This was inspired by recent conversations I've had about Semper Virgo (sv; the idea that Mary remained a virgin even after her marriage to Joseph), but I'm not limiting this post to that. Instead, I want to go through the relationship of the members of the holy family and the typological significance involved. This post will specifically be dedicated to that question, but as for the more in-depth typology, that'll be for next post.
First, and probably the most contentious one, is that of Mary. To address the sv debate itself, I would agree with that position. Now, to give a brief synopsis of the debate itself, the sv position is that the verses that seem to imply she did are misunderstood, and that there is little in the bible saying one way or the other but that the early fathers (plus Luther and even much later Lutherans like Pieper) nearly unanimously agreed with the position, thus it is most likely the case. Now, I don't believe that it is a dogmatic position as Rome does and I do understand why there is a debate, as it's a complicated issue. However, I still would fall among those who believe it.
Now, for the passages in question, I'll briefly summarize why they don't actually refer to what they may seem:
'[Joseph] knew her not until she had given birth to a son.' Matt 1:25a
This is one of the most commonly-used passages, and it is pretty strong. However, if we look at the Greek word for "until" used here, ἥως, its dictionary definition is "A conjunction, preposition and adverb of continuance, until." Now, the simple definition would just "until," but it's actually more complicated than that. It doesn't necessarily imply, like its corresponding word in the English, that the event would happen after. Rather, it just is a continuous event that has an undefined end result. A great example of this is in Christ's words at His ascension: "And behold, I am with you always, to [ the end of the age.” Matt 28:20 (note the same author) In this case, Christ is saying that He will be with us so long as we are in this age, but we know that the condition (Christ being with us) will remain even afterwards. I would argue that the same is true for the passage in question, Joseph did not know Mary before she gave birth to Christ, but this is also carried over even afterwards.
'Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? ' Matt 13:55
This passage is, in my reckoning, the most common passage used in opposition to the belief. However, this one is actually a bit more simple. It falls victim to a similar problem where the word for brother does not necessarily entail biological brotherhood, but it can also be used to refer to a biological kinship. Now, to be clear, it usually does, but there are excellent examples where it doesn't. For one thing, Lot is referred to as Abraham's brother in the Septuagint (same word) but is definitely not, being his nephew. Also, even if the word in almost 90% of cases refers to biological brotherhood, it can't in that place, since we see elsewhere in the scriptures "but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene" John 19:25 and 'among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.' Matthew 27:56. In both of these passages, we see another Mary at the tomb, in one passage clearly listed as Jesus's aunt and another called the mother of James and Jude, two of the acclaimed "brothers of the Lord." In this way, we can clearly see that James and Jude were instead the children of Mary's sister and thus Jesus' cousins. This also isn't incompatible with their titles as the brother of our Lord, since it merely refers to their biological kinship, not necessarily their actual relation.
' Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. ' Genesis 2:24
This passages are also used very often to argue that sexual relations are required for a valid marriage, and thus Mary and Joseph would have to know each other if they were to be validly married. I find this argument compelling but not convincing. I don't think the sexual relationship is necessarily synonymous with the becoming of one flesh, though to have a sexual relationship is certianly to do so. Rather, I would argue that the Lord, through His word of blessing through the priest, makes the two one, which often culminates in the consummation of the marriage but doesn't necessarily. In addition, if one were to have premarital sexual relations with someone, they would become one flesh, but do so outside of the Lord's design, and the ripping apart of those relationships is synonymous with the tearing asunder of what has been brought together. However, if one were to wed and remain without sexual relations, I don't think that the Word of God which binds them together in the rite of holy matrimony would be ineffectual.
