As Michael Knowles points out, most of the Reformers shared with their Romanist opponents the opinion that Mary's virginity was perpetual (but unlike the Romanists, the Reformers treated this opinion as simply that, a pious opinion, not de fide). In response to a reply asking for the basis for the doctrine, Knowles directs us to an article, saying that it, "provides a good rundown on the scriptural account, which convinced not only the Church Fathers and doctors of the Church but also most of the leading Protestant reformers" The article contains seven arguments.
The first is an entirely unconvincing argument from silence. Since siblings aren't relevant to the story in Matthew of Jesus in his boyhood in the Temple (his "Father's house"), there's no particular expectation that they would be mentioned, if they existed; so this silence betokeneth nothing. And even if the non-existence of living siblings at that time were proved, that would be at best a pretty weak argument for Mary's virginity -- on the one hand, miscarriages and childhood deaths are not uncommon; but also, wives who've never had natural children are not presumptively virgins. Other causes of infertility exist.
The second is simply not an argument for the proposition. It's only a refutation (a good one) of an argument against it. Biblical mention of Jesus siblings might or might not refer to literal siblings. Nothing one way or the other can be derived from the mere mention of adelphoi of Jesus.
The third and fourth arguments are the same: refutations of counterarguments at best, not positive reasons for believing in Mary's perpetual virginity.
The fifth is is perhaps the best argument. But it's unconvincing. First, it's somewhat speculative to say Jesus "wouldn't have" entrusted Mary to John's care if he had brothers who were both living and able to take care of their mother. Granted there is some probability here, but it's not something we know for sure. Conjectures about what Jesus would or wouldn't do are not the most solid ground on which to build a doctrine. Secondly, and more important, it no way follows from the fact that none of Jesus' siblings were (1)male, (2)living and (3)able to care for their mother at the time of his crucifixion that he never had siblings of either sex, let alone that his mother was then still a virgin.
The sixth and seventh arguments are again mere refutations.
In the case of the sixth, the refutation doesn't even work. It only refutes an overstatement of an objection to the doctrine: granted, the word "until," in the assertion that Joseph "knew her not until she had bourn a son" does not necessarily entail that he did know her afterwards; nevertheless, it typically suggests that very thing. This verse, thus, lends support to the presumption that we have anyway that a wife will unite with her husband in the sense of them becoming one flesh in accordance with God's design for marriage.
The claim here is not that there couldn't possibly be any exception to this rule. The claim is just that this is the rule, so there stands a presumption in favor of it covering any particular case. Weighty positive reasons are needed to overcome this presumption. Nothing of the sort has been presented.
Knowles pointed to this article as expressing the sort of thing that "convinced" the Fathers/Reformers. But it ends by essentially conceding the doctrine isn't taught in Scripture: "It's true that Scripture doesn’t come right out and explicitly state that Mary was a perpetual virgin. But nothing in Scripture contradicts that notion." As we have seen, it isn't just that Scripture doesn't "explicitly" state this. Judging by this summary, nothing in Scripture can be remotely construed as teaching the doctrine, even implicitly. The only place that genuinely addresses the question of Mary's virginity after Christ's birth (Matthew 1:25) suggests (though it does not prove) the opposite.
No actual reason for the doctrine has been given. At best there's some indirect reasons to think that Jesus perhaps didn't have living siblings at certain points in time. Such passages can't be construed as teaching anything about Mary's virginity after Christ's birth. Virginity is not even the most common reason a wife produces no natural children, and those passages don't teach that Mary had no natural children, they at best indirectly suggest none were living at the time. Even if everything is granted to these arguments, they still don't overcome the prior presumption that when a man and woman marry, they will become one flesh. That's the natural way of things. If I'm to believe that an exception to this exists in a certain case, I need some actual reason to think so.
For Romanists, "the church says so" functions as a reason. For Protestants, the agreement of Fathers and Reformers could potentially be a good supporting reason: we recognize an obligation to heed humbly the teaching of our fathers in the faith. But we want to know what their reasons were. It is, after all, their understanding of the apostolic deposit that we defer to, not their bare unsupported opinions. We give deference, but not blind deference.
I'd be happy to be convinced if I find any actual reasons that make some kind of sense. But everything I've read either has the same failings as this article or relies on highly analogical readings of e.g., the Song of Solomon, passages which in themselves give no grounds to think they are even about the mother of Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment