church accepted and defended the perpetual virginity, and the Reformers understood it to be
important enough to defend and teach, who do WE have a difficult time accepting it? We can only speculate but there are spiritual issues that we need to look at. The primary one is our vision of the holy life. The early Church Fathers and the Reformers understood the Christian life in a way we do not in our modern culture. The Early Fathers fasted, were celibate for the sake of the Kingdom, lived monastic lives, and valued virginity as one of the highest expressions of sanctity and dedication to the will of God (see I Cor. 7). To them, for someone to encounter God in the way Mary did and then to return to the “ordinariness” of existence was inconceivable. “For could it be possible that she, who had borne God and from experience of the subsequent events had come to know the miracle, should receive the embrace of a man. God forbid! It is not the part of a chaste mind to think such thoughts, far less to commit such acts.”
( St. John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith - BOOK IV CHAPTER XIV)

So, we see the regard for Mary as perpetual virgin was not an elevation of Mary to a higher status than all Christians, it was merely an affirmation of the common Christian experience of the early centuries and the call of the Gospel: to encounter God is to radically reorient your entire being and your relationship to the world and earthly relationships.

The Jewish Piety of Joseph and Mary/ The Sense of the Sacred
A compelling argument for the perpetual virginity is the faith of Joseph and Mary as good Jews. If Joseph was a good Jew and was raised in a religion that had stories of people touching the Ark of the Covenant and being killed for it, and worshipped in the Temple where only the High Priest dared enter the Holy of Holies, how would he regard Mary who bore the Son of God. Mary bears the Root of Jesse, the Bread of Heaven (John 6), the Word of God (John 1). The Ark contains the rod of Aaron, Manna and the Law. Mary is a “human Ark of the New Covenant”! Now is Joseph going to use Mary for "common use" after she bears God? Not that sex is bad, evil or wrong just as eating and cooking meat are not bad evil or wrong, but when put into service to God in the Temple they became holy, sacrifices and only the Priests could participate. The issue is that modern Christians in general do not have this OT sense of "sacredness" in their radar screens. It is beyond people in our sexualized culture that there can be any higher union between two people than mutual orgasms. Jesus and Paul both say that there are eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom and (I Cor. 7) there is abstinence by mutual consent that is holy in the context of marriage. The perpetual virginity fits in the context of the first century, not in ours. The issue with most protestants as I see it is not the perpetual virginity per se, but what they think it leads to in their romeaphobia, which is the “worship of Mary”.

BACK TO ARCHIVE