'Do not deprive one another [of sexual relations], except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.' 1 Corinthians 7:5
This one is also a fairly strong one, but I do think that the rest of the chapter shows that it is by no means an absolute rule. For example, St. Paul says as much in the very next verse: 'Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.' In addition, if they were to refrain from sexuality in marriage and remain betrothed (which is still a part of marriage, as I will elaborate on later in this post), then St. Paul says "If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better." 1 Cor 7:36-38 In this way, we can by no means argue that it would be illicit for Mary and Joseph to refrain from sexuality, as St. Paul seems to even bless the practice! What's more, Mary and Joseph were married (in a sense, not in a way that was more than betrothal per se). Joseph was said to desire to "divorce" her after her pregnancy was found out and the angel even called Mary his wife (Matt 1:19-20), and this is because the cultural understanding of betrothal was very different. In this period, there were two stages of marriage. The first is the betrothal, which involved the marriage ceremony and after which the two were legitimately married, and the second involves the man taking the woman into his household. It's debated whether the sexual union was licit during this period, but my understanding is that the union is really the big distinction between the two periods, though this is physically manifested in the woman moving into the man's household, which we see of Mary in Luke 2:4-5. In this way, Mary would qualify as fully married, since she moved in with him and thus completed the two stages, and yet also only betrothed in the sense that they remained celibate, thus falling into St. Paul's words in 1 Cor 7 about those betrothed.
Now, those, in my understanding are really the specific passages against the doctrine, but I will also address the more reason-based ones. For one thing, Joseph is referred to as Jesus' father (Luke 2:48), and it would be odd to refer to Joseph this way if Mary and Joseph weren't married. Postponing the contradiction of this with the actual marital status of Mary and Joseph (as I will do this in just a moment), this also is somewhat irrelevant. It's true that this would be odd, but of course it is! The entire situation is odd! We have a mother who conceived and bore God in her womb without her knowing a man. It can't get much more odd than that, and I think there really isn't any title for him that would work. Another argument is a more meta-polemical one in the burden of proof is on the sv side and that we must have a sola scriptura argument in favor of Mary's virginity. I would certainly agree with the former but strongly disagree with the latter. For the first point, we are arguing that Mary and Joseph followed a way of marriage that is contrary to the common order of things, and thus I do think it's fair to require more proof from us rather than us require proof of them, which I think we greatly meet. However, I don't think a sola scriptura argument is either very good nor necessary. For one thing, I am not arguing for a doctrine. I am not arguing that this is the peak or example for how every marriage needs to function, but I am rather making a historical claim about the state of the marriage itself. What's more, I am also not saying that this view is dogmatic, as it really has little bearing on one's faith in Christ. Since I think it is a pious opinion, I think it is permissible to lean heavily on the testimony of the fathers for my evidence, especially since there is little in the scriptures one way or the other.
Having said that, I will now make my positive scriptural argument for the case, and this is shaping up to be one of my longer posts. Really, I know of only two particularly strong texts: '[Gabriel:] And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus...And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin [literally: I know no man]?” ' Matt 2:31, 34. In this passage, the angel tells Mary that she will conceive a child, but he doesn't say anything about her doing so miraculously. Really, based on his words so far, Mary has every reason to believe that she will have a child in the normal way and that this child will then be the messiah. However, her response is strange if the two were in anything more than the equivalent of engagement, which we've already established they were. Many patristic sources, as well as other documents, say that this is because Mary took a vow of chastity before her marriage and thus the two were in a kind of eternal liminal space between marriage and betrothal. I would argue that this mirror's David's relationship with Abishag at the end of his life, which I will elaborate on in the next post.
What I probably think is the strongest scriptural case, however, is John 19:26-27: 'When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. ' John 19:26-27 This passage is an absolutely bizarre one if you believe that James, Jude, and Simon, some of Jesus' "brothers" who were clearly adults at the time, were his biological half-siblings from Mary and Joseph. It seems Jesus was in charge of Mary's wellbeing, as Joseph had likely died at this point, so why on earth would he have the ability to pass on her caretaking to his disciple if he had biological siblings to do the job? After his death, it would obviously go to his younger brothers. But if they weren't his actual brothers, as we know clearly from scripture and tradition regarding at least some of them, then they would have no obligation to care for her, and thus Jesus could pass it on to the Apostle John.
With that said, I will acknowledge that there are a few typological interpretations of some prophetic passages on the topic, and while I do find them compelling, I am against using typology for debating purposes unless used by the scriptures or for supplementary purposes.
