Introduction:
We have been working through the Apostles’ Creed phrase by phrase, but this week I thought it important to take two phrases at once. We are talking about that most remarkable of women, Mary. If some have erred through excessive devotion to her, we are not going to fix anything by withholding from her the honor that is due her. There are five persons named in the Creed—the Father, Son, and Spirit, and Mary, and then Pilate.
The Text:
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the virgin, Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into Hades. On the third day He rose again from the dead, ascended into Heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.
Summary of the Text:
“Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:34–35).
Now the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee, the city of Nazareth (Luke 1:26). He there appeared to a virgin whose name was Mariam (we know her as Mary), and greeted her as one highly favored among women (vv. 27-28). She was troubled by this and tried to figure out what it could mean (v. 29). He told her not to fear because she had found favor with God (v. 30). He then told her that she would conceive a son, and the promises Gabriel then made concerning Him constituted a complete fulfillment of all the hopes of Israel (vv. 31-33). Mary asked how this was possible, in that she was a virgin (v. 34). The angel replied that she would conceive by the power of the Holy Spirit, such that her child would be called the Son of God (v. 35). He also told her about her cousin Elizabeth conceiving in her old age, and of the greatness of God’s power (v. 36). Mary submissively accepted her assignment, and the angel departed (v. 38). Later, when the shepherds departed after their visit to the newborn Messiah, we are told that Mary treasured all these things in her heart (Luke 2:19). She is clearly Luke’s source for all this early material.
Clearing Some Debris:
We have come to an area where there is some overlap between classical Protestant theology and Roman Catholic theology, and so it is that some terms have gotten muddled up. We have to engage in some of what Wikipedia likes to call disambiguation. The Roman doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not refer to the miraculous conception of Jesus in the womb, but rather to the miraculous conception of Mary in the womb of her mother, a woman named Anna (according to tradition). They were attempting to solve the problem that we addressed earlier when we said that sinfulness is covenantally imputed through the line of the father.
And you will notice that in our version of the Creed, we say that Jesus was “born of the virgin, Mary,” instead of saying “born of the Virgin Mary.” The difference is this: the former means you are referring to the doctrine of the virgin birth. The latter use of Virgin as a title indicates a belief in the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. This is a teaching that holds that Mary conceived Jesus as virgin, which all orthodox Christians hold, but that her virginity was also miraculously preserved despite the birth of Jesus, and that she also remained a virgin throughout the rest of her life. While some of the early Reformers accepted this, the general movement of Protestant theology has strongly rejected it.
“Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS” (Matt. 1:24–25).
“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him” (Mark 6:3).
So Jesus had four named brothers (adelphoi) and at least two sisters (adelphai), which means that, counting Jesus, Mary had seven children. The virgin birth was an exaltation of her Son, and an honor to her, but not an exaltation of virginity.
Seed of the Woman:
The first Messianic promise in Scripture (Gen. 3:15) is one that comes in a threat to the serpent. God promises that the woman, deceived by the serpent, would have her vengeance. There would be two parallel lines down through history with perpetual enmity between them. There would be the seed of the serpent, that brood of vipers, and there would be the seed of the woman. When the great moment of deliverance finally came, the seed of the woman (Christ) would crush the head of the seed of the serpent (Satan). “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen” (Rom. 16:20).
The Woman Gives Food:
When our first mother was deceived (2 Cor. 11:3), she gave Adam the fruit and he ate. We fell in our first father (Rom. 5:12), but it was because of food that our first mother gave him. Condemnation came through that present of food. And where Eve was deceived, Mary was not deceived. Eve disobeyed, and Mary obeyed. “Be it unto me according to thy word” (Luke 1:38). Jesus is the bread of life, and Mary was the woman used by God to hand that food to us. And so it was that the woman was fully avenged.
Remember, the destructive or redemptive work was done by the respective Adams. But don’t leave the women out of it—particularly don’t make the mistake of including Eve and leaving out Mary. There is a divine symmetry in all of this.
The fact that you had to change the punctuation of the creed is a clue to the fact that all orthodox Christians accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary until relatively recently.
Surprisingly, this includes Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and Wesley:
A Protestant Defense of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
The Second Helvetic Confession states that Christ was “born of the ever-Virgin Mary (ex Maria semper virgine)”.
So, perhaps you should consider rejecting the modern fad and bring your punctuation back in line with historic belief.
John, we only changed the punctuation in English. The Greek is unchanged, and susceptible the same interpretive range. And I did note the early Protestant acceptance of the doctrine . . .
