Time Immortal

Or, as the lolcats say: FAIL!

An Italian model who swears she has never had sex plans to sell her virginity for one million euros, or £792,000.

Prostitution chic?

But wait, it gets better:

Showgirl and men’s magazine model Raffella Fico, 20, told an Italian magazine: “I can’t wait to see who’s going to pull out the money to have me.”

…

“I don’t know what it’s like to have sex,” she told the magazine, Chi, adding that if the man who bought her virginity was ugly then she would quickly get over it.

…

“She’s never had a boyfriend. I swear on my mother’s grave. She’s a devout Catholic and prays to Padre Pio every night,” her brother told the magazine.

Ms. Fico: is not wurkin; prai moar bettar.

For reasons that are unclear, many Protestants — and especially Evangelicals — find it important to argue against Marian theology, including her perpetual virginity and Assumption. Some argue that to elevate Mary in the way that Marian theology does “detracts from that simple faith and devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ.” But this charge is absurd on its face; as noted, Mary always points us toward Jesus. Indeed, it is pointless to acknowledge the Blessed Mother without first noting her divine Son, the Logos and second person of the Holy Trinity.

I previously noted that, absent Mary, we would not have received Christ from God, and would not have had the Gospel to preach. This remains true. But only the most ignorant person would be unable to recognize that this same statement implies something far greater about Christ (even here, Mary points us to Christ). Mary is significant, above all other human beings, but she is significant because of Christ. She is the Mother of the Son because the Son was born of her, and she is the Mother of the Son by the power of the Son she bore.

Exactly what in such teaching is worth such vitriolic opposition, I am not sure, but it is perhaps one of the most curious examples (apart from the rejection of Eucharistic theology and the plain meaning of John 6) of anti-Biblical thinking in non-Catholic Christian theological thought.

We’ve looked, already, at Mary’s perpetual virginity. Now let’s look at her assumption, just briefly. One main objection, from Protestants and Evangelicals, to the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary is that it is not taught in Scripture. This is true.

I’ll say that again: it is true that the Assumption is not taught in Scripture; Mary appears for the final time in the first chapter of Acts, and nothing more in Scripture tells us what fate ultimately befell her. But that’s a blade that cuts both ways; Scripture does not profess to us that Mary was assumed, bodily, into Heaven, but neither does it tell us that she suffered and died a mortal death. Ultimately, whatever conclusion we draw about Mary is an act of faith, which we must justify with other (and then indirect) evidence.

So, we have to ask: is there indirect evidence in Scripture that points toward Mary’s assumption?

The answer: yes, and then quite a lot of it.

John Henry Cardinal Newman, even before his conversion from Anglicanism, noted that the holiness of Mary was implied from Scripture: “Who can estimate the holiness and perfection of her, who was chosen to be the Mother of Christ? If to him that hath, more is given, and holiness and Divine favour go together (and this we are expressly told), what must have been the transcendent purity of her, whom the Creator Spirit condescended to overshadow with His miraculous presence? What must have been her gifts, who was chosen to be the only near earthly relative of the Son of God, the only one whom He was bound by nature to revere and look up to; the one appointed to train and educate Him, to instruct Him day by day, as He grew in wisdom and stature? This contemplation runs to a higher subject, did we dare follow it; for what, think you, was the sanctified state of that human nature, of which God formed His sinless Son; knowing as we do, ‘that which is born of the flesh is flesh’ (1 Jn 3:6), and that ‘none can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?’ (Job 14:4).”

The Church, from a very early stage, has believed in the sinlessness of Mary. St. Athanasius, in the year 106, observed to the Virgin that “truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” St. Ephraem, in the year 201, made two telling observations. First, he noted the relationship between Mary and Eve, “two people without guilt, two simple people, were identical. Later, however, one became the cause of our death, the other the cause of our life.” He also noted, unto the Lord, that “thou and thy mother are the only ones who are totally beautiful in every respect; for in thee, O Lord, there is no spot, and in thy Mother no stain.”

