Why is it better if she dies a virgin?
Jerome, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and Wesley’s heartfelt convictions notwithstanding (cuz, you know: whadda those guys know?), I never understood why it’s so important for Mary to remain a virgin after having Jesus. I get why people like the idea of Mary being a virgin before the birth of Jesus, since that would definitely be a bonafide miracle, and so would point, Springer Spaniel-style, to the divinity of Christ.
But why on earth would I care if Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ? I hate the assumption in which insistence on the perpetual virginity of Mary is, it seems to me, necessarily grounded, which is that it’s somehow ideal for a woman to spend her entire life as a virgin.
I just don’t see how to escape the conclusion that the insistence of Mary’s perpetual virginity sounds pretty exactly like good ol’ fashioned misogyny.
If, given a choice (and you better believe that the Bible’s utter ambiguity on the matter does, in fact, give us that choice), I choose to insist that the married Mary died a virgin, then what does that say about how I feel about women, marriage, and sex—which is to say about the sacred value of family?
Why would anyone who is pro-family values insist that Mary died a virgin? Isn’t that like someone being pro-weather, but then never stepping outside?
Let Mary have, and know, sexual relations with her loving husband. Are we such idiots that we deny the divinity in that?
Additional Reading in Christian Issues...
- From hell to Crazy Town
- They’re here; they’re queer; they’ve plenty to fear: LGBT students form secret club at conservative Christian university [now including updates]
- When evil is serious, it reaches for a Bible and cross
- Guest post: “A Good Week to Hate Christians”
- From gay-hating fundie to righteously angry lesbian. Now what?
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 98 comments… read them below or add one }
Newer Comments →
James. Jesus’ brother was James.
if you’re unfamiliar with the theory of the perpetual virginity of Mary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary
She didn’t! Jesus was her firstborn, but she had other children, even one, I can’t remember his name (I’d have to look it up in the Bible) but he was referred to as the brother of Jesus.
That’s a theory as well. We don’t know if He had brothers or not the word used for James was also used for cousin.
She didn’t. Very simple.
Misogyny is a good word. Paul was full of it.
The Bible isn’t utterly ambiguous about it. His mother and BROTHERS came to see him, and later James, the BROTHER of Jesus was in charge of the church in Jerusalem after the resurrection. Church Tradition much later developed that required Mary to remain forever Virgin, probably because the Mother of God could not be seen as a mortal human. She must have been born by Immaculate Conception (without sin) herself. Mary’s Assumption directly into heaven completed the tradition.
The word used for cousin is the actual descriptor in the Greek Hebrew (they were interchangeable terms). So we really don’t know.
I see you don't really get it (for instance, in your equating the perpetual virginity of Mary to saying that she died a virgin), but even so, your derision of the immaturity of such belief and, not for the first time, playing the misogyny card where it isn't really applicable—even to the extent of pointing to the burka—is somewhat less than laudable.
"Mary’s perpetual divinity"?
Awh… close enough.
And no one in all of this has quoted Chesterton. Sad.
"It is true that the historic Church has at once emphasised celibacy and emphasised the family; has at once (if one may put it so) been fiercely for having children and fiercely for not having children. It has kept them side by side like two strong colours, red and white, like the red and white upon the shield of St. George. It has always had a healthy hatred of pink. It hates that combination of two colours which is the feeble expedient of the philosophers. It hates that evolution of black into white which is tantamount to a dirty gray. In fact, the whole theory of the Church on virginity might be symbolized in the statement that white is a colour: not merely the absence of a colour. All that I am urging here can be expressed by saying that Christianity sought in most of these cases to keep two colours coexistent but pure."
– Orthodoxy, Ch. VI
As pure as the perpetual virginity of Mary.
I think I like this Chesterton quote–and would know for sure, if I only had a half-hour to find out. But, generally speaking, I think it’s never sad when no one has quoted Chesterton, who never used one word when fifty would do.
Where’s the “like” button?
Laurie said: “John Shore….should apologize for calling historical Christians immature in their beliefs that have lasted for 20 centuries.”
But is it not immature and primitive to cling to a bronze-age interpretation of scripture in the light of advancing and genuine understanding of our world? The MOST dangerous thing is to NOT incorporate that understanding of our universe, our world and the life therein.
Mike [a recovering Catholic since c.1970...all the guilt, none of the woo-woo]
What does that have to do with this?
Dear Leonardo, cool 16th century name.
sorry about the delayed response. Life happens.
Am I to understand that you don’t think Catholics are Christians?
And when did I ever use the term Catholic. I am not a Catholic apologist but an apologist for the historic church which includes the branch commonly known as the Roman Catholic church among others. The branches of the church that were founded before the 16th century renegade monk.
And I guess ultimately I was saying that John Shore the brilliant 21st century Christian humorist should apologize for calling historical Christians immature in their beliefs that have lasted for 20 centuries.
I am not Catholic and don’t know anything about any specific Pope (except for the last one). But I do laugh very hard when I am among other recovering Protestants and somebody repeats our favorite joke that Protestants believe in the infallibility of every Christian except the Pope!
I’m catholic. I believe in the virgin birth and I think all of you who hijacked this thread in order to project your own emotionally fueled , defensive rants about whether Mary was a Virgin or not and how misogynistic the church is are assholes for moving the attention away from a young girl who needs help and the guy who just helped her.
OK Laurie maybe Protestants (originated by an Augustine) do that "Protestants only use the Bible literally when they want to. Ideology always comes first and Bible verses second to a Protestant".
But talking about Christians, their believes are based on Christ and His Word. The problem is when people merges Catholicism with Christianism. The Christian Doctrine was established in the first century, not in December 8,1854 by a man named Pius IX (Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti) who backed his sayings decreting the "papal infallibility" in 1870. These are totally different religions, it is not the same marianism and Christianism. The merging of these leads people to confusion.
Dear Winkle, et al, How am I confusing who's who?
Nobody has yet to address the central argument that 20th /21st century people who have grown up in a sex saturated culture shouldn't condemn a doctrine that the majority of 2 millenia of Christians have certified. Ultimately the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos is about holiness not sex.
My apologies to Spencer/ Merton and others but the word "until" doesn't necessarily mean that they did it afterward. Just ask any kid if Mom says don't even think about playing outside until you clean your room doesn't necessarily mean that you can play outside after you clean your room. I am told that the original language is even more obscure than the English. Besides it doesn't matter what the Bible says every intelligent Christian knows that the Protestants only use the Bible literally when they want to. Ideology always comes first and Bible verses second to a Protestant.
An interesting off topic story to illustrate how blinded a typical 21st century christian is to sex saturation is a recent conversation with "Brenda". Brenda is related to some of the local christian protestant heirarchs and feels perfectly at home in any Evangelical church and regularly gives her testimony and Christian advice to anyone who will listen. She is also being abused to the point of hospitalization by her 3rd husband in the last 6 years.
As I am trying to do the paperwork for her divorce she wonders if she is doing the right thing.
"Afterall I just keep ending up with the same kind of guy what if the next one is even worse."
"maybe there doesn't have to be a next one" I suggest. (the way she drinks and smokes she only has another 5 – 10 years left anyway)
"Yeah right," she snorts, " and live like some kind of freaking nun."
Does all this in some way add up to the "proof" necessary to validate the authenticity of Jesus' mission? Because the only historical evidence we have, other than our holy scriptures, is his life and execution. Isn't it the experience that we have with the living Christ sufficient?
J.S. said "I certainly need Mary to be a virgin before the birth of Jesus, so that I will have zero reasons to question Jesus’ divine nature. "
Is anyone aware of any other gods/messiahs/prophets that were born of a virgin, performed miracles, were executed, and rose from the dead?
Nope. I know of only One.
Um…maybe this is too late and a bit off topic but why would "I certainly need Mary to be a virgin before the birth of Jesus, so that I will have zero reasons to question Jesus’ divine nature".?