To reiterate, I do want to admit that the scriptural argument is weak and there is little to suggest that Mary had marital relations or didn't. However, the point of these scriptural arguments is to point out that the verses for it are much weaker and have much less historically substantiated interpretations than many assume, and those interpretation of specific verses that do point to it have much more historical attestation. In that way, I am by no means arguing that there is perfectly clear scriptural data one way or the other, but I would like to say that the fathers are very close to unanimous on the subject and, seeing as its both a matter of scriptural interpretation with little bearing on the confession of a given faith, then I think that it is very reasonable to side with the historic church on the issue, of course without devolving into rudeness or personal attacking, as it seems some like to do on both sides.
Now, I would like to at least briefly (since this is already a really long post) address some of the fathers' views. Firstly, you see numerous fathers, especially early ones, refer to Mary with the title "ever-virgin," with the earliest being Hippolytus (Against Beron and Helix, Fragment VIII). Now, some of the fathers do quote a text called the Protoevangelium of James to talk about it, and the text is well-known to be spurious even though it shows up very early. It also shows up as cited by Origen, who uses it in favor of the doctrine. Though he also affirms the belief, he seemingly does so even as he sees the sketchiness of the text, perhaps showing his certainty of sv (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 10.17). What's more, Jerome, whose view most aligns with my own, seems to have no connection with the text at all, instead arguing that the brothers of Christ were cousins rather than half-brothers (On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary 15). What's more, in the same text he also claims that such early fathers as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr held to it, and even though I can't back his words up, we do know that he almost definitely had access to texts that we don't (ibid., 19). As for the patristic quotations against it, most of them are simply a given father calling James his title of "brother of our Lord," but we have already established that this does not refer to him as the brother of Jesus literally but as a title of his kinship to our Lord. In one case, I even saw someone bring up Josephus as a source for that, which was wild, since he is by no means one to know about Jesus' familial relations past titles given. The strongest patristic case I've seen is Hegesippus, of whom Eusebius wrote that he said Jude was "related to the Lord according to the flesh." (Ecclesiastical History 3.11) This, however, is at best inconclusive, as there are numerous very plausible alternatives. For one thing, I would agree with Jude was related to him according to the flesh, since he was his cousin. Also, there is an even more in-depth analysis of a further passage from him featured in this paper on the subject of semper virgo that uses Greek grammar which I am by no means qualified to pretend to know anything about, but it does seem like his statements actually point to James as a cousin. Finally, Irenaeus is used to argue against it but to be frank, I'm hardly sure how to address the arguments they're so bad. In Against Heresies 3.21.4, the bishop of Lyons says that Christ was conceived "before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity." For whatever reason, the author argued that this passage implied that Mary met with Joseph after she bore Christ, but that absolutely does not follow. He says that Christ was conceived and Joseph hadn't had marital relations with Mary, and thus was a virgin. There is no implication in that statement whatsoever, even less than in the infamous "until" passage above. Then that same author argues from 3.21.10, which compares the creation of Adam from virgin soil to Christ's conception in the virgin womb. The argument is that just as the land was eventually planted on and whatnot, so too Mary's womb was used for the creation of other children in the natural way. However, this too is ridiculous, as Irenaeus never says such and to argue it takes a huge stretching of his typology to say something that he never did. Even if that typology is what he was trying to say, this is just as inconsequential. Christ is the tree of life for crying out loud! Of course He could be considered to 'bear fruit' in whatever context he was referring to, so who needs other kids for the type!
With all that said, I do want to reiterate that I do not believe that the doctrine should be dogmatic, but I stand with St. Basil the Great, who so wisely says, "That would not have affected the teaching of our religion at all, because Mary's virginity was necessary until the service of the Incarnation, and what happened afterward need not be investigated in order to affect the doctrine of the mystery. But since the lovers of Christ do not allow themselves to hear that the Mother of God ceased at a given moment to be a virgin, we consider their testimony sufficient." (Homily on the Holy Generation of Christ 5:31)
Comments