timeimmortal

As the Reader may recall from last time, what had begun as a conversation about dinosaurs and whether or not they were mentioned in the Bible took a very wrong turn; the Young Earth Creationist with whom I was debating the point shifted gears and began to attack me on the basis of my Catholicism. I wish I could say that I was successful in returning us to the topic at hand, but as the following exchange demonstrates, I was anything but successful.

Me (from last time): As to the issue of the Pope, and my support for him meaning that I deny Jesus: how, exactly, is that the case? You claim that the Pope is not a Christian, that he is a liar and an idolater. You are engaging in an ad hominem attack here, which is typically indicative of a poor argument that you are attempting to hide behing a wall of insults.

But also…where is your evidence in support of these wild assertions? I hope you’re not going to throw some Jack Chick in my face here; Chick is not a credible source.

As to your assertion that the belief that we are not supposed to refrain from marriage is not supported by Scripture: what the heck is St. Paul talking about in 1 Corinthians 7, then?

Look, I actually like you — you’ve got spirit. I think, along the way, you’ve been brought into a goodly number of falsehoods and untruths, perhaps by well-meaning people or perhaps by people who don’t mean very well at all (don’t know ‘em, can’t say). Be that as it may; I like your passion for Christ — it’s a commendable trait. But why do you mar it so, with these lies you tell? You do not even know Scripture well enough to know that celibacy is a Biblical teaching, and a condition of being highly praised by Paul.

Young Earth Creationist: Here are some examples of that un-Biblical thinking. Perhaps, rather than criticize others for using Scripture, you should worry about the unbiblical and even wicked past history of the popes.

Pope Gregory VII (1073-85): “The pope cannot make a mistake.”

Pope Paschal II: (1099-1118 ): “Whoever does not agree with the Apostolic See is without doubt a heretic.”

Pope Innocent IV (1243-54): described himself as “the bodily presence of Christ.” (presumably by a kind of transubstantiation at his election)

Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303): “Every human being must do as the pope tells him.”

“It is necessary to salvation that every man should submit to the Pope.” (Boniface VIII Unum Sanctum, 1303.)

Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903): “We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” PRAECLARA GRATULATIONIS PUBLICAE, (Encyclical Letter, June 20, 1894 p.304)

Pope Pius XI stated on April 30, 1922: “You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth.” (Revelation Four Views, A parallel Commentary, P 288 Edited by Steve Gree, Published by Nelson Publishers)

“God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution…The sentence of the priest precedes, and God ascribes to it.” (Dignities and Duties of the Priest, Vol 12 Pg. 27)

“The Pope has the power to change times, to abrogate Laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts Of Christ.” (Decretal De Translat, Episcopal Cap)

Me: I appreciate the out-of-context quotes, but did you think I’d fail to notice that you just copy-and-pasted from an anti-Catholic resource? Not exactly original, nor very honest. Do be careful of such websites, as well; where Catholicism is concerned, their attitude is far from Christian, which is a pity.

More to the point, though: the above is not nearly so unbiblical as you think.

Okay, where to start? First, after half an hour on Google, I can’t find any official source for the above statement attributed to Pope Gregory VII (the only known quotation from a “Catholic” source is from The Benedictine Network¹). Indeed, the majority of sites I can find that quote this statement are anti-Catholic sites. Now, I don’t necessarily doubt that the quote is legitimate, but I might point out that in the finest tradition of Uncle Screwtape, the problem is not that the quote itself is a lie. The problem is that the quote hides a lie behind a truth by betraying a probable context.

Popes rarely say anything with brevity, especially when making official statements. This would certainly have been true of Pope Gregory VII, given that he presided over a rather hectic time in the Church’s history — when dealing with heretics and anti-Popes, one should speak clearly and with detail. Which means that the quote above almost certainly has been excerpted from a larger document, and has probably been taken out of context.

What do I mean by that?

