Pints With Aquinas - 74: Was Mary a virgin her entire life?

Starting point is 00:00:00 Welcome to Pints with Aquinas, episode 74. I'm Matt Fradd. If you could sit down over a pint of beer with St. Thomas Aquinas and ask him any one question, what would it be? In today's episode, we'll ask him, is it here at Pints with Aquinas, the show where you and I pull up a barstool next to the angelic doctor to discuss theology and philosophy. I just want to say a huge thank you to all of you who listen to Pints with Aquinas week after week. Huge thanks, especially to my Patreon supporters who keep this show going for reals.

Starting point is 00:00:53 Thank you. Even if you don't support the show financially, just a huge thanks to everyone who has sent me tweets and Instagram messages and who's created little memes and has said all sorts of kind things about how Pints with Aquinas has helped you in your walk of faith. Huge thanks to my good Lutheran pastor friend who listens. Thanks to the atheists who write to me occasionally and the other Protestant Christians who write.

Starting point is 00:01:18 Y'all are so welcome. And what can I say? It's humbling and it's a joy to do this. So thanks. Today, we'll be talking about the perpetual virginity of Mary. I'd like to read directly from the Summa Theologiae and then respond to questions that people might have concerning it. Now, we'll be reading from the third part of the Summa Theologiae, question 28 and article 3. The question is, did she remain a virgin after his birth? Seems pretty appropriate, doesn't it? Let me read his primary answer. And I want to just preface this by saying, Aquinas is painfully nuanced. He doesn't speak hyperbolically ever. doesn't speak hyperbolically ever, right? He uses words extremely carefully in order to convey the truth. And yet, when we read this answer, it's quite surprising just how forceful he is.

Starting point is 00:02:16 And I think you'll notice that if you're a regular listener to Pints with Aquinas, or if you read Aquinas regularly. Here's what he says regarding the question. Without any hesitation, we must abhor the error of Helvidius who dared to assert that Christ's mother after his birth was carnally known by Joseph and bore other children. For in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection. For as he is in his Godhead, the only begotten of the father, being thus his son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that he should be the only begotten son of his mother as being her perfect offspring. Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose shrine was the virginal womb, wherein he had formed the flesh of Christ.

Starting point is 00:03:16 Wherefore, it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with a man. desecrated by intercourse with a man. Thirdly, it is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's mother. For thus she would seem to be most ungrateful were she not content with such a son and were she of her own accord by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her. Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph to assume that he attempted to violate her whom the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost. We must therefore simply assert that the mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving him and a virgin in giving him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards. How is that, brothers and sisters, for some strong language? We must abhor the error, right?

Starting point is 00:04:22 He says it's derogatory to Christ's perfection. It's an insult to the Holy Ghost. It's derogatory to the dignity of the holiness of God's mother. Now, you might be listening today and might be thinking, I have no idea what he's talking about. I don't see why it's derogatory at all. I don't see why we have to abhor this supposed error. Well, stick with Aquinas, okay, and hear him out because just because you and I don't immediately understand something, just because something doesn't immediately resonate with us, doesn't mean it's not true. Sometimes the wise thing to do is to listen to people much wiser than us and give them the benefit of the doubt before making a decision. I also want to add, before looking at some of these questions people might have,

Starting point is 00:05:10 that it shouldn't be an impediment to holding this belief to say, I'm a Protestant, because the Protestant reformers also agreed with Aquinas that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Let me just read a couple of quotations. I could read a lot more, but Martin Luther, for example, says this in Works of Luther Volume 11. Well, it doesn't matter what pages, if you really don't believe me, just email me. But he says, it is an article of faith that Mary is the mother of the Lord and still a virgin. Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. John Calvin, in his sermon on Matthew, published in 1562, said, there have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage, Matthew 1.25, that the Virgin Mary had other children

