|
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary: An Examination of the Biblical Arguments
In a recent debate the
Catholic apologist Gerry Matatics affirmed: The
Bible teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary. After learning that he had
agreed to affirm this proposition in a debate, a friend of mine mused that Mr.
Matatics was attempting to do what The
Teaching of Christ (A Catholic Catechism for Adults, 4th edition)
said could not be done: “The perpetual virginity of Mary
is not a revealed truth which can be clearly demonstrated from the New
Testament without the light of tradition.” (97). As the debate progressed it became clear just how true this statement is.
Mr. Matatics did not
produce one scripture that specifically teaches the perpetual virginity of
Mary. However, he did read Isaiah 7:14, which teaches that a virgin would
conceive and a virgin would give birth. Had I agreed to deny these doctrines my
opponent would have won hands down! But this wasn’t what we had agreed to
debate. The proposition read: The Bible teaches the perpetual virginity of
Mary. Isaiah 7:14 says nothing anything about Mary’s virginity after the birth
of her firstborn.
Neither the Old nor New
Testament writings directly state that Mary is an ever virgin. But in fairness
to Mr. Matatics, he is not obliged to produce a passage that directly states
this doctrine, for the Bible also teaches by necessary inference. The word “inference” is
derived from a Latin word signifying “to gather in.” In logic (the science of
critical thinking), it suggests the idea of gathering in data from various
sources and then drawing such deductions as are demanded by the evidence. A
necessary inference means the conclusion drawn from the facts is irresistible. For example, when one finds his car covered with frost in the early
morning he can necessarily conclude that during the night the temperature
dropped to below 32o Fahrenheit.
Jesus expected men and
woman to use their reason in coming to an accurate knowledge about Him. When
John the Baptist, for example, sent a delegation to Him asking: “Are You the
Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?” (Matthew 11:2), the Lord did
not answer with a statement specifically stating, “I am the Expected One. No,
don’t look for someone else.” Instead He told John’s messengers: “Go and report
to John what you hear and see: the
blind receive sight and the lame
walk, the lepers are cleansed
and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.
And blessed is he who does not take offense at Me” (Matthew 11:4-6).
Jesus provided John with
the data that would answer his question. John was expected to think it through
and to draw a conclusion – a necessary conclusion about the Lord. Was Jesus the
Messiah? He causes the blind to receive sight and the lame to walk, He cleanses
lepers of their leprosy and raises the dead” and the poor have the gospel
preached to them.” Is He the Christ? Based upon the data, who else could He be?
(cf., John 7:31). He must be the “the Expected One,” He must be the Christ, the
Son of God.
In his debate Gerry
presented five passages which, according to him, implies (infers) the doctrine
that Mary was a perpetual virgin: Genesis 3:15, Isaiah 7:14, Ezekiel 44:2, Luke
1:34 and John 19:26-27.
·
(Genesis 3:15) [God said to the serpent, KM] And I will
put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He
shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.
Just prior to our debate
Mr. Matatics debated James White on the perpetual virginity of Mary – Did Mary have children after Jesus? In
that debate Mr. Matatics argued: “The Old Testament gives us a prophecy right
away in the opening chapters of Genesis – in Genesis 3:15 – when God,
addressing Satan, speaks of a woman from whom a seed will come; and God makes
reference to this woman’s seed which is Christ. St. Paul makes much of the fact
(in Galatians) that He did not say, ‘And to seeds,’ and to seed (singular)
being Christ. She has, in other word, no other seed. The seed (singular) of the
woman, that is something of doctrinal significance to St. Paul and I encourage
all of us, in fact I urge and entreat all of us to submit to the solemn
sentence of sacred scripture as uttered by the inspired apostle, St. Paul.”
(Gerry Matatics. James White – Gerry
Matatics Debate on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary: Did Mary Have Other
Children After Jesus, Tape 1, Matatics’ First Negative, time 45:16 – 45:59)
The Galatian passage Mr.
