WHAT SOME PROTESTANTS THINK ON THIS…

 

I will first turn to the "Fathers of the Reformation" to speak for Orthodoxy in defending the teaching that Mary was "Ever Virgin". First I will let Ulrich Zwingli (leader of the Swiss Reformation, divided from Lutheran Reformers because he denied Christ's real presence in any form in the Eucharist) speak to this:

 

"She (Mary) had to be a virgin and perpetually a virgin..." (Reformed Dogmatics, p. 422, by H. Heppe).

 

And in a prayer he calls her:

 

"the pure and ever virgin..." (Prayers of the Eucharist, p. 184, by Jasper & Cuming).

 

Regarding the verse that "Joseph kept Mary a virgin until" [Matthew 1:25], John Calvin maintains in his commentary:

 

"Those words of Scripture do not mean that after His birth they cohabitated as man and wife..." (John Calvin NT Commentaries Vol. 3, p. 71).

 

And on the subject of Jesus' brethren he said:

 

"In the Hebrew manner relatives of any sort are called 'brethren'...It is therefore very ignorant to imagine that Mary had many sons because there are several mentions of Christ's brethren" (John Calvin NT Commentaries Vol. 3, p. 71).

 

This has always been the undisputed theology regarding Mary. From the Apostles on down nobody disputed the perpetual virginity of Mary for nearly 1600 years. This teaching is even considered to be prefigured in the Old Testament as reflected in the hymnology of the Orthodox Church:

 

"The shadow of the law passed when grace came, as the bush burnt, yet was not consumed, so the virgin gave birth yet remained a virgin, the Sun of Righteousness has risen instead of a pillar of flame, instead of Moses, there is Christ, the Saviour of our Souls" (Theotokion, tone 1).

 

THE ORTHODOX VIEWPOINT: BIBLICAL ANALYSIS

 

The word "brother" has a broader meaning in the Bible. It is not only used to mean the actual brother, but also the cousin or even the nephew.

 

For instance, Lot is called "Abraham's brother" whereas in reality he is his nephew (Gen. 14:14). Jacob is called a brother of Lavan whereas in reality Lavan is his uncle i.e. Jacob is his nephew (Gen 27:43. 29:15).

 

Kis's sons are called brothers, whereas in reality they are cousins of Eleazar's daughters (1 Paralip. /1 Chron. 23:21-22). 2 /4 Kings 10:13-14 talks about 42 brothers of Ochozius. Clearly, it must talk about people related to him but in a more general sense of the word.

 

The reason for this "brother" word problem is that neither the Jewish nor the Aramaic tongues have a special word in order to express the notion of a "cousin". When they wanted to mention the actual cousin as such they would do so periphrastically i.e. "son of the [father's] uncle" or "son of the brother of the mother". For this reason the actual cousin is expressed by the word "brother" when mentioned at one word. Thus, from the other verses will we only be able to (hopefully) understand if it really means “brother” or some other form of relation.

 

OK, so how can we be sure though that when the NT talks about "brothers of Jesus", it uses the word "brother" with a broad meaning and not the narrow one?

 

There are many reasons which force us to adopt the general meaning. Here are a few typical ones:

 

1. - The angel, when he evangelised the Theotokos (the Mother of God), said: "Here, you will conceive in your womb and bear" (συλλήψει εν γαστρί και τέξη). He speaks to her about conceiving and giving birth (τέξη - to give birth). Both are in the future structure. In the future also belonged her marriage with Joseph. She replied: "how come this, for I know no man?" (Luke 1:34). If the Virgin Theotokos was planning to come in matrimonial relations with Joseph, to have children, how come she places this question "Man I know not"? Isn't it more reasonable to accept that she had decided to stay a virgin after her betrothal by living under the protection of a male and not aim to become truly married, since had she intended to get married to Joseph in the first place she would not have said "man I know not"?

 

Of course, the Protestant will hasten to add here that he or she will not accept the word "ιδού" (= here) in "Here, you will conceive ..." as referring to the future but to the immediate present. For example, the Holy Writ says "ιδού άγγελος Κυρίου εφάνη" (Mt. 2:13), "ιδού μάγοι από Ανατολών παραγίνονται" (2:1) etc.

 

The word "ιδού" in the Holy Writ does not have the meaning of taking place in the immediate present but it refers to something that will take place unexpectedly. We bring a few examples: "Ιδού η Παρθένος έξει εν γαστρί" (Is. 7:14), "Ιδού ούτος κείται εις πτώσιν και ανάστασιν" (Lk. 2:34), "Ιδού έρχομαι ως κλέπτης" (Revel. 16:14). All of the above verses refer to future and unexpected events.

 

2. - When Jesus was 12 years old, it is evident that the holy family consisted of three persons only: His mother, Joseph, and Himself. Nowhere are any other brothers of His present (Lk. 2:41) until that age and public appearance of the Lord. Therefore, if other brothers of Jesus were born they must have been born after Jesus' 12th year of age.

 

But after His 12th birthday, nowhere is Joseph seen any more. Thus Joseph had probably died; the Theotokos seems to be on her own.

 

But even if we suppose that the so-called "brothers" had been born after the 12th birthday of Jesus, we will have to face the following logical difficulties: These brothers of Jesus were (at least) four (Matt. 12:46. Mark 6:3). The eldest one of these would be younger than Jesus by at least 12 years, whereas the youngest one would have to be younger than Jesus by at least 20 years for the following reason: If we presume that every 2 years one of these brothers would be born, since we have 4 brothers, these would have been born within a period of 8 years. Thus we have 12 + 8 = 20. Therefore when Jesus was 30 years old, the other "brothers" would be: the youngest 30 - 20 = 10 and the eldest would be 30 - 12 = 18. The behaviour, however, of these who behave in everything to Jesus like his guardians (c.f. John 7:3 and Mark 3:21) contradicts the fact that they would be younger than Jesus, who was the firstborn. Why?

 

Because the Holy Bible says that the eldest brothers, especially the firstborn, preside over the younger ones.

 

In other words, according to the verses from Genesis 27:29-40 "become master of your brother" and "supervise your brother" that Isaac said to Jacob when receiving Esau's birthrights (πρωτοτόκια), similarly Jesus must command his brothers and not be commanded by them, according to the customs. On the other hand, if we assume that the brothers were older than Jesus, this contradicts the fact that He is called the "firstborn" child (Matt. 1:25. Luke 2:7) [which means the first child that opens his mother's womb, not necessarily having other children following; this is plain Greek for the word "πρωτότοκος"; for more see below at (*)].

 

Therefore the brothers of Jesus were neither younger nor older than Him, impossible; therefore not real brothers. They were probably older in age and certainly relatives of His in the broader sense of the word (either children of Joseph's with another woman, or cousins of Jesus).

 

3. - In the gospels these brothers are mentioned as brothers of Jesus but not as sons of the Theotokos, as is said specifically regarding Jesus (Mark 6:3). Other than that, the gospels correctly call the Theotokos as woman of Joseph's before Christ is born: "do not be afraid to receive Mariam, your woman" (Matt. 1:20), but not after Jesus' birth. The angel in other words tells Joseph: "rise and take the child and his mother" (Matt. 2:13-21). He doesn't say "rise and take your child and your wife". In other words, if after Jesus' birth the Theotokos had truly taken Joseph as her husband (in other words, had had matrimonial relations with him after a wedding that might have taken place according to the Protestant interpretation, but which is not in fact mentioned in the Bible as ever having taken place, as we only have the information that they betrothed) the angel would have said to him: "take your child and your wife". (Further down we will examine more closely the circumstances surrounding the event with the angel, and see exactly why he calls Mariam as Joseph's "woman" in verse 20).

