Here's an issue that divides Catholics and Protestants. And Orthodox and Anglicans. And Protestants themselves, with Luther being on one side and Calvin on the other. It's an argument that has resurfaced recently online, as people I respect and usually agree with post things that make me wince. To witness:
Mary was almost certainly not a perpetual virgin because: 1.She was married, 2.She was a faithful believer, and 3.God commands spouses to have sex (Gen 2:24).
If Mary never slept with Joseph, she would have been in lifelong unrepentant disobedience to Scripture.
Suggesting Mary... https://t.co/bUpjhxCF4b
-- Jamie Bambrick (@j_bambrick) October 13, 2024
By Whose Authority?
This debate raises deeper questions about the wisdom of relying on one's own private reading of the Bible to resolve doctrinal questions. Remember that Arius read the New Testament, and honestly took away from it that Jesus was not coequal with the Father. Millions of sincere Christians agreed, and it took several councils of bishops decades of debate before they ruled with all the authority of the Church that Arius's reading was mistaken.
A similar council of bishops, with the same authority as those at the Council of Nicaea and other Trinitarian councils, also ruled on the question of whether Mary and Joseph had other children.
As a Catholic, it seems to me obvious that if you reject one council of the early Church, you have no reason in principle for accepting other such councils. They don't have authority in principle, though you might pick and choose the ones that seem to you reasonable.
I get the Orthodox stance of rejecting all councils that happened after its split with Rome in 1054 as less than "universal." That seems internally consistent, though it raises other problems. Let's leave aside the question of how much authority such Church councils have, and consider the argument on its historical merits, looking at every kind of evidence we have.
Debating a Roman Doctrine with an Evangelical Greek
Conveniently enough, my old friend Eric Metaxas asked me about this issue just last week, citing what seemed to him to be the plain reading of Scripture and complaining about the Catholic response to it, which he’d read. With his permission, I'll reprint the exchange here for your consideration.
Eric Metaxas: This morning I read Matthew 1:25, where it says Joseph “knew her not” until after the birth of Jesus. This seems obviously to mean that he DID know her after Jesus was born.
Me: Remember what happened to those who even touched the Ark of the Covenant? But we’re supposed to imagine Joseph, er “knowing” it?
Eric: It is ordained by God as a holy thing, as in all marriages. And what do you do with that scripture? It is so plain.
Me: No, it isn’t. If it were, the Church wouldn’t have taught Mary’s perpetual virginity universally. It’s believed in India and Ethiopia and Armenia, in places where the first missionaries went. It was taught infallibly at the Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D. It was held by every Christian everywhere, including Martin Luther, until pretty recently.
So I put that authority above my own competence at understanding an English translation, with my very modern sensibilities. If the Church across the denominations was wrong about this very important doctrine for that long, it might well have been wrong about what St. Paul meant when he condemned sodomy. Certainly there are Scripture scholars arguing that, based on their reading of the “text.”
But there’s more than just repugnance at the idea that Mary had a kind of “first marriage” with the Holy Spirit, then settled down with Joseph after as her second spouse.
What sense can we make of Christians acclaiming the “Virgin Mary” if she isn’t one? Yes, she was a virgin once, but then so was Mae West at some point. It means that they were objectively lying, in millions of prayers over millennia.
Eric: I don't think calling her the Virgin Mary must necessarily mean she was perpetually a virgin. It's a term of honor. And I don't find her having a marriage to Joseph at all repugnant. It would have been a holy marriage.
Me: It’s about Mary being the Ark of the Covenant. There’s nothing wrong with turkey sandwiches. But eating one on top of the Ark seems … wrong.
Where Are the Middle-Eastern Warlords Claiming to Be Jesus’s Family Members?
So far, the argument clearly can go either way. But the next point I made, based on history, seems to me conclusive.
Me: And think of how historically implausible it is, if Jesus had half-brothers, that His bloodline would have just vanished into obscurity. That’s not how things work in that part of the world. Jews still document whether they are of the house of Cohen or not -- because it’s the priestly house. More pertinently, Muslims carefully traced the blood relatives of Muhammad, and some rulers in the region still claim that “honor.” That’s exactly what would have happened if Jesus had left behind nephews and nieces. They would have been revered, and at least one of them would have been acclaimed as royalty somewhere. Constantine would have tracked them down and recruited them.
They would have become kings in Armenia or Ethiopia. There would be something, probably some big thing.
It’s like the fact of Mary’s Assumption into Heaven. The absence of relics, a tomb, and highly profitable gift shops is dispositive.
I hope that this exchange has highlighted the deeper issues raised by a question that might at first seem like a Catholic/Orthodox quirk -- but in fact has deep eschatological meaning in the ancient Christian tradition.
John Zmirak is a senior editor at The Stream and author or coauthor of 14 books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism. His newest book is No Second Amendment, No First.
The post Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? Is Mary a Perpetual Virgin? Can You Eat a Turkey Sandwich While Sitting on the Ark of the Covenant? appeared first on The Stream.