Consider this article for a moment. In the middle of it, this passage appears: “This does not mean that the Pope cannot make a mistake or commit a sin or that he can teach on any subject which strikes his fancy or that he is inspired by God. It does mean that under certain conditions the Pope is preserved from error…” It would be easy enough to pick out “the Pope cannot make a mistake” from that statement and cite it as “proof” of something, but of course to do so would betray context horribly, and would in fact completely reverse the meaning of the statement. And therein is the lie behind the truth.

Is that what has happened here? Hard to say — where is the source text from which this quote was excerpted?

It should also be noted that Gregory VII was something of an early reformer in the Church. He decreed, among other things, that clerics who had obtained any grade or office of sacred orders by payment should cease to minister in the Church, that no one who had purchased any church should retain it, and that no one for the future should be permitted to buy or sell ecclesiastical rights, that all who were guilty of incontinence should cease to exercise their sacred ministry, and that the people should reject the ministrations of clerics who failed to obey these injunctions.

Let’s move on to the next quote, attributed to Pope Paschal II. The problem that most non-Catholics have with this statement (it is true) is that they don’t understand what heresy is. Only a baptized Catholic can be a Catholic heretic, because a heretic is one who rejects a core teaching of his or her religious denomination. To flip it around, I — being Catholic — am not a heretic to Islam, because I have never been a Muslim. Obviously, I disagree with many core teachings of Islam, but since I was never a Muslim, my disagreements are not heresies in their own right.

Now, it might also do well to point out that Paschal II also presided over some rather troublesome times in the Church’s history; when dealing with severe problems in times when tensions are running high enough to lead to bloodshed, one needs to take a hard line…the same way a parent with squabbling children needs to be somewhat more of an absolutist than a parent with children who are playing together agreeably.

The point is, it’s not actually un-Biblical to say that someone who disagrees with a doctrine is a heretic. It’s simply a proper understanding and use of the term. And to speak in such a truthful manner is, I think, rather Biblical…wouldn’t the Reader agree?

Now, as to the quote from Pope Innocent IV, I again cannot find a source for this statement apart from The Benedictine Network (not a trustworthy source, see ¹) and several anti-Catholic sites. It is possible that there is some confusion here between the Catholic notion of alter Christus and what Innocent IV said, but absent the official source document for this statement, there is little to go on.

It is telling, though, that only those who already dispute the authority of the Pope are the only source for this statement, and in much the same way as the first quoted statement, one suspects that the real truth of the statement hides a sinister lie.

Now, the quote from Pope Boniface VIII is the first example of a statement which has more evidence for it. The source of this statement is a papal bull, Unam Sanctam, which was a statement on papal supremacy.

“The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for eternal salvation, the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation. The pope further emphasizes the higher position of the spiritual in comparison with the secular order. From these premises he then draws conclusions concerning the relation between the spiritual power of the Church and secular authority. The main propositions of the Bull are the following: First, the unity of the Church and its necessity for salvation are declared and established by various passages from the Bible and by reference to the one Ark of the Flood, and to the seamless garment of Christ. The pope then affirms that, as the unity of the body of the Church so is the unity of its head established in Peter and his successors. Consequently, all who wish to belong to the fold of Christ are placed under the dominion of Peter and his successors. When, therefore, the Greeks and others say they are not subject to the authority of Peter and his successors, they thus acknowledge that they do not belong to Christ’s sheep. “

Now, how unbiblical does that sound? There is some expansion available on the above statement; let’s take a look at it:

“- Under the control of the Church are two swords, that is two powers, the expression referring to the medieval theory of the two swords, the spiritual and the secular. This is substantiated by the customary reference to the swords of the Apostles at the arrest of Christ (Luke 22:38; Matthew 26:52).

- Both swords are in the power of the Church; the spiritual is wielded in the Church by the hand of the clergy; the secular is to be employed for the Church by the hand of the civil authority, but under the direction of the spiritual power.

- The one sword must be subordinate to the other: the earthly power must submit to the spiritual authority, as this has precedence of the secular on account of its greatness and sublimity; for the spiritual power has the right to establish and guide the secular power, and also to judge it when it does not act rightly. When, however, the earthly power goes astray, it is judged by the spiritual power; a lower spiritual power is judged by a higher, the highest spiritual power is judged by God.

