“[I]t is intriguing to see how universally – and often how vociferously – ancient Christian teaching on Mary is rejected by most evangelical Protestants today.”
- 5 views
It strikes me that there are times, Biblically speaking where you don’t need things to be open and shut either way. Do we know, for example, much about the faith, or lack thereof, of David’s wives? Apart from Michal, who mocked David’s dance before the Ark and used an idol to save his life, we really have little clue.
Same basic thing with “perpetual virginity”. OK, we’ve got some hints they didn’t—the culture and Jesus’ brothers and all that—but Scripture doesn’t tell us point blank “and Joseph and Mary went into the chuppah and…” We can simply say “our most likely conclusion is”…
And that’s OK. We don’t have to work on partial information, but yet claim complete confidence. Getting right down to it, I would have to suggest that many of our problems in fundamentalism occur when we suggest more confidence in a given issue than the text actually indicates.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
“and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son” (Matthew 1:25 NASB) “The ‘until’ clause most naturally means that Mary and Joseph enjoyed normal conjugal relations after Jesus’ birth.” Contrary to McHugh, the imperfect ‘eginosken’ (“did not know her”) does not hint at continued celibacy after Jesus birth, but stresses the faithfulness of the celibacy till Jesus birth.” (D. A. Carson, Matthew, volume I, p. 81, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary)
The Bible has spoken. Normal conjugal relations are not only assumed, but clearly indicated. An enormous burden of proof lies at the feet of any who endeavor to teach otherwise. It does matter. Truth matters. The Biblical doctrine of marriage matters. We must not be ambivalent about the errors of Rome.
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman]This has always been my view on the subject. When Scripture is clear, there is no reason to entertain an alternative view, unless, of course, the text is not your authority.“and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son” (Matthew 1:25 NASB) “The ‘until’ clause most naturally means that Mary and Joseph enjoyed normal conjugal relations after Jesus’ birth.” Contrary to McHugh, the imperfect ‘eginosken’ (“did not know her”) does not hint at continued celibacy after Jesus birth, but stresses the faithfulness of the celibacy till Jesus birth.” (D. A. Carson, Matthew, volume I, p. 81, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary)
The Bible has spoken. Normal conjugal relations are not only assumed, but clearly indicated. An enormous burden of proof lies at the feet of any who endeavor to teach otherwise. It does matter. Truth matters. The Biblical doctrine of marriage matters. We must not be ambivalent about the errors of Rome.
[G. N. Barkman]25. And knew her not. This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.“and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son” (Matthew 1:25 NASB) “The ‘until’ clause most naturally means that Mary and Joseph enjoyed normal conjugal relations after Jesus’ birth.” Contrary to McHugh, the imperfect ‘eginosken’ (“did not know her”) does not hint at continued celibacy after Jesus birth, but stresses the faithfulness of the celibacy till Jesus birth.” (D. A. Carson, Matthew, volume I, p. 81, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary)
The Bible has spoken. Normal conjugal relations are not only assumed, but clearly indicated. An enormous burden of proof lies at the feet of any who endeavor to teach otherwise. It does matter. Truth matters. The Biblical doctrine of marriage matters. We must not be ambivalent about the errors of Rome.
-John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, trans. William Pringle, (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 1.107.
I haven’t looked in my copy of the Catechism to see why the perpetual virginity of Mary is even an important issue to the Catholics. I agree with Calvin (above). I may change my mind if I see something particularly heretical in the Catechism about this doctrine when I get home this evening.
The issues of (1) the immaculate conception and (2) the bodily assumption, however, are serious issues.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Discussion