Biblical Typology→
Mary’s
Perpetual Virginity:
Definition of Terms:
|
The belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity is a central doctrine within Christianity, asserting that Mary remained a virgin before, during, and after giving birth to Jesus. Although the New Testament does not explicitly state this doctrine, there are various aspects of scripture, historical context, and early Christian tradition that support it.
In the Old Testament, a recurring theme emphasizes the need to refrain from marital intimacy while in the presence of something holy. The priests serving in the Temple were required to abstain from intimacy with their wives during their time of service (Leviticus 15:16-18). This practice highlights the sanctity associated with holy places and moments in the presence of the divine. Considering Jewish customs of the time, it is plausible that Mary may have taken a vow of virginity. In Luke 1:34, Mary’s question, “How can this be, since I do not know man?” hints at her consecrated status, considering the answer to the question should be fairly obvious to a betrothed woman.
While uncommon, the concept of consecrated virgins did exist, especially among the Essene Jews. In such cases, when a female consecrated virgin reached puberty, her monthly cycle rendered her ceremonially unclean, preventing her from dwelling in the Temple without defiling it under the Mosaic Law. At this point, she would be entrusted to a male guardian. To comply with the prohibition against an unmarried man and woman living together, the virgin would be wed to the guardian, and they would refrain from marital relations. This unique marriage was still considered valid, as marriages were deemed binding immediately after the exchange of vows. Consummation, while customary, primarily served to make the marriage indissoluble.
Additionally, Jewish law added complexity to Joseph and Mary’s union. If a man was betrothed to a woman, and she became pregnant from another, he could never have relations with her. Instead, he had two options: condemn her in public and put her to death or “put her away” privately (see 2 Samuel 20:3). In light of these legal and cultural norms, Joseph and Mary’s marriage was indeed valid, even if it was never consummated.
This seems to be supported by Scripture given the accounts of Mary found in the New Testament. The account of Jesus in the temple at the age of twelve (Luke 2:41-51) makes no mention of other siblings accompanying Mary and Joseph. If Mary had other children, their absence at such a significant event would be unusual. In John 19:25, at the crucifixion, Mary is referred to as the mother of Jesus, but there is no mention of other children. This is a notable omission if Mary had other offspring considering that Jesus placed His mother in the care of “the Beloved Disciple” rather than one of his siblings.
Old Testament Roots:
Early Jewish Christians and the Church Fathers recognized that Mary’s womb contained something far more sacred than the Temple itself. They drew parallels between Mary and scriptural references, such as the Eastern Gate mentioned in Ezekiel 44, with Christ being the Temple.
Moreover, they viewed Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament was considered holy and untouchable, housing the tablets of the Ten Commandments, manna, and Aaron’s rod. Similarly, Mary bore Jesus, who is the Word of God, the Bread of Life, and the High Priest. Just as the Ark remained untouched by sinful man, Mary’s perpetual virginity symbolizes her unique and untainted role in bearing Christ.
Early Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons also connected Mary to Eve. Just as the first Eve played a role in humanity’s fall from grace, Mary, as the New Eve, played a pivotal role in humanity’s redemption through her obedience to God’s plan. Just as Eve was a virgin in the Garden, so Mary would be a virgin before, during, and after bearing Christ. Her perpetual virginity symbolizes her purity and untainted nature, contrasting with the disobedience of the first Eve.
Other Church Fathers, such as Gregory of Nyssa, saw the story of the Burning Bush as prefiguring Mary’s perpetual virginity. The burning bush in the Old Testament, which was not consumed by the flames when God spoke to Moses, was seen as a typological representation of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Just as the bush remained unconsumed, Mary remained a virgin despite giving birth to the divine.
Who were Jesus’ brethren?
The first hint to answering this question lies in Hebrew Terminology regarding”Brethren”. In the biblical context, the Greek term “brother” is “adelphoi.” However, Hebrew lacks a specific word for “cousin.” As a result, the term “brother” can encompass various familial relationships, including cousins or close relatives. For example, Lot and his uncle Abraham were called “brothers” in Gen. 11:26-28 and 29:15.