 

4. - Why would the Lord, during His Crucifixion, give His mother to be looked after by John (John 19:26-27), since she had other children as well (we 're talking at least four male children)? Clearly Christ would not suggest something like that, contrary to the time's laws! The custom of the time was that if the eldest son died, the other children (male) would look after their mother; and it would never be allowed for the mother to be taken care of by another person altogether without the society commenting harshly on such an event!

 

5. - The Holy Bible does not only speak about brothers of Jesus, but also about sisters of His, for it says: "all His sisters" (Matt. 12:46. Mark 6:3). Therefore we have a family with (at least) 9 members: 6 brothers and sisters of Jesus', 7th member being Jesus Himself, and His two parents. How come, therefore, the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos came about and was accepted so easily from the times of the Apostolic Fathers - bar a few exceptions, the most important one of which we will discuss below, and which not only does not disprove this point but re-iterates its validity - and all the way not only to the 4th century AD but to 1600 A.D? One would have expected much more of a commotion! Think about it! A 9-member family and the Virgin being called Ever-Virgin? That would not be an easy issue to settle or believe! We should have expected to see a big wave of protests, even riots! But if people knew she only had Jesus as a child, the issue would be much simpler to settle; as it clearly was. And this contradicts and disproves the fact that Mary had other children apart from Jesus.

 

6. - The Holy Bible considers virgin life superior to married life, because "the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband" (2 Corinth. 7:34), and "both he that giveth his virgin in marriage, doth well; and he that giveth her not, doth better "(v. 38), and Apostle Paul also suggests celibate life: "But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I" (7:8), in particular celibate. (It is also interesting to note that, through History, those who opposed the Ever-Virginity were people who did not like celibacy, because it gnawed on their conscience.)

 

MATTHEW 1:25 : A PARENTHESIS
 

But let us turn our attention to this famously misunderstood by Protestants verse.

 

The famous verse that all Protestants use in favour of non-perpetual virginity is verse Matt. 1:25: "And he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son" (KJV).

 

And here is the original: "και ουκ εγίνωσκεν αυτήν έως ου έτεκεν τον υιόν αυτής τον πρωτότοκον".

 

Two points of interest here: the word "πρωτότοκον" (aetiatike structure of "πρωτότοκος") and the words "έως ου".

The word "πρωτότοκος" (firstborn) as we have said, does not imply that other children followed; it means the first born child, the one that opens the womb of his mother, regardless of whether other children follow later on or not. Therefore the verse regarding the word "firstborn" can still not be used as proof for either two beliefs (ever-virginity or children).

 

Let us proceed.

 

Something that fails to come straight from translations here is the usage of "έως ου" (= eos ooh). The words "έως ου" mean "never". It doesn't mean, in other words, that after Christ's birth Joseph met her as his wife, but it means that he never did. The "έως ου" in the Holy Bible, is found many a time to mean "never".

 

For example:

 

1) The Bible says regarding Noe's raven that it didn't return to the Ark "έως ου εξηράνθη τα ύδατα" (= eos ooh the waters had been dried up). But since it didn't return to the Ark before the waters had dried up, when it had nowhere to stand upon, what happened then; it returned when the waters had dried up?!

 

2.) The Bible says: "Said the Lord to my Lord; sit on my right έως αν θω τους εχθρούς σου υποπόδιον των ποδών σου" i.e. “eos an” I place your enemies under your feet. I ask therefore: after the submission of His enemies, will Christ cease to sit on the right hand of the Father?!

 

3.) Elsewhere again the Lord tells His apostles: "with you I am all the days έως της συντελείας του αιώνος" i.e. "until the end of the eon". OK, I ask again: isn't Christ going to be with His disciples after the end of the eon in Heaven?

 

4.) The OT also says regarding the barren woman, Melchol: "και τη Μελχώλ ... ουκ εγένετο παιδίον έως της ημέρας του αποθανείν αυτήν" ( = "she had no child until the day she died"). According to the Protestant interpretation, i.e. interpreting the word "eos" not as "never", we must deduce that Melchol must have born a child after her death, when she was in her grave!

 

In fact, the term "έως ου" is used in the same way even today in Modern Greek. For example the teacher tells the children: "Keep quiet 'έως ότου' [eos otou]  I return"; until I return ["otou" being the modern Greek equivalent of "ou" here]. Does he mean that, after his return, the children must be noisy? On the contrary! The teacher is only interested that they keep quiet till he comes back. Afterwards, it follows that they must be quiet when he is present!

 

So clearly the Evangelist is interested to prove that Panagia [the All-Holy Virgin] was a Virgin until (eos) Christ's birth, Who was born supernaturally, from the Spirit the Holy, and He is not son of Joseph's but Son of God. Regarding the issues after the birth, these are of no interest in the semantics of this sentence. It was obvious that she stayed a Virgin, since she had been honoured to bear the All-Holy Word in the first place. (Go back).

 

THE ORTHODOX VIEW POINT CONTINUED

 

Returning to the issue of the "brothers" of Jesus.

 

Judaic law stated that a woman without a husband or fiance is to be stoned to death! This is the reason why Joseph was given to her as a fiance; and certainly not husband (he was betrothed to the Virgin). And this is why Joseph is "father" of Jesus in the law. Similarly, his brothers were brothers in the law; and the word brother as we said means something much more general biblically (c.f. Gen. 12:5. 13:8. 29:12. 1 Paralip. / 1 Chron. 23:21-22). Were we to take seriously the view that these were real brothers, we would also have to face the possibility that Joseph was truly Christ's father; but then we're on a slippery slope if we claim that both God and Joseph were Christ's fathers and a multitude of new terrible heresies can spring from such blasphemous words.

 

After all, we said above that the Apostle in 1 Corinth. 7:7-8 asks people to be like himself, in particular celibate, and also in verse 38, explicitly now: "so then she that marries does well, she that does not does better" (essentially) and stays celibate that is. So the one staying celibate does better. We ask you: wouldn't God want the best for the woman that would bear Him, especially in purity?

 

Therefore the idea that she was given as a wife to Joseph in the law makes sense for she could stay celibate forever; and be safe of course! For Joseph was protecting her, as the Law asked, and the Pharisees could not do anything regarding the issue of Jesus, as by law Joseph was Mary's "fiance" and the child was legally theirs as they knew (c.f. Luke 4:22) and thus (as Joseph would not make an issue of it after being informed by the angel) neither would the people that would hate Jesus later on say anything nor would the child and His mother be in any danger by them nor would the Virgin's purity and life of purity be in any danger!

 

But to understand more clearly why the betrothal would grant such priviliges whereas matrimony would not (even if they got married but accepted to have no matrimonial relations) needs more special attention. Let us therefore look more closely into that now.

 

BETROTHAL vs. MARRIAGE

 

We cannot stress enough the point that the Holy Bible does not claim that Virgin Mary was ever given to Joseph in marriage. The Holy Bible speaks only of betrothal. The usage of the words γυνή and ανήρ in Greek are not used to exclusively mean "wife" and "husband", but also "woman" and "man", respectively, words that can be used equally to indicate (apart from the obvious gender attribution) the "fiance" or his "fiancee" respectively (i.e. the ones that were betrothed or "engaged" to each other).