- This authority, although granted to man, and exercised by man, is not a human authority, but rather a Divine one, granted to Peter by Divine commission and confirmed in him and his successors. Consequently, whoever opposes this power ordained of God opposes the law of God and seems, like a Manichaean, to accept two principles.”

The declaration, then, that it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman pontiff stems from the belief that the authority given to Peter was of divine origin, and that this divine authority is conferred on each successor to Peter as the head of the Church. To stand in opposition to this is to stand in opposition of the divine mandate imposed by Christ, and in a sense is to put worldly concerns over the concerns of faith².

Is this un-Biblical teaching? St. Peter was the rock on which Christ founded the Church, the Church that the gates of hell cannot prevail against. Christ commissioned Peter to feed His lambs, tend His flock, and feed His sheep. Catholicism follows in apostolic succession (see: the Nicene Creed) from Peter, and the Catholic pontiff is charged with no less a responsibility than was Peter. How can this be disputed, without disputing the very commission Christ gave to Peter, and thus disputing the Bible itself?³

Now, let’s look at the quote from Pope Leo XIII. Here again we see that Uncle Screwtape is at work, for this is indeed a most grevious example of ripping a quote clean out of its context and turning a truth into a vehicle for a lie.

Here is the complete text of Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae (The Reunion of Christendom), one of many encyclical letters published by Pope Leo XIII. And here is the proper context of the quoted text above:

“A great deal, however, has been wanting to the entire fullness of that consolation. Amidst these very manifestations of public joy and Reverence Our thoughts went out towards the immense multitude of those who are strangers to the gladness that filled all Catholic hearts: some because they lie in absolute ignorance of the Gospel; others because they dissent from the Catholic belief, though they bear the name of Christians.

This thought has been, and is, a source of deep concern to Us; for it is impossible to think of such a large portion of mankind deviating, as it were, from the right path, as they move away from Us, and not experience a sentiment of innermost grief.

But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, Who, when about to return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest Prayer, that His Disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart: I pray . . . that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us. And as this Divine Prayer and Supplication does not include only the souls who then believed in Jesus Christ, but also every one of those who were henceforth to believe in Him, this Prayer holds out to Us no indifferent reason for confidently expressing Our hopes, and for making all possible endeavors in order that the men of every race and clime should be called and moved to embrace the Unity of Divine Faith.”

The statement “we hold upon this Earth the place of God Almighty” is a confession of the Church’s mission to spread the Gospel and Truth of Christ, its mandate of evangelism, and its desire that all might come to know Christ and be saved through Him. It is not a statement declaring that the Church usurps the authority of Christ, but rather an acknowledgement that, as humanity was made stewards of Creation, so too has the Church been made the steward of Christ’s Truth and Word in the world. Her mission is to see that all might be saved and know whatsoever is True, and her desire is unity with all her fellow Christians in Christ Jesus, to be an unblemished bride and a seamless cloak for the Lord.

The quote from Pope Pius XI is highly dubious; the only recorded source for it that I can find online is the website of “a former Catholic priest” who is now an ardent anti-Papist. Such entities are a dime a dozen on the internet, and I note that this one does not cite any sources for his wild claims about what various Popes have taught.

To be fair, the first three parts of the statement are all true — it is only the conclusion which is false. Of course, to this, we must ask whether this statement was uttered infallibly or not; if not, it is of no particular concern: the Pope is not immune from error in his normal speaking, nor even in his encyclicals (which are not statements of doctrine).

And that a human can be in error is not un-Biblical — indeed, it is a part of the reason the Bible exists!

As to the quote which reads, “God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution…The sentence of the priest precedes, and God ascribes to it,” I think the best way to respond to this would be to turn to Scripture.