Matatics refers is chapter three, verses sixteen. God “does not say, ‘And to
seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to your seed,’ that is,
Christ.” Those unfamiliar with the context of this passage will be excused
(after listening to Mr. Matatics) for thinking that Paul was making a point
from Genesis 3:15. On the contrary, he was making an argument from Genesis
22:18, a passage containing a promise from God to Abraham and to his seed to
bless all nations. Paul is arguing that the promise was not that through
Abraham’s seeds the nations would be blessed, but through his seed, the Christ.
Some men had come to
Galatia with a different gospel, a distortion of the gospel of Christ
(Galatians 1:6-10). They were teaching that it was not enough to be a Christian
but that one must also be Jew. Thus they directed the Gentile Christians to be
circumcised and to keep the Law of Moses. If they refused they would not be not
be saved (cf. Acts 15:1-6). In essence they were teaching that the seed through
whom ”all the nations of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 22:18) is the
nation of Israel. By inspiration, however, the apostle argues something else:
“Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘And
to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to your
seed,’ that is, Christ” (Galatians 3:16). Simply put, God did not promise to
bless the world through all the descendants of Abraham, but through one
descendant, through one seed – the Christ. Though Abraham was promised seed
(plural) too numerous to count (Genesis 13:16; 15:5; 17:2-6; 22:17; cf., Exodus
1:7, 12; Deuteronomy 1:10), he would have only one seed through whom to bless
the nations!
God declared that the seed
of woman would bruise the head of the serpent. Based on other Messianic
prophecies, I agree that in this instance too God did not say: The woman ‘s
seeds, as referring to many, but rather to one seed, that is, Christ. Thus, as
Abraham had only one seed through whom the nations would be bless, the woman
too would have but one seed who would bruise the head of the serpent (Satan,
Revelation 20:2).
Furthermore, the
expression “her seed” implies that
this child would be miraculously conceived – that no man would be the father of
this seed. There would be only one seed of woman, one supernatural conception
not involving a man. Any other children born of the woman through natural means
would be known as “the seed of man.”
Read Genesis 3:15 again
and ask yourself the following questions about the woman of this prophecy: Does
it directly state or does it necessarily infer that she was a virgin when she
miraculously conceived, that she remained a virgin throughout her pregnancy,
and that she remained a virgin for the rest of her life? Does it say anything at all about her virginity? The verse
then is does not help Mr. Matatics or any other Catholic apologist in his quest
to find a Biblical base for believing in the perpetual virginity of the mother
of Jesus.
·
(Isaiah 7:14)
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will
be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
As indicated in the
opening remarks of this treatise, the issue that divides Roman Catholics from
Christians is whether or not Mary continued to be virgin after the birth of
Jesus. Isaiah 7:14 speaks to what is already agreed upon: The mother of Immanuel
was a virgin when she conceived and she remained a virgin until she gave birth.
This verse, however, infers nothing about whether or not she would remain a
virgin – that she would continue in the condition of not knowing a man sexually
– after Immanuel’s birth. So once again, this scripture gives no solace to
those seeking to justify their tradition by the Bible.
·
(Ezekiel 44:2) The LORD said to me, "This gate
shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the
LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut.
In his tract Mary,
Ever-Virgin, Steve Kearney wrote: “For the devout Marianist no
Scripture is sacrosanct, with jaundiced eye they see the virginity of Mary in
everything from the Ark of the Covenant to the Burning Bush. They will press
into service anything that remotely resembles an analogy to Mary's Perpetual
Virginity.” This
observation is clearly demonstrated by the allegorical interpretation presented
by Mr. Matatics of Ezekiel 44:2.
