Time Immortal

How have Christians throughout history regarded Mary, specifically in regard to her perpetual virginity? Is there a major difference in regard to Marian theology that is discernible along the historic Catholic/Protestant divide?

In the modern era, we might answer “yes” to such questions. Nestorianism seems to be making a bit of a return, in the form of modern Protestants and non-denominational Christians actively denying the ancient doctrine of the Church that Mary is the Theotokos, the God-bearer, the Mother of God. But historically, the answer is actually a resounding “no!”

Martin Luther didn’t think the doctrine was critical to Christian faith, but maintained that “we should simply hold that (Mary) remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity.” (c.f. ‘That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew’, Luther’s Works, 1962, Concordia Publishing House)

Luther was insistent that Jesus was “the real and natural fruit” of Mary’s womb, and that she “bore no children besides Him.” Additionally, Luther fully agreed with interpretations of Scripture that identified the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus as being more distant relations (e.g. cousins).

Moreover, John Calvin also rejected the notion that the mention of the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus in the Bible were meant to refer to siblings born of Mary. John Wesley believed that Mary “continued a pure and unspotted virgin” after giving birth to Christ. (c.f. ‘Letter to a Roman Catholic’, 1749) Huldrych Zwingli likewise believed that Mary’s virginity remained perpetually intact after Jesus was born. (c.f. ‘Eini Predigt von der ewig reinen Magd Maria.’, Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, 1905)

Diarmaid MacCulloch — a Reformation historian — noted the reason why the affirmation of Mary’s virginity was almost wholly universal across all the major strains of Protestantism and its offshoots: by affirming the ongoing virginity of Mary, the Reformers (not unlike the Catholics) ensured themselves “the guarantee of the Incarnation of Christ.” Sola Scriptura may have prevented the believe in Mary’s virginity from being formally adopted as a doctrine in many (if any) of the churches which emerged out of the Reformation, and I suspect that this may have done a grave disservice to subsequent Protestant theologians where the issue of Mary was concerned, many of whom have since come to deny the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. (c.f. The Reformation: a History, 2003, Penguin Books)

And while it sounds like this should be a minor issue, look at where that denial has led us to: now we see again some Christians stumbling into false teachings like Nestorianism, and uttering denials of Mary as the Mother of God that they have no idea also necessarily imply that Christ was not fully human and fully divine all at once.

The Catholic Church obviously holds the belief that Mary was perpetually virginal, and has held that belief since…well, since the Church was still one denomination, way back when the year took less than four numbers to write out. The formal doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity was promulgated in about 533 A.D. (at the Council of Constantinople). That’s not to say that Catholicism has not been marked by a few disagreements over the issue, though.

Tertulian, for example, believed that the virginity of Mary was not preserved by the act of giving birth. While he evidently felt this was a proper emphasis on the nature and reality of Jesus’ human body, it should be noted that in reality, this position actually makes the very idea of a “virgin birth” (an integral part of Christian theology) impossible. Jovinian, who lived over a century later, set himself against Paul (c.f. 1 Corinthians 7) when he denied that virginity/celibacy was indeed a higher state than marriage. Helvidius repeated this commentary shortly thereafter, but was soundly denounced by, among others, Jerome.

And as was so ably noted by Mark Shea, “the Tradition of the Church in union with the biblical text [affirms that] Mary had no other children, a fact so commonly known throughout the early Church that when Jerome attacks Helvidius for suggesting otherwise, nobody makes a peep. In a Church quite capable of tearing itself to pieces over distinctions between homoousious and homoiousious, you hear the sound of crickets in response to Jerome, punctuated with the sound of other Fathers singing hymns to “Mary, Ever-Virgin.” The early Church took it for granted and thought Helvidius as credible as Dan Brown.”

And indeed, after Helvidius, no credible arguments were presented against the perpetual virginity of Mary until near-modern Protestantism jettisoned the doctrine.

Possible Objection #8: could not the early Church have been wrong? Could the early Church have mis-interpreted those passages from Scripture which make clear reference to the siblings of Jesus?

Response to Objection #8: it’s possible, I suppose, that this could be the case. But to believe as much, we would have to believe that over 1700 years of Christian scholarship was wrong about this particular issue, that 1700 years’ worth of Christian theologians and scholars had somehow remained ignorant of very commonly cited verses of Scripture, and that in 1700 years nobody had actually thought to read the original-language manuscripts in a proper context.

Which seems a bit…incredible. It makes more sense, I think, to assume that modern theologians who set themselves against the perpetual virginity of Mary have simply gone awry in their thinking, as did the Nestorians, as did Helvidius, and as did Tertulian.

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.”