- Jul 10, 2007
- 21,553
- 3,534
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I realize this topic has been brought up before, and in some other threads in here, but I didn't go looking for them. Sorry about that. I noticed the talk about the Theotokos having children or being ever-virgin, so I looked up some info, and I thought I'd share it here because I found it quite interesting.
WHAT SOME PROTESTANTS THINK ON THIS
I will first turn to the "Fathers of the Reformation" to speak for Orthodoxy in defending the teaching that Mary was "Ever Virgin". First I will let Ulrich Zwingli (leader of the Swiss Reformation, divided from Lutheran Reformers because he denied Christ's real presence in any form in the Eucharist) speak to this:
"She (Mary) had to be a virgin and perpetually a virgin..." (Reformed Dogmatics, p. 422, by H. Heppe).
And in a prayer he calls her:
"the pure and ever virgin..." (Prayers of the Eucharist, p. 184, by Jasper & Cuming).
Regarding the verse that "Joseph kept Mary a virgin until" [Matthew 1:25], John Calvin maintains in his commentary:
"Those words of Scripture do not mean that after His birth they cohabitated as man and wife..." (John Calvin NT Commentaries Vol. 3, p. 71).
And on the subject of Jesus' brethren he said:
"In the Hebrew manner relatives of any sort are called 'brethren'...It is therefore very ignorant to imagine that Mary had many sons because there are several mentions of Christ's brethren" (John Calvin NT Commentaries Vol. 3, p. 71).
This has always been the undisputed theology regarding Mary. From the Apostles on down nobody disputed the perpetual virginity of Mary for nearly 1600 years. This teaching is even considered to be prefigured in the Old Testament as reflected in the hymnology of the Orthodox Church:
"The shadow of the law passed when grace came, as the bush burnt, yet was not consumed, so the virgin gave birth yet remained a virgin, the Sun of Righteousness has risen instead of a pillar of flame, instead of Moses, there is Christ, the Saviour of our Souls" (Theotokion, tone 1).
THE ORTHODOX VIEWPOINT: BIBLICAL ANALYSIS
The word "brother" has a broader meaning in the Bible. It is not only used to mean the actual brother, but also the cousin or even the nephew.
For instance, Lot is called "Abraham's brother" whereas in reality he is his nephew (Gen. 14:14). Jacob is called a brother of Lavan whereas in reality Lavan is his uncle i.e. Jacob is his nephew (Gen 27:43. 29:15).
Kis's sons are called brothers, whereas in reality they are cousins of Eleazar's daughters (1 Paralip. /1 Chron. 23:21-22). 2 /4 Kings 10:13-14 talks about 42 brothers of Ochozius. Clearly, it must talk about people related to him but in a more general sense of the word.
The reason for this "brother" word problem is that neither the Jewish nor the Aramaic tongues have a special word in order to express the notion of a "cousin". When they wanted to mention the actual cousin as such they would do so periphrastically i.e. "son of the [father's] uncle" or "son of the brother of the mother". For this reason the actual cousin is expressed by the word "brother" when mentioned at one word. Thus, from the other verses will we only be able to (hopefully) understand if it really means brother or some other form of relation.
OK, so how can we be sure though that when the NT talks about "brothers of Jesus", it uses the word "brother" with a broad meaning and not the narrow one?
There are many reasons which force us to adopt the general meaning. Here are a few typical ones:
1. - The angel, when he evangelised the Theotokos (the Mother of God), said: "Here, you will conceive in your womb and bear" (συλλήψει εν γαστρί και τέξη. He speaks to her about conceiving and giving birth (τέξη - to give birth). Both are in the future structure. In the future also belonged her marriage with Joseph. She replied: "how come this, for I know no man?" (Luke 1:34). If the Virgin Theotokos was planning to come in matrimonial relations with Joseph, to have children, how come she places this question "Man I know not"? Isn't it more reasonable to accept that she had decided to stay a virgin after her betrothal by living under the protection of a male and not aim to become truly married, since had she intended to get married to Joseph in the first place she would not have said "man I know not"?
Of course, the Protestant will hasten to add here that he or she will not accept the word "ιδού" (= here) in "Here, you will conceive ..." as referring to the future but to the immediate present. For example, the Holy Writ says "ιδού άγγελος Κυρίου εφάνη" (Mt. 2:13), "ιδού μάγοι από Ανατολών παραγίνονται" (2:1) etc.