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Christ gave His authority to the disciples, who have passed that authority on to their successors through the tradition of apostolic succession. The above teachings are actually very Biblical, especially in light of a certain teaching in John 20:

[21] Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
[23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Here, Christ is explicitly commissioning his apostles (and, by extension, those who follow in the authority of the apostles) to forgive sin (by the power of Christ), and to lead His Church on Earth. If the apostles retain any sin of any person, Christ obligated Himself to consider that sin retained, because it is by His power that the sin is retained. Likewise, if the apostles forgive the sin of any person, Christ obligated Himself to consider that sin forgiven, because it is by His power that it is forgiven. On this verse rests the entire doctrine of the Sacrament of Reconciliation (or, as it is more commonly called, Confession). And from this same statement, the Church derives her authority, for it is an authority which Christ gave to her.

It is odd that supposedly biblical Christians fail to notice that the parallelism of the first sentence in the supposedly un-Biblical quote follows — directly — the parallelism of Christ’s own teaching. The concept itself is Biblical, and in this case the speaker made it really easy to pinpoint the exact Scriptural origin for the teaching. But evidently, some people are too blinded in their hatred to remember the truth.

Now, the last quote, ostensibly from something called Decretal De Translat, is one I’ve seen thrown around a fair bit in the past, and I note that — again — the only online mentions of “Decretal De Translat” that I can find are from anti-Catholic sites. I cannot find the source document itself in any form, and so cannot adequately analyze the context of the quote. This should give the Reader pause, of course, as to the validity of the statement as a condemnation of Catholicism as un-Biblical.

Of course, it’s also probable that the author of this statement was simply in error; the above is certainly not a statement of Catholic doctrine, and so is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Catholicism is un-Biblical.

So let’s review: of the few statements above which can even be verified, none express opinions which are ultimately against what is taught in the Bible. And yet, you present them as though they were evidence of exactly that, and so express something which is patently false. Don’t you grow tired of telling lies at any point?

1) the Benedictine Network is a group of Catholics who identify as neither orthodox, Western, or Eastern. They don’t exactly seem to be fully faithful Catholics (having penned articles like “Zen Christ“) and I wonder at whether they are in full communion with Rome. And they actually have a bit of an anti-Papist streak of their own; they take some issue with the Church’s structured authority.

What an interesting development this is! So desperate are some evangelical Christians to condemn Catholics that they would turn to the documents of liberal-minded, “ecumenical” Catholics to find statements. One wonders when Richard Dawkins will be cited to likewise further the cause of their misguided arguments??

2) Now isn’t that almost the most concise history of the Reformation ever written?

3) And one notes that many evangelicals do exactly this, turning to arguments which dispute the authority given to Peter in plain contradiction of Scripture. Even the watcher is not innocent in this regard.

Upwards of 70% of young people (presumably in Britain, where the survey evidently took place) — including co-habiting couples — still want to/plan to get married.

The aspiration to walk down the aisle to marry the man or woman of one’s dreams continues to be a very common one, even though the growing number of cohabiting couples may seem to prove the contrary.

Evidence of support for commitment came in a book recently published by the London-based Institute for the Study of Civil Society. “Second Thoughts on the Family,” by Anastasia de Waal, compiles information taken from a specially commissioned opinion poll, plus interviews with 27 “opinion makers.”

…

The evidence found in the institute’s studies show that the real divide over the family today is one of economic class, due to strains that result in much higher rates of cohabitation and divorce for lower income families.

…

In the book’s summary of the findings, de Waal cites data from the Millennium Cohort Study, a survey that examined the situations of families that began family life around the year 2000. The study found that:

– Among those who were single parents at the time of their child’s birth, 28% had no educational qualifications. For those who were cohabiting the level was 13%, while for those who were married just 8% had no qualifications.

– By contrast, 43% of mothers who were married at the time of their child’s birth had the highest level of educational qualifications. Among those cohabiting this fell to 24%, and among single parents it was only 10%.

– At the time of birth 68% of married parents lived in economically advantaged areas, while this was true for 56% of cohabiting couples and only 35% of single parents.

Faced with this sort of information, de Waal maintains that all parties on the political spectrum should be concerned about family structures and marriage. The combination of lower marital rates in low income areas, higher divorce rates and more single-parent families among the less well-off are strongly connected to structural poverty.

I suppose the question has to be asked: is poverty the causative force here, or the result? Is, say, the lack of educational qualifications among unmarried mothers, as compared to married mothers, a result of living in poverty…or is the poverty itself a result of poor life choices, including economic and sexual irresponsibility?

