The paradox of Theotokós
The Virgin Mary has often been a symbol of hostility between Protestants and Roman Catholics. The dogma of her Immaculate Conception – the doctrine that she was born without original sin, established in 1854 by Pope Pius IX – has strengthened the controversy surrounding her figure.Yet Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox all share two thousand years of tradition, during which we have worked through our understanding of Christ.
The Seven Ecumenical Councils, held from 326 to 787, hammered out responses to various heresies that had spread in the church. One of these heresies, known as Nestorianism, held that Jesus was not fully God and fully man, but was God dwelling in a human body. They claimed that His humanity and Godhead never mixed, much like oil and water. This Gnostic idea led to a view of the material world as evil.
In response to this heresy the church gave Mary the title of Theotokós. Theotokós means God-bearer or Mother of God. God did not possess a human, which would mean the body was the “god-bearer,” as the Nestorians suggested. The infinite God became fully human in the womb of Mary, thus making her the Mother of God.
This designation is lifted straight from the Gospel of Luke. Overjoyed that Mary had come to visit her, Elizabeth exclaims, “How has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?” (1:43). As their conversation was in Aramaic, the word for Lord, “Adonai,” would have been a substitute for the divine name YHWH. Thus the mother of our Lord is the mother of our God.
It is somewhat surprising to look back and realize that Christians traditionally accepted Mary’s perpetual virginity. There was universal assent among the Church Fathers, including Saints Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Chrysostom and Basil. The Reformers, Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger and Calvin, all asserted the same.
Often the Gospels are misinterpreted in reference to Jesus’ “brothers.” The Gospels use the same word in application to Jesus and his brothers that is used by the Greek Septuagint (the first translation of the Old Testament) to describe the relationship between Abraham and his nephew Lot. Once we realize that Greek does not have the same linguistic tightness as modern day English, it becomes clear that Matthew 13:55, which mentions Jesus’ brothers “James and Joseph and Simon and Judas,” is a reference to his male relatives.
In Jewish culture, a woman would live with one of her sons if her husband had passed away. At Christ’s crucifixion, Jesus tells His mother, “Woman, behold your son,” and says to John, “Behold your mother” (John 19:26, 27). By asking John to take Mary into his household, Jesus indicates that Joseph had died and Jesus had no brothers to take in His mother. As well, scripture notes that “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” was present at Christ’s death (Matt 27). We may conclude that this is not Mary the mother of Jesus because Matthew would have identified her as such.
The Virgin Mary captures the paradox of the God-Man. In the Israelite priesthood, the High Priest could only enter the presence of God in the Holy of Holies once a year, yet Mary became the “Holy of Holies” as God grew inside of her. Mary is to be blessed by all generations because she bore our saviour (Luke 1:48). As an ancient hymn goes, “It is truly right to bless you, O Theotokós, ever blessed and most pure, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim, without defilement you gave birth to God the Word: true Theotokóßs, we magnify you.”
We highlight Mary’s role because she is the example of how we are to live in Christ. On the ark of the covenant, God’s seat was between the cherubim, and as Jesus was incarnate, he made Mary’s womb His throne. In the same way, our bodies are to be a throne for Christ from which He rules our lives.
Visit the Audio Archives of
www.ourlifeinchrist.com for more discussion on historic Christianity.
The Theotokos is an interesting idea that I think a lot of Evangelicals could gain from, but I’m not so sure about the ever-virgin thing. For one I find it rather irrelevant whether or not Jesus actually had siblings, the main point is that Jesus himself was the conceived of a virgin. Secondly and more importantly it strikes me as extremely gnostic to be so disgusted of sex that we would go so far as to proclaim Mary an eternal virgin. Sex is a beautiful sacrament, an indisposable part of Holy Matrimony.
The Bible certainly isn’t clear that those referred to are not Jesus’ siblings. Nor does the fact that the disciple takes care of Jesus’ mother indicate that Jesus did not have siblings at one point. After all, disease was common and medical treatment wasn’t easy to come by.
Sure Mary could have been ever virginal, but I guess the really important theological question is does it really matter?
