Mary is a touchy subject for Protestants. I get it. Really, I get it. The majority of my life I sat in the pews of a very conservative Protestant Church with very Protestant views of Mary. If you would have told me then that in the future I would believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity, call her Mother of God, and be devoted to her in my prayer life, I would have laughed. At that time, I had the utmost confidence that I was right about Mary; but I had also devoted strikingly little study to the subject. So how did I know that what I believed about her was the truth?
The Protestant hesitancy to accept what the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches teach about Mary comes from a good place: the concern to safeguard a proper teaching about Christ and to keep him at the center of Christianity. The early Christians believed, however, that Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, title “Mother of God”, and intercession for all of us, point us to a proper doctrine of Jesus Christ. C.S. Lewis once suggested that we should read three old books for every new book we read—because if something is true, it will be true for all times and in all places, and you will see a consistency throughout history. Because modern Protestant beliefs about Mary are a relatively recent phenomena, I would like to address from an Orthodox perspective some common concerns that Protestants have about Mary. Further, through this series I hope to explain why the Orthodox beliefs about Mary are critical in keeping Christ at the center of Christianity.
There are typically three reasons for believing that Mary bore other children. The first is Matthew 1:25, which reads,
And [Joseph] knew her not till (ἕως οὗ) she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
The catch word here is “till”—or “until”—which most Protestants point to in order to prove that Mary and Joseph did “know” one another at some point after Jesus was born. This word “till”, in the original Greek, is heos (ἕως) and is often used in scripture to connote not a finite period of time but rather an eternity.* Note the following passage:
I am with you always, even unto (ἕως) the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:20b
Certainly Jesus does not mean to say he is with us until the end of the world, and at that point in time he will cease to be with us.
And another passage:
Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till (ἕως οὗ) the whole was leavened. Matthew 13:33
Does this mean that the she took out the meal (yeast) after the whole was leavened? To further this point, the Reformers quoted Matthew 1:25 concerning Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, but not in the way you may think. John Calvin wrote:
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius1] 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.2
And Martin Luther had this to say:
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.3
Both Martin Luther and John Calvin were repulsed at the use of Matthew 1:25 as a “proof-text” that Mary ceased to be a virgin after the birth of Christ.
The second reason that most Protestants reject Mary’s perpetual virginity is Scripture’s reference to Jesus’s brothers. In Greek, the word brother is adelphos (ἀδελφός). Once again, our English heritage and language has done us a disservice with respect to our reading of Scripture. Most cultures, especially the culture in which Jesus lived, referred to cousins, uncles, and the like as brothers. In Genesis, Abraham’s nephew, Lot, is even referred to as his brother (adelphos).
Concerning Jesus’s “brothers” John Calvin wrote, “Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity”4 and “Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.”5
References to Jesus’ brothers in scripture is far from conclusive proof that these “brothers” were borne by the Virgin Mary. Another scripture verse that is sometimes cited with respect to Jesus’s brothers is Romans 8:29 which reads, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” This verse, however, is not referring to other children borne by Mary; it is referring to Jesus as the firstborn of creation, the firstborn of the human race. It is conveying the mystery of being created in the image and likeness of God—so that we might be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ.
The third reason Protestants reject Mary’s perpetual virginity is that it seems unreasonable. From my conversation with Protestants on this subject, they mentioned that, because Mary and Joseph were married, it was unreasonable to believe that they did not have sex. We must remember, however, that Joseph and Mary were thoroughly Jewish—they did not live in the culture that we live in today (a culture which is, admittedly, oversexualized). So what would a Jewish person living in the first century think about all of this?
Throughout Scripture and Jewish tradition, we see that husband and wife separate from one another after a mighty work of God. One such example is Moses’s separation from his wife, Zipporah, after his encounter with God (Numbers 7). We also see that God dwelt with the Jewish people in the Holy of Holies. But not just anyone could enter the Holy of Holies, only the High Priest, and only at specific times. If you entered the Holy of Holies, you would die. The early Christians understood this as a prefiguring of the womb of Mary, which was made Holy by the indwelling of the Incarnate Logos.
But Mary’s perpetual virginity goes even further than this. Our Holy God became man. He did not merely overshadow humanity, he became flesh (John 1:14). The physical and the spiritual world are not opposed to one another. The fact is, the human person is a single unit made up of soul and body; and the two affect one another. Scripture is rife with this fact: again, one such example can be seen in the life of Moses. When he came down from Mount Sinai after having an experience with God, his skin and face shone so brightly that he had to put a veil over his face (Ex. 34:29-35). How much more the Virgin who bore God in the flesh! If God was literally in the womb of Mary, certainly one would think twice about approaching her for sexual union. It seems to me that denying the Perpetual Virginity paves the way for dualistic thought within Christianity (e.g., the soul is good, the body is bad). But Christians are not dualists. This is why Orthodox worship is physical—we cross ourselves, we bow, we kiss, etc. Because there is a sacredness to creation; there is a sacredness, and physicality, to worship.