So why does Mary matter to Catholics? Indeed, why should Mary matter to Christians, of any kind, at all? There is actually a very good reason, and it has quite a lot to do with Jesus‘ instruction to the beloved apostle at the foot of the Cross: “behold your mother.” It also has a lot to do with Mary herself, and her role in God’s plan of salvation. Because Mary is not just another human being — she is, for Christians, a special example, and also a marker.

Because Mary, you see, always points us to Christ. Mary glorifies Christ. And Satan is well aware of this, because historically, those heresies and false teachings which have sought to undermine the full divinity of Christ have often begun by attacking some aspect of the theology concerning Mary.

Let’s begin, though, by considering an objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary advanced by some Christians.

It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus’ mother Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Is this concept Biblical? Before we get into looking at specific Scriptures, it is important to understand why the Roman Catholic Church believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Roman Catholic Church views Mary as “the Mother of God” and “Queen of Heaven.” Catholics believe Mary to have an exalted place in Heaven, with the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. Such a concept is nowhere taught in Scripture. Further, even if Mary did occupy such an exalted position, her having sexual intercourse would not have prevented her from gaining such a position. Sex in marriage is not sinful. Mary would have in no way defiled herself by having sexual relations with Joseph her husband. The entire concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based on an unbiblical teaching, Mary as Queen of Heaven, and on an unbiblical understanding of sex.

The key thing here to which I wish to draw attention is the isolation of the belief in Mary as the Theotokos — the God-bearer, the Mother of God — as a solely Catholic belief. Note the implied rejection of the belief in Mary being the Mother of God on the grounds that it is apparently unbiblical.

We’ve addressed the matter of the above author’s lack of understanding of sex in the Bible already, and nothing further needs to be said on that matter. But let’s look at the rejection of the Catholic belief that Mary is the Theotokos, the Mother of God. This sounds like something fairly new, but it is actually a very old fallacy indeed.

As Mark Shea notes, “in the fifth century there arose (yet again) the question of just who Jesus is. It was a question repeated throughout antiquity and, in this case, an answer to the question was proposed by the Nestorians. They argued that the mortal man Jesus and the Logos, or Second Person of the Trinity, were more or less two persons occupying the same head. For this reason, they insisted that Mary could not be acclaimed (as she had been popularly acclaimed for a very long time) as Theotokos, or God bearer. Instead, she should only be called Christotokos, or Christ bearer. She was, they insisted, the Mother of Jesus, not of God.”

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? But consider, O Reader: Nestorianism was a heresy that the Church had to address fairly early on in its life (indeed, it happened not long after the formal canonization of Scripture!). Something goes awry when we reject Mary as the mother of God, as the concerned Christian above has done.

Shea continues: “The problem with this was that it threatened the very witness of the Church and could even lead logically to the notion that there were two Sons of God, the man Jesus and the Logos who was sharing a room with Him in His head. In short, it was a doorway to theological chaos over one of the most basic truths of the Faith: that the Word became flesh, died, and rose for our sins.”

John 1 makes it very clear: the Logos (the Word) is God. Jesus is God. Only the es make the mistake of separating God and the Word, incorrectly modifying John 1 to read “the Word was a god.” For all intents and purposes, all Christians today accept it as a basic article of faith that Jesus, the Word, is God, one in being with the Father and the Spirit in the blessed union that is the Holy Trinity, which God ultimately is.

And all the Gospels make it equally clear: Mary is the mother of Jesus, the Word (who is God) made flesh. It’s right there in the Bible: Mary is the mother of God (the Word) made flesh; she is the Mother of God. And to deny this actually begins to deny the very divinity of the human person of Christ. And to this heresy, notes Shea, “the Church formulated its response. First, Jesus Christ is not two persons occupying the same head. He is one person possessing two natures, human and divine, joined in a hypostatic union. Second, it was appropriate to therefore call Mary Theotokos because she’s the Mother of the God-Man. When the God-Man had His friends over for lunch, He didn’t introduce Mary saying, “This is the mother of my human nature.” He said, “This is my mother.”