I've had this same discussion with plenty of folk.. Jesus virgin birth is not mentioned in all the Gospel accounts and not (I think) by Paul, the earliest Christan writer extant. So if there had never been any mention of the birth or perhaps it was sort of a biblical typo (as in the suggestion that the virgin in Isaiah meant young chaste woman) then would that really shake your faith in Jesus? Somehow I doubt it.
And although Laurie makes a good point with the 'wet fish' syndrome, I think Barry is right.; Augustine's linking sex with original sin has a lot to do with this. I also think that there was a need to make Jesus into something more than a man- at all times. Something more like Hercules or any of the pagan gods who were the result of divine and human sexual intercourse. But that's just my opinion.
God says in Matt 1:25 (Sorry) "and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS." Let me just emphasize the word "till" and the word "firstborn". I think the answer is very clear.
That was exactly my thought.
That, and also that without birth control in that era, it was inevitable that she bore him some siblings, in due time.
I mean, either one believes the Bible or one doesn't, and that Scripture is pretty clear even to my feeble, old, antique, worn-out brain!
Need she have sex for Him to be but the Firstborn of the Ever-Virgin Mary?
And the Greek phrase translated as "till" here just means prior to this, up through this moment—which the Evangelist wishes again to emphasize, as this moment of birth is miraculous—her husband hadn't had sexual intercourse with her.
Laurie, you're confusing who's who.
On the home page of BHT it has a picture of C.S. Lewis with a caption that says Patron Saint. I was quoting Lewis.
Michael Spencer's comments mix up the issues of perpetual virginity and Mary's sinlessness. Two seperate issues.
Debating and fighting are two totally different animals. According to the Patron Saint of The Boar's Head Tavern theology is like a map that helps us to get where we are going. According to that analogy discussing and debating doctrine is no different than discussing what route to take on a map.
As far as name calling you did preface your article by saying that people who believe in the historical point of view need to grow up. You issued a challenge, if you feel you have lost you should apologize instead of falling back on the old line that it doesn't matter.
Yeah, Ric.
Laurie, if you've come for a fight, don't look to me … I've said my piece, and I have no desire whatsoever to get into a point-counterpoint argument, at the end of which neither of us will have said anything that the other hasn't already heard, so we're not changing each others' minds.
The most likely result is that one of us will stoop to calling the other names (probably with some kind of "ism" word … ahem!), and I'd much rather agree to disagree than put in that much effort into making each other miserable.
Blessings!
As somebody who loves a good point-counterpoint debate with a worthy opponent there is nothing that tingles my juices more than a Protestant apologist falling into the trap of "if it ain't in the
Bible then it ain't true". For if you are going to live by Biblical literalism than you are going to go down with Bibilical literalism" And there isn't any Protestant tradition that doesn't contain extra or anti literal Biblical doctrines. The extra Biblical doctrine of the Trinity being the most universal. Even The Holy Bible itself says that if all the stories about Jesus were written down "even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" (St. John 21:25)
The oral tradition of St. Joseph being an old widower is not a central Truth of Historical Christianity, but it does help to humanize St. Joseph and the Mother of God. (And the mother of all Christians whether they honor their mother or not. (Rev. 12:17))
The profound comments on Judah and Tamor not withstanding my argument about the historical doctrine of the everlasting virginity of the Theotokos remains. The doctrine is about holiness not sex and those who are attempting to throw out the doctrine should challenge their own chronocentrism before they challenge a belief that has withstood the test of time.
Wow. You actually used the word "Theotokos". Excellent.
John, can you just imagine growing up as poor James, et. al.? "Why can't you be more like your older brother?" Joseph would ask.
"Right, like He's perfect," James snaps back. Then he realizes … yeah, He is. Darn!
Seriously, John, I agree with you, though I can't say that it's an issue that warrants a lot of attention. I see your point about misogyny, but I'm not sure how much I'm worried in this case. I figure it's probably not something that will keep me on the wrong side of the gates if I've got that one wrong.
The Joseph as widower back-story, though, troubles me as adding a bit too much to the Scripture without a solid basis for it. It might be a thing that someone thought up as an explanation, but … well, … someone took the time to write down the ring that Judah gave to Tamar when he hired her as a … well, … you know. It seems like it could have been mentioned that Joseph had a talk with his kids about why he was still marrying the pregnant girl if that was the case. It's a lot easier if Mary and Joseph went on to have a wonderful and blessed marriage.