Starting point is 00:06:05 than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later. But what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards, he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience, and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent his angel to Mary. Skipping down here a little bit, he says, regarding this idea of Christ being the firstborn, he says, this is not because there was a second or third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. We could quote from Ulrich Zwingli and other Protestant reformers, but I just want to throw that out there. Like, you can be a faithful Protestant and believe, as the early church did,

Starting point is 00:06:51 as the Protestant reformers did, that Mary remained a virgin. So, let's look at some of these questions that people might have regarding it. I think the first question people usually have is, why is it in the Gospels it talks about Jesus' brothers? And this might not be news to some of you, but to some of you it will be, and that's that the first thing to understand is that this term brother, in Greek, adelphoi, has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean biological brother, but it can also be an extended relative or even a spiritual brother. Take Genesis 13.8, for example. Here, the word brother is being used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who weren't biological brothers, but uncle and nephew. Check it out here,

Starting point is 00:07:40 13.8 in Genesis. So, Abraham said to Lot Lot Let's not have any quarreling between you and me Or between your herdsmen and mine For we are brothers Okay Now because of the Bible's broad semantic range of brother We can rest assured, right That though St. Paul writes Quote

Starting point is 00:08:03 Jesus appeared to more than 500 brothers at the same time, end quote, it's fairly certain, right? We can say that we don't have to infer that Jesus gave birth to 500 plus children. So, that's a bit of a joke, but that's just a way to kind of demonstrate that point about, yeah, the word brother. Secondly, and this is just a very minor note, but these brothers, you'll notice, are never once called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is. So, nowhere in Scripture does it say that anybody else is the child of Mary. It does say Jesus has brothers, but that's it. Thirdly, there were other women named Mary. Okay. So, think of James and Joseph, sometimes called Joses. These were actually called Jesus's brothers. If you read in Mark chapter 6 verse 3, in fact, why don't we quickly do that?

Starting point is 00:09:07 3. In fact, why don't we quickly do that? It says, isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon? How do we respond to that? Well, again, there were many different Marys. And so, even though it says there in Mark 6, 3 that James and Joseph were his brothers, we know from when we compare it to another account in the Gospels that these were indeed the sons of Mary, but sons of another Mary. Let's see here. After St. Matthew's account of the crucifixion and death of Christ, Matthew writes this, quote, there were also many women there looking on from afar who had followed Jesus from Galilee ministering to him, among who were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. of the sons of Zebedee. And now, of course, we know that that Mary, who is the mother of James and Joseph, isn't Mary, the mother of Jesus, since Mary, the mother of Jesus, is at the foot of the cross. Another objection is this idea in Matthew 1.25, where it states that Joseph had no relations

Starting point is 00:10:19 with Mary until she bore a son. Now, I don't really need to explain this a bunch because John Calvin just did it. You'll remember I quoted him a moment ago where he responded to this. But the Greek word until, which is haos, doesn't imply that Mary had marital relations with Joseph after the birth of Christ. You want another example in which this isn't the case? Check out 2 Samuel 6.23. That's my favorite example. We read that Micah, the daughter of Saul, or Michal, trying anyway to not make it sound like Michael, had no children until the day of her death, right? She had no children until, and yet we read that and we realize that doesn't mean, okay, well, then after her death, that means she had to be having children. Is that correct? No, no, it's not. If you're interested in similar examples, other than the one I just quoted from

Starting point is 00:11:14 2 Samuel, check out Hebrews 1.13 and 1 Timothy 4.13. Now, what else might somebody say? Someone might say, well, how can you say Joseph and Mary were married if they didn't consummate their marriage? Okay, if they didn't have sex, how is it a true marriage? This stems from an error that I've actually encountered in many Catholics who say that you are not technically married until you have sexual intercourse. And this just isn't true, right? At the end of my wedding, you know, the priest announced that we had become husband and wife, and so we were. Okay. So, when you consummate your marriage, you don't make your marriage valid. When you consummate your marriage, you make it indissoluble. Okay. So, Joseph and Mary's marriage was a real marriage, even if it was never consummated.

