Was Mary Perpetually A Virgin?

erickinho1bra

Puritan Board Freshman
It seems like Calvin and other early Reformers held to the perpetual virginity of Mary. Does that teaching have any real, practical consequence?

Can one be indifferent to this teaching or even affirm it without it having any significant consequence on their life and other areas of doctrine? Would affirming this belief possibly grow our Christology or just make us more superstitious?
 
It seems like Calvin and other early Reformers held to the perpetual virginity of Mary. Does that teaching have any real, practical consequence?

Can one be indifferent to this teaching or even affirm it without it having any significant consequence on their life and other areas of doctrine? Would affirming this belief possibly grow our Christology or just make us more superstitious?

I am indifferent in the sense that the evidence could go either way. I called Mary blessed today, per Luke 2, but I think I could have done that regardless if she were perpetually a virgin.
 
How could she possibly be a perpetual virgin? She was a married woman who had biological children, Jesus' (half) siblings.
 
Mary gave birth to other children after Jesus. Why would those births too be virgin births? No good reason.
 
How could she possibly be a perpetual virgin? She was a married woman who had biological children, Jesus' (half) siblings.
Mary gave birth to other children after Jesus. Why would those births too be virgin births? No good reason.
The argument is that adelphoi can mean cousins or even nephew. The Septuagint says Lot was Abraham’s adelphos. The argument for her perpetual virginity is not that bad honestly. I’m just not super convinced one way or the other.

And people argue that it would be incredibly shameful for children to abandon their mother in that Jewish culture so that is why Jesus put His mom under John’s care (because He had no other brothers or sisters)

(Beware, there are images of Jesus in this video
Code:
(https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DfgKAUlbWMI)
but he explains pretty well the argument for the PVOM
No. Calvin and the other early reformers were in error on this point.
How do you think this doctrine affects one’s life and other areas of theology?
 
Last edited:
Because so many church fathers and reformers took Mary to be a perpetual virginity I feel inclined to atleast say I believe it loosely but ever willing to confess it in the great tradition, I would say its the only Marian fogma that is at all biblical the others are an accretion.
 
The straightforward reading is that Jesus’ adelphoi are his brothers, according to the ordinary meaning of the word. (Of course they could not be full brothers because of Jesus’ virgin birth.) While adelphoi could sometimes refer to cousins, yet Jesus’ adelphoi are usually with his mother Mary (Mt 12:46, Mk 3:31, Lk 8:19, Ac 1:14). Why would Jesus’ cousins be so often with his mother? Why would the people of Nazareth mention Jesus’ cousins (4 named male cousins and unnamed female cousins?) immediately after Joseph and Mary (Mt 13:55-56)? Unless one has already accepted Mary’s perpetual virginity, there seems to be no reason for a reader to suppose that cousins are meant.
 
It would have been shameful for a Hebrew wife to deny conjugal relations with her husband. To some it detracts from her holiness, which would be a false holiness; Heb 13:4 KJV, "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled...".
 
It would have been shameful for a Hebrew wife to deny conjugal relations with her husband. To some it detracts from her holiness, which would be a false holiness; Heb 13:4 KJV, "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled...".
This gets to the heart of the issue. Why would Mary need to be a perpetual virgin? Intimacy is not dirty. Adam and Eve were to be fruitful and multiply before the Fall. If intimacy were unclean or unholy, we have a problem don't we. The question to be answered is how would perpetual virginity be holier than not maintaining perpetual virginity? What actual reason or purpose does the doctrine serve?
 
Just jumping in with a couple of thoughts. I haven’t studied this. But it needn’t be the case (and wouldn’t have been the case, if Mary did indeed remain a virgin) ) that Mary denied Joseph; I’m not sure what our fathers in the faith who held to Mary’s perpetual virginity had to say about it, but just thinking about it, it would have been the case that God provided in the matter. And there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that to hold to Mary’s perpetual virginity implies at all any belief that intimacy is dirty.
 
Just jumping in with a couple of thoughts. I haven’t studied this. But it needn’t be the case (and wouldn’t have been the case, if Mary did indeed remain a virgin) ) that Mary denied Joseph; I’m not sure what our fathers in the faith who held to Mary’s perpetual virginity had to say about it, but just thinking about it, it would have been the case that God provided in the matter. And there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that to hold to Mary’s perpetual virginity implies at all any belief that intimacy is dirty.
Whether or not someone implies intimacy is dirty by belief in PV, the question still remains to be answered why it would be necessary or why would it be a thing?
 
Whether or not someone implies intimacy is dirty by belief in PV, the question still remains to be answered why it would be necessary or why would it be a thing?
It wouldn’t be any popish reason for sure, if our Reformed fathers held to it. I don’t know that there are any great doctrinal implications? There are a good many PB threads on it and I don’t want to call him out by tagging him :) but our MW has posted on this a good bit and those could be searched.
 
It wouldn’t be any popish reason for sure, if our Reformed fathers held to it. I don’t know that there are any great doctrinal implications? There are a good many PB threads on it and I don’t want to call him out by tagging him :) but our MW has posted on this a good bit and those could be searched.

I looked up a couple of old threads. In one of them, Rev. Winzer made a point that I cannot get behind:

The fact is that the Scriptures give no indication that sexual relations were initiated after the birth of Jesus. The person who insists that they must have had sexual relations is creating extra-biblical dogma.

