# Calvin and Luther RE:Virgin Mary



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 24, 2004)

I recently read on a website that Calvin and Luther both believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. I was surprised but then I noticed this was quoted from one of the Auburn guys so I immediately questioned the validity of the statement. Does anyone know the truth in this matter? Does anyone have any source material on this issue? Thanks guys!


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Mar 25, 2004)

*Calvin on Matthew 1:25*

[i:e329f14c72]And knew her not[/i:e329f14c72]. 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.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 25, 2004)

I read that last night too. But it doesn't really answer the question and I think Calvin has overlooked other passages which like Matthew 12 and Luke 8 which clearly states &quot;his mother and brothers.&quot;


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Mar 25, 2004)

*Calvin on John 2:12*

&quot;[i:62b395526e]And his brethren[/i:62b395526e]. Why the brethren of Christ accompanied him, cannot be
determined with certainty, unless, perhaps, they intended to go along with
him to Jerusalem. The word brethren, it is well known, is employed, in the
Hebrew language, to denote cousins and other relatives.&quot;


in my opinion
Calvin does seem reluctant to side oneway or the other. But as he states so often, he does not like to dispute over things that are silent in Scripture.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 25, 2004)

[quote:92b0605fa6][i:92b0605fa6]Originally posted by JKLeoPCA[/i:92b0605fa6]
&quot;[i:92b0605fa6]And his brethren[/i:92b0605fa6]. Why the brethren of Christ accompanied him, cannot be
determined with certainty, unless, perhaps, they intended to go along with
him to Jerusalem. The word brethren, it is well known, is employed, in the
Hebrew language, to denote cousins and other relatives.&quot;


in my opinion
Calvin does seem reluctant to side oneway or the other. But as he states so often, he does not like to dispute over things that are silent in Scripture. [/quote:92b0605fa6]
Is it really that silent though?


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Mar 25, 2004)

As to Jesus having kin. I think it is easy to see in Matthew 13:55 (see also Mark 6:3). 

Yet how the reformers dealt with this seems of little importance to them. So as to why Calvin would seem to make very light of this is hard to say. It could be that it was such a common belief back then, that with everything else going on little time was left for debating this.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 25, 2004)

My question is simply this. Why is the perpetual virginity of Mary such a dangerous doctrine? Obviously, Rome has nearly deified Mary. But what would be the consequences of a Reformed type affirming the idea that Mary did, in fact, remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus? In my mind, there doesn't seem to be anything harmful to the Christian religion or the gospel about taking that view.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 25, 2004)

[quote:239608097f][i:239608097f]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:239608097f]
My question is simply this. Why is the perpetual virginity of Mary such a dangerous doctrine? Obviously, Rome has nearly deified Mary. But what would be the consequences of a Reformed type affirming the idea that Mary did, in fact, remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus? In my mind, there doesn't seem to be anything harmful to the Christian religion or the gospel about taking that view. [/quote:239608097f]

I guess that I would disagree. Jesus is clearly portrayed as having siblings. (eg James, Jude) So we either have to deny the plain teaching of Scripture or we have to say that the virgin birth of Jesus wasn't really that unique because it happened with his other siblings as well.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 25, 2004)

I agree Sola. It's not so much the idea itself that would compromise anything, but if it's true, then we have some serious exegetical difficulties with the above mentioned passages (and others) regarding the Lord's brothers.

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 25, 2004)

[quote:c9017f70c0][i:c9017f70c0]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:c9017f70c0]
It's not so much the idea itself that would compromise anything, [/quote:c9017f70c0]

Actually, I [i:c9017f70c0]do[/i:c9017f70c0] think the idea would compromise something. The virgin birth of Jesus is presented to us as part of the proof of his uniqueness. He is fully man, but not JUST a man... his virgin conception and birth is part of the evidence put forth in Matt and Luke. (Not to mention that there is the whole deal about fulfilling Isaiah's prophecy.)