In his debate with James White, Mr. Matatics said: “But
there is a connection between Mary, as a micro chasm of the church as a whole;
and therefore, her body and this temple that is seen that the Church Fathers
delighted to see was fulfilled in her virginity. And so when Ezekiel, in
chapter forty-four, verse two sees that behold there is a gate, and this gate
is sealed and no man enters this gate; and yet through this mysteriously,
perpetually sealed gate the Messiah proceeds forth we have a type of our lady’s
virginity, even in the act of giving birth to her divine, supernatural Son.” (White-Matatics Debate. Matatics First
Negative, Tape 1, time 49:21 – 49:56)
Mary is the temple? The “outer gate … that faces the east”
that “was shut” and which “shall not be opened” her hymen? “The prince” who
goes in and then out this gate is Jesus? It is true that the Spirit lead the
prophets and apostles to give allegorical interpretations to certain Biblical
events. We can be certain about these! But when uninspired men attempt to give an
allegorical interpretation to a Bible event or a prophecy their interpretations
are always subjective; one opinion becomes as good as another; each interpreter
makes the scriptures say what he wants them to say. Mr. Matatics proves this
point in allegorizing Ezekiel 44:2. But to be fair, Gerry is not the originator
of this allegorical interpretation; the credit for this goes to Rufinus who
lived three hundred years after the close of the apostolic age. In his
Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed he wrote:
“The words of the Prophets concerning Him. ‘A Virgin shall
conceived and bring forth a son,’ are known to all, and are cited in the
Gospels again and again. The Prophet Ezekiel too had predicted the miraculous
manner of that birth, calling Mary figuratively ‘the Gate of the Lord,’ the
gate, namely, through which the Lord entered the world. For he saith, ‘The
which looks toward the East shall be closed, and shall not be opened, and no
one shall pass through it, because the Lord God of Israel shall pass through it,
and it shall be closed. What could be said with such evident reference to the
inviolate preservation of the Virgin’s condition? The Gate of Virginity was
closed; through it the Lord God of Israel entered; through it He came forth
from the Virgin’s womb into this world; and the Virgin-state being preserved
inviolate, the gate of the Virgin remained closed forever.” (The Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdman’s
Publishing Company, Reprinted, February 1979) Vol. III, p. 547).
It was three hundred years after
the close of the apostolic age that anyone interpreted Ezekiel 44:2 as an
allegory of Mary’s virginity. THREE HUNDRED YEARS!
Rufinus was on the cutting
edge of modernism. Instead of interpreting this scripture in its historical
context, he interprets it from his own perspective. Having already made up his
mind that Mary was a perpetual virgin of course Ezekiel 44:2 is an allegory of
the virgin birth! What else could it be? The modernists of our century treat
the scriptures in the same way. Homosexuals, having already made up their minds
that homosexuality is not contrary to righteousness, have boldly stated that
David and Paul and Jesus were all homosexuals and they produce scriptures to
prove it. It doesn’t matter that they have completely ignored the context of
their proof texts and their historical settings. This is no way to treat the
word of God!
In Ezekiel 44 the prophet
speaks of an event that had already occurred – at least in his prophetic
vision, the return of God to His sanctuary. This was spoken of in the previous
chapter.
(Ezekiel 43:1-9) Then he led me to the gate, the gate facing
toward the east; {2} and behold, the glory of the God of Israel was
coming from the way of the east. And His voice was like the sound of many
waters; and the earth shone with His glory. {3} And it was like
the appearance of the vision which I saw, like the vision which I saw when He
came to destroy the city. And the visions were like the vision which I
saw by the river Chebar; and I fell on my face. {4} And the glory of
the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate facing toward the east.
{5} And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and
behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house. {6} Then I heard one
speaking to me from the house, while a man was standing beside me.
{7} He said to me, "Son of man, this is the place of My throne
and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the sons of
Israel forever. And the house of Israel will not again defile My holy name,
neither they nor their kings, by their harlotry and by the corpses of their
kings when they die, {8} by setting their threshold by My threshold and
their door post beside My door post, with only the wall between Me and
them. And they have defiled My holy name by their abominations which they have
committed. So I have consumed them in My anger. {9} Now let them put
away their harlotry and the corpses of their kings far from Me; and I will
dwell among them forever.