But is this (postpartum) virginity incidental or essential? That is the vital important distinction…. reading the article you linked, it seems those early reformers accepted it as incidental… a **historic** curiosity that Mary had chosen to remain a virgin after Christ’s birth. But they don’t seem to have given that occurrence any doctrinal import, or suggested that it was *essential* that she did so. Calvin said it is a minor point not worth significant discussion, Luther seems to have held the idea somewhat tentatively (using the phrase “I am inclined to agree” about the issue of Jesus’ siblings). This is… Read more »
Daniel, That’s a very good point. “Incidental or essential” is a key distinction. I will let better writers than I am tackle the precise theological question: Joseph knew her not The Perpetual Virginity of Mary: Why I changed my mind More generally, our host here has spent the last few weeks writing on the question: “Is sex incidental or essential?” where “sex” is a categorical noun. He has also spent years writing about the same question where “sex” is a noun describing an action. The modern answer to both questions is that sex is incidental – whether it is a… Read more »
John, thanks beaucoup for the link to the Heschmeyer / Shameless Popery critique of Leithart’s little article on Mary’s virginity.
The numinous “fear” commentary was super enlightening.
I’m yearning to explore more on the value of her supposed perpetual virginity, and how it might related to this idea of she was immaculately conceived.
Seems like those two stand in opposition.
Got anything that points the way?
Immaculate conception doesn’t teach that Mary was immaculately conceived in a biological sense; physically she was the offspring of her parents. The doctrine holds that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin. Unlike us, she was immaculate at birth, untouched by original sin. This was not due to her own merits, but because of divine foreknowledge.
To a Catholic, the doctrines don’t oppose but complement each other. Both point to Mary’s purity and total commitment to God.
The fatal flaw in the “Joseph Knew Her Not Article” is that the writer argues that sex after engagement but before marriage was permissible. And, the argument goes on, that Joseph did not have sex with her even though he could have, because she was Holy.
It certainly did happen, as has happened in all cultures, but his case that it was permissible fails miserably. While it is not the only leg his argument stands on, it damages it badly.
Very ready to hear your the point(s) of your argument demonstrating why or how it was impermissible for betrothed in that culture to engage …
Are you really arguing that fornication was permissible in the OT? That seems a big hill to climb.
Are you really saying that sex with your betrothed, the one from whom you’d have to get a legal divorce if you separated, was considered fornication?
Yes. She is not your wife, yet.
Unless she is, which by the way many historians and scholars and interpreters also hold.
Just when do you read they actually became husband and wife then? — before Jesus was born?
You are claiming that betrothal was marriage?
Unfortunately, for this position, they are not the same thing. It wasn’t then, it isn’t now. It was a much more serious business then, but it was still different than marriage.
Did you need a divorce to break an engagement?
It was marriage.
That’s why he was called her husband.
The word for husband is man. He is the man in the relationship. I now present you man and wife.
I said that betrothals were much more serious business, and what I meant was that they were legally binding, so yes, a legal break was necessary to end one, unlike today.
But, that does not make it a marriage. Betrothal and marriage are two different things. This is why Matthew wrote, “His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph.”
They are not the same thing.
“When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily”
Mary was espoused to Joseph … her husband?
Matthew says Mary was Joseph’s wife?
I just explained the husband thing. It is the word man. It literally says, “Joseph, her man, being righteous…”
It is used for a variety of circumstances, to include both marriage and betrothal, among others. It simply does not speak to your case that marriage and betrothal are the same thing.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son
Kilgore — does Matthew 1:24 above indicate to you that the betrothal was finished and actual marriage occurred?
How did that happen?
Was consummation required?
This is the same gender issue only in reverse. It is the word “woman.” Mary was his woman, both before and after the betrothal.
None of this is even remotely close to evidence supporting your position that marriage and betrothal are the same thing. Or that sex was permitted outside of marriage as long as they were betrothed.