I reject this line of reasoning completely out of hand. He was at the time committing two errors at once. He was both

1) dodging the fact he - not his opponent - has the burden of proof

and

2) re-casting an absolutism over his opposition so that the prima facie position is painted as extraneous and dogmatic and not his own.

I trust he can provide better these days. I would be more than willing to read his case for fun as I also do not believe this is a primary issue.
 
It wouldn’t be any popish reason for sure, if our Reformed fathers held to it. I don’t know that there are any great doctrinal implications? There are a good many PB threads on it and I don’t want to call him out by tagging him :) but our MW has posted on this a good bit and those could be searched.
I don't think that holding to it is de facto worth separating from someone over it. But it does have doctrinal implications. Whatever reasons various Reformers may have had, the origins of the belief itself take precedent. Why did the doctrine even get off the ground?
 
I’ll clarify that I’m not arguing for or against- I have never studied the matter out. I guess what I’m lobbying for is a patience in the discussion since there seems a legitimate case that the language of Scripture (the word “until” is discussed) may not clinch the case like people think it does. We do naturally hate the Popish exaltation of Mary and if that didn't exist it might make a difference in being more comfortable considering what Calvin thought, for instance.
 
I’ll clarify that I’m not arguing for or against- I have never studied the matter out. I guess what I’m lobbying for is a patience in the discussion since there seems a legitimate case that the language of Scripture (the word “until” is discussed) may not clinch the case like people think it does. We do naturally hate the Popish exaltation of Mary and if that didn't exist it might make a difference in being more comfortable considering what Calvin thought, for instance.
Who’s being impatient?
 
I didn’t say anyone was being! Just that patience is often required to understand an issue. Editing to say, understand both sides of an issue.
 
It seems like Calvin and other early Reformers held to the perpetual virginity of Mary. Does that teaching have any real, practical consequence?

Can one be indifferent to this teaching or even affirm it without it having any significant consequence on their life and other areas of doctrine? Would affirming this belief possibly grow our Christology or just make us more superstitious?
Surely we have to bear in mind that Calvin, and most others of his time, had been brought up under Roman Catholicism. We surely should not expect people at the beginning of the Reformation to recognise every single error. Justification by faith alone was a vastly different belief to what they had been brought up with.
 
I guess what I’m lobbying for is a patience in the discussion since there seems a legitimate case that the language of Scripture (the word “until” is discussed) may not clinch the case like people think it does.

I can't wait though. I am like a kid on that one morning of that one pretended holy day hahaha

Seriously though, I may missed discussion on "until". (It is possible that I have missed it).

But if "until" means something else, it is hidden knowledge that no layman has reasonable access to which seems weird.

My limited Greek has me look up the interlinear and see that "until" is heOs and Strong's number 2193

as:

" of uncertain affinity; a conjunction, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place):—even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-)til(-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while(-s)."

and

a ton of uses in Matthew alone that all mean straightforward "until":

Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:17
So all the generations from Abraham to G2193 David are fourteen generations; and from David until G2193 the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto G2193 Christ are fourteen generations.
Tools
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 1:25
And knew her not till G2193 she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
Tools
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 2:9
When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till G2193 it came and stood over where the young child was.
Tools
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 2:13
And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until G2193 I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
Tools
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 2:15
And was there until G2193 the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
Tools
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till G2193 heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till G2193 all be fulfilled.
Tools
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 5:25
Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles G2193 thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
Tools
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 5:26
Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till G2193 thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
Tools
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 10:11
And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till G2193 ye go thence.
Tools
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 10:23
But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till G2193 the Son of man be come.
Tools
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 11:12
And from the days of John the Baptist until G2193 now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
Tools
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 11:13
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until G2193 John.
Tools
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 11:23
And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto G2193 heaven, shalt be brought down to G2193 hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
Tools
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 12:20
A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till G2193 he send forth judgment unto victory.
Tools
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 13:33
Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till G2193 the whole was leavened.
Tools
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 14:22
And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while G2193 he sent the multitudes away.
Tools
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till G2193 they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Tools
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 17:9
And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until G2193 the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
Tools
Unchecked Copy Box
Mat 17:17
Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long G2193 shall I be with you? how long G2193 shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.
 
[Sorry, I originally posted this in the wrong thread...]

The first allusion to this belief is apparently from the Protoevangelium of James (c.120 AD), which has the odd flavor so characteristic of apocryphal writings. Even there, it is only implied. Scholars tend to see this work as Syrian, and possibly derived from a sect called the Encratites, whose founder, Tatian, taught that sex and marriage were symptoms of original sin. Put me down as skeptical.
 
Last edited:
It seems like Calvin and other early Reformers held to the perpetual virginity of Mary. Does that teaching have any real, practical consequence?

Can one be indifferent to this teaching or even affirm it without it having any significant consequence on their life and other areas of doctrine? Would affirming this belief possibly grow our Christology or just make us more superstitious?
I think Jerome's Against Helvidius would be a good place to start to answer your questions.

I would assume that her title as "Mother of God" would be diminished if she was also a mother of others.
 
It seems like Calvin and other early Reformers held to the perpetual virginity of Mary. Does that teaching have any real, practical consequence?

Can one be indifferent to this teaching or even affirm it without it having any significant consequence on their life and other areas of doctrine? Would affirming this belief possibly grow our Christology or just make us more superstitious?
Not sure if you are familiar with this webpage, but it may help:

 
Back
Top