Semper Virgo and Confessional Commitment

 

Sempler Virgo (Latin for always virgin) is the teaching that the Virgin Mary was a virgin, before, during and after giving birth to Jesus all the way to heaven. Some think this is founded on Scriptural text. Others admit that the Scripture evidence is not decisive, and to believe she maintained her virginity until her death, can be tolerated as pious belief. No doubt, one’s belief in this assertion has nothing to do with one’s justification or salvation. Your eternal destiny has nothing to do with your belief or not in the semper virgo.  It is peripheral to one’s discipleship as a Christian.

It may however impact one’s commitment to a denomination’s hollowed confessional document. I will get to this below but first let’s deal with Scriptural arguments for pro semper virgo and the contra semper virgo.

Pro

It is no doubt readily available to the reader of the NT, that the Gospels speak of Jesus as having brothers and sisters. The NT Greek used is (Greek: ἀδελφοί, translit. adelphoí, lit. "of the same womb"). We see this suggestion in the sample verses: Mk 6:3, Mt 13:55, Mk 3:35, Mt 12:46, Mk 3:31-35, Mt 12:46-50, Lk 8:19-21, Acts 1:14 and so on.

The Pro camp has explained that this usage of adelphoi did not mean the literal physical brothers/sisters of Christ, but they are next of kin, and it is a figurative usage. It is even suggested that these people were cousins of Jesus. Some also suggest that they were stepbrothers of Jesus from Joseph’s previous wife who was then deceased prior to him meeting Mary. For a good summary of the pro position, see here.

Con

Historians have noted that the suggestion of the perpetual virginity of Mary was first observed in a document called proto-evangelium of James, or the Gospel of James (2nd Century). Prior to the papacy, this idea was condemned by Pope Innocent I and Pope Gelasius of the Roman Church.

The argument that Jesus’ “brothers” were actually stepbrothers/sisters of Jesus has to find its justification extra-biblically so, most likely this line of argument will be deemed by critics as something that can be laid aside. The only one standing strongly for the semper virgo is that Jesus’ brothers are his cousins.

Now, here I bear my research out. I believe the weight of Scripture evidence is against semper virgo for the following reasons.

·         No one in the pro position, as far as I have not seen, any exposition on what it was for Joseph to ‘know’ Mary in Mt 1:25 - and ^[i][he] did not know her till she had brought forth her^[j] firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus. Here to know is not a stand-in for information. Bible translations that follow the KJV tradition mean to imply knowing a person, is to know that person intimately. We can see this how the people of Sodom and Gomorrah urged Lot to bring out his guests so they might “know” them. Gen 19:5. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.

 In other words, using this euphemism, it suggests that Joseph did have intimate relationship with her after Jesus was born, not before birth of Jesus for sure but after his birth, thus making the mention of brothers of Jesus as half-brothers, ie children of Joseph and Mary, sensible. This verse is skipped by the pro position or ignored.

·         The brothers as cousins idea does not cut it too. The word for cousin in NT Greek is ἀνεψιός, anephios. Scholars believe that to name a person a cousin of so and so, NT Greek speakers can also say ‘so and so, the son of …’. This phrasing is readily available to be used but this was not used to describe these relatives of Jesus, anephios was never used.

·          Another idea is the way the KJV translates συγγενεῖς -syngeneis – relatives as cousins. This word again is readily available – St Luke’s Gospel used this word a couple of times, but did not use it if the truth is that these are Jesus’ cousins. Yet, St Luke used brothers – see Luke 8:20-21.

·         Because of the above couple of points and the balance of probability of language usage, they mitigate against the belief that the Virgin Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born.

 

So now we come to the issue of one’s confessional subscription. What is its implication to you?

1.      If you are Lutheran, then you must contend with this issue. If you believe in quia subscription to the Book of Concord, it includes the Smalcald Articles and there in Luther’s own writing in Latin – Part I, Article 4, and (the Son) was born of the pure, holy, and ever Virgin Mary. Some Smalcald translations do it his way:    and was born of the pure, holy [and always] Virgin Mary. I do not know why they have to bracket this part, is it because there is a German version of Smalcald that does not have this?

2.       If you are Calvinistic/Reformed, your confession says this as well.  2^nd Helvetic Confession, Chapter XI has this part referring to our Lord … but was most chastely conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the ever-virgin Mary. Calvin also believed in the semper virgo, in fact, this statement is just an echoing of his Mariology. Calvin believed in the cousin argument.

 During the Reformation, the Reformers were dealing with the major reform issues at that time - it is Justification and so they did not have enough time to bother with and re-visit secondary issues. They went along with some unquestioned (at that time) side beliefs. They had a bigger fish to fry - how is a man made right with God.

There is a constant challenge to a person who is following Jesus and this is right there until he is taken home by his Lord - will he follow His Word where ever it may lead him?