The Earthly Father: What if Mary wasn't a virgin?

Slate ^ | Dec. 22, 2005 | The Rev. Chloe Breyer

[hiho hiho]

Can Jesus be the son of God and Joseph?

At Christmas, Christians celebrate the birth of God's only son. Some believers, however, wonder if Jesus Christ is God's son only. The ancient "illegitimacy tradition" and its modern proponents propose that Jesus may have had a human father. That idea upsets one of the central mysteries of the Christian faith—the virgin conception. But it's entirely in keeping with more essential tenets: Jesus' role as the Messiah, and God's love for the poor and downtrodden. What's more, the illegitimacy tradition responds to many strange utterances about Jesus' birth in the Scriptures themselves.

---------

Can a loyal Christian believe that Christ was not born of a biological virgin? Perhaps it's worth posing a different question: Why is church authority so intent upon Mary's virginity as a historical fact? Would Jesus be any less God's son if he had an earthly father? The central message of the Gospel is that God raised up and redeemed his servant from death by crucifixion—the Roman style of execution reserved for the lowest of the low. Why couldn't God have sent the same message of divine solidarity with the world's outcasts by making a Messiah out of a man whose conception was also taboo?

[Tax-chick]

we also hold the Joseph on his second marriage theory

I think it fits, that people described as "brothers" of Jesus would be the sons of the man believed to be His father.

[Cvengr]

A better qustion than that posed in the article shall be, why would a female sibling of a US Supreme Court Justice seek to become an Episcopal priest, write guidance for women at a seminary, and now propose Christ was illegitimate son of Joseph.

The answer to this second query is more obvious when one understands the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception, the Old Sin Nature, Kenosis, and Spiritual Gifts.

The very lineage of Christ is consistent through the line of Mary, wheras the line of Joseph was broken when a king of Israel reblled from God leading Israel through 5 stages of discipline and their destruction. Nevertheless, God's Word prevails and our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus was born through Mary.

Some rigorous studies also suggest that the old sin nature, or natural man, passes sin from generation to generation, if by no other method, then surely by genetic methods from the male chromosomes. This in part is one reason why all humans are borne dead in the spirit since Adam and Eve, except for the second Adam, Christ Jesus. His conception, an immaculate conception, allowed for a man to be borne pure in body, soul, and spirit. In fact, the only man ever so borne after Adam, hence the only possible true pure Lamb available as an offering for the propitiation of sin of all mankind, thereby a God provided solution to His integrity and grace, allowing a method for man to have a relationship with Him while He retained integrity.

IMHO, for those who might consider the existance of Illuminati, occultic groups, and hidden agendas, her position provides powerful evidence consistent with conspiracy theorists that there are circles within human authority that seek to counterfeit God's plan for their personal agendas.

[AnAmericanMother]

Well, actually, it does make a difference. The Ark of the Covenant remained sacred forever; so does the Ark of the Living Covenant.

Just a matter of respect . . . and the absolutely unanimous opinion of the Church up to modern times (including Luther and various other Protestants as well).

[bonfire]

If she had other children, I don't understand how that would make her any less sacred.

These are things I don't lose sleep over and one that shouldn't be a stumbling block between Catholics and Prots.

[AnAmericanMother]

Occam's Razor, my FRiend, Occam's Razor.

She's just a poor ignorant modernist who went through a heretical Episcopalian seminary. She never learned Hebrew or Greek (it's no longer required in any ECUSA seminary AFAIK - there is a conservative Anglican seminary in the U.S. but the ECUSA will NOT ordain any graduate from it). Her professors poured modernist, worldly, Higher Criticism poison into her ears. She may well have never actually sat down and read the Bible - just the Cliff's Notes version in her approved textbooks.

I haven't seen an ECUSA priest (or "priestess") under the age of 50 who has received a solid theological education. I used to argue with our rector and had an unfair advantage because I could read Greek and he didn't have a clue. (I was a cradle, indeed a sixth generation, Episcopalian until GC 2003. Now I am a Catholic.)

[AnAmericanMother]

Well, don't worry about it then. But it's important to Catholics, and not for an irrational reason. That's all.

[Pietro]

"The Rev. Chloe Breyer is an Episcopal priest and mother of two."

And folks still wonder why the Catholic Church refuses ti ordain women.