Put more plainly: the belief in Mary’s sinlessness can be found in the teaching of the Church in every age, starting within its first century of existence.

Now, a common objection to this is to note that Mary, being human, would still have struggled with concupiscence, and would have needed Christ as her Lord and Saviour; thus, she must still have been a sinner. Catholics do not dispute Mary’s need for the Lord as the means of her salvation, for all people do indeed need the Lord as the means of salvation. But consider. If I fall into a pit, and am pulled out, I will thank my rescuer for saving me. But suppose I am caught at the last moment before I fall into the pit. I haven’t fallen in…but still, I have been saved, haven’t I?

In like manner, Mary’s sinlessness flows from the power of Christ, and because she was the Mother of the Son. For as Cardinal Newman pointed out, with reference to Job: none can bring a clean thing out of an unclean.

One Protestant objection, in part to Mary’s Assumption and in part to her sinless nature, is based on the greeting of the angel in Luke 1:28 — in which Mary is called favoured of God, or full of grace. “Bodily assumption is said to be the natural effect of being highly favoured or full of grace. However, the same word translated “full of grace” (Greek, charitoo) is applied to all believers in Ephesians 1:6. Yet, no-one suggests that every believer should be assumed bodily into heaven soon after death!”

This is quite correct: nobody suggests that every believer in Christ is assumed bodily into Heaven.

But then, there is a problem with the Protestant’s argument itself, and not with the Catholic belief. The variant of charitoo that appears in Luke 1:28 is kecharitomene, which means ‘endued with grace.’ In Ephesians 1:6, the variant of charitoo that appears is echaritosen, which concerns the reality of Christ’s grace being freely bestowed (one notes that in Greek, “thank you” is a permutation of echaritosen).

In other words, though the word ‘grace’ appears in both places, it is used in vastly different contexts; in Luke, it refers to an internal quality, while in Ephesians it refers to grace bestowed…and which believers must choose to accept or reject (so it cannot be referring to an internal quality as yet).

Now, Catholics like to point to Revelation 12, and to the woman clothed with the Sun, as evidence that confirms Mary’s bodily Assumption. Protestants rightly point out that this is somewhat incorrect: “[they] wrongly assume…that this ‘woman’ is Mary and ignore…the problems of such interpretation. For example, the woman of Revelation, ‘being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered’ (Revelation 12:2); whereas Catholics believe that Mary ‘gave birth to her Son without pain’ (Pope Alexander III).”

Jimmy Akin, however, notes that Catholic teaching (the opinions of lay Catholics nonwithstanding) does not specifically equate the woman in Revelation only with Mary.

Unfortunately, most of the debate over what the Woman represents is misdirected because it does not take into account the way that Revelation uses symbolism.

The vision contains “fusion imagery,” in which one symbol is composed of elements from several different things. For example, the four living creatures John sees around God’s throne (4:6–8) are a fusion of elements from the cherubim seen in Ezekiel (Ezek. 10:1–14) and the seraphim seen in Isaiah (Isa. 6:1–5).

…The Woman in Revelation 12 is part of the fusion imagery/polyvalent symbolism that is found in the book. She has four referents: Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary.

She is Israel because she is associated with the sun, the moon, and twelve stars. These symbols are drawn from Genesis 37:9–11, in which the patriarch Joseph has a dream of the sun and moon (symbolizing his father and mother) and stars (representing his brothers), which bow down to him. Taken together, the sun, moon, and twelve stars symbolize the people of Israel.

The Woman is the Church because, as 12:17 tells us, “the rest of her offspring” are those who bear witness to Jesus, making them Christians.

The Woman is Eve because she is part of the three-way conflict also involving her Seed and the Dragon, who is identified with the ancient serpent (the one from Eden) in 20:2. This mirrors the conflict in Genesis 3:15 between Eve, the serpent, and her unborn seed — which in turn is a symbol of the conflict between Mary, Satan, and Jesus.

Finally, the Woman is Mary because she is the mother of Jesus, the child who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (19:11–16).

Because the Woman is a four-way symbol, different aspects of the narrative apply to different referents. Like Mary, she is pictured as being in heaven and she flies (mirroring Mary’s Assumption). Like the Church, she is persecuted by the Devil after the Ascension of Christ. Like Israel, she experiences great trauma as the Messiah is brought forth (figuratively) from the nation. And like Eve, it is her (distant) seed with which the serpent has his primary conflict.

Conversely, portions of the narrative do not apply to each referent. Mary did not experience literal pain when bringing forth the Messiah, but she suffered figuratively (the prophecy that a sword would pierce her heart at the Crucifixion). Eve did not ascend to heaven. And the Church did not bring forth the Messiah (rather, the Messiah brought forth his Church).

So let us pause to review what we have covered for a moment. Mary was assuredly the Mother of the Son, was assuredly a virgin until the end of her days, and was assuredly free from sin all the days of her life — all by the power of Christ. She was, in all these respects, unique among human beings, far more unique than even the apostle Paul. Shall we assume that God forgot His first and most willing servant?

Of course not; given what Christians believe about God, we cannot assume that. So what became of Mary, after she disappeared from the Biblical narrative?

Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong noted an interesting Biblical parallel, which is relevant here, in his book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism:

Lest one think that a bodily ascent to heaven (of a creature, as opposed to Jesus) is impossible and “biblically unthinkable,” Holy Scripture contains the examples of Enoch (Hebrews 11:5; cf. Genesis 5:24), Elijah (2 Kings 2:1,11), St. Paul’s being caught up to the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2-4), possibly bodily, and events during the Second Coming (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17), believed by many evangelicals to constitute the “Rapture,” an additional return of Christ for believers only. All these occur by virtue of the power of God, not the intrinsic ability of the persons.

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin flows of necessity from the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s actual sinlessness. Bodily death and decay are the result of sin and the Fall (Genesis 3:19, Psalm 16:10). Thus, the absence of actual and original sin “breaks the chain” and allows for instant bodily resurrection and also immortality, just as God intended for all human beings.

…Jesus’ Resurrection brings forth the possibility of universal resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:13,16), which is why He is called the “first fruits” (1 Corinthians 15:20-23). Mary’s Assumption is the “first fruits,” sign, and type of the general resurrection of all mankind, so that she represents the age to come, in which death and sin will be conquered once and for all (1 Corinthians 15:26). The Assumption is, therefore, directly the result of Christ’s own victory over sin and death. It, too, has a Christocentric meaning, in the same way as the Immaculate Conception and the designation Theotokos.

The Protestant objector might protest that “[Christ's] resurrection is the sure sign of Messiah’s triumph over the Devil. Together with all Christians, Mary would also benefit from Christ’s victory according to God’s plan of salvation at the “resurrection of life.” That is still a future event.” And Catholics would agree. Look again at what Armstrong had to say, above.

Putting Armstrong’s words more plainly, Mary — in the end of her days upon the Earth — served for us the same purpose that she served in giving her assent to being the mother of the Christ child; she is the foremost example of a Christian and disciple of Christ. She began that role with her unfailing devotion to the will of God; it is fitting that she should complete that role (in this world) by being our example of the fulfilled promise of Christ. In her sinless beauty, she was not subject to death and decay, as all the rest of us must endure, but was instead immediately glorified in the hereafter, caught up bodily in the glory and salvation of Christ.

It is true that Mary’s Assumption is a tradition that the Church inherited not from her first fathers, but from the Byzantines. It is true that those denounced as heretics, in the 4th and 5th centuries, were also the first to teach the Assumption of Mary (but it should be noted that while the Transitus was rejected as heretical, this does not imply that all the teachings within it were seen as heretical by the Church; a portion of them certainly were, but that is all we can be certain of).

But all of this doesn’t argue against the validity of the teaching. Nor does it in any way undermine the fact, as Alan Schreck noted, that “in the hundred years before Pope Pius’ declaration, the popes had received petitions from 113 cardinals, 250 bishops, 32,000 priests and religious brothers, 50,000 religious women, and 8 million lay people, all requesting that the Assumption be recognized officially as a Catholic teaching. Apparently, the pope discerned that the Holy Spirit was speaking through the people of God on this matter.”

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.”

The Annunciation is chronicled in the Gospel of Luke, and — along with the wedding at Cana — gives us the best glimpse into just who Mary was. For those who might be interested, it should be noted that the first half of the Hail Mary prayer is derived directly from Luke 1.

In the section concerning Mary as the New Ark, we looked at Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, and at how the yet-unborn John the Baptist leapt in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice. This, of course, paralleled David’s leaping and shouting before the Ark of the Covenant, and is a part of Luke’s confirmation that Mary herself is the New Ark of the Covenant. Prior to this incident, though, is the actual Annunciation, when the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her of God’s plan.

Let’s look closely at the Luke’s detail of the Annunciation.

[26]In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,

[27] to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.

Notice here the rather profound significance that Luke gives to Mary’s virginity — two mentions of it in a single verse. This could just be an attempt to give attention to the prophecy concerning the virgin who would conceive and bear a son, but it should be noted that even a goodly number of Jewish scholars note that the relevant passage from Isaiah is more properly translated as “the young woman shall conceive…”

That’s not to say that Isaiah was not referring to Mary, of course; he was. The point is that the emphasis on Mary’s virginity is significant above and beyond its relevance to prophecy. Luke is drawing our attention to it.

[28] And he came to her and said, “Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”

This is an off topic observation, but I might note that a slightly different translation of this greeting is basically the first like of the Hail Mary. “O favored one” is often translated as “full of grace”. The Greek term used is kecharitomene, which is always used as a description of a characteristic quality of a person, and its use here is an implication on the part of Luke that Mary was in a state of sanctifying grace at least at the time of the Annunciation (that is: prior to her being overshadowed by the Spirit), and possibly from the very beginning.

[29] But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be.
[30] And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
[31] And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.
[32] He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High;
and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,
[33] and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever;
and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
[34] And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?”

Luke 1:34 is the most significant line here, for a variety of reasons. First, it should be noted that the line has been translated in a variety of ways. The King James Version, for example, puts the line as follows: “Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” Other translations end her question with “since I am a virgin.” We’ve already discussed the concept of “know” as it is used in different parts of the Bible; I trust the meaning here is likewise understood by the Reader.

Now, let’s pause and consider something: why did Mary respond in this way?

Mary was betrothed to Joseph — we are told this directly. She was to be married to him in short order, although they had not dwelt in the same house at the time she conceived Christ — this is confirmed by the Gospel of Matthew (c.f. Matthew 1:18). Now, correct me if I am wrong, but if I walked up to a blue-eyed bride and remarked to her that her kids are probably going to have nice blue eyes as well, her response would probably not be “how can this be?” Indeed, if you were to talk to most brides, they probably wouldn’t express surprise if you noted that somewhere along the line there might be a baby or two that gets born.

And if any bride did respond with incredulity, what would that mean? Well, in our modern era, it probably means that either she has no idea what sex is, or that she and her husband have decided to make heavy use of various birth control methods. In the past, though, it could have either meant that the bride was indeed in need of a bit of a talking-to regarding “the birds and the bees”, or that she had elected to remain celibate even into marriage.

We’ve already covered how Jewish law allowed for just such an undertaking — that is, how it allowed for a young woman to take a vow of celibacy that her husband would have implicitly assented to if he did not object within the day he learned of the vow. We have likewise covered, O Reader, how if the husband were to withdraw his approval of the vow after that first day, the sin of breaking a promise to the Lord would not be upon the wife: it would be upon the husband. Joseph, being a righteous man, would certainly have been cognizant of this fact, and would not have acted to bring about an occasion of sin for either himself or his wife, if in fact Mary had taken such a vow.