Neat trick — so wife = his woman; and husband = her man? The words husband & wife in Scripture don’t = wife & husband as we use them now, but included the betrothal non married state of being? So are you saying that “his woman” (his wife or his betrothed) could be used only in those two states — married or betrothed, and you won’t find it in a casual or illicit context (girlfriend, lover)? And what word do you understand is used when “your woman” (wife) isn’t just your betrothed but “your woman” (wife, but no longer betrothed)… Read more »
I don’t know what to tell you, but the English word husband and wife denote a specific relationship, but in Greek and many other languages, particularly in the middle east, they just use the word man and woman. I also never said that they are only used in those two contexts. Of course the words man and woman are used elsewhere for any number of meanings. And what word do you understand is used when “your woman” (wife) isn’t just your betrothed but “your woman” (wife, but no longer betrothed) you can have legitimately have sex with? You are being… Read more »
You may be conflating modern engagement with old Jewish marriage. Did you know, Kilgore, that may Torah experts understand that Jewish law REQUIRED sexual intercouse for the BETROTHAL to be legitimate? >> There were a couple of engagement-wedding ceremonies, usually immediately sequentially performed. “The first wedding ceremony is called in Hebrew אֵירוּשִׂין (also spelt אֵירוּסִין) eirusin (and in Rabbinic writings often קִידּוּשִׁין kiddushin). This word is usually translated as “betrothal”…” Usually no extended engagement period because, let’s be honest, you know how that goes. The second ceremony = Nissu’in = culminates in the wife taking residence. Now a delay between… Read more »
You may be conflating modern engagement with old Jewish marriage. I have made many distinctions between them in our conversation. Did you know, Kilgore, that may Torah experts understand that Jewish law REQUIRED sexual intercouse for the BETROTHAL to be legitimate? >> This is silly and nonsensical. They require it for the marriage, yes, for the betrothal, no. In fact, there were arrangements made to have evidence of virginity presented on the wedding day, that way if a question arose, it could be presented a la Deut. 22. You are correct about the order of the ceremonies. There was the… Read more »
Kilgore, in ancient Jewish times, marriage was a process, not an event. People didn’t have a wedding ceremony and a wedding night, as we do today. A betrothal was the binding contract, the wedding was just the feasting and celebration after the fact. The wedding itself was not the legally binding part, the license so to speak, was the betrothal. Most of them had already had sex together before the feasting ever occurred. Many were even pregnant for the wedding feast.
The reason for two separate occasions, betrothal and wedding, was just part of the ancient process of legally transferring the responsibility from father to husband. The betrothal was a legally agreed upon price that was paid from the suitor to the father, called a mohar, http://biblehub.com/hebrew/4119.htm. From there, negotiations were made for the marriage regarding living arrangements, and so forth. Sometimes it lasted years so the man could build a place or earn enough money to buy one. Other times, it was only days or weeks, depending on the circumstances. Until the actual ceremony, the woman was in her father’s… Read more »
Kilgore — when Joseph went to Bethlehem with Mary, (read: cohabitating) did they do so as a betrothed couple?
If you say the betrothal had already been completed, did they at any point have an obligation to have consummation sex?
Kilgore — when Joseph went to Bethlehem with Mary, (read: cohabitating) did they do so as a betrothed couple? Yes they went as betrothed, but traveling together is not the same as cohabitation. Being betrothed in that day was a legally binding agreement, so when they went to be registered for the census, it makes total sense that they would do so together, probably alongside her father and mothers and everyone else in the family. I don’t know what arrangements they made, but that is really an irrelevant detail. If you say the betrothal had already been completed, did they… Read more »
Well said. To go along with Durden’s points: If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you. — Deuteronomy 22:23-24 Notice that this passage recognizes that a betrothed virgin is also… Read more »
First I would like to see you acknowledge that in the Torah the matter of sex with the betrothed is not specifically addressed. This man who takes her is not her betrothed correct? Next the reason why a man would abstain before the final marriage ceremony is because it is the point of that ceremony that he takes her into his house or rather her new house. For them to have sex would be a violation of the spirit of that and believe it or not some folks like the whole concept of honoring their traditions and their religion. What… Read more »
The issue I raised about the virginity of Mary was the argument that Joseph abstained from sex with Mary before her pregnancy, even though he could have, because she was holy. I responded that he abstained from sex with Mary before they married , because it is forbidden in the Torah, and after the angel delivered the message about her pregnancy until after she gave birth to Jesus, because she was pregnant with the Son of God. It had nothing to do with the holiness of Mary. Otherwise, he had no reason to divorce her after the news of the… Read more »
To answer your question, I do not believe that Jews back then nor Orthodox Jews nowadays are quite as strict about premarital sex among betrothed folks.
Yes the preference is and was and should be you that abstaining until the concluding ceremony is to be much desired and preferred for all the right reasons. But sex among betrothed was not considered fornication.
Fornication in the Torah had to do with women who were not engaged and did not have a man attached to her.