About nineteen years prior
to this Ezekiel had a vision in which he witnessed the glory of God departing
Solomon’s temple by “the entrance of the east gate” (10:3-19; 11:22-23),
leaving both the temple and Jerusalem unprotected and ripe for destruction. Six
years later both were destroyed (Ezekiel 33:21). In this latter vision the
prophet witnesses God’s return, not to Solomon’s temple however, but the new
temple that is described in chapters forty through forty-two. As God had
departed the previous temple so He now enters the new – “by the way of the gate
facing toward the east” (43: 1-4); this gate is described in detail in 40:6-16.
The Spirit then moves the prophet to the inner court where he witnesses God’s
glory filling the house (43:5). It is
then that God tells him the significance of this new house: “This is the place
of My Throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among
the sons of Israel forever” (vs. 7).
In this highly symbolic
vision the temple of God is declared to be the place where God reigns on the
earth and the place where He dwells among the His people forever. Having
entered the temple through the “gate … which faces east” God sets it aside from
common usage; He rendered it holy (44:1-2).
The people would not be allowed to enter or leave through this door. Hence, it
was shut. Furthermore, the prince (who is distinguished from the Lord) is
authorized to enter “the porch of the gate” where he is eats “bread before the
Lord” (vs. 3). More is revealed about this gate and the prince two chapters
later.
(Ezekiel 46:1-15) Thus says the Lord GOD, "The gate of
the inner court facing east shall be shut the six working days; but it shall be
opened on the sabbath day and opened on the day of the new moon. {2} The
prince shall enter by way of the porch of the gate from outside and stand by
the post of the gate. Then the priests shall provide his burnt offering and his
peace offerings, and he shall worship at the threshold of the gate and then go
out; but the gate shall not be shut until the evening. {3} The people of
the land shall also worship at the doorway of that gate before the LORD on the
sabbaths and on the new moons. {4} The burnt offering which the prince
shall offer to the LORD on the sabbath day shall be six lambs without blemish
and a ram without blemish; {5} and the grain offering shall be an ephah
with the ram, and the grain offering with the lambs as much as he is able to
give, and a hin of oil with an ephah. {6} On the day of the new moon he
shall offer a young bull without blemish, also six lambs and a ram, which
shall be without blemish. {7} And he shall provide a grain offering,
an ephah with the bull and an ephah with the ram, and with the lambs as much as
he is able, and a hin of oil with an ephah. {8} When the prince enters, he shall go in by way of the porch of
the gate and go out by the same way. {9} But when the people of the land
come before the LORD at the appointed feasts, he who enters by way of the north
gate to worship shall go out by way of the south gate. And he who enters by way
of the south gate shall go out by way of the north gate. No one shall return by
way of the gate by which he entered but shall go straight out. {10} When
they go in, the prince shall go in among them; and when they go out, he shall
go out. {11} At the festivals and the appointed feasts the grain
offering shall be an ephah with a bull and an ephah with a ram, and with the
lambs as much as one is able to give, and a hin of oil with an ephah. {12} When
the prince provides a freewill offering, a burnt offering, or peace offerings as
a freewill offering to the LORD, the gate facing east shall be opened for
him. And he shall provide his burnt offering and his peace offerings as he does
on the sabbath day. Then he shall go out, and the gate shall be shut after he
goes out. {13} And you shall provide a lamb a year old without blemish
for a burnt offering to the LORD daily; morning by morning you shall provide
it. {14} "Also you shall provide a grain offering with it morning
by morning, a sixth of an ephah and a third of a hin of oil to moisten the fine
flour, a grain offering to the LORD continually by a perpetual ordinance.
{15} Thus they shall provide the lamb, the grain offering and the oil,
morning by morning, for a continual burnt offering."
In summarizing these
verses C.F. Kiel says: “the east gate of the inner court was to be shut,
namely, during the six working days; but on the Sabbath and on the new moon it
was to be opened. Then the prince was to come by the way of the gate porch from
without, and during the preparation of his sacrifice by the priests to stand
upon the threshold of the gate and worship. This same thing was to take place
when the prince desired to offer a freewill offering on any of the week-days.
