Defending Our Lady's Honor

When the Ark was about to topple, the man touched the Ark in order to steady it. For touching the Ark, God killed him (2Samuel 6:6, 7). The Ark of the Covenant carried the very words of God. No man was worthy to touch it.

 

In Revelation 11 John sees another ark of the covenant, in heaven

 

And there was opened the temple of God that is in heaven; and there was seen in his temple the ark of his covenant; and there followed lightnings, and voices, and thunders, and an earthquake, and great hail.

 

Rev 11:19

 

The original NT documents did not have chapters and verse numbers. In the original text Revelation 11:19 flowed into Revelation 12:1 – there were no chapter breaks. So John sees the ark of the covenant, with lightnings and thunders. Then he sees the woman clothed with sun. I already talked beforehand on how this is Mary. But there is something else this is revealing about Mary. Not only is she the Queen of Heaven, but she is also the Ark of the New Covenant.

 

This is supported by the teaching of the Early Church Fathers.

 

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides.”

Athanasius (c. 296-373) Homily of the Papyrus of Turin.

"Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, 'Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.' For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary" (Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213-c. 270) Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).

What does this have to do with her perpetual virginity. Plenty! The Ark of the Old Testament was holy because it contained the words of God. How much more holy was Mary, who contained the Word, God Himself! If a man who touched the Ark of the Old Covenant was put to death by God, what would have happened to a man, even a man like Joseph, if he should dare to touch the Ark of the New Covenant, Mary? I cannot imagine Joseph even attempting such a thing. He knew how the Ark of the Old Covenant could not be touched by anyone, and now there is woman who bore God!

When Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she was to bear a son, she said “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” This only makes sense if she had taken a vow of celibacy to God. Otherwise, why would she question Gabriel. She was engaged to Joseph already. Obviously, if she was intending to have sex with Joseph after they were married, then there would no reason for him to question Gabriel. It only makes sense if she meant this: “How can this be, since I do not know now nor ever will know a man?”

This is supported by the Protoevangelium of James, which was written in AD 150. In this document, the writer records that Mary had made a vow to God to be a Temple virgin all her life, devoting herself solely to prayer. The Jewish establishment sought out an elderly man who would take care of her and honor her vows. That was Joseph.

Here are some teachings of the Early Church about Mary’s perpetual virginity.

"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 firstfruit 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 firstfruit of virginity" (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

"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" (Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

"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" (Augustine, 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?" (Augustine, 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" (Augustine, Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

Here are the verses that Protestants use to show that Mary was not always a virgin.

 

And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Luke 2:7

They would argue that since Jesus was the firstborn, there must have more after him. But that is the problem of reading our culture into something that was written 2,000 years ago. To the Jew, firstborn was a legal term. An only born was still considered a firstborn.  It meant that this child was to receive all the inheritance of the parents, whether he was a single child or not. In Colosian 1:15, Paul writes that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, which merely meant that He has pre-eminence over all creation. In verse 18, Paul wrote that Christ is the firstborn of the dead. But there were others who came back from the dead. Lazarus came back from the dead. Paul was not saying that he was the first, but He was pre-eminent.

He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

Matthew 1:25

The argument here is that Joseph had no relations with Mary until she gave birth, implying that they did have relations afterward. But, again, this is the problem of reading the way people talked 2,000 years ago as if that is how they talk today. Here is an example:

Hebrews 1:13 says “But as to which of the angels said he ever, Sit at my right hand until I put thine enemies [as] footstool of thy feet?

Does this mean that Jesus will only sit at the Father’s right hand until all His enemies are under His feet? Does this mean that Jesus will some time in the future no longer rule? Of course not. Obviously, the Jews back then used “until” much differently then we do.

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?"

Mark 6:3

Here it is argued that Jesus had brothers. And since He had brothers, it must mean that Mary had more than one child.

But the problem is again reading their culture from our culture’s perspective. We think a brother means a brother and a sister means a sister. That is not necessarily the case. In the language that the people spoke (Aramaic), there was no name for cousin. So the way you referred to your cousin was to say he is the son of your father’s brother. That is awfully wordy. So to simplify things, they would call the relatives “brother” and “sister”. This is supported in the follow passage:

And there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleopas, and Mary the Magdalene

John 19:25

Here we have at the cross Mary, the mother of Jesus, and another Mary, the wife of Cleopas. They are both sisters, with the same name! What parents would have two daughters and name them both Mary? That is very hard to believe. Either the Bible made an error (gasp!), or "sister" in this case merely mean a relative, maybe a cousin.

So a brother is not always a brother and a sister is not always a sister.

But even if Jesus literally had brothers, this does not mean that His siblings came from Mary. No where in the Bible does it say that May had other child. And, according to an early document (the Protoevangelium of James, written around 150 AD), Joseph was an elderly widower with sons of his own. So even if it could be proven that Jesus had siblings, that does not mean that they came from Mary. 

There are other Bible verses that makes it problematic that Mary had other children. Jesus is called THE son of Mary by the Jewish people(Mark 6:3). This is especially significant in that culture. If Mary had other children, He would have been called A Son of Mary, not THE Son of Mary. This goes also for Jesus being called THE Son of God, and never was called A Son of God. THE Son of God signifies Jesus's unique sonship with the Father. In the same way, THE Son of Mary signifies Jesus's unique sonship to Mary. 

Also, when Jesus on the cross, He told the apostle John to take care of His mother (John 19:27). This is very hard to understand if Mary had other children. Especially in that culture, it would have been expected that Mary's other children would have taken cared of her, if they had existed.

The meaning to me that Mary was perpetually a virgin shows the holiness of God. Just as no man could touch the Ark of the Covenant because it contained the words of God written on tablet, so no man could touch Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, containing God Himself. To exalt Mary's perpetual virginity is to exalt God.