Why did the Church do this? Because, once again, Mary points to Jesus. The dogma of the Theotokos is a commentary on Jesus, a sort of “hedge” around the truth about Jesus articulated by the Church. Just as Nestorianism had tried to attack the orthodox teaching of Christ through Mary (by forbidding the veneration of her as Theotokos), now the Church protected that teaching about Christ by making Theotokos a dogma. That is a vital key to understanding Marian dogmas: They’re always about some vital truth concerning Jesus, the nature of the Church, or the nature of the human person.”

Jesus was fully human, and yet fully divine, and these two aspects of Him were, and remain, inseparable. He was born in a very human birth. He lived a very human life. He suffered through and died a very human death. And He rose again as a human, at all times the Word and flesh perfectly united, for the forgiveness of sins and the salvation of mankind.

It isn’t easy, at first, to see the machinations of the devil in the Nestorian heresy, but we can see the devil’s intent in looking at the implications of what seems, on the surface, to be a fairly innocuous teaching concerning a somewhat perplexing statement concerning Mary. For if we deny, as some Christians unfortunately continue to do (apparently in their zeal to condemn Catholicism), that Mary was the Mother of God, we must necessarily deny that she was not the mother of the Word, only of the flesh and blood in which the Word was clothed.

Which means that Jesus, the Logos, did not have a fully human birth.

Which means that Jesus, the Word, did not live a fully human life.

Which means that Jesus, the Christ who is God, did not suffer through and die a fully human death.

Which has, I submit to the Reader, disastrous implications for our salvation prospects as Christians. I believe Paul had something to say about us being most pitiable in just such a circumstance. And yet just such a circumstance arises out of what seems to be a straightforward rejection of a doctrine that doesn’t even directly concern Christ! But that is the devil’s cunning, for Satan knows that if the mother can be undermined, the Son can be undermined because of it.

Now, why is this important to Christians? Well, there’s two reasons. The first, of course, is that we are told we are to defend the faith against false teachings, and it behooves us to do so. Denial of Mary’s status as Theotokos is just one such false teaching, but it is a particularly vicious and odious one because of its far-reaching implications. But it is also important to us because we are commanded to honour our father and our mother. And that doesn’t just apply to our blood parents either, I might point out. We are to honour our Father in Heaven as well…and likewise, our Mother.

Possible Objection #7: wait, what? Our Mother in Heaven???!!

Response to Objection #7: yes indeed.

The author of the Gospel of John notes that he did not record everything that transpired in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ word-for-word, nor did he include every event in his account of Jesus. In John 20, he disclaims his work:

[30] Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;

[31] but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

John is giving us a bit of a hint here: not everything about Jesus or His life was recorded in the Gospel, but enough of significance was recorded, that we might believe. The author is suggesting to us that everything within his account of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ has significance above and beyond simply being a relating of who Jesus was, and what He did — every event in John’s Gospel has significant theological meaning.

So when Christ tells the beloved disciple “behold your Mother,” John doesn’t record it, as Mark Shea notes, “because he thought his readers might be curious about domestic arrangements for childless Jewish widows…For the Beloved Disciple is you and not merely John. Mary is your mother and you are her child. And so we are to look to her as mother and imitate her as she imitates Christ.”

The whole of the Gospel of John is written in an odd perspective; though it has been long-held by almost all Christian theologians that the term “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is used, in John’s Gospel, in a self-referential capacity, John’s choice of phrasing has always been understood to mean that what is true for the beloved disciple is true for all whom Christ loves, and who follow Christ. When Jesus tells John, the beloved, “behold your mother,” He tells us that as well. He entrusts care of Mary to us, and presents her to us as our mother, and our example.

In the normal family model, the mother is the principal example that children have to draw upon, especially at younger ages. Mom is the teacher, the witness, and the person whom young children should first begin to imitate when they begin to strive to behave morally. This is God’s “very good” design in action, O Reader, and it comes as no surprise that Christ would, in His desire that humanity continue to learn of and draw near to Him, present His mother to us to be our mother, to be our example, and for us to imitate in her surrender to (and participation in) the will of God, and in God’s salvific grace.