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 25, 2004)

[quote:e5b48cd740][i:e5b48cd740]Originally posted by SolaScriptura[/i:e5b48cd740]
[quote:e5b48cd740][i:e5b48cd740]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:e5b48cd740]
It's not so much the idea itself that would compromise anything, [/quote:e5b48cd740]

Actually, I [i:e5b48cd740]do[/i:e5b48cd740] think the idea would compromise something. The virgin birth of Jesus is presented to us as part of the proof of his uniqueness. He is fully man, but not JUST a man... his virgin conception and birth is part of the evidence put forth in Matt and Luke. (Not to mention that there is the whole deal about fulfilling Isaiah's prophecy.) [/quote:e5b48cd740]
I'm talking about the perpetual virginity of Mary, not the virgin birth of Christ. No beleiver would deny that. But if we say she remained a virgin then we must twist many texts about the Lord's brothers to say something else. 

And now that I think about it, the idea would compromise the biblical view of marriage. Husband and wife are only suppose to withhold due benevolence for only short time (1 Cor 7?). Mary would be sinning against her husband if she remained a virgin.

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 25, 2004)

[quote:07044df9f0][i:07044df9f0]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:07044df9f0]
[quote:07044df9f0][i:07044df9f0]Originally posted by SolaScriptura[/i:07044df9f0]
[quote:07044df9f0][i:07044df9f0]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:07044df9f0]
It's not so much the idea itself that would compromise anything, [/quote:07044df9f0]

Actually, I [i:07044df9f0]do[/i:07044df9f0] think the idea would compromise something. The virgin birth of Jesus is presented to us as part of the proof of his uniqueness. He is fully man, but not JUST a man... his virgin conception and birth is part of the evidence put forth in Matt and Luke. (Not to mention that there is the whole deal about fulfilling Isaiah's prophecy.) [/quote:07044df9f0]
I'm talking about the perpetual virginity of Mary, not the virgin birth of Christ. No beleiver would deny that. But if we say she remained a virgin then we must twist many texts to about the 
Lord's brothers to say something else. 

And now that I think about it, the idea would compromise the biblical view of marriage. Husband and wife are only suppose to withhold due benevolence for only short time (1 Cor 7?). Mary would be sinning against her husband if she remained a virgin. [/quote:07044df9f0]

I apologize. I must not have been clear.
I think the Bible is clear about these two facts:
1. Jesus was born of a virgin.
2. Jesus had siblings.

Now, holding to the perpetual virginity of Mary would require us, in the light of #2, to say that James, Jude (and any others) were also products of a virgin birth. 
And it is this prospect that I was responding to above. It is precisely because the virgin birth of Jesus is unique that I must say that none of his brothers were born of a virgin. Therefore I deny the perpetual virginity of Mary on the grounds that if anyone else was born of a virgin then it totally usurps the fact that the Bible presents Jesus' birth as unqiue in this regard.
But, as you point out, there are other reasons to reject the perpetual viriginity of Mary.... This just happens to be one that, in my opinion, reveals how this belief actually threatens orthodoxy.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 25, 2004)

I agree Sola. Good points. :thumbup::thumbup:

So we agree what the bibical position is. But what about the official positions of Calvin and Luther regarding this? The quotes from Calvin thus far indicate indifference. Any other sources that others know about?

[Edited on 3-26-2004 by puritansailor]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Mar 25, 2004)

I cant remember where but i hear slomon had descendants in ethiopia?

Doesnt scripture say Jesus had sisters and brothers? or did I miss this on a post??

blade


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 25, 2004)