In Matthew 13:55, James is listed as one of the “brothers” of Jesus, and he is also referred to by Paul in Galatians 1:18-19 as both an “apostle” and a “brother of the Lord.” However, among the twelve apostles, there are only two named James. The first James is known as James the Greater, and he was introduced as one of the sons of Zebedee. James the Greater was one of Jesus’ inner circle , along with his brother John, and was martyred early on in the early Christian church (Acts 12:1-2).
The second James was, according to Luke 6:15-16, the son of Alphaeus, not Joseph. This James, in order to distinguish him from from James the Greater, is often referred to as James the Less. There are references in the New Testament that also suggest James the Less to be the son of Mary the wife of Clopas;
“But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” -John 19:25
“There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.” -Mark 15:40
“When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.” -Mark 16:1
Taken together, these verses indicate that there were three women named Mary at Jesus’ crucifixion; Christ’s mother, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the wife of Clopas and mother of James the younger (James the Less). There is a scholarly debate about whether Clopas and Alphaeus might be the same person. Some scholars have proposed that Clopas and Alphaeus could potentially be the same individual with variant name spellings or transliterations. The ambiguity arises because in the New Testament, the names of various characters can sometimes appear with different spellings or variations due to differences in language, dialects, or transliteration.
If any of them had been true “brothers” of Jesus, then Jesus would never have entrusted his mother into the disciple John’s care (John 19:26–27) as this would have been an insult to his family when, by law, the next eldest sibling would have the responsibility to care for her. It would also seem hypocritical to release his brothers from their obligation to their mother, after criticizing the Pharisees for neglecting to support their parents (Matt 15:3–6).
The Early Church:
As noted above, the early Church viewed Mary as a fulfillment of Old Testament types such as the New Ark of the Covenant and the New Eve. This lended credence to the concept of her perpetual virginity. Other Church Fathers and some of the earliest church writings offered explanations to the question of Christ’s “brethren”. When taking these early works into account, it’s equally important to note that there are no extant writings from the early centuries of the church that ever suggest that Mary had any children other than Christ.
There are early Church Fathers who support the above argument that Jesus’ “brethren” were, in fact, cousins. Papias of Hierapolis and Hegesippus provide historical context regarding the identity of Jesus’ “brothers,” indicating that they may not have been biological siblings of Jesus, but rather close relatives or step-siblings. Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60-130 CE) mentions Mary the wife of Clopas as the mother of James and Joseph;
“Mary the mother of the Lord; (2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord’s. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason.” -Excerpts from Papias 10
Hegesippus the Chronicler (c. 110-180 CE) also acknowledged that there were individuals named James and Joseph who were called Jesus’ “brothers.”
“After James the Just suffered martyrdom for the same reason as the Lord, Simon, his cousin, the son of Clopas, was appointed bishop, whom they all proposed because he was another cousin (Greek = anepsion) of the Lord.” –Hypomnemata (Written 178 A.D.)
Another early work, The Protoevangelium of James, provides a different account of Christ’s “sibling”. The Protoevangelium of James, a second-century Christian text, recounts Mary’s life, including her marriage to Joseph and her perpetual virginity. It suggests that Joseph was a widower with children from a previous marriage, making Jesus’ “brothers” step-siblings rather than biological siblings. This aligns with the practice of Essence Jews in which consecrated virgins would enter under the protection of a male guardian after puberty.
Bible Verses:
Matthew 4:21
“Going on from there, he saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were in a boat with their father Zebedee, preparing their nets. Jesus called them.”
Luke 1:34
“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
John 19:25
“Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”
Luke 6:15-16
“Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”
Mark 15:40
“Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome.”
Mark 16:1
“When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.”