'“So while you might choose not to believe in the perpetual virginity, others are compelled to believe it, based on historical evidence …” Historical evidence is not the same as an opinion written early on in the game. On this matter the ancient fathers of our faith were still writing subjective analysis. Time doesn’t turn feelings and opinions into historical “evidence.” '
If you doubt the beliefs of the majority of Christians throughout the millenia, how do you protect yourself from chronocentrism, the wet fish syndrome. As a 20th/21st century person you have been raised to believe that everything is ultimately about sex. Whereas most Christians at most times would tell you that the stories of Mary's eternal virginity is about holiness not sex.
The old widower St. Joseph, protecter of the Virgin Mary (as he is identified in the Eastern Orthodox Church) was a man of his times and he knew that if the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies in an unclean manner he would die. Ask yourself if a man could die by entering the Holy of Holies how much more so would a man be afraid of putting himself into the place that the incarnation of the Holy of Holies had been formed.
p.s.There are plenty of stories of husband/wife saints who chose to live part or all of their lives in chastity for various reasons.
Quite profound, laurie!
Great post John, I've always had issues with the whole Mary was always a virgin thing. You've presented the argument against it beautifully.
I think it stems from the time of people like Augustine, who believed that sex was inherently sinful and that it was the reason for original sin. If Mary is the "Queen of heaven", Mother of God etc. then she must be sinless and therefore must have remained a virgin for her entire life. Poor Joseph!
In this day and age, when it is increasingly understood that sex between a husband and wife is a good, beautiful and God-honouring thing, the idea that sex is inherently sinful is (thankfully) losing ground. With that in mind, there is no need to believe the silly idea that Mary, a married woman, never had sex with her husband.
I don't think the reasoning or the history behind it is that simple, John. Tradition, which you most likely reject but which I hold in high esteem, talks about Mary being a virgin, not just in the physical sense, but in the sense that her life was to be spent at the temple, serving God. So, in essence, she was always meant to be peculiarly God's girl. Here's an interesting link that references something that was written only about 60 years after Mary's death. It explains why Joseph came into the picture too. Jesus's siblings were most likely Joseph's children from his first marriage. This stuff didn't come out of nowhere but was something the early church believed because it was told to them by people who knew Mary and knew a more complete story than scripture allows. This is why only relying on scripture for historical details might make your choice to reject this or that an uneducated one. (This is why sola scriptura can leave a person in the dark as to context and renders them incapable of filling in the gaps and knowing the entire story.) Believe it or not, there is a lot of documentation from the early church. When you start reading these writings, it's utterly fascinating. So while you might choose not to believe in the perpetual virginity, others are compelled to believe it, based on historical evidence not because they like it, or need it.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin….
As a woman, I'm scratching my head a little as to why the perpetual virginity of Mary is misogyny. To go along with your phrasing, what does it say about someone who thinks a woman is only a woman, only pro-family, if she's had a penis inside of her and was impregnated by a man? Is there room in the kingdom for both people who abstain and those who don't? Jesus abstained and I'd definitely call him pro-family. Why isn't her "Let it be done to me as you will" not considered pro-family? She had a child. She raised him with his earthly father. And she stood at the foot of his cross when most of the men fled. How is believing this misogyny? I'm not trying to be contrary, I really just don't get it!
As I say in the post, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and Wesley—the very cornerstones upon which Protestantism was built, of course—taught that Mary remained "ever virginal." That assertion is largely grounded in the argument that the Biblical word for "brothers" and "sisters" is synonymous with "cousins." (There is also a long tradition within Christianity of holding that Jesus' siblings were in fact the children of Joseph from an earlier marriage.)
The perpetual virginity of Mary is still part of the teachings of the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Christian churches.
I don't think it's all that ambiguous (I'm no scholar, so correct me where I'm wrong)…until I read your post I was pretty sure Jesus had (a) brother(s)…adopted?
Newer Comments →