That’s a really good point Kyle. I should have gotten to it in my article. The point is that Mary’s womb became the Holy of Holies: a finite material object, like the ark of the covenant that contained the Word of God (Jesus/Ten Commandments) and the Bread of Life (Jesus/Manna). The Holy of Holies could only be entered in by the High Priest, and as Jesus is the High Priest, only he entered her womb. Luke draws this parallel in his gospel, aligning it with II Samuel. II Samuel 6:9 “How can the ark of the LORD come to me”… and verse 11: “Thus the ark fo the Lord remained in the house Obed-Edom the Gittite three months”. Luke 1:43 “How has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?”…and verse 56: “And Mary stayed with her about three months”. So the Ark of the Covenant stayed with David in the house of Obed-Edom three months, and Mary stayed with Elizabeth three months. Luke purposely is drawing an incarnational parallel with the passage in Samuel.
Joseph couldn’t go into Mary after she gave birth to God. As a Jewish man, it would have been natural to NOT go into her, because her womb was physically the holy of holies. This has nothing to do with a gnostic idea of sexuality, and everything to do with reverencing Christ.
I often wonder at the protestant aversion to acceptance of Mary’s perpetual virginity. None-the-less, a very interesting article. I would like to point out that sex is not a sacrament, marriage is, and people are often required (for reasons beyond their control) to ‘dispense’ of sex; marriage is about covenant, not sex. It seems that the argument against the perpetual virginity of Mary often has more to do with modern protestant ideas about sex and religion. But as you’ve both already mentioned, this discussion really just detracts from the point of this interesting article. Thanks for the thoughts to chew on.
Although this article brings many great points and considerations, I think that my biggest objection to adopting a “traditional” view of the Theotokós has already been stated: why?
I’m all right with Mary’s unique role in salvation histoy–Theotokós as Mediatrix and even “a” unique coredemtrix–but the idea that her ever-virginity is merely a traditional theological understanding is something that I don’t see as necessary or beneficial. If we are going to honour and venerate Mary, why must she be celebate? The argument from the Bible is shakey at best and the argument from Tradition is less than a “universal assent.” I think the theology of ever-virginity has more to do with Neo-Platonic influence in Church theology and in Church history than it has to do with a Protestant understanding of sex and marriage.
This Neo-Platonic influence is at least somewhat addressed by the Western tradition in modern, Neo-Thomistic teachings from the Pontificate (thank God) and the Western move towards monastic life in participation with nature, instead of escapist asceticism. I think that the idea of liturgical theology and participation, especially in the Eastern tradition, is also beneficial to disengaging the ideas of that the pure, individual soul is more important than the material realm. Regrettably, the view of celebacy as the “most pure” way of life and the functional (not intentional) judgment against sexual action as impure still hold many destructive anti-creation ideologies within both traditions.
When considering the disavownece of the body and disengagment of the soul in Church tradition, we must consider what effect this Neo-Platonism has had on the world. The hand that dealt celebacy (encouraged by the theology of “ever-virginity) as the best life also brought about the subjugation of women, the subjugation of societies, and the destruction of the material world in the name of pure forms. So, thus revised, my argument in light of what I stated is still “Why is Mary ever-virgin?”.
I don’t think that my argument demythologizes Christian theology. Instead, I think it promotes a general awareness that particularly the Western church is coming to realize: How has the influence of gnostic “Neo-Platonism” influenced our history and how do we get rid of it? As a result of this question and my own opinions on the matter, I do not agree that Mary was ever-virgin. Moreover, I think this doctrine is historically shown to be part of a disaffirmation of creation, which is contrary to the affirmtion of participation in our nature found in the doctrine of the Incarnation.
I should note that the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553 in Constantinople affirmed Mary’s perpetual virginity (though it was already apparent in the Nicene Creed, who was incarnate ‘of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary’–that being her title in the Creed, relating to a temporary time of her life). As for your interpretation of the Bible, you take passages out of context that were clear as daylight to everyone else. Tertullian and Jovinian, the Church ‘fathers’ who denied Mary’s perpetual virginity, ended up as heretics. Who am I going to believe: all of the Fathers and the big guns of the Reformers, or you? Is 1500 years of Church history racked with Neo-Platonism, only to be saved by the fragmentary Evangelical Churches of 19th and 20th century America??