The point of all this for me is that Joseph did not abstain because he was afraid about the law of fornication. The point was that he abstained then and all through Mary’s pregnancy because a holy thing was in her womb. For me it seems they were cohabitating by the time they made it to the end. That is an indication that the marriage was all complete and boxed up. Yet we know they did not have sex. And the reason was because of something Joseph was perceiving and his interests to honor that. So my question is was… Read more »
I understand your argument. That has been clear all along. What you haven’t proven is that sex was all willy nilly before marriage. You just keep saying it, but it doesn’t prove it. But the other flaw, besides having to re-define fornication, with this argument is that it fails to explain why Joseph would seek to divorce her. In my view, he was waiting for marriage to have sex, and then she shows up pregnant. He thinks he was betrayed, so he seeks to break up the betrothal. In your view, he knows Mary is holy even before the pregnancy,… Read more »
“In your view, he knows Mary is holy even before the pregnancy, so he doesn’t sleep with her even though he can.” He is quite right about that. Why do Christian men today abstain from premarital sex? Because we perceive one another as reflecting wha tis Holy. It is not the law or the Torah, it is our belief system and our values. “But if he knew she was holy, so holy that he couldn’t sleep with her, why would be jump ship when she got pregnant?” Because he feared he’d been betrayed, that what he was perceiving as Holy… Read more »
Some of that is convoluted. Eric was arguing, I think, that Mary and Joseph could have had legally sanctioned, Torah sanctioned, sexual relations. Joseph didn’t because he somehow sensed a sacred holiness which differed from other women. This is a totally different position from why ” Christian men today abstain from premarital sex.” One is legally sanctioned, according to Eric, the other isn’t. Because he feared he’d been betrayed, that what he was perceiving as Holy wasn’t so pure after all. This is not Eric’s position, I don’t think. He said above that Joseph wasn’t betrayed, because good Joseph knew… Read more »
Kilgore, a moment’s reflection shows that your argument is correct. Mary explicitly tells the archangel that she is a virgin. If Joseph had not been waiting for marriage, he would have assumed he was the father of Mary’s unborn child and there would have been no shock or dismay. Nothing else makes sense given the text.
“The point of all this for me is that Joseph did not abstain because he was afraid about the law of fornication. ”
Amen. I don’t believe Joseph was afraid of the law, either.
It is always possible Joseph abstained afterwards because he was honoring what he felt was holy, but I don’t think so because they had children together later. Also, it would not be dishonoring to have sex with your wife,in fact, it could be seen as honoring her,as celebrating what God invented and created,and the marriage he gave them.
Kilgore — note this in the text: “When His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 And Joseph her husband, being a just man and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.” She was found with child??? How?? By whom? No doubt she told her husband / betrothed. After all, she was a remarkably lovely creature, highly favored and known to be of upright and good heart, and very heavenly minded. Let’s say for my example, he believed her.… Read more »
Eric Stampher, I have appreciated this conversation, and I don’t think anything more that I say will convince you otherwise. Allow me to add one last point, though. The reason the text notes that Joseph was a just man was to highlight why he was divorcing her privately, instead of subjecting her to public ridicule and possible stoning. To argue, as you have, that he was divorcing his beloved and leaving her alone and vulnerable with a child that he knew was holy, and even though he knew she was innocent, because he was scared of God strikes me as… Read more »
Kilgore, First — what is it about being a JUST man that would him to keep a divorce private? How does the Torah inform you on this point? Secondly — Could you accept as vaguely plausible the idea that having the God Who created heaven & earth and all the gold that is taking residence in your spouse might lead you to think she wouldn’t somehow be left entirely destitute without your aid? In other words — Joseph thinks to himself, “Hmmm, I’m betrothed to this saintly girl who now has YWH as her husband & the Messiah as her… Read more »
Eric, I am not sure this is going anywhere at this point. All of your conjecture on these points start with your assumptions in play, rather than working out of the text. So sorting them out is getting increasingly complicated. The text nowhere says anything about Joseph abstaining from sex with Mary, because she was holy. They were not married, they were pledged to be married. I suppose we could start claiming that Joseph saw something holy in Mary, without textual justification, and I suppose we could start saying that Joseph could have been having sex with Mary because betrothal… Read more »
If Joseph had abstained because he sensed Mary was holy, he would have had all the more reason for anger when she turned up pregnant by someone else. It took an angelic visitation in a dream to show Joseph that Mary had not been unfaithful. The text is so clear that I cannot understand these speculations. What ever some other betrothed couples might have done, we know that Mary and Joseph had been chaste or Joseph’s decision to put her away privately makes no sense.
Not so sure about that, Eric. Strict Orthodox betrothed couples are not typically ever left alone together until their wedding night. Very observant Orthodox Jewish men will not even shake hands with a woman who is not their wife, mother, or sister. As I know from having politely extended my hand upon being introduced!
Sorry you felt a bit dissed!? (or maybe protected / honored?) Since Mary was Joseph’s wife, or as we might smash together — legally betrothed wife — what’s the Orthodox protocol for touching in that case? I’ve read that if the final marriage ceremony has been delayed because of the extra time needed for (a) the kids to grow up (b) the hubby to get the house ready — or some other reason — if that time is needed then good manners & protocol is to keep your distance. But when this text has the spotlight on J & M… Read more »
It was an interesting feeling, actually. I didn’t feel dissed, but I did feel embarrassed for putting him into an awkward position. He was a very nice man, and he was struggling between kindness and the dictates of his religion. But my other dominant sensation was feeling dirty, as if the touch of my fingers carried corruption. I took a few minutes to look at some Orthodox websites (my husband’s family was not Orthodox so I know less about them). They said that Torah does not explicitly prohibit premarital sex, but that the later rabbinic tradition does. However, even now… Read more »
Those fingers carry electricity — ask you hubby.
My guess is that after the angel made it clear to finish up and take her, Joseph obeyed as immediately as possible — and probably told Mary & her parents.
Can you imagine Mary’s mother & father trying to stall this, especially if the believed the crazy story these kids concocted?!
seems you could make the argument that Joseph did us a solid by abstaining perpetually.
Not yet saying it’s a compelling argument, but it isn’t wacky.
If Mary represents the new us, the church destined for holification, where our new heaven has us remaining our sexual selves but not married — is that not typified by a Mary here who is a woman who isn’t so engaged.
The next question to ask, then, is why have a Joseph in the picture at all.
Joseph is vital to the restoration story of man. Adam takes no responsibility in the garden, “this woman you gave me.” Joseph’s role repairs that, he takes responsibility for what is not even His, both the mother and the child. Mary is the woman restored, Eve in the garden now giving birth to the Savior of mankind. Mary is not a virgin because virginity is to be idolized and prized as if all sex were sin, all sexuality evil. God designed us to be sexual beings, and he said “it is good.” And,in spite of our never ending attempts to… Read more »
I think you have something with Joseph being faithful. What if we read Adam as in fact diving into the pond to save his beloved. “Did you participate in her sin, and go into the death pond after her?” “Yes I did. The one you gave me handed me the future here with her — a future of pain & death (and hopefully with your help, salvation), and I took it, rather than leave her.” Together they generate the line that have a point of salvation. Now comes Joseph who’s bride now holds the holy thing, not the forlorn thing.… Read more »
“What if we read Adam as in fact diving into the pond to save his beloved.” I have heard that idea before,but I do not believe it. Adam did not dive gallantly into the pond to save his beloved. If he had, God would have spared Adam, perhaps rewarded him for his sacrifice, for his dominion. As much as I would love to embrace that romantic idea of Adam’s sacrificial love,everything I read is about Adam forever trying to pass the buck…..until we get to Joseph sacrifice and service, and Jesus Christ Himself, of course. Man is redeemed, forgiven, by… Read more »
Whenever you find a pass-the-buck scenario laid out before God or a righteous judge in the literature, the pass-the-buckers get called on the carpet.
Not here.
Both Eve and Adam are giving straight out confessions.
This is the story of their conversion after hiding from God.
This is the story of the promise of salvation.
Adam, who God asks first, does not give a straight up confession, he says, “the woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.”
Eve doesn’t point fingers at Adam or at God Himself for creating Adam, she gives a straight up confession,”The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.” That is part of what makes Joseph’s restorative role so interesting,so vital.
Unlike Eve, Adam says “I did it” without any extenuating circumstance, no?
No, Adam doesn’t say that at all.
Did Adam lie to God or say anything that was less than accurate? Did he cop to any extenuating circumstances that might sound like an attempt to lessen his guilt? Did he blame Eve for making him do it? No, he stated the facts straight out. “God, you gave me this one particular perfect match. While she got confused and beguiled and deceived by that creature, I was not confused or deceived in the least. Then I heeded her call. She gave me the same fruit about which she was deceived. I was not confused. Mine was a clear-headed decision… Read more »
“While she got confused and beguiled and deceived by that creature, I was not confused or deceived in the least….”
R-i-g-h-t. And that is why men have remained sin free since the dawn of time. Why, they’re so good, honorable, and pure, they don’t even need a Savior.
Seriously, do you believe your own coconut candy?
As the story is given you, which one knew exactly what they were doing, clearheaded in disobedience?