In today’s society, nothing is sacred. But as Christians, we do not believe that. Even within the large realm of Protestantism there is a residual understanding of this—as evidenced by the admirable fight against premarital sex. The body is sacred. But even more than that, growing up as a Protestant I recognized that there were, indeed, things that, while not necessarily wrong, were inappropriate within the walls of the church—because it is the ‘house of God.’ How much more with Mary’s womb, the house of God. As seen with Moses’ glowing face, it is not just the time of meeting with God that affects the person, but afterwards too—even after Jesus was born, Mary’s womb was consider sacred.
As an aside, I once heard someone say that, at the Transfiguration, “Jesus peeled back his human flesh” so that the disciples could see what he really was. This phraseology is quite bothersome and is evident of an underlying idea of dualism within certain segments of Christianity. What Jesus “really was” was a human being. The early Christians understood Jesus’s Transfiguration as an “opening of the disciples eyes” to what was there all the time. Meaning, Jesus’s uncreated light was always there—and their eyes were opened so that they could see it there on Mount Tabor. But his Divinity and Humanity were not opposed to one another. The human person is made whole by the indwelling of the Incarnate Logos—and so, we too, are called to this wholeness in Jesus Christ.
But scripture does not actually talk about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, does it?
Like many things in the Old Testament that prefigure a person or event that has not yet occurred, Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is prefigured in several Old Testament passages. In Ezekiel 43:27–44:4 we read about the east gate of the heavenly temple which will remain shut after the Lord enters—for he alone shall enter by it. This passage has been read by early Christians6 as referring to Mary’s womb—Jesus’ gate into the world: a gate that Christ only would enter and would then be shut forever.
Finally, after all of this information has been conveyed, most Protestants have one final question: why does it even matter anyway? It does not have anything to do with our salvation and it need not be a core belief, right? Orthodox Christians believe that everything contributes to our salvation. It is not that we do any good works that merit our salvation, but rather that everything in our life, and everyone who has lived or is currently living, contributes to the mystery of our salvation. This means that stocking shelves or stubbing your toe can contribute to your salvation, if you let it; these things will refine you and prepare you for (and allow you to participate in!) the heavenly kingdom. Even so, the Perpetual Virginity points to the Holiness of God, the goodness of creation and its fulfillment through Jesus Christ, and the goodness of both the physical and the spiritual—realities that are not opposed to one another but rather affect one another. On my journey, it seemed evident to me that denying the Perpetual Virginity was, in some way, denying all three of these truths which often leads minimizing the Holiness and Deity of Jesus Christ, a sacredless world, and dualistic thought in Christianity—a kind of reductionism that banishes God from the physical world.
But Christianity is maximalism, not minimalism. Everything matters.
Ultimately—and this is the real point—if the belief against Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is based on the idea of a “plain reading of scripture”, then one must ask if such was the “plain reading of scripture”, why did the first 1500 years of the Christians miss it? And why did even the Reformers quote the exact same passage of scripture (which is used by modern Protestants in an attempt to disprove Mary’s Perpetual Virginity) in order to prove her Perpetual Virginity? And finally, why are most Protestants so against the Perpetual Virginity anyway?
This concludes the first of eight articles on the Virgin Mary.
View Sources
KJV version of Scripture used throughout article
[1] Helvidius lived in the fourth century and, like other early schismatics, proclaimed something against what was orthodox Christian belief—the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. In the passage above, John Calvin looks back at Helvidius and says that his argument is not well informed. [2] Calvin, John. Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, tr. William Pringle, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.) vol. I p. 107 [3] Jaroslav Pelikan & Helmut T. Lehmann. Works of Luther. (St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House and Philadelphia: Fortress Press) [4] Calvin, John. Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, tr. William Pringle, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.) vol. I p. 283 [5] Ibid. vol. 2, , p.215; on Matthew 13:55 [6] Jerome, Theodotus of Ancyra, St. Ambrose, Hesychius of Jerusalem etc.Learn more about Mary:
Our Life in Christ Podcast:
The Virgin Mary
Part 1 (http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/understanding_the_virgin_mary_part_1_
Part 2 (http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/understanding_the_virgin_mary_part_2)
Part 3 (http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/understanding_the_virgin_mary_part_3)
Encountering Mary
Part 1 (http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/encountering_mary_part_one)
Part 2 (http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/encountering_mary_part_two)
Part 3 (http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/encountering_mary_part_three)
Part 4 (http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/encountering_mary_part_four)
Part 5 (http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/encountering_mary_part_five)
Part 6 (http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/encountering_mary_part_six)
Part 7 (http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/encountering_mary_part_seven)
Part 8 (http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/encountering_mary_part_eight)
Books:
Mary, Worthy of All Praise by Fr. David R. Smith
The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God by St. John Maximovitch
Notes
*The first version of this article appeared here.