[Heatseeker]

IMHO, for those who might consider the existence of Illuminati, occultic groups, and hidden agendas, her position provides powerful evidence consistent with conspiracy theorists that there are circles within human authority that seek to counterfeit God's plan for their personal agendas.

Like AnAmericanMother says, applying Occam's Razor gets you a simpler explanation: Rev. Chloe's just being either incredibly stupid or deliberately provocative - or, since she's a leftist, probably both.

(Certainly Slate's intention was Judeo-Christian-bashing: the other articles in the Christmas issue, according to the web page, were "Bring Out the Kwanzaa Kinara", "Who are my mother and my brothers? - The Gospels don't preach family values", "The Maccabees and the Hellenists - Hanukkah as Jewish civil war", and "Eluding Happiness - A Buddhist problem with Christmas.")

Can't these people come up with some new heresies for once? Heck, even Marshall Applewhite of the Heaven's Gate Cult invented a few new ideas. And he was just a sexually confused drifter who'd chopped his own nards off! C'mon Chloe, you can do better than that!

[Mrs. Don-o]

The "plain text," XeniaSt my friend, is in Koine Greek in the New Testament: where, as I illustrated from St. Paul, the word heos sometimes does, and sometimes does not, indicate a change in action.

As I mentioned before, when St. Paul writes that St. Timothy should devote himself to reading, exhortation, and teaching "until I arrive," he in no way implies that Timothy should "change in action" or STOP attending to reading and exhortation AFTER Paul arrives.

Neither you nor your scholarly source, Strong, has addressed this use of the word "heos," a use which is consistent with the Septuagint Greek found in the OT verses which I cited (and which you also did not address.)

This is, of course, as Greek-speaking people have always understood it --- Greek Christians, including many scholars, whose interpretation strikes me as more reliable than that of Strong, who studied Greek only as a second language. I sure wouldn't argue with millions and millions of Greek Orthodox Christians about anything as basic as the meaning of a conjunction in their own language!

In any case, let me refer you a scholarly native speaker who explains the more ancient view:

http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/Brothers.htm

It's ludicrous to call this Gnostic. I myself am no scholar, but it's Greek to me. :o)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Ya Chuck. Kind of like "brothers" means "cousins" in Matthew but golly there happened to be a "cousin" greek word in Luke used for Elizabeth. Whatever's convenient for them i guess.

[Campion]

but the "first Pope" was indeed married.

Scripture refers to his mother-in-law, not to his wife. Widowers have mothers-in-law. Be careful of assuming more than the text actually gives you.

[Campion]

These are things I don't lose sleep over and one that shouldn't be a stumbling block between Catholics and Prots.

If it "shouldn't be a stumbling block," then modern Protestants should have no objection to persons who hold to the ancient teaching of the church, endorsed by St. Jerome, the Popes of Rome, the Eastern Orthodox, and all of the original Protestant reformers (including both Luther and Calvin).

[the-ironically-named-proverbs2]

The elderly Sarah could have potentially saved herself a hassle if she had believed the Word straight away (like Mary), instead of laughing.

and us as well.

[Gamecock]

Still, he was indeed married.

[Campion]

Kind of like "brothers" means "cousins" in Matthew but golly there happened to be a "cousin" greek word in Luke used for Elizabeth.

The word used to describe Elizabeth isn't the usual Greek word for "cousin". It just means "relative".

Adelphos ("brother") is used to describe Lot's relationship to Abraham in the Septuagint text of Genesis, even though Gn elsewhere makes it clear that Lot is really Abraham's nephew. And the Gospels use adelphos to describe the relationship of Philip the Tetrarch to Herod, although secular history says that Philip was Herod's half-brother.

Whatever's convenient for them i guess.

If you want to dismiss the belief of a billion Catholics, 300 million Orthodox, and all of the major Protestant reformers with a sarcastic throwaway like that, I guess that's your right. But it's at least possible that maybe some of them are better Bible scholars than you. Don't you think, for example, that the Greek Orthodox probably know the Greek NT better than either of us?

[Campion]

Still, he was indeed married.

Before he met Jesus? Of course. There's also evidence that he had a daughter.

After he became a disciple, we don't hear anything about a living wife.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

If you want to dismiss the belief of a billion Catholics, 300 million Orthodox, and all of the major Protestant reformers with a sarcastic throwaway like that, I guess that's your right. But it's at least possible that maybe some of them are better Bible scholars than you. Don't you think, for example, that the Greek Orthodox probably know the Greek NT better than either of us?