*More interesting quotes*

From Calvin's intro to his commentary on James (pg. 277) (emphasis mine)
[quote:67a00e4d31] But as to the author, there is somewhat more reason for doubting. It is indeed certain that he was not the Son of Zebedee, for Herod killed him shortly after our Lord's resurrection. The ancients are nearly unanimous in thinking that [b:67a00e4d31]he was one of the disciples named Oblias and a relative of Christ, who was set over the Church at Jerusalem;[/b:67a00e4d31] and they supposed him to have been the person whom Paul mentioned with Peter and John, who he says were deemed pillars, (Galatians 2:9.) But that one of the disciples was mentioned as one of the three pillars, and thus exalted above the other Apostles, does not seem to me probable. I am therefore rather inclined to the conjecture, that he of whom Paul speaks was the son of Alpheus. I do not yet deny that another was the ruler of the Church at Jerusalem, and one indeed from the college of the disciples; for the Apostles were not tied to any particular place. But whether of the two was the writer of this Epistle, it is not for me to say. That Oblias was actually a man of great authority among the Jews, appears even from this, that as he had been cruelly put to death by the faction of an ungodly chief-priest, Josephus hesitated not to impute the destruction of the city in part to his death. [/quote:67a00e4d31]

From his commentary on Acts 1:14 where it states &quot;...and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.&quot; 
[quote:67a00e4d31] He doth reckon up the mother of Jesus with the other women, whom, notwithstanding, John is said to have kept at his own house. But, as I have said before, they met altogether now only for a short season; for it is not to be doubted but that they departed one from another afterwards. [b:67a00e4d31]It is well known that amongst the Hebrews all kinsfolk are comprehended under this word brethren.[/b:67a00e4d31] [/quote:67a00e4d31]

On Galatians 1:19 &quot;James the Lord's brother&quot; (pg. 44)
[quote:67a00e4d31] Who this James was, deserves inquiry. Almost all the ancients are agreed that he was one of the disciples, whose surname was &quot;Oblias&quot; and &quot;The Just,&quot; and that he presided over the church at Jerusalem. 6 [b:67a00e4d31]Yet others think that he was the son of Joseph by another wife, and others (which is more probable) that he was the cousin of Christ by the mother's side:[/b:67a00e4d31] 7 but as he is here mentioned among the apostles, I do not hold that opinion. Nor is there any force in the defense offered by Jerome, that the word Apostle is sometimes applied to others besides the twelve; for the subject under consideration is the highest rank of apostleship, and we shall presently see that he was considered one of the chief pillars. (Galatians 2:9.) It appears to me, therefore, far more probable, that the person of whom he is speaking is the son of Alpheus. [/quote:67a00e4d31]
What do you all think about his footwork here? Why not just admit the plain reading of the text and say Christ had brothers? Seems to hint at a presupposition regarding Mary.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 25, 2004)

I found a quote from Luther's commentary on Gal. on Gal 1:19 but it is silent on the point in question:
[quote:6fccaef854] Paul minutely recounts his personal history to stop the cavil of the false apostles. Paul does not deny that he had been with some of the apostles. He went to Jerusalem uninvited, not to be instructed, but to visit with Peter. Luke reports the occasion in the ninth chapter of the Book of Acts. Barnabas introduced Paul to the apostles and related to them how Paul had met the Lord Jesus on the way to Damascus, also how Paul had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. Paul says that he saw Peter and James, but he denies that he learned anything from them. [/quote:6fccaef854]


----------



## cupotea (Mar 26, 2004)

I've heard the argument that the term for brothers and sisters could be cousins or kinfolk, however there are distinguishing Greek words to identify both relationships. However,

The Greek word for "cousin" in Luke 1:36 "And, behold, thy [b:14baface49]cousin[/b:14baface49] Elisabeth..." is "suggenes" and is also translated "kinfolk" in Luke 2:44; "kinsmen" in Luke 14:12. If they were referring to them as cousins, aunts or uncles, then the Greek word would have definitely suggested it. However it is clear that they were indeed his literal brothers and sisters.

Also the construction of the Greek text distinguishes a difference between "firstborn Son" and "only begotten Son. The Greek for "only begotten" is [i:14baface49]"monogenes"[/i:14baface49] and indicates only one of it's kind, whereas "firstborn" [i:14baface49]"prototokos"[/i:14baface49] indicates the first in a series of actions, events or beings.

Brent

[Edited on 3-26-2004 by CajunBibleBeliever]


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 10, 2006)

Is there any consensus on Calvin's view of the perpetual virginity of Mary?