 

So why do we stress this point? What difference does it make? It makes the world of difference because if the word γυνή -- which gives rise to the word γυναίκα that is mentioned by the Angel to Joseph -- does not necessarily mean "wife" but can also mean "betrothed", we need to examine the difference between the two rites: betrothal and marriage.

 

Betrothed, married ... same thing, right?

 

No! At those times, the betrothal was performed before a couple got married. Even if they never got to be married in the end, the betrothal required that no matrimonial relations took place during that period (although the couple had all the responsibilities of marriage in every other respect). This is what ensured Virgin Mary's purity. The betrothal with Joseph was the trick.

 

Many Protestants will not disagree with this. However, they might think that eventually Virgin Mary actually married Joseph (after their betrothal), even if they never had children together (what the Protestants sometimes call consummation of wedding). Other Protestants will need to support the very idea of marriage taking place in order to ensure that their theory of children can be true.

 

Let us put the issue of children aside, for a moment, and concentrate on this question: Did Virgin Mary actually marry Joseph after their betrothal? The Bible does not mention anything on this. The other Tradition of the Church however, tells us that they never did. This also makes sense hagiographically. Let us now examine this point.

 

Had she got married to Joseph -- even if they actually agreed to have no matrimonial relations -- she would still have had two husbands, God and Joseph! That would cause a lot of theological problems (including questions relating to Joseph being a real step-father of Jesus, and what if he had had children with another woman, a true possibility, and so forth) but we will keep things simple here and concentrate on what we can see immediately.

 

It certainly contradicts four points (some of which are mentioned later on in these notes in more detail):

 

a) What Jesus uses, He wants it only for His own use.

 

b.) She would need to tend to the things of a human husband and not keep her thoughts only of God. The Divine Economy wanted to secure not only her future celibacy (because that could also be secured by being married after their betrothal and agreeing not to come into matrimonial relations) but also to secure her future life of celibacy (something that the betrothal could guarantee but which marriage couldn't, with its many daily distractions).

 

c.) What about some common sense?

 

If we accept the fact that she was planning to have no children with Joseph (recall "man I know not?" and the ample proof provided elsewhere in this text), what would be the point of them continuing with marriage? Wasn't the betrothal good enough? As far as the society was concerned, the fact that she was under the wing of a pious old man was good enough to make sure she is not stoned, especially at a time when she was about to give birth to a Child. The betrothal kept her safe from the society and would suffice to assure her safety afterwards as well. The only real reason they would need to continue to matrimony would be because they were in love with each other and in order to have children. But Joseph had been commanded in his dream to take her as his γυνή (= betrothed or wife, unclear) and clearly not with matrimonial aims in the mind of the Angel but so that she does not get stoned to death were she left on her own or sent away thus endangering herself and her Baby. Before the Angel came to him in his dream, Joseph was indeed planning to send her away, and Mary clearly shows no intentions of wanting to get married to Joseph ("man I know not?"). What then? The Holy Spirit forced them then to marry?!

 

For she did not want to marry Joseph. And Joseph, who was an old man, had no such intentions present anywhere in the Bible (he did not even feel jealous or reprimand her when she came back from Elisabeth fully pregnant). And we are to believe that the Pure All-Holy Virgin, entitled as "The Virgin" in the Old Testament prophecy, uniquely praised among men and women, succumbed to the pleasures of married life and the frivolity of wives, and decided after giving birth to God (not to His divine nature but to Christ fully God and fully human) that she would, after all, follow the "perks" of the Angel's supposed suggestions (as they would have been) and have a few more children with Joseph, realising indeed that having children will make her life complete - and who cares about having given birth to God and to the purity that heaven and earth had praised her for till that moment?!

 

Oh, the impiety!

 

And if she had no intention to marry Joseph why not stop at the betrothal and decide to marry and thus risk the temptation of matrimonial relations which would end her virginity, the virginal life being a life higher than the married life, as the Bible informs us, and which is the road followed by many people today, e.g. monks and nuns?

 

Does this issue perhaps have something to do instead with the fact that Protestants abolished monasticism and virginal life and could not stand to even hear the word Ever-Virginity i.e. Celibacy?

 

d.) This matter is very important for our salvation (as soteriology coincides with Christology, and the issues on the Virgin are directly related to Christology). Nevertheless, we point out that, once the ignorance of Protestants' koine Greek and ecclesiastical history is corrected, sola scriptura in itself is unable to provide a full answer to this matter because the Bible never actually mentions anything as regards Virgin Mary and the Righteous Joseph having proceeded with the marriage or not, even if the rest of this text clearly shows the absurdity and blasphemy of such an argument.

 

Joseph in fact had probably been married to another woman, who had probably died; and now stayed only with Mariam, which itself is not strange of course for even in those times the Jewish community placed the woman higher than other areas did, and even though polygamy was allowed, people tended to stay with one woman. Men however were allowed to have more than one woman at the time. The fact that Joseph might have had another woman stems also from the fact that he was much older than her; she was only 16 when the annunciation happened, as sources from ecclesiastical history and Tradition certify.

 

And one final point as regards married life in betrothal or marriage that is of interest to us.

 

Some Protestants may claim that the fact that Virgin Mary stayed betrothed only and never got married was sin. However that is not how the law worked in those times. In those days it was very common to bring a young girl home to an elderly man and it was permitted for a man to have more than one woman (of either the "betrothed" or the "married" stage or both). The people would stone adulteresses to death but they did not interfere with a couple's personal life. (And if the reader finds this society harsh, they should realise that pagan societies were a lot harsher than the Jewish society in those days! This is why God first brought the Law into the society, which was harsh, and slowly prepared the Jews and the rest of mankind for the arrival of His Son). Since marital bond held legal value in those times, the "trick" of the Divine Economy is in fact totally legal. This way the Law was not violated (although of course afterwards it was complemented with the arrival of our Christ and Saviour Jesus Christ).

 

All these things make sense both hagiographically and based on the situation of the times; even the situation with Elisabeth. Let us turn our attention to that now, for it will help us understand the situation with the angel and Joseph better when we return to examine the aforementioned event with the angel.

 

ANNUNCIATION AND OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES

 

After the Virgin found out the incredible event enclosed in the Evangelism (Annunciation) that the Angel told her about, she stayed alone and thoughtful. She wanted to tell to somebody her big secret; but to who? In Nazareth it was impossible to announce something like this. Who would believe her? In a world, much like today's, loose in faith and ethical values, it was impossible to find even one person to make them understand. But even if she could find someone, it is doubtful she would confess such a great secret to him or her. She does not even say it to her "spouse", Joseph, the man who had protected her so far. He wouldn't believe her either and would probably try to send her away. With the help of the Spirit however, the solution is found. She leaves Nazareth and goes running to the highland to meet her relative, Elisabeth. After all, the Angel had told her that something similar had happened to Elisabeth.

 

The journey is long; it takes her approximately three days to reach there. Old Elisabeth is her relative. She is the wife of the priest Zechariah, the one who later on will betroth her to Joseph. She too became pregnant miraculously. She is about to bear John the Forerunner.