Scripture does not explicitly confirm that she had made just such a vow, of course, but — in noting that point — we still have to come back to her response to the angel. Indeed, if we look at it in context, we note that of the two possible explanations for her incredulity (ignorance regarding sex & reproduction vs. vow of celibacy), only the explanation that she had taken a vow of celibacy makes sense.

Regardless of the translation, the nature of Mary’s response in Luke 1:34 confirms, at least, that she knows a thing or two about “the birds and the bees” — she understands that children are a natural result of sex. And even if somehow she did not understand sexuality to that extent, the angel spells it out plainly for her (c.f. Luke 1:31). So we can safely discard the possibility that Mary had absolutely no knowledge concerning the functional aspects of reproduction.

And if we assume that Mary was an observant Jew — that is, that she had found favour with the Lord in part due to her diligent (c.f. Deuteronomy 6:17) observation of the extant covenant between God and man — and that she was even partly aware of the tenets of the law of Moses, we can certainly assume that she knew what sex was, and what it was for. Mosaic law is full of ordinances concerning sexuality, after all.

So the only explanation for Mary’s incredulous response that makes sense at all is that she had intended to live out her days under a vow of perpetual virginity.

Possible Objection #3: what about Matthew 1:24-25? It says very clearly that Joseph took Mary as his wife, “but knew her not until she had borne a son.” This completely confirms that they must have had sex after the birth of Jesus.

Response to Objection #3: the Greek word that is translated as “until”, heos, does not always imply a reversal. Consider its use in Matthew 28:20:

And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.

Are we to infer, then, that Jesus will not be with us after the end of the age? Of course not…but if we are to be consistent in our interpretation of Scripture, we should take care and make sure that when we interpret Matthew’s earlier description of the state of marital relations between Mary and Joseph, we do not interpret the verse in a way that we would not dare use to interpret a later verse in the same Gospel account.

Possible Objection #4: but in Matthew 1:25, the term used is heos hou. This is a different phrasing than in Matthew 28:20. It must imply a reversal.

Response to Objection #4: actually, it doesn’t; it is, as Clay Randall notes, “a Koine Greek shorthand for the phrase heos hou chronou en hoi (translated “until the time when”) and both phrases do not always mean a reversal of the condition being described in the main clause; for example:

“And when Paul appealed that he be held in custody for the Emperor’s decision, I ordered him held until I could send him to Caesar” (Acts 25:21)

Does this mean that Paul was no longer in custody by the time he was sent to Caesar? No.

Consider Matthew 13:33, “the kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed with three measures of wheat flour until the whole batch was leavened” Does this mean that once the batch was leavened, the woman removed the yeast? Of course not.”

Randall also provides a list of other passages of Scripture in which “until” is used in a non-reversing manner: “Genesis 8:7, 26:13, Numbers 20:17, Deuteronomy 2:15, 34:6, 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, Psalm 57:1, Psalm 72:7, Psalm 110:1, Psalm 123:2, Psalm 141:10, Psalm 142:7, Ecclesiastes 2:3, Song of Solomon 1:12, 2 Samuel 6:23, Isaiah 14:2, 33:23, Ezekiel 24:13, 1 Maccabees 5:54, Matthew 13:33, Matthew 14:22, Matthew 16:28, Matthew 18:34, Matthew 26:36, Matthew 28:20, John 4:49, Romans 8:22, 1 Corinthians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 15:25, Ephesians 4:13, 1 Timothy 4:13, 1 Timothy 6:14, 2 Peter 1:19, Revelation 2:25-26.”

And since what is at really under discussion here is a Greek phrase, then if we look at the Septuagint we can note that in the Old Testament, the following passages feature an example of heos hou specifically, in which it is used in a non-reversing manner: “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.”

Now, as the Reader can see, we are beginning to jump all over the Bible here. This, then, gives us a very natural entrance into the next part of our discussion: how Mary is referenced in the rest of the Gospels, and how these other references pertain to her perpetual virginity.