It’s not the “clearheaded disobedience” that is a problem, it’s the suggestion that Adam’s sin was just sacrificial love in action, so not really sin at all. Adam is just along for the ride because of Eve’s sin and his desire not to leave her.
I acknowledge this paradox right there in the Scripture (and it has also been so noted by ancient Jewish scholars and more recent Christian poets — example Milton): Adam is presented as the primary responsible sinful party in Eden. A weakness / immaturity in Eve is presented as contributing to her decision. Adam is shown as having no such mixture of deception. BUT Adam is presented as taking this sinful step not by his own personal temptation vis-a-vis the fruit’s yumminess or the possibility of being more Godish (as Eve was so tempted), but simply because his now-sinful wife extended… Read more »
I am not buying it. As I have said, it is a lovely and romantic theory, but it is not the truth. I do however, know many men who to this day, seem to insist Adam is sin free, Eve is the cause of the fall, and their own alleged lack of self deception is allegedly what makes them such noble beings. I’m sorry, and I don’t mean this as bitterness,but apart from God there are no “good men,” there is nothing noble lurking behind our savagery.and Adam did not fall on his sword for Eve. Christ did, but not… Read more »
You are correct, the first Adam sinned against God [along with Eve], it’s odd to think otherwise when the text is clear.
“All’s I’m saying” (as they say) is that the Bible story as it’s laid out doesn’t go against the grain of this interpretation, does it? Don’t let modern dweebs & bores intrude upon how this literature presents itself. Chapter 2 >> Onstage God & Adam alone, God gives Adam the rules. Exit stage right. Chapter 3 >> SUBTLE, crafty, sneaky serpent center stage. After and BECAUSE of her conversation with the serpent: “6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to… Read more »
LOL! It really was lovely and romantic when he named her the mother of all living.
God does rebuke Adam though, he must work and the dirt will have thistles and he is cast out of the garden. So we know Adam’s response did not please God. If Adam had not sinned in his response, the story may have been much different.
God does wrap them in skins however, and He has a plan to redeem them already, so I think that is the real love story.
“Seriously, do you believe your own coconut candy?”
Can I borrow this for future use? (I promise to footnote.)
Thank you, Pastor Wilson. I’ve always found “Perpetual Virginity” and “perpetual curse of Eve” doctrines to be theologically ridiculous and biblically unsound. I don’t object to immaculate conception quite as much, just to the misunderstanding it is somehow related to the conception of Jesus.
I also appreciate you standing up for “sinfulness is covenantally imputed through the line of the father.” That one is kind of important because it relates to several other pieces of scripture,and also often to people’s healing.
I think there is much less biblical evidence for the immaculate conception than for the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Jill Smith wrote:
I can go a step further. I don’t see that there is any biblical evidence for the immaculate conception of Mary.
It was an observance that popped up in the 12th century, and was initially condemned because it wasn’t an authorized celebration. But because Mary had gradually been bestowed nearly all of the attributes of Christ, this one seemed to fit the same pattern, and was eventually adopted.
I’ve been waiting for the chance to say something about that comma. Christ Church is the only place I’ve ever seen it, and I think we’ve got it wrong. The comma makes “Mary” an appositive of “the virgin,” implying that she is the only one. A parallel would be “the apostle, Paul” rather than “the apostle Paul.” Certainly she’s the only one to have given birth to the Spirit-conceived Christ, but I think the construction implies more than that. The sense it conveys is more like a title, and therefore more like her permanent identity. The comma would be less… Read more »
I only noticed the “V” and not the comma on first read; but I agree.
Perhaps “…born of the virgin: Mary,”
:)
If we’re getting creative with the punctuation, I’d propose “…born of (the virgin) Mary,”
Daniel: Mmmmmmmmno. ????
Bethyada: That’s a little overkill, I think. ????
Commas do matter:
Lack of Oxford comma costs Maine company $10 million in overtime
John: I’m a copyeditor. Commas are almost literally my bread and butter. ????
So what do you think of the Oxford comma, in defense of which I am prepared to man the barricades and fight in the streets? Do you agree with the general consensus that Americans under-use commas while other English speaking writers festoon their prose with them as if decorating a Christmas tree?
I loved the example in that link: “I would like to thank my parents, Mother Teresa and the Pope.”
and the “we” who are doing this believing you’re talking about — who’s that “we”?
Eric: Christ Church.
I’m asking because if you mean folks that attend there and have Doug as their pastor, then you’ve now cut up the body to not include folks who disagree that they believe as you, kyriosity do.
Or do you kick folks out who disagree with your take?