 

Elisabeth welcomes her with piety. She bows before her and with a loud voice calls her "blessed among women". And she even calls "the fruit of her belly" as "blessed"! The All-Holy Virgin is taken aback! She understands that Elisabeth knows something about the Great Secret, before she had any time to say anything to her, because Elisabeth asks her: "και πόθεν μοι τούτο, ίνα έλθη η Μήτηρ του Κυρίου μου προς με;" She hears her calling her "Mother of her Lord". How did she find out? Did the Holy Spirit tell her?

 

For three months they stay together and discuss things. When Panagia returns to Joseph, and he notices her belly that is getting bigger by the day, he loses faith and is disappointed. He thinks it is sin and does not want to keep her in his house; he fears God's wrath! He is a good man, though, and the law in such circumstances wants the woman to die by stoning her to death. He thinks she doesn't deserve this, a young girl and all, practically a child, and is preparing to send her away, which befits his role as her protector. While he is thinking of his plan, an Angel of the Lord appears in his sleep and tells him: "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mariam, your woman". He calls her his "woman" (meaning of course fiancee because the word the angel used was γυναίκα which is accusative for γυνή - in other words woman and not wife; and it can also mean, as it does here, fiancee), even though she was not (or ever wanted to be; remember the "man I know not"?), in order to show to him that there was no one else in between! "Do not be afraid", the Angel continues, because "the One born from within her is from Spirit the Holy". The pious Joseph obeys of course and does as the Angel commanded, without any more doubts. He takes the Virgin under his protection and since then becomes her "guardian angel".

 

Is it illogical or strange based on the above to deduce that the "cover-up trick" of the Economy used to make certain people think that Joseph was truly meant to be her fiance (for he actually was her fiance but not with the intention of marriage), was continued afterwards as well? And to think instead that the woman that had been chosen for her piety and virginity (which virginity biblically is a great virtue as we said and virginal life is higher than married life) gave in to her "spouse" Joseph, something that would mean she had to tend to the things of her husband in the law, a human, despite the place that had been chosen for her from God? In a way then, it is like she had two husbands, God and Joseph!

 

Inside her womb where Christ was rising, how could others follow as well, mere humans, since what Christ uses wants it only for His own use (c.f. Mark 11:2. John 19:4)?

 

But her Annunciation had been prepared from ages old through God's infinite wisdom. Indeed, there are many prophecies from the OT that are of interest to us. Let us turn to these now.

 

Thousands of years had passed from the time when God had kicked out the protoplasts from Heaven, due to their deadly sin. Then His Voice had been heard foretelling that the offspring of the woman would crush the head of the accursed snake, i.e. of Satan, which Eve had stepped upon (Gen. 3:15):

 

"And I will put enmity between thee [i.e. the snake] and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel". So important she is that God foretells here that the Saviour of the World would be born of a woman and He means the Virgin Mary, Who bore from Holy Spirit and not in a natural way. Thus the Virgin "έτεκεν ασπόρως" (gave birth without a seed) and stayed always Pure, without a husband, ever Virgin.

 

Prophet Isaiah calls her "the virgin" (Isaiah 7:14. Matt. 1:23) and Ezekiel calls her "gate", that was and stayed shut: "it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut" (Ezek. 44:1-3).

 

Some more obscure prophecy is "For I also was my father's son, tender and as an only-begotten son in the sight of my mother" (Proverbs 4:3). No, I didn't get it wrong: it does say "only-begotten" in the Masoretic text. But of course we all know that Solomon here does not refer to himself, for he himself was not only begotten (2 Sam. /2 Kings 11:27. 12:24)! And yes the word “only-begotten” does indicate that no other child followed! The translations are poor or by default vague here: the Septuagint does not make it clear, and the word "only-begotten" is translated as either "only-beloved" (KJV) or "only" (Vulgate).

 

And something else too: 800 years before Panagia was born, prophet Isaiah prophesied regarding the Saviour's coming and indeed incredible his prophecy is!

 

He foretells that He will be born of a Virgin, who never met a husband afterwards.

 

Specifically we have: "Ιδού η Παρθένος έξει εν γαστρί και τέξεται Υιόν και καλέσουσι το όνομα αυτού Εμμανουήλ, ό εστί μεθερμηνευόμενον μεθ΄ ημών ο Θεός": "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us". ("The" virgin, showing a definite person in the History of Mankind. Not "a" virgin, as the Vulgate quotes.)

 

The word “Παρθένος” in this verse from the Septuagint means of course "Virgin". It could also mean "Ever-Virgin" but it is not clear from the Greek wording used by the Hellenistic Jews. So, retreating to the Masoretic text, if you look at the Jewish word used for "Παρθένος" or "Virgin" for this specific verse, you will find out that the Jewish word used here means "Virgin, who never knew a man" i.e. points towards the notion of "ever-virgin".
 

THE RESPECT TO MARY BY THE ORTHODOX
 

We do not worship Virgin Mary, but only pay respect to her; something that Protestants do not do, even though she herself prophesies that all generations of Christians will pay respect to her: "for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed".

 

And the fact that we place her above not only all men but all angels as well, is also biblical, for she herself became throne of the Lord, whereas "around it stood" the seraphim i.e. they stood around His throne (Isai. 6:2) and not above as the KJV says (here is the Greek for you: κύκλω = in a circle i.e. around the throne in a circle; "in a circle" in Greek also means to encircle, to go around something, which places the importance, the centre at what you encircle).

 

The seraphim probably flew above the throne, but the emphasis of the verse should be on the aspect that at the centre is what lies between the seraphim, and not that maybe the seraphim flying higher were also of a higher status! Thus if we accept that the Virgin Mary became throne of the Lord -- something that even Protestants would hesitate to reject -- the name Panagia (All-Holy) used for her is totally justified from a biblical point of view. This issue is discussed here in detail, when we discuss the name Παναγία (Panagia) that is given to her in Orthodoxy. Of course when we call her "All-Holy" we imply always "in relation to men and angels" and not to God of course. That would be blasphemy, something that the heresy of kollyridianism would imply by the conduct of liturgies in her name. Since this heresy was pinpointed and kept away from Orthodoxy from the beginning, stories that certain Protestants claim regarding the Orthodox supposedly worshipping Virgin Mary are simply ranting of people who do not wish to examine not only the facts of the situation, but not even the beliefs of those they accuse; in other words they are simply misinformed ranting of people who want to support their own ill-informed beliefs by any means, even lies!

 

For the titles "All-Holy" and "Mother of God" we meet once again the same ignorance that leads to the claims that the Orthodox "honour the Virgin more than God" or that "she is only Mother of Christ". These issues are analysed in detail here.

 

HOLY TRADITION

 

All the Fathers of the Church, both the apostolic and the post-apostolic Fathers, mention  regarding the  perpetual virginity of the Theotokos (either indirectly or directly). Let us start by examining first the ancient times of the apostolic Fathers.

 

1.  APOSTOLIC FATHERS

 

During Ieronymus' times (380 AD) someone called Helvidius doubted the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos by interpreting Jesus' brethren as children of hers. When this became known to Ieronymus he did not want to give a reply to him for he thought that Helvidius' fallacy was self-evident, a belief he later on Ieronymus himself characterised as "weird, ill-natured, audacious and contumelious towards the common faith of the christian world".

 

Ieronymus' friends insisted that he write a reply to Helvidius' words, and for this reason Ieronymus wrote his book on the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos, called "De perpetua virginitate Mariae" (Migne 23. 183-206). In this book,  Ieronymus reminds the reader of the affirmations on the subject of the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos from all Apostolic Fathers who had talked at some point on this issue all the way up to his times, i.e. up to 380 AD. As he himself writes, of the apostolic Fathers "Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin, and all the teachers of the era of the apostles". Helvidius never replied!