Church Father Quotes:
Papias of Hierapolis
“Mary the mother of the Lord; (2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord’s. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason.” -Excerpts from Papias 10
Hegesippus the Chronicler
“After James the Just suffered martyrdom for the same reason as the Lord, Simon, his cousin, the son of Clopas, was appointed bishop, whom they all proposed because he was another cousin (Greek = anepsion) of the Lord.” –Hypomnemata (Written 178 A.D.)
The Protoevangelium of James
“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).
“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).
“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).
“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).
Origen of Alexandria
“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).
Hilary of Poitiers
“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).
Athanasius of Alexandria
“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).
“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).
Jerome of Stridon
“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).
“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).
Didymus the Blind
“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).
Ambrose of Milan
“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).
Pope Siricius I
“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).
Augustine of Hippo
“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).
“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).
“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).
Leporius
“We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary” (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).
Cyril of Alexandria
“[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing” (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).
Pope Leo I the Great
“His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained” (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).
Non-Catholic Quotes:
Johannes Quasten, theologian and scholar of patristics.
“The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–1).
Martin Luther, Father of the Protestant Reformation
“Mary realized she was the mother of the Son of God, and she did not desire to become the mother of the son of man, but to remain in this divine gift.” -Smalcald Articles, 1537.
“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.” –Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539)
“Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.” –Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539)
“A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . . “. –Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523)
“On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed virgin, did not conceive a mere, ordinary human being, but a human being who is truly the Son of the most high God, as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty even in his mother’s womb in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin.” –Theodore G. Tappert, The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 595.
“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . . When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.” –Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523)}
John Calvin, Protestant Reformation Father
“Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages to the brothers of Christ” –Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}
“[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] 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 . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . 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 . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”
Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 1 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.107}
“Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.”
–Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562) / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949). vol. I, p. 283. Commentary on John, (7:3)
“We have already said in another place that according to the custom of the Hebrews all relatives were called ‘brethren.’ Still Helvidius [a 4th century heretic] has shown himself to be IGNORANT of this by stating that Mary had many children just because in several places they are spoken of as ‘brethren’ of Christ.” (Commentary on Matthew 13:55)
“It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. … Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.” (Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig–Berlin, 1863–1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35.)
“To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son.” [John Calvin, A Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke (St. Andrew’s Press, Edinburgh, 1972), p.32].
“There have been certain STRANGE folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; BUT WHAT FOLLY THIS IS! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent his angel to Mary. He had therefore NEVER dwelt with her nor had he shared her company…. And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is NOT because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second. Thus we see the intention of the Holy Spirit. This is why to lend ourselves to FOOLISH SUBTLETIES WOULD BE TO ABUSE HOLY SCRIPTURE….” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562)
“Concerning what has happened since this birth the writer of the gospel SAYS NOTHING…certainly it is a matter about which NO ONE will cause dispute unless he is somewhat curious; on the contrary there never was a man who would contradict this in obstinacy unless he were a PIG-HEADED and FATUOUS [i.e. foolish and stupid] person.” –Commentary on Matthew 1:25
Ulrich Zwingli, Protestant Reformation Father
“I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary” -E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., 456
“To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata’ before, during and after the birth of her Son, is to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it is right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting – not prayer – ‘Hail Mary’ . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels – it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone.” -G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}
“I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.”
–Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on ‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’ -Max Thurian, p.76
“It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God.” –Ulrich Zwingli, In Evang. Luc., Opera Completa [Zurich, 1828-42], Volume 6, I, 639].
“I firmly believe according to the words of the Gospel that a pure virgin brought forth for us the Son of God AND REMAINED A VIRGIN PURE AND INTACT IN CHILDBIRTH AND ALSO AFTER THE BIRTH, FOR ALL ETERNITY. I firmly trust that she has been exalted by God to eternal joy above all creatures, both the blessed and the angels.” –from Augustin Bea “Mary and the Protestants” MARIAN STUDIES Apr 61) [Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424]. Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
“I speak of this in the holy Church of Zurich and in all my writings: I recognize MARY AS EVER VIRGIN AND HOLY.” –January 1528 Sermon in Berne, as cited by Max Thurian.