The word "ιδού" in the Holy Writ does not have the meaning of taking place in the immediate present but it refers to something that will take place unexpectedly. We bring a few examples: "Ιδού η Παρθένος έξει εν γαστρί" (Is. 7:14), "Ιδού ούτος κείται εις πτώσιν και ανάστασιν" (Lk. 2:34), "Ιδού έρχομαι ως κλέπτης" (Revel. 16:14). All of the above verses refer to future and unexpected events.
2. - When Jesus was 12 years old, it is evident that the holy family consisted of three persons only: His mother, Joseph, and Himself. Nowhere are any other brothers of His present (Lk. 2:41) until that age and public appearance of the Lord. Therefore, if other brothers of Jesus were born they must have been born after Jesus' 12th year of age.
But after His 12th birthday, nowhere is Joseph seen any more. Thus Joseph had probably died; the Theotokos seems to be on her own.
But even if we suppose that the so-called "brothers" had been born after the 12th birthday of Jesus, we will have to face the following logical difficulties: These brothers of Jesus were (at least) four (Matt. 12:46. Mark 6:3). The eldest one of these would be younger than Jesus by at least 12 years, whereas the youngest one would have to be younger than Jesus by at least 20 years for the following reason: If we presume that every 2 years one of these brothers would be born, since we have 4 brothers, these would have been born within a period of 8 years. Thus we have 12 + 8 = 20. Therefore when Jesus was 30 years old, the other "brothers" would be: the youngest 30 - 20 = 10 and the eldest would be 30 - 12 = 18. The behaviour, however, of these who behave in everything to Jesus like his guardians (c.f. John 7:3 and Mark 3:21) contradicts the fact that they would be younger than Jesus, who was the firstborn. Why?
Because the Holy Bible says that the eldest brothers, especially the firstborn, preside over the younger ones.
In other words, according to the verses from Genesis 27:29-40 "become master of your brother" and "supervise your brother" that Isaac said to Jacob when receiving Esau's birthrights (πρωτοτόκια, similarly Jesus must command his brothers and not be commanded by them, according to the customs. On the other hand, if we assume that the brothers were older than Jesus, this contradicts the fact that He is called the "firstborn" child (Matt. 1:25. Luke 2:7) [which means the first child that opens his mother's womb, not necessarily having other children following; this is plain Greek for the word "πρωτότοκος"; for more see below at (*)].
Therefore the brothers of Jesus were neither younger nor older than Him, impossible; therefore not real brothers. They were probably older in age and certainly relatives of His in the broader sense of the word (either children of Joseph's with another woman, or cousins of Jesus).
Perpetual Virginity of Mary
continued on next post.
WHAT SOME PROTESTANTS THINK ON THIS
I will first turn to the "Fathers of the Reformation" to speak for Orthodoxy in defending the teaching that Mary was "Ever Virgin". First I will let Ulrich Zwingli (leader of the Swiss Reformation, divided from Lutheran Reformers because he denied Christ's real presence in any form in the Eucharist) speak to this:
"She (Mary) had to be a virgin and perpetually a virgin..." (Reformed Dogmatics, p. 422, by H. Heppe).
And in a prayer he calls her:
"the pure and ever virgin..." (Prayers of the Eucharist, p. 184, by Jasper & Cuming).
Regarding the verse that "Joseph kept Mary a virgin until" [Matthew 1:25], John Calvin maintains in his commentary:
"Those words of Scripture do not mean that after His birth they cohabitated as man and wife..." (John Calvin NT Commentaries Vol. 3, p. 71).
And on the subject of Jesus' brethren he said:
"In the Hebrew manner relatives of any sort are called 'brethren'...It is therefore very ignorant to imagine that Mary had many sons because there are several mentions of Christ's brethren" (John Calvin NT Commentaries Vol. 3, p. 71).
This has always been the undisputed theology regarding Mary. From the Apostles on down nobody disputed the perpetual virginity of Mary for nearly 1600 years. This teaching is even considered to be prefigured in the Old Testament as reflected in the hymnology of the Orthodox Church:
"The shadow of the law passed when grace came, as the bush burnt, yet was not consumed, so the virgin gave birth yet remained a virgin, the Sun of Righteousness has risen instead of a pillar of flame, instead of Moses, there is Christ, the Saviour of our Souls" (Theotokion, tone 1).
THE ORTHODOX VIEWPOINT: BIBLICAL ANALYSIS
The word "brother" has a broader meaning in the Bible. It is not only used to mean the actual brother, but also the cousin or even the nephew.
For instance, Lot is called "Abraham's brother" whereas in reality he is his nephew (Gen. 14:14). Jacob is called a brother of Lavan whereas in reality Lavan is his uncle i.e. Jacob is his nephew (Gen 27:43. 29:15).