 

A remnant of that old Apostolic epoch was saved in one of Justin's writings (100 - 165 AD) in a Syriac translation which goes like this: "Some writer [note: one of many, as it says "εις των συγγραφέων" i.e. one among the many writers] that lived during the time of Augustus and Tiberius, wrote that Mariah the Galilaean, the one who gave birth to the Messiah, Who was the one crucified in Jerusalem, never met a husband and even though Joseph did not abandon her, he stayed nevertheless in purity without a woman and Mariah stayed without a man" (Zahn Geschichte des neutestamentl dichen Kanons, tome II, p. 177).

 

Helvidius' silence, Ieronymus' categorical attestation, namely that the apostolic fathers taught the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos (either by word or in written) and this remnant of the works of father Justin, who lived in the period 100 - 165 AD, confess the apostolic succession of the christian belief on this issue, even if today we may have not (yet, hopefully) found all of the written testimonies that Ieronymus mentions in his writing. However Ieronymus clearly had these and that suffices.

 

2. HEGISIPPUS (110 - 180 AD)

 

According to Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 2, 23 and 4, 8. 22), Hegissipus lived "during the first post-apostolic era" and wrote his books around 180 AD. In these books he talks about the Lord's brethren. We know according to Mark's gospel (Mark 6:3) that these brothers of Jesus were called Jacob, Judas, Simon and Joses. For the first three of these, Hegissipus certifies that they are called "brothers" of Jesus, but they were not however real (flesh) brothers of His, but cousins. Simon is called "Jesus' cousin" (I.E. IV, XXII, 4). Hegisippus writes here that Jacob and Simon, so-called Jesus' brothers, were Clopas' sons, whereas Clopas was "Joseph's brother, as Hegissipus tells us" (I.E. III, 11, 1). Therefore we see that these two brothers, Jacob and Simon, were cousins of Jesus (from the side of His father). Note that the word "anepsios" (which in modern Greek can be used to mean nephew) that Hegisippus uses in this verse has the meaning of cousin. To see this, note that Clopas here is called as "Jesus' uncle" and also as "Joseph's brother". The same is mentioned by Hegisippus regarding Judas (I.E. XXX, 11, 5).

 

So here is yet another ancient testimony (180 AD) certifying that the Lord's brothers were His cousins. Therefore the "brothers of Christ" mentioned in the gospels were not Theotokos' children.

 

3. CLEMES OF ALEXANDRIA (150 - 211 AD)

 

Clemes of Alexandria (150 - 211 AD) writes in his "hypotyposeis", which were saved in latin, regarding the first verse of Judas' epistle where it is mentioned "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of Jacob, ...", as follows: "judas ... frater filiorum joseph exstans ... cum sciret propinquitatem domini non tamen dicit se ipsum fratrem domini esse sed quid dixit. judas servus jesu Christi utpote domii frater autem jacobi, hoc enim verum est frater erat ex joseph"; namely: "Judas ... being brother of the sons of Joseph, even though he knew his relation to the Lord, does not name himself brother of the Lord, but what did he say? 'Judas, servant of Jesus Christ'; namely of the Lord, 'and brother of Jacob's' [Jacob = James]. For this is true that he was a brother [of Jesus] from Joseph's side".

 

Here is yet another ancient testimony that Judas and Jacob, the so-called brothers of Jesus, were brothers of his from the father's side and not from the mother's. Therefore the Theotokos was not their mother.

 

In fact, may I mention here that in Orthodoxy they commonly call James [Jacob] as "James, the Brother of our Lord". This is the name by which he is known but it is always understood that the word "Brother" is in the more general sense.

 

4. ORIGEN (185 - 250 AD)

 

Let us now turn our attention to Origen. Regarding the interpretation of John 2:11, he says: "It is talked over by many, how it happened that Jesus had these brothers, since Mariah stayed a virgin till her death [note of myself: there was no dispute over the ever-virginity issue; simply people were wondering how this was the case]. He did not have flesh brothers, nor were any born by the Virgin, nor Himself was He born from Joseph. They were called brothers of His in the law, being sons of Joseph before his wife died". Regarding the interpretation of Matth. 12:55, he also writes: "They [the verses] talk of the brothers of Jesus ... they are sons of Joseph with a previous woman whom he had been "συνωκηκυιας" to [cohabitated with i.e. married to], before Mariah". Here is yet another ancient testimony regarding the ever-virginity of the Theotokos and that His brothers were not from the Theotokos, but from Joseph with another woman.

 

5. ATHANASIUS THE GREAT (295 - 366 AD)

 

Athanasius the Great (295 - 366 AD) says in his speech on the Incarnation (Migne Eccl. Trad. 25: 109): "from Mariah the ever-virgin", and regarding the interpretation of Luke 11:27 he writes: "... and she, the one that gave birth to the Lord and ever-virgin ..." (Migne E.T. 27, 1393).
 

6. EPIPHANIUS (313 - 402 AD)

 

St. Epiphanius writes in his writing against the heretics (Adv. Haer 78, 6 p. 642, 705): "She did not have relations [meaning sexual] neither after the birth [of Christ] nor before the birth", but she stayed "holy and immaculate" (Haer. 78, 14. 24. 15. 16). He also wrote that "the one that mentioned that name of the Holy Mariah would always add the word 'virgin'. The name Virgin was given to her because she had always stayed pure".

 

7. GREGORY OF NYSSA (335 - 394 AD)

 

Gregory of Nyssa said: "We consider the Virgin like a new tome. In the same way the new paper is clean, unwritten, this way too the Virgin is holy, clean of man".

 

8. IERONYMUS (345 - 420 AD)

 

Ieronymus as we said above, wrote a whole work and proved, using as testimonies the words of the apostolic fathers, the ever-virginity of the Theotokos. He characterises the opposite view of Helvidius as "weird, ill-natured , audacious, contumelious to the common faith of the christians". Interpreting Ezekiel, he writes expressly regarding the Theotokos: "Quae et ante partum et post partum virgo permansit"; that is: "She stayed a virgin both before and after the birth [of Christ]" (in Ezech. XLIV; c.f. also in Cal. IV, 4).

 

9. AUGUSTINE (354 - 430 AD)

 

Augustine , who is accepted as a saint by a lot of Protestants (e.g. some Anglicans), says expressly: "virgo concepit, virgo peperit et post partum virgo permansit" (De symbol 3,5).

"Virgin was she when she conceived, virgin she stayed when she gave birth, and virgin she stayed after the birth" (Migne 40, 181 - 196).

10. BASIL THE GREAT (330 - 379 AD)

Basil the Great says on his speech on Christ's Birth (Migne 31, 146, 8): "The hearing of the philochrists [i.e. those who love Christ truly i.e. the christian brothers; a common expression of the time and today too in Hellas], does not even want to hear that the Virgin stopped being Virgin at some point ".

Christians do not even want to hear the ridiculous notion that the Theotokos ever stopped being a Virgin!

11. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (345 - 404 AD)

As we said above, the Bible calls Mariah wife of Joseph's before Christ's birth and not afterwards. "Take the child and his mother" says the angel to Joseph.

Father Chrysostom says, discussing the interpretation of the word "έως" as discussed above, mentioned in "ουκ έγνω αυτήν έως ου έτεκεν" (Matth. 4:25): "This was said, not in order for you to suspect that afterwards he [Joseph] came to know her [i.e. consummated the marriage] ... The word "έως" many times and continually, in the holy Bible, do we find it written [with this meaning]" (Migne E. T. 78, 102).

12. JOHN THE DAMASCAN (645 - 750 AD)

John the Damascan in Migne 94, 1161, says (in a slightly more '"free" translation here so it makes sense in English) : "the ever-virgin stayed a virgin even after the birth [of Christ], without having had any relation with any man until her death".

 

MORE INFORMATION

 

As regards more information on Mary, Ecclesiastical History provides us with many sources. An interesting one is based upon the works of Papias (c. 70 - 165 AD). The principal information as regards Papias is given in the extracts made among the fragments from the works of Irenaeus and Eusebius. He was bishop of the Church in Hierapolis (a city of Phrygia) in the first half of the second century. Later writers affirm that he suffered martyrdom about 163 AD; some saying that Rome, others that Pergamus, was the scene of his death. He was a hearer of the Apostle John, and was on terms of intimate intercourse with many who had known the Lord and His apostles. From these he gatherered oral traditions in regard to the sayings of our Lord, and wove them into a production divided into five books. This work does not seem to have been confined to an exposition of the sayings of Christ, but to have contained much historical information.

 

The following four Mary's are found in the gospels: (1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleopas 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; and (4.) Mary Magdalene.

 

According to Papias (see e.g. here), James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. Also, James 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 Cleopas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleopas, because she had two husbands.

 

And what about the "brothers" of Jesus? What was their actual relation to Christ?

 

There are two main opinions in the Church: a.) They were children of Joseph from another woman, as we saw Epiphanius, Origen, Clemes et. al. mention this; or b.) They were cousins of Jesus, as Hegissipus said.

 

The Tradition therefore decides triumphantly in favour of the Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God, but leaves open the issue of the relation of Jesus' "brothers". It is more likely that the first opinion is the right one, but it does not really matter for us because it is not related to Mariology and/or Christology in any way.

 

SUMMARY AND SYNOPSIS

 

Christ is the new "root"; He does not come from the old "root" of Adam. Virgin Mary stayed a virgin during the birth of Christ. But she was a virgin before the birth (Is. 7:14. Mt. 1:23). She also stayed a virgin after the birth: Christ is mentioned as "only-begotten in front of His mother" in Proverbs 4:3 according to the Masoretic text. This is because this verse here is not referring to Solomon, who, as is well-known, was not "only-begotten of his mother" (cf. 2 Kings 11:27 and 12:24).

 

Also, whatever Christ uses, He wants it only for His own use (Mark 15:2. Jn. 19:41). This holds for the case of virgin Mary. This was foretold by the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 44:1-3). Virgin Mary is the gate through which the Word passed. Apart from Him, no one else passed. It stayed forever shut. We also read this in ancient hymns of our Church; e.g. in the Akathist Hymn: "Χαίρε πύλη μόνη, ην ο Λόγος διώδευσε μόνος, η μοχλούς και πύλας Άδου Δέσποινα, τω τόκω σου συντρίψασα, Χαίρε η θεία είσοδος των σωζομένων, Πανύμνητε".

 

Joseph, of course, is mentioned as the "husband" of the virgin but he is also called "father" of Jesus (Mt. 1:19. Lk. 2:41 and 48-49), and Mary herself is called "wife" of Joseph (Mt. 1:20). Indeed, the above make sense as expressions of relations according to the law. This is because, truly, according to the law, Joseph was Mary's "husband" and "father" of Jesus; but only according to the law, in order to protect the mother and the child. He was "her man" - the original reads ανήρ - in the sense that she was engaged to him, a sort of "fiancee" to him (cf. Mt. 1:18-20. Lk 1:27. 2:5), and was considered legally engaged to Joseph; and if she would bear a child from someone else, she was to be stoned to death (Exodus 22:16-17. Deuter. 22:28-29. Jeremiah 16:40).

 

Joseph, after Jesus' birth, is not any more called as Mary's "ανήρ" and there is mention now of the "παιδίον μετά της μητρός αυτού" (Mt. 2:11-14. 19-21). However, the Jews were considering Joseph as Christ's "father"; according to the law, he was indeed his father, not however father of his in the flesh (Jn. 6:42).

 

The writers of the New Testament that mentioned this topic were aiming to clarify the birth of Christ "without seed". For this reason they underlined that Joseph "did not know her, έως ου she gave birth to her son the firstborn" (Mt. 1:25). The "έως ου" does not refer to what would take place in future, but to that thing that took place in the past, until that moment that Christ was born, independently of the future events (cf. Gen. 28:15. 2 Kings 6:23. Ps. 71:7. 19:1, in relation to Hebr. 10:12. Mt. 28:20. 1 Tim. 4:13).

 

The word "πρωτότοκος" refers to the event that the virgin's womb was opened with the birth of Christ, and not to supposed events that relate to other children, that were supposedly born after Him (cf. Exodus 13:2. 1 Kings 6:7-14).

 

In the Holy Bible there is mention about the "brothers" of Jesus, but never ever were these "brothers" called as Mary's children. They were children only according to the law, not in flesh (Mt. 2:46. 13:55-56. Mark 6:3. Lk 8:19-20. Jn 2:12. 7:3,5,10. Acts 1:14. 1 Corinth. 9:5. Gal. 1:19). The same so-called "brothers" of Jesus, call themselves "servant" of Jesus Christ, after His ascension, and not "brother" (James 1:1. Jud. 1). After all, the word "brother" has a more general meaning in the OT (Gen. 12:5. 13:8. 29:12. 1 Paralipomena 23:21-22).

 

Mary therefore was a virgin before Christ's birth, stayed a virgin during the birth, and afterwards, and for this reason is represented in icons in the company of three stars which represent her triple virginity.

 

CONCLUSION

Therefore the succession, the "I am with you all the days" of the Lord's words in Matth. 28:20 is in favour of the ever-virginity of the Theotokos. When the angel told the Theotokos during her Evangelism that she will bear a son, she replied: "How come this for I know no man?". We said before that this implies that she had the intention of staying a virgin forever. And indeed. All the fathers of the Church believe that Joseph, "did not take [the Virgin] for [his] use, but rather it was oeconomised for him to watch over her", as St. Epiphanius writes against the heretics (Against heresies 78, 7; Migne E.T. 42, 721 A). In simple words, the Divine Economy brought Joseph in her life not in order for her to meet a husband truly, since the Bible underlines that the best for a woman is to stay a virgin all her life, but to protect her from the malice of the people.

 

Of course one could write many more testifications of the fathers on this issue. For more details, if one wishes to read a more thorough theological analysis on this issue, they can examine the work of Mark Siotis' "The Problem of the brothers of the Lord" esp. p. 57 , subsection 6 (in Greek).
 

I shall agree that the Bible does not speak explicitly on the issue of the ever-virginity of the Theotokos. However, even biblically the argument is in favour of the Orthodox and not the Protestants, whose views go against all (or some) of the above.

 

From a historical perspective (Fathers of at least the first 4 centuries AD) the argument is 100% in favour of the Orthodox, even taking into account the above exception. Therefore whatever is vague from a hagiographical point of view becomes clear when seen through the prism of the Tradition (in which the Bible belongs to as well).