“I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary.” –E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), pg 456
“Christ … was born of a most undefiled Virgin.” –E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), pg. 456
“It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother.” –E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), pg 456
“The more the honor and love for Christ grows among men, the more esteem and honor for Mary grows, for she brought forth for us so great, but so compassionate a Lord and Redeemer.” –Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, pp. 427–428.
“He who was about to remove our sins but not to make all men holy, must be himself holy. Hence God sanctified his mother: for it was fitting that such a holy Son should have a likewise holy mother….”; “I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonorable, impious, unworthy, or evil…I hope this is sufficient to have made plain to pious and simple Christians my clear conviction on the matter of the Mother of God: ‘I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.” –Annotationes in Evangelium Lucae, and sermon on “Mary, ever virgin, Mother of God” in 1524, cited in Thurian, page 23, 76
Francis Turretin, Protestant Reformer
“This is not expressly declared in Scripture, but is yet piously believed with human faith from the consent of the ancient church. Thus it is probable that the womb in which our Savior received the auspices of life (whence he entered into this world, as from a temple) was so consecrated and sanctified by so great a guest that she always remained untouched by man; nor did Joseph ever cohabit with her. Hence Helvidius and the Antidicomarianites (so-called because they were opponents of [antidikoi] Mary)are deservedly rebuked by the fathers for denying that Mary was always a virgin (aei Parthenon). They held that she cohabited with Joseph after delivery; yea, also bore children from him. As Augustine remarks, they rely on the shallowest arguments, i.e., because Christ is called the ‘firstborn’ of Mary (cf. De Haeresibus 56, 84 [PL 42.40, 46]). For as Jerome well remarks, she was so called because no one was begotten before him, not because there was another after him. Hence among lawyers: ‘He is the first whom no one precedes; he is last, whom no one follows.’ The Hebrews were accustomed to call the firstborn also only begotten; Israel is called ‘the first-born of God’ (Ex 4:22), although the only people chosen of God. Thus ‘the firstborn’ is said to be ‘holy unto God’ (Ex 13:2), who first opened the womb, whether others followed or not. Otherwise the firstborn would not have to be redeemed until after another offspring had been procreated (the law shows this to be false because it commands it to be redeemed a month after birth, Num. 18:16). Not more solidly have they been able to elicit this from the fact that in the New Testament certain ones are called ‘the brothers of Christ.’ It is common in Scripture not only for one’s own and full brothers by nature to be designated by this name, but also blood relatives and cousins (as Abraham and Lot, Jacob and Laban). Thus James and Joses, Simon and Judas are called brothers of Christ (Mt. 13:55) by a relation of blood. For Mary (who is called their mother by Matthew and Mark) is called by John the sister of the Lord’s mother. However what is said in Jn. 7:5 that ‘neither did his brethren believe him’ must be understood of more remote blood relations. Nor is it derived better from this-that Joseph is said ‘not to have known Mary till she had brought forth her firstborn son’ (Mt. 1:25). The particles ‘till” and ‘even unto’ are often referred only to the past, not to the future (i.e., they so connote the preceding time, concerning which there might be a doubt or which it was of the highest importance to know, as not to have a reference to the future-cf. Gen 28:15; Pss 122:2; 110:1; Mt.28:20, etc.). Thus is shown what was done by Joseph before the nativity of Christ (to wit, that he abstained form her); but it does not imply that he lived with her in any other way postpartum. When therefore she is said to have been found with child ‘before they came together’ (prin e synelthein autous), preceding copulation is denied, but not subsequent affirmed. Although copulation had not take place in that marriage, it did not cease to be true and ratified (although unconsummated) for not intercourse, but consent makes marriage. Therefore it was perfect as to form (to wit, undivided conjunction of life and unviolated faith, but not as to end (to wit, the procreation of children, although it was not deficient as to the raising of the offspring.” –Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 2, 345-346