“The east gate was to be
opened for him to this end; but after the conclusion of the offering of
sacrifice it was to be closed again, whereas on the Sabbaths and new moons it
was to stand open till the evening (Ezek 46:12 compared with v. 2). It is still
further enjoined, that when offering these sacrifices the prince is to enter by
the way of the gate porch, and to go out again by the same way (vv. 2 and 8).
(Vol. 9, 636)
Ezekiel 44:1-3 has nothing whatsoever to do with the
alleged perpetual virginity of Mary. Rufinus, Gerry Matatics and all others who
have used this passage to justify this tradition are guilty of nothing less
than distorting the scriptures to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). And
those who follow their lead will suffer their fate (Matthew 15:14).
·
(Luke 1:34)
Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”
These words clearly reveal
that Mary and Joseph were abstaining from sexual relations during their
betrothal period. Though a couple would continue to live separately for about a
year after their betrothal, Eric D. Svendsen, referring to Mary in the New Testament [Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1978], notes that the “at least one conjugal visit by the
husband during the interim period was not uncommon.” (Who Is My Mother? [Amityville: Calvary Press, 2001], p. 134)
However, when Mary says to the angel: “I am a virgin” or more literally, “I am
not knowing a man,” she is indicating that she and Joseph abstained from sexual
relations during the betrothal period.” (135)
Three hundred years after
the church’s establishment, some commentators (Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose and
Augustine) began to argue that Mary’s words make sense only if the mother of
Jesus had already made up her mind to remain a virgin. Thus her objection (“How
can this be, since I am a virgin”) takes the tone of a resolve: How can this be
since I shall always be a virgin or since I shall never know a man! However,
Luke uses the present tense, not the future, in recording Mary’s words. She
“does not say, ‘How can this be, since I
will not know a man,’ which is what we might expect if Mary had taken a vow
of lifelong virginity. Instead, she says, ‘How can this be, since I am not
knowing a man.’ … Mary could not fathom how she was going to become pregnant right now since she was not currently
having sexual relations with Joseph. In light of our earlier observation that
sexual relations were not uncommon for a betrothed Jewish couple in the first
century, it would make perfect sense … for Mary to ask ‘how’ this would happen
since she and Joseph were not engaging in what was otherwise considered an
acceptable practice: ‘How will this happen since (unlike other betrothed
couples) we are not having sexual relations?’” (135-136)
Mr. Matatics offered
Mary’s words in Luke 1:34 as one of his proof’s that she was a perpetual
virginity. But the most that this verse can prove is that she and Joseph were
not having intercourse during their betrothal period. So like the other
passages this one too fails to Gerry the support that he would like for his
tradition.
·
(John 19:26-27)
When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing
nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” {27} Then He
said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took
her into his own household.
Gerry Matatics and other
Catholic apologists insist that if Jesus had siblings born from Mary and Joseph
that it would have been inappropriate for him to leave his mother with a
beloved disciple and not one of those siblings. But haven’t they ever read
where the brothers of Jesus were unbelievers (John 7:2-8) who viewed Him as one
who had “lost His senses” (Mark 3:21) and who even solicited their mother’s
help to hinder His work (Mark 3:31-35)? Jesus’ brothers could have provided for
their mother’s physical needs, but it was more important to the Lord that she
be entrusted into the care of one who would also provide for her spiritual
need. These brothers, in their unbelieving state, were impotent in this matter.
Jesus, therefore, would have been negligent had he left his mother in their
care. “On the other hand, John is portrayed in this passage (and elsewhere in
this gospel) as ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved.’ He walked with Jesus and had
become an intimate friend. The solace that John could provide to Mary far
outweighed the obligation to hand Mary over to unbelieving relatives. Hence,
spiritual emotional and physical concern for his mother are bound together in
Jesus’ words to John” (Svendsen, 200-201) – “Behold, your mother!"
·
Conclusion of part 1
According to Gerry
Matatics the Bible alone (apart from the oral tradition accepted by his Church)
teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary. But when one honestly examines the
strongest biblical arguments that can be made in favor of this doctrine, it
becomes apparent that there is no biblical case for this doctrine – none
whatsoever!
Kieran Murphy
|