Because there is one thing Christ cannot do directly: he cannot show us what a follower of Christ looks like. And as Shea notes, “the first and best model of the disciple of Jesus is the one who said and lived “Yes!” to God, spontaneously and without even the benefit of years of training or the necessity of being knocked off a horse and blinded. And she continues to do so right through the agony of watching her Son die and the ecstasy of knowing Him raised again.”

The Book of Numbers immediately follows the Book of Leviticus in the canon of Scripture, and in a way could be considered an extension of Leviticus. Almost all of Leviticus is comprised of Moses giving the law to the people, and Numbers consists in large part of Moses giving yet more ordinances for the people to observe. And much like Leviticus, the subject matter covered in each successive chapter of Numbers shifts and changes according to no discernable pattern, covering issues pertaining to all aspects of life.

A while ago, Brant Pitre pointed out a series of vows detailed in Numbers 30, which pertain to different categories of women within the population.

Numbers 30 begins with a discussion of vows which can be taken by an unmarried woman:

[3] Or when a woman vows a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by a pledge, while within her father’s house, in her youth,
[4] and her father hears of her vow and of her pledge by which she has bound herself, and says nothing to her; then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand.
[5] But if her father expresses disapproval to her on the day that he hears of it, no vow of hers, no pledge by which she has bound herself, shall stand; and the LORD will forgive her, because her father opposed her.

Here, the vow hinges on the matter of whether the father of the woman hears the vow; unless he objects, his consent is implied and assumed, and every pledge the woman has made is binding on her in the eyes of the Lord. It should also be noted that the father is only afforded a limited window of response; if he has an objection to any vow made by his daughter, he must respond and object to it within the same day it comes to his attention.

Moving a bit further into Numbers 30, though, we come upon vows which can be taken by married women:

[6] And if she is married to a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself,
[7] and her husband hears of it, and says nothing to her on the day that he hears; then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand.
[8] But if, on the day that her husband comes to hear of it, he expresses disapproval, then he shall make void her vow which was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips, by which she bound herself; and the LORD will forgive her.

Two things have shifted here. First, the scope of the woman’s utterance has been expanded — whereas the young, unmarried woman’s vows were what were binding, the married woman’s vows and careless utterances are both binding, if her husband does not object. And that is the second thing which has changed: it is not the role of her father to object any longer; her husband must do so. The terms of his objection, and its consequences, remain the same.

It is probable that the reason that young, unmarried women are not bound by careless utterances, whereas married women are bound thusly, is intended by the author and the Spirit to denote the shift in maturity between the young woman still living with her family and the older woman who has entered into marriage.

A third category of vows is found as we continue reading Numbers 30. In this case, the vows are those which can be taken my a widowed or divorced woman:

[9] But any vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, anything by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her.
[10] And if she vowed in her husband’s house, or bound herself by a pledge with an oath,
[11] and her husband heard of it, and said nothing to her, and did not oppose her; then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she bound herself shall stand.
[12] But if her husband makes them null and void on the day that he hears them, then whatever proceeds out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning her pledge of herself, shall not stand: her husband has made them void, and the LORD will forgive her.

This ordinance confirms the perpetuity of a woman’s vows; if her husband had previously consented to a vow she had made, then that consent — and, by extension, the vow — extends past the time when the husband has died or sought a divorce. The vow is binding on the woman in the eyes of the Lord. Only her husband may overturn the vow, and then only within a limited time period; if the vow was allowed to stand until such time as the husband passed away or left, then the vow would remain binding, in the Lord, even after the departure of the husband.

In other words, the vow would be perpetual.

Now, the Reader should note that in all these cases, the vows are of a general nature. Fortunately, reading still further in Numbers 30, we are given some context regarding the types of vow each category of woman might make.

[13] Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void.
[14] But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows, or all her pledges, that are upon her; he has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them.
[15] But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity.