Kis's sons are called brothers, whereas in reality they are cousins of Eleazar's daughters (1 Paralip. /1 Chron. 23:21-22). 2 /4 Kings 10:13-14 talks about 42 brothers of Ochozius. Clearly, it must talk about people related to him but in a more general sense of the word.
The reason for this "brother" word problem is that neither the Jewish nor the Aramaic tongues have a special word in order to express the notion of a "cousin". When they wanted to mention the actual cousin as such they would do so periphrastically i.e. "son of the [father's] uncle" or "son of the brother of the mother". For this reason the actual cousin is expressed by the word "brother" when mentioned at one word. Thus, from the other verses will we only be able to (hopefully) understand if it really means brother or some other form of relation.
OK, so how can we be sure though that when the NT talks about "brothers of Jesus", it uses the word "brother" with a broad meaning and not the narrow one?
There are many reasons which force us to adopt the general meaning. Here are a few typical ones:
1. - The angel, when he evangelised the Theotokos (the Mother of God), said: "Here, you will conceive in your womb and bear" (συλλήψει εν γαστρί και τέξη. He speaks to her about conceiving and giving birth (τέξη - to give birth). Both are in the future structure. In the future also belonged her marriage with Joseph. She replied: "how come this, for I know no man?" (Luke 1:34). If the Virgin Theotokos was planning to come in matrimonial relations with Joseph, to have children, how come she places this question "Man I know not"? Isn't it more reasonable to accept that she had decided to stay a virgin after her betrothal by living under the protection of a male and not aim to become truly married, since had she intended to get married to Joseph in the first place she would not have said "man I know not"?
Of course, the Protestant will hasten to add here that he or she will not accept the word "ιδού" (= here) in "Here, you will conceive ..." as referring to the future but to the immediate present. For example, the Holy Writ says "ιδού άγγελος Κυρίου εφάνη" (Mt. 2:13), "ιδού μάγοι από Ανατολών παραγίνονται" (2:1) etc.
The word "ιδού" in the Holy Writ does not have the meaning of taking place in the immediate present but it refers to something that will take place unexpectedly. We bring a few examples: "Ιδού η Παρθένος έξει εν γαστρί" (Is. 7:14), "Ιδού ούτος κείται εις πτώσιν και ανάστασιν" (Lk. 2:34), "Ιδού έρχομαι ως κλέπτης" (Revel. 16:14). All of the above verses refer to future and unexpected events.
2. - When Jesus was 12 years old, it is evident that the holy family consisted of three persons only: His mother, Joseph, and Himself. Nowhere are any other brothers of His present (Lk. 2:41) until that age and public appearance of the Lord. Therefore, if other brothers of Jesus were born they must have been born after Jesus' 12th year of age.
But after His 12th birthday, nowhere is Joseph seen any more. Thus Joseph had probably died; the Theotokos seems to be on her own.
But even if we suppose that the so-called "brothers" had been born after the 12th birthday of Jesus, we will have to face the following logical difficulties: These brothers of Jesus were (at least) four (Matt. 12:46. Mark 6:3). The eldest one of these would be younger than Jesus by at least 12 years, whereas the youngest one would have to be younger than Jesus by at least 20 years for the following reason: If we presume that every 2 years one of these brothers would be born, since we have 4 brothers, these would have been born within a period of 8 years. Thus we have 12 + 8 = 20. Therefore when Jesus was 30 years old, the other "brothers" would be: the youngest 30 - 20 = 10 and the eldest would be 30 - 12 = 18. The behaviour, however, of these who behave in everything to Jesus like his guardians (c.f. John 7:3 and Mark 3:21) contradicts the fact that they would be younger than Jesus, who was the firstborn. Why?
Because the Holy Bible says that the eldest brothers, especially the firstborn, preside over the younger ones.
In other words, according to the verses from Genesis 27:29-40 "become master of your brother" and "supervise your brother" that Isaac said to Jacob when receiving Esau's birthrights (πρωτοτόκια, similarly Jesus must command his brothers and not be commanded by them, according to the customs. On the other hand, if we assume that the brothers were older than Jesus, this contradicts the fact that He is called the "firstborn" child (Matt. 1:25. Luke 2:7) [which means the first child that opens his mother's womb, not necessarily having other children following; this is plain Greek for the word "πρωτότοκος"; for more see below at (*)].
Therefore the brothers of Jesus were neither younger nor older than Him, impossible; therefore not real brothers. They were probably older in age and certainly relatives of His in the broader sense of the word (either children of Joseph's with another woman, or cousins of Jesus).
Perpetual Virginity of Mary
continued on next post.