 

I will leave the reader with two questions to ponder upon.

 

One is based upon the image of the Church as the Panagia that we meet in the Book of Revelation.

 

As we saw in our basic analysis, Revel. 12:1-6.13-17 presents the image of a woman dressed the sun and glorified with the almighty glory. This represents the Church (the word Ecclesia is feminine), but at the same time it symbolises Virgin Mary.

 

Do you therefore see dear reader that doubting the ever-virginity of the Mother of God is tantamount to doubting the "ever-virginity" of the Body of Christ, the inabolishability of His Church? Despite His promise that the "gates of Hades" shall not prevail against her?

 

The second question stems from our holy father and hierarch John Golden-Mouthed (Chrysostom) who would ask of the unbelievers: 

 

"How could the one who gave birth to God accept to go with another man afterwards?"

SOME PAPAL CACODOXIES REGARDING MOTHER VIRGIN

 

THE CACODOXY ON HER PLACE OF REST

 

Panagia slept and was buried in Jerusalem, in the village of Gethsemane. The tomb of the Theometor, is saved till today and belongs to the Orthodox since the time of its renovation, i.e. since the time of the reign of the royals Constantine the Great and his mother Helen. It is considered a great religious inheritance for Orthodoxy.

 

The Papists were very annoyed with this! For this reason they decided to question it. In order to subtract something from this glory that went only to the Orthodox world, they created a new story and said that Panagia lived and was buried not in Jerusalem, in Gethsemane, but in Ephesus! And this they based -- listen to this! -- on the dream that a franciscan nun had where this information was "revealed" to her (in the 19th century)! The Turks of course accepted this immediately because it did wonders for their tourist industry!

 

These false constructions of the Papists however are destroyed completely by History, the Tradition and the Hymnography of the Church.

 

As the historical sources certify, Panagia was buried in Gethsemane. In a Code of the 11th century AD which (ironically) is situated in the library of the Vatican, there is a list of the Temples that St. Helen built. In this list, fourth in order is mentioned the following Temple: "Church in Gethsemane, grave of the Most-Holy Theotokos".

 

Empress Pulcheria opened the tomb of Panagia and part of the relics were taken and kept piously in the Temple of Panagia of Blachernon, in Constantinople. The Temple of Panagia in Jerusalem has length 30 m and width 8 m. The grave is hewn on a rock and is situated at the right from where the faithful one enters from.

 

The fact that the grave of the Theometor is situated in Gethsemane can also be seen by the Hymnography of the Church. Ancient hymns which had been written by pious and unknown hymnographers mention this. Here is for example one such troparion and what it says on the place of Rest of our All-blessed Mother of God:

 

"Χαίρε Γεθσημανή, το τέμενος το θείον, της μόνης Θεοτόκου, εν ώπερ ανεκλήθη απάντων η Βασίλισσα" i.e. "Rejoice Gethsemane, the holy temple of the only Theotokos, where the Queen of all translated".

 

None through the centuries, bar the Papists, thought to question the holy and true words of the Ever-virgin to the Apostles, words that are repeated today with piety by thousands and hundreds of thousands of Christian voices: "Απόστολοι εκ περάτων συναθροισθέντες ενθάδε Γεθσημανή τω χωρίω κηδεύσατέ μου το σώμα ...". ( = "Apostles from afar, meet here, in the village of Gethsemane, to bury my body").

 

The great hymnographer John the Damascan mentions Zion, i.e. Jerusalem, as a place of rest for the Theotokos in a Canon he composed, which is chanted on the day of the celebration of her Dormition (August 15). Here is yet another "binding" decision of the Pope towards the poor deceived Roman Catholic laity that is sheer delusions.

 

THE CACODOXY ON THE DOGMATISATION OF HER MYSTICAL TRANSLATION

 

The Orthodox Church respects the Tradition on the Translation of the Theotokos and considers it as a "Mystical Dogma", as St. Nicodemus characterises it, "which cannot be publicised unto the Church". On the contrary, Papism taking this tradition regarding the Translation of the Theotokos raised it to a dogma of the church, making use of the "infallibility" of the Pope. This new dogma was defined by Pope Pius II on the 1st November 1950. But this is unheard of, because (as many Papists agree on this issue) the first information we have on the Translation does not stem from the Bible and the Apostolic Tradition but from the Apocrypha of the 4th century AD, which as texts cannot be used as serious ground upon which one can establish a dogma.

 

Necessary conditions for the establishment of a dogma are that it refer only on the Holy Bible, the Apostolic Tradition and the Ecclesiastical dogmatic Tradition which is included in the agreement of the Holy Synods and of the God-bearing Fathers, something which does not happen with the issue of the Translation of Mary.

 

For this reason the Orthodox Church does not accept this new (essentially 50 years old!) Papal innovation!

To be continued.

 

 

Theometor = from Theos = God and Meter = Mother. Mother of God. Note that Theotokos actually means God-bearing. This is the reason why we use both Theometor and Theotokos for the Ever-Virgin Mary. English-speaking Orthodoxy has incorporated the second word as it stands but most usually use the words "Mother of God" periphrastically to refer to the title Theometor.

 

truly = There is a subtle yet important point that we wish to make here. The notion of "consummation" of wedding in a contemporary sense of the word -- where matrimonial relations are needed as proof that the couple are truly married or else the marriage can be legally annulled -- does not exist in Orthodoxy and is alien to the realm of Christianity. Proof of this are Mary's parents, St. Joachim and St. Anne. According to the Tradition, they were staying celibate, even after they got married. The only time they would need to come to matrimonial relations would be in order to have a child. But St. Anne was barren. For this reason they were staying chaste, for they had reached high levels of holiness and did not need to seek comfort in the flesh. Of course, couples within wedlock are blessed to have such relations, especially if one or the other party cannot do without these, and the Church Fathers ask couples not to create problems if one party wants to have such relations and the other one feels they have moved closer to God and do not feel the needs of the flesh as much. However, the point is that the couples are not required to have these (away from having children). Thus, today if a couple join in Holy Matrimony and one of the two is barren or perhaps the woman has already reached her menopause, they are not required to have matrimonial relations in order to have their marriage "consummated" but - provided they both agree on this peacefully - they are allowed to stay pure and live together more like brothers and sisters than a couple. Chastity and purity are likened by God. Note also that St. Ieronymus informs us in his writings against Helvidius that there were women in those times who lived pious lives together with their husbands, more like brothers and sisters, and closer to the idea of chastity rather than that of marriage. This is therefore another point where various Protestant denominations deviate from the path of Orthodoxy. One of the reasons God chose for Virgin Mary to come from St. Joachim and St. Anna is because He saw in them the greatest purity in a couple. Indeed, they only came in matrimonial relations once, in order to have Virgin Mary (after they had been informed of this by God). "Had God met such purity in another couple, He might have even brought Virgin Mary and the plan of our salvation even earlier", mentions Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain, by adding with humility that "this is what his logismos" tells him. Purity is a great virtue. For this reason exactly, Virgin Mary is called as All-Pure. Not because she had been born free from the consequences of the Forefatherly Sin of Adam and Eve -- the Immaculate Conception dogma being a recent innovation and blasphemy of the Papists -- but because her parents were great in purity and had stayed pure throughout their lives. Therefore the word "truly" is used here with more than a pinch of salt. Strictly speaking, the use of the word "truly" here is wrong. Of course, we do not need to worry about talking of "true marriage" or otherwise henceforth; since after all the Virgin was never married to Joseph but only stayed betrothed to him. We discuss betrothal or engagement below.