Yes, I'd like to dismiss them. Too many lies over the years. I don't find any NT writings inspired. Thanx for almost asking.

[Uri’el-2012]

The "until" is what throws people. Modern English-speakers assume that it means that she DID have relations after she brought forth her first born. The problem arises because of the King James translation -- in the 17th century, "until" did not imply that the eventuality ever happened, it just was a point in time.

What makes this clearer for modern English speakers is a surviving usage: "She never used tobacco in any form until her dying day." That does NOT mean she started smoking or dipping after her death!

58 posted on 12/27/2005 7:16:56 AM MST by AnAmericanMother

What is clear is that you want to believe something
that is not in the Holy Word of G-d.

You want to believe man-made doctrine.

The use of "She never used tobacco in any form until her dying day."
Until is used as a conjunction and something changing at a point in time.

The plain text suggests that after her death she no longer operated as a living being.

b'shem Y'shua

[Salvation]

Maybe the author needs to check out this: Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants  on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

All of the early Protestant Founders accepted the truth of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. How could this be, if it is merely "tradition" with no scriptural basis? Why was its supposed violation of Scripture not so obvious to them, as it is to the Protestants of the last 150 years or so (since the onset of theological liberalism) who have ditched this previously-held opinion? Yet it has become fashionable to believe that Jesus had blood brothers (I suspect, because this contradicts Catholic teaching), contrary to the original consensus of the early Protestants.

Let's see what the Founders of Protestantism taught about this doctrine. If Catholics are so entrenched in what has been described as "silly," "desperate," "obviously false," "unbiblical tradition" here, then so are many Protestant luminaries such as Luther, Calvin, and Wesley. Strangely enough, however, current-day Protestant critics of Catholicism rarely aim criticism at them. I guess the same "errors" are egregious to a different degree, depending on who accepts and promulgates them -- sort of like the Orwellian proverb from Animal Farm: "all people are equal, but some are more equal than others."

General

Whatever may be the position theologically that one may take today on the subject of Mariology, one is not able to call to one's aid 'reformed tradition' unless one does it with the greatest care . . . the Marian doctrine of the Reformers is consonant with the great tradition of the Church in all the essentials and with that of the Fathers of the first centuries in particular . . . . .

In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how unanimous they are in all that concerns Mary's holiness and perpetual virginity . . .

{Max Thurian (Protestant), Mary: Mother of all Christians, tr. Neville B. Cryer, NY: Herder & Herder, 1963 (orig. 1962), pp. 77, 197}

The title 'Ever Virgin' (aeiparthenos, semper virgo) arose early in Christianity . . . It was a stock phrase in the Middle Ages and continued to be used in Protestant confessional writings (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Andrewes; Book of Concord [1580], Schmalkaldic Articles [1537]).

{Raymond E. Brown et al, ed., Mary in the New Testament, Phil.: Fortress Press / NY: Paulist Press, 1978, p.65 (a joint Catholic-Protestant effort) }

Mary was formally separated from Protestant worship and prayer in the 16th century; in the 20th century the divorce is complete. Even the singing of the 'Magnificat' caused the Puritans to have scruples, and if they gave up the Apostles' Creed, it was not only because of the offensive adjective 'Catholic', but also because of the mention of the Virgin . . .

[But] Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. The early Reformers even applied, though with some reticence, the title Theotokos to Mary . . . Calvin called on his followers to venerate and praise her as the teacher who instructs them in her Son's commands.

{J.A. Ross MacKenzie (Protestant), in Stacpoole, Alberic, ed., Mary's Place in Christian Dialogue, Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1982, pp.35-6}

Martin Luther

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.

{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .

When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:

Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}

John Calvin

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.

{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] 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 . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . 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 . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}

Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }

Huldreich Zwingli

He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .

'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}

Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.'

{Thurian, ibid., p.76}

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.

{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}

Heinrich Bullinger

Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . .

'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'

{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}

John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)

I believe... he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she
 brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

{"Letter to a Roman Catholic," quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495}

[Campion]

I don't find any NT writings inspired. Thanx for almost asking.

I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to discuss what they meant, not just issue sarcastic dismissals. Excuse me for confusing you with someone interested in an honest discussion.