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 10, 2006)

Well if Mary was a perpetual virgin then that would explain why Joseph was never heard from again! 




I'm bad... I'm so ashamed.... I'm gonna go break my typing fingers. Good thing I only use two.


----------



## Cuirassier (Apr 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I agree Sola. Good points. :thumbup::thumbup:
> 
> So we agree what the bibical position is. But what about the official positions of Calvin and Luther regarding this? The quotes from Calvin thus far indicate indifference. Any other sources that others know about?
> ...



I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep. Let's assume they did. Why wring our hands over the possibility that these great theologians may have erred? Why the surprise? 

If the Bereans heard kick-butt sermons from Paul (picture how good those would have been!) and STILL went home to "search the Scriptures" to make sure these corroborated his sermons, I have no problem whatsoever saying Luther and Calvin were wrong on the subject of Mary's perpetual virginity. 

As the other brothers have clearly pointed out, Scriptures CLEARLY teach the opposite of this. So, the question is clear in my mind - notwithstanding Calvin's, Luther's, or anyone elses's contradictory opinion. 

Scripture is infallible. Men are not. 

dl


----------



## New wine skin (Apr 10, 2006)

Calvin had high admiration for the writings of Bernard of Clairvaux, who was a big proponent of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is possible that is the source of influence of Calvin.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 10, 2006)

At the beginning of the Reformation, there was a whole, great lot of theological "odds and ends" that had to be reviewed, including the whole Marian business. Add to that centuries of the elevation of celebacy and virginity, an ascetic principle, and a whole doctrine of human life that developed "desire" of any kind into an outgrowth of concupiscence (there's that word again!)--and we can see that, given the Reformers main and first concerns, dealing with the purported "perpetual virginity" of Mary just didn't pop up so high on the radar.

I think Calvin was too careful here, myself. But given the times in which he lived, his guardedness in understandable to me. Plainly he was willing to stop at a certain point. I think many of the earliest Reformers probably saw this issue as that point on which they would not trouble any who were so convinced, seeing as how it did not strike at the gospel. Not to mention that so many were cumbered with medieval (and even pre-medieval) views of sex and sin intertwined.

A Mary revered for her "holiness of life"--if that encouraged piety, as long as it did not place her on some higher plane of spiritual worth, if she appeared to women as the paragon of New Testament feminine virtue, as long as it did not compromise the gospel--that was a small price to pay for peace on this secondary issue.

It was inevitable, however, that given the recovery of marriage as an institution of God, combined with Roman reaction that put Mary on track to become "co-redemptrix", that in the course of two full generations of a Reformed church, preachers and theologians born into and breathing the air of _sola scriptura_ all their lives would view both the texts themselves and the strengthening of Roman Marian myths as mutually incompatible. The fruit of Rome's trajectory in this area at last proved her strained exegesis.

Once marriage was restored (and see the WCF 24 for the developed doctrine by the following century), and the covenant family revived, Protestants would scarcely have any reason to read those "brother" texts in the "allowable" sense instead of the "natural" sense ever again.


----------



## DTK (Apr 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I recently read on a website that Calvin and Luther both believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. I was surprised but then I noticed this was quoted from one of the Auburn guys so I immediately questioned the validity of the statement. Does anyone know the truth in this matter? Does anyone have any source material on this issue? Thanks guys!


Patrick,

Calvin is very cautious about this belief. He does refute the Roman notion that Mary's words in Luke 1:34 constitute a vow celebacy. He wrote...


> "œThe conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she [Mary] had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews. We must reply, however, to another objection, that the virgin refers to the future, and so declares that she will have no intercourse with a man. The probable and simple explanation is, that the greatness or rather majesty of the subject made so powerful an impression on the virgin, that all her senses were bound and locked up in astonishment. When she is informed that the Son of God will be born, she imagines something unusual, and for that reason leaves conjugal intercourse out of view. Hence she breaks out in amazement, 'How shall this be?' And so God graciously forgives her, and replies kindly and gently by the angel, because, in a devout and serious manner, and with admiration of a divine work, she had inquired 'how that would be,' which, she was convinced, went beyond the common and ordinary course of nature." _Harmony of the Evangelists_, Vol. I (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprint 1979), pp.41-42).