I’m sure that you already know that in the Orthodox East the priests can get married, so if you want, you can go become an Orthodox priest, have a sweet time in the liturgy, and then have great sex with your wife after. But you can’t have sex during the liturgy. I know that by not being able to do it in the liturgy disaffirms creation, but too bad! No sex in the liturgy for you!!
I am disappointed by your caustic response Peter. Your use of ad-hominum demonstrates immaturity, and your response only answers a fraction of my argument. In fact, I’m surprised the moderators let it be posted.
That said, here’s my response: I’m a Protestant. Therefore, I believe tradition can be wrong. In fact, I believe that the Church has been wrong and will be wrong. Therefore, I affirm the individual experience of each person with Christ, and the communal experience of a community. I’m also a phenomonological Aristotelian, so I’m very wary of the use of Neo-Platonism in all forms of philosophy and theology. My objection is primarily a historical, ethical objection, and I’m not the first, nor will I be the last to object on these grounds.
That said, I would say that your argument for the clarity of the Bible (in passages I never mentioned, but which you seemed to understand my interpretation clearly) and the Fathers issues an appeal to development of doctrine, in the method of Cardinal John Henry Newman. Therefore, it is not clear in Scriptures that Mary was ever-virgin. Rather, it is implicitly in play, and the Church–guided by the Holy Spirit–more fully came to an understanding of the full truth of the Gospel in the midst of prayer and the Spirit’s guidence. The same can be said for the development of the doctrine of icons and the developments between Western and Eastern understandings of the Trinity.
There are several problems that I can see with arguing your point as you have. That is namely that if you are going to argue in the implicit/explicit methodology and aren’t Roman Catholic, how do you deny the dogmas of the Roman Church? If you remember, they too appeal to the perpetual virginity, but they also believe in the Immaculate Conception (which was initially supported by some Easterners) and the infalibility of the Vicar of Christ in Rome. My objection then becomes, how can I affirm one without the other? How can I go for the perpetual virginity and not for Immaculate Conception or the infallibility of the Roman Church. The same applies to Eastern theology. How can I affirm this church as the “true church of Christ” against the Romans or the Protestants. Both churches appeal to the development of doctrine in some way, whether one calls it conciliar unity or calls it as it is.
As for the Evangelical church saving the world from Neo-Platonism, I think that there is plenty of good things to be said about Christianity in North America. We have begun dialogue with some of these issues and others. Although I know dialogue seldom accomplishes much, it is how the church throughout the years has lasted.
As to the comment about fragmentary nature of Evangelicals, I think that there is no arguement for an idea of Church history without fragmentary movemeents and diverse opinions. In fact, some of the most terrible heresies were often the most popular opinions in the Church. For those of us who have not chosen to pigeon-hole Evangelicalism and have decided to work within it, there is hope that the Spirit will guide us in our quests. Furthermore, an appeal to universal opinions is a violence committed against many in Christian history. Not for the fact that they didn’t agree, but more to the fact that an appeal to crowd-speak is in my opinion a modern appeal. This appeal is guided more by populism than by the truth of Christ and the affirmation of each individual’s experience.
I apologize for my out of place remarks, I hope you will forgive me.
For this specific case, I would say that the fifth council was clarified this issue, rather than it being a development of doctrine. The reason why Mary’s ever-virginity does not occur in systematic form in the scriptures is because the Apostles and their followers knew firsthand whether or not she was ever-virgin. Jesus was their teacher and they knew his family background.
As Christianity spread they affirmed the oral tradition because some schools, in speculative theology, may have objected. I would appeal to II Thes 2:15 for the oral/written idea: “Therefore brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle”. The reason why I emphasize the oral is that the oral tradition was needed to choose the written tradition: the New Testament canon wasn’t made official till after Constantine. Only by what people attested to orally could the written tradition be chosen. And several books, such as James, Hebrews, Revelation and several others were up for debate.
As for the Roman Catholic Immaculate Conception dogma, the Eastern Orthodox have no unified voice on it. Most would deny it, especially considering it was passed by Pope Pius IX, who later passed the act on Papal Infallibility (which all non Roman Catholic Christians oppose).