 

purity = Notice that the Fathers of the Church and the hymnographer often call Virgin Mary as άμωμος i.e. immaculate, in the sense of pure, but never in the sense of the Roman Catholic notion of "ever-immaculate" which in this case means "free from the sickness of sin since birth" ( i.e. free from what the Orthodox would call the Ancestral or Forefatherly Sin of Adam and Eve). This is a recent innovation of Papism (19th century). The terms for all-pure are πάναγνη or άμωμος but not in the Papal sense who want her purity to be since birth, and thus call her "the Great Exemplar" making her in fact the ... Great Exception of humanity! What a blasphemy! She was all-pure because of the purity of her parents, because she stayed pure inside the temple until she became engaged to Joseph at the age of 16. She is also immaculate in the sense of becoming free from the possibility of sin but only from the moment she accepted the Archangel's Evangelism, namely after her Annunciation when she was mystically cleansed henceforth. Beforehand she had her shortcomings, of course, like every person; although her staying in the Temple ensured her purity. But she was definitely born carrying the Forefatherly Sin that all human beings carry. This is important as it relates to Christology and not because Orthodoxy is interested in a detailed examination of the shortcomings of the Theotokos during her tender years! At any rate, the Orthodox are not trying to find out when she became pure but they want to ensure that the heavenly purity met an earthly purity who also had a free will to make choices thus becoming the human that became our heavenly ladder. Otherwise salvation was not realised in the face of Christ! After all, this way she would justly receive a Victor's Crown, for a purity that she chose by her free will, and not for one that was chosen for her. In that case, God is being unfair, giving her a crown for something she does not deserve because she cannot sin, whereas the rest of us are born with the Ancestral Sin. Also, her words would be void of any significance were she born sinless: her acceptance of the Archangel's invitation would not be anything important since she cannot "go wrong"! In fact, this terrible blasphemy of the Papists makes her in some sense equal to God (for how can death claim the one who was born without sin? And if she saved mankind this way doesn't this make her into some sort of Coredemptrix? The Fatima Cult is pushing for such a very result today among the Papal Church!) But we will discuss all this in more detail when the Advanced Comparative page is completed, where Papal "dogmas" are analysed in extreme detail.

 

undisputed = Apart from Helvidius, during the crucial time period we contain Ecclesiastical History (first three centuries) there were others who individually doubted the ever-virginity of the Mother of God. However, they were relatively few in numbers and never even formed a substantial opinion in the Church, let alone form some heresy. The Consciousness of the Church was always unanimous on the issue of Ever-Virginity. Individuals that are away from the Church and hold various individual weird or ignorant opinions have existed at all times. We always examine here the Consciousness of the Church, not various individual opinions. Even Helvidius' words matter little by themselves, which is evidently seen by the way Ieronymus writes to him. They are important to us however because they provide us with the Consciousness of the Church through Post-Apostolic times. The people, in other words, who objected to the ever-virginity were the ignorant people of those times; in the same way that today people who are "loose" Orthodox or heterodox, may know little about the doctrines of the Church and claim some ridiculous things. For example, a friend of mine once thought that "Forerunner" and "John the Baptist" were different people! This does not mean that one has to answer to every little ignorant thing we hear on the street. Had he persisted, however, and was I asked to write something to him, I would probably have used a tone similar to that of Ieronymus; essentially "are you out of your mind, my friend? How can you be so criminally ignorant on such a basic thing?" The first time we had a dispute on the Ever-virginity issue was much later, outside the time period of main concern here, during the difficult years of Iconoclasm, when these heretics combined their efforts against the holy icons with objections to monasticism and ever-Virginity appearing indirectly. Apart from the countless miracles we have that prove beyond any doubt to the Christian the heresy of their claims on their main objection against the icons (we shall bring a few such examples in our Miracles section), it is worthy of note that their heresy was proclaimed as such in the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Christianity. The first serious objection specifically and directly aimed against Ever-virginity, arose with the advent of the Protestants in the 16th century who had of course already abolished celibacy, a virtue that none of them supported, let alone brought to spiritual fruition, to this very day. This is something that should seriously puzzle them.

 

betrothal = The koine Bible only refers to the Virgin Mary and Righteous Joseph as being "betrothed" or "espoused" and nowhere is it mentioned that they were married. A betrothal gives all the responsibilities of a marriage without the marital privileges and they would have sinned had they succumbed to marital relations with one another. This Rite continued into the Christian Church. In the early (Orthodox) Church we still had the Rite of Betrothal -- the Christian "updated" version of course -- and, due to the fact that this Christian Engagement had always been taken very seriously by the Church, it was considered an important and integral part of marriage as it led up to marriage -- even if the two parties did not end up in marriage. Eventually, the Christian Church joined this Rite to the Sacrament of Matrimony for practical purposes. And like the ancient Jewish Betrothal Rite, the engaged parties are required not to have matrimonial relations before (the Christian now) Matrimony. As we mentioned above, both in the New Testament language and to this day in Greece, the common word for "husband" (ανήρ) is simply the word for "man". It is easy to see, therefore, how it was also used for "betrothed", just as in informal contemporary English "her man" can refer to a wide variety of relationships. For example, in St. Matthew 1:16 the Greek text says "Joseph the άνδρα of Mary" and almost all translations refer to "Joseph the husband of Mary"; but in actuality it says "Joseph the man of Mary". Next, St. Matthew clarifies in verse 18 that they were betrothed. So Joseph is referred here as Virgin Mary's "fiance", using contemporary terminology, and not "husband". In the above discussion we shall also use, apart from the words "fiance" and "fiancee", the expression "married in the law" for "betrothal". In other words, the statements "Joseph was Virgin Mary's fiance", "Joseph was married to Virgin Mary in the law" and "Joseph was Mary's husband in the law" are all equivalent. The plus of using expressions with the words "in the law" after them is that they can be placed in a one-to-one correspondence with other legal issues, such as for example the fact that "Joseph was Jesus' father in the law". Now we can see why we also used the term "truly married" to indicate matrimonial relations above: for then it could also mean that Joseph might be "truly" the father of Jesus, in some sense, especially if we take the brothers to mean "true" brothers (flesh brothers of Jesus). Why? Because he is mentioned as "father" of Jesus in the same way that these "brothers" are mentioned as such. But of course, then we are on a slippery slope to hell. Our terminology aims to help the reader see more clearly the terrible blasphemies that can result from such erroneous beliefs and how important it is to stay put to True Dogma.

 

fiance = By this word we shall indicate the male who would be betrothed to someone in those days, as it helps the reader identify the difference between "married man" and "engaged man". Similarly for fiancee. Of course, engagement today usually means a promise and an exchange of rings. This is not the same as the betrothal of those times (which was continued in Christianity, being conducted before the wedding ceremony in Orthodox temples). Orthodox couples may of course exchange rings and promise to be married. However if they wish to be engaged formally, they need a priest to conduct the Rite of Betrothal. For practical reasons, this has been shifted today right before the Rite of Matrimony, to ensure that "loose" Orthodox Christians who may not have got engaged can proceed to marry (for Betrothal is required to be conducted first). In a sense then, Orthodox Christians today get engaged and married at the same time.