Starting point is 00:12:13 Now, in regard to it not being natural, when someone says, well, it's just not a natural marriage, you know, the prophet Isaiah said that God's ways are not like our ways. And I've heard Jason Everett say, when the second person of the blessed Trinity is in your wife's womb, you can expect to have a different sort of marriage than most folks. Fair point, I think. Another question people might have is regards to Mary's said perpetual virginity and the fact that she had made a vow of virginity, which is one of the earliest beliefs in the church, going back to the Proto-Evangel vow of virginity, which is one of the earliest beliefs in the church, going back to the Proto-Evangelium of James, which we'll explain in a minute.

Starting point is 00:12:50 But yeah, why was she betrothed to Joseph if she made a vow of virginity? Well, I think, first of all, one way to see that she may have made a vow of virginity, which, by the way, wasn't a common thing in the first century, but it did exist. And I'll again, speak about that in a minute. But I mean, think about the response she gives to the angel in the chapter, in the gospel of Luke chapter one, you know, the angel appears to her, tells her that she's going to be giving birth to a son. And what does she say? This woman who is betrothed to Joseph. I mean, it would seem pretty obvious, don't you think? If you were, I mean, engagement and betrothal aren't the same thing,

Starting point is 00:13:31 but to use a modern analogy, suppose you're engaged. You're a woman out there, you're listening to this, you're engaged, and an angel appears to you and says you're going to give birth to a son and whatever. You probably wouldn't say what Mary said, which is, how will this be since I know not man? Or how will this be since I am a virgin? However you want to rephrase it. So, that's, I think, one indication, certainly not a knockdown argument, but I think one indication to the belief that Mary was a perpetual virgin and that she took a vow of virginity. So, back to this idea of the Proto-Evangelium of James. This is a document written around AD 120.

Starting point is 00:14:18 All right. Now, certainly not canonical, not a part of Holy Scripture, and yet is going to contain some truths, even if it is intermixed with error. Now, in this document, it says that Mary was a consecrated virgin. And as such, when she reached puberty, her monthly cycle would render her ceremonial unclean and thus unable to dwell in the temple without defiling it. And that's under Mosaic law. So, she was entrusted to a male guardian. However, since it was forbidden for a man to live with a woman he was not married or related to, the virgin would be wed to the guardian and they would have no marital relations. Now, if you're very skeptical of this doctrine, you might be thinking, come on, that just sounds like something somebody made up in, you know, 500 years ago to justify this perpetual virginity doctrine. Well, again, it's not. It's right there in the Proto-Evangelium of James around the year AD 120. And even though it's not canonical,

Starting point is 00:15:15 it's certainly something I think that we shouldn't just dismiss. All right, what I want to do now is look at several quotations from the earliest Christians, the early church fathers, and then we'll wrap things up for the day. But before we get to that, a short break. So, the other day, I was using Wikipedia, as one does and then never admits it, and they asked for some money. They said if everyone would just give two bucks, we'd be set, and I didn't do it. And I didn't do it not because I didn't think their service was worth it,

Starting point is 00:15:46 but because I really didn't want to pull out my credit card and have to type in the numbers. That sucks. So right after I record this ad, I'm going back to Wikipedia and I'm going to donate because I realize I'm asking you the same thing. Maybe a lot of you listen to the show and you want to support it,

Starting point is 00:15:59 but the idea of pulling out your credit card and punching in numbers is just a little too much. And hey, I'm exactly the same. So, you know, no judgment. But if this show has helped you intellectually and with your walk with the Lord, please consider supporting us because this isn't just something I say to offer shock. I really couldn't do this show unless people were supporting it. The way you would support the show is by going to pintswithaquinas.com, click support or click the Patreon banner, and you can give me