The Council of Constantinople was in 553, and all Christians, Protestant, RC, and Orthodox are descendants of this same physically and tangibly united Church. The reason why believing in the Immaculate Conception does not follow is because it was passed in 1854, long after the Great Schism and the Reformation.
My appeal to “crowd-speak” is definitely true. Crowd speak made Christianity what it was for a thousand years. Crowdspeak is what gave us the Bible: universal usage by Christians was one of the requirements for a book to be accepted into the canon. As for the popular heresies that spread through the Church, they were dealt with by the leaders. The Councils were gatherings of leaders, formulating doctrines that preserved the faith the apostles had taught against the popular heresies of the day. The crowd-speak of Church leadership spoke and gave us the Councils and the New Testament canon.
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your openness in dialogue.
Hi I just had a little more to add to this last comment. I myself am a former Protestant who recently became an Orthodox Christian. My point with this whole debate is that how can we all just come up with our own doctrine? I believe in a personal experience with Christ as well as an experience with his community, the Church. However, when it comes to accepting or not accepting doctrine, I don’t believe we can just come up with whatever doctrine suits us and believe in it. If that was the case then we can reject ALL of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church and just say “Well, that’s what I believe in so we’re all entitled to have our own opinions”. This is where the importance of tradition comes into play. We interpret scriptures through tradition of the Church Fathers to come us with a formulation of doctrine, so that every Christian out there doesn’t have thier own set of doctrines and beliefs, and so the Church can remain intact and as a whole….so we can have unity. There’s the number one reason why The Church is split so largely the way that it is, is because people decided they were going with thier own interpretation of scripture rather than going with the consensus of the saints before us and the vast part of the clergy. I think we need to be cautious with coming up with our own doctrine just because we intrpret scripture to mean something. Just some thoughts from my point of view.
I heard a great defense for the perpetual virginity of Mary the other day. This comes from the great works of John Paul II called “Theology of the Body.” He states that Marriage is an image of the heavenly unity the Trinity. In fact it is an image of the Trinity itself. Two people becoming one to make three. The Catholic Church often refers to the Trinity as an eternal exchange of Love, where the Love of the Father and the Son is so great that it overflows and is a different person, the Holy Spirit (I do not know the other traditions interpretation of this, but I’d say it fits). Marriage is a symbol of this, humans are united to share in creation of a new person. In heaven we become united directly to Christ and the Trinity, it is for this that Christ says there is no marriage in heaven (I assume you remember this parable so no bother in citing it). The understanding of Celebacy is not devaluing of the marital embrace but it is going one step further, and experiencing the heavenly unity on Earth. This is the main reason why we see in the Catholic Church the celebacy of priests (with certain exceptions), apart from practical reasons it is fundamentally a further sign of the communion we participate in heaven.
What does this all mean for Mary’s perpetual virginity? Well we see Mary, who is participating in a heavenly marriage to God through virginity, in an earthly marriage with Joseph. We see heaven, and earth coming together. If this is starting to get more clear it should be. It is precisely a sign and symbol outside of Mary’s womb of the very truth of what has happened inside Mary’s womb, the Incarnation of the one true God, the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ.
Obviously this is not a proof of the perpetual virginity, but it adds to the richness of the Theology behind this idea. It is not just an irrelevent claim, but it has depth and meaning, and to cast it aside may rob you from an adoration of the beautiful genius of our God.
I just read the article — great job Peter :)
Hello. I’m a former student and employee of TWU. I realize this is a year after the fact, but perhaps Peter and other interested persons will see this post of mine.
Peter, with all due respect, your position seems to rest entirely on a tradition that developed after the Apostolic era. That doesn’t make it wrong, but it does mean you’ve overlooked some important considerations.
(a) Paul told the Ephesian elders, “I know that after I am gone fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Even from among your own group men will arise, teaching perversions of the truth to draw the disciples away after them.” (Acts 20:29-30) Note also the fall into error by the Galatian Christians, this still in the time of Paul’s own ministry; note also the less serious errors embraced by the Corinthians, already in Paul’s day. What this means is that while it is right to give consideration to traditional, post-Apostolic interpretations of Scripture, there is no reason at the end of the day to put full trust in them, to defer to them, or to view them as having equivalent authority with Scripture. Indeed, there is every reason NOT to do so. Scripture itself must be the Touchstone – and nothing else.