Kicking people out: also above my paygrade. And I cannot imagine this being an issue that would lead to excommunication unless someone were being contentious about it. There’s a good number of things a church can hold to and teach without anathematizing brethren who disagree.
But isn’t it just such a concept — that a church (“they”) can be an entity not including some of the brethren — that turns a “church” into a business rather than simply being the body of Christ?
That this business can say what it believes as a subunit separate from the main, showcases how this thing in your eyes (and probably the leaderships’) is more business than body.
By definition, a church can’t anathematize any brethren who hold to Jesus.
Yet kicking people out is exactly your pay grade, when correctly called upon by good leaders.
Bob and Bertha can have different house rules for their kids than Bob’s brother Bill and his wife Beulah have without ceasing to be family. I have no problem with individual congregations or denominations having theological distinctives.
I don’t know what your last sentence means.
House rules?! >> like club rules? So if, say, 80+% percentage of regular attendees believe something different (say a lot of RC-ers move to Christ Church), do we still say it is a congregation with reformed distinctives? In other words, your “distinctives” is not a rereference to what folks there believe, but how the club rules are set up, right? Your understanding of what the “church” — and so what “a” church is — is not unusual. What I meant by saying your pay grade includes the job description of kicking people out, was meant to remind that you, even… Read more »
No, house rules like rules for a household, a family. “But Mrs. Bleedlesnorp lets Johnny jump on the couch!” “You’re not a Bleedlesnorp; you’re a Schnickelfritz, and I, Mrs. Schnickelfritz, your loving mother, say you may not jump on the couch in our house.” If a lot of Roman Catholics joined Christ Church, they would no longer be Roman Catholics. “Distinctives” refers to the official teaching and practice of the congregation as determined by the elders. You seem to be thinking that a congregation is a flat egalitarian democracy in which the majority opinion rules. Some congregations have that sort… Read more »
kyriosity — you lost me at “joined” and “member” Who’s house you got going over there — God’s or Doug’s & the elders’? You think they have authority to make up rules in addition to those set by the body’s Head? But yes they do — because it’s their body not His, right?! You speak of joining & membership — by which you DON’T mean joining His body and being a member of His body, correct? This membership is to this house that Doug & the elders built, with its innovative rules, as distinct from the living body of Christ,… Read more »
I’m done. If you want to play dumb about how churches work, that’s not a game I want to “join” or be a “member” of.
kyriosity — this is very similar to the “Since you don’t seem to like it so much, why don’t you go somewhere else?” response.
No, I think it is similar to, “This conversation has stalled, and unless we can reach a basic agreement on terms and concepts, it’s time to move on.”
the “I’m done” did drive that home for me, you’re right.
The idea about the reality of “how churches work” is also well-taken.
Many churches have become, for better or worse, businesses, complete with corporate 501(c)3 requirements, CEO’s, and official membership to legitimize themselves.
Churches work a far cry differently than how they did in OT & NT.
While I fully appreciate Pr. Wilson’s treatise on this (brilliant as always), I do find it amusing that there needs to be a discussion of a comma or no comma, small “v” or capital “V” within the doctrine of the Apostles Creed. None of that changes a thing for me. The Bible states that Jesus was conceived to a virgin named Mary by and through the Holy Spirit, later she and Joseph had other children through the normal course of marriage. What’s there to discuss?
It might be edifying to discuss how it was that so many Christian folks like Luther & Calvin disagree with your understanding that the Bible implies, let alone asserts, that Mary & Joseph had other children together.
“It might be edifying to discuss how it was that so many Christian folks like Luther & Calvin disagree with your understanding…”
To what end? Considering Scripture is absolute, will further research into this change anything? (Mark 3:31-32 offers additional clarity.)
It appears at first blush that you are pronouncing that your own interpretation of Scripture, not Scripture as such, is absolute. You ask “To what end could the consideration of the interpretations of notable and respected Christian men be of use?” >> yet you have chimed in yourself to offer an opinion as though you think your opinion has any use itself. In other words, your statement carries some self-contradiction. But your opinion, though you may not be yet recognized as a hero of the faith or its teachings, is in fact of value. I was just hoping you could… Read more »
No, I am not doing as you surmise, that would be highly arrogant…my apology for seemingly attacking your suggestion, was not my intent. But my question is one I ask myself — “Will this change my belief in Christ?” For this [subject] I am confident it will not, therefore I see it as a secondary, maybe even a third-level, theological concern which can be vigorously debated without overshadowing the main tenets. I do rest on the scholarship of my ESV Bible; if the translators thought the word for brother meant cousin I suspect they would have included it in the… Read more »
Would it change your belief in Christ?
