While I have already discussed Mary's virginity before, I recently read St. Basil's homily on Christ's nativity (from the Popular Patristics series, On Fasting and Feasts), and I was floored with his beautiful and insightful interpretation of Matthew 1. This scriptural passage is often used against the semper virgo position, and he acknowledges these arguments when they really weren't yet being asked. However, he doesn't merely debunk them, but he uses other parts of the text to argue positively for Mary's virginity. With that said, I must also mentioned, his view is by no means the dominant one; folks like Augustine and possible Irenaeus describe the passage differently. However, I do think it's worth sharing, if at least to show how the fathers throughout history have thought about the doctrine in relation to exegesis.
'Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. ' (Matt. 1:18) 'It was Joseph who discovered both of these things, that she had conceived and what caused her to conceive, that it was of the Holy Spirit.' 4
This is immensely insightful and began a massive restructuring of my view of this passage. In Matthew 1:18, the apostle simply says that Mary "was found" to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit, without naming the agent who found her. Based on the verb εὑρίσκω, which refers to discovering something, typically after an inquiry. This may refer to a virginity inspections, which were often in pre-modern times and are still practiced in some places, though largely deemed unethical. This is also evidenced by the only reasonable subject doing the searching, which would be Joseph himself, as he was just mentioned immediately beforehand. Thus, it seems Joseph was aware she was pregnant but, after an inquiry, was able to determine that she still retained the marks of her virginity. This would be nothing short of miraculous, which would corroborate her story that she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit.
'And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. ' (Matt 1:19-20) "And so, fearing to be called the husband of such a woman, he resolved to divorce her quietly. For he did not have the stomach to publicize what had happened to her. But being a righteous man, he obtained a revelation of the mysteries...Do not think that he was trying to conceal some sin of hers in the face of absurd conjectures. For he was called a righteous man, and he who is righteous does not conceal transgressions through silence. "Do not fear to take Mary as your wife." This shows that neither was he vexed at her nor did he feel loathing for her; rather, it indicates that he feared to take her because she was filled with the Holy Spirit."
This part was similarly mind-blowing, and while this will likely be a very contentious view, he at least gives much food for thought. The biggest point here is that Joseph's desire to divorce her quietly was not out of a false belief of her infidelity, but rather, it was akin to Isaiah's words, "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the king, the Lord of hosts!" or St. Peter's, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord." These are expressions of God's holiness and the fact that we are yet impure and thus must be separated from God for our own good. Similarly, Joseph sought to divorce her because he knew she bore God in her womb, but he sought to do so quietly because he knew she had done nothing wrong. He then disputes the more common view, in which Joseph was going to divorce her because she seemed to be an adulteress. According to Basil, this could not be so, as this action is done out of Joseph's righteousness, while excusing an adulteress is unjust. A major counter-passage to this point is the story of the woman caught in adultery, in which Christ absolves said woman, even turning the men away from stoning her. In any case, St. Basil sees this passage as referring to Joseph's exoneration of Mary, hence why she was divorced quietly--he knew she was innocent.
Regarding the angel's words, his reference to Joseph's "fear" is significant. This is relayed by an angel, so it's presumable he was "fearful" to take her as his wife in some sense. This is odd if he thought her to be an adulterer, in which case he would despise her, not fear. However, the reference to fear fits much better with the "unclean lips" interpretation, in which Joseph is simply afraid to marry she who is chosen by God in such a way. The angel's further words would seem to contradict Basil's entire interpretation thus far, since it appears as though the angel's answer to Joseph's fear is to affirm that Mary's child is of the Holy Ghost. This would seem to indicate that Joseph was seeking to divorce her quietly from fear of adultery, as other commentators like Augustine would say. Unfortunately, this is the major hurdle for Basil's view, though he doesn't really address it in the passage, merely mentioning that these words show Christ's nature as the God-man. Perhaps he thinks that the "for" is indicating that Joseph's fear was due to Mary's having the incarnate God in her womb. Thus, the angel is not explaining why Joseph need not be afraid, but he is simply telling him not to fear, presumably because the Lord wills him to marry her and protect her. While this is interesting, it is grammatically unlikely (perhaps impossible), but would explain why he is so certain that Joseph is afraid to marry her because of the Holy Spirit's presence.
'When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.' Matthew 1:24-25 (cf. Luke 2:7 for "firstborn") "[Joseph] abstained from marital relations. For it says: "He did not know her until she had given birth to her firstborn son." Now this verse has given rise to the conjecture that, after rendering pure service in accomplishing the birth of the Lord through the Holy Spirit, Mary did not renounce the customary marital relations...son. In many instances the word "until" seems to suggest a kind of temporal boundary, but in reality it indicates indefiniteness. What did the Lord mean when he said: "And behold, I am with you all days, until the close of the age?" Indeed, not that the Lord was not going to be with the saints after this age! Rather, it means that the promise of the present age will not be rescinded in the age to come. So we say that in this case too the word "until" should be taken in the same way. Now when firstborn is said, by no means is he the firstborn in comparison to siblings who came after him. Rather, he is called the firstborn because he was the first one to open the womb of his mother."
This line of argumentation is more negative, with him simply debunking anti-Semper Virgo arguments. The first is from 1:24, in which the apostle recounts that two had no marital relations before our Lord was born. Many have argued that this means they must have afterwards, but that simply isn't what the text says. The word ἕως, as Basil rightly points out, simply mentions that they did something beforehand, namely refraining from the sexual union. The example he gives, Matt 28:20, is one I often go to, where our Lord promises to be with us until the end of the age. This obviously does not mean that He will be absent afterwards, as in the new creation, "the dwelling place of God is with man" (Rev. 21:3). Now, this does not mean the word doesn't have a connotation--there are plenty of texts where it does imply that the condition ends afterwards, but it does not always. The same is true for the word firstborn, which intuitively refers to the first one born, not necessarily that there are others after. In other words, being the "firstborn" and "only child" are not mutually exclusive.
"But in our opinion, even if none of this harms the account of piety--for virginity was necessary for service in the economy, but inquiring into what happened next out of curiosity should be avoided by reason of its mystery--nonetheless, since lovers of Christ do not accept the opinion that the Mother of God' ever ceased being a virgin, we think the following testimonies suffice."
This passage is likely of the greatest practical importance in this post. Throughout church history, much ink has been spilled, and even in the modern day, the Roman church has dogmatized semper virgo, and I would imagine the East wouldn't be too happy if it were rejected. Even some Lutherans have said they would excommunicate someone who denied it. This is absurd because, as St. Basil said, her virginity or lack thereof after Christ's birth has nothing to do with Christian doctrine. While it may be deduced from the scriptures and is confessed by virtually unanimous church tradition, that does not constitute religious dogma. In the same way, I wouldn't dogmatize one's view of the earth's shape. I think it's rather silly scientifically or exegetically to believe in a flat earth, but how could one's view in this matter affect one's status in the church!? In the same way, I would never dogmatize a given view of Mary's virginity, but I will err on the side of my fathers, those "lovers of Christ" whose "testimonies suffice" in this matter.
Σχόλια