When commenting on Galatians 1:19, he offers the following suggestion on the identification of "James, the Lord's brother," which offers us a *hint* of his caution regarding the status of Mary's virginity. He wrote...


> Yet others think that he was the son of Joseph by another wife [i.e., a former wife], and others (which is more probable) that he was the cousin of Christ by the mother's side: but as he is here mentioned among the apostles, I do not hold that opinion.


I am inclined to disagree with Calvin's caution, and think that the evidence of Holy Scripture leads us to believe that she gave birth to his brothers.
Elsewhere, in no uncertain terms, Calvin does reprove other superstitious notions of the papacy regarding Mary...


> "Hence we see how widely the Papists differ from her, who idly adorn her with their empty devices, and reckon almost as nothing the benefits which she received from God. They heap up an abundance of magnificent and very presumptuous titles, such as, 'Queen of Heaven, Star of Salvation, Gate of Life, Sweetness, Hope, and Salvation.' Nay more, to such a pitch of insolence and fury have they been hurried by Satan, that they give her authority over Christ; for this is their pretty song, 'Beseech the Father, Order the Son.' None of these modes of expression, it is evident, proceeded from the Lord. All are disclaimed by the holy virgin in a single word, when she makes her whole glory to consist in acts of the divine kindness. If it was her duty to praise the name of God alone, who had done to her wonderful things, no room is left for the pretended titles, which come from another quarter. Besides, nothing could be more disrepectful to her, than to rob the Son of God of what is his own, to clothe her with the sacrilegious plunder.....Let Papists now go, and hold us out as doing injury to the mother of Christ, because we reject the falsehoods of men, and extol in her nothing more than the kindness of God. Nay, what is most of all honorable to her we grant, and those absurd worshippers refuse." _A Harmony Of The Evangelists_, Vol. I, pp.54-55.


But these considerations aside, I know of no direct instance where Calvin affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. His approach is caution, not explicit affirmation of it.

Another interesting note on the subject of Mary's perpetual virginity is that the early Church Father, *Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379)*, although he believed in Mary's perpetual virginity, (unlike modern day Rome) he denied explicitly that this belief should be regarded as dogma...


> Roman Catholic Marian scholar, *Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M.* wrote: "The author [Basil] also focuses his attention on the possibility of conjugal relations between Mary and St. Joseph after the birth of Christ; he rejects this possibility, but not by appealing to dogmatic belief; he has no consciousness of any obligation from this angle, and even generously admits that there is no such obligation; faith, he candidly admits, demands only that we believe in the permanence of Mary's virginity up to (and including) the incarnation; after the virginal conception there is no obligation imposed by faith." Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., _Mariology_ (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), Vol. 2, pp. 276-277. The reference for Basil is his _Homilia in sanctam Christi generationem_, PG 31:1457-1476. Though some have attempted to cast this as a "spurious" work attributed to Basil, Carol argues that the attempt has no sound basis, and in favor of its authenticity.
> 
> The translation Carol gives of Basil in the footnote is as follows *"[The opinion that Mary bore several children after Christ]...does not run counter to faith; for, virginity was imposed on Mary as a necessity, only up to the time that she served as an instrument for the Incarnation, while, on the other hand, her subsequent virginity had no great importance with regard to the mystery of the Incarnation."* _Homilia in sanctam Christi generationem_, PG 31:1468.(See. fn 174 of Carol, Vol. 2, p. 277).
> 
> Carol: "For, it is evident from this discourse that in a region of the Greek world, apparently Asia Minor, an important Churchman, without any doubt the Archbishop of Caesarea, St. Basil, did not hold the perpetual virginity of Mary as a dogmatic truth, nor did his metropolitan Churches." Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., _Mariology_ (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), Vol. 2, p. 277.



Blessings,
DTK


----------