Well it might be quite edifying to delve deeply into who exactly he was when he was in Mary’s womb .
For starters, what would make Joseph so fearful to take her as hus wife?
This makes my earlier point and question very nicely:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-should-evangelicals-think-about-the-shroud-of-turin#When:2017-08-05T05:10:00+00:00
You don’t find it helpful to rexamine what you believe about Christ? What do you make of His being both human & God almighty all-in-one? What of our nature did He take on? Is it our nature to be sinful? Did He take that on as part of Who He is? If you were married to a gal who in a moment had the God who made the universe, and who this very minute is keeping the whole thing humming exactly towards the zillion ends He is choosing, your God, going to lodge right there in that tummy next to… Read more »
All of the above…except of course the “whatever”.
An interesting article. Some popes have said they believe in its authenticity, but Catholics are free to form their own views. This writer’s conclusion reminded me of what Cardinal Saldarini said: “Salvation is not in the Shroud, even if it truly wrapped the martyred body of Jesus, even if it was mysteriously given by God to His Church. Salvation is that which is given to us by Christ.”
Doug says: “The Roman doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not refer to the miraculous conception of Jesus in the womb, but rather to the miraculous conception of Mary in the womb of her mother, a woman named Anna (according to tradition). They were attempting to solve the problem that we addressed earlier when we said that sinfulness is covenantally imputed through the line of the father.” Just a point of clarification. The doctrine does not imply that the conception of Mary did not occur in the normal manner. It states that Mary’s soul was, by divine decree and in… Read more »
Jill Smith wrote:
If that’s true, why did they call it the Immaculate Conception then, if it wasn’t meant to imply anything special about her conception? Shouldn’t they have called it the Immaculate Ensoulment, or some such?
“If that’s true…” Katecho begins. Does he imagine that I invent doctrine from whole cloth and try it out on my Protestant brethren? Or that I have spent this many years as a Catholic without having the faintest idea of what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception actually states? Nonetheless, to allay suspicion, I will provide an explanation from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia which has received church approval for its orthodoxy: “…in the first instance of her conception… The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb… Read more »
Beautifully presented, Jill. I’ve ready that in Church history, quite a few theologians-philosophers (Tertullian, Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa) have held that we don’t get our souls by infusion, nor are they created at or about the time of conception. I’m thinking specifically of Traducianism. Anywho … two questions: (1) Was the immaculate conception (IC) held by many old school traducianists (TD-ers), if you know — and how did they nogginate the details of how this could occur (if there were any IC advocates amongst the TD-ers) ? (2) Why worry about Mary — and apply this sinful-soul exemption procedure directly… Read more »
Hi Eric. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has been kicking around for centuries, and I am sure there must have been overlap between those who believed it and those who held traducianist views. I would think it could occur just as easily if you take a traducianist view; the Holy Spirit would have intervened to remove the stain of original sin from the soul arising from her parents’ generative activity. While, as you note, traducianism was supported by some major heavy hitters including St. Augustine of Hippo, it lost traction in the middle ages when it was opposed by… Read more »
Thanks. Now for a deeper historical question, if you still come back to check this thread. (By the by I see under your photo (how’d you do that?) it says “member” — how’d you do that?!) I believe all believers = members of Christ’s body = the Church = the Christian Church. In Him, the Church is one. Hence all believers from the beginning of humanity are members of the Christian Church. If I were born into the RC Church, but later came to believe Mary’s immaculate conception was an erroneus position, and wasn’t shy about politely sharing my view… Read more »
Yes, you will be in good standing, and yes, you will be given communion. Catholics are on an honor system not to receive communion when they have incurred automatic excommunication (for example, by having an abortion). To be refused communion at the altar rail, you would pretty much have to be wearing a tee-shirt saying “Proud Abortion Doctor.” It is understood that people struggle with faith and may sometimes doubt a particular doctrine. If you were talking to other Catholics informally, they would likely tell you what their own individual problem doctrines are. But, there are a couple of points… Read more »
“a wider rejection of the teaching authority of the pope and the magisterium?” Nope — but I accept the teaching authority of nonmagisterium as well. Doesn’t anyone spouting the truth get authority rubbed off on them by The Truth. It’s the Truth that carries the authority, not individuals, per se. The office title “pope” or “deacon” signals: “God gives us church folk the gift of truth spoken by folks such as these, so pay attention!” Of course, any forthcoming error MUST be resisted, no? “Do you believe that if a doctrine cannot be found in scripture, it cannot be true?”… Read more »