*Now, there has been some debate over whether the construction heos hou (as we see it in Matthew 1:25) and heos by itself can both be understood to mean the action (in this case, of remaining a virgin) continued. Eric Svendsen has done much work on this area and has conclusively written that heos hou always means that the action is terminated after a period in time (in this case, that Joseph and Mary would “know” one another after Jesus was born). He mentions that there is no place in the New Testament that uses heos hou to connote eternity. One such instance is Matthew 13:33: “Another parable He spoke to them: “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened.” But does this mean that she removed the meal (yeast) after it was all leavened? I am not entirely convinced that we can “conclusively” or “without a doubt” commit to the idea that heos hou in Matthew 1:25 is used specifically to indicate the “action was terminated.” One of the reasons is that heos hou has been used in the same manner as heos, that is, to indicate the continuation of the action.
One interesting article I came across while looking at this was entitled, The Heõs Hou polemic is over: Radio Debate Matatics VS White & Svendsen on Perpetual Virginity Mary. Robert, a Roman Catholic author, writes:
As a side note, Svendsen admits that the Greek word ‘heos’ (‘until’), used by itself, can either terminate or continue the action of the main clause. But it is his contention that when ‘heos’ is coupled with ‘hou’ in the phrase ‘heos hou’ in the period under discussion, it NEVER continues the action of the main clause. He admits that prior to and after the period of 100 B.C to 100 A.D. ‘heos hou’ was sometimes used to continue the action of the main clause, but that for some reason (which he never really explains) the meaning of ‘heos hou’ which allowed a continuation of the main clause suddenly dropped out of existence. It just so happens that Matthew’s gospel was written in this particular time period.
Now, let me continue with the November 18th debate. As I stated above, Mr. Matatics provided a reference, between the years of 100 B.C. and 100 A.D, in which ‘heos hou’ continued the action of the main verb. Here is the reference he gave:
And Aseneth was left alone with the seven virgins, and she continued to be weighed down and weep UNTIL the sun set. And she ate no bread and drank no water. And the night fell, and all (people) in the house slept, and she alone was awake and continued to brood and to weep; and she often struck her breast with (her) hand and kept being filled with great fear and trembled (with) heavy trembling.
First, the reference for this comes from the work of C. Burchard, in the story titled ‘Joseph and Aseneth,’ which is found in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 2, Expansions of the Old Testament and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, ed. James H.Charlesworth, p. 215. New York: Doubleday, 1985.
Second, the word ‘UNTIL’ in the clause ‘weep UNTIL the sun set’ is the Greek phrase ‘heos hou.’ You will notice if you read the sentence in context that Aseneth cried until the sun went down, but she continued to cry way into the night when everyone else was asleep. Here we have a classic case of ‘heos hou’ continuing the action of the main clause, for the context itself tells us there is no other possibility. There are only two available choices: either ‘heos hou’ terminates the action of the main clause, or continues it. It certainly does not terminate it in this incident, otherwise, Aseneth would have stopped crying and not continued when the sun set.
Thus, Mr. Matatics, in one fell swoop, has discredited the whole thesis of Eric Svendsen (which is the essence of the whole debate on November 18, if you were listening carefully). Svendsen had boasted that there were no such references to ‘heos hou’ continuing the action of the main verb. He knew that if his opponents found just ONE reference that contradicted his boast, Svendsen’s entire argument would fall like a house of cards. Opponents didn’t need a dozen references. They only needed one, and that one reference would be the magic bullet. It is the magic bullet that totally discredits Svendsen’s entire doctoral dissertation, for the whole dissertation essentially boils down to the meaning of ‘heos hou’ in the time period under discussion. If you were listening closely to the debate, it was at this point that Svendsen grew conspicuously quiet in the debate, and didn’t raise his voice again until near the end by trying to capitalize on a point that James White was challenging of Matatics.” (Sungenis, Robert. The Heõs Hou polemic is over: Radio Debate Matatics VS White & Svendsen on Perpetual Virginity Mary. Free Republic: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1025045/posts)
As for me, the question still comes down to the history of the church. If the heos hou really meant that Joseph and Mary knew one another after Jesus’ birth, why did the church believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity?
Ultimately—and whatever you choose to believe—we must remember to journey towards deeper communion with the Holy Trinity.
Here is a list of references where heos hou is used in the Septuagint Old Testament: Genesis 26:13, Deuteronomy 2:15, 2 Kings 6:25, 1 Chronicles 6:32, 2 Chronicles 21:15, 2 Chronicles 26:15, Judith 14:8, Judith 15:5, Tobit 2:4, Tobit 2:5, Psalm 57:1, Psalm 72:7, Psalm 123:2, Psalm 141:10, Psalm 142:7, Ecclesiastes 2:3, Song of Solomon 1:12, Isaiah 33:23, Ezekiel 24:13.
Here is a list of references where heos hou is used in the New Testament: Matthew 1:25, Matthew 13:33, Matthew 14:22, Matthew 17:9, Matthew 18:34, Matthew 26:36, Luke 13:21, Luke 15:8, Luke 22:18, Luke 24:49, John 13:38, Acts 21:26, Acts 23:12, Acts 23:14, Acts 23:21, Acts 25:21, 2 Peter 1:19.
*One final thing that may be of interest concerning how (at least Paul and perhaps others) marriage was viewed in early Christianity is 1 Corinthians 7.