(b) Yes, the NT refers to both written and oral tradition, but the locus of authority remains the same: Apostolic. In other words, we have no right to treat all oral tradition as being on the same level as that given by the Apostles themselves. What’s more, the NT writings inscripturate the Apostolic tradition, meaning that it sits in judgment on *all later traditions*, oral or written.
Therefore the crucial question is: Does the Apostolic tradition itself, inscripturated in the NT, justify the doctrine of Mary’s “perpetual virginity”?
(c) You have misrepresented or misunderstood the Greek /adelphos/, “brother.” It was NOT used in the Septuagint to refer to Abraham’s nephew Lot. Instead, the Septuagint’s wording is “Lot, THE SON OF his [Abraham's] brother” (Gen. 12:5) – NOT “Lot, Abraham’s ‘adelphos’.” So we see that there also /adelphos/ means specifically “brother,” not just “relative.”
In Gen. 13:8 Abraham says to Lot, “We are brothers,” but in the wider context of Scripture we know there are many instances where “brother” is taken figuratively to refer to ethnic or spiritual kinship. Indeed, Gen. 13:8 in the Septuagint would more literally be translated “We are brother-men,” not simply “brothers.” This lends force to the figurative interpretation of Abraham and Lot as being ethnic kinsmen – and of course the Septuagint has already informed us plainly that Lot was the son of Abraham’s literal brother. What you are after is not a figurative usage like this, but rather a LITERAL meaning of “relative” or “cousin,” and I am telling you that /adelphos/ does NOT carry that meaning. It ALWAYS means “brother,” though sometimes only a spiritual/ethnic brother.
Moving on to Gen. 14:12 of the Septuagint, we again see a literal meaning in use: /adelphos/ here refers to Abraham’s literal brother, the father of Lot, making Lot Abraham’s nephew, NOT Abraham’s “adelphos.”
(d) Even if you are right in suggesting an analogy between Mary’s womb and the Holy of Holies (which is dubious, at best), it does not logically follow that once she had given birth to Jesus, she could not thereafter engage in sex with her husband. You assume that the NT writers did not mention Mary’s perpetual virginity because it was common knowledge among them and didn’t need repeating.
The problem is, it is never stated anywhere that she was a perpetual virgin. Moreover, your assumption at this point entails a prior assumption: that the doctrine of her perpetual virginity is in fact true and you have to then explain away it’s non-mention in the NT. Thirdly, it would also be common knowledge that husbands and wives normally have sexual relations, and that also would be a reason not to refer to Mary’s sex life in any particular way.
Fourthly, Paul writes in 1Cor. 7 that it is not right for one spouse to deny the other sexual relations. For Mary to be wedded to Joseph yet not have sex with him would in fact be a partial violation of the marriage covenant and a supremely bizarre arrangement unparalleled in Scripture and in the general experience of God’s people from time immemorial.
Fifth, Matthew states very plainly that Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary UNTIL after she’d given birth to Jesus (Matt. 1:25) That “until” cannot simply be brushed aside. It *automatically assumes* that Mary and Joseph had normal relations after that point. Otherwise there would have been no reason whatsoever for Matthew to write, “until she gave birth to a son”; he could have simply stopped with “Joseph did not have marital relations with her.” Period.
(An aside: because it is well known that even pregnant women can have sex without harm to themselves or the baby, the fact that Joseph did not have sex with Mary during her first pregnancy might actually lend support to your analogy between her womb and the Holy of Holies – which may in turn lend support to the deity of Christ. So thank you for adding that to my knowledge base.)
Conclusion: Post-Apostolic tradition is often suspect because portions of the church descended into false teaching even during the Apostolic era, and more so afterward. Post-Apostolic tradition is always, always, always accountable to Apostolic teaching inscripturated in the NT. There is every reason to affirm that Mary and Joseph did indeed have normal relations after Jesus’ birth.