Here we see all the previous ordinances given context; these vows concern, principally, a woman’s oath to “afflict herself”, whether as an unmarried woman, a married woman, or a widow. Citing Jacob Milgrom, a preeminent Torah scholar, Brant Pitre notes that the idea of self-affliction “was interpreted by ancient Jews as referring to fasting and refraining from sexual intercourse. Similar terminology is used in descriptions of the Day of Atonement, when Jews were expected to fast and refrain from sexual intercourse (see Milgrom, Harper Collins Study Bible n. Lev 16:29; citing Targum Pseudo-Jonthan; cf. also Exod 19:15). Once this terminology is clear, the whole chapter makes sense. It is discussion three kinds of vows:

1. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a young, unmarried woman.
2. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a married woman.
3. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a widow or divorced woman.

In all three cases, the binding nature of the vow is dependant on whether the male party (whether father or husband), upon hearing of the vow, said nothing and in thereby consented to it. In each case, if he heard the vow and accepted it, the vow is perpetually binding.”

And notice something else, O Reader. Numbers 30:15 is the odd note on which the giving of these vow-related ordinances ends, and it provides a final measure of permanence to the vows. All through the ordinances pertaining to the vows in Numbers 30, it is noted that the responsible man — the woman’s father or husband, depending on circumstance — has only a day in which to object to the vow. If he does not, the Lord considers the vow binding, and in his silence the responsible man gives his assent to the vow made by the woman to “afflict herself.”

Numbers 30:13-14 does technically give the responsible male the option of wiping away a previously-made vow, or at least would seem so to do. However, Numbers 30:15 sounds the final note on the matter, by noting that if the husband of a woman should compel her to abandon a previously made vow which, according to the law, became binding in the eyes of the Lord, he shall bear her iniquity. The sin of breaking a vow with the Lord, in other words, would fall not on the woman, but on the man who compelled the breakage.

And as Pitre notes, “Matthew’s Gospel tells us: Joseph was a “righteous man” (Matt 1:19), and obedient to Torah. If Mary took a vow of sexual abstinence — and her words “How can this be, since I know not man?” in Luke are evidence that she did (Luke 1:34) — and if Joseph accepted this vow at the time of their wedding, then he would have been bound by Mosaic Law to honor her vow of sexual abstinence under the penalty of sin.”

A common objection to Mary’s perpetual virginity that I have heard, although not recently, is simple disbelief that a Jewish woman living 2,000 years ago would have been able to remain celibate even in a marriage; what husband would allow it? And yet, the idea of a consecrated virgin was not alien to the ancient world (both in Hebrew religious tradition and in several pagan Religions as well). Moreover, in the New Testament, Paul offers several teachings on the matter of celibacy and abstinence (c.f. 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Timothy 4) — clearly, even over two millennia ago, there was ample room in religious traditions for women to elect to remain virginal all their days, and for husbands to accept that reality.

Possible Objection #2: could the vows referred to have been temporary in nature? Nothing in the text of Numbers 30 specifically states that they are perpetual.

Response to Objection #2: As Pitre notes, one cannot deny “that the text could be applied to temporary vows, but there are two things that make me think the primary context is permanent vows…First, what meaning would a temporary vow of sexual abstinence have for an unmarried virgin in her father’s house?!! This is the first category, and as far as I can see it must primarily refer to a permanent vow of abstinence, of which the father approves. To suggest otherwise would mean that Numbers envisions the unmarried woman having sexual relations outside of marriage. This makes no sense…Second, what meaning would a temporary vow of abstinence have for a widow? If she was taking a vow of temporary abstinence for sexual relations with her husband, she would obviously be automatically be released from the vow by his death!

If a permanent vow of sexual abstinence is in view in both these cases, it makes sense to me to suggest that the primary meaning of the third category is the same: a permanent vow of sexual abstinence. In Mary’s case, it is only a permanent vow that explains her response to Gabriel while she is betrothed to Joseph: “How shall this be, since I know not man” (Luke 1:34; present tense).”

At any rate, as the Reader can see, we are verging into New Testament territory here. Coming up next we will take a closer look at Mary, especially as related to us by Luke, and also at Joseph.

Update: Welcome, WebElf readers!