Perpetual Virginity Of Mary Doctrine And Biblical Contradictions
The doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary asserts that Mary, the mother of Jesus, remained a virgin throughout her life. This doctrine is rooted in early Christian tradition and has been debated among various Christian denominations.
The biblical basis for this doctrine is often cited in the accounts of Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke. The Gospel of Matthew states that Jesus was born of a virgin, fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 [6]. The Gospel of Luke also emphasizes the miraculous nature of Jesus' conception, with the angel Gabriel announcing to Mary that she will conceive through the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:26-38). Some interpret these accounts as implying Mary's perpetual virginity.
However, other biblical passages seem to contradict this doctrine. For instance, Matthew 1:25 states that Joseph "knew her not until she had brought forth a son," which some interpret as implying that Joseph and Mary had a normal marital relationship after Jesus' birth [2]. Additionally, the New Testament mentions Jesus' "brothers" and "sisters" (Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 6:3), which some understand as referring to children of Mary and Joseph.
The early Church Fathers addressed these apparent contradictions. Augustine argued that the term "until" in Matthew 1:25 does not necessarily imply that Joseph and Mary had a conjugal relationship after Jesus' birth. He also suggested that the "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus mentioned in the New Testament could be referring to relatives or step-siblings [2].
The Catholic tradition has consistently affirmed the doctrine of Mary's Perpetual Virginity. Thomas Aquinas argued that Mary's virginity was a sign of her devotion to God and that it was fitting for her to take a vow of virginity [3]. This view is also reflected in the writings of other Catholic theologians.
In contrast, many Protestant Reformers, such as John Calvin, rejected the doctrine of Mary's Perpetual Virginity. Calvin argued that the biblical references to Jesus' "brothers" and "sisters" should be understood as referring to actual siblings, and that the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity is not supported by Scripture [6].
Other traditions also have varying views on this doctrine. The Jewish tradition, as reflected in the Babylonian Talmud, does not address the issue directly, but its discussions on virginity and marriage provide a different cultural context for understanding the biblical accounts [4].
The Methodist theologian Adam Clarke noted that the idea of Mary's Perpetual Virginity is not necessarily supported by Scripture and that the biblical accounts suggest that Jesus was Mary's firstborn, but not necessarily her only child [5, 8].
one commentary tradition by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown suggests that the last mention of Mary in the New Testament (Acts 1:14) does not imply any pre-eminence over the disciples, and that the fable of the Assumption of the Virgin has no foundation even in tradition [7].
The Reformed tradition, as represented by Charles Hodge, emphasizes the importance of Jesus' humanity and his descent from David through Mary, but does not necessarily affirm or deny the doctrine of Mary's Perpetual Virginity [1].
The various interpretations of the biblical accounts and the differing views on the doctrine of Mary's Perpetual Virginity reflect the complex and contested nature of this theological concept. While some traditions affirm the doctrine as a matter of faith, others interpret the biblical evidence differently.
The biblical and historical context of the doctrine highlights the ongoing debates and discussions among Christian traditions. The early Church Fathers' interpretations and the subsequent developments in various Christian denominations demonstrate the complexity of this doctrine.
Sources
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 126: substance of the Virgin Mary.” This is involved in the Scriptural statement that He was born of a woman, which can only mean that He was born in the sense in which other children of men are born of women. This is essential to his true humanity, and to that likeness to men which makes them his brethren, and which was se cured by his taking part in flesh and blood. ( Heb. ii. 14 .) The incarnation of the Son of God, his stooping to take into personal and perpetual union with Himself a nature infinitely lower than his own, was an act of uns”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 4: Augustine — Anti-Manichaean, Anti-Donatist — BOOK XXIII. (part 7): in Mary herself, so that the flesh of Christ, although produced from a virgin, still owed its origin to David's seed. But as, in fact, both statements are made by one and the same writer, who informs us both that Joseph was the husband of Mary and that the mother of Christ was a virgin, and that Christ was of the seed of David, and that Joseph is in the list of Christ's progenitors in the line of David, those who prefer the authority of the sacred Gospel to that of heretical fiction must conclude that Mary was not ”
- theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part (Tertia Pars), Of the Virginity of the Mother of God, Art. 4: Article: Whether the Mother of God took a vow of virginity? I answer that, As we have stated in the SS, Question [88], Article [6], works of perfection are more praiseworthy when performed in fulfilment of a vow. Now it is clear that for reasons already given (Articles [1],2,3) virginity had a special place in the Mother of God. It was therefore fitting that her virginity should be consecrated to God by vow. Nevertheless because, while the Law was in force both men and women were bound to attend”
- Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Ketubot 36a.8: The Gemara answers: He cited this baraita due to the fact that he has another baraita from which to raise as a contradiction to it: A deaf-mute, and an imbecile, and a grown woman, and a woman whose hymen was torn not in the course of sexual relations, do not have a claim concerning virginity, as they do not have the presumptive status of a virgin. However, a blind woman and an ailonit have a claim concerning virginity. Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: A blind woman does not have a claim concerning virginity. The baraitot contradict each other with reg”
- John (Methodist/Wesleyan) “Adam Clarke on John 7:3: His brethren - said - It is generally supposed that these were the children of the sisters of his mother Mary; but some of the ancients have stated that Joseph had several children by a former wife. See the account of the evangelist prefixed to this Gospel. No solid proof can be alleged against this; nor can we pretend to say that these were not the children of Joseph and Mary. Our blessed Lord, it is true, was her first born, while she was yet a virgin; but no man can prove that he was her last. It is an article of faith, in the Popish Church, to believe in the perpet”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 49: declaring him to be “God blessed for ever,” he mentions separately, that, “as concerning the flesh, he was descended from the Jews.” Again if he had not been truly begotten of the seed of David, what is the meaning of the expression, that he is the “fruit of his loins;” or what the meaning of the promise, “Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne?” ( Ps. 132:11 ). Moreover their mode of dealing with the genealogy of Christ, as given by Matthew, is mere sophistry; for though he reckons up the progenitors not of Mary, but ”
- Acts (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Acts 1:14: continued with one accord--knit by a bond stronger than death. in prayer and supplication--for the promised baptism, the need of which in their orphan state would be increasingly felt. and Mary the mother of Jesus--distinguished from the other "women," but "so as to exclude the idea of her having any pre-eminence over the disciples. We find her with the rest in prayer to her glorified Son" [WEBSTER and WILKINSON]. This is the last mention of her in the New Testament. The fable of the Assumption of the Virgin has no foundation even in tradition [ALFOR”
- Luke (Methodist/Wesleyan) “Adam Clarke on Luke 1:7: Both were now well stricken in years - By the order of God, sterility and old age both met in the person of Elisabeth, to render the birth of a son (humanly speaking) impossible. This was an exact parallel to the case of Sarah and Abraham, Gen 11:30; Gen 17:17. Christ must (by the miraculous power of God) be born of a virgin: whatever was connected with, or referred to, his incarnation must be miraculous and impressive. Isaac was his grand type, and therefore must be born miraculously - contrary to the common course and rule of nature: Abraham was a hundred years of ag”