Starting point is 00:16:25 whatever you want. Two bucks a month, five bucks a month, 10 bucks a month. There's all sorts of gifts I give you in return for your generosity. If you are not in a financial position to do it, please don't. No problem. Okay. But if you are, that'd be sweet. Thanks so much. Okay. Welcome back to Pints with Aquinas. As you know, on Pints with Aquinas, I love to quote the early church. And the reason I like to quote the early church is to show that the one holy Catholic and apostolic church teaches today, even if in a more elaborated form, what was believed in the early church. And so, I'd like to share with you a few quotations from some of the earliest Christians who were known for their orthodoxy and prominence in the church and what they had

Starting point is 00:17:11 to say about the perpetual virginity of Mary. You remember that I quoted the Proto-Evangelium of James? Well, this is something that was even quoted back in the early church. Here's a quote from Origen, who in his commentary on Matthew around 248, 248, he said this, the book, the Proto-Evangelium of James records that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife whom he married before Mary. Now, those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary and virginity to the end, so that body of hers, which was appointed to minister to the word, might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in perpetual Let me read a couple more.

Starting point is 00:18:16 Here's one from Jerome. This is from his work against Helvidius, who you remember Thomas Aquinas mentioned in the Summa. This is a work by Jerome actually called Against Helvidius, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary. And this is back around the year 380, 383. He says, we believe that God was born of a virgin because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her son because we do not read it. You, Helvidius, say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin through Mary so that a virgin son

Starting point is 00:18:51 might be born of a virginal wedlock. Let's read one final one from St. Augustine. This is from his work, Holy Virginity, around the year 401. He says, in being born of a virgin who chose to remain a virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her. So, there you go. You've got Augustine there talking about this apparent vow of virginity that Mary supposedly took. He says, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice, even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave. Look, so much more can be said, but as we wrap up here today, let me offer some closing thoughts. Number one, it wasn't strictly necessary that Mary even be a virgin prior to the incarnation

Starting point is 00:19:44 of Christ, all right? Jesus Christ could have been born of a prostitute. So, don't hear me saying that it was necessary that Mary be a virgin in order to conceive and give birth to Jesus. Secondly, this isn't a condemnation on sex. And, you know, forgive me, but I think that our reaction to this doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, namely, well, what are you saying? Sex is bad. Are you saying sex is bad? It's almost like we've with the pendulum has swung. Right. And we've gone from perhaps Christians who had some suspicious sort of view about sex and sexual desire, or at least come from stock that thought that.

Starting point is 00:20:26 sexual desire, or at least come from stock that thought that. And now we're so eager to celebrate the goodness of sex that the idea of virginity seems like an affront to the goodness of sex. But that's not at all the case. We shouldn't look at this in an either or sort of way. You know, think about, I think it's in 2 Samuel chapter 6. I'm not reading that. I'm going off memory. So, don't hate me if I got that wrong. But you remember when the Ark of the Covenant began to sort of rock and Uzzah put forth his hand just to stabilize the Ark of the Covenant and what happened? God struck him dead. That's interesting because you might read that and think that seems very unkind, God. But why? Well, because the Holy of Holies was the most sacred thing on the planet. It contained three things. We know

Starting point is 00:21:14 this from the book of Hebrews. It contained manna, the bread that was given to the Israelites as they passed through the desert. It contained the rod of Aaron that was a sign of priestly authority, and it contained the tablet to the covenant, the Ten Commandments. Now, Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant because within her womb, as Aquinas referred to it, the shrine of the Blessed Virgin Mary, she has not the word of God in stone, the word of God in flesh, not a sign of the high priesthood, but the high priest himself, and not manna that was given to the Israelites, but the bread of life. So, if it were true that Uzzah couldn't even touch the Ark of the Covenant,

Starting point is 00:22:02 then it shouldn't be thoroughly surprising, or we should at least be open to the idea that Joseph should not have had sexual relations with Mary, who was the new Ark of the Covenant. That does it for this week. Thank you very much, all of you, again, for your support and your love and for listening to Pines with Aquinas week after week. I really do hope that these episodes are a blessing to you Who's gonna survive? Who's gonna survive? Who's gonna survive?

Pints With Aquinas - 74: Was Mary a virgin her entire life?

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.