One of the
strangest arguments for the perpetual virginity of Mary is the claim that
because she said, "I know no man" this means she had vowed to never
lay with a man. Some even claim that John Calvin argued this. In fact, I myself
was led astray by these claims to think he had, after only quickly examining them. I first
encountered the claim that Calvin taught the perpetual virginity of Mary through
this meme, shared by a Catholic friend:
Then I did
some quick googling, which affirmed the meme was right, and that also noted that he based
his position on the words “I knew no man.” But I decided to do a bit more reading,
and I am glad I did, because it turns out that Calvin was taken out of context
here. Here is what he actually wrote in his commentary on the issue:
“The
conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she 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. In
a word, this question was not so contrary to faith, because it
arose rather from admiration than from distrust.”[1]
Ok, so Calvin
made no such claim, even though some have quoted him as such. Let me
give my response to the argument that “I knew no man” is a claim of a perpetual
vow of virginity.
First, all Mary said is that she had never lain with a man, so how could she be pregnant?
That is not a vow. It is the rational statement of shock from a virgin, finding
out she is pregnant. Just as Calvin notes.
But even if
it was a vow, women's vows were always conditional on acceptance of her husband,
"6
If she marries a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of
her lips by which she has bound herself, 7 and her husband hears of it and says
nothing to her on the day that he hears, then her vows shall stand, and her
pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand. 8 But if, on the day that
her husband comes to hear of it, he opposes her, then he makes void her vow
that was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she bound
herself. And the Lord will forgive her" (Numbers 30).
Joseph wanted
a wife, and only intended to refrain from sex until Jesus was born. Calvin
notes that she would have been committing treachery if she had married knowing
she had made this vow. But this is incorrect, because as a righteous woman of
Judah, Mary knew that her husband could remove the vow. And the fact that he
wanted a wife is a good indication that he would have.
I get why
Catholics say Mary was a perpetual virgin. It is to defend the miracle of
Jesus' immaculate conception. The fact that a woman who had never lain with a
man her entire life became a mother is clearly an incredible miracle. But so is
a woman who had never laid with a man until after she had her first child. That
is the exact same miracle. It is just as miraculous in every way. Both
situations require divine intervention.
But a woman
who never lays with her husband is not a wife. And Joseph wanted a wife and
clearly intended to lay with his wife. Joseph is called a Just and Righteous
man, he would know that some of his own ancient kinsmen were judged for
refusing to consummate marriage (Judah's sons in Gen. 38).
Neither the
vow is a roadblock, nor is the perpetual virginity necessary. These are just
examples of how the Christian Church has the same tendency as the Rabbis to add
hedges around Scripture that are unnecessary.
But on a
practical level I wonder, how many Catholic marriages have been made hell for a
man, because Christian women in history thought a woman who never laid with her
husband was the greatest woman ever? I know of some famous examples from
medieval times. But how common is this? How common has this been in history?
From a theoretical perspective this argument might seem inconsequential, both
Catholics and Protestants affirm the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. But from a
practical standpoint, what effect has the idea of perpetual virginity had on
actual marriages between Catholic men and women?
Going beyond
Scripture has flow on consequences.
Now, of
course many Catholic couples have been very fruitful in this area. Catholics
are well known, and rightfully so, for having many children and shunning
contraception. I am more convinced every day that Catholics are right about the
wrongness of contraception. At least chemical versions, as they all cause
abortion. But making such a model of a woman the ideal model, when Scripture
does not require it, will also have had negative impacts on a lot of marriages.
Something to think about.
List of
References
[1] Calvin,
John. Calvin's Complete Bible Commentaries (With Active Table of Contents in
Biblical Order) (Kindle Locations 362842-362843). . Kindle Edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment